All that work and nobody cares or noticed...

[Stratoraptor]

Originally Posted by F1 monster

Give anything enough power and it will do 400 km/h. Even a jumbo jet. The trick is to keep the engine size small, the package light, and the handling manageable, and the look, beautiful. The Veyron doesn't really stand out in any of these areas... How is it such an achievement?

I never new that aesthetic beauty and engine size affected top speed.

Your claim of "all you need is power" is dead wrong. Bugatti found out first hand in the early stages of the Veyron project, that's why it took so long for it to be released.

The bottom line: a streetcar did over 400km/h repeatedly and that is an achievement.

[F1 monster]

What, you don't know that the better-looking something is, the faster it will go? Didn't you pay attention in school?

[Stratoraptor]

Originally Posted by F1 monster

I didn't say they affected top speed. You just decided to interpret it that way. What I meant was, in order to have a successful overall package, these additional elements are also needed. And the smaller the engine with which you make a certain amount of power, the more impressive it is. I am sure you know this, so why the snippy tone?

It's true--all you need is power. How do you think trucks go over 200 mph at Bonneville? If you want to handle at that speed, and if your tires need to last, then that takes development effort in other areas. But for raw top speed, all you need is horsepower to get an object to punch through the air harder--no matter how unaerodynamic the object. If something's topping out at a certain speed, you can either streamline it so it goes faster before topping out, or you can give it more power so it pushes harder.

Yes, it's an achievement of sorts. But when you take their years of development effort, resources consumed, and engine size into account, it's far less an achievement than the McLaren. I would like to see the Veyron win at Le Mans--then I will be impressed.

I am just saying the Veyron's not as impressive as the McLaren. Even as far as top speed is concerned--yeah, they got there eventually, but since it's a bit misguided to focus on that as a benchmark for a supercar in the first place, even that "achievement" becomes less impressive--especially when it's 10 years down the road and the record has been broken by a pretty slim margin, with something making gobs more horsepower and having a much bigger engine. I am not asking you to agree, but I hope you get my point?

If you look back, I did say you have to give credit where it's due. The Veyron is faster than the McLaren, yes. Whoop de doo.

Theoretically, yes, more power does equate to a higher top speed. However in the real world, other laws of physics have to be applied -- not isolated to one factor. Those 200mph trucks you spoke of have all been modified for better aerodynamics and likely suspension geometry as well.

What does winning Le Mans have to do with getting the production speed record?

I agree that building a supercar for the premises of claiming the top speed record is pretty stupid, but the fact remains that this is a record nonetheless. It takes a lot of work to produce a car that can reach a high top speed and remain relatively stable. Think back in DA, there was a whole chapter about aerodynamics and later in the book when they were testing XP3, suspension is taken into consideration for high speed stability. You may think it's easy to just build a car that approaches 250mph, but in the real world it takes a lot of work and effort.

[F1 monster]

I disagree with your statement that all rollerskates should be pink. I think there should be blue ones as well. What do you think about turbocharged scooters? Do you like them better than trucks?