Bugatti has broken the 300mph barrier
topgear.com
topgear.com
In terms of a daily driver, I think the fun comes from the acceleration, and thus the torque a car can produce.
My daily driver is a Mazda 3 / Mazda Axela, which comes with 200 Newtonmeter torque at 6400 rpm. It's ok, it's fun, but yeah.
So the other day I drove a 2013 Nissan Leaf (BEV), which gives you ~250 Nm torque right at the beginning. This was so much fun to drive.
So for me, a car doesn't need to have a ridiculosly max speed - I need max torque from the start.
I wonder if anyone has studied that.
I did some calculations once to relate sportbike performance to cars. People usually think about performance in terms of peak power on paper, which is not where you are most of the time on the street.
I estimated that if you are riding a 600cc bike at roughly car-like rpms, then the power to weight ratio is comparable to a car with a 3.5L V-6. But if you are using the upper range, then it's more comparable to a Ferrari.
With a literbike, if you are at car-like rpms, the power to weight is like a street car with a fairly large V-8, but if you are using it at high speeds, then it's comparable to a F1 car.
Never mind the Tesla is smaller, has a lower center of gravity, and costs 15x less and has more range.
And it's probably worth noting that the Tesla is almost certainly software limited.
Also, I haven't test-driven a Bugatti, but I've tested a Tesla. My wife compared the acceleration to a launched roller coaster. I entered the turn onto an onramp at 20 mph, exited the 90-ish degree turn at 60 in the same lane, and hit 80 by the time I realized I needed to take my foot off the pedal. We weren't halfway down the ramp. What was really impressive about that was the turn: plastered into the back and the side of seat at the same time, traction like it was on rails to whole time. It is quite possible the car was outperforming my nervous system's ability to orient.
The Bugattis and Aston Martins alike are engineered to lap tracks or do speed runs over and over again in comfort and luxury without any reduction in acceleration or braking performance while Tesla's drive-train reaches its thermal limits really fast if you push it and reduces its performance accordingly.
Tesla, due to how economics factor in engineering, was not designed to deliver it's peak performance in a sustained fashion but in short bursts when you need it. The Bugattis and Porsches can deliver their peak performance all day long, that's why they cost x-times more. And let's not talk about luxury or comfort.
a problem the Porsche Taycan solves (to some extent).
Well, I don't doubt they are more capable than a Tesla, but I don't think any ultra-high performance car can sustain high speeds indefinitely. The Bugatti Veyron has tires that last for about 15 minutes at top speed, but then again, the fuel will run out in 12.
It also seems like you see supercars on fire a lot, also hinting that they are not that durable when you push them.
>And it's probably worth noting that the Tesla is almost certainly software limited. Most things are software limited in modern cars. The question is, if you improved the battery pack so it could deliver more power, would the motors handle it?
The torque curve on the Bugatti starts out lower for the first 1-2k RPM and then sticks at a significantly higher torque that seems artificially flat, likely limited by the rest of the drivetrain to save on weight (or ripping itself apart as opposed to the Tesla which would light on fire if the limiters were removed).
Bikes don't tend to have high torque in general, but their light weight and gearing are designed to maximise what torque they do produce. This means there are quite a few that will do sub 3 seconds to 60, and sub 5 seconds is practically the norm.
What this means is that you can more easily get past, and through, traffic because you can safely take advantage of gaps that no car can. Also, that sense of having your arms ripped out of their sockets and hanging on for dear life is fun.
Still, there's something to be said for going really fast as well: the feeling of the world blurring past you, and the road or track flowing and snaking underneath you like mercury, is hard to beat (if sometimes a little terrifying).
> This means there are quite a few that will do sub 3 seconds to 60, and sub 5 seconds is practically the norm.
This was the give-away - pretty sure very few humans can do 60 mph on a bicycle, unless they're drafting.
Frankly my favorite is the European “moto”
‘Bike’ is short for bicycle. Motorcycles are also bicycles so they’re also bikes.
