Gordon Murray has the last laugh after all...
Discussion
As it turns out the Bugatti Veyron hyper (hype?) mobile will be limited to 'just' 205mph (330 kph) instead of it's claimed 250mph topspeed.
According to this site (sorry, German only) www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/d/43622 the car suffered from such wayward handling at high speeds it had to be limited. Apparently, Bugatti has been aware of these stability problems for the last year. The only solution would be a complete redesign of the car's body.
MDG.
According to this site (sorry, German only) www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/d/43622 the car suffered from such wayward handling at high speeds it had to be limited. Apparently, Bugatti has been aware of these stability problems for the last year. The only solution would be a complete redesign of the car's body.
MDG.
An unlimited version of the Veyron? Might be possible, although that German site quite clearly states the aerodynamic redesign isn't a viable option because of constraints such as time, costs and current styling theme.
The Bugatti chief has been sacked as a direct consequence of all this.
Anyway, even if they build a one-off to get the topspeed record, it will be just that: a one-off.
MDG.
The Bugatti chief has been sacked as a direct consequence of all this.
Anyway, even if they build a one-off to get the topspeed record, it will be just that: a one-off.
MDG.
Do I remmember the Audi TT also being detuned following a number of unexplained high speed accidents. Surely they test the aerodynamics in all conditions and speeds in a wind tunnel before going into production, or do they just rely on computer models?
Is this all to do with reducing the drag co-efficient bellow CD3. As the drag co-efficient reduces, the centre of pressure moves forward.
Is this all to do with reducing the drag co-efficient bellow CD3. As the drag co-efficient reduces, the centre of pressure moves forward.
I read an article in AutoCar or EVO where Gordon Murray was interviewed and said that for the F1 to be beaten then it had to be in all respects. He said that a car designed to simply beat the F1's top speed but not it's acceleration, handling, responsiveness, etc. wasn't a beating at all. His attitude was therefore a bit "so what?" when asked what he felt about the Veyron's superior top speed.
I can see his point. By that yardstick, I don't think the F1 will ever be bettered as such.
I can see his point. By that yardstick, I don't think the F1 will ever be bettered as such.
The Koenigsegg has 655 bhp (standard F1 has 627 bhp) and 750 Nm of torque (F1 has 617 Nm) and has a CD value of 0.29 (with down force) which is better than the F1 (but I can't find the F1's CD value) 
So basically it has more power, more torque and is more aerodynamic than an McLaren F1 so it certainly seems like it *could* beat the McLarens's top speed, but really whats the point? nobody is really going to be able to use the top speed anyway.
Gordon Murray seemed to throw his toys out of his pram a few months ago in EVO (issue 053) talking about the new crop of supercars coming out, in a way I can see his point since the F1 is Gordon's idea of what a "supercar" should be, which he pretty much had complete control over, so its his baby and hes protective of it.
I will say that McLaren are a BIG company backed with corporate sponsorship and having leading edge Formula 1 technology. They also get huge media exposure by racing in F1.
Koenigsegg are a small company from Sweden that nobody has heard of (or spell it seems in most cases
) I think it will be a HUGE achievment if the car gets anywhere near the performance of the McLaren
So basically it has more power, more torque and is more aerodynamic than an McLaren F1 so it certainly seems like it *could* beat the McLarens's top speed, but really whats the point? nobody is really going to be able to use the top speed anyway.
Gordon Murray seemed to throw his toys out of his pram a few months ago in EVO (issue 053) talking about the new crop of supercars coming out, in a way I can see his point since the F1 is Gordon's idea of what a "supercar" should be, which he pretty much had complete control over, so its his baby and hes protective of it.
I will say that McLaren are a BIG company backed with corporate sponsorship and having leading edge Formula 1 technology. They also get huge media exposure by racing in F1.
Koenigsegg are a small company from Sweden that nobody has heard of (or spell it seems in most cases
) I think it will be a HUGE achievment if the car gets anywhere near the performance of the McLaren KoenigseggCC said:
Gordon Murray seemed to throw his toys out of his pram a few months ago in EVO (issue 053) talking about the new crop of supercars coming out, in a way I can see his point since the F1 is Gordon's idea of what a "supercar" should be, which he pretty much had complete control over, so its his baby and hes protective of it.
To be fair, Murray's article could be read in two ways. He did have a point though that all these new supercars (and indeed the press and the rest of us) have focused on the fiures. Any car can be made to go faster, or accelerate quicker, if you fit a big enough motor and raise or lower the gearing. The F1 was designed to be quick, but core to the design brief was also that Mansour Ojeh could drive it from Woking to Monaco in comfort. Most reports remarked on how docile it could be round town. Comfort and access are good (unlike was it the Edonis on Top Gear?), and GM fits in the F1 (and he's well past 6'). In terms of ultimate performance, the F1 was always compromised, because it wasn't about ultimate performance. The fact that, despite this, the F1 redefined the rules and is still the benchmark ten years on says more about the design than anything else.
As KCC says (I can't spell it either), just beating the figures proves nothing, and making the claims before you can prove it is just plain stupid. Bugatti/VAG would appear to have an awful lot of egg on their face.
If anyone's interested, the Koenigsegg (go me, I can speel it :P) is having special Michelin tyres:
Koenigsegg Official Site said:
Koenigsegg use brand new specially adopted Michelin tires.
The new tires combined with the new integrated wing enhance the Koenigsegg’s already outstanding performance.
During test sessions of the new Michelin tires the Koenigsegg the car recoded up to 1.3 g in cornering force. Amazingly with the wider tires the real life test showed a CD-value of only 0.29 with a moderate down force.
The Koenigsegg has 655 bhp (standard F1 has 627 bhp) and 750 Nm of torque (F1 has 617 Nm) and has a CD value of 0.29 (with down force) which is better than the F1 (but I can't find the F1's CD value)
So basically it has more power, more torque and is more aerodynamic than an McLaren F1
Not necessarily. How aerodynmic a car is depends on its CdA not just the Cd (A is the frontal area). So even though it might have a better Cd than the Macca, if its frontal area is higher it might still be less aerodynamic.
Anyone know these numbers?
Ian.
So basically it has more power, more torque and is more aerodynamic than an McLaren F1
Not necessarily. How aerodynmic a car is depends on its CdA not just the Cd (A is the frontal area). So even though it might have a better Cd than the Macca, if its frontal area is higher it might still be less aerodynamic.
Anyone know these numbers?
Ian.
Not quite correct.
The drag coefficient already incorporates the reference area of any body being considered
Cd = D /0,5 x p x v² x A
D being drag (obtained experimentally)
P being ambient air pressure
v being air speed at which the value for D was obtained
A being the reference (here: frontal) area
The Cd coefficient is defined so that the air resistance of a vehicle's body for example can be described by a value independend of speed and which is related to the vehicles shape only. Same goes for the coefficient of lift, Cl.
regards
Felix
The drag coefficient already incorporates the reference area of any body being considered
Cd = D /0,5 x p x v² x A
D being drag (obtained experimentally)
P being ambient air pressure
v being air speed at which the value for D was obtained
A being the reference (here: frontal) area
The Cd coefficient is defined so that the air resistance of a vehicle's body for example can be described by a value independend of speed and which is related to the vehicles shape only. Same goes for the coefficient of lift, Cl.
regards
Felix
Erm, no.
The Cd, as quoted by car manufacturers, still needs to be multiplied by frontal area before you can calculate wind resistance.
The formula you quote above divides drag and frontal area to derive the Cd. Clearly, two objects of different sizes but the same shape will result in a similar Cd but also, clearly, will result in completely different wind resistance.
As I said, before you can work out an object's resistance to drag, you need to know its Cd and frontal area (and air pressure, velocity etc.). Yes, the Cd is calculated from a particular object knowing its frontal area but unfortunately you've confused yourself by coming to the incorrect conclusion that the Cd then, inherently, represents that object's frontal area (which it doesn't).
Ian.
>> Edited by Droid42 on Tuesday 23 September 13:00
The Cd, as quoted by car manufacturers, still needs to be multiplied by frontal area before you can calculate wind resistance.
The formula you quote above divides drag and frontal area to derive the Cd. Clearly, two objects of different sizes but the same shape will result in a similar Cd but also, clearly, will result in completely different wind resistance.
As I said, before you can work out an object's resistance to drag, you need to know its Cd and frontal area (and air pressure, velocity etc.). Yes, the Cd is calculated from a particular object knowing its frontal area but unfortunately you've confused yourself by coming to the incorrect conclusion that the Cd then, inherently, represents that object's frontal area (which it doesn't).
Ian.
>> Edited by Droid42 on Tuesday 23 September 13:00
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff