C&D on the veryon top speed record 253mph

[drunken monkey]

eck, i know what i'm talking about.
i'm just having a hard time explaining it.

someone said that the engine is weak considering what it is.
what i am pointing out is that the engine isn't weak and that it actually loses a hell of a lot of power from combustion to putting it down to the wheels.
arguing about the actual units (bhp) is pedantic and whilst i understand the need to be precise, it doesn't actually have any bearing on what i am saying.

[Kurtdg19]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

eck, i know what i'm talking about.
i'm just having a hard time explaining it.

someone said that the engine is weak considering what it is.
what i am pointing out is that the engine isn't weak and that it actually loses a hell of a lot of power from combustion to putting it down to the wheels.
arguing about the actual units (bhp) is pedantic and whilst i understand the need to be precise, it doesn't actually have any bearing on what i am saying.

Alright I think I got ya. Are you trying to say is that if all the energy in the fuel were converted into useful power it would create around 3000hp, but since IC engines aren't perfect its losing 2000hp of this energy through losses from the exhaust system, cooling, friction, etc. and only actually getting around 1000 useable hp?

I wasn't trying to come off as pedantic to you (of coarse 3 years of secondary school tends to do that ) but I find it easier to interpret what your saying as opposed to what your thinking. I was just trying to clarify something that sounded a bit misleading.

[drunken monkey]

not quite.
i recall it was something to do with total power from the combustion, not just the fuel used
i.e how much power is produced if the engine wasn't connected to any ancillaries (and treated as a stand-alone thing)

it's not about the efficiency of the engine, it's how about how much "extra" power the engine produces to compensate for the losses in order to still get 987bhp to the wheels.

like the car or not, it is an amazing bit of over-engineering, very much like the phaeton. you don't have to like it but i think there is something to be admired here.
here's a thought, would what you think of it change if the car was made on time and under budget? or how about if they didn't sell the hype before it was even in prototype stage and only told people about it when it was up and running smoothly?

[MclarenF1]

Hey everyone. Just wanted to throw in my two cents on the Veyron.

I really feel like I'm alone in loving the exterior design of the car. I don't think I've run across anyone yet who thinks it looks great. It is pretty awesome to me, though. The design as a whole seems like a nice mix of supercar functionality and 1940's style retrofuturism. Is anyone familiar with a designer from the mid 20th century named Henry Dreyfuss? He designed the famous Dreyfuss steam locomotive. If you still don't know what I'm talking about, google it. It just seems like, if he were to design a car, it would look alot like the Veyron. And as far as the two tone paint goes, I like that alot too. Especially in black and silver or dark grey and silver. But then again, maybe I'm just weird and have an odd way of looking at things.

As for the 3000hp deal, I have also read that fact about the car. My understanding is that if one calculates the total, raw force of combustion created by this car in terms of horsepower, it comes out to around 3000hp. Due to thermodynamics, friction, and driveline loss, though, the actual crank hp is around 987 (or 1001 on the European scale). This has already been said in different words, but I thought I would take a stab at clarying matters further. (Or, maybe I just confused the hell out of everyone.) Regardless, the car is said to lose the majority of its power through heat disipation. In fact, designers said one of the biggest hurdles to overcome in this car was the massive amount of heat the quad turbo engine generates. That's why it has so many flaps and ducts that have to open up when travelling at low speeds. That one issue in itself almost killed the whole project.

As for the car's dynamics, yes, it is one heavy mofo, and yes, it costs an outrageous sum of money, but DAMN! This has got to be the most decadent GT car ever dreamed up. (This idea is in keeping with the Bugatti spirit, after all.) Look at it this way- are five foot long legs and double D breasts neccessary on a woman? Of course not. Is it hot, and unbelievably desriable? Hell yeah! This car represents the kind of excess that we like not because it is practical, but just because we can.

One last thing. Financially, this car is probably going to be a disaster. Dr. Piech knew this from the outset, though. It is a halo car, and little else. The mere fact that VW continued with the project is really amazing (if not stupid), and I can't help but want to applaud them for showing so much enthusiasm and dedication to an idea that they knew would turn very little, if any, profit.

In terms of performance, it should outrun the Mclaren F1, and while it may not have the same absolute handling capabilities, it is can still put out lap times among the world's best performance cars. Maybe even more importantly, the Buggati will provide a nicer ride home from the track than the Mclaren ever could. It is the ultimate Autobahn rocket.

[DinanM3_S2]

I finally found some stuff information regarding the Veyron's handling and reliability. It is translated from German, but I think the translation is mostly accurate.

http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?vie...ID=2&tID=60961

The article likened the Veyron's handling to the Audi TT... and three of the five Veyrons were broken. Good job Volkswagen.

[MclarenF1]

Ouch. Sound like a bad time for the VW engineering team. At the end of the article, though, it says that VW still didn't know if the "project was approved." Sounds to me like the article is still from the pre production phase of development. Everyone knows that the early cars were really problematic. Maybe we can give them the benefit of the doubt and say that the production units will fare better. Then again, with a car like this, who knows.

[crayzayjay]

The Veyron just got a pretty good review in evo magazine. 5 stars, even...

A few interesting points (both according to Bugatti's Technical Director of Engineering):

* the car's actual top speed is 257mph. Bugatti electronically limit it to 253mph (why?)
* the car actually produces in the region of 1050bhp vs the 987bhp figure usually quoted. The reason for this is that Piech wanted it to officially have an output of 1001PS (equal to 987bhp)

Amazingly, the writer of the article states "if a fully wound-up McLaren F1 went past a poised, stationary Veyron at 100mph and the Veyron driver gave it the gun as the F1 passed, the Bugatti would still reach 200mph just before the McLaren did"....

He does also say that the car suffers from turbo lag...

[DinanM3_S2]

Originally Posted by MclarenF1

Ouch. Sound like a bad time for the VW engineering team. At the end of the article, though, it says that VW still didn't know if the "project was approved." Sounds to me like the article is still from the pre production phase of development. Everyone knows that the early cars were really problematic. Maybe we can give them the benefit of the doubt and say that the production units will fare better. Then again, with a car like this, who knows.

Thats what I thought as well, but the picture of the magazine cover shows a date of November 2005.

[youngvr4]

Originally Posted by crayzayjay

Amazingly, the writer of the article states "if a fully wound-up McLaren F1 went past a poised, stationary Veyron at 100mph and the Veyron driver gave it the gun as the F1 passed, the Bugatti would still reach 200mph just before the McLaren did"....

DAMN!!

[drunken monkey]

but of course, it's fashionably cool for people to dislike the veyron so no matter how good the car might actually be, it'll always be a pile of rubbish.

[crayzayjay]

Referring to your previous post, it wouldnt have mattered to me if the Veyron was made on time and on budget, it still wouldn't hit my g-spot

[drunken monkey]

that's fair enough.
i'm not exactly a big fan of it either (apart from the rear 3/4 which i think looks great in terms of design) but i'm not going to slate it just because it differs from what your current favourite car might be.

heck, one of my favourite cars is the good ol' unmolested LP400 but we all know that it's actually a dog to drive that'll rip your left calf to shreds as it helps you carve lambo shaped holes into hedges.
how about the P400 miura?
in all but the very last incarnations, the car has a habit of setting itself on fire.
diablo?
it took audi to cure the over sensitive and non communicative rear end and even then, that was only in the last 2-3 years of it's life but still so many people like it.
(hmm... perhaps i shouldn't use lamborghini's as a comparasion....)
er... pre pasm 911s are a bitch to drive over camber changes?

my point is, just becasue it is different to what-ever car you prefer, that doesn't mean that it isn't a good car.
a simple fact is, any car that can do 254+mph with very little fuss whilst providing all of the cosseting that it does, has on some level something to appreciate and admire.
for a long time now, it has been said that something like the F1 will never be made again and so far that has been proved absolutely true.
the veyron then, is exactly what they've all been talking about and i think, is a good indicator of the car industry at this level (excuse me getting political...)

as i said before, i for one am glad that the veyron was eventually completed and is over engineered as VW like to do things because hopefully, this now means that the next bugatti car, without the stupid 254mph target, will be designed using known quantites.