There are some fun youtube videos demoing bike performance, e.g. Ninja H2's doing 0-250MPH in 26s [0], outdragging a Bugatti [1] and outpacing an F1 car and an F16 fighter at the same time.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_n7ru1e-rg [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi5_GQ78wM8 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ESq00zi7bU
As another commenter said, you rev a Ninja (just like a sports car) and launch it using the clutch.
In fact bicycles are fastest off the line, since they produce max. torque at 0rpm (just keep weight on a pedal, release the brakes to go). But acceleration is modest, so motorbikes and cars will soon go past.
And of course electrically-driven vehicles are also capable of producing torque at 0rpm, hence their acceleration advantage.
Of course, for touring there's now the H2 SX Ninja(!)
I doubt a bicycle would actually cross the starting line before a high end bike or car would surpass it. A 180lb rider would produce about 90lb of torque at most (assuming 6” crank) and that’s only for the instant that the crank is parallel with the ground.
A high end car would deliver significantly more than 90lb of torque instantaneously by dumping the clutch (or using launch control).
If you aren’t standing up sprinting, you’re definitely not going to be getting anything close to your “body weight torque”.
Having said that, I am very used to riding bicycles and (large) motorbikes around town, and from waiting for lights to change if I'm on a bicycle I'm generally first away even when motorbike riders are getting competitive (never mind cars).
The advantage of the bicycle is generally only a few feet, of course.
The Veyron might weight 20x as much as you and your bike, but has over 300x the power output of the best sprinters in the world.
Given equal reaction time and equal interest in racing, I am doubtful your cycling advantage would last for more than inches against a high end sports car.
In a racing start, a well-driven torquey car (like the Veyron) will also launch faster than a motorbike - at least to start with. Once the speed increases, the acceleration drops and the motorbike can then use its superior power-to-weight ratio (which it can't fully use off the line). Eventually - once speeds are well into triple digits - a fast-enough car starts to catch up with the motorbike again (due to better aerodynamics).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7528120_Torque_and_...
I can get off the line faster then automobiles, they aren't racing / clutch dumping at the lights. Traffic is so heavy and with so many intersections, it's typically pointless for automobiles to race off the line anyways.
As I filter past daily the same Pagani and Bugatti and LFA and Tesla S and NSX. :D
Once you are in third though displacement takes the lead, and my smaller engine bike is at a disadvantage!
ZX9: lights change, rev engine, dump clutch.
None we're talking about general around-time riding, waiting for the lights to change here. The point is big torque means less delay between seeing the signals change and starting to move.
No disagreement that if the ZX9 is sitting on the line with the revs already in hand that it's going to be away first.
Rev engine, slip clutch to launch, versus slip clutch and immediately begin putting on the power.. no matter what, you need to engage the clutch and add throttle. The motor has so little mass it's not like it takes a long time to get it spinning before dumping the clutch on a low-torque motorcycle, and you can rev before the green.
And regardless of what you're riding, you'll be across the intersection before most cars have even begun moving.
That's with a 2.0 litre straight-four engine, in the 1980s.
Optimizing for ludicrous acceleration has always been possible. But it is at odds with race track performance, which is what Ferrari, Bugatti, Lamborghini are focused on. At the track, if you are going below 80 mph at any point after the first 4 seconds, you're doing it wrong.
I've been wondering about that for some time. What type(s) of competitions do cars like that enter? I'm not exactly knowledgeable in the racing world, so my view is very limited; the few times a see something about racing (excluding F1 and rally which are obviously different beasts), I mainly see BMWs, Porches, Corvettes (I think) and so on. Maybe my limited exposure just covered the wrong competition?
now there are certain racing series like FIA GT3 where manufacturers are required to make a certain number of street-legal vehicles to qualify that car for the competition. a Porsche 911 GT3 RS is an example of this type of car. make a couple small modifications and your street-legal car is a GT3 racecar. homologated cars like this tend to push the limits of what's tolerable to drive on the street; they're not really setup to be comfortable.
But how does that work for Bugati, Ferrari, Lamborghini (and McLaren, Pagani, Koenigsegg)? Are the street cars (more or less) the same as the ones in races? Do they even race?
And in conclusion, how accurate is the statement that (production models of) Ferrari, Bugatti, Lamborghini are focused on race track performance?
