Modern Supercar top speeds

[Grovsie26]

Been wondering lately after seeing the new Pagani in top gear mag, do 220mph, why are modern supercars not hitting what the macca F1 did 20 years ago. I know aerodynamics are the key, but is that the sole problem thats stopping the pagani, and the aventator, and things like that with 700+ bhp from doing speeds in excess of 230+.

The mclaren is very simple and does look slippery, but it only had 630, it's amazing it's still the fastest n/a car ever.

The xj220 did 220mph didn't it with only 540bhp. The new pagani has 750 and can only match it?

[Animal]

The Bugatti Veyron and Koenigsegg Agera kind of spoil your argument, don't they?

That aside, why go faster? There aren't many (if any) tracks where you can reach those speeds and as for the autobahn / M6 toll / etc - you're pretty much going to have the fastest car on the road even if you can only hit a paltry 210mph or whatever.

[Codswallop]

Grovsie26 said:

why are modern supercars not hitting what the macca F1 did 20 years ago

Because top speed is largely irrelevant and not a design priority probably.

[Grovsie26]

Animal said:

The Bugatti Veyron and Koenigsegg Agera kind of spoil your argument, don't they?

That aside, why go faster? There aren't many (if any) tracks where you can reach those speeds and as for the autobahn / M6 toll / etc - you're pretty much going to have the fastest car on the road even if you can only hit a paltry 210mph or whatever.

Yeah but they have 1000bhp and 1100bhp which is just mad lol, and they do well over 250, im wondering why more don't do 230-240.

Why go faster? Because you can. Why bother having anything other than a nissan micra as they do 70mph.

[SimonLS]

I think that modern supercars such as the Aventador are designed to be driveable and safe at all speeds, and to compensate for the additional weight brough on by safety demands, the gearing needs to be adjusted accordingly to meet the demand for ever sillier 0-60 times.

[matthias73]

Grovsie26 said:

Yeah but they have 1000bhp and 1100bhp which is just mad lol, and they do well over 250, im wondering why more don't do 230-240.

Why go faster? Because you can. Why bother having anything other than a nissan micra as they do 70mph.

I think he is refering to the fact that it might actually be impossible to go faster, as suitable places don't exist in enough quantity.

[thinfourth2]

Downforce instead of slipperiness

[ewenm]

Codswallop said:

Because top speed is largely irrelevant and not a design priority probably.

This.

[FloppyRaccoon]

Grovsie26 said:

Yeah but they have 1000bhp and 1100bhp which is just mad lol, and they do well over 250, im wondering why more don't do 230-240.

Why go faster? Because you can. Why bother having anything other than a nissan micra as they do 70mph.

It's fun to accelerate faster, top speed doesn't interest me so much.

[Welshbeef]

Could they not simply add in one extra gear which was very long legged purely for mega top speed. It wouldn't add hardly any additional weight

Possible solution.


Why don't they. Where legally can you do those speeds? So so few places being the issue.
Can the Gayron bit it's max speed on the Monza straight

[Nedzilla]

thinfourth2 said:

Downforce instead of slipperiness

This.I would imagine at 230mph a mclaren fl is one bump in the road away from becoming a low flying aircraft!
That and it is incredibly light by todays supercar standards.

[djglover]

Because its a supercar, not a dragster

[davepoth]

FloppyRaccoon said:

Grovsie26 said:

Yeah but they have 1000bhp and 1100bhp which is just mad lol, and they do well over 250, im wondering why more don't do 230-240.

Why go faster? Because you can. Why bother having anything other than a nissan micra as they do 70mph.

It's fun to accelerate faster, top speed doesn't interest me so much.

That's probably it to be honest. Air resistance squares with an increase in velocity, so it takes an awful lot more power to go faster - going the same speed but getting there much more quickly is probably more fun.

[Grovsie26]

Nedzilla said:

This.I would imagine at 230mph a mclaren fl is one bump in the road away from becoming a low flying aircraft!
That and it is incredibly light by todays supercar standards.

Makes sense. I do remember an article that said the macca F1 was a bit wobbly at 240 lol.

I can't see it being gearing limited.

[Nickyboy]

Grovsie26 said:

The xj220 did 220mph didn't it with only 540bhp. The new pagani has 750 and can only match it?

I'm willing to bet the XJ220 wouldn't come close to a Zonda on the track

[Ozzie Osmond]

Codswallop said:

Because top speed is largely irrelevant and not a design priority probably.

Because top speed is largely completely irrelevant and not a design priority.

[DukeDickson]

Nickyboy said:

Grovsie26 said:

The xj220 did 220mph didn't it with only 540bhp. The new pagani has 750 and can only match it?

I'm willing to bet the XJ220 wouldn't come close to a Zonda on the track

It also didn't get to 220 with 542bhp.

[Mastodon2]

thinfourth2 said:

Downforce instead of slipperiness

This is where it's at these days. Aiming for a 200mph-ish top speed and having immense cornering ability is more important than a 240mph top speed, helps get those all important ring times down!