My take on the Bugatti Veyron

I think the Veyron is a great car. Not to keen on the looks, but still a great car.

However.

Unless you like to frquent the saltflats or dry lake beds, were in the heck are you gonna be able to drive that car at it's max for more than a few seconds. I don't have the fastest car on the plannet, but I have had my 348 up to an indicated 140mph. I ran out of road quick, and I still had 30mph left before I hit the top end. Now the Veyron does accelerate at a VASTLY superior rate than my 348. But then there is another issue, bad roads. The roads in this country are not good for driving at high speeds. You can drive over a portion of road at say 80mph and it seems fine. But when you drive that same bit at 120mph all the gradual dips in the road at 80 turn into pot holes and jumps at 120.

Now if you lived in the meca of highspeed driving, Germany, then I could see owning one of these continental crushers. But to own a Veyron in the states, especially So Cali, would be a waste. It would be like owning a cheetah, but only giving it a small backyard to run it.

 

When the choppers clock u going 250ish, what are they going to do? Put up a road block?! HA Oh you're going to get to enjoy that speed till you run out of gas. Good times!

 

The reality of the exotic car is that there really isn't a public road where you can legally or responsibly use their capabilities. The Veyron is no different than an Enzo, CGT, Zonda etc etc etc in that respect.

 

And you'll run out of gas pretty damn fast - "at full throttle, the Veyron would empty its 100 litre fuel tank in just 12.5 minutes."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugatti_Veyron_16.4

 

best 12.5 mins ever!

 

Ernie, I can't even get my Mondial 8 up to top speed and not worry about going to jail for a while.

Fact is, that maybe only a handful of people will really ever get one of these things up to the limit.

It's not a rational car, but I think it is pretty cool.

 

An active lip could cut it just fine if the aerodynamic design of the car is sound, especially how the air is routed beneath the car. A major portion of the down force generated on the Enzo is due to how the air is routed underneath it as much as over it.

I agree 10 MPH IS a big difference at those speeds but the McLaren is still within 8% of the top speed of the Veyron.

Don't forget, the McLaren design is over 10 years old. Not bad for a wingless car.

 

You can't outrun a radio.

 

Like I said in another thread. An "old" McLaren F1 can come pretty damn close to the top speed of the Veyron and that is without turbos OR ricer wings.[/QUOTE]


Hey I'm not trying to be rude but if you truely think that all wings are "ricer wings" and that the VW just put it on the car for local honda drivers to appreciate then I have nothing else to say.....EVER!!!! I hate when you guys think that anything associated with what F&F is on a car that it is automatically considered "RICE".........I like import cars, not sh#t cars, but needless to say things that look nice.....!

Hell maybe I have it wrong all guy, I can accept that, but you should probably tell Schumacher and some of the other F1 racers that the little "ricer" wing on their car is dumb and they don't really need it, BESIDES all those silly tests that they have done with air/smoke chambers!

 

Road and Track tested an F1 to 60 in 3.4, only an 11.6 quarter, and a top speed of 217. Im not saying they all perform like this, but this was in america, a US car. The bugatti that comes here should still do 252. There is no acceleration comparison. Even if the alleged 740 HP (as murray claims) will get you to 250, it will take a LOT longer. especially with a gear less.

 

one thing that people seem to be forgetting about the bugatti.it ******* CRUISES at 235+mph!!!!
guys,there may even be 1000bhp vipers out there;but the veyron also has the
distinction of being the GRANDEST tourer out there.it makes the merc slr
feel like a daihatsu in terms of cabin quality and comfort.
it's incredibly easy to drive at ANY speed,be it 10mph or 240mph.
that's what differentiates the bugatti to,let's say;an Enzo.
the enzo/ccr/saleen/mc12/mclaren f-1/lambo murcie are supposed to be supercars that "thrill" and "excite" wherelese the bugatti is supposed to cosset
and pamper whilst doing speeds of 250mph in absolute stability,comfort and confidence!
it's the bastard offspring of mig-29,a gucci shop and a f-1 car!
or maybe a bentley and lambo with a jet engine up it's ass!

 

HP = Torque * RPM / 5252

So to get Torque:

T = HP * 5252 / RPM

So, assuming the car idles at 800 rpm and the meter is showing 50 horsepower (and assuming its accurate), that means the motor is pumping out 328.25 pound feet of torque. At IDLE.

A motor that makes that much torque at 8K RPM would be pumping out 500HP.

Bill in Brooklyn

 

You KNOW that is NOT what I am saying. The Veyron was originally designed WITHOUT a wing at all and it was added after the fact because the aerodynamics of the car as it was failed to keep the car on the ground above a certain speed and well below the top speed it can attain now.

I've always wondered why a FRONT wheel drive car (like a Honda) would need all that down force at the REAR of the car.

On the other hand, the Enzo has active gates underneath the car that open and close according to the speed of the car. The gates are open up to a certain speed and then close to REDUCE the airflow under the car to REDUCE the down force as the car accelerates, the reason being because the design produces TOO MUCH down force at top speed.

All I am trying to say is, the high speeds that the Veyron reaches can be done without a wing sticking up in the air on the back of the car. If the aerodynamics are sound a TALL wing is not required. Most of the time all they do is create excessive drag. THAT IS A FACT.

I think you'll find most 200 MPH+ cars at Bonneville Salt Flats DO NOT USE TALL WINGS. There is a reason for that.

 

And most 200mph+ race cars do use wings. There is a reason for that.

 

Those wings are designed to provide maximum downforce through out the speed range of an F1 car, so much downforce that an F1 can be driven upside down. The wings aren't on the car just for top speed. In order for an F1 car to exceed 200 MPH with that much downforce they have to actually "power through it".

Not a very efficient way to go fast and THAT is why anyone trying to go fast AVOIDS using them when possible..

 

Looks more like a big painted Easter egg....albeit a very expensive one.

 

That might explain it, I am half Ukrainian and have fond memories of spectacular Easter eggs as a kid...

 

Aren't you also part Viking?

 

Let's put this 'McLaren vs Bugatti' issue in context shall we...?

If both cars are attempting a full acceleration run from 0 to 200 mph, the McLaren hits 120 before the Bugatti even STARTS to move. The Bugatti reaches 200 BEFORE the McLaren. Just think about that....

A friend here in Phoenix ordered one on Tuesday. Black / Charcoal paint, burgandy interior. Can't wait...!!

 

Performance wise the two are like apples and oranges. Not alike. The point I am trying to make is about the AERODYNAMICS or lack thereof.

With that said, I repeat myself. I like the Buggatti but I think it is stupid to compare it to anything else on the road today and NO I DON'T LIKE THE WING because it is a stop-gap fix.

 

That is the other half.

As I've said before, I come from a very long line of rapers and pillagers...

 

ah yes, but you are so much more fun to chat and pillage with now .......

 

It is a fact and this is exactly how the Veyron works.

When you are in high speed mode on the Veyron (the second key is inserted), the wing does not deploy. The wing creates too much downforce that you can not reach 250mph.

When you are not going for speed records, then you use the wing for downforce. The veyron also uses the wing for additional braking power. I think it is trick

 

That's the Quebequois - to the Canadian goverment?

 

Or vice versa if you live in Quebec.