Bugatti Veryon 1/4 mile?
19 February 2006, 06:01 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Scoobynet
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AudiLover
Well the engine makes 3000hp. 1000 for the cooling and 1000 gets eaten up by the transmission.
The powewr of the veyron is emant to actaully fluctuate depending on surronding conditions but it hs 1001 hp minium at all times. Or 987hp when using lower quality american fuel.
The powewr of the veyron is emant to actaully fluctuate depending on surronding conditions but it hs 1001 hp minium at all times. Or 987hp when using lower quality american fuel.
The quoted output is at the fly not at the wheels. It probably makes something in the region of 850bhp at the wheels.
19 February 2006, 06:10 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Petem95
LOL!! You are joking right?! How old are you AudiLover? Im guessing 13 or 14?
The quoted output is at the fly not at the wheels. It probably makes something in the region of 850bhp at the wheels.
The quoted output is at the fly not at the wheels. It probably makes something in the region of 850bhp at the wheels.
It does after all have a huge engine with quad turbos and in optimum conditions it makes 1150hp. The 1001hp is the bare minium. Look it up and prove me wrong.
19 February 2006, 06:23 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AudiLover
The powewr of the veyron is emant to actaully fluctuate depending on surronding conditions but it hs 1001 hp minium at all times. Or 987hp when using lower quality american fuel.
19 February 2006, 06:39 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you know the difference fuel makes especially ina highley tuned machine like the veyron. In the UK we get 95 and 98 rons. In the US I believe its 91 rons.
Tell me what would your scooby run better on.
Some of you guys are living up to the scooby driver reputation.
Look mate instead of just saying Im a kid and all that over stuff how about you prove me wrong. Go do some research and come back with it linked to your sources.
Tell me what would your scooby run better on.
Some of you guys are living up to the scooby driver reputation.
Look mate instead of just saying Im a kid and all that over stuff how about you prove me wrong. Go do some research and come back with it linked to your sources.
19 February 2006, 06:47 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Scoobynet
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AudiLover
It does after all have a huge engine with quad turbos and in optimum conditions it makes 1150hp. The 1001hp is the bare minium. Look it up and prove me wrong.
19 February 2006, 07:04 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 9,844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AudiLover
Do you know the difference fuel makes especially ina highley tuned machine like the veyron. In the UK we get 95 and 98 rons. In the US I believe its 91 rons.
Tell me what would your scooby run better on.
Some of you guys are living up to the scooby driver reputation.
Look mate instead of just saying Im a kid and all that over stuff how about you prove me wrong. Go do some research and come back with it linked to your sources.
Tell me what would your scooby run better on.
Some of you guys are living up to the scooby driver reputation.
Look mate instead of just saying Im a kid and all that over stuff how about you prove me wrong. Go do some research and come back with it linked to your sources.
I'm not even going to comment on the bhp losses, I'll go along with your thinking - I know I'm making over 400@wheels, so the engine must be making safely over 1200bhp
19 February 2006, 07:08 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the fuel Its just what Ive been told by our american cousins several times so I took their word for it.
You arent mistaking their measurements of mpg to our ones by any chance are you?
You arent mistaking their measurements of mpg to our ones by any chance are you?
19 February 2006, 07:12 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A powerslide near you
Posts: 10,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AudiLover
Ive got a equation about it somewhere. Only a small percentage of the power that your cars engine makes actually gets to the drive train. The rest is wasted as heat energy.
Did you know that a bog standard Ford Mondeo produces 400bhp!!!!! 125 lost to 'cooling' and 125 lost to transmission leaving 150 for the car, really, really, I read it somewhere
Let's see this 'evidence' then.
An engine produces X amount of which X amount (commonly 15/20%) is lost to transmission. In the case of the Veyron, it produces just over 1000bhp leaving about 800bhp or so at the wheels.
19 February 2006, 07:18 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HAHA funny jokes.nAnd heres my evidence to back up what I was saying.
So we have basically learned that an engine really only does produce about 30 percent of its potential energy as the rest is all lost as heat. It's stupid to consider it as producing 3000hp, though, because it theoretically can produce that much, but doesn't. If, perhaps, they could create some entirely new internal combustion engine that only lost, say, 40% of its overall power instead of 60-70%, you'd have a breakthrough.
Wolfgang Schreiber, Bugatti engineering’s technical director is quoted saying the following:
“The maximum combustion energy in fact adds up to 3000 bhp - 1000 bhp is swallowed by the cooling system, 1000 bhp goes through the exhaust apparatus, and 1000bhp is relayed to the four driven wheels.”
“The maximum combustion energy in fact adds up to 3000 bhp - 1000 bhp is swallowed by the cooling system, 1000 bhp goes through the exhaust apparatus, and 1000bhp is relayed to the four driven wheels.”
Last edited by AudiLover; 19 February 2006 at 07:21 PM.
19 February 2006, 07:18 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 9,844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AudiLover
Regarding the fuel Its just what Ive been told by our american cousins several times so I took their word for it.
You arent mistaking their measurements of mpg to our ones by any chance are you?
You arent mistaking their measurements of mpg to our ones by any chance are you?
I'm staying out of this thread now.
19 February 2006, 07:21 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A powerslide near you
Posts: 10,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AudiLover
HAHA funny jokes.nAnd heres my evidence to back up what I was saying.
Any 'power' that it produces that can never be used is irrelevant, pointless and of no use whatsoever.
19 February 2006, 07:30 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The maximum combustion energy
19 February 2006, 07:39 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep. But going back now to the original topic I think the veyron would do a quarter mile in about 9.5 secs. I was just simply trying to get across that 1000hp from a skyline is very different from that of the veyrons. IT was purposefully built to be a straight line rocket yet people still say it handles like a big luxury elise.
The macca F1 was the closest production car (this was before the koenigsegger) to beat the gixxer 1000 to 120mph. Faster than Enzo's and Carrera GT's. But the veyron can give the macca F1 a headstart to 120mph and still beat it to 200mph and the macca f1 runs 11's if not lower.
The macca F1 was the closest production car (this was before the koenigsegger) to beat the gixxer 1000 to 120mph. Faster than Enzo's and Carrera GT's. But the veyron can give the macca F1 a headstart to 120mph and still beat it to 200mph and the macca f1 runs 11's if not lower.
19 February 2006, 08:39 PM
#49
19 February 2006, 09:42 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Co Durham
Posts: 1,659
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further to 'Rev's point -
Now, I'm not an engineer so it means bugger all to me but I think that was what AudiLover was refering to.
To apply the power of the 64-valve unit to achieve satisfactory driving dynamics both in everyday traffic and on the racetrack, the Bugatti development team of Dr. Franz-Joseph Paefgen and Dr. Wolfgang Schreiber has realized a propulsion unit that is without parallel in its complexity. If the extreme engine power is a master stroke of genius, its conversion for road use is an equally tough challenge. As Dr. Schreiber says “For 1000 hp propulsion power, the system demands approximately 2000 hp to be additionally generated as heat energy during combustion. Half in each case is dissipated in the exhaust gas and cooling water”.
To do this, the Bugatti engine has two water circuits. The larger of the two with 40 liters of cooling water has three coolers in the front section of the car, to keep the engine at operating temperature. The second circuit, called the low-temperature system, has a separate water pump and contains 15 liters of cooling water. These are used to cool, by up to 130 degrees, the charged air, heated during compression in the turbochargers, in two heat exchangers mounted on the engine. The cooled, charged air then passes through two “air manifolds” into the combustion chamber, which it then leaves as exhaust gas at approximately 1,000 degrees. It then passes through the turbines of the exhaust gas turbochargers. This causes the exhaust gas to expand, so that it is cooled by up to about 150 degrees, is then cleaned in the catalyzer and exhausted.
To do this, the Bugatti engine has two water circuits. The larger of the two with 40 liters of cooling water has three coolers in the front section of the car, to keep the engine at operating temperature. The second circuit, called the low-temperature system, has a separate water pump and contains 15 liters of cooling water. These are used to cool, by up to 130 degrees, the charged air, heated during compression in the turbochargers, in two heat exchangers mounted on the engine. The cooled, charged air then passes through two “air manifolds” into the combustion chamber, which it then leaves as exhaust gas at approximately 1,000 degrees. It then passes through the turbines of the exhaust gas turbochargers. This causes the exhaust gas to expand, so that it is cooled by up to about 150 degrees, is then cleaned in the catalyzer and exhausted.
Now, I'm not an engineer so it means bugger all to me but I think that was what AudiLover was refering to.
19 February 2006, 09:56 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: From Kent to Gloucestershire to Berkshire
Posts: 2,905
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In other words, the engine is about 33% thermally efficient - out of the calorific value released by burning the fuel, about 1000bhp is translated into power from the engine, and about 2000bhp is produced as waste heat. about half that waste heat is chucked out the exhaust, and the other half is removed using the cooling system.
This is quite a different thing to it taking 1000bhp to drive the coolant system.
To answer the fuel question. As RB5 245 correctly states, the Americans have 91 octane fuel, but it isn't 91 RON. Do a google to find out the difference between RON, PON, MON etc. However, it is quite true that there will be a significant difference in power output of any modern turbo engine depending on the quality of fuel being used.
This is quite a different thing to it taking 1000bhp to drive the coolant system.
To answer the fuel question. As RB5 245 correctly states, the Americans have 91 octane fuel, but it isn't 91 RON. Do a google to find out the difference between RON, PON, MON etc. However, it is quite true that there will be a significant difference in power output of any modern turbo engine depending on the quality of fuel being used.
19 February 2006, 10:02 PM
#52
That 2000hp isn't actually generated then lost, it'ss just heat that needs to be removed. to put that into perspective 1500KW(2000hp) would be the same as trying to remove the heat generated by 750 kettles!!!
can you imagine!
can you imagine!
19 February 2006, 10:24 PM
#53
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: From Kent to Gloucestershire to Berkshire
Posts: 2,905
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're quite right in that I should have said calorific value contained within the fuel - not all is released as heat due to inefficiencies in combustion, noise etc.
However, see how hot an exhaust pipe gets, take into account all the cooling mechanisms in the Veyron and the fact that they were still struggling, etc, you can see that there is a seriously large amount of heat thrown away in the process.
To put it another way imagine how little effect a couple of kettles would have if they're tying to heat 100kg+ steel mass which is being cooled by a large radiator, with lots of airflow, with additional assistance from oil coolers, radiation etc etc. Compare the steam output from a kettle to the temperature and flow of exhaust gasses leaving a 220bhp car, let alone a Veyron - it will be tiny.
It's quite scary when you do the sorts of sums of energies contained within fast moving cars. If you really want to scare yourself, calculate how much heat energy is pumped into a brake disk when doing an emergency stop in a 2 tonne Veyron doing an emergency stop from 250mph!
However, see how hot an exhaust pipe gets, take into account all the cooling mechanisms in the Veyron and the fact that they were still struggling, etc, you can see that there is a seriously large amount of heat thrown away in the process.
To put it another way imagine how little effect a couple of kettles would have if they're tying to heat 100kg+ steel mass which is being cooled by a large radiator, with lots of airflow, with additional assistance from oil coolers, radiation etc etc. Compare the steam output from a kettle to the temperature and flow of exhaust gasses leaving a 220bhp car, let alone a Veyron - it will be tiny.
It's quite scary when you do the sorts of sums of energies contained within fast moving cars. If you really want to scare yourself, calculate how much heat energy is pumped into a brake disk when doing an emergency stop in a 2 tonne Veyron doing an emergency stop from 250mph!
20 February 2006, 12:30 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Manchester ish
Posts: 18,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by drumsterphil
To do this, the Bugatti engine has two water circuits. The larger of the two with 40 liters of cooling water has three coolers in the front section of the car, to keep the engine at operating temperature.
ooooh to be a veyron mechanic
20 February 2006, 02:12 PM
#57
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: house in a street on the earth
Posts: 1,028
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An F1 car, if geared appropriately, can do 0-60 in about 2.5 secs, and then on to a top speed, again depending on both gearing and wing settings, to about 220mph but this latter one is random depending on so many factors.
In the same way that at 150 mph (approx), with the right wing settings an F1 car could drive in a tube upside down and stick the ceiling. But no one has ever had the guts to try it!
In the same way that at 150 mph (approx), with the right wing settings an F1 car could drive in a tube upside down and stick the ceiling. But no one has ever had the guts to try it!
