Top Speed War!!!!

[zmatt]

also zmat you forgot to point out how terribly ugly the veyron is lol. and you guys would be suprised but alot of the top speed cars still have beutiful interiors. i remeber seign the lambo reveton and hoping itd toss the veyron a new one but it looks almost as if lambo has given up on top speed. and as far as super cars go the lotus exige has it for me. the fact that it will beat out ferrari's and lambos on the nurburgrin says it all to me. also they can be found for as cheap as 30 grand in the states wich makes it a very obtainable car. and with a few modifications these things can be made to outpace there competitors in the straights.

There are two t's in my name. And the Exige isn't a super car. It's fast sure, but it is a track day car that can be driven on the road. If you think a Ferrari is hard to live with, the Lotus is even more so. Talked to the owner of an Elise about a month ago. he said maintenance was simple due to the Toyota drive train, but it wasn't a car you drove often, it's liable to break your back. It doesn't have enough power, and isn't expensive enough to warrant the super car badge. I don't think Lotus has made a real "supercar" in some years. Something to challenge the Ferrari of the world. The esprit was close, but even it didn't command the price tag or respect of Maranello's finest. That being said, I have heard that they plan to change this and start making up market super cars. As far as looks go, that is very subjective. The veyron does look like a fridge IMO.

 

[overlord20]

The Hennecy Super car I mentioned in another thread is faster then the big BV

 

[Abstract Hero]

Which the Venom or the 1200TT Viper? THey're faster 0 to 200 but not in top speed.

 

[zmatt]

I think one thing you guys are forgetting is how important drag is on something moving 200+ mph. Drag increases with the square of a vehicles speed. If you double the speed you increase the drag by 4x. The power required increases with the cube of the vehicle's speed. So twice the speed needs 8x the power. When you are at 250mph it's like driving through a fruit cake. Power is only one small part of the equation. If you take any old chassis and try to get it up to 250mph you would need gobs and gobs of power. The real trick is lowering your drag coefficient.

The Elise is not a low drag car. it is optimized for down force (makes a lot of drag) and for feeding air into the brakes and engine. These make is very efficient at being a tack car. Anything below 160mph and it is good. Above that and it becomes drag limited. The Veyron and other top speed seeking cars are optimized for low drag. This is why the CCX doesn't have a wing and isn't that great of a track car. You can get around this a bit with "active aerodynamics" this could be something like the Veyron's retractable spoiler or the winglets in a Ferrari 458 that deform at speed and change their drag characteristics. it's also worth noting that a longer chassis has beneficial aerodynamic properties and a longer wheelbase is better for stability. Especially with a 1000 horse power. An Elise with it's normal length wheelbase would be unusable with 1000hp.

Its obvious that Hennessey has done a lot to clean up the body of the Elise and make it better at high speed, but I wonder if it is enough.

 

[Abstract Hero]

Ok zmatt you've been coming to this post with negatives on every point made. Um, the ccx can come with a removable wing and when it does let's take note it's the third fastest car on top gears track and could still do over 245-250 so I don't think your point was valid. Even with the wing the ccx has the same drag coefficient as a fish.

You're denying what has already happened. The Venom has hit over 220 already and there is barely any body on the venom that is aero dynamically characteristic of the exige. So your theory (and that's what it is) was falsified before you spoke.
As far as the Veyron goes it disproves this further by not retracting the wing unless it's BELOW 60.

We are not underestimating drag your overestimating the amount of drag these cars have. Either that or your mistaking downforce with drag. Yes downforce creates drag but they are completely seperate characteristics.

 

[zmatt]

Ok zmatt you've been coming to this post with negatives on every point made. Um, the ccx can come with a removable wing and when it does let's take note it's the third fastest car on top gears track and could still do over 245-250 so I don't think your point was valid. Even with the wing the ccx has the same drag coefficient as a fish.

Only because everyone here thinks you make a car very fast by just adding power. the veyron ss needed 200 more hp to go 7 mph faster. It isn't that simple. Not to mention hennessey lacks a lot of the resources that VW has. The CCX in normal mode does not have a wing, and only had one after TG asked for one as well. if anything it vindicates me in that drag and downforce are a give and take. With the wing installed the CCX can not go as fast in a straight line, but without it it's handling is severely hampered.

You're denying what has already happened. The Venom has hit over 220 already and there is barely any body on the venom that is aero dynamically characteristic of the exige. So your theory (and that's what it is) was falsified before you spoke.
As far as the Veyron goes it disproves this further by not retracting the wing unless it's BELOW 60.

220 is noting like 250, 260 or 270. did you not get the part about drag increasing WITH THE SQUARE OF A VEHICLE'S SPEED. things happen differently at 220 and 250. And there is nothing theoretical about aerodynaimcs. Read up on it sometime. cars look the way they do because of aerodynamics. They have a lower drag coefficient ow than they did 20 years ago for fuel economy reasons. At the same time F1 cars look as wild as they to do extract as much downforce as possible. In Top speed mode, the Veyron doesn't deploy it's wing so it can reach it's top speed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUrUE6HEgP4
around the 6:30 mark clarkson explains it.

We are not underestimating drag your overestimating the amount of drag these cars have. Either that or your mistaking downforce with drag. Yes downforce creates drag but they are completely seperate characteristics.

I don't think I am over estimating drag. And downforce is directly related to drag. Shapes that create downforce like spoilers, diffusers, wings etc are high drag shapes that have a large surface area. That is why many race cars have high speed and high downforce setups for difference tracks. A highspeed track with gentle turns would allow you to lower your drag to get higher speeds, whereas a tight track with sharp turns needs downforce. mercedes actually campaigned a gran prix car in the 50's that had two separate bodies, one faired for high speed tracks and one open wheeled for technical tracks. FIA banned it.

The same thing actually happens in aircraft, high lift surfaces create high drag. Lift and downforce are the same force but in opposite directions. If you have a wing with a large aera and chord then you create plenty of lift and positive low speed characteristics, but when you reach high speeds the size and shape of the wing limits you. if you have a small wing that is very thin you get a very high speed but you stall pretty early. A good example is an F-104 starfighter. It has been described as a rocket with stub wings. it's handling was very bad, the turning radius was massive, but it was also one of the faster fighters we ever had.


If you want to leanr more wiki has a very good article on downforce. it's a good starting place. There are countless auto books written about it. And of course you can take a physics class.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downforce