Bugatti Veyron Lake Crash: Jalopnik Reader Theories

There's been lots of speculation over the Bugatti Veyron lake crash, especially after the crash video and post-crash photos surfaced. Motor Trend's Mike Floyd calls it "a Zapruder film for car guys." He's right. Some reader theories below.

Bugatti Veyron Lake Crash: Jalopnik Reader Theories

The initial reports from the scene raised some eyebrows when the driver reportedly said the crash was the fault of a "low-flying pelican." The video seems to indicate otherwise. Or does it? JCwhitless thinks he's found it:

On behalf of fairness, the film clearly shows the bird being killed.

Please refrain from throwing the guy under the bus as the Pelican has already been thrown under the Bugatti.

Although the pelican's a compelling argument, especially with the frame-by-frame screen grab, but Christopher Schull disagrees:

The only thing clearly established is JCWhitless has a vivid imagination and is willing to present it as factual. It is laughable to say a pelican can "clearly" be seen anywhere near the front of that car at any point in the video. It just didn't happen. I truly hope JCWhitless is never called on as a witness for anything that matters.

I live right down the road from that spot and I went there this morning. The object in the first square of the picture he posted is trash on the side of the road, looks like one piece due to the point of view which is a few hundred feet before the second image. In reality it is two pieces one right behind the other from that angle.

The objects in the second square is the same two pieces of trash but viewed further down the road nearly next to them. You can see the seperation and the way they are laying that from the other view they could appear as one.

There was no bird. I video taped the scene and the two pieces of trash are obvious, no dead bird to be found and as flat and open as the road is (no shoulder drop off at all even) it is ridiculous to believe anything other than the guy gently steered the car right into the water. I will post the video of the scene on YouTube if needed.

Coming back from Galveston on I-45 this section of feeder is only around a half mile long, the only way on it is to exit after crossing Highway 3. Then you have to either get back on the freeway very quickly or you will be forced to U-turn under I-45 and head back the other way. There is absolutely nothing on the feeder and there is no reason to get on it if you are heading back from Galveston. The spot where the Veyron ran into the water is beyond the point that you have to get back on the freeway, leaving only the choice of U-turning to go the other way, so so much also for the BS story about heading back from Galveston eh?

This crash is a publicity money making scam along the lines of Balloon Boy and this guy should be promptly arrested for fraud....

Bugatti Veyron Lake Crash: Jalopnik Reader Theories

Reader NitrousOxide sees either a pelican or a blackhawk helicopter in this screen-capture from the grainy video.

B3ND3R avails himself of every possibility with the following breakdown:

OK, for the record I never meant to imply that I definitively thought it was a scam, just that my BS meter is pegged and people need to open themselves up to the possibility.

Note:

A. This is 1 of 15 Veyrons in the entire US. The odds of anyone, let alone a car enthusiast, even spotting a Veyron are about 1 in 7.3 million provided that all 15 Veyrons were on the road on this day (and I'm betting most were not).

B. Veyrons are horrendously expensive to maintain. First scheduled maintenance - $22,322. Tires must be replaced every 2,500 miles at a cost of $10,347 per set. The entire set of wheels must be replaced every third tire change (7,500 miles). Extended warranty? Sure, that will be $103,062 for 2 years.

C. Restoring exotics pays well, but does it pay well enough to purchase a $1M+ car. I happen to personally know a concourse restorer of vintage Ferraris, and his income would be categorized as upper middle class. Previous poster stated the driver lives in a $147K home, but driver claims to own the Veyron.

D. The engine was left running for 15 minutes underwater.

E. Both the pulling of the car out of the water and the accident were very conveniently filmed.

So, for those who buy the whole story, you can safely commit to the fact that:

1. There is no possibility that this guy was in over his head and wanted an insurance payout.

2.There is no possibility that he didn't have the whole thing filmed so that he could prove he wasn't driving recklessly.

3. There is no possibility he didn't want the car totally destroyed (engine and all) and thus risk getting stuck with the car when it was repaired.

4. There is no possibility that this wasn't embarked on as a publicity stunt by one of the very few people in the country who specialize in restoring wrecked exotics.

OK. I don't know the guy or the situation other than what has been disclosed, so just maybe this is one set of amazing coincidences.

And if this is just one set of big coincidences, then both the driver of the Veyron and the kids filming it need to go out and buy a few thousand dollars worth of lottery tickets.

Bugatti Veyron Lake Crash: Jalopnik Reader Theories

Whatever the case, there's a pot of gold in there somewhere for someone as many of you pointed out, and Rogue180 captured, there's a rainbow at the end of this story.