http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=51482

The Koenigsegg CCR raised McLaren's previously unofficial mark of 372 km/h set at Nardo/Prototipo in 1993 with over 15 km/h. On top of this the CCR broke the official McLaren F1 record of 386.7 km/h, which was set on the 9 km straight line VW Ehra facility in Wolfsburg Germany.

Impressive! I would loive to hear a comment from the expert Gordon Murray...

www.koenigsegg.se

http://www.koenigsegg.se/graphics/startimage_record.jpg

Well, i'm glad the Koenigsegg beat it first and not the Gayron, sorry, Verywrong, sorry, Veyron. It was bound to happen eventually

Impressive! I would loive to hear a comment from the expert Gordon Murray...
I don't think Gordon Murray posts here.

I dont thin that either but I beleive he can comment since he commented that the Koengisegg coudn't acheive this earlier...

I don't think Gordon Murray posts here.

I dont thin that either but I beleive he can comment since he commented that the Koengisegg coudn't acheive this earlier......and he was right. The CCR has substantially more horsepower than the CC8S, the car he was refering to.

Are you referring to his comments in Evo, where Gordon Murray just wondered if the Koenigsegg could be considered a legitimate car producer with its extremely low production numbers? Even if it has subsequently proved to be legitimate, it's certainly not equivalent. And the product, even though it uses technology that is ten years ahead, still carries only 2/3 as many people as a McLaren.

I don't think the criticism was unfounded at the time, or even now. At the time of GM's comments, CvK had produced about 8 units, including the prototype. They are up to a whopping 20 now.

Yes, I am refferring to his doubts about the Koenigsegg:


JB: What about the Edonis and Koenigsegg?

GM: You almost can’t count cars like the Edonis and Koenigsegg. With the Zonda you have to take the car seriously – the quality’s not bad, he’s selling the cars, people are driving them and using them and liking them. When there are 50 Edonises driving around and people are saying ‘This is good’, I’ll consider it a proper motorcar.

JB: The Koenigsegg is aiming for 250mph, too.

GM: People never learn lesson one, which is ‘don’t shout your mouth off before you’ve built the car’. Before the 1989 world crash there was an article in Road & Track, ’24 supercars you can buy’ and I think the only ones that actually arrived were us, the Jag and the Bugatti – three out of 24. With the Koenigsegg they’re talking about a horsepower figure and top speed for which you need a Cd of about 0.17 or something. It doesn’t add up. You shouldn’t do that. We didn’t say anything about our motorcar – nobody knew it was going to be middle seat until the launch – we just shut up and built it and then let people drive it.

http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=222389&highlight=murray

Not just abbout productions numbers but about his comments aboiut aerodynamics which was obviously wrong.

Carries 3 people? I think that is an irrelevant factor for a supercar.

Are you referring to his comments in Evo, where Gordon Murray just wondered if the Koenigsegg could be considered a legitimate car producer with its extremely low production numbers? Even if it has subsequently proved to be legitimate, it's certainly not equivalent. And the product, even though it uses technology that is ten years ahead, still carries only 2/3 as many people as a McLaren.

I don't think the criticism was unfounded at the time, or even now. At the time of GM's comments, CvK had produced about 8 units, including the prototype. They are up to a whopping 20 now.

In my eyes it was only a question of time and technical improvements that one day a car finally beat the 386,7 km/h of the F1.
But I don't think that there will be EVER a car holding the topspeed record for production cars that long like the F1 did 1993 - 2005. (?)
Generally they should made all topspeed tests in Ehra in future not in Nardo, because the shape of the Nardo track isn't that effective for high topspeeds.
In Nardo, with its low banked curve, there are always some few centrifugal forces over 240 Km/h effecting the topspeed ( not much but they did ).
For example the Enzo did 355 km/h last year at Nardo, but can run easily over 360 km/h.
To the Veyron:
I serioslly doubt that that car EVER top 400 Km/h!!!
It is ugly and simply fat, and only a car which looks fast is fast......
VW still losing millions through this prestigeous project!
I read recently that all technical and aerodynamical problems are solved but in test they could not go faster than 378 Km/h!!!
It may be that the planed Veyron Supersport Version with 1100 hp is a contender for the record.........

The fact that it's a 3-seater *is* relevant in the sense that a lot of performance figures are ratios. Obviously, having the ability to carry an extra occupant changes all ratios that include the occupant, or are based on the car's ability to move people (it is, after all, a mode of transport).


Just like you can think of it as being at least 10 years ahead of any car that posts similar performance numbers today, you can think of the McLaren as being 1/3 more capable than any 2-seater with equivalent numbers. And it is not irrelevant...it would matter greatly anytime there is a need to carry three people.

10 years ahead.
1 more occupant ahead.
A few Le Mans and world records ahead too.

I dunno...I prefer the McLaren by a little bit, but the ugly truth is most people in the position would have one of each...which means 5 seats total. :)

"a mode of transport" :iceslolan Fast one. You think it is important for a supersportscar, I think it is not. 10 years ahead it is not relevant for me either, what is relevant is what is the fastets production car today comes from a company less than 10 years old without a history such as McLaren.

Regarding track records, the thing I care for is that the car is good on a racetrack as well as top speed which seems to be true. Of crouse Koenigsegg doesnt have the race budget or brand name as McLaren.

Edonis :lol: that is a funny car.

Also, the over 390 km/h F1 time was without mirrors I beleive?


The fact that it's a 3-seater *is* relevant in the sense that a lot of performance figures are ratios. Obviously, having the ability to carry an extra occupant changes all ratios that include the occupant, or are based on the car's ability to move people (it is, after all, a mode of transport).

You can think of the McLaren as being 1/3 more capable than any 2-seater with equivalent numbers.

Just like you can think of it as being at least 10 years ahead of any car that posts similar performance numbers today.

10 years ahead.
1 more occupant ahead.
A few Le Mans and world records ahead too.

Everyone's taste is different...but what the market as a whole considers important is truly what is important. And considering that old Bugattis and Ferraris sell for 10 times what McLarens sell for...history does matter. The market, overall, does not think or act like you do.

The market think the car is attractive and Koengisegg have difficulties on deliver on a timely basis. If it werent attractiuve Koenigsegg would have been bacrupt today. Please browse areoudn www.koenigsegg.se to see the demand all over the world.

Very few cars increase in value, McLaren F1 is one of them. I doubt the Koengisegg will be one since it is not limited edition. If McLaren F1 would not have been limited edition it would have been a different story.

Let me guess, you're of Swedish origin...?

Please browse areoudn www.koenigsegg.se to see the demand all over the world.


I browsed it...it just talks about their appearance at various trade shows around the world. Hardly a sign of demand. What are you referring to? Can you quote any text from the site that talks about this "demand?"

Not saying there's no demand, in fact I am sure there is plenty, but I don't see any mention of it on their website in my quick look. Can you cut and paste what you are referring to?

16 cars have been delivered to customers as of March 2004 and Koenigsegg is working hard to until the summer to deliver the 20 more that are ordered. I'll update you on this after this week. This was over a year ago. I cant quote on the site, but I will ask them directly. We'll see when they pass the the 64 made of the McLaren F1...

I live in on Kingway Business Park, Woking, Surrey UK.











Just kidding, yes I'm from Sweden. :iceslolan




I browsed it...it just talks about their appearance at various trade shows around the world. Hardly a sign of demand. What are you referring to? Can you quote any text from the site that talks about this "demand?"

Not saying there's no demand, in fact I am sure there is plenty, but I don't see any mention of it on their website in my quick look. Can you cut and paste what you are referring to?

It's taken a decade, and it's about time don't you think?

Thing is I doubt very much that F1 lovers (like many on here) give two hoots about the world record being broken. I doubt very much that Gordon Murray cares either.

The "fastest production car in the world" accolade was, as we all know, a well-documented accident, and the only good thing it did in my opinion was to raise the profile of the car to the general public who only care about headline figures.

The thing about the F1 isn't the top speed or the acceleration - it's the package. It's the cohesive and unfaltering vision of pure engineering purity with no compromise and no barriers that has never even been close to being equalled since and probably never will again.

Not the fastest car in the world anymore? Pooh - you think I care? And I think it sad that manufacturers like 9FF, Koenigsegg and Bugatti trump their higher top speed as something to be celebrated and a fact that somehow makes their cars "better" than the F1. I think they're missing the point...

I dont care if you do or not: I care and that is why I posted here.

Thing is I doubt very much that F1 lovers (like many on here) give two hoots about the world record being broken. I doubt very much that Gordon Murray cares either.

The thing about the F1 isn't the top speed or the acceleration - it's the package.

The same with the Koengisegg. It os also the package.

9ff is not a manufacturer and the car was not standard, the wipers and rear spoiler were taken off.

Im not saying the Koenigsegg is better. Im saying it is faster in standard form :iceslolan

Hello,

Gustav is an genuine car enthusiast, what he does with www.bmwm5.com is very interesting. Also the trips in Germany and the visit at Dauer :)

So, on the first lap at 9 o'clock in the morning when they drove around the banked track, the test display showed 391,4 km/h! After that they made a second run before lunch and hit 395,8 km/h! The third lap at 2 o'clock beat the previous speed record set by the Mercedes C111 at the corner of the banked track by 10 km/h. For the last attempt they had the boost button on "Wet" setting out of the corner -which is 1,5 Bar- and the test instruments showed 404,6 km/h! The price of the car is 1,8 million DM which equals a little less than 1 million USD.

it is difficult today to say what is the fastest with these little productions figures.

Ciao
Phil

GM: With the Koenigsegg they’re talking about a horsepower figure and top speed for which you need a Cd of about 0.17 or something. It doesn’t add up.

Not just abbout productions numbers but about his comments aboiut aerodynamics which was obviously wrong.As I pointed out earlier in this thread, he wasn't wrong. Koenigsegg were claiming these figures for the CC8S. The maths didn't add up.

Only once the car had gained 150 more horsepower and more aero work had been carried out did it manage to get close to the 250 mph in the original claim (albeit, not that close).

:disappoin If you see the original Koenigsegg press release from the Nardo test you see that a banked track does not let the car go full speed as the VW track at Ehra Leissen. So Koenigsegg might still be correct and Gordon M have talked too much before knowing everything.

The F1 topspeed was not at a banked track :nono:

Also, the over 390 km/h F1 time was without mirrors I beleive?

Sorry Gustav, the mirrors were firmly attached that day:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v482/Peloton25/McLaren%20F1/920315a.jpg

Now in this photo, you can see that both the shut line around the front compartment and the turn signal indentations appear to have both been covered over with clear tape.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v482/Peloton25/McLaren%20F1/920307as.jpg

A keen eye would also notice that the windscreen wiper has been removed, and I suspect that front license plate is really a sticker, and not a true hard plate.

Here's another close-up shot of the car from that day. The tape has been removed at this point, but the windscreen wiper is still missing and you can more clearly see what I mean about the plate being a sticker.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v482/Peloton25/McLaren%20F1/920315b.jpg

= = = = = =

Anyway, a definite congrats to Christian von Koenigsegg and his team. A part of me wishes they had beaten the record with a standard car and not the CCR, as it seemed they were close earlier with a CC8S. Either way, it's an impressive feat and a car to be respected in the way that some low volume supercars will simply never reach.

>8^)
ER

It is surely an impressive results since the company was nothing tne years back and two years back they didnt produca any car for track or consumers.

Wow, so that speed was actually not a 100% original McLaren F1? It was taped up as well as wipers removed? :grinno: That makes the Koenigsegg recored even more impressive :biggrin:

Also:

McLaren F1 was 3.95% faster on the straigh Ehra Leissen track than on the oval Nardo. If the same is true for the CC-R the CC-R would do 403 km/h top speed.

Gustav-
While I certainly admire and appreciate your enthusiasm on this, I really think you are trying to make more of it than it really is. While the top speed crown is an impressive one to wear, the figure is really irrelevant in real world driving. I've been driven at close to 200mph and it was ridiculously fast and not the wisest thing to be doing, especially on public roads here in the USA. Sure the road was fairly deserted, but anything could have happened causing an incredible catastrophe.

Adding an additional 30-40mph at those speeds is truly outrageous - you're already covering nearly an entire football field of distance per second at 200mph. You simply have no time to react to anything that gets in your way. Driving at those speeds is far above almost any sane driver's capabilities and the opportunities to stretch the legs of even a very fast car like the McLaren or Koenigsegg simply don't come up all that often. I would suspect that only a small percentage of McLaren F1s have been driven over 200mph and further, I doubt that more than a handful have been pushed to their Vmax.

>8^)
ER

Koenigsegg 387.87
McLaren 386.7

:grinno: Koenigsegg REALLY showed McLaren by beating them with 1 kmph in a 12 year newer car thinking about that automtive technology is sooo slowy evolving and has so little knowledge about lightweight and bodydesigns these days. :grinno:

I like the Koenigsegg but....
The McLaren is a legend, the Koenigsegg will never be in the same leauge! :loser:

I think it is a big deal. Also I think it is a big deal that McLaren "cheated" with tape and without wipers :sly:

Funny how top speed is not an issue when McLaren F1 isnt the fastest car in the world longer...

http://www.koenigsegg.se/graphics/startimage_record2.jpg

The Koenigsegg CCR raised McLaren's previously unofficial mark of 372 km/h set at Nardo/Prototipo in 1993 with over 15 km/h. On top of this the CCR broke the official McLaren F1 record of 386.7 km/h, which was set on the 9 km straight line VW Ehra facility in Wolfsburg Germany.

Phelton any more pics from the run those are new to me also i which car did you nearl do the double ton i envy you i really do.

I dont belive for an instant the the F1's top speed was an accedent Mclaren do their sums. Is this official Gunnis Book of Records or just unofficial? Dont thint itl last to long i think the Veron could prove fast enough to take it the more i read on the Veyron the more i like it. Besides i thought the F! did 243mph but mclaren went with the slower recording the oppsit of what happend with the xj220 i wounder what hapend hear the margin seams very small....

øøøøøøøhhh...I personally could not give more $$$$ in what car is the fastest.
The McLaren is a far better car than the Koenigsegg overall and has a charisma the Koenigsegg can dream about!

And I like the Koenigsegg as well so I'm not against it in any way.

The McLaren has been beaten on numerous records, but show me a car that can rock the world as much as The Mac did when it arrived.
Half of the people in the world doesent even care about the Koenigsegg enough to bother to learn it's name!
That's how great it is outside the boarders of Sweden.
Only for auto nuts and enthusiasts.

It was never that important. People don't buy the McLaren for its top speed. They buy it for its engineering excellence and exclusivity and heritage. The top speed on a McLaren or Enzo or Zonda or Konigsegg is a nice bonus, but as long as they do above 210 mph, nobody really cares about the actual top speed. It's just a spec and maybe a nice target/world record/pub talking point--nothing more. These cars are mostly used at 120 to 160 or so on the highway. On most tracks, the speeds are actually lower when not being driven by professionals.

Beyond 160, you need empty roads with shallow curves...any idiot can stomp on a gas pedal and go faster if they don't care about other road users, license, safety in general, etc.

Top speed is a function of hp and aerodynamics and rolling resistance. You could always turbo a McLaren and get an even higher top speed--guess how many people have elected to do this. And removing the wiper or taping up shut lines is not cheating, or the record would not have been officially sanctioned. I am sure the CCR had some "mods" done to it as well, whether publicized or not. It's cold in Europe at the moment, so the cooling capacity didn't need to be at 100%--think they left all those cooling vents wide open? And what about the moose's behind that every Swede seems to like so much...I don't see one anywhere near the CCR. :D

Funny how top speed is not an issue when McLaren F1 isnt the fastest car in the world longer...

I certainly didn't say that - I just mentioned that it's not the "end all" of performance figures. It's a rather irrelevant figure in the grand scheme of things given the extremely limited opportunities anyone would have to reach it. It has nothing to do with a car being faster than the F1 - I have never argued that the F1 was as great as it is based solely on the top speed figure they reached at Ehra Lessien. It's more a footnote on the legacy of a truly wonderful car and the same can be said for the 'segg.

Phelton any more pics from the run those are new to me also i which car did you nearl do the double ton i envy you i really do.

