Jump to content
rllmuk
Sign in to follow this  
Twyford

Top Gear

Recommended Posts

Says who? I've seen no literature that's ever said the Bugatti is limited. It has a special ignition just for high-speed runs, and requires special tyres for doing so. Unless you're telling me they decided 253mph was a nice figure to limit?

There's no point putting a limit on the fastest car in the world. It doesn't have a speed limiter.

Of course there is, Clarkson stated the speed was limited last night - there could be any number of safety reasons this would be. Perhaps you start to take off at 255, or perhaps the brakes are unbale to stop the car at that speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Achieving'. They achieved 253mph a few months back and took the speed record for a production car. That makes no sense.

Edit: there's no point arguing this further, it's just derailing the thread. Regardless of whether 253mph is capped or not, it's absolutely amazing.

It was a quality episode of Top Gear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but there were reports ages ago that it was electronically limited to 400kmh, and that wasn't true.

The top speed of it - the run it did - was 407.08kph on the VW test track. That's the maximum speed it's done. That has absolutely nowt to do with electronic limiters.

Edit: and Bugatti's official figure was always a 252mph top speed - and it's surpassed this. It doesn't really matter at the end of the day, and that's my last post on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah but there were reports ages ago that it was electronically limited to 400kmh, and that wasn't true.

The top speed of it - the run it did - was 407.08kph on the VW test track. That's the maximum speed it's done. That has absolutely nowt to do with electronic limiters.

Hang about, Soong has posted two independant sites that say it electroncally limited, How about you post one up that says it isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its such a pity they didnt get a better stylist to sort out the front end. that grille looks comical. in fact the whole car looks like one of those car caracatures that 'fast car' reders buy for their bedroom walls.

great top gear piece though, as always.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ahem:

http://www.bankspower.com/Bio.cfm

For 10 years, Banks held the unbroken record for World's Fastest Passenger Car—an 1800-hp twin-turbo Firebird that blistered the Bonneville Salt Flats in 1987 and took the championship. This "stock-body door-slammer with optional tilt-wheel, power windows and AM-FM with cassette" ran 287 miles an hour, burning nothing but straight gasoline.

see also

http://www.fastcoolcars.com/callaway_sledgehammer.htm

Performance

0-60 mph: 3.9 sec

0-100 mph: 9.4 sec

Quarter Mile: 10.6 sec @ 127 mph

Skidpad: .98g

Top Speed: 254.76 mph

Braking, 60-0 mph: 122 ft

Slalom Speed: 65.6 mph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know dick about cars, but I'd just like to say that I think Top Gear is shot and editted beautifully. The Aftereffects touch-ups on the skies and surrounding vegetation is top-notch. Gradient fans: consume drugs, watch Top Gear and have a massive wank.

Gorgeousness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The top speed of 254.76 MPH was attained by John Lingenfelter as the driver, and apparently was not an official documented recorded speed. Although the production was only limited to one, " from fast cool cars.

Also seems to be a common idea that the Bugatti is limited, even if the Bugatti SAS site doesn't mention it in the fantastic videos showing how the engine and four turbo chargers work etc.....

A lot of very fast bikes are limited to a gentleman's agreement of 180mph, but they're also very easy to derestrict..:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
its such a pity they didnt get a better stylist to sort out the front end. that grille looks comical. in fact the whole car looks like one of those car caracatures that 'fast car' reders buy for their bedroom walls.

great top gear piece though, as always.

I think that's some sort of homage to the traditional Bugatti grille...you know, like the BMW kidney shape. It does look a bit odd but I reckon it looks pretty good if a bit like a lad's wet dream...but then that is the point I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course there is, Clarkson stated the speed was limited last night - there could be any number of safety reasons this would be. Perhaps you start to take off at 255, or perhaps the brakes are unbale to stop the car at that speed.

yeah cos did he not also compare it to a jumbo jet and said that even those are only going 160 when they take off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The top speed of 254.76 MPH was attained by John Lingenfelter as the driver, and apparently was not an official documented recorded speed. Although the production was only limited to one, " from fast cool cars.

They're offering to build another one for $400,000 though. That's roughly a QUARTER of the cost of the bugeyed beast...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in this months Top Gear magazine Clarkson says that to get into 'super high speed mode' you need to insert a second key into the ignition - this lowers the suspension, closes some air valves and flattens the rear spoiler. Bugatti didn't provide Clarkson with this 2nd key for his review ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hammond and James should be put in a house big brother style and see how long the last before fighting, not long i bet. That Bugatti was mental. But the best thing form this series was Clarkson racing the free climber, mad skillz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the question is, what's with the speeding, or apparent breaking of any restricting speed limits anyway?

My friend was in the studio when last night's episode was on. He mentioned to me that Clarkson apparently got 32 speeding tickets, I just assume it was not in the script.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah cos did he not also compare it to a  jumbo jet and said that even those are only going 160 when they take off?

I thought that was a bit nonsense really. A jumbo is specifically designed to take off. A car is specifically designed not to take off. So comparing them like that is pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought that was a bit nonsense really. A jumbo is specifically designed to take off. A car is specifically designed not to take off. So comparing them like that is pointless.

No it's not - the speed a body stops accelerating due to forces on it is called the terminal velocity. Humans have theirs at about 120mph. Are you going to tell me we're designed to fly as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No it's not - the speed a body stops accelerating due to forces on it is called the terminal velocity. Humans have theirs at about 120mph. Are you going to tell me we're designed to fly as well?

Surely that's just when you're falling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No it's not - the speed a body stops accelerating due to forces on it is called the terminal velocity. Humans have theirs at about 120mph. Are you going to tell me we're designed to fly as well?

No, I'm saying that a jumbo is designed to take off at 160 because it has specially designed lifting surfaces. So it is "only going 160 when they take off" because that is what it is designed to do. I'm sure they could make it so it needs to go 300mph to take off, but then it would be shit.

The car, on the other hand, can go above 160 without taking off because it doesn't have lifting surfaces. It has quite the opposite, so it is forced to the ground. It is designed not to take off.

I'm not really sure what your point about terminal velocity is. I can't remember that comng into it. Anyway, it's wasn't a very good movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm saying is, there are forces being dealt with that are perfectly capable of lifting a car, and as you rightly said they don't lift the car because it's designed to stay on the floor. However, the fast you go and the larger those forces become the slightest little variance in how those forces are dealt with (like a spoiler buckling slightly) could upset the balance, let a much great disruption to the air flow happen and lift the car up.

It's my understanding that this is what happens in the videos of those Le Mans cars we've all seen.

Going back to the original point on Top Gear, I think he was just illustrating that there was enough force in the air around at that speed for it to take off, but the fact that it wasn't was a testiment to how well it was built.

It's hyperbole obviously, but this is Jeremy Clarkson we're quoting here.

"If this car was a race horse, it would be a jam donut... with an egg in the middle!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Going back to the original point on Top Gear, I think he was just illustrating that there was enough force in the air around at that speed for it to take off, but the fact that it wasn't was a testiment to how well it was built.

All I'm saying is that the comparison is crap because he is comparing 2 completely different things. Practically polar opposites. Sure, there is enough force in the air to make a jumbo take off at 160. But that bears no relation at all to the car. Just like those feather-light model planes that can take off at insanely low speeds. I can travel faster than those without taking off. Amazing! See how well I'm built!

If he wanted to say the car is built well enough not to take off, he could have done better than compare it with something which is supposed to take off at a lower speed. Make up some guff about it sticking to the ceiling at top speed or whatever. I enjoy his hyperbole, but this one was ill conceived, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No it's not - the speed a body stops accelerating due to forces on it is called the terminal velocity. Humans have theirs at about 120mph. Are you going to tell me we're designed to fly as well?

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/JianHuang.shtml

"An hour and thirty-one minutes after launch, my pressure altimeter halts at 103,300 feet. At ground control the radar altimeters also have stopped-on readings of 102,800 feet, the figure that we later agree upon as the more reliable. It is 7 o'clock in the morning, and I have reached float altitude.... Though my stabilization chute opens at 96,000 feet, I accelerate for 6,000 feet more before hitting a peak of 614 miles an hour, nine-tenths the speed of sound at my altitude."

274 m/s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
103,300 feet

Slight difference in air pressure there, SeanR :lol:

I jumped out of a plane at 12,000 and stopped accelerating when I got to 120mph. That's an air pressure which is a bit more similar to that on the ground - you know - like a car would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terminal velocity has nothing to do with why the car doesn't take off. And it's only relative to gravity, if you had a rocket on your shoulders pushing you down you would have gone faster than 120mph. Completely unrelated to Kahless' point.

Kahless was spot on, an aeroplane is aerodynamicaly designed to take off, with the wings creating an air pressure difference which generates lift. The car isn't built this way so the speed won't make it take off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Terminal velocity has nothing to do with why the car doesn't take off. And it's only relative to gravity, if you had a rocket on your shoulders pushing you down you would have gone faster than 120mph. Completely unrelated to Kahless' point.

Yes, but you'd still hit a terminal velocity when the force of air is the same as the force of the rocket plus gravity combined. Terminal velocity isn't just relative to gravity, it's a situation which occurs whenever there are two opposing forces acting on a body which equal each other.

Technically, sitting here on a chair at a speed of 0 m/s relative to the earth, I have reached a terminal velocity as I sat down when the reaction force of the chair acted on my arse and countered the pull of gravity acting on my mass.

Anyway, I'm not defending Clarkson's hyperbole - that would be silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.