New Veyron Test

[thepest]

I said to myself no more veyron-related posts, after the last one (that was blown out of proportion by some new user's comments ;) but nevertheless here it is :)

http://www.autoclips.net/video/play/5340

[tforth]

Wow, 10.2s @142mph - that is the fastest time/speed I have heard recorded to date!

Does anyone know what the fastest (credible) street bike (with street tires) can do??

[RC45]

Wow, 10.2s @142mph - that is the fastest time/speed I have heard recorded to date!

Does anyone know what the fastest (credible) street bike (with street tires) can do??

The car has 1000hp, if it couldnt run at least 10.2s @ 142mph then would be an even bigger bucket of shit.

10.2s @ 142mph for 1 million dollars and 1000hp and computer controller 4wd is pretty lame.

There are literally hundred of street tyred daily drivers with aroun 600hp that run those trap speeds and E/T's - and thousands and thousands of stock ZX12's, ZX14's and Busas.


1. CYCLEWORLD [June 2000]

Top Speeds

------------------------------------------
Suzuki GSX1300R Hayabusa 191 mph
Kawasaki ZX-12R 187 mph

Quarter Mile
--------------------------------------------
Suzuki GSX1300R 9.86 sec @ 145.80 mph [Performed by CycleWorld magazine rider]
Kawasaki ZX-12R 10.06 sec @ 142 mph [Performed by Ricky Gadson - Top Kawasaki Pro Drag racer]

Quotes and storyline from the test
__________________________________________________ ___________________________

2. PERFORMANCE BIKES [June 2000]

Top Speeds
------------------------------------------
Suzuki GSX1300R Hayabusa 190.3 mph
Kawasaki ZX-12R 188.9 mph

Quarter Mile
--------------------------------------------
Suzuki GSX1300R 10.3s @ 143.9
Kawasaki ZX-12R 10.4s @ 146.3

Quotes and storyline from the test
__________________________________________________ ______________________________

3. SPORTBIKE MAGAZINE [June 2000]

Top Speeds
------------------------------------------
Suzuki GSX1300R Hayabusa 191 mph
Kawasaki ZX-12R 187 mph

Quarter Mile
--------------------------------------------
Suzuki GSX1300R 9.93 sec @ 143.4 mph
Kawasaki ZX-12R 10.04 sec @ 143.8 mph

Quotes and storyline from the test
__________________________________________________ ________________________________

4. MOTORCYCLIST MAGAZINE [June 2000]

Top Speeds
------------------------------------------
Suzuki GSX1300R Hayabusa 184.2 mph
Kawasaki ZX-12R 183 mph
[Elevation 2400 feet above sea level]

Quarter Mile
--------------------------------------------
Suzuki GSX1300R 9.86 sec @ ~ 140.3 mph
Kawasaki ZX-12R 9.96 sec @ 142.3 mph

Quotes and storyline from the test
__________________________________________________ __________________________________
5. BIKENET Online

Top Speeds
------------------------------------------
Suzuki GSX1300R Hayabusa 196 mph
Kawasaki ZX-12R 194 mph

Quarter Mile - NA
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________
6. BIKE MAGAZINE - UK [May 2000]

Top Speeds
------------------------------------------
Suzuki GSX1300R Hayabusa 189 mph
Kawasaki ZX-12R 180 mph

Quarter Mile
--------------------------------------------
Suzuki GSX1300R 10.31 sec
Kawasaki ZX-12R 10.04 sec



Give it up already - the Veyron is nothing more than an excercise in excess that few will ever see in person let alone drive and even fewer will own.

In the mean time, regular folks can have 10s 1/4s on their $10,000 street bikes and 600hp modified V8's :P

**yawn**

[tforth]

So, you're saying that there are only 2 street bike that it is possible to get a better trap time with?

Tell me, would you be willing to bet on the average Busa owner beating the average Veyron (yeah, I know what your thinking) owner to a 1/4 mi race?

Remember, all the rich fat guy has to do is engage launch control and press the loud pedal. He doesn't even have to steer, ride out a clutch, or anything. The Busa rider, has somewhat more to do to run low 10s. Heaven forbid they have to run the best of 5. This is the result of technology/engineering.

[RC45]

So, you're saying that there are only 2 street bike that it is possible to get a better trap time with?

No - I am showing you taht even as far back as 1999 and 2000 open class bieks were running 10s 1/4s at 145mph+.


Tell me, would you be willing to bet on the average Busa owner beating the average Veyron (yeah, I know what your thinking) owner to a 1/4 mi race?

Yes - the average Veyron owner wont have done much driving themsleves anyway - the rest may line up with a bike and from a standstill it will a drivers race each time.


Remember, all the rich fat guy has to do is engage launch control and press the loud pedal. He doesn't even have to steer, ride out a clutch, or anything. The Busa rider, has somewhat more to do to run low 10s. Heaven forbid they have to run the best of 5. This is the result of technology/engineering.

**yawn**

To run low tens you point and squirt.. the same as the Veyron driver.

And again - for 1 million dollars, super computer aids, 4wd and 1000hp if it couldn't run 10.2s it would be even more of a bucket of shit than it is.

[RC45]

Now, finally a bit better numbers. 10,2s is already a very nice time. It's right there in the same league than fastest cars in the Street Race here. And those are monster cars, that destroy your ears and are not usable in the streets, though they can be legally driven in streets.

Well then the 10s cars in your town are not the same as the 10s cars in my toen.. :P

Those cars are not brutal drag slick tyre mosters with no use anywhere else ;)

[ya55erm]

can you put the air con on with your friend on the back of the bike and smoke a cigaret at the same time whilst doing 180 mph+


i thought not!

[davide]

This car is one fast beast... :twisted:

[tforth]

To run low tens you point and squirt.. the same as the Veyron driver.

And again - for 1 million dollars, super computer aids, 4wd and 1000hp if it couldn't run 10.2s it would be even more of a bucket of shit than it is.


I wonder how much these riders weigh? And what do think will happen after the 1/4 mi? Lastly, I find it hard to believe that if the best a professional rider can do is 9.86s, I find it very hard to believe that the average 180 lb Busa rider will be able to knock of 10.2s all day long...

[pagani]

Now, finally a bit better numbers. 10,2s is already a very nice time. It's right there in the same league than fastest cars in the Street Race here. And those are monster cars, that destroy your ears and are not usable in the streets, though they can be legally driven in streets.

Well then the 10s cars in your town are not the same as the 10s cars in my toen.. :P

Those cars are not brutal drag slick tyre mosters with no use anywhere else ;)


The veyron is just a slow piece of crap for me.
:D 8) 8)

[RC45]

can you put the air con on with your friend on the back of the bike and smoke a cigaret at the same time whilst doing 180 mph+


i thought not!


Ever single other 600hp car out there can achieve the same thing.. so whats your point?

[RC45]

To run low tens you point and squirt.. the same as the Veyron driver.

And again - for 1 million dollars, super computer aids, 4wd and 1000hp if it couldn't run 10.2s it would be even more of a bucket of shit than it is.


I wonder how much these riders weigh? And what do think will happen after the 1/4 mi? Lastly, I find it hard to believe that if the best a professional rider can do is 9.86s, I find it very hard to believe that the average 180 lb Busa rider will be able to knock of 10.2s all day long...

Again - what is this obsession that noone who ows a "cheap" fast vehicle knows how to use them?

As an example - many accomplished Z06, GT3, F360, SL55, CLS500 and M3 drivers can make their cars consistantly beat the "factory" claimed figurs on road courses and drag strips.

The same is true for many, many, many motorcycle enthusiasts.

I am not sure where you are from, but whether in the UK or the US or even South Afrcia, there are enthusiasts that propel their vehicles to fanatastic times even as weekend warriors at race tracks all over.

To assume otherwise is rather foolish.

Note I didnt say all, or even most - but some are VERY competant.. and yes, the majority are just magazine reading posers.. but those are not the drivers/riders being discussed.

[Minacious]

I'll spank a Veyron on my bike every single race until about 150 when aerodynamics start to really come into play. :D :D :D :D :wink:

[tforth]

I'll spank a Veyron on my bike every single race until about 150 when aerodynamics start to really come into play.


Well, I guess if your statement is indeed accurate, it will still have its way with you for its next 100mph, until its rev limiter kicks in.

Like I said before, even if you are capable of pulling sub 10s (on demand) on your nifty bike, its only a matter of when, not if, the Veyron will blow your spokes off. Since its doing 140mph+ at the 1/4, you would be pretty depressed by the end of the standing km (I know this isn't a 'metric' often used by Americans).

I have never understood why people are so negative about the Veyron. It's not like VW Group made it out to be anything other than what it is: The most capable GT car of this era. I don't think any semi-intelligent individual would claim that it was intended to compete with an Elise, or even a Mac F1, for that matter. It just happens to accelerate faster and have a higher top speed than any other engineered production car to date. For the record, I believe it also accomplishes the highest recorded deceleration rate of >1.6g, above 375 km/h (just in case you were interested).

[nthfinity]

^^^^

The Veyron in terms of all its abilities versus it's competitors is much much much greater then the McLaren F1 ever claimed it was. The McLaren was never a good handler, nor did it have good brakes, or steering feeling. The Veyron after much testing is good at all of these, and even has substantial G load limits that the F1 would've swapped sides with... even in professional racing drivers' hands like Darek Bell LOL.

Sure, the Veyron did the same thing under testing conditions, but its current serial mark is a new generation already vs. what was delivered this past summer... They are continualy making improvements to the car; where this just didnt' happen over at Macca's shop...

[Minacious]

Like I said before, even if you are capable of pulling sub 10s (on demand) on your nifty bike...


It is nifty, thanks. :wink:

[tforth]

...and regarding all of the statements about the Veyron not being able to handle as well as other supercars, please see the quote from evo No. 096, supercar comparison (Veyron vs. Enzo, CGT and Zonda S):

From Pg. 102:

"I probably like the Veyron more than either of them (the other cars in this test), not because it's the fastest production car ever but because I still can't believe, first, that it works and, second, that it works so astonishingly well. Against all expectation it's not simply a car for going absurdly fast in a straight line; it really does seem to defy physics in the corners, feeling much lighter than it actually is, changing direction with alarcity and precision and getting its power down more effectively than cars with several hundred horsepower less."

[Max Power]

what was with that monotone narration? :?

put some effort into it...

[tforth]

I guess the Max Power title is appropriate then...

[RC45]

Now, finally a bit better numbers. 10,2s is already a very nice time. It's right there in the same league than fastest cars in the Street Race here. And those are monster cars, that destroy your ears and are not usable in the streets, though they can be legally driven in streets.

Well then the 10s cars in your town are not the same as the 10s cars in my toen.. :P

Those cars are not brutal drag slick tyre mosters with no use anywhere else ;)

They are here. Chevelle, Nova, Nova SS, Malibu, Mustang, Duster among others. They are great cars on the drag strip, but I don't think they are practical in street driving with their shitloads of power. I might want to drive one, but I wouldn't want to own any. I would want to own a Veyron though. :lol:

Who the hell is talking about some trumped up Chevelle or Duster other pice of crap?

I am talking about 10s street sports cars.. not 35 year old souped up dragsters.

When will people learn that you cannot compare someones souped up Chevelle to a slightly tweaked Z06 or a Viper or even a Ruf or even *gasp* a properly tuned Supra...

The above mentioned cars can go trun and stop like no 60's/70's car could.

[RC45]

...and regarding all of the statements about the Veyron not being able to handle as well as other supercars, please see the quote from evo No. 096, supercar comparison (Veyron vs. Enzo, CGT and Zonda S):

From Pg. 102:

"I probably like the Veyron more than either of them (the other cars in this test), not because it's the fastest production car ever but because I still can't believe, first, that it works and, second, that it works so astonishingly well. Against all expectation it's not simply a car for going absurdly fast in a straight line; it really does seem to defy physics in the corners, feeling much lighter than it actually is, changing direction with alarcity and precision and getting its power down more effectively than cars with several hundred horsepower less."

No where there does it say it is BETTER than the rest - it simply says IT is better than expected - and that statement about "getting power down better than less powerful cars" is proof positive that people don't get how PS2 the car is.

If it has 1000hp and only goes as quick as a 600hp car, then it stands to reason that the computers are shutting down the power to 600hp levels to maintain grip.. so in effect the 1000hp is just an advertising gimmick and is only ever need if you want to go above 215mph perhaps,... a speed perhaps 2 Beyron owners will ever see ;)

So what we have is a 1000hp car that can only use 600hp since it is no quicker than any other vehicle with the same power... :P

And again...

For 1 million dollars

1000hp

4wd

more electronic aids than a wore out porn star

It would be an even bigger pile of crap if could not do 10.2s @ 140+mph

[pagani]

I kown lots of cars that will beat veyron including the norris evo 9 swb rocket ronnie's r33 gtr the rc developments evo 6 jenspeed wrc escort the reyland escort cosworth.

Conclusion the veyron is just a slow piece of crap.
:D 8) 8)

[MartijnGizmo]

Now, finally a bit better numbers. 10,2s is already a very nice time. It's right there in the same league than fastest cars in the Street Race here. And those are monster cars, that destroy your ears and are not usable in the streets, though they can be legally driven in streets.

Well then the 10s cars in your town are not the same as the 10s cars in my toen.. :P

Those cars are not brutal drag slick tyre mosters with no use anywhere else ;)

We'll see how the fanboys react when the first videos of street-killed Veyrons come in. ;)

[TopGearNL]

FANTASTIC!

what a car.......the best. no contest.

True about the no contest but I don't think its the best car :P

[tforth]

If it has 1000hp and only goes as quick as a 600hp car, then it stands to reason that the computers are shutting down the power to 600hp levels to maintain grip..


From the definitive evo comparison, when they are comparing the Veyron against the CGT, Harry's modified Zonda S and the Enzo on backroads. Issue 096, Pg. 99

"The Bugatti copes well with the lumps and bumps of these minor roads, too, feeling relaxed and controlled, the ESP traction control activating only once when I request full power over some bumps." - i.e. your assumption is incorrect.


No where there does it say it is BETTER than the rest - it simply says IT is better than expected - and that statement about "getting power down better than less powerful cars" is proof positive that people don't get how PS2 the car is.


I think it was you who had stated in the past that the Veyron wouldn't handle. I am simply providing evidence, from what most true enthusiasts would consider a credible source. Here's some more comments to counter your argument from the same article:

evo 096, Pg. 100, when comparing it to the Enzo:

"In some respects the Enzo is like the Carrera - super-sharp front end, high roll stiffness and appreciable structural integrity - but its punchier engine should make it more effective here. However, half a mile in, it's clear that the Ferrari and I have got our work cut out, and not just because the Veyron is shockingly fast when the road uncoils. It's also incredibly quick into the turns and fires out of them like it's on slicks."

In case you haven't received the message here, the Veyron ate an Enzo, CGT and modified Zonda S for lunch in the twisties (read: no long straights)


so in effect the 1000hp is just an advertising gimmick and is only ever need if you want to go above 215mph perhaps,... a speed perhaps 2 Beyron owners will ever see


from car's Veyron review by Georg Kacher, issue 529, Pg. 46:

"Ordinary supercars excel in the 125 to 185 mph speed range. Special supercars like the Bugatti demotivate the rest of the four-wheeled world between 185 and 250 mph. Silly velocity? impossible in today's traffic? Wrong, and wrong again. You're forgetting the Veyron's phenomenal stoping ability. With a combined deceleration force of 2.0g - that's 1.4g pulled by the car plus 0.6g added by the air brake - you can squash kinetic energy at a mind blowing rate."

"No, I didn't venture into the final 20mph (i.e. 230-250mph) zone on public roads. But I can report that 230mph in this supercoup on steroids feels about as wild and daring as 150mph does in a regular sports car."

If big 'ol fat Georg Kacher was doing 230mph in a Veyron, so would a decent bunch of those Veyron owners who will actually drive their car.

Care to go further? This is merely the 'tip of the iceberg' in terms of supporting evidence. I am attempting to be objective. Are you?

[nthfinity]

sorry, but if you simply turn the top speed key, you voide the warenty of the Veyron.

I love the car, and have a very good idea of its capabliities.... but like 99% of the supercars out there, it does have its problems

[RC45]

If it has 1000hp and only goes as quick as a 600hp car, then it stands to reason that the computers are shutting down the power to 600hp levels to maintain grip..


From the definitive evo comparison, when they are comparing the Veyron against the CGT, Harry's modified Zonda S and the Enzo on backroads. Issue 096, Pg. 99

"The Bugatti copes well with the lumps and bumps of these minor roads, too, feeling relaxed and controlled, the ESP traction control activating only once when I request full power over some bumps." - i.e. your assumption is incorrect.


No where there does it say it is BETTER than the rest - it simply says IT is better than expected - and that statement about "getting power down better than less powerful cars" is proof positive that people don't get how PS2 the car is.


I think it was you who had stated in the past that the Veyron wouldn't handle. I am simply providing evidence, from what most true enthusiasts would consider a credible source. Here's some more comments to counter your argument from the same article:

evo 096, Pg. 100, when comparing it to the Enzo:

"In some respects the Enzo is like the Carrera - super-sharp front end, high roll stiffness and appreciable structural integrity - but its punchier engine should make it more effective here. However, half a mile in, it's clear that the Ferrari and I have got our work cut out, and not just because the Veyron is shockingly fast when the road uncoils. It's also incredibly quick into the turns and fires out of them like it's on slicks."

In case you haven't received the message here, the Veyron ate an Enzo, CGT and modified Zonda S for lunch in the twisties (read: no long straights)


so in effect the 1000hp is just an advertising gimmick and is only ever need if you want to go above 215mph perhaps,... a speed perhaps 2 Beyron owners will ever see


from car's Veyron review by Georg Kacher, issue 529, Pg. 46:

"Ordinary supercars excel in the 125 to 185 mph speed range. Special supercars like the Bugatti demotivate the rest of the four-wheeled world between 185 and 250 mph. Silly velocity? impossible in today's traffic? Wrong, and wrong again. You're forgetting the Veyron's phenomenal stoping ability. With a combined deceleration force of 2.0g - that's 1.4g pulled by the car plus 0.6g added by the air brake - you can squash kinetic energy at a mind blowing rate."

"No, I didn't venture into the final 20mph (i.e. 230-250mph) zone on public roads. But I can report that 230mph in this supercoup on steroids feels about as wild and daring as 150mph does in a regular sports car."

If big 'ol fat Georg Kacher was doing 230mph in a Veyron, so would a decent bunch of those Veyron owners who will actually drive their car.

Care to go further? This is merely the 'tip of the iceberg' in terms of supporting evidence. I am attempting to be objective. Are you?

The "back roads" they are talking about are not true "back roads" but rather smooth ribbons of select asphalt for spirited drives more like select 2 lane autobahns than true bumpy B-Roads.

Witness what happens when you go try g0 180mph on actual B-Roads.. present one smashed Enzo.. and the only reason there were not a Ruf, CGT and SLR etc etc all piled up on the Enzo is because thats the onyl car that went through the bumpy B-road at 180mph.

**yawn**

When I see an Enzo or CGT runnign around proper back roads at speed, let alone a Veyron then I will even bother paying attention.

[tforth]

I wonder why they dont race with leaf springs in every racing catagory as it seems thats the best suspension for the smooth track surface and the best for bumby b-roads.....

The supercar manufactors should really go to america and look at how it should be made IMO...


Yes, why is it that GM has been going to all that expense and trouble of testing at that mickey mouse track called Nuernburg something or other, when all of the best chassis development roads exist right in their own backyard?

I guess I misunderstood back roads as meaning off-highway. Clearly, the definition must be dirt/gravel paths, where they use the speed limit signs as target practice for their shot guns...

[RC45]

I wonder why they dont race with leaf springs in every racing catagory as it seems thats the best suspension for the smooth track surface and the best for bumby b-roads.....

The supercar manufactors should really go to america and look at how it should be made IMO...


Yes, why is it that GM has been going to all that expense and trouble of testing at that mickey mouse track called Nuernburg something or other, when all of the best chassis development roads exist right in their own backyard?

I guess I misunderstood back roads as meaning off-highway. Clearly, the definition must be dirt/gravel paths, where they use the speed limit signs as target practice for their shot guns...

I never once mentined anything about leaf springs in my comment.

You people keep coming back to the same shit argument - not I.

The point is that on anything except smooth ribbons of pavement 180mph speeds are semi-controlled chaos.

The Nurburgrng is not laped at 180mph, but rather at the very speeds the quoted article speaks of - 125mph to 170mph.. the simple reality is that 180mph+ speeds on anythign except relatively smooth and nonundulating semi-winding roads is a deadly combination - for any god-damned car.

Again - witness the smashed Enzo.

I have to ask both of you, have you EVER tried to blast rhough B-Road countryside at 160mph or faster?

Have you ever been on non-race track surfaces at very high speed to see how quickly things can get undone?

This is the reality - and even the Nurburgring bears witness to this - note the very untidy accidents that happen when the speed of the section of road is exceeded.

