so many horses... why isnt it any faster then it is?? 1334 HP, wouldnt it do a little over 248? the bugatti... 1001 HP, 252 miles an hour. is this car just really unaerodynamic?<!-- Signature -->
Why does it has to go faster? There aren't that much cars which go 400 kph...so that unaerodinamic it won't be I think. Ok, the 0-100 kph could be a little faster. but still, this is an extremely fast car, I would like you to drive 400 kph with this baby, and see if you say the same after the drive ;-)
probably for a numver of reasons. like the monstrous twin turbo V12 sitting amidships, areo drag, the areo package to keep a car on the ground going 400kmph would create huge amounts of drag. those are just to name a few.
yeah... u guys hav good, vaild points n all, but u gotta realize how few numbers are posted on the Lotec's specification page... an example would be the final drive ratio... the higher, the faster acceleration; the lower, the higher the top speed... I think that the stats have to be wrong... the rear tyres are definitely wide enough to place 1334 bhp on the ground (IF THEY WERE SLICKS BY HOOSIER OR SUM 1) and the torque is HUGE!!!!... another consideration is the front/rear weight bias... also not a posted specification... in straight line acceleration, rear bias is needed (like most Porsches) because when the car accelerates, the weight shifts rearward, so the rear tyres (usually drive tyres) would get most traction... of course, since this car is a mid-engine, this shouldn't be the case... another tihng is that HANDLING is a VERY IMPORTAN thing for a sprts car... this may be an amazing car to drag, but is it good on the track??? LOVE THIS CAR AND HAV NUTHIN' AGAINST IS (YET)... just wich that there were more stats posted on supercars.net... there seems to be a lot of cars without full specifications...<!-- Signature -->
Some cars are designed for acceleration, some for looks, some for economy, others are designed faster than most people wanna go<!-- Signature -->
There is so much that needs to be taken in to consideration when looking at why cars go as fast as they do. For example , the Blitz Skyline goes 0-60 in 3 and tops at around 213, with 850 bhp pushing it, where the Mclaren F1 goes 0-60 in 3.4ish and tops at around 240 with "only" 630bhp. Weight, gear ratio, variable valve timing, thats why the Mclaren goes so fast, same with the Bugatti, the engine to this Lotus seems to need a little tuning if you ask me
<!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from davidgil</i> <b>There is so much that needs to be taken in to consideration when looking at why cars go as fast as they do. For example , the Blitz Skyline goes 0-60 in 3 and tops at around 213, with 850 bhp pushing it, where the Mclaren F1 goes 0-60 in 3.4ish and tops at around 240 with "only" 630bhp. Weight, gear ratio, variable valve timing, thats why the Mclaren goes so fast, same with the Bugatti, the engine to this Lotus seems to need a little tuning if you ask me </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE --> Small corrections for the McLaren: 0-60: 3.2 Top Speed: 240.18 mph HP: 627<!-- Signature -->
<!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from bugatti442</i> <b>1334 HP, wouldnt it do a little over 248? the bugatti... 1001 HP, 252 miles an hour. is this car just really unaerodynamic?</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE --> i think it is more aerodynamic than your bigatti shit<!-- Signature -->
y dont u shut ur cockeye lets see buggati has 4 turbos and blows as much as ur mom everynite<!-- Signature -->
this car isnt real ok?...none were ever made, let alone sold. The horsepower is theoretical and the performance figures are blatently wild guesses. Popular misconception, cars dont take off when they go really fast, u dont need anything at all to keep a car on the ground, race cars have aerofoils to push them harder onto the ground, NOT to stop the reverse happening. This car wont produce any lift at 30mph, therefore it wont produce any lift at 10,000mph...so as for the top speed of this thing, it has 1334hp, and it doesnt matter how much it weighs, or where the weight is distributed, the only things that affect top speed r 1) shape of body 2) frontal area 3) horsepower and 4) gearing. So, i'd say 248mph is a very conservative estimate, 270+ is more like it. As for the acceleration, weight comes into the equation, and so does grip, neither are a problem for this car so a sub 3sec 0-60mph time looks likely. But the most important fact of all is that this car ISNT REAL, its a plastic shell on wheels
no, not 2 times faster, it should be the cubed root of 2 times faster, and thats the top speed (assuming similar co-efficients of drag and frontal area), as for acceleration, it should be the square root of (power:weight ratio sirius/power:weight ratio f1) times faster car performance is a pretty difficult science, its not just double the power = double the performance to save u the maths, it should have a top speed 1.26 times more than the mclaren (still assuming same drag etc), and acceleration 1.37 times faster in other words a top speed of 302mph and 0-60 in 2.3 sec, these are very optimistic guesses as this car clearly isnt as aerodynamic as the mclaren, nor is it as small, and i dont knw what the gearing of this thing is like
Chi4 something something, do u like drag cars or what? That's pretty much the way u were talkin. All supercars need some downforce if u are planning to take on the curves. This car looks to have a good amount of downforce, I just think it is a little 2 narrow.
