I think it can do it

Discussion in '2006 Koenigsegg CCX' started by Coop A Doop, Feb 20, 2006.

  1. Mass has inertia. The harder it for the engine to push it forward, the harder is it for air resistance to push it backward. Since inertia is the resistance to change in motion, it's not only going to act for forward motion, and not backward. Also, about more rolling friction, at such incredible speeds you are going to want to develop a lot of downforce (plus the car's mass) to keep the wheels on the ground and the car very stable. That's why the Veyron still develops a lot of downforce in top speed mode when going so fast.
  2. No, mass has nearly nothing to do with speed, why do you think stuff such as an Elise doesnt reach 300km/h? They have a good power/weight ratio, about as good as a Corvette, yet the Corvette does 300, while the Elise doesnt even get 250 i think. Its because the Corvette has enough power to make it accelerate at high speeds, weight doesnt increase wind resistance, shape does. The Veyron had decent aerodynamics, but massive power, and thats why it broke the 400km/h barrier.

    So you only need three things to reach a high speed.

    #1: Power
    #2: Aerodynamics
    #3: A gearing that allows it (if you redlines at 220mph you'll never go above that obviously)

    If you have all three, you're all set to beat a reccord.
  3. I dont understand why you people dont think an engine can withstand 20 lbs of boost. people run over 20 lbs on VW 1.8t engines with stock internals reliably.

    and divinerage is right. Power+ aero+gearing= top speed.

    and mass DOES have some effect based on rolling friction, but at those speeds its tiny compared to the air resistance.
  4. #29 raca4life, Feb 23, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Actually you are incorrect about mass not having an effect on top speed. A Suzuki GSX1000R makes 152 hp at the rear wheel and weighs less than 450 pounds with fuel and will pull a low 10 (high 9 if conditions are right). But it won't do over 200 stock. As the weight is decreased, it is affected more by drag. Of course power to weight ratio will prevail. 200hp pushing 2000 pounds will top out higher than 100hp pushing 2000 pounds given the gearing and aerodynamics are the same. In the case here, I think it isn't a matter of weight, but of drag. The Veyron could do 265mph if they got rid of drag, but it would be suicide to do so. That's why the Enzo tops out at 220mph. It has a shitload of downforce.

  5. INTO the wind. That's drag and has nothing to do with mass. The effect of mass on top speed is basically just whatever effect it has on rolling friction of the drivetrain and the wheels/distortion of the wheels. Compared to the aerodynamic drag that's nothing.
  6. Even if it manages to beat the Veyron (which I think it can), you have to keep in mind that the Veyron is a luxury car. Materials, finish, top stereo system etc. So keeping that in mind Veyron is still the better car, the marvel.
  7. the amount of times i have said this on the indies is alarming.

    "Weight has nothing to do with top speed, in fact, engineers use ballasts (weights) on top speed cars to give them stability without resorting to aerodynamics which potential harms the cD, which DOES have a HUGE effect on top speed"
  8. shut up.
  9. oh come on...
  10. Okay... I found a bit more data trolling around Koenigsegg's site in article in the German publication 'Sport Auto' cited the CCR's aero data as a .35 Cd and 1.86 Sq. M of frontal area (or a CdA of .651), and when I enter that into my trusty aero spreadsheet it gives me exactly 700 whp to achive 387.6 mph at the 42 meter elevaton at the Nardo circuit... which matches up with the 701 I get from a 13% driveline loss from 806 original crankshaft horsepower. Admitidly, there's a rolling resistance fudge factor in there that's not so scientific, but I've gotten empirically tested restults on other cars to come out to with 1-2 whp of what I have on there. Fiddleing with the numbers, It'd take either a reduction to a Cd of .295, or an increase in power to ~950 bhp at the engine (or some combination of both) to attain a Veyron besting 255 mph (410.4 kph). From what I can backwards calulate, the Veyron (in the low drag setting which it achived it's record speed) and the CCR have pretty close CdA's.
  11. From what I can derrive mathematically from Bugatti's claims and their top speed data, the Veyron is only making ~400 lbs. of downforce at 407.2 kph in the low-drag setting, which is hardly "a lot" of downforce. I'd say the 10,080 lbs. that the NPTI NPT-93/P35 made at 200 mph would be "a lot"... :p
  12. #37 Variant, Feb 24, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    No... you're mixing terminal velocity and accellertion. Mass really has a very minimal influence on top speeds, I can't speak for the The Gixxer 1000, but a Hayabusa was windtunnel tested in a Canadian publication to a .560 Cd and measured to a cooincedental .560 Sq, M. frontal area, the product of which is a CdA of .314, which maths right to th 186-190 mph top speeds that they've been tested to. That's great CdA compared to the cars, but you've only got 158 whp to push it.
  13. The higher speed can also cause non-laminar flow to develop over the body, which increases drag and decreases downforce/stability, thereby limiting the top speed. That sort of stuff is almost impossible to predict with anything short of a good computer model, though. It's possible that drag has been decreased in the CCX, as it appeared they lengthened the bodywork relative to the CCR, which is usually implemented as a way of increasing downforce and/or decreasing drag.

    Also, are you a fan of/involved in salt flat/topspeed racing of any kind?
  14. The Veyron is a luxery car, made for top speed. All those niceties inside just add mass, and I think we have repeated that mass has next to nothing to do with top speed. It would be eaten on the track compared to cars like this (though I've heard it does well for how massive it is).
  15. Haha, NB - that is the most "normal" picture of you I've ever seen.
  16. bullsh*t. Car & Driver, which doesn't even do measured tests on V8 Ferraris, tested it to 253 mph. They even commented on its stability at 240, getting as specific as the wheel's feedback at that speed. The car has one.. thousand... horsepower. Period. One Thousand. That SCC Ultimate Aero probably will never reach that kind of speed given the shoddy engineering put into it, and even if it did, the car weighs like three ounces so nobody short of a racing driver would ever think of driving it seriously. Besides, the CCR is either a single or twin turbo (can't remember which), so it's going to be hella difficult to get it to top speed in comparison with the AWD, quad-turbo Veyron. The Veyron engineers, who spent the better part of a decade on the project, allowed themselves to be quoted as saying that the car has reached (not will reach) 258 in testing. They staked their reputations on that claim, and it should come as no surprise that a car with 1000 hp can do 250+ with little drama. I still say that the Enzo would slaughter it on any track but Nardo, and I still don't like it, but the Veyron is the top speed king. Give it the credit it is due.
  17. ^^The Veyron's engine does produce 1000 hp, but who cars what comes from the engine? What matters is what reaches the ground. The Veyron had overheating problems and now has 10 radiators. It looses a LOT of horsepower just by cooling the car.
  18. to the above comment. the veyron makes 1001ps to the road. the engine is actually making somewhere between 1200 and 1400ps at any given time.
  19. I don't buy this for a second, because if it's true then the drag coefficient is truly horrific!!! Like 1.00 given 2.0 Sq. M. of frontal area!!! Please... the Veyron's kind of a joke, but I give their aerodynamicists more credit than that!
  20. Thermal losses are accounted for when the horsepower pull is made on the dyno... no internal combustion enigne is all that thermally efficient... that's a given. A constant 30/70 torque split means that the car is loosing at least 10% more through the coupling, front bevel, etc. to probably 25%. This means somewhere around 740 bhp of the 987 bhp (1001 PS) is making it to the ground.
  21. i really don't believe you have any idea what you are talking about. read some articles on this car from motor trend, car and driver, and every other publication. it makes 1001ps to the tires. the engine acutally makes..... screw it. said it already.
  22. Mass affects inertia, yes, so it affects acceleration due to application of sufficient momentum taking longer on larger masses than smaller ones. So a larger mass only affects acceleration, not top speed. Period.
  23. where does it say it will be faster than the ccr....
  24. There we go. No one else seems to understand this.
  25. it MUST be able to do it, because its lighter than the ccr, and more aerodinamic, and the rest is the same, so it is just better, MUST be able to do it...!!!!

Share This Page