Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Which Is The Fastest Sports Car In The World?  
User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9160 posts, RR: 15
Posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3120 times:

Which is the fastest sports car in the world? At one point it was Jaguar XJ220 but that was quite some time ago

50 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7126 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3090 times:

Bugatti Veyron SS and Hennessey Venom GT. The latest Koenigsegg Agera version is right up there too, but it hasn't been timed yet I don't think.

since the XJ220 there have been production cars such as Mac F1, Lamborghini Diablo 6.0 (so briefly when nobody else was making anything) Enzo Ferrari, Koenigsegg CC/CCS/CCR/CCX


User currently offlinecptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3022 times:

Probably a toss-up between the Bugatti Veyron and the latest McLaren GT (GT?). Both are in the 260mph range give or take. I think Jay Leno has one of each. Wonder if he answers his Emails?

Anyhoo, what price speed, and where/when would/could you use it? Regards...jack



all best; jack
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2992 times:

Bugatti Veyron Supersport is on top at 267 MPH, followed by the Hennessy Venom and the Koenigsegg Agera, both of which top out at 260 MPH.

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 2):
Probably a toss-up between the Bugatti Veyron and the latest McLaren GT (GT?)

The only McLaren currently in production is the MP4-12C which only goes 207 MPH (it's meant more for cornering than straight line speed). The planned McLaren P1 is estimated to top out at 239 MPH.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15694 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2954 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
Bugatti Veyron Supersport is on top at 267 MPH,

Guinness recently gave them back the record, although they do not really deserve it since they deactivated a speed limiter so it wasn't really a production car.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
followed by the Hennessy Venom

It's record of 265+ miles per hour has never been certified by an outside party. Furthermore, it's status of a "production car" is highly questionable since it is actually built on a heavily modified Lotus chassis. I believe it holds other records, so presumably it would pass muster with the World Records people if they tried, but to me it would still be a gray area.

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 1):
The latest Koenigsegg Agera version

They say 270 mph or so for the Agera, but it appears that nobody has ever verified it.

So, with all of those having their various problems as to why they may not count, the actual, least disputable claim to the title is the SSC Ultimate Aero with its 256 mph top speed. SSC has shown a car they have in the works that will be significantly faster, but that project has gone a while with no news.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7041 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2925 times:

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 1):
Bugatti Veyron SS and Hennessey Venom GT.

It's a tough call calling a bastardised Lotus Elise a production car.

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 2):
McLaren GT (GT?).

McLaren's P1 is not as fast as the F1 was in a straight line, top speed was not a consideration in it's design, just speed around a track.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3):
Hennessy Venom and the Koenigsegg Agera, both of which top out at 260 MPH.

The Venom according to Hennessy is 275mph, but its not really a production car like the Veyron.


User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1285 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2911 times:

The Venom GT has achieved 267.5 MPH on a 2 mile run. The Veyron SS took 4 miles to do 267.85. Koenigsegg and Pagani have not launched an official claim on the title, with Pagani being more focused on mounting a challenge on the 'Ring, and K..egg not seeming to be officially bothered at all.

Are either of them production cars? Well Guiness will tell you the minimum production run to qualify is 20, but neiter the Venom, any version of a Koenigsegg or the Veyron SS have been built in those numbers; the SS was only built in 5 examples.

One could thus argue neither are the fastest production car, but in reality that accolade should be bestowed on the 'bog standard' Veyron, which does fulfil the criteria of having been built in 20 copies.

So there you have it, it's a Veyron - but not the Veyron you think it is.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlinecptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 13
Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2878 times:

You guys are probably correct about the above. I mentioned the McLaren (we are talking about the three seater, no?) and I recall seeing a TV spot on the car claiming it "fastest" and THINK I remember the mention of around 260mph. Whatever; 160mph is too fast for me these days   regards...jack


all best; jack
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7041 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2867 times:

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 7):
I mentioned the McLaren (we are talking about the three seater, no?) and I recall seeing a TV spot on the car claiming it "fastest" and THINK I remember the mention of around 260mph.

The McLaren F1, the 3 seater had a maximum top speed of 243 mph with the rev limiter removed, 231 with it on.

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 6):
Are either of them production cars?

I would say yes to the Veyron as it a version of the standard Veyron but no to the Venom, it's a bit of a mess if you ask me, bits and pieces from all over the place and not a lot which is Hennessy OEM.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15694 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2848 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 8):
I would say yes to the Veyron as it a version of the standard Veyron but no to the Venom, it's a bit of a mess if you ask me, bits and pieces from all over the place and not a lot which is Hennessy OEM.

The Veyron SS has even less of a claim to the record than the Venom. While the Hennessey is at it's core an Exige chassis, at least you can buy one identical to that which ran at 267 mph. The same cannot be said of the Veyron SS which had a speed limiter removed which decidedly makes it not a production car.

The Venom GT's status as a "production car" is questionable, but the Veyron Super Sport's claim to the record with a removed limiter makes it definitely not a production car.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6481 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2846 times:

To me, light is right, and fastest on an airport runway is not really interesting, I'd rather be in the cockpit of a plane while speeding down that runway !

Now, I didn't know about the Venom GT, it being based on a Lotus and still relatively light is sparking my interest, although it still seems a little bit too complicated (electronic suspension, electronic rear wing, etc., if the electronics have a malfunction you're dead).

For a more reasonable car and more of a real production car, a car that is "usable" regularly without the need of maintenance every few Km, I'd got for a regular Lotus, the new Exige S with a V6 engine.

For track use I'd go for a Radical SR8. It's the fastest car around the Nürburgring, and since it's designed as a track car, you can actually do several laps before your brakes are dead. It's very light so will do well on any track, not just fast ones like the Nürb.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 4):
Guinness recently gave them back the record, although they do not really deserve it since they deactivated a speed limiter so it wasn't really a production car.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 4):
So, with all of those having their various problems as to why they may not count, the actual, least disputable claim to the title is the SSC Ultimate Aero with its 256 mph top speed.

The Veyron SS limiter is at 258mph.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2837 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 6):
Are either of them production cars? Well Guiness will tell you the minimum production run to qualify is 20, but neiter the Venom, any version of a Koenigsegg or the Veyron SS have been built in those numbers; the SS was only built in 5 examples.

According to Bugatti their SuperSport production was 30, out of the total 347 Veyrons sold.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 4):
Guinness recently gave them back the record, although they do not really deserve it since they deactivated a speed limiter so it wasn't really a production car.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
The same cannot be said of the Veyron SS which had a speed limiter removed which decidedly makes it not a production car.

Guinness decided after review that disabling a car's speed limiter "does not alter the fundamental design of the car or its engine.", on which I have to agree.

By the way, Bugatti have announced the launch of the SuperVeyron in September 2013. 1600hp, 288 MPH, 0-60 in 1.8 secs.

http://rumors.automobilemag.com/deep...ml?var_mode=recalcul#axzz2R3LgwVfr



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15694 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2830 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
Guinness decided after review that disabling a car's speed limiter "does not alter the fundamental design of the car or its engine.", on which I have to agree.

Guinness got it wrong. When you set a record with a car that is equipped in a way that cars sold to the public are not, you simply cannot call it a production car. By the standards they've applied to Bugatti a new ECU chip should also be allowed, despite being undoubtedly a modification. The records people blew this one: if you cannot buy it then it isn't a production car.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6481 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2817 times:

Well with such cars it's a gray area, I'm sure you can actually buy it without the limiter, each car is unique and very customizable.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15694 posts, RR: 26
Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2812 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 13):
Well with such cars it's a gray area, I'm sure you can actually buy it without the limiter, each car is unique and very customizable.

Nothing gray about it. If the cars aren't produced that way, it's not a production car. All Bugatti would have to do is offer the limiter removal as an option (even if it's at no cost) and I'm fine with it. Until then, it can't be a production car.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1247 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2783 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
Guinness decided after review that disabling a car's speed limiter "does not alter the fundamental design of the car or its engine.", on which I have to agree.

Agree. One could argue the SS Ultimate Aero is faster because it has no limiter, but that would be absurd. The Veyron is fundamentally a faster car.

