Veyron trumped already

laissez-faire said:
It is IMPOSSIBLE to accelerate much faster than mavity with tyres.

Anyone with A-Level mechanics can work this out. Maximum coefficient of friction between normal tyres and tarmac is 1 (and that is pretty damn hard to achieve) and so doing the maths the theoretical maximum acceleration perpendicular to mavity using friction based propulsion is g itself.

C/F = 1 means that if you push at the side of it with a force equal to the weight it will only just be on the 'verge' of moving. Obviously unless it is glued down it is impossible to get a greater C/F than 1 therefore. Incidentally this is why without wings it is impossible to pull more than 1g in the corner otherwise the car will simply slide which is why I always laugh when people claim they pulled 3 or 4, yeah right mate - keep dreaming!

HOWEVER The reason some cars (i.e. F1 cars) go slightly quicker than this is becuase by the time they reach 60mph they are already pushing down quite a lot of downforce, and also the tyres literally DO act like glue by having a hot sticky surface, some of the tyre actually lets left behind when the wheels slip a little. Anyway this is why if the wheels spin a tiny bit the coefficient of friction is slightly greater than 1 and you pull away faster. (So now you know the Physics of why racing driving starts spin the wheels a tiny bit!) However the tyres on an F1 car last about 80 miles...

Obviously with rocket power you can go faster...

Anyway so basically, for a normal road car where you don't want to be leaving black 11's , even with infinite power, 60 mph = 26.8224 m / s => min a = 2.73 seconds.
Click to expand...

Anyone with greater than A-level mechanics knows that A-level mechanics is a massive simplification of real-world physics and is actually only applicable in text-books and poorly written computer games. :p

Friction is an insanely complex force to model, and you haven't even considered the effect that the mass of the vehicle has on its ability to put the power down.
 
Of course it is, thats why he said 'so basically'. Its a good estimation, more sound then opinion alone

For reference the Ultimia GTR does 0-60 in 2.6secs
 
The car really was at the motorshow yesterday, and the company man there really was claiming 0-60 in 1.6 seconds.
All I could think was that if an F1 can't manage it, then some tarted up kit car with a hugely powerful engine certainly isn't going to.
 
How funny. So it's fast, but will it ever go into real production, will it last, will it turn corners, will it have 4WD and will it ever look better than it does now, because it certainly needs too.
 
I love it how people and the press are just waiting for something, anything along to come along and beat the Veyron in some aspect. A number of manufacturers may make claims, but can they verify them? It took a few years for McLaren to be removed from their performance perch.
 
Looking at that car its well, ugly and soulless impo. I mean if it was quicker than the veron who gives a monkey, its a moot point as the veron is a thing of beauty which can be fully apreciated. that just looks like a bunch of panels bolted round an engine as an afterthought.
 
Concorde Rules said:
I somehow doubt its better than a Veyron. It took VAG a few years to get it to work properly.

Which would I have? Veyron :D
Click to expand...

Its like the Nobel in a sense which although was a very fast car and reasonable priced, it just didn't have the image or status of its counterparts.

Nobel < Jag XKR etc

Same way this Barabus is not going to be greater than the Veyron.
 
Kazzan said:
Anyone with greater than A-level mechanics knows that A-level mechanics is a massive simplification of real-world physics and is actually only applicable in text-books and poorly written computer games. :p

Friction is an insanely complex force to model, and you haven't even considered the effect that the mass of the vehicle has on its ability to put the power down.
Click to expand...

You mean like 2 years into a degree in the Physics? Or the maybe Professor who explained it to me?

Are you kidding me about the mass? It cancels out! It puts more force down, of course, but that just means you have more to shift sideways!
 
0-60 in 1.67 seconds?! BS to be honest. With that power it wouldn't be able to get enough traction to do that. Not even F1 cars can do that (I believe they are around 2.5 seconds to 60).

The top speed would be sceptical as well. With so quick acceleration keeping it in a straight line would be bad enough. I highly doubt it would be able to do 270mph.
 
laissez-faire said:
You mean like 2 years into a degree in the Physics? Or the maybe Professor who explained it to me?

Are you kidding me about the mass? It cancels out! It puts more force down, of course, but that just means you have more to shift sideways!
Click to expand...

And here is me thinking that cars had four wheels as opposed to just a single contact point, and that the weight distribution among those wheels changed when the car was under acceleration as opposed to acting uniformly on that single contact point.