> But how does that work for Bugati, Ferrari, Lamborghini (and McLaren, Pagani, Koenigsegg)? Are the street cars (more or less) the same as the ones in races? Do they even race?
it's hard to give a simple answer to this question because the manufacturers you listed make a pretty wide range of cars. they try to hit a lot of different points on the luxury vs track performance, but they're all oriented much more towards repeatable track performance than a model s.
if by "race" you mean the local track, sure, all of these cars are going to perform very well. even the most luxury focused models are going to totally outclass my hot hatch and keep going for a lot longer. if you're talking about a serious race, no you cannot just show up with your street-legal ferrari and start racing. for one thing, safety regs for these races will usually be incompatible with local laws for street cars (eg, roll cages are illegal in many jurisdictions, but required for races), and you would want to strip out a lot more weight anyway (passenger seat, floormats, etc) to be competitive. you can get really close with certain homologated models though. I believe most of the manufacturers you listed participate in GT2/GT3, but I'm not familiar with the specific cars from every brand.
> And in conclusion, how accurate is the statement that (production models of) Ferrari, Bugatti, Lamborghini are focused on race track performance?
it's true that any car from any of those manufacturers is going to be much more focused on repeatable track performance than mass market hondas, VWs, etc. the extent to which comfort and practicality is compromised varies a lot between specific models.
I hope this answers your question. I'm certainly not an authoritative source, just an enthusiast.
The word for "road car exactly like a race car" is "homologated". It's done in some racing series, basically forcing manufacturers to build 200 copies of the car, making it road legal, and putting at least some of those on the market.
The interesting torque is the one at the wheels, after the transmission and adjusted for wheel size.
Comparing to CPUs it would be similar to obsessing over IPC, but not caring about that performance = IPC * Frequency.
Regardless, I understand your point. Having all the power from the start makes more sense for daily driving.
Roads don't like torque. If high-torque becomes a trend, expect to pay more vehicle-tax. Tires also don't like torque.
This is a bit off-topic, but this isn't really accurate. (Not the fact that high torque causes more surface damage thing, that's probably defensible - though gross loading does much more damage to roads in most conditions). But the source of funding for road construction and maintenance.
Depending where you live, your vehicle tax doesn't do much of anything for the roads anyway. They're maintained and repaved using general funds, usually taken from property taxes and income taxes.
So called "hypothecated" taxes (supposedly dedicated to a specific purpose) are rarely actually restricted to that usage.
In Australia, even if the tax is supposedly restricted in what it can be applied to, I believe that the parliament can legislate otherwise at any time.
Yes, and remember that batteries are quite heavy so torque + electric vehicle = bad news for roads.
See also: https://www.inverse.com/article/53612-electric-cars-cause-cr...
My daily driver FN2 Civic Type-R (stock, except for brake lines and pads) and whatever preconceptions are had about Honda, this is an engineering marvel. Torque is mostly linear, slightly going up on the top half, with a slight drop just before the 8300rpm limiter, giving the feeling that the car keeps on giving - wanting to give, even -you more and more. As for the numbers, it does 0-100kph in 6.2-6.4s but that’s because there’s a 2-3 gearshift at 95 (it’s well under 6 to that): it’s just such a “screw the numbers game” mentality, “let’s get the most out of this in every possible way, whatever the benchmarks. Only fun matters.”, which I fully subscribe to.
Anyway, even acceleration is overrated, nice turns is what matters and gives Gs much more quickly than any acceleration, and this one delivers, with fantastic fast cornering and good tight cornering (if you set the car up correctly on entry to avoid understeer). As a tire manufacturer as said (I think it was Bridgestone), “fun is not a straight line”.
And although imperfect in many ways, this car is so much fun (and practical, to boot) I have than big stupid grin in minutes, on every ride. I’ve driven so many powerful cars on occasion yet after the initial oomph effect, none ever came close to that. On the lower power end I did enjoy that ‘06 Suzuki Swift, and the latest MX-5 is solid gold :)
Mr. Tom put a V8 into a Miata while keeping it as close to the original in terms of handling as possible (I think the end result only weighs a couple hundred lb more)
Mr. Tom is a maniac of precision, so the videos are a joy to see how clean everything is (he’a a bit of a nerd though)
I might argue that there is no such thing as an engine (assuming reasonably modern and N/A) that has "a lot of low end torque"; rather that kind of engine should be described as "lacking high end torque".