Now there is no way in hell that the Veyron would be able to be better than the lighter CGT/Enzo et al through certain sections at an even higher speed... and until such time as I see an Enzo or CGT succesfully go through sections of B-Road at 180mph that otherwise cannot be passed at even 150mph, then I wont even bother with paying attention to all this fan-boy crap about the Veyron.

Even if in the end a Veyron lapped the Nurburgring faster than a CGT I stil wouldnt care, because unlike a Radical that has a lower top speed than the CGT but higher cornering speed and there for deserves attention and respect, the Veyron would have to rely on 245mph straight speeds to cut off the 15 seconds lost as it wallowed like an over wieght pig throuhg the bends at a lower speed than the CGT.

*yawn*

[TeflonTron]

Again: has anyone here actually driven a Veyron? Everyone that I've talked to that has driven one has said one thing: it grips and corners like nothing else they can compare it to.

[tforth]

For the benefit of those who have not yet visited the revlovers.com site, here are some comments from Dennis, one of their administrators, in how the Veyron (they actually had two of them there) compared against other cars at their initial Hockenheim meet (F1, F1 GTR, Enzo, CGT, GT1 road car, CLK GTR, etc.):

"RE: Bugatti Review

Having compared both cars on the track... I know that the Bugatti is definitly quicker than the normal road McLaren F1 on track. Even the F1 GTR on road tyres is slower... Only when fitting the GTR with Slicks it is considerably faster, but that is a unfair comparison..."

Here is their review of the Veyron:

"Driving above 400 kph in a road legal car is an experience you will not forget. It becomes impossible to notice anything right or left of the road, since one covers a mind blowing 111 meters per second at that speed. Forget reading sign posts, the road needs your full attention. Even to find out how fast you are actually going is a serious challenge, since during the time your eyes move their focus from the road to the speedometer, from the speedometer to the GPS system back to the road you probably have travelled more than 300 meters. This is ten times the distance the car actually needs to stop from 100 kph.

Surprisingly the perception of speed changes the faster you go. While it is relatively easy to distinguish between travelling at 200 kph or 250 kph, it really becomes hard to tell whether you go 350 kph or 400 kph. It is like moving into another world where everything you have learned to know becomes relative. The experience can be compared more to sitting in an airplane than to driving a car. Or can you tell if you are doing 700 kph or 900 kph when sitting in a commercial jet? In both cases you notice that you are travelling extremely fast but a precise judgment of how fast you are actually going without any indication of speed becomes almost impossible.

Although the car feels extremely stable at high speeds, reliably following its course straight ahead, you start wondering who is in control of the situation. Even though the car follows your inputs, you start feeling that the car actually has taken over the majority of control, which is an unfavourable situation to be in. At high speeds your health and safety almost entirely depend on the reliability of the car and its technical components i.e. tyres, to withstand the sheer forces they are exposed to. If anything were to go wrong you would not wish to have Michael Schumacher’s car control, but you would wish to live in an era where ‘beaming’ could actually save you from a very unfortunate scenario. No matter how good a driver you are, at those speeds the likelihood of surviving a major technical fault untouched is like winning the Lotto Jackpot.

The technical issue is not the only factor determining whether or not you will survive the adventure. The sheer velocity requires you to see as far ahead as possible, since it will be almost impossible to avoid any unforeseen obstacles on the road when spotting them too late in the near distance. Abruptly changing the lane à la ‘Elk Test’ is not an option, and the attempt to brake pointless. The fact that you are driving on a private test track comforts you, however acres of woods left and right to the road make you hope that hunters have done their job well. The steering requires relatively strong but sensitive inputs in order to guide the car from one lane to another. Trying not to unsettle the car, any inputs to the steering are as smooth as possible. The car follows willingly small direction changes. Intimidated by the three lane road which seems to become very narrow the faster you go, you do not exactly want to test the car’s handling abilities at this stage. A huge respect towards speed builds up inside of you, forcing you to concentrate really hard on the task ahead. You try to feel into the car to notice any suspicious vibrations or noises, but the sensitivity of your organs cannot keep up with the numerous built-in sensors electronically monitoring all the different aspects of the car. For example, a small discrepancy between the individual tyre pressures will end the ‘high speed mode’, increasing the car’s ride height and raising the rear spoiler to ‘handling position’. A warning light will flash up signalling that it might be a good idea to make use of the phenomenal brakes in order to abort the mission.

The brakes themselves are a great achievement since the car carries a considerable mass difficult to stop once in motion. But the force with which they decelerate even from 400 kph is almost more impressive than the acceleration to that speed. A slight touch on the brake paddle activates the airbrake, which left alone decelerates the car at 0.6 m/s (he meant g - edit) at above 375 kph. Intensify the pressure slightly with your foot and the car seriously starts decelerating like other supercars would from 200 kph and normal road cars would never achieve from 100 km/h. Elder people using a denture should be aware to keep their mouth closed under braking in order to avoid any embarrassing moments. Even at those speeds hard brake manoeuvres are totally stable and seem to be effortless. Bugatti claims that the car will stop from 400 km/h in just 10 seconds. This is totally believable after having felt the sheer force with which the car decelerates. Nevertheless the car will have travelled just over half a kilometre before it reaches stand still. Considering this distance, the car would actually be able to accelerate from nought to 100 kph back to nought more than five times within the same distance.

However the most surprising aspect of the car is that you do not need to be a driving virtuoso in order to control the car on an every day basis. The line between brutal madness and civilised behaviour is dictated by the angle of the accelerator. If you only use the first quarter of what has to be the most powerful paddle in the world, the car feels like a very well balanced sports car, easy to drive, totally suitable for every day use. There is sufficient comfort and even low enough noise levels to carry around infants in their sleep. When driving around town, it is hard to believe that this same machine was able to intimidate and challenge you.

The car’s dual identity of tremendous power and speed versus its civilised and calm character might be dangerous to inexperienced drivers, because the car is not intimidating initially which might result in overconfidence and carelessness. The general speed at which you travel might be easily underestimated. As long as inexperienced drivers do not over estimate themselves and use the hyper paddle to an extent that they would lose control.

The balancing act between the car’s usability and its unbeatable performance is astonishing and requires expressing unlimited admiration for the engineer’s achievement. The car’s build quality is outstanding, totally robust and solid. There are no rattles, no tweaks, nor any other disturbing noises neither from the suspension nor from the engine and transmission. The double clutch sequential gear box is phenomenal, the best paddle operated gear box I have tested so far and probably the best transmission out there. There is no lag in between the shifts. Shifts are only noticed by changes in engine sound.

Accelerating through the gears feels like sitting in an F-16 being launched from an aircraft carrier. There is a constant violent push forward, forcing your passenger’s head deep into the upholstery of his seat when accelerating unexpectedly. Some are so surprised by the sheer violence that you might think to notice a small colour change in their face and a definite change in their facial expression. Transforming from a casually enjoying look to an almost uncomfortable but definitely thrilled face, your passenger seems to struggle grasping what is happening to him.

The handling of the car is the second most surprising aspect of this machine. The car’s "over weight" has been an issue widely discussed, however astonishingly the car feels agile happy to turn in and is definitely a blast on country roads. It always stays stable and very neutral through long sweeping turns. Even when turns tighten up, the car seems to carry at least 500 kilos less than it actually does. On country roads one begins to learn that the car offers extremely high grip levels which one is unable to be fully exploit on public roads due to legal and safety issues.

Having tested the car intensively on the Hockenheim Ring, my admiration for the car grew even more. It is tremendously quick, absolutely stable under all conditions. There is no sign of nervousness, on the contrary the car gives you so much confidence that it is relatively easy to quickly find its limits. Its traction out of tighter turns is mind-blowing. Switch off ESP and discover its absolute neutral behaviour sliding over all four wheels when accelerating out of turns. However, when using the brakes for a few laps on the limit one starts noticing the incredible speed with which you approach turns and the sheer mass which is carried around. In comparison to other supercars, the brake needs to compensate for the huge speed advantage and for the big weight disadvantage, which one starts feeling after a few flying laps. The reason for this small let down is that brake cooling has not been optimised for track use in order to achieve the aerodynamic efficiency needed to reach its proven top speed.

However, this car has not been designed to be the ultimate track car, but it has been designed to beat everything on the road. In our opinion this mission was accomplished by miles. The Bugatti Veyron is a car of superlatives. There is no other car in the world which comes even close to matching its abilities. It is a masterpiece of engineering, a human triumph over the laws of physics.

Text: Dennis

[RC45]

The context of the above write up is an F1 spec race track.

And note the little disclaimer about the brakes slipped in at the end.

Oh - and please note how Dennis in fact concurs with me about the nature of super high speed travel - you need distance and clear range to avoid distaster.

So - take this all and place it in the context of undulating and bumpy and twisty B-Roads (as for example the Nurburgring) and the only place the Vagrant would shine, is the sweepers and straights.

So perhaps the above write-up in fact proves my assertion that on certain types of roads being able to speed above q80mph is moot - and that at the lower speeds and technical requirements the CGT and Enzo would be more than a match for the Vagrant... much like say a Miata could school a GT3 on certain types of roads.. ;)

*yawn*

Rather than be a car of superlatives, perhaps the Veyron is simply a car of excess.

Some like excess, others don't :)

[RC45]

I wonder why they dont race with leaf springs in every racing catagory as it seems thats the best suspension for the smooth track surface and the best for bumby b-roads.....

The supercar manufactors should really go to america and look at how it should be made IMO...


Yes, why is it that GM has been going to all that expense and trouble of testing at that mickey mouse track called Nuernburg something or other, when all of the best chassis development roads exist right in their own backyard?

I guess I misunderstood back roads as meaning off-highway. Clearly, the definition must be dirt/gravel paths, where they use the speed limit signs as target practice for their shot guns...

I never once mentined anything about leaf springs in my comment.

You people keep coming back to the same shit argument - not I.

The point is that on anything except smooth ribbons of pavement 180mph speeds are semi-controlled chaos.

The Nurburgrng is not laped at 180mph, but rather at the very speeds the quoted article speaks of - 125mph to 170mph.. the simple reality is that 180mph+ speeds on anythign except relatively smooth and nonundulating semi-winding roads is a deadly combination - for any god-damned car.

Again - witness the smashed Enzo.

I have to ask both of you, have you EVER tried to blast rhough B-Road countryside at 160mph or faster?

Have you ever been on non-race track surfaces at very high speed to see how quickly things can get undone?

This is the reality - and even the Nurburgring bears witness to this - note the very untidy accidents that happen when the speed of the section of road is exceeded.

