World's Fastest Car?

[Mase]

ARTICLE all about it.

[Eric]

ARTICLE all about it.

He doesn't say how fast!

The Veyron is good for, what 240 or so?

But here's a reality check:

Outside Bonneville (or maybe a few isolated places in Nevada or Montana, etc.) there is virtually no place in this country - on public roads, at least - where you could approach such speeds. Even if you had a machine capable of it - and the balls to use it.

There just isn't enough room.

Ask someone with experience on modern hyper-sports motorcycles; something like a ZX-10R or Gixxer - a bike with enough power to exceed 200 mph and do the quarter mile in 9 seconds at 140-plus.

It's no easy thing to top one of these things out. And that's "only" 190-200 mph.

As anyone familiar with high speed driving/riding knows, you get slower as you go faster because of resistance. Extremely quick/powerful cars (and bikes) will shoot to 150-plus pretty easily - and very quickly. But after that, it takes progressively more precious time (and road) to gain further speed. Going from 150 to 180 can feel like a lifetime compared with the blur that was 0-150.

Meanwhile, you are covering ground fast.

Even a straight stretch of five miles or so goes by amazingly rapidly at 150-plus speeds.

And you will need room to slow down, which you can't do quickly unless you have a death wish.

I've driven faster than 170 on the street - and have track time in both cars and bikes - so I'm telling you all this based on personal experience.

These 240-plus top speed exotics are mostly about Talking Points.

[dom]

And its maker says it'll do 275mph.

[Eric]

And its maker says it'll do 275mph.

It probably could - at Bonneville.

On public roads? I seriously doubt it, for all the reasons mentioned in my earlier post.

By the time you're at 200 or so, you'd almost certainly be running out of (straight) road... keep going - and you're gonna die.

Ever drive faster than 170? I have. Cars get really sensitive at such speeds and even minor steering inputs will move the car off course in a potentially dangerous way. If the road is not absolutely flat and perfect, you are talking your life in your hands at such speeds.

[Ken]

He doesn't say how fast!

The Veyron is good for, what 240 or so?

These 240-plus top speed exotics are mostly about Talking Points.

The new Bug is a bit faster than that, at Ehra-Lessien it averaged nearly 268 mph in a two way run.

Ken.


At a racetrack in Ehra-Lessien, Germany on Saturday, driver Pierre Henri Raphanel put the pedal to the medal, driving the Bugatti Veyron Super Sport straight into the Guiness World Records book. The car hit an average top speed of 267.8 mph, which is a record for a production car (a car that is mass produced, rather than a one-off car), London’s Daily Mail reports.

[Eric]

The new Bug is a bit faster than that, at Ehra-Lessien it averaged nearly 268 mph in a two way run.

Ken.


At a racetrack in Ehra-Lessien, Germany on Saturday, driver Pierre Henri Raphanel put the pedal to the medal, driving the Bugatti Veyron Super Sport straight into the Guiness World Records book. The car hit an average top speed of 267.8 mph, which is a record for a production car (a car that is mass produced, rather than a one-off car), London’s Daily Mail reports.

Sure... on a racetrack.

And in the hands of a pro driver.

I guarantee that anyone who has actually driven at speeds above 150 mph on public roads will call bullshit on all this "200 mph car" stuff.

Bullshit in the sense that finding a public road where one can approach such speeds is no easy thing; in fact it almost impossible. And bullshit in terms of the fact that unless you are a really good/experienced driver who knows what the hell he is doing, attempting such speeds on just about any public road has a pucker factor several notches higher than 99 out of 100 people could deal with.

It's wonderful fun to bench race 200 mph cars; quite something else to actually drive a car anywhere near such speeds on a public road.

[Ken]

Sure... on a racetrack.

And in the hands of a pro driver.

I guarantee that anyone who has actually driven at speeds above 150 mph on public roads will call bullshit on all this "200 mph car" stuff.

I think we have quite a few motorways over here where there is the potential for 200 mph, possibly even higher. One factor would be the time - it would have to be at night in the early hours of the morning - the second is whether one would actually want to even attempt it. The highest, mile after mile, sustained speed I have managed was 152 mph indicated, on our way to Calais from the South of France. This was many years ago, on the A26 I think, and was on a pretty empty road. (And we were easily passed by a cigar chomping fat cat in an Aston of some sort going considerably faster than we were.)

Ken.

[Eric]

I think we have quite a few motorways over here where there is the potential for 200 mph, possibly even higher. One factor would be the time - it would have to be at night in the early hours of the morning - the second is whether one would actually want to even attempt it. The highest, mile after mile, sustained speed I have managed was 152 mph indicated, on our way to Calais from the South of France. This was many years ago, on the A26 I think, and was on a pretty empty road. (And we were easily passed by a cigar chomping fat cat in an Aston of some sort going considerably faster than we were.)

Ken.

I hit 150-plus fairly often - on my bike and also when I get my hands on something really fast, like a Z06 Corvette, M5 or 911 Porsche. But, faster than that - significantly faster than that, at any rate - is no easy thing to manage, at least not east of the Mississippi.

Maybe out west, in places like Nevada and Montana, there are some roads where it's feasible to attempt 200 mph. But one would need at least several miles of straight road to achieve such speed - and as anyone who has driven at very high speeds knows, you cover an incredible amount of ground in what seems no time at all at 150-plus speeds.

In addition, it takes quite a bit more time to get from say 150 to 200 than it took to go from zero to 150, even in a very powerful car or bike. The seconds tick by as the speedo creeps past 170.... and meanwhile you've just put another half-mile of asphalt behind you.

And what happens once you reach 200-plus? When it is time to slow down? Now you need more road (and time). A good bit of both, actually. Touch those brakes much at 170-plus and you're not likely to live to tell the tale.

You must ease into it - with great care. This is why at places like Bonneville they allot a mile or two of road just for the car to slow down again....

[Ken]

I hit 150-plus fairly often - on my bike and also when I get my hands on something really fast, like a Z06 Corvette, M5 or 911 Porsche. But, faster than that - significantly faster than that, at any rate - is no easy thing to manage, at least not east of the Mississippi.

And what happens once you reach 200-plus? When it is time to slow down? Now you need more road (and time). A good bit of both, actually. Touch those brakes much at 170-plus and you're not likely to live to tell the tale.

You must ease into it - with great care. This is why at places like Bonneville they allot a mile or two of road just for the car to slow down again....

Nearly 300 plus feet per second, I agree it is definitely harder slowing down from that sort of speed than it is getting there in the first place. Brakes need to be perfectly balanced, steering needs to be pefect, suspension needs to be perfect, concentration needs to be total - need I go on? Stopping from 130 - 150 is no problem, especially on a 'bike and on the track even in the wet it is fairly straightforward. On the road you need to be thinking a long way ahead, at least twice as far as your braking distance to a stop. It is much easier on the track where you are only interested in the track ahead and any riders you can see ahead of you, all going the same way, hopefully all fully aware of exactly what they are doing. There is always the odd mistake and you will always get the odd nutball but the kitty litter usually collects them up without too much damage.

Ken.

[MikeHalloran]

The problem with great speed on public roads is not braking distance per se, but the odd errant cow, deer, or little old lady in a Buick.

[Eric]

The problem with great speed on public roads is not braking distance per se, but the odd errant cow, deer, or little old lady in a Buick.

Also the surface of the road itself.

If you've ever done a few really high speed runs, on public roads, you'll know what I mean!

Little dips and bumps that you wouldn't notice at 70 can be seriously dangerous at 170. It is much easier to unsettle a car at such speeds and the results of that can be fatal.

As I posted earlier, I've been at this a long time (close to 20 years, professionally) and have had access to a lot of very serious machinery that 99 percent of the public will never even get to sit in, much less drive at Ludicrous Speed. I'm not mentioning this to brag; I'm mentioning it to show I have had access to cars capable of the speeds so many people BS about - and have driven many of them at such speeds. It is not as easy as some people make it sound. I promise.

I would bet that a bunch of the people who talk about "200 mph cars" would get pretty nervous if they ever had access to such a car and actually tried to drive it anywhere near that speed.

And 240?

Forget about it!

My point being: Mostly, this is an academic exercise about theoretical capability. Sure, it's fun to talk about it.

But very few people ever do it.

[dBrong]

I would bet that a bunch of the people who talk about "200 mph cars" would get pretty nervous if they ever had access to such a car and actually tried to drive it anywhere near that speed.

I read a Motor Trend, while waiting for the dentist.

Now I realize that the magazine is for a younger audience, and dreams are a nice thing to have......... but:

There are quite a few ad's (like Caddy) that boast 0-60 in 3.5 seconds, and 400+ hp in regular production cars.

My first thought was: "Where in hell can you use this stuff?" - drive over 100 mph and they will take away your license.

Secondly, given the poor driving habits and skills of the average person, how are they ever going to control a car like this?

Why pay for something you will never use or enjoy?

[Eric]

I read a Motor Trend, while waiting for the dentist.

Now I realize that the magazine is for a younger audience, and dreams are a nice thing to have......... but:

There are quite a few ad's (like Caddy) that boast 0-60 in 3.5 seconds, and 400+ hp in regular production cars.

My first thought was: "Where in hell can you use this stuff?" - drive over 100 mph and they will take away your license.

Secondly, given the poor driving habits and skills of the average person, how are they ever going to control a car like this?

Why pay for something you will never use or enjoy?

It's a fantasy they're peddling - the magazines as much as the car industry itself.

Two-thirds of the people out there don't need (or simply can't - or won't use) a car with more performance capability than offered by a current Camry; even that is probably way more than they can or will ever use (a 2011 V-6 Camry can do 140 mph and 0-60 in about 6.6 seconds).

Every day I roll up behind someone in a car with the capability to easily run 120 all day long - and hit 140-plus on top - running at or just below the speed limit.

How many Americans ever drive faster than 100 mph?

Any current economy car will do that - and then some.

It's always been like this, I suppose - but it's become even more distorted today, because performance/capability that, 25 years ago, would have been considered exotic (and which was exotically priced) is now available to almost anyone...

But it's all (or mostly) for show - and ego petting.

[grouch]

If I remember the numbers correctly, for every one mph over 150 that you go, it requires 17 hp. You can cheat a bit with aerodynamics and make the car slicker but NASCAR engineers came up with that number in the late 70's or so and I think it's still valid.

[quickcar]

It isn't so much one will use all that potencial. like I told the sales person at Sears when they were installing my "Z" rated tires on my highly capable 70 SS Chevelle when he asked where and if i'd really need those costly tires, it's the knowing that should the need ever arise, I'd have both the car and the tires to do so.

Our 70 SS Chevelle can and has hit 150 mph easily, the point where I could tell the "Brick" was getting bigger in front of the car, and an lock to lock spin of the wheel was one finger flick away.

Rex

[Eric]

It isn't so much one will use all that potencial. like I told the sales person at Sears when they were installing my "Z" rated tires on my highly capable 70 SS Chevelle when he asked where and if i'd really need those costly tires, it's the knowing that should the need ever arise, I'd have both the car and the tires to do so.

Our 70 SS Chevelle can and has hit 150 mph easily, the point where I could tell the "Brick" was getting bigger in front of the car, and an lock to lock spin of the wheel was one finger flick away.

Rex

For a gearhead like you, ok - I see it. Because as a fellow gearhead, I know that given the chance, we will use our cars as designed.

But the hausefrau toodling along in an S600 or Lexus LS? These cars will never see the high side of 90.

If that.

But they come with low-aspect-ratio uber-performance (Z rated and higher) tires designed for sustained speeds in excess of 140 mph!

Hell, they are putting high-speed tires on almost everything now.

It's a scam. Another way to oversell capability that most people don't need in order to make more money for the car companies, dealers and aftermarket.

75 percent of the driving public would be fine with a 70 series, 15-inch all-season blackwall tire with an S or T speed rating.

But tires like that only sell for $70 or so a piece - and we can't have that!

[MikeHalloran]

Blame the trial lawyers if you like.

There's a proven demand for cars that are capable of 150 mph.
It would be irresponsible of a car manufacturer to shoe such a bolide with 120 mph tires, even though, yes, hardly anyone actually will need the zoomy ones.

[Eric]

Blame the trial lawyers if you like.

There's a proven demand for cars that are capable of 150 mph.
It would be irresponsible of a car manufacturer to shoe such a bolide with 120 mph tires, even though, yes, hardly anyone actually will need the zoomy ones.

Sure !

And the demand was manufactured by car industry PR - which created a manufactured (and phantom) need. people buy these 150 mph cars because at some level they identify with the TV commercial and the guy doing a fast run around Nurburgring or some such. Meanwhile, they never drive much faster than 80 or so for more than a few furtive moments.

So much has changed in such a short time.

I'm 44.

I can remember when luxury cars were touted for their gentility, not their speed; when performance cars were a small niche and most cars did not have bucket seats or "sport tuned" suspensions.

I love fast/sporty cars, but it's become absurd, with even minivans offering "sport" packages and engines with 230-plus horsepower (more than an early '80s-era Corvette!)

I'm no Marxist, either - but I despise stupid, gratuitous waste.

And that's what we've got in abundance today.

[ekrampitzjr]

On the radio the other day was the news that Shelby intends to produce a supercar capable of 270 mph. Haven't bothered to try to find any info online, as the prospect of yet another ridiculously fast vehicle for showoffs appalls me.

We can blame the German manufacturers for starting this insane horsepower and top speed war some years ago; now it has infested every auto-producing country.

The big problem I see with this is not just the question of how the average driver would ever be able to use such speed capabilities legally on public roads: it is that this kind of excess attracts the unwelcome attention of legislators and environmentalists who can then use the existence of such vehicles to batter the automakers for such wretched excess. They do have an argument: the engineering talent and money wasted on creating such supercars would have been far better spent on trying to research and produce, say, a full-sized family sedan that can achieve 75 miles per US gallon of gasoline. The automakers can build excess numbers of cars capable of screaming down a road illegally at 150 to 200+ mph, but can't dedicate the same resources to building more fuel efficient cars? What gives? At least so some observers think.

Chris Davies, a British member of the European Parliament (European Union), seriously proposed in 2007 placing a speed limiter set at about 101 mph on new cars sold in member countries. He said then that 101 mph represented the average motorway speed limit in EU countries (except in Germany on selected autobahns) of 81 mph plus 25% over, and why would more be necessary for most drivers? Police vehicles would have been exempted. His proposal was not seriously considered after serious criticism from Germany and various automotive groups, but again I believe he had a point. And Germany has been under a lot of pressure from the European Union to impose blanket speed limits on its autobahns to standardize traffic laws.

But what do I know? I was hounded off another automotive forum, BobIstheOilGuy.com, for daring to criticize the 252-mph Bugatti Veyron on the same grounds. Some can't see the forest for the trees. But lawmakers and antiautomobile environmentalists certainly do, and they notice such excess, which was my point...

[Mithrandir]

Sure !

And the demand was manufactured by car industry PR - which created a manufactured (and phantom) need. people buy these 150 mph cars because at some level they identify with the TV commercial and the guy doing a fast run around Nurburgring or some such. Meanwhile, they never drive much faster than 80 or so for more than a few furtive moments.

So much has changed in such a short time.

I'm 44.

I can remember when luxury cars were touted for their gentility, not their speed; when performance cars were a small niche and most cars did not have bucket seats or "sport tuned" suspensions.

I love fast/sporty cars, but it's become absurd, with even minivans offering "sport" packages and engines with 230-plus horsepower (more than an early '80s-era Corvette!)

I'm no Marxist, either - but I despise stupid, gratuitous waste.

And that's what we've got in abundance today.

I remember going tp sears and they refused to install S rated tires on my Sentra. They said it was against policy to install below the Manufacturer std tires. The sentra came with H rated tires. I doubt that the Sentra could even travel at 130 mph unless it fell over the cliff.

The $ difference was about 30-40 dollars per tire.