RE: Bugatti Supersport With 1200hp: Truth Or Fiction?
Discussion
McSam said:
snorkel sucker said:
hmmmm.... im no mathematician but would that gain in horsepower really relate to that incresed top speed??
I thought that for every extra mph above what the veyron already does, that requires a not inconsiderable hp increase to overcome the drag....
anyone brighter than me care to help me out?!!
Indeed it does take a lot of power to gain just 1mph at these speeds, but bear in mind that we're talking about a power increase of 20%, but speed of only 1%.I thought that for every extra mph above what the veyron already does, that requires a not inconsiderable hp increase to overcome the drag....
anyone brighter than me care to help me out?!!
To use the original figure of 1001PS (and to assume that this 1200bhp figure is actually 1200PS, which seems more likely), and a 253.8mph maximum speed for the original, the new car should reach a theoretical speed of 269.6mph, assuming its external design is the same. The actual top speed is likely to be (very) marginally lower because that calculation doesn't take a change in tyre friction into account, but the change in that factor is negligible compared to air resistance between such speeds.
My guess is, then, that the original car does indeed make more than 1001PS - to use those calculations the other way, if the new car's 1200PS makes it do 'only' 264mph, then with all things being equal the old car needed 1066PS to do its 253.8mph.
These are worked out using the principle that power required is proportional to velocity cubed, as the force required to overcome air resistance (the key factor at such high speeds) is proportional to velocity squared, and power is proportional to velocity, hence the v^3. Obviously it can only be used where factors such as coefficient of drag are unchanged. Tested against things like manufacturers' figures for top speed/power in different-engined versions of the same car, it seems acceptably accurate
pSyCoSiS said:
Awesome machine, probably the best-built car in existence.
Nothing will probably ever come close to the pedigree of this machine.
The Mclaren F1 is at least its equal. The build quality on it is stunning. Everything is machined from solid metal on it; there aren't any brackets or messy bits anywhere on the car (well, ok there's one...). Every part on the car has been designed with care taken to how it's made, not just the end result. Not that the Veyron isn't like this, it's just that you shouldn't discount the Mclaren F1 - it's a work of handbuilt genius. Sure, it's not a true thoroughbred because the engine isn't by Mclaren, but the engine was built specifically for the car, so that's good enough for me.Nothing will probably ever come close to the pedigree of this machine.
Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 16th June 17:45
marcosgt said:
Well - I see his point - Exquisite suggest fine and just enough to me.
The Veyron's a "wonder" of engineering - Like the Forth Rail Bridge
M.
Or it is exquisite because it has a usable 1000bhp that is repeatable without rebuilds or failures, a good engineer could get 1000bhp once a really good one will make this reliable and repeatable.The Veyron's a "wonder" of engineering - Like the Forth Rail Bridge
M.
It's almost impossible to have a discussion on the Veyron in a way that relates meaningfully to a more 'normal' car purchasing decision. An increase in BHP from 1000 to 1200 and a special limited edition tag has nothing to do with actual performance. People are primarily buying the car because of what it represents, not what it can do. If it was actually about performance and the 'pinnacle of engineering etc. etc.' then these people would be buying a UGR twin turbo Gallardo with 1500RWHP for a fraction of a cost. Those things will crack 250mph from the standing mile and can still be driven to the shops. Or a Henessey Ford GT that will do 264mph over the same distance....
People buy these things for the same reason as yachts, planes and expensive real estate, not because of what they can do or what they are like to drive.
People buy these things for the same reason as yachts, planes and expensive real estate, not because of what they can do or what they are like to drive.
Edited by Stuart Dickinson on Wednesday 16th June 18:32
Mr Dave said:
McSam said:
snorkel sucker said:
hmmmm.... im no mathematician but would that gain in horsepower really relate to that incresed top speed??
I thought that for every extra mph above what the veyron already does, that requires a not inconsiderable hp increase to overcome the drag....
anyone brighter than me care to help me out?!!
Indeed it does take a lot of power to gain just 1mph at these speeds, but bear in mind that we're talking about a power increase of 20%, but speed of only 1%.I thought that for every extra mph above what the veyron already does, that requires a not inconsiderable hp increase to overcome the drag....
anyone brighter than me care to help me out?!!
To use the original figure of 1001PS (and to assume that this 1200bhp figure is actually 1200PS, which seems more likely), and a 253.8mph maximum speed for the original, the new car should reach a theoretical speed of 269.6mph, assuming its external design is the same. The actual top speed is likely to be (very) marginally lower because that calculation doesn't take a change in tyre friction into account, but the change in that factor is negligible compared to air resistance between such speeds.
My guess is, then, that the original car does indeed make more than 1001PS - to use those calculations the other way, if the new car's 1200PS makes it do 'only' 264mph, then with all things being equal the old car needed 1066PS to do its 253.8mph.
These are worked out using the principle that power required is proportional to velocity cubed, as the force required to overcome air resistance (the key factor at such high speeds) is proportional to velocity squared, and power is proportional to velocity, hence the v^3. Obviously it can only be used where factors such as coefficient of drag are unchanged. Tested against things like manufacturers' figures for top speed/power in different-engined versions of the same car, it seems acceptably accurate
snorkel sucker said:
right then, c'mon, own up - who cheated and used google to help them with their calcs?! No cheating at the back there! 
I did think it would need more bhp than that to increase to over 260mph, but when you look at it in terms of a %, as you say McSam, that figures really.
thank you to the wise memebers of PH for enlightening me!
I used A-level physics and some spare time I did think it would need more bhp than that to increase to over 260mph, but when you look at it in terms of a %, as you say McSam, that figures really.
thank you to the wise memebers of PH for enlightening me!
but yes, it seems we're pretty agreed that the car's either actually not fast enough, or the original is much more powerful! Interesting that Bugatti's own figures (if they did indeed come from Bugatti) are giving them away, eh?Mr Dave said:
I thought the Veyron was limited to 253.8mph?