Now there is no way in hell that the Veyron would be able to be better than the lighter CGT/Enzo et al through certain sections at an even higher speed... and until such time as I see an Enzo or CGT succesfully go through sections of B-Road at 180mph that otherwise cannot be passed at even 150mph, then I wont even bother with paying attention to all this fan-boy crap about the Veyron.

Even if in the end a Veyron lapped the Nurburgring faster than a CGT I stil wouldnt care, because unlike a Radical that has a lower top speed than the CGT but higher cornering speed and there for deserves attention and respect, the Veyron would have to rely on 245mph straight speeds to cut off the 15 seconds lost as it wallowed like an over wieght pig throuhg the bends at a lower speed than the CGT.

*yawn*


Whats wrong now RC?....

Here I am concuring with you that the vette might be the only car in the world capable of going fast on b-roads and the supercar manufactors should look into this leaf spring business as you say the Z06 are very fast on the track with leafsprings, and from what we can gather from your posts here on JW maybe the only car capable of going fast on b-roads so clearly there must be something here as every other car will just bounce of a not so smooth surface as an F1 track are....

To answer your question if I have been on an b-road...I have probably driven more on b-roads than you have done even if you are older than me RC, I have pretty much only driven on what you call b-road... lots of the time I drive on roads you would probably consider c or d roads with gravel and no guard rails of any kind..
I have seen the roads you call b-roads so yes I am sure I have driven on b-roads...and yes I have driven on these roads in pretty high speeds also, and know very well what it can do if you are not on top of things and paying attention, but thats the whole thing anycar will kill you if you push the limits...

Again with the leaf spring BS.

I never once mentioned "that car' - but try as you might you keep steering away from the obvious... the Vagrant for all the R&D better do the simple things like go fast in a straight line and stop in astraight line...

...but again, on roads where 180mph is a moot point and 150mph is difficult to maintain control on are where the overweight sloppy pig will lose out to the svelt and far more capable CGT and Enzo...

Witness once again the fact that when the Enzo tried to go 180 on roads that could only sustain a barely controlled 150 it crashed and burned...

So in that arena the vagarant would be outclassed by its own excesses.

And again, the posted article supports this 100%.

BTW - what does gravel and no guardrails have to do with anything?

And somehow I doubt you have that much 160mph B-Road milage. maybe a lot of 120 to 130mph but running 160mph on less than perfect back roads is not something easily done without lotsa horsepower and lotsa grip ;)

But maybe you have spent every weekend with an Audi Quattro SWB Gruppe B Rally car - who knows :P

[RC45]

Again with the leaf spring BS.

I never once mentioned "that car' - but try as you might you keep steering away from the obvious... the Vagrant for all the R&D better do the simple things like go fast in a straight line and stop in astraight line...

...but again, on roads where 180mph is a moot point and 150mph is difficult to maintain control on are where the overweight sloppy pig will lose out to the svelt and far more capable CGT and Enzo...

Witness once again the fact that when the Enzo tried to go 180 on roads that could only sustain a barely controlled 150 it crashed and burned...

So in that arena the vagarant would be outclassed by its own excesses.

And again, the posted article supports this 100%.

BTW - what does gravel and no guardrails have to do with anything?

And somehow I doubt you have that much 160mph B-Road milage. maybe a lot of 120 to 130mph but running 160mph on less than perfect back roads is not something easily done without lotsa horsepower and lotsa grip ;)

But maybe you have spent every weekend with an Audi Quattro SWB Gruppe B Rally car - who knows :P

From what people who have driven the Veyron its an extremly capable car and far from a pig like you love to make it out to be, you always like to compare it to the some ubermodded vette who run great 1/4 miles and can handle great are daily driven and so on and so on, you also always like to pull out how fast you drive with your vette on what you call b-roads, you also imply that I might not have driven on b-roads and dont know what I am talking about....

I was merly saying maybe ferrari, buggati, porsche, zonda and the rest of the top car brands should look at how the vette are made as that obviously are the best car ever when it comes to track use or b-road use or whatever use....

I have not spent all my weekends with an group b car, thats true but I have been pushing 160 on roads you would consider b roads...and I am still here... :shock:

In this latest series of exchanges I never once mentioned anything modded or american or even implied "that other caR" was part of the discussion...

I used Emzo and CGT as clear examples... and provided proof that 180mph and certain roads don't mix.. no matter what the chariot...

I am sure you had what ever car it was fully opposite lock 160 around b-road bends and simply ate up the bumps ripples and undulations all the way.

[tforth]

How is it, that any of the mag quotes which I have provided so far, indicate anything other than the Veyron digested the CGT ( which I am generally a big fan of), Enzo and a moded Zonda S, all driven by the gang at evo?

These guys actually stated that this was far from what they (and so many others it seems) expected of the Veyron. They expected the straight line stuff, as it's hard to ignore the stats, but what none of them expected was what happened in and out of the curves. Obviously, reading is a bit of a challenge for some of us here so I'll provide the same quote from evo, that I have already posted above:


evo No. 096, Pg. 102:

"I probably like the Veyron more than either of them (the other cars in this test), not because it's the fastest production car ever but because I still can't believe, first, that it works and, second, that it works so astonishingly well. Against all expectation it's not simply a car for going absurdly fast in a straight line; it really does seem to defy physics in the corners, feeling much lighter than it actually is, changing direction with alarcity and precision and getting its power down more effectively (this means better...) than cars with several hundred horsepower less (i.e. than the CGT, Enzo and Zonda S)."

evo No. 096, Pg. 100, when comparing it to the Enzo:

"In some respects the Enzo is like the Carrera - super-sharp front end, high roll stiffness and appreciable structural integrity - but its punchier engine should make it more effective here. However, half a mile in, it's clear that the Ferrari and I have got our work cut out, and not just because the Veyron is shockingly fast when the road uncoils. It's also incredibly quick into the turns and fires out of them like it's on slicks."

Now, where exactly did you deduce that the Veyron didn't walk away from the other cars in this comparison?

Lastly, the Georg Kacher (from car magazine) quote was provided to counter the claim that Veyron owners will never drive their cars above 200 mph:

from car's Veyron review by Georg Kacher, issue 529, Pg. 46:

"Ordinary supercars excel in the 125 to 185 mph speed range. Special supercars like the Bugatti demotivate the rest of the four-wheeled world between 185 and 250 mph. Silly velocity? impossible in today's traffic? Wrong, and wrong again. You're forgetting the Veyron's phenomenal stopping ability. With a combined deceleration force of 2.0g - that's 1.4g pulled by the car plus 0.6g added by the air brake - you can squash kinetic energy at a mind blowing rate."

"No, I didn't venture into the final 20mph (i.e. 230-250mph) zone on public roads. But I can report that 230mph in this supercoup on steroids feels about as wild and daring as 150mph does in a regular sports car."

To clarify, Georg is not claiming that he drove at these speeds around a 'b-road' hairpin. I would assume he is referring to driving at these speeds on the autobahn, as I think he resides in Germany. For more evidence of Veyron owners actually using their cars, please check out the revlovers.com site, where they have several videos of a Veyron dicing it up at Hockenheim with CGTs, Ford GTs, Mac F1s and GTRs, an Enzo, a CLK GTR, etc. BTW, Hockenheim is not known to be a smooth track (last time I checked).

Are there any other misconceptions about the info. provided, that I can help with?

[RC45]

**yawn**

The point is that outside of the F1 flat tracks the car is a **yawn** an over weight boat.

There are many roads whose speeds will need to be exceeded for the Vagrant to "obliterate" the CGT - and on such roads 180mph is not an option..

Witness the Enzo that was smashed to bits trying to go 180mph on a 150mph road.

The Bugnasty Vagrant would also be smashed to bits if it tried to go 180mph on a 150mph road... thats just reality.

[Shinigami]

an over weight boat.That supposedly handles almost Lotus like... Not too bad for something that weighs over two tons :shrug:

[RC45]

an over weight boat.That supposedly handles almost Lotus like... Not too bad for something that weighs over two tons :shrug:

supposedly... again - how come we don't see any trackside and incar video of these "tests" where the Veyron laps Enzos and CGT's?

You would think, with the million dollar being so good and so perfect, that hiring a few cmaeras to record these momentour events would be simple as... right??

**yawn**

It's a million dollar ar with hundreds of millions in R&D and 1000hp and more computers than NASA - why is everyone prasing it so much?

It would be disastrous if it couldn't do what it does..

[RC45]

an over weight boat.That supposedly handles almost Lotus like... Not too bad for something that weighs over two tons :shrug:

supposedly... again - how come we don't see any trackside and incar video of these "tests" where the Veyron laps Enzos and CGT's?

You would think, with the million dollar being so good and so perfect, that hiring a few cmaeras to record these momentour events would be simple as... right??

**yawn**

It's a million dollar ar with hundreds of millions in R&D and 1000hp and more computers than NASA - why is everyone prasing it so much?

It would be disastrous if it couldn't do what it does..


As I have said for a long time now, they should go and check out the vette, no need to reinvent the wheel as the best recipie have been out there for 50 years....

You really are obsessed with the Vette I see.

Surely the CGT is better measure, afterall it's also a German car like the Veyron :)

[nthfinity]

well....

I have on pure authority that the Veyron will not out handle a Ford GT, let alone a Z06, a CGT, Enzo, a Porsche 911, a Aston V8 Vantage, a Noble, etc. etc.

it does well through the corners considering it's weight. there is nothing objective about such statements. the analogy of the day seems to be "money talks" or lap times in this case.

[tforth]

I have on pure authority that the Veyron will not out handle a Ford GT, let alone a Z06, a CGT, Enzo, a Porsche 911, a Aston V8 Vantage, a Noble, etc. etc.


What authority exactly? I have provided quotes from two prominent British mags. Evo, which is pretty much considered the 'authoritative' magazine for enthusiasts, compared the Veyron against 3 of its best handling/accelerating/decelerating supercar competitors. It beat them all, in fact the owner of the Enzo AND CGT said that they were going to order a Veyron each for themselves...

I have also provided info. from the revlovers.com trackday at Hockenheim, where it ran on the track against the fastest cars ever made. The only one they said was faster, was the race spec'd Mac F1 GTR and ONLY when it was running on race slicks!

Where exactly is your proof??

[nthfinity]

I have on pure authority that the Veyron will not out handle a Ford GT, let alone a Z06, a CGT, Enzo, a Porsche 911, a Aston V8 Vantage, a Noble, etc. etc.


