Re: In what distance would a Bugatti Veyron beat that Vauxhall dragster?

"Doc" <docsavage20@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:1184469206.271722.54850@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Jul 14, 1:48 am, "Burgerman" <burger...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> >> It does not accelerate faster and faster and I never claimed it did.
>>
>> > Your words:
>>
>> > "...the last 60mph happens as fast as the first only faster..."
>>
>> > "...It gains roughly the same mph per sec at the start as it does at
>> > the finish..."
>
>>
>> The first is obviously a typo.
>
>
> It wasn't obvious to me and it still isn't obvious that it was a
> "typo".


Yes it was and as usual you are cutting out the bits you dont like again.


> The point arose in the first place when you made the following
> assertion - at least twice:
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Its accellerating harder at 150 than the veyron can off the line!
>
>> You stated the Vauxhall
>> will accelerate harder at 150 than the Veyron does off the line. So,
>> you say the Vaux will go 150 - 210 as fast as the Veyron does 0 - 60 -
>> 2.46 secs?

No. I said that thje vauxhall is accelerating harder at 150 than the
veyron 
does off the line. Can you not read or understand?
150 to 210 was never mentioned other than by you.
Both cars will accelerate slower as max speed is achieved but the one with

the biggest power and the best power to weight and the most drag will do
so 
much later.  It will still be accelerating much harder than the veyron as
a 
large pro****tion of its vmax is achieved.


> Yes. It will be about that. You still have no comprehension of quite
> how
> hard accelerating a 7 sec 180 mph car is have you?
> --------------------------------------
>
> Any "typos" there?
>
> You made a specific assertion that you're now attempting to backpeddle
> away from.


No I am not. The problem is that you dont read or understand too well.
The typo sentence that you picked out of a huge post and cut all the rest 
because it made you look stupid didnt even make sense to you never mind
me.


>> And as usual you have cut out all the parts where you didnt like the 
>> answers
>> because you were obviously wrong.
>
>
> I was focusing on a particular point. Kindly point out where I'm
> "wrong" about the Vauxhall NOT "accellerating harder at 150 than the
> veyron can off the line".


It doesent and you are wrong.
According to the calculator based on the figures we know the veyrons 
acceleration never matches the vauxhall at any speed.



> The fact is, by that point it's running out of steam, having gained
> the biggest chunk of its speed and time in the early stages of the
> run.

Wrong!
Compared to the lower powered car its rate of acceleration is much greater

and for further up the track. Its acceleration only falls off markedly at 
the top 25 percent of its run.  And is better than the veyron at every
point 
on the graph.



>> One makes 187mph in 7 secs, the other a miserable 140 in 10 which is
only 
>> as
>> good as a not particularly quick standard motorbike for about 7k new...
>
> And how's that bike - or any true street bike you care to bring to the
> road gonna do over, oh say 220? What's that? It won't do 220 pushed
> off a cliff you say.

No it wont and I never said ir would! A bike has the aerodynamics of a 
brick. But still a cheap stock one runs a quarter mile at the same 
time/speed as your beloved veyron...

Although I personally know two people well who have modified roadgoing
bikes 
that run rather fast.
Dean Williamson (british drag streetbike champion for many years) suzuki 
turbo 1100 was road legal and it had 270bhp when I dyno tested it.  it ran

8.1secs and at 170+ on street tyres with no wheelie bars. thats slower
than 
the vauxhall. But hugely fast. He is a joiner and uses it  for trans****t
at 
work... It was also clocked by simon hargreaves performance bikes magazine

editor, at the isle of man on the road at 212 mph with the PB Radar speed 
gun, and at 222 at bruntingthorpe in the rain - he said it would go faster

but kept spinning its rear wheel.  And the vauxhall has massively better 
aerodynamics than an early eighties or in fact any bike!  And Woody
(proper 
name unknown) has a draw through turbo no intercooler on an UNFAIRED
bandit 
and it ran 214mph at bruntingthorpe with 30lb boost and it too is his 
roadbike.


>
> A car that's set up solely for short distance acceleration will cover
> a 1/4 mile a bit quicker than a car that isn't.  Okay.
>
> And what happens when they go down a 15 mile straightaway? Both with
> their foot in it. Assuming a drag-race start - okay he's ahead by
> about 3 secs at 1/4 mile.


And by a a 50mph margin and its still out accelerating the veyron gearing 
allowing and we dont know what gearing he has or can have.


Okay, 14.75 miles to go. If that Vauxhall
> can't hit and maintain 250, he's gonna lose.  With the gears that get
> him that 7.8 sec 1/4, ain't gonna happen.

Yes it is. The vauxhall has the same max speed potential. The veyron will
be 
left in the dust . Because:
You dont know what gearing he uses.
When drag racing with huge power tall gearing helps.
A top fuel car only has one gear because it has the power to light up
tyres 
in its only 300mph plus gear.

When racing drag bikes we up the "final drive" (sprockets) to allow a full

1/4 mile run with only 3 gears used. Some use two. This is because each
gear 
takes you further without a break to change gear. It allows the engines 
nitrous oxide induced torque to be used off the line. We dont need lower 
ratios because grip is the problem. We cant use the huge power with low 
gearing. Gearchanges take time. So its entirely possible that he is only 
using two gears and a very tall final drive ratio. In fact its pretty 
likely...
In any case we simply dont know. But I can tell you now short gearing does

not make a powerful car faster! Just the opposite.

So your supposition is very seriously flawed simply because you have no 
knowlege of drag racing or seriously powerful modded stuff...

The chances are that he already has the taller gearing or has a box of
final 
drive ratios to choose from...



> He'd really be screwed if they went at it down the salt flats where
> all that low end torque is useless and it's simply who's got the goods
> on the top end.


He has more "goods" everywhere including the top end. Not only that but
the 
control systems and launch systems to better control it than the veyron! 
Why do you suppose that the fastest cars on the salt flats are slightly 
differently set up drag cars! Unless streamliners or jet cars?



> It took a bunch of talented folks to make that Veyron do what it does.

Without a doubt. As a sensible and reliable car for average joe to run on 
the road its superb. But it has to be safe, reliable, smooth, quiet, 
crashable and pass emmissions tests etc. So no way it can compete with
what 
is basically a drag race car on the road with all the impracticality that 
this means.

> If it makes you feel better to maintain that a 10 sec 1/4 mile is
> "miserable" for an over 4000lb car that will cruise on down the road
> comfortably at 200 and still has 25% more speed in it's back pocket,
> whatever guy.


Frankly it is miserable as far as drag performance is concerned. There are

rather a lot of cars at any test day or race meeting that can do that at
any 
drag strip most weekends.

I think its an excellent bit of engineering. But it could never compete
with 
a dragster on the road for straightline performance.

So your statement that you keep cutting out of the posts (like almost
every 
point I make that you dont "like") that it is "laughable" to compare its 
performance to a veyron is in itself  "laughable".  You simply have no 
comprehension of performance.