Hold your horses, ladies and gents. All 700 of them. It appears that earlier reports of the Pagani Huayra's exclusion from the U.S. market may have been a tad premature.

As you may recall, we reported yesterday on a ruling from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that denied Pagani its application for exemption from certain airbag regulations. The assumption was that this would put a big damper on Pagani's plans to enter the American market, but if the latest reports prove accurate, that now appears to be little more than a speed bump. And as little as exotic supercars and their drivers like speed bumps, they can, one way or another, be overcome.

According to GTSpirit, Pagani appears to have been prepared for the NHTSA's refusal. The application had been submitted some three years ago, and since Pagani Automobili had not received a reply until now, it had already begun work on the advanced air bags as required. The request – such as had been granted to other niche supercar manufacturers – was simply to give Pagani some extra time to implement the rules and allow it to sell in the U.S. in the meantime. Clever.

Reports highlight just how far Pagani has gone to heighten the safety measures in the new Huayra with such features as a carbon-titanium passenger tub from which the rear subframe breaks off in the event of a catastrophic crash, and a fuel system that cuts off pressure if the fuel line is severed. In other words, over and above what NHTSA mandates.

The rigorous application of the advanced airbag regulations may mean that Pagani's planned deliveries for late 2012 could be pushed back to early 2013, but one way or another, Pagani is determined to sell here in the United States. And given the speeds of which its cars are capable, we wouldn't count on them arriving too late, either.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 36 Comments
      • 3 Years Ago
      [blocked]
      Lachmund
      • 3 Years Ago
      speechless. looks absolutely gorgeous in this color scheme. the attention to details is simply staggering
      Shiftright
      • 3 Years Ago
      Saw it in person at the Art Center debut. Made some pretty noises, and the attention to detail and craftsmanship is not only astounding but extends to every stitch, nut and bolt. I'm not enamored with the overall design, but it's very impressive in the flesh. Chrome wheels are tack y though and look like Pep Boys specials.
      • 3 Years Ago
      [blocked]
        desinerd1
        • 3 Years Ago
        It's weird. The government allows smoking, drinking, carrying guns, eating the McFrankenstein burgers but can't allow car with no airbags. I mean how many people are going to buy this car anyways? 20? 50? a hundred maybe? Far more people die of those causes in a day.
          teh POD
          • 3 Years Ago
          @desinerd1
          According to yesterday's report, 15.
        R.T. Elkin
        • 3 Years Ago
        "Retarded" in what way? Developmentally? Mentally? Hormonally? Could you please try to be more precise when you're defecating upon an entire class of people?
      hans moleman
      • 3 Years Ago
      ugly.. it's got that kit car look all over its exterior styling and the interior...
      lightnin1127
      • 3 Years Ago
      Too bad, the ultra rich/elite will have to settle for a lambo or ferrari, I really do feel bad for them as I drive home in my 2010 Hyundai....NOT
      Andre Neves
      • 3 Years Ago
      As far as styling goes... Zonda > Huayra
        Sims
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Andre Neves
        I think the Huayra looks better... sounds far worse though. Should have stuck with the manual transmission, too.
        loloh
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Andre Neves
        And sound...
      kant
      • 3 Years Ago
      I personally don't have any sympathy for pagani. Every other automaker has to, and has, meet these requirements, including tesla and lamborghini, who had exemptions in years past but no longer, and their newer cars comply with the advanced airbag requirements. Here's the biggest part of why I don't have sympathy. The regulation isn't a new one. The advanced airbag regs were past in 1998...13 years ago. Pagani either through laziness (didn't think they had to) or ineptitude (didn't know), didn't comply. Now say what you will about stupid regulations (This one more than qualifies), a decade for is more than enough time to comply for a system that isn't terribly complicated from a technical point of view. Any hardship/money lost is solely on pagani's hands.
        mrpinto
        • 3 Years Ago
        @kant