What authority exactly? I have provided quotes from two prominent British mags. Evo, which is pretty much considered the 'authoritative' magazine for enthusiasts, compared the Veyron against 3 of its best handling/accelerating/decelerating supercar competitors. It beat them all, in fact the owner of the Enzo AND CGT said that they were going to order a Veyron each for themselves...

I have also provided info. from the revlovers.com trackday at Hockenheim, where it ran on the track against the fastest cars ever made. The only one they said was faster, was the race spec'd Mac F1 GTR and ONLY when it was running on race slicks!

Where exactly is your proof??

this comes directly from contacts I have at Bugatti, long talks with the test drivers, and time in the car thankyou. The terms I mention are purely objective, and not a slippery slope of "it does better then you would think it does" type crap that ALL the magazines are spewing. What a load of crap, eh?

so again, where are the lap times?

I love the Veyron, but I have no illusions regarding it.

[RC45]

and where are the in-car and track side videos of the Veyron passing the out of control Enzo's and CGT's around the outside ? ;)

[Shinigami]

I think nthfinity summed it up well by saying "considering its weight". Those who did drive it, said it did incredibly well, even quoted "lotus like". I know one friend personally who tried the Veyron, and he said it was a beast, even in the wet (he drives a considerable number of interesting cars, so it sounds legible).

But 99% of all owners will never take it to a track, so the only way to know for sure is to wait for "someone" to finally get their hands on the car in order to give it the going to that's needed.

[dons5]

Veyron is Gay, PERIOD.

1. It was a concept for like 100 years first of all, I mean do you see Ferrari with an Enzo at all the Car shows for years and years while its still being made and changed and fixed etc etc? No it comes out into production and thats it.

2. It doesnt really work, if it did im sure it would come with an engine cover.

3. 8 litres, 16 cylinders, quad turbo? Are u nuts, Enzo (and other supercars) are making way way better power per cc. Enzo is making 660, add another 4 cylinders, 1.4 litres and a few turbos to that thing.

4. The weight, ridiculous, why are they making a luxary cruiser, but with supercar looks and outrageous power. The car doesnt even know what it is its messed up.

All it is is a way of idiots that dont know anything about cars and racing to say hey look I got a Bugatti, 1000 hp, fastest car in the world. Which it aint even,or wont be soon.

[tforth]

this comes directly from contacts I have at Bugatti, long talks with the test drivers, and time in the car thankyou. The terms I mention are purely objective, and not a slippery slope of "it does better then you would think it does" type crap that ALL the magazines are spewing. What a load of crap, eh?

so again, where are the lap times?


Right, ok. Should we quote you as the authority from now on then? I guess I am at a great disadvantage since I rely on the public press, as do most of the rest of the world.

Tell me, why don't you ask your sources for some comparative lap times then. I'm positive that they (Bugatti I mean) did some (more like lots) benchmark testing against other supercars, right? I'm sure your 'authoritative' contacts would have ready access to this vital info. that appears to be mysteriously missing.

As I have stated repeatedly before, I have provided several quotes from credible sources. Furthermore, they were written by people that have been publicly suspicious of the Veyron's performance prior to driving it. They all became converts (regarding its objective performance) after driving it. The only common beef that some of writers have mentioned, is that the Veyron does not have a 'sole' like a CGT or Zonda. That being said, I have not claimed that it does provide this rather subjective attribute. Again, I have provided several sources of 'public domain' evidence to illustrate to any remaining doubters how crushingly capable the Veyron appears to be.

Where is your evidence/data/info/anything other than 'the Veyron is heavy/expensive/has too many cylinders/turbos/radiators/etc., therefore it can't be good', 'I know someone', 'I heard this somewhere', 'someone told me', blah, blah, blah...

'Where's the beef', as the old lady in the Wendy's commercials used to say?

[RC45]

this comes directly from contacts I have at Bugatti, long talks with the test drivers, and time in the car thankyou. The terms I mention are purely objective, and not a slippery slope of "it does better then you would think it does" type crap that ALL the magazines are spewing. What a load of crap, eh?

so again, where are the lap times?


Right, ok. Should we quote you as the authority from now on then? I guess I am at a great disadvantage since I rely on the public press, as do most of the rest of the world.

Tell me, why don't you ask your sources for some comparative lap times then. I'm positive that they (Bugatti I mean) did some (more like lots) benchmark testing against other supercars, right? I'm sure your 'authoritative' contacts would have ready access to this vital info. that appears to be mysteriously missing.

As I have stated repeatedly before, I have provided several quotes from credible sources. Furthermore, they were written by people that have been publicly suspicious of the Veyron's performance prior to driving it. They all became converts (regarding its objective performance) after driving it. The only common beef that some of writers have mentioned, is that the Veyron does not have a 'sole' like a CGT or Zonda. That being said, I have not claimed that it does provide this rather subjective attribute. Again, I have provided several sources of 'public domain' evidence to illustrate to any remaining doubters how crushingly capable the Veyron appears to be.

Where is your evidence/data/info/anything other than 'the Veyron is heavy/expensive/has too many cylinders/turbos/radiators/etc., therefore it can't be good', 'I know someone', 'I heard this somewhere', 'someone told me', blah, blah, blah...

'Where's the beef', as the old lady in the Wendy's commercials used to say?

Suffice it to say, this is JabbasWorld, and we are priviledged to have some actual industry insiders as members - and when core members of JW say "the source told me", then "the sourcE" told them.

You may choose to believe this or not, the fact remains insiders have relayed witnessed accounts of various events, cars and behaviours - these are truthful accounts.

Again - choose to believe it or not, no justification needed from our part.

How come the "objective testers" don't have lap times and video of the Veyron beating the CGT and Enzo? Is it possible that it is their own subjectivity getting in the way, and the car only feels faster, but it really is not faster? ;)

I can tell you from personal experience that the 4wd Ruf Yellowbird felt quicker than the RT12... but the numbers showed a different story.. ;)

[tforth]

Suffice it to say, this is JabbasWorld, and we are priviledged to have some actual industry insiders as members - and when core members of JW say "the source told me", then "the sourcE" told them.

You may choose to believe this or not, the fact remains insiders have relayed witnessed accounts of various events, cars and behaviours - these are truthful accounts.

Again - choose to believe it or not, no justification needed from our part.

How come the "objective testers" don't have lap times and video of the Veyron beating the CGT and Enzo? Is it possible that it is their own subjectivity getting in the way, and the car only feels faster, but it really is not faster?

I can tell you from personal experience that the 4wd Ruf Yellowbird felt quicker than the RT12... but the numbers showed a different story..


Well, I actually work in the 'industry', on both the development and production implementation side. If someone was making some claims that I knew to be false, whether I felt that they were making them up, or because their source was flawed, I would provide everyone the service of 'giving' (neat term that) the relevant facts and not just hearsay. It's not like the comparative data that is mentioned on this thread (but never substantiated) is confidential or anything. Again, put out, or kindly shut up. I don't buy the 'holier than thou' BS!

BTW, since when was the Ruf Yellowbird 4WD?

[RC45]

Well, I actually work in the 'industry', on both the development and production implementation side.

So you were at the Nurburgring when the C6 Z06 ran it's 7m43s lap then?

And you were privvy to seeing the Veyron overheat its engine, tyres and brakes in one lap then?

Exactly what are you "inside" to then?


If someone was making some claims that I knew to be false, whether I felt that they were making them up, or because their source was flawed, I would provide everyone the service of 'giving' (neat term that) the relevant facts and not just hearsay.

So know you suspect your own information is "made up" and needs to be refuted?

You just choose to quote super-subjective sources is all ;)


It's not like the comparative data that is mentioned on this thread (but never substantiated) is confidential or anything. Again, put out, or kindly shut up. I don't buy the 'holier than thou' BS!

You are the one quoted unsubstantiated subjective opinion... and we are simply saying that other people have said and demonstarted different results.


BTW, since when was the Ruf Yellowbird 4WD?
Oh - as an "insider" I would have thought you knew Ruf will buildwhat ever a customer wants.. even if that means a "matched pair" of one-off's ;)

Unless you are doubting my claims? ;) hehe

[graywolf624]

You appear to be reading into the quotes tforth. No where does any of these say the Veryon is superior or can even keep up. They say they are astonished it did so well. That isn't the same thing. Lets disect:

evo No. 096, Pg. 100, when comparing it to the Enzo:

"In some respects the Enzo is like the Carrera - super-sharp front end, high roll stiffness and appreciable structural integrity - but its punchier engine should make it more effective here. However, half a mile in, it's clear that the Ferrari and I have got our work cut out, and not just because the Veyron is shockingly fast when the road uncoils. It's also incredibly quick into the turns and fires out of them like it's on slicks."
That says nothing about waking. It does say its faster then they expected.. But then again a pinto could be faster then you expected. That isn't a comparative statement. The only piece comparitive in the entire quote is that the ferrari has its work cut out for it. Implying the Veyron may be close in the writers opinion. Statistically the Veryon is too heavy to keep up in the tight turns. Thats a given. All one needs to do is look at the weight, it isn't argueable. Given enough straights on the track and a reasonable turning ability this car will win on many tracks. That doesnt imply its the equal of even close to the handling ability of the ferrari or Porsche.

evo No. 096, Pg. 102:

"I probably like the Veyron more than either of them (the other cars in this test), not because it's the fastest production car ever but because I still can't believe, first, that it works and, second, that it works so astonishingly well. Against all expectation it's not simply a car for going absurdly fast in a straight line; it really does seem to defy physics in the corners, feeling much lighter than it actually is, changing direction with alarcity and precision and getting its power down more effectively (this means better...) than cars with several hundred horsepower less (i.e. than the CGT, Enzo and Zonda S)."
The only piece in this entire article that says anything compartivie deals with getting the power down. That also doesnt show the whole picture of handling.



[/quote]

[nthfinity]

Suffice it to say, this is JabbasWorld, and we are priviledged to have some actual industry insiders as members - and when core members of JW say "the source told me", then "the sourcE" told them.

You may choose to believe this or not, the fact remains insiders have relayed witnessed accounts of various events, cars and behaviours - these are truthful accounts.

Again - choose to believe it or not, no justification needed from our part.

How come the "objective testers" don't have lap times and video of the Veyron beating the CGT and Enzo? Is it possible that it is their own subjectivity getting in the way, and the car only feels faster, but it really is not faster?

I can tell you from personal experience that the 4wd Ruf Yellowbird felt quicker than the RT12... but the numbers showed a different story..


Well, I actually work in the 'industry', on both the development and production implementation side. If someone was making some claims that I knew to be false, whether I felt that they were making them up, or because their source was flawed, I would provide everyone the service of 'giving' (neat term that) the relevant facts and not just hearsay. It's not like the comparative data that is mentioned on this thread (but never substantiated) is confidential or anything. Again, put out, or kindly shut up. I don't buy the 'holier than thou' BS!