The biggest problem with this is having too much torque. If the car isn't designed for it, you'll just spin the tires at full throttle, and you'll have to settle for mid-2nd and 3rd gear pulls. I knew someone with a boosted awd Toyota Camry that could spin all the tires in 3rd.
This is much too fast for the human operator (driver) to safely react to things outside the cockpit, which is why for example Britain owns trains capable of 140mph in service but deliberately limits them to 125mph. Tests suggested drivers couldn't be relied on to reliably observe and react to a lineside signal (showing e.g. double amber, "Prepare to find the next signal at: Prepare to find the next signal at: Danger") passed at 140mph. The "obvious" upgrade is to put the signals inside the cab with the driver, and that's how high speed trains work. But a car doesn't have in-cab signals either, and it has a LOT more external signals to respond to, including several signs we see in that video.
There's really no point in building a car that can go above 150km/h, but perhaps some of the aerodynamics can translate into more fuel efficient car.
I'm also slightly annoyed by the usage of the word "barrier". There's physical or perceived 300mph barrier. People have built cars that will go a super sonic speeds, so there was never any doubt that it would be possible. Admittedly it is a little funny that the Bugatti is faster than a Formula 1 car.
Basically, put a few corners in and I don't think it would even be close. There's quite a few cars that can claim a faster top speed than an F1 car though.
is it? That is 20-50km/h above the limit in all european countries other than Germany. There are people going that speed, but in my experience across a few countries 99% of the traffic does not go that much above the limit.
Sources:
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowle.... https://autotraveler.ru/en/spravka/max-speed-limits-in-europ...
Personally, I tend to cruise at an indicated 100mph because above that enforcement ratchets up. Which is about 160kph. I certainly think it's fair to describe that as not uncommon. I do similar speeds in France and Germany and am rarely the fastest vehicle around.
In the UK? OK, at least it's clear what you think of the law.
Personally, I hope you get nailed for it. That sort of contempt for both the law and other road users ought to be penalised.
(Maybe you only cruise on empty motorways at 3 AM, and so that makes it acceptable...?)
As far as getting nailed goes, it would be a fixed penalty ticket, if anything. I don't agree that it's contempt for other road users, any more than it is to do that speed (or significantly more) on an autobahn.
And yeah, I think the law is stupid. I believe that we should eliminate speeding tickets and have police only enforce "reckless driving". Going the speed limit could be much more dangerous than exceeding it given traffic and road conditions. Going 2x the speed limit with no other cars in sight should be penalized much less than failing to signal when changing lanes while in traffic; the former only puts the driver and passengers at risk, while the latter risks all cars within a half mile or so if they cause a pileup.
Police seem to enforce the former far more than the latter because it's easier, not because it has the biggest impact.
This was on a relatively quiet, well sighted motorway in good conditions. But there were other people clearly in a hurry!
http://www.unecartedumonde.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/car...
You could definitely enjoy one on a track if you had one. But you would probably spend more time just enjoying the thought that you own it, keeping it safe, then you would take your actual track car to the track.
Even if you're "only" going to be driving at 160-180 km/h (as is common e.g. on the German autobahn) you want to be in a car that can do 220-240 km/h. You don't want to be 100% maxing the car out at your cruising speed.
The F1, in pre-internet days, literally phoned home to McLaren with telemetry.
Edit: I think you had to physically plug it into a phone socket... in case anyone was being put off buying an F1 for security/privacy reasons. ;-)
There is a reason why the TGV has seen no accidents since its launch in 1981.
As for a car, yeah, it's mostly a gimmick. Still incredible engineering, though.
The rail bed is even not that great, that's why only some ICEs are allowed on TGV routes, because they need a special deflector which is more robust to tolerate the stones which are thrown up in the air when the train drives over it.
I think they took this in consideration when they designed the latest iteration of the ICE.