The bottom line is that this car has one of the highest top speeds ever seen as a result of its monstrous bhp and let's just leave it at that!
yeah i know it can do 248 mph. 100 faster then i will ever go, but seriously with twice the power of a mclaren, and some gear tuning it could easily push faster then 250. i know it is plenty fast, but it could still be faster. and i really wanna know who would drive the thing that fast.<!-- Signature -->
<!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from ch1c4n3</i> <b>this car isnt real ok?...none were ever made, let alone sold. The horsepower is theoretical and the performance figures are blatently wild guesses. Popular misconception, cars dont take off when they go really fast, u dont need anything at all to keep a car on the ground, race cars have aerofoils to push them harder onto the ground, NOT to stop the reverse happening. This car wont produce any lift at 30mph, therefore it wont produce any lift at 10,000mph...so as for the top speed of this thing, it has 1334hp, and it doesnt matter how much it weighs, or where the weight is distributed, the only things that affect top speed r 1) shape of body 2) frontal area 3) horsepower and 4) gearing. So, i'd say 248mph is a very conservative estimate, 270+ is more like it. As for the acceleration, weight comes into the equation, and so does grip, neither are a problem for this car so a sub 3sec 0-60mph time looks likely. But the most important fact of all is that this car ISNT REAL, its a plastic shell on wheels</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE --> You sound smart, but i suppose you have never seen what happens when a formula one or indy car or any road race car for that matter gets a bit too much air underneath. Lift, thats right, it lifts off the ground and generally crashes in a nice firey fireball. Anyway You mustn't have realiezd that it says no ROAD going versions have been created, they took 3 years to make a concept, and i doubt it is plastic. You have to have a real working prototype to beable to claim a road going version in a year. IF not that would mean making the car and testing it, destroying it, and makeing it again, I assume hand built, so doing that in a year is a nice dream.
1st off, yes supercars need downforce 2 go round corners fast, what i said was they dont need it to go down straightaways fast. 2nd of all, the reason dragsters lift their front wheels is due to a mechanical imbalance, not an aerodynamic flaw, if a dragster was put in a vacuum, with no gravity, and then the engine engaged (if that was possible in a vacuum) the wheels would go clockwise (if u were on the cars right hand side) BUT, the body of the car would start to move aswell, it would rotate around the rear axle, ANTI-CLOCKWISE, to try and reach equilibrium, this also happens in real life, just not 2 such a large extent, the front of the car lifts up to counteract the wheels spinning round. Ive watched over 150 f1 races and over 100 indycar races and have NEVER seen a car 'take off'....ive seen cars run into the back of ppl and THEN take off (R.I.P. jeff krosnof) and ive seen the infamous mercedes CLR at le mans in 1999, but that flipped because it went over the brow of a hill to quickly, forcing excessive air underneath, but my point stands, on a flat road, u need zero pounds of downforce to keep a car on the ground, u could happily cruise along at the speed of light (well, not quite) without flipping and as for this '1 off' concept car, i still think its a 1:1 scale plastic model of a real one, look at the windows, theyre blacked out because the car has no interior
hey bugatti442, were you just born a retard?.. you say the bugatti 16/4 is your dream, then you call it a v8??? are you on crack 16/4 means its a w16 you dipshit, now you probably wont understand wut that means so i suggest you go look it up...
i think mr bugatti was referring to the '69 442 convertible, which is a V8 unfortunately aerodynamics is a bit more complicated than a bit of paper on a table. If u took the front wing off an F1 car, but left the rear wing on, it would be VERY dangerous and would possibly take off, this is NOT because u took the front wing off, it IS because u left the rear wing on, the rear wing pushes the rear of the car down, and since the car is pivoted on its wheels, the front will lift up at high speed, this is STILL not because of an aerodynamic flaw, once again it is a mechanical imbalance what u must realise, is that a car MUST have a positive co-efficient of lift if it is to take off, an F1 car with no wings at all would handle terribly, but since its co-efficient of lift is still slightly negative, its wheels will never leave the ground. if your car was flat like a bit of paper, your theory would work, however cars arent flat, their shape has its own unique figure, called the lift to drag ratio, this tells u the horizontal and vertical components of the effects of air flowing over it. Since the vertical component is the one that pushes a racecar onto the ground or makes it take off, it is this figure which is most important. If the car weighs 2000 lb, u need 2000lb of lift to make it fly, but racing cars produce NEGATIVE lift, and u learned in 1st grade maths that a negative number can never be greater than or equal to a positive number, so the car wont take off a new porsche 911 will take off at high enough speed because it has a positive co-efficient of lift, the take off speed of such a car is 330mph, after this, the car will happily climb into the air and fly like an aeroplane, but since 911s dont do 330mph, theres no worries of this happening
if this car went any faster it would lift off or somthing just emagin driving this thing and a gust of wind hit boom their goes a perfectly good car so it dosent need to go faster i havent ever been over 200 mph so going 248 would scare the shit out of me --------------------- maby the dingo ate your baby