BTW, since when was the Ruf Yellowbird 4WD?

Actually, much of what we talked about at various points is very confidential. There is something called trust; and if someone such as myself were to break that trust; then the implications could be wide spread, and actually hurt the industry that I love... let alone, I wouldn't have access to the insiders.

As a day job, I work in the auto industry. As a night job, I am building something very special; bringing information, stories, news, and history that isn't ANYWHERE else to JW.

as an aside; The Veyron was tested at tracks across france, germany and belgium predominantly, and some other lesser known tracks. Lap times were never officially timed for good reason... However... there were some hot laps where Hot things happened... but... a scorching lap time wasn't ever the result. :wink:

The Veyron is amazing, yes. It is not perfect. I am here to stop most supercars from being put on a pedistal falsely (read McLaren F1)

When you get a professional driver behind the wheel of each car on a track at roughly the same conditions (temp, surface temp and weather the same is sufficient) then we'll talk about the King of supercars.... the Veyron is the King of posh Shebang and brag... and is amazing. But it is not the Jack of All Trades as that simply doesn't exist.

Since you are an industry insider as well; why not talk to the people who own, and drive those Veyrons, and the guys who test them and see for yourself ;)

[tforth]

You appear to be reading into the quotes tforth. No where does any of these say the Veryon is superior or can even keep up. They say they are astonished it did so well. That isn't the same thing. Lets disect:

evo No. 096, Pg. 100, when comparing it to the Enzo:

"In some respects the Enzo is like the Carrera - super-sharp front end, high roll stiffness and appreciable structural integrity - but its punchier engine should make it more effective here. However, half a mile in, it's clear that the Ferrari and I have got our work cut out, and not just because the Veyron is shockingly fast when the road uncoils. It's also incredibly quick into the turns and fires out of them like it's on slicks."
That says nothing about waking. It does say its faster then they expected.. But then again a pinto could be faster then you expected. That isn't a comparative statement. The only piece comparitive in the entire quote is that the ferrari has its work cut out for it. Implying the Veyron may be close in the writers opinion. Statistically the Veryon is too heavy to keep up in the tight turns. Thats a given. All one needs to do is look at the weight, it isn't argueable. Given enough straights on the track and a reasonable turning ability this car will win on many tracks. That doesnt imply its the equal of even close to the handling ability of the ferrari or Porsche.

evo No. 096, Pg. 102:

"I probably like the Veyron more than either of them (the other cars in this test), not because it's the fastest production car ever but because I still can't believe, first, that it works and, second, that it works so astonishingly well. Against all expectation it's not simply a car for going absurdly fast in a straight line; it really does seem to defy physics in the corners, feeling much lighter than it actually is, changing direction with alarcity and precision and getting its power down more effectively (this means better...) than cars with several hundred horsepower less (i.e. than the CGT, Enzo and Zonda S)."
The only piece in this entire article that says anything compartivie deals with getting the power down. That also doesnt show the whole picture of handling.
[/quote]

OK, I guess I am not communicating very clearly here. I had another look at the evo comparison, and found some more relevant quotes which will hopefully put this dispute to rest for the time being:

evo No. 096, Pg. 101, John Barker, the author of this comparison states:

"To build a 1000 bhp, 250 mph road car is remarkable enough, but to make that car comfortable, easy to drive and crushingly capable on the sort of twisting roads that would test a hot hatch (i.e. 'b-roads' if this is not already obvious) is little short of miraculous. At the outset of this test, none of us could have imagined that the Veyron would leave the Enzo trailing in its wake on such a road. It sounds absurd even now."

If this passage isn't clear enough for you guys, please read on:

evo No. 096, Pg. 101 - continued, Jethro Bovingdon states:

"It blows the Enzo, Carrera GT and Zonda into the weeds. That sounds ridiculous but it's no exaggeration."

How much more clear can they be? The only counterpoint they mention is that they didn't get as much feedback through the steering and contact patches as the others. Oh, and that it lacked a certain subjective desirability. But, I have never claimed that the Veyron is a champion in the area of feedback, as the other three are not champions in this regard either (when compared to much lesser vehicles i.e. elise, 911, etc.).

BTW, have any of you actually read this article? Do you read evo at all? I can't believe that you read it and still have the opinions that you have expressed.

Are things still vague for you guys?

[RC45]

**yawn**

[TeflonTron]

I really don't get the big deal on this.

The Veyron is a crushingly fast car in a straight line, from any speed to any speed, and it handles very, very well for its weight. However, lighter, nimbler cars will always be that: lighter and nimbler. No-one who buys a Veyron does so to track it. On acceleration and top-speed it is stock-against-stock King of the Hill, but it is whipped by a bunch of cars on a racetrack.

Why is anyone surprised about that?

[nthfinity]

We have a pic or shut the f*** up rule here on JW this is something all members have to follow...
tforth have brought qoutes from EVO wich is considered a very reliable source here on JW by all, but because you and nfhintiy dont like what they write it should be dismissed and we should belive you because you are core members sorry...


Nowhere did i say that evo was specifically wrong.... however, nowhere has evo specifically said it was better at doing anything better then the other cars mentioned except that they are surprised how good it is.

where it says "it blows off the doors" of course, it has AWD 365's, and 1000+ hp. It is mind blowing how fast it is in a straight line. But I've gone faster through bends in the likes of a Ford GT, and a CGT. Both of which have similar ride quality... nise a soft ride, even over Michigan pot holes.

every time it is ever mentioned about how the Veyron does through the bends, it is always "better then i ever would have guessed"

but that is such an opinion based viewpoint; a subjective catagory vs. an objective catagory.

[RC45]

**yawn**


Nice comeback RC....


I have more.


We have a pic or shut the f*** up rule here on JW this is something all members have to follow...
tforth have brought qoutes from EVO wich is considered a very reliable source here on JW by all, but because you and nfhintiy dont like what they write it should be dismissed and we should belive you because you are core members sorry...

Never said that - I was refering to the "other' core members who have witnessed said events and shared them in confidence and it is their wishes to not disclose them as the source.

You of course knew this but just choose to be obtuse.

If you have spent any quality time on JW in the last 3 years you would be aware of a well-connected member that frequents the Northloop and simply put 2 and 2 together as yoy even accept what they say as pure fact as that person is so trustworthy and well connected/

Again - you're just being as ass.


The Veyron are mindblowing fast, it have made the people who where talking it down before it came out reverse after they drove it....
Jezza where making jokes about the car for ages until he actually drove it and then he praised it, and so have the others I have not once heard about a single person who called the Veyron a pig who have driven it....

And again, it is fast 'for what it is" - but just becaus eit is fast doesnt make it any less of a fat pig.


But as you said the vette ran 7:42 on NS and since tforth might not have been there that day he cant know what hes talking about, are that the reason you mentioned the vettes time on NS?

Not at all -- never said or implied that aat all...

[
e have allready established the vette being the best superduperhyperultra car ever hitting earth so of course the Veyron cant be hanging with that its an moot point....
Again with the sarcasm.. nice come back ;)

[nthfinity]

Runway 9/27
Dimensions: 4000 x 75 ft. / 1219 x 23 m
Surface: asphalt, in good condition


at a place I went to back in august, the Veyron was hitting 190 mph on this short runway with regularity before full braking. That is very impressive.

[tforth]

every time it is ever mentioned about how the Veyron does through the bends, it is always "better then i ever would have guessed"


So, please help me understand how your statement is not refuted by this evo quote:


evo No. 096, Pg. 101, John Barker, the author of this comparison states:


"To build a 1000 bhp, 250 mph road car is remarkable enough, but to make that car comfortable, easy to drive and crushingly capable on the sort of twisting roads that would test a hot hatch (i.e. 'b-roads' if this is not already obvious) is little short of miraculous. At the outset of this test, none of us could have imagined that the Veyron would leave the Enzo trailing in its wake on such a road. It sounds absurd even now."


but that is such an opinion based viewpoint; a subjective catagory vs. an objective catagory.


No, I have provided objective data; specifically, the evo comparison where they explicitly stated that the Veyron is WAY faster than a CGT, Enzo or Zonda (see above quote) over the same section of twisty road. I am not claiming that specific times were provided in this article. However, what would they mean in this context, as they were public roads and as such would have no historical time reference (i.e. like an established race track does).

Yes, I have mentioned their more subjective comments, for the sake of being fair (some here, could learn a lesson in this regard). Specifically again, I have mentioned that the evo writers felt that there was not as much feedback through the Veyron's controls and that it lacked a certain sparkle. These, were the only 'subjective' elements which I have provided, and these were the ONLY negatives written in the evo comparison regarding the Veyron's performance!

[RC45]

No, I have provided objective data; specifically, the evo comparison where they explicitly stated that the Veyron is WAY faster than a CGT, Enzo or Zonda (see above quote) over the same section of twisty road. I am not claiming that specific times were provided in this article. However, what would they mean in this context, as they were public roads and as such would have no historical time reference (i.e. like an established race track does).

The comparison they are doing is inherently flawed.

If you ahve ever gone on a high speed run through the back roads, you would know and understand you are in procession and if you are on public 2-lane B-Roads, the car infornt.. has um whats the word/? Oh yeah, the advantage of being in front.... and when you have similar capable cars, the car in front ALWAYS gets ahead because the driver gets the jump, is ahead and begins accerating first.

So such a subjective comparison as 'the CGT could not cathc the Veyron" is pure and utter journalisic BullCrap.

Because had the CGT bene in fron the veyron would not have bene able to catch up and pass... on the straights, sure it could reel the CGT in, but would not be able to pull up, and and pass it around the bends.

That's the point.

Again, being able to run up to 180mph while other are still at 140 or 150mph is a moot point fi the road cannot support those speeds.

So again, such a comparison is pointless because as soon as the Veyron (or Hyabusa) reaches 180mph, the CGT can would/should (with the right driver) be able to get around the 140mph bumpy B-Road corner quicker... ;)

Same holds truen for the Gixxer 1000 beating the Huabusa..


(Will post more when I get home ;))



Yes, I have mentioned their more subjective comments, for the sake of being fair (some here, could learn a lesson in this regard). Specifically again, I have mentioned that the evo writers felt that there was not as much feedback through the Veyron's controls and that it lacked a certain sparkle. These, were the only 'subjective' elements which I have provided, and these were the ONLY negatives written in the evo comparison regarding the Veyron's performance!