        What difference does it make how old the regulation is? It could have been on the books in 1776 and it would still be stupid. 6 million bucks of testing is 6 million bucks, whether its done now or 5 years ago. Maybe they could do it for cheaper than they're saying, but I'm pretty willing to believe that there's more to this than just going to AutoZone and pulling Advanced Airbag number ZX98 off the shelf. The fact that Lambo and friends already wasted the time and effort that Pagani is going to waste now doesn't enter into it either. A stupid law isn't fair if it's applied evenly, it's just uniformly unfair. I think we all know what the expected value of this change is: 0. Nothing. No lives will be saved, no injuries avoided. Not a lot of kids or seat belt avoiders driving super cars these days. What's next? Are they going to mandate that all super cars have a back seat so that there's a spot for infants?
          mrpinto
          • 3 Years Ago
          @mrpinto
          @kant, you're right, they would have to define who. Defining who gets exemptions? That's actually their... JOB. Clearly they've done a bad... job. On a production run of 15 cars, a 380K/car cost is ridiculous. As a regulator, it's your job to not do things that are ridiculous. At the end of the day, regulations are an implicit tax on small businesses at the expense of large ones. The big companies can afford to throw a lot of money after compliance and the small ones can't. There are regs on what features government-purchased office software must meet (language support, features for the blind, etc). Enough of them that really only Microsoft can afford to engage that market. Likewise, regulations like this ensure that only enormous mega-corporations can provide cars for the American public. Unfortunately, smaller outfits like Pagani and Tesla (who actually have the patronage of Toyota) are the ones doing cool things. That doesn't mean that their cars should be death traps, but it does mean that regulators should figure out what's necessary and what isn't. Yes, it's a hard line to draw, but it's also the line that they're hired to draw. Or maybe America just isn't the place for cars like Pagani's. Or the Porsche 959, or any of the other neat vehicles out there. Perhaps if we want cool stuff like that we should move to a free country.
          kant
          • 3 Years Ago
          @mrpinto
          The problem with creating exemptions is that you have to define who, when and why some person/company gets that exemption What constitutes a "supercar"? -hp/torque? there are Mustangs like the Shelby GT500 (540hp/510lb-ft) that rival Ferrari's (Ferrari California 450hp/357lb-ft) in those categories. Is a 2012 GT-R(520 hp/451lb-ft) a supercar? what about a C6 Corvette(400bhp/424lb-ft)? -Sales volume? Ferrari sold 939 units in the US through june 2011. Chevy sold only 481 Volts and Mazda only sold 479 rx-8's through june of 2011. -Cost of the car? Does a Bentley Continental (552hp/479ft-lb) or a Rolls Royce Phantom (453hp/530lb-ft) count as supercars because they are super expensive, even though a Shelby GT500 (540hp/510lb-ft) costs a fraction of that even with similar power numbers? What should the threshold be? and why? I'm not sure if failure to comply means a fine or not road legal, which would mean not legal to sell in the US. If it is just a fine why can't they just pass the cost to the customer like the others? They're already marking up the cost from $380k(I assume this was the production cost) to 1.5M anyway. If sales volume is really the hardship here, then why doesn't Bugatti or Koenigsegg have the same problems? They only sell a dozen or so. As far as the extra cost of getting the advanced airbags tested...yes $380k is a lot but keep in mind the car cost $1.5M. But cost is besides the point. The reason the cost is irrelevant is because they had to get the normal air bags certified anyway, which meant submitting a couple of cars for crash testing. If they had put in the necessary sensors for the advanced airbags BEFORE the first round of testing then this would have been a non-issue. They got lazy (or got impatient and pushed the car through before it was ready) and screwed up and now it's costing them a huge amount of money. That's how I see it.
        R.T. Elkin
        • 3 Years Ago
        @kant
        No coffee this morning?
        • 3 Years Ago
        @kant
        [blocked]
      • 3 Years Ago
      [blocked]
      Once upon a 77
      • 3 Years Ago
      big brother can be quite the dick.. 3years?
      • 3 Years Ago
      [blocked]
      • 3 Years Ago
      [blocked]
    • Load More Comments