I figured those would be new for some people. :cool:

The car was a '96 Porsche 911 Twin Turbo modified by a US company called Autothority. With the modifications they developed it was apparently pushing close to 600hp at the crank. The same car was featured in MotorTrend magazine in a brief comparison with the factory '97 Porsche 911 Turbo S. The car actually belongs to a good friend of mine, but he'll be replacing it very soon with a Carrera GT. Here's a shot of the actual car scanned from its appearance in MotorTrend magazine:

http://www.fast-autos.net/autothority/thority911turbo2.jpg

Their art director got the interiors backwards, so that red interior blended into the photo is actually from the Turbo S.

On our 'record run', the speedo needle was registering about 205mph while the digital speedometer showed 196mph at the same time. I'd figure the digital was much more accurate, but either way it was close enough for me. :naughty:

>8^)
ER

P.S.: Don't try that at home kids. :grinno:

http://ringfotos.free.fr/9ff_nardo.wmv


Thanks for the info pheloton. Will try to do this as soon as i have a car fast enough...

The Muria rocked the world wounder how many miles a Konenig......... will do before it falls apart?

Whese this CCR record vid i cant fint it can sombody link me?

On most tracks, the speeds are actually lower when not being driven by professionals.

Seems like you never been on the Nürburgring.


And removing the wiper or taping up shut lines is not cheating, or the record would not have been officially sanctioned. I am sure the CCR had some "mods" done to it as well, whether publicized or not.


Well, then the achevied top speed could be even higher... I think it is cheating. If there isnt the option to remove anything on the options list from the factory it is not factory spec and thus not produced as a production car.

It's cold in Europe at the moment, so the cooling capacity didn't need to be at 100%--think they left all those cooling vents wide open?

:lol: Seems like you never been to Europe either. In some parts of Sweden there is -20 degrees Celsius (a Swede by the way), not Fahrenheit. And in southern Italy at Nardo the sun is shining and snow does not exist now. Like comparing Minnesota with Florida or Cali :nono:

And what about the moose's behind that every Swede seems to like so much...I don't see one anywhere near the CCR. :D

The CC-R have ghost instead to celebrate the jet fighter squadron buildings it was built in. A couple of years ago they built Gripen there (www.gripen.com) and that is a jet fighter that surpass all of Britains current jet fighters as well (and McLaren cars ;) ).

Regarding the moose, the "PUV" XC90 has that, and yes it is also fast ;)

Using conversion, this is 241.1 mph, conveniently and almost exactly one mile per hour faster than the McLaren. Nothing will ever touch the F1 in quality or detail though :grinno:

and that is a jet fighter that surpass all of Britains current jet fighters as well (and McLaren cars ).


Eurofighter the harrier lignting.. What utter rubish man the Gripen is an f16 in a difrent dress. Anybody can stick a highley bosted engine in a car and take the record but it certainl dosent heave the heratege longevity of a mclaren and i for one find this top speed run questionable we have no pics or it seams vids so were the mirrors on the car? Also as i said some equipment showed the F1 at 243 what did all the equipment say i bet there promoting the higher figure. The CCR is an achevment but it ant no F1 period. Anyone rember the top gear run they had to tape the windscreen in as they feared it would blow out i for one would be nervious aboutd those speeds in a car like that!

I find it humorous that there is a 3 page thread on this here in the McLaren F1 forum, but no one has bothered to start a thread about this achievement in the Koenigsegg forum. :lol:

I do think this thread should stay here as it is definitely relevant to our subject and I'm not going to move it over, but someone who cares should really start a thread about this record run over there too.

>8^)
ER

tha'ts the thing, no one cares. except the moose lover.

On most tracks, the speeds are actually lower when not being driven by professionals.

Seems like you never been on the Nürburgring.


And removing the wiper or taping up shut lines is not cheating, or the record would not have been officially sanctioned. I am sure the CCR had some "mods" done to it as well, whether publicized or not.


Well, then the achevied top speed could be even higher... I think it is cheating. If there isnt the option to remove anything on the options list from the factory it is not factory spec and thus not produced as a production car.

It's cold in Europe at the moment, so the cooling capacity didn't need to be at 100%--think they left all those cooling vents wide open?

:lol: Seems like you never been to Europe either. In some parts of Sweden there is -20 degrees Celsius (a Swede by the way), not Fahrenheit. And in southern Italy at Nardo the sun is shining and snow does not exist now. Like comparing Minnesota with Florida or Cali :nono:


The 'Ring represents most tracks? I thought it was just one out of umpteen tracks in the world. Silly me.

If you think any change in the car is cheating, then all cars with drivers in them must be cheater cars, as drivers are not installed at the factory. Same for varying levels of fuel.

If you think Italy in the summer is the same temperature as now, well, then, I guess you are right:
1. The Konigsegg is the best car in the world.
2. Sweden must have the best airforce in the world.
3. Ghost stickers are cool things to put on cars. Whoooooo
4. Moose are sexy.
5. Goofy tempurpedic seats make a car faster.
6. A semi-precious stone in the gear lever makes a car super fast.
7. Bald is beautiful.

There's a bunch of other things too, but I give up. You're right. We are all wrong. :D

Interesting. I've seen people enter forums with this information. A lot of people who are not enthusiasts of a particular make/model but fanciers (and I use that term loosely) of the latest fads tend to really like the Koenigsegg. Personally, don't hate it. But I'm not crazy about the cheap way the door moves out... like some kit you'd find in a JC Whitney catalog (for those not in the US, it's a catalog full of cheap parts). Yes I know it has engineered struts and such.. But if image and originallity is important, (Lambo has the scissor doors, McLaren has dihedral, Mercedes gullwing) why did they choose to make it so cheap looking. I think the CCR would appeal to me a lot more with normal doors.

The trim bezels around the lights look like they stole parts out of the APC catalog. The CC8 looked better.

True test of a machine is on the race circuit. McLaren has proven themselves with the F1 in all forms of GT racing (BPR, FIA GT, LeMans, JGTC) Would love to see the CCR in war paint. I think we might see another evolution of the CCR in race pedigree... perhaps even a long tail version to compete with the other FIA GT cars.

As with anything, the Koenigseggs appeal to certain people... I'm not one of them. Hope the people that can afford such a beast, enjoy it for what it is.

BTW: There are plenty of cars with 300MPH top speed... but they only do it a 1/4 mile at a time.

You know in the uk some of them are even road legal...........

wow I knew it was bound to happen but man thats pretty wild.

Its custom street eliminater or something and yes totally wild they have to fit bigger radiators for road use but i think thats about it i can provide a link with many pics if you want. Make's fast and the furious seem a little tame.

Dont worry ill show em

In the read corner Koenigseggegeggoen (yes i know its wrong that time)

In the blue corner a "tecnicaly standard" no dought Aston Martin the latest and most overtuned model after a series of bugger where not there yet add more BOOST goddamit models. :bigthumb:

http://www.surepixuk.plus.com/cars/root/ccse/steve_neimantas/sp0405_c4100.jpg

yes its legal note the numberplate.

To much for you sweeds to handel on the road? Ok how about a road legal classic. This one is drive by a nice engish lady school teacher.

http://www.surepixuk.plus.com/cars/root/ccse/sue_jackson/sp0406_c5056.jpg

http://www.surepixuk.plus.com/cars/root/ccse/sue_jackson/ap0405_c2507.jpg

So before you stat Brit bashing these are just two of many that came out of peoples sheds a bit like you airforce... :chair:

See how easy it is to do one thing for a shot period. Where as the F1 wheres a suit of many colours.

Hello dear McLaren fans again. I just came home from Geneva Salon and saw the red CC-R that made the top-speed record. Amazing car, it also had a roll-cage.

Later I'll publish some pictures of the red CC-R as well as a silver CC-R.

Virtually all of the Koengiegg that are ordereed are the CC-R and US homologation is underway with firts US deliveries late 2005.

PS. I wont discuss the British airforce again :biggrin:

Do we know if any pics of the run will surface im intrested to know if the car had mirrors and so on also any clue when the 250mph run might be.

It had mirrors and wiper (one big). Additinally it had a rool cage as well.

There are already Koenigseggs in the US that have been made US compliant by private companies.

Really, how many? I have only seen one in black that looked US compliant.

There are already Koenigseggs in the US that have been made US compliant by private companies.

Yes its down in florida from what Ive heard.

One was also spotted in Ohio, but it too was black, so it could have been the same car.

