Veyron beat 400 km/hour

[DeMoN]

I just hope the next McLaren beats the crap out of the overweight POS.

[JoeHahn]

Originally Posted by Sir_GT This whole top speed thing is seriously overblown bullshit already. Why can't these companies come up with something really original, which would set a new standard (to something other than going in a straight line) for years to come? Sorry VW. Not impressed.

You could say the same about a Koenigsegg - it isnt the best handler and only leads its class in the top speed category, which it doesnt now...

I guess people just jump on the 'Seggs wagon because they are a small company and people dont want to see VW succeed in their revival of Bugatti.

[espen]

Why do people complain about the wight of the Veyron, yet not about teh weight of the SL55 AMG? The SL is a great drive, wonderful power and hugely fast. I loved it.

Consider that the Veyron is the same weight as the SL55 AMG, so basically if you add 4wd and 500hp it's not likely to be any slower..?

[Sir_GT]

Originally Posted by gobs3z Are you basing your ideas of it being a bad handling car just because it's heavy? Thats crap and you know it, you as an M6 fan should realize dispite weight a car can surprisingly handle with the best of them...and the power of the Veyron just makes it even better. I've never said top speed matters but it's just a reflection of the power of the car and the stability it has to have the ability to reach those speeds dispite it's weight. I love the Exige but this will no doubt take a lotus around Anglesey, thats just common sense.

I'm basing my ideas on physics. It's just common sense as you said. There's no way an M6 will outhandle an Exige around Anglesey. In fact, if I owned an M6, I would steer clear of places like Anglesey, and other B-roads where there are rarely any straights. The last thing I would want is to make my £80,000 car look silly because I'm being destroyed by cars that don't even crack the £35,000 price barrier. The boffins at Top Gear Magazine, EVO, and CAR will all attest to this. They took a Porsche Carrera S to the official launch of the M6. The 911 had considerably less power than the M6, but it was much lighter. The result was that the M6 would leave the 911 for dead on the straights, but when the corners came, the M6 couldn't shake, or sometimes even match, the 911.

On a place like Anglesey where there are no straights (hell, any British B-road would do), it is easy to see which cars have struck the right balance of power and handling, and which ones disguise their inadequacies by being quick in a straight line.

Also, straight line speed is never a way to measure a car's stability or ability. You're from a drag-racing-loving nation. You should know that.

[Sir_GT]

Originally Posted by JoeHahn Originally Posted by Sir_GT This whole top speed thing is seriously overblown bullshit already. Why can't these companies come up with something really original, which would set a new standard (to something other than going in a straight line) for years to come? Sorry VW. Not impressed. You could say the same about a Koenigsegg - it isnt the best handler and only leads its class in the top speed category, which it doesnt now... I guess people just jump on the 'Seggs wagon because they are a small company and people dont want to see VW succeed in their revival of Bugatti.

I'm not jumping on anybody's band wagon. In fact, I wasn't impressed by Koenigsegg either.

A Carrera GT, which is a £300,000+, carbon fibre-bodied supercar, can crack 205 mph.

A BMW M5, which is a £68,000, 4-door luxury sports saloon, can crack 207.

Which one do you think is more impressive? The Sports car that doesn't really push any boundaries? or the 4-door luxury saloon (which has a DVD player) that can out gun the former at the top end?


A few decades ago (1930's I think), two German racers who used to blast down the Autobahn in Germany thought about setting a speed record - the fastest anybody could go on a public road. They did, and since then, nobody has beaten that record.

The record was 261 mph. They did it in a Mercedes.

I'll repeat that:

2-6-1 MILES PER HOUR. IN THE 1930'S. ON A PUBLIC ROAD.

So I'm supposed to be impressed by the Bugatti? A car which, nearly a century later, is slower?

Spare me.


It's all just marketing doo-dah. The Veyron doesn't push any envelopes, nor does it set any new standards. It's just front page tabloid news.

[crayzayjay]

Originally Posted by Sir_GT A Carrera GT, which is a £300,000+, carbon fibre-bodied supercar, can crack 205 mph. A BMW M5, which is a £68,000, 4-door luxury sports saloon, can crack 207. Which one do you think is more impressive? The Sports car that doesn't really push any boundaries? or the 4-door luxury saloon (which has a DVD player) that can out gun the former at the top end?

Please don't tell me it boils down to top speed. The M5 is a great car, but more impressive than a CGT because it has a 1 or 2 mph higher top speed??? :shock:

I've love to see what an M5 handles like at 180mph. The CGT has a Cd of 0.39, trading top speed for downforce and high speed stability. And rightly so. It's been praised as possibly the best supercar ever produced, thanks to Porsche's aim to produce a pure, race-car-like road car. If they'd gone for a more slippery body, sure, the CGT would crack 230mph and grab a few headlines, but it certainly wouldn't be a better car.