Personally I think "production car" should only apply to vehicles with, say, 10,000 examples sold. The problem is that this pissing contest between manufacturers results in some pretty awful vehicles which nobody can really buy and nobody can actually use to their full extent anyway. The Veyron is not a racer- just a jumped up GT car with a ludicrous engine. Hardly worth millions of dollars IMO. The SSC Ultimate Aero is a plastic piece of crap, although at least it's a vaguely more sensible price.

Give me an Ariel Atom and $260,000 any day  



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2771 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 15):
Personally I think "production car" should only apply to vehicles with, say, 10,000 examples sold. The problem is that this pissing contest between manufacturers results in some pretty awful vehicles which nobody can really buy and nobody can actually use to their full extent anyway.

10,000 is way too much. It knocks out all the high-end manufacturers like Ferrari, Aston Martin, Bentley, Lambo, etc. The automotive world would be pretty damned boring without them.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 15):
The Veyron is not a racer- just a jumped up GT car with a ludicrous engine. Hardly worth millions of dollars IMO.

Actually, in spite of its high price, VW loses several million dollars on each vehicle. It's basically dumping. The purpose of the exercise was to establish Bugatti as a manufacturer of unequaled engineering capability and at the same time great luxury. Unlike the stripped-out cars which approach those speeds where you'd be lucky to have carpets and padded seats and probably need ear protection, the interior of the Veyron is as quiet and luxurious as a Rolls or a Maybach.

The plan for VW was to use the Veyron to launch the brand, and then have Bugatti start making the ultimate luxury cars, like they were in the 30s, where they would compete directly with the likes of Rolls Royce, Bentley, Aston, and others in the $300-$500K price range.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7041 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2747 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
The same cannot be said of the Veyron SS which had a speed limiter removed which decidedly makes it not a production car.

Rubbish with or without limiter the car is still the same car, with the same powerplant, all that they did was set the computer to lower the topspeed for the customer cars. It's just like the German manufacturers limiting topspeed to 155mph.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
but the Veyron Super Sport's claim to the record with a removed limiter makes it definitely not a production car.

It is and it was done for safety reasons, the tyres were the limiting factor, which makes me wonder how someone like Hennssey can build a car with a potential 275 mph topspeed when there aren't any tyres which can safely reach that speed.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 12):

Guinness got it wrong. When you set a record with a car that is equipped in a way that cars sold to the public are not, you simply cannot call it a production car.

Apart from the Royal Bugatti weren't the makers of ultimate luxury cars in the 1930's they were more like the Ferrari or Lamborghini of the era.

The cars are identical, it's just a limiter. McLarens topspeed was set with the limiter removed yet the customer cars had the limiter installed, Guinness accepted the F1's topspeed as 242 mph whereas the one's you could buy were limited to 231, again this was for tyres reasons.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16):
and then have Bugatti start making the ultimate luxury cars, like they were in the 30s


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15694 posts, RR: 26
Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2744 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 17):
Rubbish with or without limiter the car is still the same car, with the same powerplant, all that they did was set the computer to lower the topspeed for the customer cars.

They set the computer in a different manner than the ones they actually produce for customers, hence not a production car.

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 17):
The cars are identical, it's just a limiter.

The limiter is different, so the cars are not identical. It's ridiculous to say that what constitutes a "production car" does not extend to software.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinerutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 2952 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2728 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I go with this little run about

Currently for sale at €927,000

Koenigsegg --- some dynamite Swedish Sports Car


User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7041 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2713 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 18):

They set the computer in a different manner than the ones they actually produce for customers, hence not a production car.

You can argue all you like but you're wrong.


User currently offlinebristolflyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 2289 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2667 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 17):
The cars are identical, it's just a limiter.

If something is physically removed from the vehicle after production then surely it isn't a 'production' car. Using this logic could one buy a car, strip out all the unimportant stuff so it is lighter (and faster) and still call it a production car? If you're allowed to remove stuff from the car and still call it a production model why can't we add stuff as well? Top Gear (UK version) recently had an article from Las Vegas where the hosts were racing people in their modified ricer burners and they were easily beating the hosts who were in supercars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_c1H60zlW0

would you say that these are production cars? If not, why not?



Fortune favours the brave
User currently offlinecptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 13
Reply 22, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2667 times:

Just out of curiosity, just how authoritative should one consider a "Guinness record"? I suppose in the past, it was a respected tradition for points of interest (and actual world records), but currently there are Guinness record TV shows on the number of live cockroaches one can put in the mouth and the record number of hot dogs one can eat in a specific number of minutes.

I guess what I'm thinking is that if the cockroach official spends a lot of time making sure that the roach has all of its legs before inserting into the mouth, how expert could he/she be in determining what the precise definition of a production vehicle actually is?

Seriously, I personally wouldn't rely on the Guinness organization as a definative authority on what constitutes a production vehicle but would opine that building just a handful of vehicles wouldn't constitute "production". I agree with Dreadnought (Rep 16) that 10,000 units is way too much of a requirement for reasons he stated. Maybe 500 units as some official racing bodies in the U.S. formerly required? regards...jack



all best; jack
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6481 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2653 times:

Again this is complicated because there is no notion of price nor brand image. If more people could afford them, Bugatti would make more cars. Probably not that much though, because their image is also of an exclusive car manufacturer. Even Ferrari was on that page until recently, you could go see them with your nouveau riche Russian dollars and they wouldn't sell you a car until you proved your worth as a real Ferrari fan ! Production was deliberately limited.

I don't know really how to define a production car, but for sure buying a Lotus (or a BMW/Merc/Porsche in the case of many German aftermarket "manufacturers" ) and modifying it more or less extensively cannot meet that definition.

They should maybe concentrate on another definition, like "road legal" but again it's complicated, the US and UK allow pretty much anything on the road (tubes welded around a V8), while in continental Europe if you've not done a crash test and lots of paperwork it ain't happening.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15694 posts, RR: 26
Reply 24, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2626 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 20):
You can argue all you like but you're wrong.

Guinness is wrong. The cars are not produced like that, so it isn't a production car.

Quoting bristolflyer (Reply 21):
If something is physically removed from the vehicle after production then surely it isn't a 'production' car.

The only thing they've removed is some software, but that is still enough that it should not be considered a production car.

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 22):
Just out of curiosity, just how authoritative should one consider a "Guinness record"?

Considering their apparent standards of a "production car" they probably should not be considered authoritative at all.

Quoting bristolflyer (Reply 21):
would you say that these are production cars? If not, why not?

No they aren't. They've been modified from the stock form they were sold in.

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 22):
Maybe 500 units as some official racing bodies in the U.S. formerly required?

500 is way too much. I'd say they just have to produce and sell 5 or so identical in configuration, including software, to the car they set the record with.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7041 posts, RR: 3
Reply 25, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2641 times:

Quoting bristolflyer (Reply 21):

If something is physically removed from the vehicle after production then surely it isn't a 'production' car.

It's a line of software code, it's not really a physical object, it's not a restrictor plate we're talking about here.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 24):

Guinness is wrong. The cars are not produced like that, so it isn't a production car.

I still disagree with you. It's physically the same car, same hp, same everything, just a line of code in the ECU limiting the topspeed.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 26, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2633 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 25):
It's a line of software code, it's not really a physical object, it's not a restrictor plate we're talking about here.

In fact, the limiter is an artificial restriction on the capabilities of the vehicle. In many cases it is is imposed for political reasons, such as the 155 MPH limit imposed on many German cars, or the limit imposed in Japan (I can't remember the limit - they mentioned it on Top Gear once).

So for record attempts, I think that limiters should be completely ignored. Reprogramming the engine management system to increase power output, changing gear ratios etc, that would be disallowed.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7041 posts, RR: 3
Reply 27, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2635 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 26):
So for record attempts

Funny thing is nobody had a problem with the McLaren F1 and it's then world record of 241 mph when customer cars were restricted to 231 mph, or the Jaguar XJ220 which set it's fastest car record with the cats removed. Ferrari also does tricky stuff to it's test fleet, cars given to auto mags for testing tend to be quite a bit faster than what the punter gets when he drives his one out the dealers door.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15694 posts, RR: 26
Reply 28, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2631 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 25):
It's physically the same car, same hp, same everything, just a line of code in the ECU limiting the topspeed.

It's a line of code that is not present in the car that set the record and most decidedly does affect the performance. If you modify a production car it isn't production anymore.

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 27):
Funny thing is nobody had a problem with the McLaren F1 and it's then world record of 241 mph when customer cars were restricted to 231 mph

I was somewhat preoccupied with third grade at the time. But that record is not kosher either.

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 27):
Ferrari also does tricky stuff to it's test fleet, cars given to auto mags for testing tend to be quite a bit faster than what the punter gets when he drives his one out the dealers door.

Supposedly once during a dyno test the test car's tires stuck to a roller. Ferrari also threatens blacklist a journalist who drives a Ferrari that isn't from them.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineScooter01 From Norway, joined Nov 2006, 1199 posts, RR: 8
Reply 29, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2633 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Who cares about the speed someone can travel in an enclosed vehicle?
What about the fun and free feeling of an open car, like the (Lotus or Caterham) Super7 or the
Reynard Iverter?



It got it's name because it's under-body aerodynamics (read: tunnels) can give it a downforce equal to drive upside-down or cornering forces up to 4G. And the best part of it, you can also have it street legal....

Scooter01   

PS. The best feeling I had while driving a car was driving a Lola T340 with my pink bottom 3" above the pavement at 120 mph. and watching the open front wheels turning in front of me. (On the track)



"We all have a girl and her name is nostalgia" - Hemingway
User currently offlinebristolflyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 2289 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2611 times:

Quoting Scooter01 (Reply 29):
(Lotus or Caterham) Super7

Now we're talking. I had just as much fun in my Caterham than I would have in a car many times quicker.



Fortune favours the brave
User currently offlineMrChips From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 927 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2593 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 27):
Ferrari also does tricky stuff to it's test fleet, cars given to auto mags for testing tend to be quite a bit faster than what the punter gets when he drives his one out the dealers door.

All manufacturers are guilty of this to some degree, though not as blatantly as Ferrari. There was an issue of this last year when Ford launched the new Fusion; they were sending out cars to the magazines with very aggressive high-performance tires on them...much more aggressive than any tire you'd see on the car normally. Ford tried to justify that by saying that the car comes with summer-only tires for certain wheel size options, and that the tires came from one of their OEM suppliers as well.



Time...to un-pimp...ze auto!
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15694 posts, RR: 26
Reply 32, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2590 times:

Quoting MrChips (Reply 31):
All manufacturers are guilty of this to some degree,

And there's the Pagani Top Gear tire issue. The tires used to set the time were apparently modified slicks derived from those on the Zonda R which were barely street legal.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 13
Reply 33, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2554 times:

Hmmmm...BMI727 sez (Rep 24) "I'd say they just have to produce and sell 5 or so identical...."

Again, hmmmm...I'd say that myself (or practically anyone else on this forum) could build and sell 5 identical ANYTHING that anybody with a checkbook could/would purchase, but have a difficult time classifying such as "production".

Sorry, but I disagree. But thanks for considering my opinion about Guinness "authority". All best...jack



all best; jack
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15694 posts, RR: 26
Reply 34, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2544 times:

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 33):
Again, hmmmm...I'd say that myself (or practically anyone else on this forum) could build and sell 5 identical ANYTHING that anybody with a checkbook could/would purchase, but have a difficult time classifying such as "production".

You'd be surprised. Most cars this side of the Dale could probably move five examples. Hell, I bet you could move that many in the UAE alone. The record isn't for mass produced cars over a certain number, but if someone wants to make that category, go for it. The only reason I'd set it at five is just to keep Bugatti or whomever from putting the "World Record Package" in their options list but pricing it so obscenely as to ensure they never actually have to actually produce one.

I'm not saying they have to make money on them either. Just produce five examples identical to (hardware and software) to the car used to set the record and sell them to the public (so none of that crap like BMW tried to pull with the M1) and it's eligible.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 13
Reply 35, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2541 times:

BMI727; I agree with your post (Rep 34) about "one-offs" record package options per Bugatti as I think you have correctly noted. I just don't think a number as low as five really qualifies as production. BUT, as I said before when I was criticising Guinness (my Rep 22) as an authority, I am certainly no authority either. Just my thoughts.