Gustav - When you come back to post your Koenigsegg photos from Geneva, you should really put them in the Koenigsegg forum. Then you can provide a link to them back in this thread. That forum really needs some action and your stuff will be a great addition I'm sure. :cool:

>8^)
ER

:eek2:

McLaren240! Do you have a link where I can find more info on these street-legal dragsters? Are these licence plates for real?! If yes they make a mockery of the whole top-speed-by-a-road-car issue!

The report from the Koenigsegg stand:

Koenigsegg:

http://www.m6board.com/articles.php?id=29&page=3

Alpina:

http://www.m6board.com/articles.php?id=29&page=2

BMW M6:

http://www.m6board.com/articles.php?id=29&page=1

Nice link about the Koenigsegg CCR!

It's a cool looking great car but it will never be a better allround package than the McLaren F1.

I think the McLaren would chrush it on a race track.
Some cars are great, other make history.

The Koenigsegg dosent have the "pure breed" feeling that a McLaren has.
The McLaren just looks more charismatic and the Koenigsegg is just like a 14 year old boy would make it regarding looks. Well kind of works as I'm nearly twice that age and loves it, but not more than the Mc.:-)
I'm desperately hoping that the Gayron wont take Koenigsegg's speed record!

Interesting. I find the McLaren beautiful from an engineering/historical perspective, but in terms of actual looks, it's a bit bubbly/blobby, I don't know, not quite the hard-edged cool looking car that a supercar should be. The HDF kit goes a long way towards fixing that, though.

I find the Koenigsegg to be styled better than a McLaren in some ways, but I think the rear exhaust exit looks like an old drainhole, the roofline around the central glass too bulbous, the lights unimaginative, the front bumper too think, making it look stubby instead of sleek, and the wraparound windscreen, though a nice concept, doesn't do much to define lines or aggressive rake. Thank god they fixed that side intake in the CCR. It looked too soft before, IMO.

I am equally impressed with both cars' interiors, though the McLaren's is a bit parts-bin and unimaginative in its use of lines and switchgear. But sheer usability and tactile feedback are spot on. You touch or flip anything and there's a reassuring click and confirmation. The gearshift lever is also infinitely better to hold than the rod in the Koenigsegg.

What are your thoughts about the interior?

Yes the plate are real i have seen pics of these cars on the road somewhere buit they dont do it very oftern. www.feel-the-noise.com is what your after i think do a search or look for custom street eliminator on that site theres some wild wild stuff including a bright yellow van............

The interiour is very down to business, not anything unneeded and everything you see is carbon, leather or alcantara.

http://www.koenigsegg.com/graphics/imagearchive/james_holm_3.jpg

http://www.koenigsegg.com/graphics/imagearchive/ccr_blue_8_640.jpg

The interior on the record car looks very sparce indeed ther are little difrences hear ant there i notice the wiper is in the vertical much the same as taking it of. What intrestes me most asside from the rather more supportive looking seat is the fact that this car dosent have the cabin air vents in the central coloum have the power sapping wight adding fans and things been removed i wounder...

Also anybody happen to know which of the two gearboxs the record car had?

http://www.silverfoxracing.org.uk/cruise00.htm provides more info on the dragsters 1/4 mile between 8/9 secs.

Also the F1 rates .86 on the skidpan but the Konenigsegg rates 1.30 anyboody care to explane to me exactily what this figure is and what this means in the real world are this figures accurate? or do they oftern vary?

http://www.koenigsegg.com/graphics/imagearchive/james_holm_3.jpg

LOL look at that shifter jesus.....

Looks odd, but it's a very well-engineered piece. No boot required, the bottom ball forms a perfect seal in every position that the lever can be in. I played around with the one that came to America for the Gumball a couple of years ago. Impressive engineering.

No doubt that the Koenigsegg is a great and cool car! Even though the shifter looks like a thin dildo!
There is one shop near me who got a red CCR, I should be able to visit within june:-)

Could try and get some additional info.

Also the F1 rates .86 on the skidpan but the Konenigsegg rates 1.30 anyboody care to explane to me exactily what this figure is and what this means in the real world are this figures accurate? or do they oftern vary?Basically, it means that the Koenigsegg "corners" better than the F1.

The skidpad is a measure of the lateral acceleration of a car during a constant radius turn. The lateral acceleration is equal to: A = (V*V)/R

Where V is the velocity of the car, and R is the radius of the turn. The g part comes in where you divide A by g, to give a reference to the acceleration of gravity (9.81 m/s^2, 32.2 ft/s^2)

Using the numbers, we can calculate the maximum (Theoretical) speed of a F1 and a Koenigsegg around a turn of 100 meters (328.1 ft):

F1:

Vmax = sqrt(R*A)
Vmax = sqrt(100m * 0.86 * 9.81 m/s^2)
Vmax = 29.0 m/s = 101.4 km/h = 64.6 miles/hour

Ko:

Vmax = sqrt(R*A)
Vmax = sqrt(100m * 1.30 * 9.81 m/s^2)
Vmax = 35.7 m/s = 128 km/h = 79.5 miles/hour

As with any numbers, you can't compare them, and they're totally worthless unless the person providing them describes the method and conditions under which the test was performed. However, it is widely known that the F1 has a more compliant suspension than many supercars, and it also lacks any sort of rear sway bar. It would still be safe to say that the Koenigsegg could go around a turn of a constant radius faster than an F1 could (without losing grip.)

This is really the only comparison you can make. Exactly how one would perform compared to the other in a real world situation would have to be tested on the same track, on the same day with two drivers driving each car, although if you compare stock road version to stock road version, you'd probably see that the Koenigsegg comes out on top.

Wow man i thout the skidpan figures woukld be prittu useless as they dont take speen into account wrong! Love to know would have thoght the F1's special tyres and ground plane sheere or whatever its called would have placed it on top. I wounder how accurate these figures are as road surfaces are so veraible also the F1 has three suspension settings dosent it? think id go with the hardest. Though the LM aparentily only manages .94 g that cant be right it less than my fave the standart XJ220!. The Carrera GT i would presume is better still though around the same track at the same time evo found the F1 faster.

Would presuem the an Ultima GTR with a sill powerfull engine some have been made would pumeel them both! I wounder why skidpan figures arnt more oftern used?

Hello,

thanks Gustav for this excellent link :) So, there were 20 CCR already delivred or which will be delivered ?
And is it true that a CCR was loaned to Top Gear ?

Ciao
Phil

Hello,

thanks Gustav for this excellent link :) So, there were 20 CCR already delivred or which will be delivered ?
And is it true that a CCR was loaned to Top Gear ?

Ciao
Phil


Yup, that about it beeing loaned to top gear is correct!
Didnt do very well with the Stig though, beaten by SLR McLaren, Murcielago, Enzo and Carrera GT.

Like i say they also had to tape the windscreen in!!! was it a ccr? I read two reviews in evo one said the car felt like it didnt have anything like the power reported and the outher kind crashed it on a wet runway!

Also, Sport Auto is schedulign a Supetest this spring / summer for the CC-R :cwm27:

I read your thread in bmwm5. You are missing some points as to track feature between ehra leissen and nardo. First one, in order to make top speed, which one is much better each other circular track and straight track? as most common people think, you also obviously regard it same as them that the circular one is much effective on top speed. However, this is completerly wrong truth. Okay for instance, you put a bead in bottle and then shake that to roll into same direction, the more you get a bottle add the scale of power, the more the bead intend to adhere to the surface of bottle, which means that, if there were not protector(the inner surface of bottle)of the bead rolling, it will fly away due to repulsive power(centrifugal force). That's why most test track is designed as the configuration of banked curve to prevent it from seceding from main line, which is the inner surface of bottle as i mentioned ahead of. But eventually it enable the car to get the traction control to stick to ground even if need the force to adjust th car properly. , which bring out big help especially at high speed. As that Hence what i really want to say, the Nardo track is much efficient and effective on building up top speed than Ehra leissen track. Because as you know, the former, Nardo Prototipo is a circular track with a circumference of 12.5 km. On the contrary, the Ehra leissen is straight track with two of 9km straight line and 3km circular one with banked. Therefore, at speed, under the protector, which one take the advantage much more? apparently it is Nardo.