If https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_France is to be believed, the high speed lines for TGV are primarily but not exclusively used for TGV:
"LGVs are reserved primarily for TGVs. One reason for this is that line capacity is sharply reduced when trains of differing speeds are mixed, ..." "Some stretches of less-used LGV are routinely mixed-traffic, such as the Tours branch ..." "Outside France, LGV-type lines often carry non-TGV intercity traffic, often as a requirement of the initial funding commitments."
I'm also not so sure about the quality of the rail bed:
"Track alignment is more precise than on normal railway lines, and ballast is in a deeper-than-normal profile, resulting in increased load-bearing capacity and track stability. "
But it is fun.
A racing car has a function: to get around a track faster than other cars (over a period of laps). To do this, it needs to be versatile: turning, braking, acceleration, fuel consumption, range of vision and suspension (among others) play a role. That's the true engineering challenge. It's why it has wheels, not wings. But to simply go fast, seems a bit pointless to me.
It's a status display in either case, given that one could adequately tell the time on a cheap digital Casio.
Status is generally derived from the signaling of certain values. Wealth is one such value, but in general we assign status to a combination of values. Aesthetic + Wealth = Art. Strength + endurance = Athletics. Leadership + Vision + Knowledge + Intelligence = Innovation.
For me, at least, these super expensive cars have lost all signaling value, except 'wealth'. Because of that, I would almost call it tasteless, senseless and idiotic.
I guess I just cannot share in the purpose of the team making this car go +300 mph. We already have the Thrust SSC (1228 km/h / 763 mph). So what does this prove? That if you want to take corners and need to see what happens behind you, you won't get to go that fast? Why not productionize the Thrust SSC then?
Max speed (to me) is just a senseless metric. It's a bit like clock speed of a CPU. Interesting metric, but only in relationship to other factors.
But with such a super car, idk, I'm just left with an empty feeling: why? What is the point?
The Bugatti is a street legal car designed to shatter speed records in a straight line. If that isn't specific function with a formula I don't know what qualifies. The street legal part of a super car is not inherently different than the 1.6L FI hybrid engine regulations of Formula 1, it's just a different set of constraints.
You do not create a winning street legal super car without knowledge, innovation, creativity, determinism, enthusiasm - and by proxy of those joy, competition, and playfulness.
I simply do not understand the gate keeping here. If it's not your thing, fair enough. But please do not invalidate the joy of others because it is real to them.
It's comparable to an mechanical watch. You can make a digital watch significantly better at time keeping and all the other functions, that is substantially cheaper both to produce and maintain. But if mechanical precision devices make your world go around, then I can appreciate that - I'm just not going to pay $10k yearly to maintain an elaborate mechanical wristwatch.
PS: if you just want the joy of speed, the fix is not a faster car but a vehicle that allows you to experience the speed better, one that isolates you less from the road. A light roadster, a motorcycle, a roadbike (quite a few people actually "graduate" from a motorcycle to a roadbike because perceived speed is higher in lycra and with legs doubling as shock absorbers)
High speed trains universally use moving-block signalling with in-cab signal indication; rather than relying on fixed trackside signal lights, the signalling system constantly tracks the exact location of each train, creates a virtual signal block around that train and indicates signal aspects and line speeds to the driver on a display in the driving cab.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_signalling#Fixed_block
What's stopping the trains from operating autonomously?
First you cannot break it anyway that fast. Second, rolling over suicidal pedestrians has a high psychotherapy cost. Driver-less trains not.
Automatic train operation systems are expensive to design and maintain, and their advantage is mainly in precision: if you're trying to put 30 trains an hour down a segment of tube tunnel, it's very helpful if the system reacts immediately to red signals and brakes at a constant predictable rate.
For longer distance services, not only is the cost of fitting ATO equipment to the track much higher (as the routes are much longer), but the schedules don't need such precise operation. It is probably cheaper to retain drivers.
In practice, even most metro systems with automatic train control still have someone on the train: it's important in an emergency and if there are degraded conditions or unusual operating needs it's helpful to have someone trained to take over.
