Doc wrote:
>> Well we dont know. The veyron according to conventional wisdom and
>> an aerodynamics calc wouldnt actually be able to catch the vauxhall
>> anyway...
>
> An aerodynamics calc says a car purpose-built to go the better part
> of 300 mph has an aero *disadvantage* compared to a mass-produced
> passenger car from the '70's? He's got some mods on the Vaux body,
> but still.
Yeah, but the cdA only needs to be under 30% more than that of the
Veyron - it's not easy to get a 30% reduction. According to Gordon
Murray in
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=7&article_id=3075
,
the cdA of the Veyron isn't _that_ low anyway. As Burgerman says, it is
probably close a close-run thing.
>>> While the Vauxhall can go around 190, how long can it maintain
>>> it?
>> Err who knows what it can "maintain" - it has the power to go
>> faster than the veyron anyway. Just.
>
> It has the power and gearing to go a 1/4 mi about 2.5 secs faster -
> on a dragstrip on drag tires - ending up at just about its top speed
> if it's set up correctly as a drag car.
That 2.7 seconds is a *HUGE* difference. The average acceleration is
almost twice as high in the Vaux over the quarter mile. Almost certainly
it will be good for over 200mph, because the power will drop off after
the peak, and it will definitely get there a hell of a lot sooner and be
a hell of a lot further down the road when it does.
As Burgerman says, in a give and take race on the motorway, where speeds
probably aren't going to venture above 200mph that much, the vaux is
pretty certain to win. If you throw in nasty surfaces, bends or long
smooth straights, then it becomes less clear and probably favours the
Veyron. Possibly :-)
> Also, unless we see a verified dyno test of that Vauxhall's engine,
> we've got only his word for it that it makes 2000hp. People are known
> to embellish such claims. And where is that engine making its power?
> Aren't the powerband characteristics of the engine im****tant?
Of course, but then it does post a 1/4 mile time which roughly
corresponds with what you might expect for the claimed power figure.
The video showed it to be surprisingly tractable when tootling.
> You say there's not enough distance to get to full speed - if it gets
> over 220 in 1.5 miles, doesn't seem he needs much distance to go
> plenty fast. Aren't there straightaways longer than that in Europe?
There are plenty of straight sections of that sort of length, but the
Vaux gets to 200+mph in less than 0.5 mile, so it will have made rather
a significant lead by the time the Veyron matches it's top speed, one
would imagine.
OK, stuff it, lets do the geek thing properly :) I've done a noddy
excel drag-race, using the available data for both cars. Assuming that
the Vaux has a max speed of 200mph then we get:
http://www.dur.ac.uk/a.k.kirby/images/drag/vaux_200.jpg
The veyron overtakes after 36s, 3km down the road
If the Vaux can hit 210mph, then it looks like:
http://www.dur.ac.uk/a.k.kirby/images/drag/vaux_210.jpg
This time the Veyron takes 42s and 3.5km to overtake.
I haven't produced the graphs, but if V-max for the vaux were 240mph,
then it takes just over 100s and 10.5km!
I should point out that this is entirely based on noddy physics and
googled data, so should be taken with a pinch or 10 of salt :-D
> Btw, how does your bike compare to a Yamaha R1? There's video on
> YouTube of an R1 getting repeatedly, seriously smoked by a Veyron.
Heh, our Burgerman was/is the full-fat nutcase type of drag biker - I'm
not sure about the specifics, but it was some sort of fast s****ts bike
with a huge turbo and nitrous, getting about 300HP at the wheel, IIRC.
Quite a lot quicker than an R1, anyway, I'd imagine.
|
