Porsche's future Bugatti buster?

Discussion in 'European Cars' started by MuscleCarHeart, Jul 11, 2006.

  1.  
  2. I actually cant believe he thinks bonneville = whatever ashphalt road.
     
  3. I don't expect it to be anything. The info comes from Autocar, and the car is a CGT p-shop. There's not a single ounce of truth in the story.
     
  4. Look, weight has ZERO effect on actual top speed. It may make it easier to reach and sustain, but has no actual effect on the figure. Unless it's something like the rear wheels would take off before v-max, making it unachievable. But in that case, it's a terribly designed car and noone's going to give 2 shits about it anyway.
     
  5. #55 Kemper, Jul 12, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    I don't see anywhere in there that it says that the added weight makes it faster, only more stable.
     
  6. I'd been trying to remember what it was. Thank you.
     
  7. why does everyone (and by everyone I mean the vast majority, and by vast majority I mean stupid) think this is real? Porsche already has a new racer in the RS Spyder and they are tooling up for the Panamericana. they simply don't have the money, or available engineers, to do this right now.
     
  8. I really didn't feel like having to explain this, but since everyone feels the need to be ignorant, I will do the educating.

    All of you are mostly correct in assuming that the weight of a car has nothing to do with it's top speed. If a car is driving on a perfectly flat surface, with perfectly flat tires, and there are no crosswinds, then you are correct. The weight of a car in this case has no bearing on it's top speed.

    However, if any of these conditions are not met, the weight of the vehicle will have a (small) effect on the top speed. I will explain.

    A car driving at it's top speed is in equilibrium. The power output of the engine is counteracted by exactly that amount of resistance. This resistance comes from the air (air resistance), and from the tire's contact with the road (rolling resistance).

    If at any moment these resistances change, and provide more resistance, then the engine would have to output more energy to counteract this, or the car will slow down.

    I apologise to those of you who understand these concepts very well, but I'm going to continue for the sake of others.

    Assume you are driving a car at 200 mph. The car weighs some 6,000 lbs. The air resistance, combined with the rolling resistance has stopped your acceleration, and all of the engine's power is now being used to fight that resistance, with none left over to accelerate the car.
    Now, the car hits a small bump in the road. The suspension does it's thing, and the car continues with very little movement of the sprung weght of the car, due to it's inertia. The mass is heading straight forward, and it will continue to do so, requiring a lot of force to change it's direction. The turbulance, and resulting higher wind resistance is minimal, and the car only slows to 199.8 mph.
    Now, take 3,000 lbs. out of the car, evenly throughout the entire car. The car once again drives over this bump at 200 mph. The suspension does it's thing, and the car continues with a moderate movement of the sprung weght of the car, due to it's lower inertia. The turbulance, and resulting higher wind resistance is more pronounced, and the car slows to 199.3 mph.

    Next scenerio:
    Same 6,000 lb. car, travelling at 200 mph. This car encounters a crosswind of 10 mph. at a 90 degree angle. The car's tires are responsible for keeping it on course, and must resist the change in direction. This increases the rolling resistance of the system, and the car slows once again. But, because the car has a lot of mass and velocity, the inertia of the car requires a lot of force to change it's direction, and the car's tires only need a minor adjustment in direction to keep the car on the road, and the directional correction can take place over a longer period of time (which equates to less resistance over time). So the car slows to 199.8 mph.

    Now, take 3,000 lbs. evenly out of the car again. The car travels, encounters the crosswind, and has less interia to prevent it's direction from changing, so the car is thrown a little more off course now that it weighs less. This requires a moderate adjustment of the tire direction to correct, and a more sudden correction is needed to keep the car on the road. This creates more rolling resistance, and the car slows to 199.3 mph.

    There are other ways that weight helps a car travel faster involving the less sprung body motion assosiated with higher weight cars and how much energy is turned into up and down motion, instead of forward motion, but I won't get into that here.

    The two examples above happen hundreds or thousands of times a minute, effectively keeping a very light weight car slower by 1 or 2 mph. than a much heavier car of the same power, aerodynamics, and tire size/composition.




     
  9. true, but Porsche is destroying its brand image faster than they can rebuild it

    1) the Cayenne
    2) possibly a future 4 door 928 remake
     
  10. This in no way is in relation to the Veyron, as bugatti4ever said, they have tested this car, its heavy enough, has good enough aerodynamics, and does not need to be faster by adding weight.

    Furthermore, your last comment is also missing something.

    "The two examples above happen hundreds or thousands of times a minute, effectively keeping a very light weight car slower by 1 or 2 mph. than a much heavier car of the same power, aerodynamics, and tire size/composition."

    And to think, the lighter car requires LESS power for acceleration to reach its top speed, whereas a heavy car requires MORE. The power needed to reach that cars top speed will be less in a lighter car, because of power/weight ratio.

    1 or 2 mph is like making spaghetti and then adding one or 2 sticks, it really doesnt mean all that much more.

     
  11. You've missunderstood me. If you're trying to refute any of my arguments, you haven't. Try reading them again.

    I rest my case.
     
  12. no one cares about top speed anymore
     
  13. You are also missing a lot of important factors that weight can be made up for. Down force, parasite drag, and what about handling? think all that weight around a corner is gunna do any good?
     
  14. this thread is ridiculous
     
  15. if you read the article you wouldnt have said that
     
  16. that was gemballa's aproach to the CGT, they promised alot. Yet at over 1 million dollars + CGT no one was interested in Gemaballa to deliver
     
  17. You're testing my patience. I never said having more weight in a car was better for anything except obtaining a higher top speed. Learn to read please.
     
  18. It's a smart PR move because of all the idiots who think that top speed is important.
     
  19. Yeah and I'm saying there are more efficient ways of doing so WITHOUT ADDING WEIGHT.

     
  20. Who cares, the car would be the best supercar ever.
     
  21. That would belong to the F40, IMO.
     
  22. LOL
     
  23. Sigh, we've been through this, the new Porsche:
     
  24. 1. THis thread is utter shit.
    2. Its an autocar article.
    3. They just slapped the Gemballa press pictures up and added a porsche badge and spoke of 950 bhp.
    4. Launch is set to be 2009.
    5. The Veyron GT will already be doing 272mph by then.
    6. Every single member in this thread is a #$%#en retard for not realising any of these facts.
     
  25. Csaba Csere, Editor in Chief of Car and Driver magazine hit 253 mph at Ehra-Lessien. If you'd bothered searching C/D's website digging up that editorial you posted earlier you'd have easily found it, it was their novermber 2005 cover story.
     

Share This Page