One of most important facts, is that the Mclaren F1's top speed also was accomplished at banked corner. The andy wallace said at banked corner " 3 hundred ninety, ninety one... no get any more than ninety one.....perfect isn't?", which prove or verify certainly that banked circular track is much better than straight line.

And on the straight line, the car get much lifting more and more as speed up, which consequently make the car unstable to keep it under control, in other word, it cause the shaking of the car. Hence the driver can't step on accelerator strongly. As a result, it is unprofitable at high speed.

On a side note, isn't it ironical that there is exactly 9years gap between the time (1998. Mar. 31st) which Mclaren XP5 established the recorde and the time the Koenigsegg reached to the top speed ( only until now )?

The Koenigsegg was indeed conscious of F1 too much. And although the 9years has passed and such a strong recognizition, the modern technology is developed with only 1.2kph from 386.7kph to 387.87 with the volum up and 40kg weight up. What the hell is this a magnificent improvement?

The topspeed was set on the straight part, he was only accelerating out of the corner as he got on the straight, did you never see the movie? he braked before the corner apparently. the McLaren top speed on Nardo was set with an underpowered (550 bhp) XP3 by Mika Häkkinen.

excuse me if i got you wrong though

The banked curve is not better. Since the angle of the bank does not change, it is overassisting at low speeds, perfect at a certain speed, and then underassisting at all greater speeds. At the McLaren's and Koenigsegg's top speeds, there are significant side forces on the tyres, leading to uneven loads, overheating, wear, and compromised traction. Further, because of the car's angled approach to the direction it is traveling in, devices like the spoiler, intakes, skirts, venturis, etc. are all operating at partial effectiveness, since the air flowing past is at an angle.

Though it is not representative of real world conditions, a straightline is best for top speed runs. They really ought to take cars to the Salt Flats in Utah, where all the world top speed records are established (always in a perfectly straight line).

I read your thread in bmwm5. You are missing some points as to track feature between ehra leissen and nardo. First one, in order to make top speed, which one is much better each other circular track and straight track? as most common people think, you also obviously regard it same as them that the circular one is much effective on top speed. However, this is completerly wrong truth

A curved track will always be slower than a straight track.

If you bank a curved track, at a constant angle, then the result will get much closer to that of a straight track. There are practical limitations due to the fact that the tire loading is much higher on a banked curve, and tires can become the limiting factor in the actual speed that is achieved. In theory, a banked circle should be the same as a flat, straight track.

Almost. A banked circle is the same as a flat, straight track only at one specific speed. The rest of the time, the slope of the bank is too steep, or too shallow, causing the car to stray to the outside, or the inside. This is corrected for by a steering input from the driver, leading to the uneven loads on the tyres.

At the one specific speed where the g forces pushing the car to the outside are balanced by the slope of the track (pushing the car to the inside of the circle) no steering input is required from the driver. The car will describe a constant radius turn by itself.

Almost.I'm not quite sure if this is directed to me or not...

:nono:

It was directed at you...just saying you almost had it 100% right.

Almost. A banked circle is the same as a flat, straight track only at one specific speed. The rest of the time, the slope of the bank is too steep, or too shallow, causing the car to stray to the outside, or the inside.

At the one specific speed where the g forces pushing the car to the outside are balanced by the slope of the track (pushing the car to the inside of the circle) no steering input is required from the driver. The car will describe a constant radius turn by itself.Yes, there is a holding speed for a track which is based on the bank of the turn. If you construct a free body diagram and resolve the forces, you will see that this is different for frictional and frictionless track surface. The situation you describe is for a frictionless surface, which does not reflect the fact that a car's tires provide a lateral frictional force.

Since a car's tires provide a lateral force in cornering, the car can deviate from the holding speed of the banked track, plus or minus a few percent and still attain its maximum, straight-track speed without having to worry about losing control on a banked track. Of course, you can only exceed the holding speed by so much before the lateral friction from your tires can no longer keep your car in equilibrium with the track.

This is assuming that the tires of the car can handle the increased load from a high speed curve (the normal force on a banked curve exceeds that of a straight, flat track.) Tiff Needell set the UK land speed record in a McLaren F1. The top speed attained was only around 200mph, but the tires used on the run began to blister. This is why in theory a banked track should allow a car to attain it's maximum straight-line speed, but whether the car actually reaches that speed will be dependent on the tires.

And please, when you talk about forces, stop calling them "g-forces." There is no such thing as a g-force, but there is a normal force, a frictional force, a gravitational force involved in keeping the car on the track.

I don't want to turn this into a heated debate, but I am 100% correct. If I'm not, then my education as a mechanical engineer has been worthless.

Any accelerative or decelerative force, resolved to a percentage of gravitational acceleration (g), can be referred as a g-force. It's just semantics, really. Accelerometers are often referred to as g-meters, as most humans are "calibrated" to what 1 g feels like, since they are constantly experiencing it as the force pulling them down to the earth. You can call it Newtons, kg*(m/(s*s)), pounds, boxes of noodles pressing against you, g, whatever.

I am sure you studied plenty of other things during your course of study, so even if you are almost right about this, your education as a mechanical engineer has not been worthless. No need to act like a martyr. There's other people on this board who are adept at that ;)

Any accelerative or decelerative force, resolved to a percentage of gravitational acceleration (g), can be referred as a g-force. It's just semantics. You can call it Newtons, m/(s*s), or g.No, forces can't be normalized to accelerations. Accelerations can be normalized to accelerations, and you can describe an acceleration in relation to the acceleration of gravity. To a person who's familiar with physics, no, it's not a matter of semantics.

I am sure you studied plenty of other things during your course of study, so even if you are right about this,your education as a mechanical engineer has not been worthless.The only people who use "g-force" are the ones who have only a rudimentary understanding of physics -- by this I mean the general public. Combined with your incorrect explanation of what happens around a banked, curved track, I can see that I am correct, and you are incorrect. And this is without even going into a discussion about your qualifications for discussing rigid body dynamics.

After spouting enough nonsense you could convince most of the forum members that you're right in this discussion, but you're not fooling me about who's right and who's wrong. Stop trying to save face by convincing everybody that you're right and just admit your mistake.

No need to act like a martyr.What kind of comment is this, and how is it relevant? Instead of admitting your mistake, you must change the subject and try to distract me by trying to insult me? If you're looking to start a flamewar I'll tell you that I'm not. My involvement is ending here because I don't care what anybody else here thinks: I know I'm correct, and that you are incorrect, and that is all that I care about.

No, forces can't be normalized to accelerations. Accelerations can be normalized to accelerations, and you can describe an acceleration in relation to the acceleration of gravity. To a person who's familiar with physics, no, it's not a matter of semantics.

The only people who use "g-force" are the ones who have only a rudimentary understanding of physics -- by this I mean the general public. Combined with your incorrect explanation of what happens around a banked, curved track, I can see that I am correct, and you are incorrect. And this is without even going into a discussion about your qualifications for discussing rigid body dynamics.

After spouting enough nonsense you could convince most of the forum members that you're right in this discussion, but you're not fooling me about who's right and who's wrong. Stop trying to save face by convincing everybody that you're right and just admit your mistake.

What kind of comment is this, and how is it relevant? Instead of admitting your mistake, you must change the subject and try to distract me by trying to insult me? If you're looking to start a flamewar I'll tell you that I'm not. My involvement is ending here because I don't care what anybody else here thinks: I know I'm correct, and that you are incorrect, and that is all that I care about.
I didn't say forces. I said accelerative forces. Acceleration is often measured in relation to g. Here's the quote from my original post:
Any accelerative or decelerative force, resolved to a percentage of gravitational acceleration (g), can be referred as a g-force.

I love the way you edited my post but quoted it as if I wrote it. I wrote, you are ALMOST right. You quoted me as saying You are right. Very sneaky. Why? You can say you are right. Just don't claim I said it when I didn't.

I still maintain, in the original discussion, in the original context, you were ALMOST right. Not 100% right, but ALMOST. To validate what I wrote, one just has to read what you wrote subsequently, which only supports what I said. Here it is:
Yes, there is a holding speed for a track which is based on the bank of the turn.
Sorry I am not a pushover because you spout some basic 9th grade physics and claim it's college-level stuff. As you said, it's very, very elementary. Well, to be exact, you said it's rudimentary--not trying to put words in your mouth here. You might want to extend me the same courtesy. Don't pretend you are quoting me if you are going to change the text from what I wrote.

You want to compare qualifications for discussing rigid body dynamics? It's easy suff, but mmm okayyy, here ya go: I studied mechanical engineering undergrad as well but switched over to civil engineering because I wanted to command a contrsuction crew and bid on NHTSA contracts for highway improvement. There's big money in that, I thought, blissfully unaware of how corrupt the whole system is. Anyways, my real estate and construction skills have served me well enough, although there's no McLaren in the garage (yet)!

But this statics/dynamics stuff is 9th and 10th standard material, if you took GCSE O-levels. Your sputtering, self-righteous indignation leads me to presume that you're in rainy England, and studied there. I presume you did A-level physics too, to gain admittance to a Mech Engg course. From your tone, I am also beginning to suspect you and McLaren240! share some DNA. :D

I replied to you point by point in my earlier post, and you zeroed in on the last sentence and lambasted me for it by claiming that that I am trying to change the subject and distract you. Now, I am not going to repeat everything, nor am I going to accuse you of the same tactics. But the evidence is right here in the posts in this thread.

I will end by saying that I have no doubt you undertand it correctly. I just think you expressed it inaccurately. And no, I wasn't starting a flamewar. Glad you are not either. My involvement will stop here too, predicated upon the condition that you don't provoke me further.

Must trot off to the pub for a pint. Toodle oo.


.

I have read several times that banks slow cars down but not by much. The diffrence hear is so small its not worth worring about also that CCR does not look to standard to me if and then theres the whole thing about weather the F1 actually went faster than officially recognised. The are so many temprature veraibils and outher things the only way you cold tell which was quicker would be a salt flat race. Man would i like to se that! The record has certailnly not been smashed as i have read if 250 is broken even 245 its worth considering but untill then im not convinced.

The record *has* been verifiably broken.

Yes, the banking makes a difference. At high speeds, it makes a BIG difference because it varies with the square of the velocity. This means that as the velocity increases from 2 to 3, the force pushing the car outward would change from 4 (square of 2) to 9 (square of 3) ie. for a 50% increase in velocity, the force has increased more than 100%. More realistically, for a car going in a constant radius circle, with no wind, if the centrifugal force acting on it at 120 miles per hour is 14,400 Newtons, then the force pushing it sideways at 240 miles per hour would be 57,600 Newtons, a 4-fold increase.

On a straight, level track, with no wind, the force acting on the car to push it sideways would be... zero.

This is why the tyres get overloaded quicker on a banked turn. Some of their grip is used up in countering the sideways forces.

The McLaren did not go faster. If it did, the higher speed would have been recorded.

And the CCR *was* standard.

I agree with Gustav, the Koenigg is specifically for racing isnt it? Who buys a McClaren to transport people? I would prefer those extra seats if I had the choice, but I wouldn't care one bit without them. Its about the driving.

I don't see where Gustav said the Koenigsegg is specifically for racing?

Both of them are super exotics. Apart from the GTRs the McLarens are roadcars first and foremost.

I agree the number of seats is a secondary consideration, as long as the driver has a place to sit and experience the thrill of driving. But two seats are always going to be twice as useful as one, and three would be better yet (as long as the packaging is good--and in the case of these cars, it's exquisite).

Anyways, what exactly are you trying to say? That these are race cars?

Niice to hear you guys setted the discussion. So soon it is spring in Sweden and there might be some visits to the Koengisegg factory. The make the worlds fastest car. :grinyes:

Dont forget to take a camera! The v word is comming so enjoy it while it lasts!

The topspeed was set on the straight part, he was only accelerating out of the corner as he got on the straight, did you never see the movie? he braked before the corner apparently. the McLaren top speed on Nardo was set with an underpowered (550 bhp) XP3 by Mika Häkkinen.

excuse me if i got you wrong though

Today i watched that movie again. You are right. Top speed of XP5 was made obviously on the straight line.

However, i still doubt that the straight track is better than banked circle one. I feel to need more info' why the fact what i said is right to you guys. In the end, i can be wrong..

perfectly simple. if you drive a car, and you push a little into a corner, you feel that there is friction building up. friction is the enemy of straight line speed, so if youér in a corner, there's more friction on a tyre than on a straight, so there's less speed, and therefore a banked track, which is a continuous corner, your speed is lower due to the cornering friction on the tyre.

And now you can say that Nardo is a circle with an extremely big radius, like 2.5 km or something, but the higher the speed, the tighter the corner. I have seen a movie once, of a lambo diablo getting taken up to 330 kph, and if you check the in-car cam, you will see that nardo will then become a real corner.

perfectly simple. if you drive a car, and you push a little into a corner, you feel that there is friction building up. friction is the enemy of straight line speed, so if youér in a corner, there's more friction on a tyre than on a straight, so there's less speed, and therefore a banked track, which is a continuous corner, your speed is lower due to the cornering friction on the tyre.Read my explanations in the posts above. While there is more friction, the lateral friction doesn't slow down a car on a curve, rather the increased lateral friction force as well as the increased normal force due to driving on a banked curve put a greater load on the tires and limits the pratical speed of the vehicle due to tire deformation, material stress, etc. If a car could roll on steel wheels, this wouldn't be a problem.

Again, in theory if you treat a car as a rigid body, with rigid wheels, and a lateral frictional force, then a banked curve has the same speed as a straight track. In reality, a car is not a rigid body, and does not have rigid wheels.

perfectly simple. if you drive a car, and you push a little into a corner, you feel that there is friction building up. friction is the enemy of straight line speed, so if youér in a corner, there's more friction on a tyre than on a straight, so there's less speed, and therefore a banked track, which is a continuous corner, your speed is lower due to the cornering friction on the tyre.

And now you can say that Nardo is a circle with an extremely big radius, like 2.5 km or something, but the higher the speed, the tighter the corner. I have seen a movie once, of a lambo diablo getting taken up to 330 kph, and if you check the in-car cam, you will see that nardo will then become a real corner.

Perfectly simple? As you see, In order to improve 1.2kph, it took exactly 9 years, which means that there is more or less difference between in reality and theory. Don't say simple..

...for a company with no previous knowledge or track record in automotive technology, I think its pretty remarkable. A less than 20 man strong crew from Sweden beats the "almighty" Murray and McLaren. I tink hat is remarkable. :iceslolan

Perfectly simple? As you see, In order to improve 1.2kph, it took exactly 9 years, which means that there is more or less difference between in reality and theory. Don't say simple..
:iceslolan

...for a company with no previous knowledge or track record in automotive technology, I think its pretty remarkable. A less than 20 man strong crew from Sweden beats the "almighty" Murray and McLaren. I tink hat is remarkable. :iceslolan


:iceslolan

I agree but Track performance is a whole different story.

Which is on par with the Zonda. Sport Auto test this spring and that is something McLaren never dared to do :uhoh:

I agree but Track performance is a whole different story.

...for a company with no previous knowledge or track record in automotive technology, I think its pretty remarkable. A less than 20 man strong crew from Sweden beats the "almighty" Murray and McLaren. I tink hat is remarkable. :iceslolan :iceslolanI don't think it's at all remarkable. Computer technology has improved, automotive technology has himproved, and so has the talent of engineers. You can do lots using a small, well-coordinated team of talented engineers. You don't need a company with experience anymore...you just need people with experience at your company. The Koenigsegg design is at least 10 years older than the F1 design and has probably had around 100 times the amount of computer analysis that the F1 did. You'd expect that a newer car would at least match an older one.

I beleive that is making the story a bit too easier. Funny how the Veyron have such problems then. Maybe Volkswagen cant afford fast computers ;) :grinno: :grinno: :grinno:

I don't think it's at all remarkable. Computer technology has improved, automotive technology has himproved, and so has the talent of engineers. You can do lots using a small, well-coordinated team of talented engineers. You don't need a company with experience anymore...you just need people with experience at your company. The Koenigsegg design is at least 10 years older than the F1 design and has probably had around 100 times the amount of computer analysis that the F1 did. You'd expect that a newer car would at least match an older one.

lol

processor speed = top speed. If that were the case Id be screwd.

Which is on par with the Zonda. Sport Auto test this spring and that is something McLaren never dared to do :uhoh:

What do you call Le Mans and all those European and Japanese races then? Club meets? Sunday drives? :screwy:

I beleive that is making the story a bit too easier. Funny how the Veyron have such problems then. Maybe Volkswagen cant afford fast computers ;) :grinno: :grinno: :grinno:Again, you don't need a company with a history, you just need a dedicated team of experienced engineers each with a history.

By absorbing a small company like Bugatti, a large company like VW is bound to have problems making a supercar. Large companies usually don't make supercars because the project is stretched too many different ways and things always end up being compromised -- a large company has to cater to everybody in it, as well as the consumer.

With a small company engineers, stylists, and interior designers build cars. At a large company, everybody in the company including the janitors, the lawyers, the president, the marketing team, and the quality assurance team all play a part in it. You also have shareholders and corporate obligations. This is why most large companies don't take on the financial and design risks of supercars -- because with a huge corporation it doesn't work as well.

Look at all the bureaucracy at Mercedes which hindered the SLR project...Gordon Murray wasn't happy with it. That says a lot coming from someone who's built cars in small teams for most of his life -- and the result can be seen.

And anyway, Bugatti is just a nameplate now -- most of the talent at Bugatti went and formed B-engineering and they built a fairly respectable car called the Edonis. So basically, you're left with the people at volkswagen which may or may not have experience working in small teams on a unified-concept supercar.

EDIT:

I should also say that the first Koenigsegg prototype appeared in 1995, and that they've had help from other companies along the way in order to get all the way to making the first production Koenigsegg in 2000. This is all on the website, so I'm not pulling any of this out of thin air.

Again, you don't need a company with a history, you just need a dedicated team of experienced engineers each with a history.

By absorbing a small company like Bugatti, a large company like VW is bound to have problems making a supercar. Large companies usually don't make supercars because the project is stretched too many different ways and things always end up being compromised -- a large company has to cater to everybody in it, as well as the consumer.

With a small company engineers, stylists, and interior designers build cars. At a large company, everybody in the company including the janitors, the lawyers, the president, the marketing team, and the quality assurance team all play a part in it. You also have shareholders and corporate obligations. This is why most large companies don't take on the financial and design risks of supercars -- because with a huge corporation it doesn't work as well.

Look at all the bureaucracy at Mercedes which hindered the SLR project...Gordon Murray wasn't happy with it. That says a lot coming from someone who's built cars in small teams for most of his life -- and the result can be seen.

And anyway, Bugatti is just a nameplate now -- most of the talent at Bugatti went and formed B-engineering and they built a fairly respectable car called the Edonis. So basically, you're left with the people at volkswagen which may or may not have experience working in small teams on a unified-concept supercar.

Spot on!
I agree totally!

Yeah, but McLaren didn't make (or design) everything in-house for the F1 either. Mirrors, motor, etc. come to mind.

Yeah, but McLaren didn't make (or design) everything in-house for the F1 either. Mirrors, motor, etc. come to mind.Yeah, it's impossible to do everything in a reasonable amount of time without outsourcing/partnering much of the work.

:iceslolan McLaren just sent what they wanted to BMW M Paul Rosche. The engine came out to heavy, but very powerful. Interesting that they didnt lift a finger for the engine, as opposed to the Koenigsegg. But I like McLaaren F1 and I certainly like the engine best, which you almost could say is a double M3 engine. I love that British ad with the M3 3,2 Euro (321 HP) and the McLaren F1.

:iceslolan McLaren just sent what they wanted to BMW M Paul Rosche. The engine came out to heavy, but very powerful. Interesting that they didnt lift a finger for the engine, as opposed to the Koenigsegg.With all due respect, your comparisons between the Konigsegg and the F1 are starting to become laughable. They have been a thousand cars to follow the same design process as the Swedish car, especially taking an established block, adding stronger components and forced induction to get the power up. Designing an engine from scratch to suit a particular car is a little more advanced than that and would have been impossible for either company.

I just can't see what the fuss is about. The Koenigsegg is the latest car in a sector that died out over 10 years ago. What's the point?

i think Mclaren's infolvment went furthen that theat (no flywhhel and stuff) it wasnt only just over weight the fact remans the Kengg has been development over 10 years and has now only biten it by 1 MPH if that much... Imagen an F1 with 10 years of the devlopment....... i have noting aganst the Koenn but it is not an F1 rival in so many ways the F1 is a better can im my mind i have no dought and yess i have seen them both. And the F1 enging cam form the people who gave us the most powerfull F1 car of all time hence they know there stuff. It wasnt just what they did after the Feista.

Mclaren240! - your prayers have been answered:

http://www.koenigsegg.com/graphics/startimage_record2.jpg

Link to video: http://www.koenigsegg.com/movies/Web_NardoWeb5031816.wmv

You can see from the video that rather than remove the windscreen wiper, the Koenigsegg crew chose to simply reposition it straight up and down so it wouldn't create drag. It is unclear from the video on track whether the mirrors were still attached to the car during the top speed run. It almost seems like there was some very careful editing so as not to show the front of the car once it hit the track. I have no proof of any wrongdoing, but it just seems odd.

>8^)
ER

All I can say is HOLY SHIT! I knew the egg was awesome, but after seeing that video all I can do now is bow down...

Yes, you should. Anything I would ask them when I visit them this April?

Yeah, ask them for a copy of Christian Von Koenigsegg's letter to EVO (in response to Gordon Murray's comments).

Ask them why they couldn't come up with a car that could seat 3 people.

Ask them why they couldn't build in more storage space, especially when the roof is stored.

Ask them why they didn't locate the pivot point of the door hinge further up, so that as the door opens and extends out, it also rises up and you don't have to worry about it hitting the curb. Sounds simple enough to me, and a couple of coil springs would be able to provide the assistance against gravity that some people might wish for.

Ask them why they are happy with such an ugly exhaust?

Ask them if they have Ikea furniture? :D

Thanks Peloton cant wate for the download to finish none of these cars are standard not the roll cage funney seat and lac of cabin ventillation on the unstandarrd egg haveing said that im of the conclusion that top speed runs are a facilicy my car give me a diffrent top end evry time i reach it seams like. Like i say its an achevment but ant no F1.

Perfectly simple? As you see, In order to improve 1.2kph, it took exactly 9 years, which means that there is more or less difference between in reality and theory. Don't say simple..

I am sorry, the gap is 7years because Xp5 done it on 31th.Mar. 1998 and Koengsegg CCR on 28th. Feb. 2005.

i hate koenigseggythingys!

Some great news today!
One of my steph-dads friends is buying a Koenigsegg!
I will do my best to get a ride in it I assure you!!!
I will certainly share my experience if I manage to fix a ride!
This guy is a good friend of our family and he has his vacation place a couple of hundred meters from ours:-)
For those who are interested:http://www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hbs?artid=272802

Impressive!

http://di.se/Avdelningar/Artikel.aspx?stat=0&ArticleID=2005%5c04%5c05%5c139014&SectionId=Ettan&menusection=Startsidan;Huvudnyheter&o=sp4

Some great news today!
One of my steph-dads friends is buying a Koenigsegg!
I will do my best to get a ride in it I assure you!!!
I will certainly share my experience if I manage to fix a ride!
This guy is a good friend of our family and he has his vacation place a couple of hundred meters from ours:-)
For those who are interested:http://www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hbs?artid=272802

Lucky guy :evillol: Did you know about this red Koenigsegg CCR in Norway as well? http://exoticspotter.com/list.php?page=0&batch=bt00021/bt00021_9050.JPG&model=98&make=20&location=all

http://www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hbs?artid=272802

http://di.se/Avdelningar/Artikel.as...udnyheter&o=sp4

Guys, guys.... I can't find a translator! Please help...

Wow!!!

Here comes koenigseggfreak.com...lol!

That's gotta be the worst URL yet!

Lucky guy :evillol: Did you know about this red Koenigsegg CCR in Norway as well? http://exoticspotter.com/list.php?page=0&batch=bt00021/bt00021_9050.JPG&model=98&make=20&location=all


Yup, sure did!
http://www.finn.no/finn/car/object;pdc=1112744694318?finnkode=4662043&sid=6aNMh3HBc694310&pos=4
Rumors has it that it's in France now, bought by a norwegian guy who lives there.

Ide love to know what kind of millage reliability you can get with one ill be intresting to find out if thats pos ive never herd of an F1 breaking down if the Koenigsegg is as good as that then it will really rise in my opinion incidentily if its not rude how much are the anybody know?