Mmm, so it's said. I disregarded this, because I don't recall hearing it officially announced, and what would the difference be between limiting the car to 253.8 or letting it run on to 255? Why limit it anyway, why not just lower the power slightly, as that'd make it more reliable and certainly not noticably slower in the lower speed ranges. I think the only thing that limits it is physics, rather than electronics but perhaps someone can put me right on this?It probably does not hit the rev limiter in its top gear at its top speed, very few cars do that because the rev limiter is above the best part of the powerband; which means that, were the gearing only slightly different, a considerably higher speed could be achieved - because the gears could allow not only a higher speed, but also more power at that peak speed to take it higher. Again, though, this is just common sense/logic speaking and perhaps neither were applied in this aspect of the Veyron's design!
If the original is indeed limited to 253.8mph, it does beg the question as to why on earth 20% more power should be needed to take it to 264, especially when that power increase would be good for 269.6mph if 253.8 were the absolute maximum of the original. Strange indeed..
AndrewW-G said:
pSyCoSiS said:
Awesome machine, probably the best-built car in existence.
Nothing will probably ever come close to the pedigree of this machine.
A badge engineered VW has pedigree?Nothing will probably ever come close to the pedigree of this machine.
I reckon 250kgs to remove from the Veyron - If you reduce the interior to the quality of the Bentley Continental GT or something, maybe fit lightweight seats and stuff. That'll make almost as much difference to the power to weight ratio as the extra power,so that's where the improvement in 0-60 is.
As to the power, I can almost guarantee that they can up the power that much just by altering the ECU mapping. 1200hp is still only 150bhp/litre, which is hardly exceptional for a turbo engine these days.
As to the power, I can almost guarantee that they can up the power that much just by altering the ECU mapping. 1200hp is still only 150bhp/litre, which is hardly exceptional for a turbo engine these days.
Skodaku said:
AndrewW-G said:
pSyCoSiS said:
Awesome machine, probably the best-built car in existence.
Nothing will probably ever come close to the pedigree of this machine.
A badge engineered VW has pedigree?Nothing will probably ever come close to the pedigree of this machine.
errr. yep. macca did make a loss,,,, but clearly so far ahead of its time that even the market wasnt ready for it. . . .now they change hands for massive money, and if anyone came close to making a similarly impressive, rewarding, and well rounded machine it would sell well enough. - The market for this kind of thing is massive now. and that engine....omg. that engine. . . phew. cant beat it. sorry.
PS> I heard somewhere, that the Veyrons tyres render it almost useless as a supercar in the rain. . . somewhere being, the sales director. so. unless im very much mistaken, totally flawed.
PS> I heard somewhere, that the Veyrons tyres render it almost useless as a supercar in the rain. . . somewhere being, the sales director. so. unless im very much mistaken, totally flawed.
Imagine what a Hennessey Venom will be like in the rain!!!!!!
No traction control, no ABS (likely) and a backyard tuner engine producing massive amounts of turbo charged torque. A recipe for disaster without any doubt.
The problem with all of these cars is (as can be observed over and over again) that having the money to buy one does NOT confer the skills to drive one. Anoraks may spunk in their Y-fronts at the prospect of a car like the Venom but if you put them in one, on a wet road they'd be in the nearest ditch/fence/artic in the wink of an eye. Putting number plates on a car with the power to weight ratio of a racing car does not make it docile. I'm not sure if you've noticed, professional drivers drive racing cars not moneyed up duffers with slow reaction times.
Also, comparing the Venom to the Veyron is an absolute waste of time. One is a thoroughly engineered and constructed production vehicle and the other is a back yard hack job by a crook.
No traction control, no ABS (likely) and a backyard tuner engine producing massive amounts of turbo charged torque. A recipe for disaster without any doubt.
The problem with all of these cars is (as can be observed over and over again) that having the money to buy one does NOT confer the skills to drive one. Anoraks may spunk in their Y-fronts at the prospect of a car like the Venom but if you put them in one, on a wet road they'd be in the nearest ditch/fence/artic in the wink of an eye. Putting number plates on a car with the power to weight ratio of a racing car does not make it docile. I'm not sure if you've noticed, professional drivers drive racing cars not moneyed up duffers with slow reaction times.
Also, comparing the Venom to the Veyron is an absolute waste of time. One is a thoroughly engineered and constructed production vehicle and the other is a back yard hack job by a crook.
R66STU said:
this is a pointless car.. it is just chasing numbers.
why dont they make a 'proper' ltd edition like Mclaren did with their orange LeMans road car
Figures sound like a proper ltd edition to me. Shaving .3 seconds off a car that already hits 60 that fast is no mean feat. Add to that the exclusivity and inevitable special edition aesthetics that Bugatti are so familiar with, and this is going to be one hell of a desirable vehicle. why dont they make a 'proper' ltd edition like Mclaren did with their orange LeMans road car
TonyHetherington said:
Varsity said:
Simples, why make life more complicated?
Because that desire to "make life more complicated" invented the wheel, the steam engine, the internal combustion engine, put man on the moon, took photos of galaxies far far away, created HD tv, gave us porn on the internet and created a 242mph supercar. It's mans express need to "make life more complicated" that resulted in a bloke in his pants creating PistonHeads.Never underestimate the good of "making life more complicated".
Viewed some ladies and gents testing the Veyron on the Robb Report site, could'nt believe the sound of the engine, tryin to suck all the air it could get. Mighty nice car IMHO. If I had an extra 2 mil layin around I'd buy me one
SEE YA AT THE RACES!!!Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff