The worlds fastets car: Koenigsegg CC-R beats the McLaren F1 at Nardo 2005!

[cabrio92]

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

[Thorst13]

Originally Posted by cabrio92

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.

[Mclaren240!]

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!

[Gustav]

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

[zx4000]

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?

[maartenvanthek]

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

[F1 monster]

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).

[amanichen]

Originally Posted by zx4000

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.

[F1 monster]

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.

[amanichen]

Originally Posted by F1 monster

Almost.

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

[Mclaren240!]

[F1 monster]

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

[amanichen]

Originally Posted by F1 monster

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.

[F1 monster]

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

[amanichen]

Originally Posted by F1 monster

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.