[nthfinity]

but evo says it handles great and doesnt stand back for the enzo cgt and the likes of them,

yet, there is nothing objective here in terms of how fast it can corner, while sure, the veyron is 1000 lbs more then the Enzo/CGT, an extra 400 hp/400+ torque really make a difference to how quickly it will besiege the difference around the bends.

the Veyron does have a great chassis; but in no way will Bugatti ever claim it goes through the bends like the 2003-4-5 super cars because it simply cannot.

I'm not talking handling G, as the Veyron has already tested very high there... eg; .96 g in both directions; but it isn't nimble like the lighter weight counterparts. It just isn't possible. It does do very well.

the objective claim will come when there are lap times, or sector times or the like. I'm waiting for the Veyron supertest... which is kind of ironic, as so many of the *cough cough* other naysayers have claimed about a certain car LOL.

[tforth]

no way will Bugatti ever claim it goes through the bends like the 2003-4-5 super cars because it simply cannot.


is answered by:

"
easy to drive and crushingly capable on the sort of twisting roads that would test a hot hatch (i.e. 'b-roads' if this is not already obvious) is little short of miraculous. At the outset of this test, none of us could have imagined that the Veyron would leave the Enzo trailing in its wake on such a road.



but it isn't nimble like the lighter weight counterparts. It just isn't possible.


Who said that it was nimble? I have just provided info (repeatedly, I might add) that it's faster than its nearest competition on twisty roads - 'period'

And what is with all the weight vs. handling crap. Weight, or mass, has no direct relationship with the centripetal acceleration (i.e. 'g') experienced by a vehicle during a cornering manoeuver. Center of gravity, track, roll stiffness, roll center position, coefficient of friction of the contact patch on the given surface, transient contact patch stability, etc. would play into this metric. I suppose that next your going to claim that weight is what limits its top speed as well...

[graywolf624]

And what is with all the weight vs. handling crap. Weight, or mass, has no direct relationship with the centripetal acceleration (i.e. 'g') experienced by a vehicle during a cornering manoeuver. Center of gravity, track, roll stiffness, roll center position, coefficient of friction of the contact patch on the given surface, transient contact patch stability, etc. would play into this metric. I suppose that next your going to claim that weight is what limits its top speed as well...
Thats where your wrong. Weight, or rather mass has a significant effect on handling. cg roll stiffness roll couple influence the contact patch.. But.. F=ma.. Thus the force required to accellerate a car laterally (realizing that the new force vector is a combination of lateral and vertical forces) is higher for a higher mass car. Thus requiring more friction force on the tires, and hence more grip. Now the items you mentioned influence more grip based on the amount of tire that stays connected to the road during turns (invarious situations), but there is a point where it just won't be enough. Cars arent just light for acceleration purposes. Actually, I've just oversimplified.. Why? Because mass also influences the friction force. The coefficient of friction is a function of the force pushing down, gravity. Thus at least theoretically (we wont get into things like tire deformation), heavier mass increases the friction at the tires. Hence a heavier car would theoretically have a higher tire grip, but it requires a stronger force to hold it to the turn.

If your arguement worked we could go auto xing with a semi if we lowered the ride height and installed better suspension.

edit: clarity, man my kingdom for a white board.

[tforth]

Quote:
And what is with all the weight vs. handling crap. Weight, or mass, has no direct relationship with the centripetal acceleration (i.e. 'g') experienced by a vehicle during a cornering manoeuver. Center of gravity, track, roll stiffness, roll center position, coefficient of friction of the contact patch on the given surface, transient contact patch stability, etc. would play into this metric. I suppose that next your going to claim that weight is what limits its top speed as well...

Thats where your wrong. Weight, or rather mass has a significant effect on handling. cg roll stiffness roll couple influence the contact patch.. But.. F=ma.. Thus the force required to accellerate a car laterally (realizing that the new force vector is a combination of lateral and vertical forces) is higher for a higher mass car. Thus requiring more friction force on the tires, and hence more grip. Now the items you mentioned influence more grip based on the amount of tire that stays connected to the road during turns (invarious situations), but there is a point where it just won't be enough. Cars arent just light for acceleration purposes. Actually, I've just oversimplified.. Why? Because mass also influences the friction force. The coefficient of friction is a function of the force pushing down, gravity. Thus at least theoretically (we wont get into things like tire deformation), heavier mass increases the friction at the tires. Hence a heavier car would theoretically have a higher tire grip, but it requires a stronger force to hold it to the turn.

If your arguement worked we could go auto xing with a semi if we lowered the ride height and installed better suspension.


You're right in the sense that mass is directly related to the accel. rate. The point I was trying to get across is that mass in isolation does determine the accel rate. There are many other factors that play into this.

Specifically, I was irritated by the general statement that because the Veyron weighs 'x', it cannot do 'y'. That's like saying: because a car has a 4 cylinder engine, it cannot travel faster than 'y' mph. These are oversimplification statements. The Veyron appears to be somewhat of an exception in this regard, as several reviewers have stated that it feels approx 300-400 kg (660-880 lbs) lighter than it is. However, I am not aware of anyone credible saying that it feels as light as an Elise...

[graywolf624]

The point I was trying to get across is that mass in isolation does determine the accel rate. There are many other factors that play into this.

Except that isn't what you said.. You said it wasnt directly related, which it is. Of course theres many factors, but anyone who doesnt think it is significant is quite honestly a fool.


Specifically, I was irritated by the general statement that because the Veyron weighs 'x', it cannot do 'y'. That's like saying: because a car has a 4 cylinder engine, it cannot travel faster than 'y' mph.
No, its like saying that the best 4 cylinder will never produce as much power as the best 12 cylinder. Which is true. We aren't comparing a pinto to the veryon here, we're talking about the freaking enzo..

[tforth]

You said it wasnt directly related, which it is. Of course theres many factors, but anyone who doesnt think it is significant is quite honestly a fool.


As I have already stated, you're right. What I meant, was that looking at weight/mass in isolation as being the determinant for cornering prowess is as 'fool'ish as the statements that have been made about the Veyron not being able to do certain things (which it apparently has) because of its weight. So, to get back to my original analogy; it is the same as stating that a 4 cylinder can't do certain things in isolation of other considerations.

More specifically, the simplistic (lateral) FBD for a car experiencing a constant radius turn, in equilibrium is a = V^2/R = Ff/m, where Ff is the effective force of friction. This, can be rewritten as Ff = m*V^2/R. When you consider this as a rigid body, as opposed to a particle, you would also sum the moments, which is basically caused by the distance separating the C of g from the contact patches.

All that being said, if a designer does a good job maintaining the contact patch over all 4 wheels during this condition (and this where the benefit of AWD comes in) and the drive to offset the scrub loss (due to the slip angle at, or close to the limit of adhesion) is distributed to fill the friction circle on the contact patches that are maxing out purely with lateral accel., your Ff can actually exceed comparable cars.

As you have already stated, there is an obvious linear relationship with normal force and vehicle weight/mass, as well. So it just comes down to whether the designer can overcome the moment load effect, which will tend to overburden the 'outside' contact patches, with clever suspension design along with AWD.


We aren't comparing a pinto to the veryon here, we're talking about the freaking enzo..


evo No. 096, Pg. 101 - continued, Jethro Bovingdon states:

"It blows the Enzo, Carrera GT and Zonda into the weeds. That sounds ridiculous but it's no exaggeration."

[nthfinity]

evo No. 096, Pg. 101 - continued, Jethro Bovingdon states:

"It blows the Enzo, Carrera GT and Zonda into the weeds. That sounds ridiculous but it's no exaggeration."

I can't help but say its the driver. thats why its so important to run around a track.

[graywolf624]

No offense, but your still missing the point.
Firstly, I'm unsure if you understand Awd has nothing to do with contact patch. Contact patch is an aspect of roll center, couple, camber, dynamic camber, and other functions. All awd does is distribute forces of acceleration among multiple wheels. A tire friction force has a limit, as defined by the normal force times the coefficient of friction. This force, as you've represented it, Ff, must be less then the forces applied to the tires from acceleration, braking, and turning. AWD just deals with distributing the acceleration, not the braking or turning which is just as important to handling. The only influence awd has on handling is how soon you can get the power down. In fact it hinders carrying weight into the turns since the systems are heavier then fwd and rwd systems.


Now, to the part you definitly don't understand. A cars handling isn't a factor of a stead state constant radius turn, it is more a function of its transition too and from the steady state. How much you can carry in and out, how soon you can get on the power. These are the important parts of the system.

Now, by designing a system with a better dynamic camber and less roll you ensure a larger contact patch to the ground which ensures a larger coefficient of friction, and thus a larger Friction Froce (Ff). However, the required Ff to hold the system through a turn is actually a function of the mass of the vehicle, the important part. When you turn the wheels in the front of the car, the friction force changes. Simplistically this angle can be broken down into 2 components, 1 at the 90 to the direction of travel of the car, and 1 at the opposite of the direction of travel. If these combined are greater then the Ff the cars tires will lose traction (This occurs both at the rear of the car and the front). The force that is at 90 to the current direction of travel is that which makes the car change direction. It actually makes the car accelerate in the lateral. As I described earlier to you, this force is a function of Mass x acceleration. The bigger the mass the larger that friction force that is required to allow the same amount of acceleration into the turn. Now.. assuming we have a car that weighs almost 1000 lbs more. Do you honestly think for a second given that the lighter car has a competent designed suspension that you can gain enough friction force to overcome that 1000lbs. Do you understand the order of magnitude of increased friction force necessary? You aren't going to see that sort of gain over another best in world super car. It may be quicker in certain situations due to the higher top speed and potential to get the power down earlier (which your article mentions), but the enzo will quite obviously be able to enter the corner at a higher speed and hold this higher speed through the turn (something even the articles you posted admit).

Its great that your a fan and all. But the simple reality is, mid length tracks the enzo will eat the veryon for breakfast. Tracks with long straights.. Veryon. Very short tracks are debateable, as depending on how tight you may have to come to a complete stop, which benefits the higher horsepower. Which brings us to Nfinitys point: handling on one back road tells about as much about a car as a drivers opinion. Nothing. Was it tight, Sweepers, number of straights? In fact there is even a larger concern... If your suspension is designed for the track it will be less then competent on the road. Tracks are generally smoother then roads, race car suspensions are not designed to cope with potholes and other undulations and cannot be as fast on those sort of roads. For a good example, on a track the camaro I use to have would have left a wrx for dead. On a road the situation would be reversed.. Why? The minute I hit a pothole in the camaro I lost traction as my suspension was designed for smoother race tracks.

enzo:
3,262 lbs
weight distribution: 43.9-56.1
F 245/35ZR-19
R 345/35ZR-19

Veryon
4,300 lbs.
rear tires
335/R21.3
front tires
P265/ZR19.7BSW run flat performance

[graywolf624]

In an awd car an capable driver can keep the car slightly oversteered and still apply power proppeling the car thru and out of the corner at higher speeds....