Addendum: when I was professionally envolved in straight-line (NHRA) and roundy-round (NASCAR) racing about a million years ago I remember the sanctioning bodies had definitions of "production cars" relative to volumes produced. We all know how these so-called rules were violated with slight of hand "dealer installed options" etc. IIRC, the NASCAR rule was a minimum of 500 units (perhaps why I thought of 500 units in my Rep 22). Anyhoo, I still think that a volume of 5 units really doesn't qualify as "production". Only me in opinion mode. All best...jack



all best; jack
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1247 posts, RR: 3
Reply 36, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2538 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16):
Actually, in spite of its high price, VW loses several million dollars on each vehicle. It's basically dumping.

Indeed, which makes it all the more silly. It's a pointless publicity stunt.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16):
10,000 is way too much. It knocks out all the high-end manufacturers like Ferrari, Aston Martin, Bentley, Lambo, etc. The automotive world would be pretty damned boring without them.

OK, well you can argue about the numbers but I'd still argue 20 is too low. Remember that we're not actually talking about cars the public can buy when there are only 20 built- many of those cars are never on sale to the general public but offered to a few very specific people by invitation only. I think if I win the lottery and I still can't buy a car, it's not a production car.

Most of the manufacturers above produce several hundred to several thousand cars a year, so maybe 500 would be more reasonable.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently onlineCXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 3020 posts, RR: 1
Reply 37, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2519 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 12):
Guinness got it wrong. When you set a record with a car that is equipped in a way that cars sold to the public are not, you simply cannot call it a production car. By the standards they've applied to Bugatti a new ECU chip should also be allowed, despite being undoubtedly a modification. The records people blew this one: if you cannot buy it then it isn't a production car.

As I understood it, the only reason for the limiter is that the tyres cannot cope with the top potential speed. But I've also heard that Bugatti have been in contact with the tyre manufacturer to get tyres that will be able to cope with that speed, and as soon as that has been developed, Bugatti will give owners the option to have the limiter removed.

-CXfirst



From Norway, live in Australia
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 38, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2523 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 36):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16):
Actually, in spite of its high price, VW loses several million dollars on each vehicle. It's basically dumping.

Indeed, which makes it all the more silly. It's a pointless publicity stunt.

No, there is a very important point being established, if you read the rest of my post. VW wants to get into the high-end luxury car business, but as they learned with the Phaeton (which was truely a fantastic car) a few years ago, nobody wants to spend six figures for a Volkswagen, no matter how good it is. So they revive the Bugatti name - very prestigious - and establish it as a builder of exceptional cars with the Veyron.

Next will be the new 4-door sedan which is supposed to go on sale soon.




Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1247 posts, RR: 3
Reply 39, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2514 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 38):
No, there is a very important point being established, if you read the rest of my post. VW wants to get into the high-end luxury car business, but as they learned with the Phaeton (which was truely a fantastic car) a few years ago, nobody wants to spend six figures for a Volkswagen, no matter how good it is. So they revive the Bugatti name - very prestigious - and establish it as a builder of exceptional cars with the Veyron.

The exact definition of a publicity stunt- they are trying to get extra publicity with the stunt of producing the fastest car. The fact that they are taking a huge loss on each car IMO is further evidence for this.

I'm not saying VW don't have very good reasons for this particular publicity stunt though, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. But whether something is good business sense is independent from whether it is a publicity stunt.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8780 posts, RR: 24
Reply 40, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2502 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 39):
The exact definition of a publicity stunt- they are trying to get extra publicity with the stunt of producing the fastest car. The fact that they are taking a huge loss on each car IMO is further evidence for this.

No question it is a publicity stunt. Like Concorde. I was protesting your calling it "Pointless".



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15694 posts, RR: 26
Reply 41, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2496 times:

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 35):
Anyhoo, I still think that a volume of 5 units really doesn't qualify as "production".

Certainly not production in large numbers, but as far as I'm concerned production only means it has to be produced for customers who may use them on the street.

And for NASCAR to have any homologation requirement at all is a farce.

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 37):
as soon as that has been developed, Bugatti will give owners the option to have the limiter removed.

As soon as that's developed, rerun the test, move a few customer cars and the record should be theirs beyond a doubt.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 38):
VW wants to get into the high-end luxury car business

They've been doing alright with Bentley, which they got at about the same time as they got Bugatti. Bugatti is great as a halo marque, but I doubt it will ever become the volume exotic of VAG.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 38):
Next will be the new 4-door sedan which is supposed to go on sale soon.

That's been the case for a while, but it is still a couple of years off. I do bet on the four (five really) door Bugatti arriving before a Lambo SUV.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7041 posts, RR: 3
Reply 42, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2484 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 28):
Ferrari also threatens blacklist a journalist who drives a Ferrari that isn't from them.

It was Chris Harris who they blacklisted he was one of the few with the balls to stand up to Ferrari.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 32):
And there's the Pagani Top Gear tire issue. The tires used to set the time were apparently modified slicks derived from those on the Zonda R which were barely street legal.

If they're street legal and on the options list I don't see what the problem was, have you seen the tyres that came on the 911 GT3, you wouldn't want to drive one of them in wet weather.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 41):
I do bet on the four (five really) door Bugatti arriving before a Lambo SUV.

You'll be wrong then, the Lambo SUV will be with us launced in 2014, the big Buig sometime in 2015 once production of the Veyron finishes.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6481 posts, RR: 9
Reply 43, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2391 times:

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 35):
We all know how these so-called rules were violated with slight of hand "dealer installed options" etc. IIRC, the NASCAR rule was a minimum of 500 units (perhaps why I thought of 500 units in my Rep 22).

Even when such rules were adhered to, like for rallye or touring categories (200 units needed), there were still many differences, it was more a question of "credibility" that the competition car could be rooted in a road legal one. For example the Peugeot 205 T16 had a mid engine and all wheel drive like the rallye one, but a metal body, not kevlar, glass windshields and not plastic, and of course a greatly detuned engine that could last some time.

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 37):
As I understood it, the only reason for the limiter is that the tyres cannot cope with the top potential speed.

Well they did the record so the tyres can cope. The problem is probably that you must start with new tyres, and discard them after the one run. If you attempted it with tyres that had some mileage it would be risky. They could just remove the limiter and say to their customers to not attempt it outside of similar conditions as the record, but then, when you sell to people that have more money than sense...

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40):
No question it is a publicity stunt. Like Concorde. I was protesting your calling it "Pointless".

If you mean Concorde the plane then it was certainly not a publicity stunt. It was a commercial failure, that's not the same thing. Some here argue it was caused by the US, spiteful that they couldn't do an SST, they banned its use at speed over its territory.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7041 posts, RR: 3
Reply 44, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2377 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 43):
For example the Peugeot 205 T16 had a mid engine and all wheel drive like the rallye one, but a metal body, not kevlar, glass windshields and not plastic, and of course a greatly detuned engine that could last some time.

Not really the front and rear clamshell were plastic, as per the rally car. I doubt many could lift the rear clamshell had it been in steel.



User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1247 posts, RR: 3
Reply 45, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2344 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40):
No question it is a publicity stunt. Like Concorde. I was protesting your calling it "Pointless".

Ah whoops- yes I was being a bit hyperbolic there. Certainly not pointless for VW I agree.

Concorde a publicity stunt though? Not sure I agree. It was conceived as a money maker, even if that's not what transpired.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6481 posts, RR: 9
Reply 46, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2310 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 44):
Not really the front and rear clamshell were plastic, as per the rally car. I doubt many could lift the rear clamshell had it been in steel.

My bad. Still many differences just to make it road legal and usable.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinecptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 13
Reply 47, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2290 times:

Quoting Kiwirob (Rep 44): "I doubt many people could lift the rear clamshell had it been in steel." You have heard of gas struts, no?

Quoting Aesma (Rep 43); "...it was more a question of credibility that the competition car would be rooted in a legal road one." Agree 100%.