[espen]

BMW development drivers have lapped the Ring right around the 8:00 mark in the M6. Which would leave an Exige wondering where it went So unless you are talking about extremely twisty roads where average speeds at flat out are less than 100kph, I would be very cautious about taking on an M5 or an M6.

Oh, and another ting - the CCR isn't a great handler? Compared to what? An Audi R8? The owner of one retinahurtingly yellow CCR in my home town claims it is extremely easy to drive and easily the fastest car he's driven. Which is something coming from a man who's driven all the cars we dream about and finaly bought a Koenigsegg. (BTW he has a 2005 M5 as dailiy driver - "best four-door on the planet!" )

[gtx28]

A few decades ago (1930's I think), two German racers who used to blast down the Autobahn in Germany thought about setting a speed record - the fastest anybody could go on a public road. They did, and since then, nobody has beaten that record. The record was 261 mph. They did it in a Mercedes.

Correction!! that is the only offical speed on a public road, there are several folks who have gps pics clocked at 250+ in corvettes. There is a guy on the z06 forum who claims to have gone 263 mph on the greenstate parkway in newjersey.

[Sir_GT]

I think I'll break down my responses...

• No, it doesn't boil down to top speed, not at all. That's not what I'm saying.
  
  What I'm trying to point out is that ever since the Macca, there hasn't been any real big change or pioneering effort in the supercar area of the market. We all have nice, lovely, quick, and expensive two-seaters, which are at the end of the day, simply playing a game of top trumps.
  
  Remember what Gordon Murray's goal was for the Macca? A true, everyday usable supercar?
  
  We ended up with a car which was small enough to park anywhere, sat three people, had a boot (or a pair of them, if you're a stickler for detail), was built entirely out of carbon fibre, had no electronic aids to "nanny" the driver, and did an unbelievable naught-to-sixty, and an even more unbelievable top speed.
  
  That was how long ago? Why haven't these companies gone that step further and took what he started with the Macca and ran with it? Instead, they've all become slower, fatter, less spacious, more uncomfortable, and impractical for daily use and too difficult to live with.
  
  All I'm saying is that top speed means nothing. Nobody's really pushing the envelope for supercars... they're all just chasing each other's tail.
  
  If anything, rent Clarkson's video (I think it's called hot metal) and hopefully he can explain it better than I can. For once, I agree with him.
  
• The nurburgring has unbelievably long straights. It is a very good way to gauge a car's "overall" ability, but with that in mind, know that a car that does horribly on the ring's corners can (if the power is there) make that up during the straights... especially the very very long one that heads towards the finish line, thus masking certain inadequacies it may have.
  
• I never said anything about the CCR being difficult to handle. I merely said I wasn't impressed.
  
• If somebody cracked 263 mph in Corvettes, then it goes to show how silly the Veyron is starting to sound eh?

Ah well. I fear my ability to explain would be inadequate to get my message across.

If anybody will understand why I'm more impressed by a 4-door, family saloon, with a DVD player (front and back), going 207mph, compared to a 2-seat, sometimes no radio, 190mph exoticar... then maybe he or she will be able to communicate it better.

[crayzayjay]

I do see what you're trying to get at. Regarding the F1, I agree with you on a few points. Yes, no one has built a no-expense-spared hypercar since. Yes, it has monstrous acceleration and a terrifying top speed. In that respect it is unmatched by any of the new breed of hypercars (except the CCR). But the McLaren was not without fault. I wish i could speak from experience, but i can't. Common criticisms are aimed at steering, braking feel, and finally, due to its fairly low Cd of 0.32, stability at high speed. Andy Wallace himself describes the Zonda S as being much more stable than the F1 at high speed.

Ferrari and Porsche didn't 'hold back', as Clarkson claims. They prioritised. And i'd much rather have a car with lots of downforce, and that is highly stable at high speed than one which has a higher top speed. Just have a look at these figures and compare the CGT & Enzo to the F1. And i wonder why the CCR is so bloody fast:

Cd figures
Koenigsegg CCR: 0.30
McLaren F1: 0.32
Ferrari Enzo: 0.36
McLaren Mercedes SLR: 0.37
Porsche Carrera GT: 0.39

Pagani Zonda F: ??


No TC on the F1? You can switch it off in the new cars. Usability? You can drive an Enzo day to day. Ok, so none of the new cars have 3 seats, and i don't know which (if any) has decent boot space. Frankly, i'm not that fussed. If you are, buy an SLR.