Also Wikipedia says that the coefficient of tyres to concrete is 1.7, although I have no idea if that's correct or not since it's Wikipedia.

Friction is an empirical quantity anyway for these reasons, a car launching from start has so many forces acting upon it that you can't treat it as a cube of rubber sliding across tarmac.

I'm no physics expert, but if my time at University taught me anything it's that lecturers are not always right. :p
 
Fusion said:
I love it how people and the press are just waiting for something, anything along to come along and beat the Veyron in some aspect. A number of manufacturers may make claims, but can they verify them?
Click to expand...
Personally, I believe Koenigsegg have the greatest chance...VW won't let them near their mahoosive straight though ;)

It took a few years for McLaren to be removed from their performance perch.
Click to expand...
That's because nobody was really trying. At all.

Concorde Rules said:
I somehow doubt its better than a Veyron. It took VAG a few years to get it to work properly.
Click to expand...
No - it took VAG a few years to get it to work properly...and be reliable for more than 5,000 miles.

oweneades said:
0-60 in 1.67 seconds?! BS to be honest. With that power it wouldn't be able to get enough traction to do that. Not even F1 cars can do that (I believe they are around 2.5 seconds to 60).
Click to expand...
F1 cars are far from fast in the scale of things. Remember that they are built to a very restrictive set of regulations... ;)

Hillclimb single seaters, cars like the Gould Puma and any drag car worth it's salt will knock it in less than two seconds. Rallycross Supercars of the late nineties would do 0-60 in about 1.5 seconds. On gravel.

The top speed would be sceptical as well. With so quick acceleration keeping it in a straight line would be bad enough. I highly doubt it would be able to do 270mph.
Click to expand...
It's all a matter of gearing, power and aerodynamics. To go fast you need to overcome frictional drag (tyres on the road), aerodynamic drag and mechanical drag (the gearing itself). To overcome these, you need power.

Unfortunately, drag increases exponentially as you want to go faster so it requires more power to go from 190-200mph than it does to go from 180-190mph.

Which is why we can build cars that will do 0-190mph in under 8 seconds...But they need 1200-1400bhp.

*n
 
will find out soon enough, there in the process of tryiong to get guiness world records to verify the times. At a date still to be set though.
 
The reason an F1 car can't isn't the fastest car to 60 is because it has too much power and not enough downforce to put the power down at low speeds - I think there was a 5th gear episode where they did a 1/4 test with a ducati and an F1 car - the bike was quicker off the mark everytime, until the aerodynamics kicked in on the F1 car and it nailed the bike.

In a perfect world and test lab conditions maybe that car is well capable of doing 60 in 1.67s however in the real world I doubt it. Heck if it can do it even in 3s it's bloody impressive and faster than most bikes!
 
penski said:
F1 cars are far from fast in the scale of things. Remember that they are built to a very restrictive set of regulations... ;)
Click to expand...

And their built to go round corners, not simply do a 1/4 mile straight drag, so along with the restrictive regs you end up with cars that are only really geared for about 220 to 230mph at the most.

Honda have been going after the ultimate F1 speed record, they had to do a bit of aero work on the car to make it suitable for the high speed runs, in other words, lop off the rear wing and add a vertical stabiliser.

Freefaller said:
I think there was a 5th gear episode where they did a 1/4 test with a ducati and an F1 car - the bike was quicker off the mark everytime, until the aerodynamics kicked in on the F1 car and it nailed the bike.
Click to expand...

The 5th gear episode had a BAR Honda, Honda Superbike and Honda powerboat racing against each other in drag race. Theres been so many of these "tests" on TV motor shows that I cant remember every one.

A bikes always going to win off the line, its just down to its relatively low mass.
 
Arc said:
And their built to go round corners, not simply do a 1/4 mile straight drag, so along with the restrictive regs you end up with cars that are only really geared for about 220 to 230mph at the most.
Click to expand...

A Hillclimb single-seater accelerates and corners faster than an F1 car.

A bikes always going to win off the line, its just down to its relatively low mass.
Click to expand...

The problem is keeping the front wheel down and getting grip with a comparatively small contact patch.

*n
 
what you got to remember is F1 cars have so many rules and regulations. If the designers where aloud more freedom you would get some awesome cars nothing else could touch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom