ah, my favorite car dominates again… *sigh*

well i wonder if its faster than the nismo skyline GTR z tune(about 10 sec 1/4 mile)

After watching Clarkson toy with the Atom, I’m in love with it.

Just the sound of 0-100 in 5.5 seconds baffles me.

wait, so a car (the atom) costs 4% what the veyron does and lost by some fraction of a second they don’t even mention, wow bugatti, i’m impressed. the best part is the atom’s got a 300 hp supercharged honda civic engine in it, has brakes half the size of the veyron’s, and is rwd vs 4wd. great engineering bugatti.
there wasn’t nearly this much hype when the f1 came out almost 10 years ago, when it was a decade ahead of its time and much more respectable.
besides that, this writer doesn’t know basic physics - “Not only is the Bugatti faster than the Suzuki, it creates more g-force at maximum acceleration than you’d experience in an F-16 jet fighter at take off or when skydiving.” - you experience less than 1 g when skydiving, i’ve got more than that while sleeping.

I picked up my copy of AUtocar today and am reading it as we speak. Doug it did 0-100-0 in 9.9 seconds of course its faster than the nismo skyline. Also the LR2 is released and it has an article on the Porsche GT1 which will be faster than the Veyron.

yeah kevin, but which one would you rather drive through a rainshower?

The Atom did it in 11:00 seconds the Suzuki in 10.70. Tha article states the Bugatti pulls 1.05g under full acceleration, it gives skydiving as 1g (duh!) and the jet as 0.7g how is that not knowing basic Physics?

Looks like “panda” was wrong about the Veyron being faster than the ultima gtr
http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/06/06/video-ultima-gtr-sets-new-0-100-0mph-record/#comment-120383

For that much money, I’d be pissed off if it didn’t dominate at these events.

as comparing to skydiving…. when your parachute pops, u get a lot more than 1g and just a little more if it doesn’t pop…

Whats up with this car? I can remeber people talking about it a while ago. Sure its kick ass and everything, but isn’t it kinda, old?

where is that dumbass chi dell at. all time talking about how a pos toyota supra blasts everything on the road away.why dont you try raceing this thing chi dell.

well… the mclaren f1 got old, but noone had beat it yet so we kept talking bout it… same deal here.

Not tryin to hate, I love the Veyron but:

“100mph in an astonishing 5.5sec. It then stopped in just 3.4sec, giving a 0-100-0mph time of 9.9sec.”

5.5 + 3.4 = 8.9. Surprised no one caught that yet… So which is it?

PURE SEX. Love that car.

Can’t wait til the T1 Caparo comes out: 0-60 in 2.5 seconds, 0-100 in 5 seconds. I think it will kick everyone’s butt on this test.

16, I’m assuming there’s some kinda “turnaround” or “lag” time lost somewhere along the way, like the point between acceleration and deceleration…?

I’m not sure how these things are measured but that would make sense if it’s timed continuously…

Or maybe ppl just can’t do simple math anymore…

For interest’s sakes, if we were to do straight addition between est. 0-100 and 100-0 times for an F1 car, we’d yield a 0-100-0 time of roughly 4.8-5.0 seconds.

There’s a little range there because I eyeballed it, and there are no exact numbers for this kinda thing… (and of course it depends on setup…note that I believe no F1 car has ever been setup for an optimum 0-100-0 run.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One_car#Forward_acceleration

umm ya the Ultima GTR owns the bugatti soo ya
even though i think the bugatti is amazing and that it could go from 0-60 in lk less than 2.8 somethin lk 2.5
but ya the GTR owns the bugatti sadly with a 0-100-0 in just 9.4 seconds

WTF is an Arial Atom…never heard or seen it. Can I build it in my living room?

Also..for $1M I’d better get to the frickin moon. This whole thing is a wast of LLN bandwidth…

LLN…bring us real news please.

Well chris, the bugattti owns the GTR in top speed. Apples and oranges, even though there is no much difference in their 0-100-0 time.

E M is a moron if he/she doesnt know what an ariel atom is. you don’t deserve to be on lln.

I love that people get mad at LLN for wasting there time. If its such a waste of time, how come you have time to post about it?

haha, im with bamf.

just wondering, i’ve seen street cars get 7,8, or 9 second 1/4 miles, some naturally aspirated, so what’s really to say about these super cars?
0-60 times could be faster too

just food for thought.

The thing about these supercars is that you can buy them and go to a track and set a stunning lap without doing anything to the car. They aren’t expensive either. The £35k Ariel Atom is only 0.5s behing the Enzo in the Top Gear track. That is better value for money than even the Z06 with costs £60k in UK.

Albert, cars that run a 7-9 second quarter mile a) do not do so on street tires and b) are useless for everything but drag racing.

I don’t know how people can compare kit cars as if they were on equal footing to full production models. Kit cars get to bypass all kinds of collision and emissions regulations and therefore gain a tremendous advantage.

Bypassing emissions allows a tremendous boost in power output, and of course bypassing collision regulations allows tremendous weight reduction/aero improvements.

Kit cars, like the Noble, for example, while are impressive in their own right, cannot really be compared to full production models directly.

Why not through some LeMans prototypes into such tests/comparisons while we’re at it…?

#25 … I’ve heard that … does the Z06 actually MSRP for £60k in the UK? If so it would cost as much in £’s as it does in US$ in the States… making the car something like 80% more expensive in the UK…

I love cheez-its!!!

“wait, so a car (the atom) costs 4% what the veyron does”

well the Atom does not have windows, roof, a/c, and whole bunch of other goodies that even my Kia has. And I bet the Atom does not crash too well with a Hummer.

In freefall you initially experience 0g. But as you approach terminal velocity (zero acceleration) it goes back to 1g. The only significant significant g-force you may experience whilst skydiving is when the chute deploys. It could be significant then, but I’ve never done it.

The que has spoken.

I want videos!

Yes Veyron > GTR in top speed - just find a place to get that fast

Overpriced Zo6 wannabe. Had this been a General Motors car, it probably would be fast AND RELIABLE! And probably have Cadillac top-notch quality and style while doing it

I believe that when you reach terminal velocity (read constant speed), by definition it has to be 0g i.e. no force, i.e. no change in speed. Take some physics courses ppl.

Correct, once a skydiver has fallen for some time they will tend to reach terminal velocity. The peak acceleration in skydiving (I don’t know about opening the parachute) Will be slightly less than 1g, since there is always some air resistance. The “freefall” feeling is why skydiving is so exhilierating. When skydiving, there are still forces, it just so happens that the Net force is 0, since the air resistance will eventually equal the force due to gravity. The force of gravity gets less and less as you get higher. I wish they sold the Ariel Atom here in the states.

Beat me to it. Que is an idiot.

Scott: they do sell the atom in US albeit with a different engine

What’s wrong with you people? Think of yourself in an elevator. Elevator cable snaps, you accelerate down but you feel weightless. You feel weightless because your acceleration matches 9.81 m/s2, same as gravity. Weightless people, you feel weightless. Listen up here, the que is speaking. Once the elevator stops accelerating downward, (ie, reaches terminal downward velocity because of air resistance) you will feel gravity again, 1 g, as if you were stationary.

Ke and Scott, you listening to this? If you’re not careful, you just might learn something.

Oh, and Scott and Ke. Force of gravity difference between 8 miles up and 0 miles up is not something you can percieve.

What grade are you guys in, anyway?

Alright kids. Que is right ONLY about there being no perceivable difference on the force of gravity within our atmosphere.

HOWEVER, I’m sorry Que, but go back to the books (and also stop speaking like you’re some monarch you !@#$)

When in doubt: go back to the formulas.

F=ma Right? If speed is constant, then a=0, then F=0!! (net force that is) So I do believe the feeling of weightlessness comes in once you reach terminal velocity and feel NO net forces (NOT like on the ground). And while you jump out of the plane then you certainly will feel an acceleration (and NOT weightless), like as if you threw yourself off a building (please do so before you say ‘que has spoken’ again).

Ok?

Now get all back to work, or go spend your time otherwise people.

…and you elevator argument is boulcrap too! Acceleration here is DOWNWARDS in all cases! That so-called weightlessness is just the elevator starting to move downwards before YOU do. Get your reference plane right and things will start to make sense.

I’ll say it again. Que, you’re an idiot.

[...] Source [...]

Wrong again schoolboys.

I’ll use small words so you’ll be sure to understand. Perhaps you will finally be able to connect the dots. When you accelerate at 9.81m/s2 straight down, the sensation you feel is weightlessness, like floating in space. When you are sitting in a car on the ground, your ass is pushing down on the seat with a force of 1G times your mass, even though you are not accelerating. If a car can accelerate forward at 1G, then you ass and your back feel 1G of force each, because you are accelerating 90 degrees from gravity in one plane and being pulled down by gravity in another, even though you are not moving relative to that plane. This starting to make sense?

Now, back to the freefall; once you stop accelerating downward (but reach some constant velocity), you feel the force of gravity again, 1G times your weight. If a plane goes into a dive, you feel weightless ONLY IF IT IS ACCELERATING DOWN AT 9.81m/s2. If it is in a dive, but reaches a constant velocity, you feel your full weight again. Ke, you listening to this?

Homework is due tomorrow, and if this still doesn’t make sense, perhaps you are in the wrong class.

k i was wrong but still have bugatti over that ugly piece of crap ultima GTR. i only like the ultima for its numbers nothng else.

I think the only thing left to say is this. Que, you’re an idiot.

Your persistance will not stop to amaze me. Go ask one of your teachers.. since it seems you’re still in school.

(proof you’re still in school? 9.81… the .01 actually changes well within our atmosphere, but either way it’s so irrelevant. The fact that you stress 9.81 means that you’ve just learned this the other day (obviously haven’t mastered it quite yet).)

P.S. My university professor used to use 10 as the force of gravity, because the calculations are not as relevant as knowing what you’re doing.

Hate to break into this one, fellas, but que is mostly right, for the wrong reasons. And the thing is, it’s not even me backing him up, it’s Albert Einstein.

Albert Einstein, like the guy without whom nuclear energy would never have existed. Oh yeah, did I mention that computers (and all things that use them…which is like everything electrical invented in the last half a century…) wouldn’t exist without his theories? Neither would satellite communication, nor would it have been possible to fly to the moon. Yep, Einstein, the father of not only virtually all modern physics, but most things using modern technology in existence.

He came up with a WHOLE lot of ****. The particular **** that comes into play here is General Relativity. It explains what gravity actually is, and not what Newton thought (or didn’t think, actually…he had no explanation for what gravity actually was) it was. After coming up with his theory, and his formulas, they were tested against Newton’s formulas by measuring the orbit of … Pluto I believe. Guess whose equations turned out to be right?

Anyways, I don’t have enough space here to explain, but I’ll try if someone asks. Just this though…when you jump out of a plane, for the first instant, you’re experiencing the same thing as what Astronauts experience in space: freefall. Contrary to what Newton would have you believe, when you’re in freefall the Earth is NOT pulling on you at all. When you’re standing on the ground, the Earth is not pulling you down, it’s pushing you up. If you remove the Earth and it stops holding you up, you go down.

I know that’s not an explanation, but an explanation of General Relativity requires … well I won’t try. It’s damned difficult to understand, having it explained by a Physics professor. How Einstein ever managed to figure that out is beyond me…

OMG, are you people stoned?

Kinno, no offense to you, but you didn’t say a single thing about our beef with Que.

BTW, if you need to reach beyond classical physics to explain something like this, then ya’ll should have other careers.

Ok, good afternoon, good evening, good night. I’ve wasted enough spit on this. Que, go jump out of a plane, with or without a parachute, and let us know ok?

Ciao everybody

for comparisons sake i would like to see a Porsche 959, Ferrari F40 and F50 go through this test. also as a point of refrence a 06 VW GTI just so ppl can grasp how fast these cars really are.

Kinno, you are brutal. If these jueveniles can’t understand Newton, how do you expect them to grasp anything Einstein spoke about?

Carsfeverguy, not to worry. What Kinno is talking about will NOT be on the test. Meditate on the pearls I’ve put before you, think about the acceleration of the Veyron, and all of this will drop into place for you. We will be talking about Albert and his pals next semester.

Oh, and don’t forget your homework tomorrow!!

Oh, and if I we all used an acceleration of gravity equal to 10, as suggested by the dunce way in the back, nothing would get designed properly, from basic pumps, valves to satellites.

It’s 9.81m/s2 folks. If you use 10, I’ll count it WRONG. No partial credit. For those insisting on using “irrational” English units, 32.17ft/s2 will be accepted.

Ya’ll better listen to the Que. This cat knows what he’s talking about.

I agree with Kinno- The test should really be about production vehicles. They should run another test for kit cars and spec racers

Could the Veyron beat a Ferrari F1 ? Probably not. Silly to pit it against an Atom to me.

Oh yeah - good one BAMF.

Que, im a 4th year undergrad math student. While i admit i dont have a clue about GR or SR i have done my fair share of classical mechanics to know how the motion under freefall works. when u jump off the plane the only force acting on ur mass m is mg. newtons f=ma tells us the initial accel is g. as your velocity increases so does the drag, resulting in a decrease of magnitude of the net force acting on ur mass. thus the accel of ur mass deacreases.

I hear you Ke. Understanding MOTION under freefall is easy. What some have trouble understanding is that your MOTION and what you PERCEIEVE don’t intuitively correlate in certain senarios.

Accelerating directly towards a gravitational source FEELS completely different than when accelerating perpendicular to it. If you accelerate at 1 G towards the G source, you feel weightless. That’s how the so-called Vomit Comet jet can replicate the sensation of being in space, whereas when accelerating in a hard charging Veyron, your ass gets pressed hard against the seat. Completely different sensations.

Doing the math of acceleration vectors (ie, direction and magnitude) makes it clear.

OK so after all the physics chat, back to the point: the cheap british Ultima with the big power brute US engine still outshines the Veyron… sexy little fact for GTR owners…

#57, just barely. the fact that veyron can achieve such performance that a few kit cars can barely beat while achieving such high level of luxury is very impressive.

Do you actually believe what you’re saying? That physics is different in different planes?

i agree with ke

ATTENTION ALL POSTERS HOPING TO GET THE JIST OF WHAT’S BEEN SAID ABOVE SO YOU CAN INSERT YOUR OWN QUIP APPROPRIATELY!

here’s the rundown:

story about a fun car mag
..
specs in
..
unobtainable car sets new std for a real car
..
semantic comment
…
11th grade physics
…
einstein says blah blah…. (no discernable point)
…
someone who probably knows what they’re talking about throws fuel on the fire without making an attempt to point out that the topic argued isn’t the topic of interest in the thread… not you Kinno…
…
guy who loves car news way too much for his own well-being provides run down for anyone skimming along to see how this all pans out.

Probably beating a dead horse, and I doubt anyone checks this anymore, but in response to Ke, in case he’s interested.

My understanding of General Relativity is somewhat limited, (the math is tremendously more advanced than in Special Relativity, and was hard to follow…I was taking a 3rd year Physics course with limited math skills) but thought experiments led Einstein to equate gravitational force to acceleration. After all, if you stand on a scale in an elevator, your weight changes when you’re accelerating or decelerating. He thought that gravitation and acceleration might stem from the same phenomenon. So he did the math for it.

