Clarkson drives the Veyron
#1
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0...1890873,00.html
I think any words written describing what its like in this car have the ability to make me salivate uncontrollably. This is a good little write up, not your typical cynical clarkson, he gives the thing 12 stars out of 5.
That's pretty nuts about the spoiler thing. Like, if you wanna do a top speed run, you gotta pop this key in, turn off the spoiler... so its like. Ya, you can do 250mph now, but don't bother trying to turn.
I think any words written describing what its like in this car have the ability to make me salivate uncontrollably. This is a good little write up, not your typical cynical clarkson, he gives the thing 12 stars out of 5.
That's pretty nuts about the spoiler thing. Like, if you wanna do a top speed run, you gotta pop this key in, turn off the spoiler... so its like. Ya, you can do 250mph now, but don't bother trying to turn.
#3
Originally posted by mustang_sallad@November 28, 2005, 2:52 AM
That's pretty nuts about the spoiler thing. Like, if you wanna do a top speed run, you gotta pop this key in, turn off the spoiler... so its like. Ya, you can do 250mph now, but don't bother trying to turn.
That's pretty nuts about the spoiler thing. Like, if you wanna do a top speed run, you gotta pop this key in, turn off the spoiler... so its like. Ya, you can do 250mph now, but don't bother trying to turn.
#4
Originally posted by 05fordgt@November 28, 2005, 9:16 AM
Hey Jeff, the cool thing with the car, when you use the key to go into top speed mode, if you turn the wheel any more than 90 degrees, or so much as tap the brakes, it goes back into handling mode. This car is a tecnological tour de force. Hope I get to see one someday.
Hey Jeff, the cool thing with the car, when you use the key to go into top speed mode, if you turn the wheel any more than 90 degrees, or so much as tap the brakes, it goes back into handling mode. This car is a tecnological tour de force. Hope I get to see one someday.
#5
Originally posted by jgsmuzzy@November 28, 2005, 9:27 AM
Eeek, if you turned the wheel 90 degrees at 250 mph, the car wouldn't have time to go into handling mode before all control was lost!!!
Eeek, if you turned the wheel 90 degrees at 250 mph, the car wouldn't have time to go into handling mode before all control was lost!!!
#7
Originally posted by jgsmuzzy@November 28, 2005, 10:59 AM
I reckon you would be very close to flipping the car if you got to 90 degrees, 45 is still pretty extreme when at 80mph, let alone 200+!!
I reckon you would be very close to flipping the car if you got to 90 degrees, 45 is still pretty extreme when at 80mph, let alone 200+!!
#11
I wonder if the 1000hp version of the Saleen S7 twin turbo would run with it? I know off the line the Bugatti would eat the S7, but on the top end i wonder if the S7 could hang with it having about half the weight!!
#13
Originally posted by BigBoyBoelts@November 28, 2005, 4:42 PM
I wonder if the 1000hp version of the Saleen S7 twin turbo would run with it? I know off the line the Bugatti would eat the S7, but on the top end i wonder if the S7 could hang with it having about half the weight!!
I wonder if the 1000hp version of the Saleen S7 twin turbo would run with it? I know off the line the Bugatti would eat the S7, but on the top end i wonder if the S7 could hang with it having about half the weight!!
But i suppose the AWD of the bugatti really helps it actually connect all that power with the ground. With 4 wheels pushing, you have twice the maximum pushing force as you do with 2 wheel drive before the wheels start to slip.
Is it possible that this car has speed sensitive steering? That could explain the whole 90 degree thing. Maybe they figure this thing should have a different steering ratio at 250mph than it does at 50mph. Otherwise, i'd imagine the steering to be ridiculously sensitive during a top speed test. With speed sensitive steering, 90 degrees might be less severe than it sounds at this speed.
Either way, i think it'd be pretty nuts to see this thing doing 250mph and turning as hard as it could without rolling. I still haven't seen a video of this thing. Anybody???
#14
You might want to ponder that for a moment. Covering the length of a football pitch, in a second, in a car. And then you might want to think about the braking system. A VW Polo will generate 0.6g if you stamp on the middle pedal hard. You get that from the air brake alone on a Veyron. Factor in the carbon ceramic discs and you will pull up from 250mph in just 10sec. Sounds good, but in those 10sec you’ll have covered a third of a mile.
Can some of the scientific types tell us what 250-0 in 10 seconds equates to in G's?
And the best quote of them all!!
Happily, stopping distances become irrelevant because you won’t see the obstacle in the first place. By the time you know it was there, you’ll have gone through the windscreen, through the Pearly Gates and be half way across God’s breakfast table.
#15
Originally posted by Galaxie@November 28, 2005, 2:45 PM
I wonder if anyone will ever try to top that
I wonder if anyone will ever try to top that
http://www.sscautos.com/default.asp
Ultimate Aero
HP: 1,046 bhp @ 6950 rpm
Torque: 821 lb./ft. @ 6200 rpm
Dry Weight: 2,640 lbs.
Top Speed: Up to 273 mph
(per Langley wind tunnel calculations)
HP: 1,046 bhp @ 6950 rpm
Torque: 821 lb./ft. @ 6200 rpm
Dry Weight: 2,640 lbs.
Top Speed: Up to 273 mph
(per Langley wind tunnel calculations)
#16
this is my favourite quote:
"...you aren’t even able to steer round whatever it is you can’t see..."
sounds like something out of Catch-22.
From the science guy: 250mph = Mach 0.326
250 to 0 in 10 seconds is about 36.7 ft/s^2 or 11.176m/s^2. A g is 32.2ft/s^2 or 9.81m/s^2, so this is a bit over 1 g. Not as much as i was expecting at first, but when you think about it, that'd mean you're weighing more in the horizontal direction than in the vertical.
"...you aren’t even able to steer round whatever it is you can’t see..."
sounds like something out of Catch-22.
From the science guy: 250mph = Mach 0.326
250 to 0 in 10 seconds is about 36.7 ft/s^2 or 11.176m/s^2. A g is 32.2ft/s^2 or 9.81m/s^2, so this is a bit over 1 g. Not as much as i was expecting at first, but when you think about it, that'd mean you're weighing more in the horizontal direction than in the vertical.
#17
Originally posted by mustang_sallad@November 29, 2005, 5:01 PM
From the science guy: 250mph = Mach 0.326
250 to 0 in 10 seconds is about 36.7 ft/s^2 or 11.176m/s^2. A g is 32.2ft/s^2 or 9.81m/s^2, so this is a bit over 1 g. Not as much as i was expecting at first, but when you think about it, that'd mean you're weighing more in the horizontal direction than in the vertical.
From the science guy: 250mph = Mach 0.326
250 to 0 in 10 seconds is about 36.7 ft/s^2 or 11.176m/s^2. A g is 32.2ft/s^2 or 9.81m/s^2, so this is a bit over 1 g. Not as much as i was expecting at first, but when you think about it, that'd mean you're weighing more in the horizontal direction than in the vertical.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post