In a GoA (Grade of Automation) 4 system the intent is that if things go wrong the remote team operates the train. This obviously means it can't cope with power failure, but these are invariably electric trains so they aren't going anywhere without power anyway. A mechanical fault that renders the train unable to continue safely under its own local supervision would result in a remote operator controlling it though.
One of the big issues is 'degraded working' where there's been some sort of failure (or perhaps adverse weather conditions) which means trains have to operate on vocal authority to proceed on sight. The problem then becomes as hard as driverless cars - you have to know when you've reached milepost 70 or the next set of points by sight and it's really bad if you miss them. Arrival to and dispatch from stations without platform-edge doors is also tricky and human staff are often required to manage the process.
The most reliable line in the MTA, for example, is the L train. It is also the closest to fully autonomous (due to union rules, there is a driver who turns it on and then "supervises" the train).
Regarding the L train, how much would service suffer if the "supervisor" wasn't there to clean up whatever is left by reliability nines? We may never know. And it is hardly surprising that a recently modernized line is beating the living history museum that is the rest of the MTA. It's quite a leap to go from modernization causing reliability to automation causing reliability.
Bugattis are high-end collector's cars. The average Bugatti owner owns 84 cars, 3 jets, and a yacht:
https://jalopnik.com/the-average-bugatti-owner-has-three-jet...
You buy a Bugatti simply so you can say you have one.
A Bugatti is like a piece of jewelry in my opinion - beautiful but of no practical value.
Do we also have trickle-down engineering now? Is economics not enough for that?
a few stupid people will hurt themselves with it. That's okay on the balance, because millionaires are spending their money and supporting the economy.
A little bit of chlorine in the gene pool is often beneficial for mankind.
Adults should be free to engage in dangerous activities. The unfortunate problems are 1) they can and do hurt other people and 2) they hurt themselves and subsequently become vegetables and wards of the state.
That's why we have laws against (some) dangerous behavior. It's all a balancing act between individual freedom and society.
Today's cars do feel very different and much safer.
Living in a country where going 124mph+ is nothing special helps too.
It's not going to make my commute any faster, but that's not the only use for cars.
also, tracks have turns and this thing weights like 2 tons so good luck with that.
Not their first spouse at least.
Anecdote to the contrary: I've broken off a relationship with someone who was habitually very late, for that reason (and the denial that it was a problem).
One of the things that I really like about my current partner is that they are habitually very punctual, or early.
Having a laptop with say a 16/32 Ryzen 3 (which believe is due fairly soon) would be pointless
It may be entry level, but it's also overkill for what the vast majority of people need their laptop for.
But it does help drive demand for advanced in computing power, which helps drive prices down for the computing power engineers need.
There is no such thing as too much IPC, Primary memory, and Backing store - this has been true since WW2 when Colossus was state of the art.
There Is such a thing as to little budget :-(
On the other hand, if I get asked those questions, I have to judge the person asking and do some calculus in my head to determine if I can get away with lying that it goes 200mph or costs 200k despite not even coming close to reaching those numbers. Or respond with another impressive factoid they can go home and brag about when I don't want to reveal my wealth or my lack of it. Bugatti owners don't have that problem!
The ABS is one of those examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-lock_braking_system#Moder...
Will their owner often if ever use them at their full potential? Probably not but if they can afford it, who cares?
As long as the research can be funded through it.
I came over here when I got sick of Reddit's negativity in ~2013. What's the next alternative?
He works at it starting with tire limits during ABS braking, and throws in real-world examples like Tesla and the Dodge Demon.
He covers a bunch of other car engineering topics. For example, the Atkinson cycle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z45fM2N-4C4
In German, there is this phrase, which describes the time period after a certain success/enjoyment/well-being. Literally translated it meanss the fat years are over ("Die fetten Jahre sind vorbei."). It's usually used in the context of forced savings vs voluntariy expenditure, but it fits with the current state of our environment as well. The times of making faster cars and enjoying high speeds are over, if we don't want to demise as a species. Environmentally safer beahviour should become more fun.
