The NYT drives over a Vertu Ascent Motorsport with a Porsche

Remember the limited edition Vertu Ascent Motorsport? The one inlaid with carbon fiber, petroleum-resistant automotive leather, and the super strong composite material Liquidmetal? Well, Vertu claimed in its press materials that its construction "makes it so durable, it can even withstand being run over by the very F1 Porsche the design was inspired from." Normally we'd tag this as marketing fluff and call it a day, but the NY Times got their paws on the near-$6,000 phone to take it for a very special kind of test drive. They wanted to call Vertu's bluff and roll over it with a Porsche — which they did, actually. Five times with a 2,800-pound Boxster. The result? The phone emerged without a crack or scratch. And we'll never ever doubt Vertu again.

[Via Smartphone Thoughts]

[l @ Dec 19th 2005 12:56AM]

That phone fucking owns

[Blurrz @ Dec 19th 2005 12:56AM]

Nice. But does it do Bluetooth? :-)

[vin. @ Dec 19th 2005 12:56AM]

There is no F1 Porsche. Porsche hasn't competed in Formula 1 in over a decade. The ad writers aren't doing their homework!

[Justin @ Dec 19th 2005 12:56AM]

yeah, but can you play doom on it?

[mark davis @ Dec 19th 2005 12:56AM]

as someone who has lost 2 phones by gettign hit by cars twice this seems liek a good thing to spend my insurence settlement on.

[Aiden @ Dec 19th 2005 12:56AM]

lol Nice, now just get the idea over to Apple and we'll soon have indestructable iPods!

[cmoney @ Dec 19th 2005 12:56AM]

Yeah, for $6000!

[George McFly @ Dec 19th 2005 12:56AM]

Big deal, for 6 grand you'd think it would have a QWERTY key board. I'll stick with my Treo even though it can't survive the under tire test.

[Roger Lim @ Dec 19th 2005 12:56AM]

2800 pounds? I don't think so. That weight is spread over 4 wheels - unless the phone in question is six feet wide...

[Eric @ Dec 19th 2005 12:56AM]

I don't get it when they say it was inspired by F1 Porsche. Porsche has no Formula One division and if they did, the car would weigh MUCH less than a 2800 hairdresser's car, so I am *very* surprised that phone took that kind of abuse.

[Florin @ Dec 19th 2005 12:56AM]

I think Vertu meant the Porsches that compete in races like the Le Mans 24H, which I assume do weigh quite a bit more than a regular F1 car...either way, not bad :D

[Skirch @ Dec 19th 2005 12:56AM]

ya, but can it withstand water?

[Josh @ Dec 19th 2005 12:56AM]

...now, when I'm being run over by a car, I don't have to worry about having to enter all those contacts again.

[irebound @ Dec 19th 2005 12:56AM]

i think they meant FA Porsche, not F1 Porsche

[Dave C @ Dec 19th 2005 12:56AM]

Of course an actual Porsche racing car, F1 or otherwise, would generate significant levels of downforce, so at speed the car would have an effective weight a lot higher than that of a road car. (I'm still waiting for the day that one of the F1 teams demonstrates their cars driving on the ceiling)

[resource @ Dec 19th 2005 12:56AM]

It comes with its own slave!
You have an on-demand concierge.
Does your treo have that?

[Jared @ Dec 19th 2005 12:56AM]

Hmm... I'll have to add that to my Collection, I may even consider buying that phone too.

[Jared @ Dec 19th 2005 12:56AM]

Hmm... I'll have to add that to my Collection, I may even consider buying that phone too.

[Alcaron @ Dec 19th 2005 12:56AM]

#15: They didn't say "an F1 car at-speed" they said an F1 car.

#9: The car weighs 2800 pounds, nobody ever said "all 2800 pounds were put on the phone and only the phone", they said it could be driven over just fine, and it was just fine.

This nitpicking is crap, are you guys just avoiding saying "thats pretty sweet"?

Do you have something against Vertu? Against Porsche?

Welcome to yet another debunk-a-thon, where the internet dissects every little word you say and attempts to find flaw with it, mostly out of boredom.

[pj @ Dec 19th 2005 12:56AM]

$6000 = 1 Vertu
Run 5 times over 1 Vertu
Net result: 1 scratchless and crackless Vertu

$6000 = 10 Treos
Run 5 times over 1 Treo
Net result: 9 scratchless and crackless Treos

Hmmm...

[ez @ Dec 19th 2005 12:56AM]

WHO CARES, WHY DO YOU NEED TO HAVE SO MANY PHONE ARTICLES?

[Josh B @ Dec 19th 2005 12:56AM]

#19- If you're willing to pay $600 per Treo, I've got a bridge in Arizona you might be interested in...

[rokorre @ Dec 19th 2005 12:56AM]

what kinda bridge . . . is it covered?

[makingmark @ Dec 19th 2005 12:56AM]

This reeks of a news article masquerading as an advertisement. NYT has the right target audience. I'd be really curious to know if Nokia pitched and paid for the article. I know for a fact this happens with magazines, and I wonder if the Grey Lady is playing too.

[Philip Quarles @ Dec 19th 2005 12:56AM]

I wouldn't be too concerned about payola, makingmark. The article was pretty disdainful towards the Vertu on the whole. The woman who supplied the car seemed to be actively rooting for the phone to shatter. My question is, why is this in the Times at all? I would think that people who buy a $6K cell phone with no notable unique technical features would be reading the Robb report, or something along those lines. I think the Times wanted to appeal simultaneously to people who might actually buy the phone and people who will gawk and laugh at those who do.

[Dman @ Dec 19th 2005 12:56AM]

Agreed. Give it the ol' dunk and 3 flushes, then I'll consider buying 20 of them.

[willyjsimmons @ Dec 19th 2005 12:56AM]

Some of you can't read.

They ran over it with a Boxter.

Jeez.

'Porsche doesn't have an F1!'