I think the Enzo and CGT have moved the supercar game on, each in their own way. They haven't smashed any records (well, we'll get to that in a second), which makes it seem like they haven't really done anything new, but the Ferrari truly is a technological tour de force (isn't that tag usually reserved for Porsche's), while the CGT is about as close to a race car for the road as you're going to get. Which is how it obliterated the Nurburging record. And is often referred to as the best of its kind - ever.


And finally. Don't get me wrong. I'm a BMW nut so i love the M5. But i won't go weak at the knees because it can go over 200mph. It has a lot of power and an aerodynamic shape. Those are the key ingredients, and it has both. Don't we take the piss out of Corvettes on this side of the pond for being straight line animals (at least we used to!). I'd much rather know how the M5 handles. From experience, the E34 M5 was more communicative than the E39. What i want to feel in the new M5 is that some of that agility has been restored. That's really what it comes down to for me and is the key factor when assessing a car

[crayzayjay]

Ignore this post ops:

[pharzo]

Originally Posted by PeleProdigyGTO Here's my question... How do any of you know how the Veyron will handle? It hasn't been tested by anyone other than bugatti. I know it's heavy for a supercar, but I'm sure they can come up with something to make for some good handling for the price tag of this thing.

I agree, let's not succumb to "Contempt prior to investigation"

[mindgam3]

Originally Posted by crayzayjay I do see what you're trying to get at. Regarding the F1, I agree with you on a few points. Yes, no one has built a no-expense-spared hypercar since. Yes, it has monstrous acceleration and a terrifying top speed. In that respect it is unmatched by any of the new breed of hypercars (except the CCR). But the McLaren was not without fault. I wish i could speak from experience, but i can't. Common criticisms are aimed at steering, braking feel, and finally, due to its fairly low Cd of 0.32, stability at high speed. Andy Wallace himself describes the Zonda S as being much more stable than the F1 at high speed.

I've never heard anyone complain about the F1's steering. I've heard people complain about brakes, but not feel - more on brake fade when used on tracks - the F1 isn't a track car it is a pure road car. CD's don't tell you anything without any extra information.

The F1 didn't try to get a 240mph top speed, in fact they were planning on using a lower powered engine but BMW came back from the workshop with more power than expected. Top speed was always almost a last priority on the macca, it was merely a bi-product of the rest of the attributes that Gordon Murray wanted to get from it.

I.e a drivers car that you could use everday - lightweight, manual, small.

I'm in anyway bringing down current supercars, they are all amazing in their own right.

But most are far to wide and tightly strung to be an everyday road car.

Sure they all have things going for them, but none of them has the complete package that is the F1.

If you take the macca F1 and the Ferrari F40 as a pair - the F40 being a better track car; then considering its been over 10 for the F1 and over 15 years since the F40, then the current crop haven't moved the game on half as far as these two did.

[ZfrkS62]

I believe the stability complaints you were mentioning occured at 210-220MPH. for some reason the way the air flows over the car upsets the rear of the car in that speed range. They were never able to figure out what though AFAIK.

[crayzayjay]

Originally Posted by mindgam3 I've never heard anyone complain about the F1's steering. I've heard people complain about brakes, but not feel - more on brake fade when used on tracks - the F1 isn't a track car it is a pure road car. CD's don't tell you anything without any extra information. The F1 didn't try to get a 240mph top speed, in fact they were planning on using a lower powered engine but BMW came back from the workshop with more power than expected. Top speed was always almost a last priority on the macca, it was merely a bi-product of the rest of the attributes that Gordon Murray wanted to get from it. I.e a drivers car that you could use everday - lightweight, manual, small. I'm in anyway bringing down current supercars, they are all amazing in their own right. But most are far to wide and tightly strung to be an everyday road car. Sure they all have things going for them, but none of them has the complete package that is the F1. If you take the macca F1 and the Ferrari F40 as a pair - the F40 being a better track car; then considering its been over 10 for the F1 and over 15 years since the F40, then the current crop haven't moved the game on half as far as these two did.

Heavy steering and wooden brakes is something i've read /heard many times regarding the F1.

As for the Cd not meaning anything, i remember reading an article where Gordon Murray estimated the Cd Koenigsegg would have to achieve if it were to reach a certain top speed with a certain amount of power. So i think that it does tell you something, if not everything...

I know Murray wasn't going for top speed, but given that the car achieved the magic 240mph mark (at the expense of stability), the newcomers' inability to approach these speeds is perceived as a failure to 'move the game on'. Which i think is wrong.

The only thing in the F1 which i wish the current crop of hypercars would replicate is the weight, or lack of it i suppose. But then it did cost a fuck of a lot more.