I recently bought a new car in Germany (combustion engine as I needed a 7-seater). People ask me why I took the base engine (140HP) while adding all other optional equipment possible. I tell them: in and around a city, even those 140HP will never get used. And the times I am on the Autobahn AND (!!) being able to actually drive more than 130km/h are so rare that I would never put my money into higher speeds/acceleration. The question of "enough power" has been solved some years ago. Now let's make this power intelligent and sustainable.
1. Reduce intake temperatures/prevent pre-ignition
2. Produce enough power to sustain a constant speed of 120KPH or whatever
This means that they are far less efficient than they should be, and in some cases get more or less the same efficiency as larger displacement high capacity engines.
Most small hatchbacks will be producing somewhere between 90HP and 170HP. Estates and wagons from 190HP to 250HP and SUVs somewhere similar.
People then tell me that they think that is stupid and like having the acceleration when getting on the interstate. In all those years, I never found acceleration to be a problem. We've been pitched cars that have way more power than we need and that use way more fuel than we need. Magazines like Car and Driver will write negative editorials if a car isn't "zippy". What should matter is safety, cost, and fuel economy.
In the US' South region, nearly everyone feels the need for a giant truck. It has been engrained as a lifestyle choice. You get your truck to help you haul your four-wheeler for deer hunting and your boat for fishing. However, 90% of these trucks are used by single individuals as daily drivers to office jobs which is extremely wasteful. They even live in suburbs which have to get bigger garages to compensate. Each man's father, grandfather, and great-grandfather drove one too, so it is deeply tied to one's masculinity. The south also has some of the nation's poorest citizens and Mississippi/Alabama/Louisiana/Arkansas have some of the worst elementary and highschools in the nation. It isn't uncommon for folks to get extremely in debt on a $50k lifted 4x4 deisel pickup truck.
A 300MPH speed run in an ultra low production Bugatti car is more or less insignificant in the fight against climate change.
Sure you can but it will be heavily inconvenient (at least for many in the west). But do you know what reduces the carbon footprint by about 75% in a country like Germany? 1.) Electric cars/trains 2.) Electricity from renewables 3.) Heating using electrical power from renewables (heat pumps)
Of the last 25%, there are 20% from industrial production and in the last 5% you could include air travel (2%) among other things.
Heating and driving and getting power from renewables makes your lifestyle about 0% different from what it is now. Buying goods that last longer even means giving life a touch of luxury. A better, more luxurious lifestyle that produces about 75% less carbon dioxide. Impossible? In a growing number of countries, this will be possible soon. Of course, not flying, not consuming gives you that "holy" feeling of "having done something". But done right, a sustainable lifestyle makes the life we have now even better. It takes a bit of political willpower, of course.
But the carbon footprint created within the West is just a small amount of the carbon footprint that the West contributes to. We can't just reduce our own carbon footprint if it simply pushes that carbon footprint onto other, less developed countries.
I think it will be very unlikely that we will continue to live with the same luxuries that we enjoy today while still aggressively reducing climate change. It won't be a case of "we have electric transport, but I can still buy a new iPhone once a year". It will be a case of aggressively cutting back everywhere and and ultimately growth and our economy will suffer in the short-term for long-term sustainability.
Using solar, wind and water to create power will, by the way, not push the carbon footprint somewhere else. It will, to a great part, vanish. And those economies who, in future, produce their own energy instead of importing them, will have a higher GDP and less dependence of foreign markets.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shippi...
The articles about SO2 and NOx emissions are clickbait. They compare to cars, which are extremely clean in this respect. In any case, the subject here is climate change and these pollutants are irrelevant. (Strictly speaking, they slightly mitigate warning.)
I’m not saying we should ignore shipping, but I don’t see why it should be anywhere close to first on the list of things to focus on when fighting climate change.
Our values determine where we devote our engineering resources -- time, money, attention, brilliance. If we degrade the environment to where it can't sustain our population, people will suffer. What are the relative values of millions maybe billions of climate refugees versus a fast car powered by unsustainable fossil fuels?
Imagine we devoted those resources to solving political and environmental problems.
If that's correct, your comment makes no sense. Many of the developments needed for combustion-powered records would apply to electricity-powered records as well, such as suspension, wheels/tires, gears, ...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_car_speed_record
Halo car engineering results in trickle down effects to all of the vehicles you and I drive on a daily basis. Tire materials and engineering, aerodynamics r&d, suspension improvements, and so forth can apply to all types of vehicles, regardless of whether or not the power comes from an ICE engine or electric motor.
So while you may see this as a needless exercise in achieving 300 mph on a combustion engine, I see this as perhaps something that could give a 1% increase in fuel economy to VAG's entire fleet. Of course it's not a given, but let's applaud and support the potential.
Similarly anything that rotates has to withstand torque and centrifugal force. Eg wheels. (See also this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_ImAm1WhcY for what it takes for going 3x faster.)
These advances result in capital investment for R&D, percolate through the supply chain, and this can lead to better techniques here and there. (But I think after a certain point the disparity between the technology - the trade offs - needed for 100 mph and 300 mph become so large, that the resulting new/better capabilities doesn't mean anything for the normal automobile ecosystem.)
Such development might help "normal" tires improve in durability.
I can imagine this is something that happens in a lot of area's. Pushing every part to the extremes might help make them more reliable under normal usage.
Ultra high speeds also require efficient aerodynamics, which in turn helps reduce drag/fuel usage.
Remarkably quick.
It needs to balance low drag, down force, cooling, and probably a bunch of other factors. And it needs to look cool.
That stubby tail is actually done on purpose because it reduces drag, not increases it as you claim. A lot of aerodynamics are pretty counterintuitive. Look at the big table of drag coefficients here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient
For the Bugatti, they probably weren't going for an ultimate low drag coefficients. They need to make sure their giant engine is getting enough air, which leads to lower performing shapes. Related, they also will want a lot of downforce to make sure the car stays on the road at high speeds; to do this they build a relatively non-aerodynamic car.
Just think this through on a systems level. Obviously Toyota's engineers are not idiots and would use whatever aerodynamic effects they would since the entire point of the car is maximizing efficiency. If it was more efficient to have a different shape while still remaining a practical automobiu, it would. The entire design of the Prius revolves around this.
Also stop just googling for wikipedia links then coming back with information you've only just learned. It's ok not to know everything.
The article says that this is the first from a series manufacturer. Why does Koenigsegg not count, or was this the first?
See here, coincidentally on the same source website: https://www.topgear.com/car-news/usa/ford-gt-just-did-300mph
This obviously isn't a series manufacturer, so the quote in the article may still be accurate but the title seems incomplete though it (correctly) doesn't claim Bugatti is the first.
What's the range on this one, I wonder?
Cool anyway, but will be cooler when it's a true production car.
The sleeping Bobby test is the ability to go over a speed bump (so names because it's like a policeman laying down).
These two metrics were often used by Clarkson to disqualify certain cars from the lap time leaderboard.
Cool car, but it'll be cooler when anyone can theoretically buy a road legal 300mph from the showroom.
But, in my little Nissan Rogue that can barely manage 90mph, I don't need a 160mph speedo, LOL.
Source: https://www.whereisroadster.com/
Joking aside, a really nice car I wouldn't mind owning!
dual walled exhaust is peculiar - is there an air feed into the gap?
However, 300mph is a valid goal as that was the milestone Sir Malcolm Campbell also barely passed in his final world-record run in the Bluebird.
So relatively muscular imperial miles are correctly used. Readers' eyes might pass over in disinterest should weird & weedy "kilometres" be used instead.
On a more serious note, I'm sure the various manufacturer marketing departments take every opportunity, imperial, metric, Klingon, whatever, to mark a passing of a numeric "barrier" - i.e. a number ending in zeros.
Although apparently that barrier was broken in 1937 by Thunderbolt, so I'm not sure what record we're actually talking about here.
I'm a bit surprised this book doesn't come up more often in tech circles. Has quite a bit of overlap with the philosophical questions we face daily.
The roads are for getting from A to B, not racing. If you want to go 490km/h, go to a race track.
Also, no, I'd rather be safe from my own and other's mistakes, which are far more likely to happen at that pace and I'd rather have lower emissions from all cars. I am happy to sacrifice speed for that.
I like that approach a lot more. What the point of having an awesome car, if you're afraid to drive it.