Ill be visitng the Koenigsegg factory soon .What should I ask?

Ill be visitng the Koenigsegg factory soon .What should I ask?
How many cars have they sold in Sweden, and in total?
When do they release there next model?
Is it true that they are aiming for Le Mans?
Do they accept any students for "examensjobb"?

Do they test in the supercold part of Sweden (Lapland) where other automakers test their cars?
How soon till US certification is achieved?
Why not hinge the doors higher to avoid the danger of hitting them on curbs?

Where are they aiming to break 400km/h?

Why not hinge the doors higher to avoid the danger of hitting them on curbs?

Good point. Not that we want to have practicality with these million dollar exotics.. but c'mon. What's the use if I get a ticket for parking too far away from the curb everytime I drive the car.

As I've always said.. that door design.. leaves much to be desired... It looks too much like someone got a kit from a mail order company.

Why on earth do they use a V8 in the CCR, when almost all "true" supercars have a V12? (Weight?)
Why not use a naturally aspirated engine?

Why, ooo why do thay have such a faggy thing as a gemstone in the stick!!!!!????????
That's something the fabuolous 5 would come up with!

When do they license a 1:18 model of this nice looking car?

Thorst, they experimented with a Ferrari Boxer V12. They ended up using a custom-designed V8 (based on a Ford racing block bottom end) for four reasons:
1. It's easier to package,
2. With forced induction, they could get the same power outputs from a V8 as from a V12,
3. It was cheaper,
4. It was readily available and Ford were amenable to the licensing proposal, whereas Ferrari/other exotic manufacturers were not.

The gemstone (lapis lazuli) is a symbol of Sweden--you get two Swedish jewels for your money, the car and the gemstone. It's just an acknowledgement of the country of birth, if you will.

Yeah, that would be a cool scale model to have.

When are they planning to do the acceleration tests?

Thorst, they experimented with a Ferrari Boxer V12. They ended up using a custom-designed V8 (based on a Ford racing block bottom end) for four reasons:
1. It's easier to package,
2. With forced induction, they could get the same power outputs from a V8 as from a V12,
3. It was cheaper,
4. It was readily available and Ford were amenable to the licensing proposal, whereas Ferrari/other exotic manufacturers were not.

The gemstone (lapis lazuli) is a symbol of Sweden--you get two Swedish jewels for your money, the car and the gemstone. It's just an acknowledgement of the country of birth, if you will.

Yeah, that would be a cool scale model to have.
Flat 12 :wink:

Yeah, it's a flat twelve...a 180-degree V!

You got me! :naughty:

zx4000: for some reason I can't send pm's so the anwer to your question is no -better ask someone else.

post #17 (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2851826&postcount=17): Im not saying the Koenigsegg is better. Im saying it is faster in standard form.


post #22 (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2852095&postcount=22): Wow, so that speed was actually not a 100% original McLaren F1? It was taped up as well as wipers removed? :grinno: That makes the Koenigsegg recored even more impressive :biggrin:


post #32 (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2853204&postcount=32): Well, then the achevied top speed could be even higher... I think it is cheating. If there isnt the option to remove anything on the options list from the factory it is not factory spec and thus not produced as a production car.

Hey Gustav- Not really trying to call you out, but I just wanted to point out something I read today that makes some of the things you have written above rather humorous to me. ;)

From an article in AutoWeek magazine on the Koenigsegg CCR speed record:

Besides the missing passenger seat, deactivated rev limiter, extensive electronic monitoring equipment, fire-fighting safety systems and full roll cage, this is a stock CCR.

Just thought it was funny that the F1 was criticised for being non-standard and apparently Koenigsegg used a similar 'trick' to get their name in the record books. :grinno:

Here's the link to the full article for anyone who's interested:

http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=102363

>8^)
ER

I just read that article today while looking up the monocoque of the original GT40. When I saw I was thinking "That doesn't sound very 'uninterrupted' to me." They also had the sequential tranny that isn't availible yet on the production CCR.

Hmm interesting with the revlimiter.

Koenigsegg visit:

http://www.m5board.com/articles.php?id=34&page=5

Start of the trip with the new M5:

http://www.m5board.com/articles.php?id=34

It doesn't matter if they disabled the rev limiter because it reached 242mph at around 6800rpm which is nowhere near the rev limit...I can't wait till they take it to a long straight track where they predict it will hit around 250mph

I saw you post that on another forum as well. How can you be so sure of this? I have not seen any kind of data to support your statement following their speed test. Do you have something to back that up with?

>8^)
ER

That is easy, it revs out over 400 km/h with standard rev limiter... Calculate on gearing.

Give the car credit, but in the long run, this car and this company hav miles to go before they can relax and say that they have done something. Simply put, those who know cars, true racers and drivers have stated unequivically that there is only one true supercar...McLaren F1. There are other cars but they are all measured by the same bar. Set by GM and the crew. :iceslolan :grinyes:

I saw you post that on another forum as well. How can you be so sure of this? I have not seen any kind of data to support your statement following their speed test. Do you have something to back that up with?

>8^)
ER

Here it is

"The constant turning motion of the car creates extra friction on the tires. This extra friction overcomes the extra horsepower that was needed for further acceleration. The maximum speed was reached at around 6790 rpm, which is not equivalent to the maximum hp level, which is at a higher rpm."

Sorry I didn’t read all 9 pages but did anyone see in the EVO mag UK feb 2005 where 9ff 9F v400 got 388kph? And said that they were going to try for faster. Ill try an scan if anyone is interested.

Sorry I didn’t read all 9 pages but did anyone see in the EVO mag UK feb 2005 where 9ff 9F v400 got 388kph? And said that they were going to try for faster. Ill try an scan if anyone is interested.

It's really a non-issue - the 9ff is a modified car no matter how you slice it - not a production car. If we're factoring in modified cars, the Callaway Sledgehammer did 254.76mph (~410kph) all the way back in 1989 and I am sure there are other modified cars that are capable of something even higher.

>8^)
ER

It's really a non-issue - the 9ff is a modified car no matter how you slice it - not a production car. If we're factoring in modified cars, the Callaway Sledgehammer did 254.76mph (~410kph) all the way back in 1989 and I am sure there are other modified cars that are capable of something even higher.

>8^)
ER

Ahh yes my bad for some reason I thought they were like RUF where they had there own vin and that the car's were production and not modified cars.

They do have their own VINs and they are like RUF. But it doesn't change the fact that they start off with a Porsche body and chassis. No matter how much tweaking they do, it will be a modified, tuned Porsche.

They do have their own VINs and they are like RUF. But it doesn't change the fact that they start off with a Porsche body and chassis. No matter how much tweaking they do, it will be a modified, tuned Porsche.

Well then in at least my eye's and the government who issued a VIN to them it is a production car though I think they should use 100% there own part's its not fair to count them out because there using another company's frame. Company’s trade platforms all the time though usually within there own family that's pretty much what there doing right now. Now if there is a minimum production number that they don’t match I could understand that. In like leman's your car can’t compete in GT more then a year or to unless you make so many. I’m not trying to start anything but it seams unfair if they have gone through what they need to be a manufacturer.

It's really a non-issue - the 9ff is a modified car no matter how you slice it - not a production car. If we're factoring in modified cars, the Callaway Sledgehammer did 254.76mph (~410kph) all the way back in 1989 and I am sure there are other modified cars that are capable of something even higher.

>8^)
ERNot to mention that cars like the Porsche 962, Sledgehammer Vette, Koenigsegg, etc., need significantly higher horsepower (150-220 more hp) to reach the same speed (+ or - a few mph) that the F1 is capable of.

Samurai, it is not enough to "seem" like something on paper. There is an accepted understanding of the word "manufacturer", and there's the legal definition, which means you have filed the necessary paperwork and ...sigh, forget it. Just do a search, you will find that this has been discussed before.

If you want to think of them as a manufacturer, that's cool. Feel free.

Well I guess it doesn’t matter what we think only the organization that say's who the fastest car is.

Chiming in here - I understand the RUF situation too, but I still consider them a tuner and not a true manufacturer.

>8^)
ER

BMW M6:

http://www.m6board.com/articles.php?id=29&page=1

That M6 has one nasty trunk.