Quoting BMI727 (Rep 41): "And for NASCAR to have any homologation requirement at all is a farce." I agree also, but within current context. Re-read my Rep23 where I joked "about a million years ago when I was envolved". I have 1/2 of one century on you age-wise and experience-wise, and yes, back then when NASCAR was REAL racing there were production specs/rules that had to be adhered to (unless you were caught   ).

Tyres for top speed ratings around the sustained 260mph we are talking about...Bugatti Veyron tires cost about US$38,000 per set and they are made by the Michelin folks that supply Airbus, etc for jetliners. I tried to order them for my Silverado but the credit card took a dump. Best regards...jack



all best; jack
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7041 posts, RR: 3
Reply 48, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2260 times:

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 47):
Quoting Kiwirob (Rep 44): "I doubt many people could lift the rear clamshell had it been in steel." You have heard of gas struts, no?

Can you see any gas struts in the picture?


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15694 posts, RR: 26
Reply 49, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2255 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 42):
It was Chris Harris who they blacklisted he was one of the few with the balls to stand up to Ferrari.

Then he bought a silver 599 and he has gotten his hands on a black 458 customer car since in a video.

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 42):
If they're street legal and on the options list I don't see what the problem was, have you seen the tyres that came on the 911 GT3, you wouldn't want to drive one of them in wet weather.

After further review there was no problem. Apparently Pagani was pushing one of the tires in their press material and basically neglected to mention the near slicks used for the track test, leading to people questioning what those tires were and whether they were legal.

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 42):
You'll be wrong then, the Lambo SUV will be with us launced in 2014, the big Buig sometime in 2015 once production of the Veyron finishes.

I've heard that too, but I still have my suspicions. I have nothing firm to base it on, but I'm not sure Lambo would make that jump (again) before VAG does something to keep Bugatti relevant.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 43):
If you mean Concorde the plane then it was certainly not a publicity stunt. It was a commercial failure, that's not the same thing. Some here argue it was caused by the US, spiteful that they couldn't do an SST, they banned its use at speed over its territory.

I think it was a little bit of both, but was definitely a logical next step in transportation for the time. The cancellation of the Boeing 2707 was a combination of fiscal concerns (which also provided the case to keep the SST) stemming from the costs of the Apollo program and Vietnam War along with noise concerns, which the US had actually tested using the XB-70. Some of the environmental pushback was silly, but the money alone was enough to bust the program.

Furthermore, you have to remember that at that time Boeing was struggling mightily with the 747 and the existence of the company was not a given. The business case with higher fuel prices was shaky at best, noise concerns were at least somewhat legit, and Boeing didn't have the money to fund it themselves without government help. Had the 2707 continued, it would have been a jobs program as much as anything.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 13
Reply 50, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2224 times:

Kiwirob (Rep 48): Yep, you're right! Looking closer it appears that they are simple rod props. My bad.

Looks like a two-person operation, though, even if it is a lighter-than-steel rear clamshell assembly. Regards...jack



all best; jack
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Which Is Your Favourite City In The World? posted Sun Jan 3 2010 11:53:51 by F.pier
Which Is The World's Tallest Residential Building? posted Wed Sep 12 2007 10:16:05 by United Airline
Europeans: Barabus TKR Fastest Car In The World! posted Tue Jul 3 2007 22:10:17 by LOT767-300ER
Which Is The Most Beautiful City In The World? posted Sun Jul 9 2000 20:42:08 by Virgin_luva
Which Is The Better Buy: PS3 Or Xbox 360? posted Sun Sep 6 2009 08:03:22 by Hawaiian763
Which Is The Largest Ikea On Earth? posted Fri May 29 2009 02:05:37 by United Airline
Switzerland Is The Top Railway User In The World posted Sat Mar 3 2007 03:23:30 by BA
America Is Not What's Wrong With The World posted Tue Sep 26 2006 08:44:30 by UH60FtRucker
Is Starbucks Killing People Around The World? posted Tue Jun 20 2006 02:29:48 by Jetjack74
What Is Your City Like During The World Cup? posted Sat Jun 10 2006 20:50:13 by BA