Thanks but I just explained that with the portion of getting the power on early. It is only one portion of handling though. And I never denied it can be better then expected... But some things just arent possible. There is a limit.

[graywolf624]

the part of awd making the car capable of going thru corners with more power than rwd cars are very important, and alot of people on here and elsewhere just say its an heavy pig and leave it with that, and they dont know shit about what awd does with a cars handling for them its just a matter og weight and tires....
I never said anything overal, I just said it cant handle as well as the enzo.. That is all I said. And the extra weight offsets much of that awd advantage. Less acceleration the more mass, since you put more on the lateral.

Getting the power on early is important but as miatas routinely demonstrate, it certainly doesn't overwhelm the concept of a light car.

[nthfinity]

so this is why those AWD Audi (DTM?) cars were regularly winners? nope, they couldn't hold thier new found position on the track after taking 4-5 positions on the standing start. :P

[nthfinity]

so this is why those AWD Audi (DTM?) cars were regularly winners? nope, they couldn't hold thier new found position on the track after taking 4-5 positions on the standing start. :P

dont even know what you mean by that....but happy new years anyway...

Happy 2007 to you too!

[tforth]

Your quote:


Firstly, I'm unsure if you understand Awd has nothing to do with contact patch.


My quote:


All that being said, if a designer does a good job maintaining the contact patch over all 4 wheels during this condition (and this where the benefit of AWD comes in) and the drive to offset the scrub loss (due to the slip angle at, or close to the limit of adhesion) is distributed to fill the friction circle on the contact patches that are maxing out purely with lateral accel., your Ff can actually exceed comparable cars.


As stated above, one of the benefits of AWD (when designed/developed properly) is that it can selectively apply torque to any and all wheels which have not exceeded their maximum grip level. As you should know, the effective friction force on any contact patch is the vector addition of BOTH the lateral and longitudinal force components (the defining axes of the friction 'circle'). Your response may be: well if the front outside tire has exceeded it's max grip level (i.e. understeer), does it really matter whether you can apply more at the rear? Well, in certain cases yes, because by increasing the torque at the outside rear wheel in this condition, you could increase weight transfer to the rear, and thereby decrease the (in general) over-loading condition at the front outside, while at the same time increasing the normal (and therefore Ff) force at the comparatively under-loaded rear wheel. This, is just one specific example of how AWD can benefit in the turns.

Oh, and I distinctly remember audi entering American race series, about 20 years ago, in I believe Trans-Am and some other series, where they cleaned up so convincingly with their 'outlandish' and 'ponderous' AWD sedans. This also happened in the Australian touring car series in the late 90s with the A4. I'm sure their are other examples people can come up with.


Now, to the part you definitly don't understand. A cars handling isn't a factor of a stead state constant radius turn, it is more a function of its transition too and from the steady state. How much you can carry in and out, how soon you can get on the power. These are the important parts of the system.


Hmmm, what exactly is that I have stated which would validate this claim? I have specifically provided the example of the steady-state max. lateral accel. rate condition, as it is the easiest to define from a physics/mathematics standpoint (i.e. objectively again). I am not aware of having downplayed the importance of turn-in, or the transient conditions.


Do you honestly think for a second given that the lighter car has a competent designed suspension that you can gain enough friction force to overcome that 1000lbs. Do you understand the order of magnitude of increased friction force necessary? You aren't going to see that sort of gain over another best in world super car.


As you yourself have mentioned, since the Ff is mu*Fn, the Ff increases with mass... As long as tires are sized appropriately and can therefore handle the heat energy into them, all should be well.


but the enzo will quite obviously be able to enter the corner at a higher speed and hold this higher speed through the turn (something even the articles you posted admit).


Where exactly?


Its great that your a fan and all. But the simple reality is, mid length tracks the enzo will eat the veryon for breakfast.


...and your proof is where exactly? BTW, the only credible track test I am aware of in the public media pitting (with the same driver) the Enzo against the CGT and SLR, and Murcie for good measure, was the ams review from many moons ago, where they recorded top speeds at Nardo (which, surprise, surprise the Enzo won, kind of like a Veyron would now...). More importantly, in the area where any real supercar should show its peers who's boss, at an actual road course, guess who won? No, not the esteemed light on its heels Enzo; rather the 'old school' CGT, by approximately 1s. Yes, it was a 'tightish' course, but the CGT also smoke all of its peers in 200 km/h - 0 as well. So, in my not so humble opinion, I wouldn't choose the Enzo as your 'best-in-class' benchmark. FYI, I posted this ams video here a while back. It was obviously based on their mag article, which included the braking data. I have that copy (somewhere as well).


Which brings us to Nfinitys point: handling on one back road tells about as much about a car as a drivers opinion. Nothing. Was it tight, Sweepers, number of straights? In fact there is even a larger concern... If your suspension is designed for the track it will be less then competent on the road. Tracks are generally smoother then roads, race car suspensions are not designed to cope with potholes and other undulations and cannot be as fast on those sort of roads.


So, I guess evo et al should pack their bags, since you guys are the unofficial experts, and your statements should never be questioned? Regarding the comparative track data, as I have stated before, check out revlovers.com, as they actual ran a couple Veyrons against pretty much everything that is fast, including the 'beloved' Enzo. BTW, it wasn't even mentioned as a comparable to the Veyron, when they ran it at Hockenheim.

As I have stated repeatably, I have info, which I have provided from numerous public sources regarding my position. Where exactly is yours?

[RC45]

Oh, and I distinctly remember audi entering American race series, about 20 years ago, in I believe Trans-Am and some other series, where they cleaned up so convincingly with their 'outlandish' and 'ponderous' AWD sedans. This also happened in the Australian touring car series in the late 90s with the A4. I'm sure their are other examples people can come up with.

The difference is that the racing AWD Audis werer prepped, lightened and actually demonstarted their results in races and on TV.

The Veyron has ONLY been the subject of very subjective, poorly documented and rather dubious "tests".

[graywolf624]

Your response may be: well if the front outside tire has exceeded it's max grip level (i.e. understeer), does it really matter whether you can apply more at the rear? Well, in certain cases yes, because by increasing the torque at the outside rear wheel in this condition, you could increase weight transfer to the rear, and thereby decrease the (in general) over-loading condition at the front outside, while at the same time increasing the normal (and therefore Ff) force at the comparatively under-loaded rear wheel. This, is just one specific example of how AWD can benefit in the turns.
I just explained that to you 3 x.. The problem is with a heavier car the pressure on all 4 wheels is higher. Your assuming that the extra weight will only be encountered on the wheels that are overloaded first.


Oh, and I distinctly remember audi entering American race series, about 20 years ago, in I believe Trans-Am and some other series, where they cleaned up so convincingly with their 'outlandish' and 'ponderous' AWD sedans. This also happened in the Australian touring car series in the late 90s with the A4. I'm sure their are other examples people can come up with.
Cars that weigh mid 2000 lbs.. car that weighs over 4000... Any question? No one said AWD wasn't nice, we said it isnt going to make up for 1000 lbs of extra weight.


Hmmm, what exactly is that I have stated which would validate this claim? I have specifically provided the example of the steady-state max. lateral accel. rate condition, as it is the easiest to define from a physics/mathematics standpoint (i.e. objectively again). I am not aware of having downplayed the importance of turn-in, or the transient conditions
What you don't seem to get is, it is the easiest to show because it doesnt really exist.. It isn't reality. In the real world their is no steady state.


As you yourself have mentioned, since the Ff is mu*Fn, the Ff increases with mass... As long as tires are sized appropriately and can therefore handle the heat energy into them, all should be well.

Yet again, show mathmatically its possible for it to be high enough to make up for the weight. It isn't. The heat energy has absolutley nothing to do with it.. All you need to do is switch the compound on the tire to one that operates at the appropriate temp. The reality is, there is a bell curve on the ideal weight of cars. 4000 lbs is over that.


Where exactly?
The article only tells you about a million times it handles better then expected.. It doesnt say it handles great. Ask yourself why the choice in wording and why it doesnt say it handles better then the enzo?


...and your proof is where exactly? BTW, the only credible track test I am aware of in the public media pitting (with the same driver) the Enzo against the CGT and SLR, and Murcie for good measure, was the ams review from many moons ago, where they recorded top speeds at Nardo (which, surprise, surprise the Enzo won, kind of like a Veyron would now...). More importantly, in the area where any real supercar should show its peers who's boss, at an actual road course, guess who won? No, not the esteemed light on its heels Enzo; rather the 'old school' CGT, by approximately 1s. Yes, it was a 'tightish' course, but the CGT also smoke all of its peers in 200 km/h - 0 as well. So, in my not so humble opinion, I wouldn't choose the Enzo as your 'best-in-class' benchmark. FYI, I posted this ams video here a while back. It was obviously based on their mag article, which included the braking data. I have that copy (somewhere as well).
Do show me where I ever compared or commented on the enzo versus the cgt? I never once touched that arguement.. This is the Veryon versus the enzo.. or hell.. the veryon vs the cgt.. Both will win exactly what Im telling you about. Theres a reason the Veryon has been tracked very little.
It wouldnt suprise me if it never is, they aren't going to want its weak spots displayed officially, and mainstream mags tend to favor tests that favor the given car.

So, I guess evo et al should pack their bags, since you guys are the unofficial experts, and your statements should never be questioned? Regarding the comparative track data, as I have stated before, check out revlovers.com, as they actual ran a couple Veyrons against pretty much everything that is fast, including the 'beloved' Enzo. BTW, it wasn't even mentioned as a comparable to the Veyron, when they ran it at Hockenheim.

First off, evo are not all that impressive. None of the mainstream rags have that much in terms of pro drivers. If I were using a reliable source id be more likely to use smaller racing oriented mags. That being said it doesn't have anything to do with unofficial experts.. It has to do with simple physics. (And for the record I don't know who these revolver.com people are.. )

As for Hockenheim.. Define what you consider it, a tight, mid, or a open track.. Im curious... I'll give you a hint, I wouldnt change its classification much over the last 30 years even with the redesign.

Do yourself a favor.. Sit down and think about it.. Theres a reason very few racing cars (excluding of course off road cars like wrc) are awd. If you could simply build a 4000 lb awd car with a great suspension and handle better then a 3000 lb or lighter rwd car.. Don't you think everyone would be doing it?