What ended up happening was, he ended up combining the 3 dimensions of space with the 4th dimension of time, and they turn out to be interconnected. Energy and mass distort space-time, and create “dimples” in this 4-dimensional space. I won’t mention any equations or mathematics because it would take untold pages and I dunno if anyone could follow. I probably can’t anymore. But needless to say, all of the classical formulas go out the window. And mg is NOT the force of gravity. It is only an approximate description of how objects behave due to the phenomenon of gravity on earth. If you take a look at GR, you’ll see that gravity is actually not a force at all, but just the natural movement of objects in 4-dimensional space-time. When a satellite orbits the Earth, there is NO force pulling it towards the Earth to keep it moving in a circle. It’s simply following a straight line in 4-dimensional space-time, which in 3 dimensions we pereive as an ellipse. You can look on the internet if interested, but there’s simple comparisons you can do going from 2 dimensions to 3 dimensions, where movements have weird translations when adding/removing a dimension.

So, when you jump out of a plane, or you’re in space, what happens is that your body returns to its natural trajectory in 4-dimensional space time, and you’re actually not getting pulled by the Earth by some magical force “mg”. (which is wrong…you can find the real equations for gravitation in many textbooks) What happens when you’re on the Earth is that the Earth is pushing you up and accelerating you away from what would be your natural trajectory in 4 dimensional space time. So when you jump out of a plane, there is actually no force pulling you down at all. What’s happening is that due to a lack of force pushing you up, you being to resume your natural trajectory.

I haven’t read this page so I haven’t checked it for correctness, but I trust Wikipedia to explain GR correctly in layman’s terms…I hope.

So if you want to do some reading, here you go…if you want to see the proof, I hope your math skills are stunning, and you can consult a higher level Uni textbook…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Relativity#Treatment_of_gravitation

arabamızın markası murat 124 serçe onuda yaptığınız gibi 0 dan 100 yaparmısınız?

I may be able to help with the physics confusion.

Force of Gravity and G’s are two different things!

G is the estimated acceleration an object will experience at sealevel neglecting air resistence [9.81 m/s^2]. This is not a force! This is a rate of acceleration. You will find that objects will experience this approximate acceleration when they initially begin freefall. This is because air resistance is negligable at low velocities. Eventually the object will reach terminal velocity and stop accelerating. By definition terminal velocity means no more acceleration. Thus 0 G’s

Just remember gravity exerts forces onto objects. This force is constant(@sealevel) regardless of motion. G is the estimated acceleration for freefalling objects. Lets calculate how many G’s a driver experiences accelerating down the road.
0 to 60 mph, 2.8s
[vf=vi+a*t]
vi=0mph=0m/s
vf=60mph=26.82m/s
t=2.8s

vf=vi+a*t, 26.82=0+a(2.8), a=9.58m/s

G=a/9.81, G=9.58/9.81, G=.98

This cars average rate of accelearation is approx. 1 G when accelerating from 0 to 60. Long story short if your driving this car your going to experience an acceleration similar to one you would experience if you jumped off a cliff. Sweet

Yeah thats what happens when you put a brand in VW hands, they go up to the clouds

Guys…Gordon murray modeled The Mcclaren after the Ultima GTR from what he said…the Ultima was what the chassis of the F1 was targeted at…Hmmmm So Warren Noble Is THE man i guess…lol.Oh and the veyron is a Glorified Volkswagen design Excercise.Anything carrying that many radiators and that much weight Cannot possibly be called the worlds fastest…By the way guys What does the Veyron run the Quarter Mile in?Because the Skyline Z Tune does it In 10.05 Seconds and with half the horsepower (500) Of the veyron.Guess ill buy a skyline and send it to SIGNAL automotive (Still be around 60 grand or less) and Laugh at those veyrons in my rearview mirror Aye?

so its fast then?

just so you know, the lingenfelter vette does 0-60 in under 2 seconds, HELLO!?! and costs 10 times less