This bike would have been more competition:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-LAQY5ESc4
|
|
|
Birdman, sound like serious sour grapes to me! The Veyron, albeit unique, is standard production. Adding the equivalent of 'race pipes' and a blue printed engine etc would make it quicker yet.
But maybe more expensive than £9000?
|
|
I bet that you can't ride the R1 like that and smoke a fag at the same time!
|
>>The R1 rider has the reactions of a tired pensioner and rides it out of the power band.>>
Agreed.
>>A well-ridden GSXR-R1000 with race pipes, blue-printed engine and that's it, will outdrag the Veyron up to 150mph after which it's all rather academic.>>
What has a GSXR-1000, yet alone blue printed engine, race pipes etc got to do with it? You could blueprint etc a Veyron too! And an R1 for that matter, the fact is that a std 2006 R1 is as fast as anything through the gears because it revs at least 1000 rpm higher than the other litre bikes. The 2007 model is more of the same plus stonking low down and Euro III compliant.
Also the 0-150 times are misleading because the R1 / GSXR would be ahead at 120 and the Veyron would be catching above that speed even if it does not catch up until 150 or whatever, therefore with regard to 120mph plus acceleration as in the clip the Veyron might well pull away fairly quickly.
|
|
|
|
A supercar will generally pull away from a superbike over 100 mph because of superior aerodynamics. This race would have been much more interesting had it been from a standing start where a skilfully launched standard £9000 R1 would have kept the £840,000 Veyron behind it until well into three figures. The Veyron is claimed to reach 100 mph from rest in 5.5 seconds, and any modern litre sports bike can match that with change out of £9,000.
At £840,000, how relevant is the Veyron, really? I'll take the bike, and £832,000 change please, except make mine a GSX-R1000 please.
Cheers
DP
|
except make mine a GSX-R1000 please.
Instead of an R1? No way!
Re R1's and more generally fast bikes accelerating read the attached:
www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?view=DETAI...l
"I'm amazed at how aggressively this bike accelerates. The R1 felt so well-behaved on the ride to Woodbridge, with its smooth power delivery and excellent road manners. But it turns into a savage beast if you ask it to. As I slam the throttle open, I move my weight over the front wheel to keep it down, then right back again as I hit the higher gears. The speed trap reads 185.2mph. That's outrageous for a standard R1 - I've just wasted Porky on his nitrous Hayabusa."
|
>> except make mine a GSX-R1000 please. Instead of an R1? No way!
A lifelong Honda man, I fell in love with an Italian for the second time last week, the first time being an MV Agusta Brutale. On the first occasion we came sooo close to making it a relationship and consigning my current mistress of eight years, a Hornet 600 that still has her unblemished curves intact in middle age, to a life living under dust covers in the garage. This time, the object of my affections, in the same On Yer Bike showroom, was red; very red, very beautiful, and with engineering detail that had me looking at it for an age, even if the maker admits the nose rake angles were nicked from a current generation R1.
www.ducati.com/od/ducatiuk/en/bikes/model.jhtml?mo...6
|
|
Re 1098, intersting that the Ducati designer, who's name escapes me, quoted in BIKE that the 2006 Yamaha R6 and R1 were his greatest influences along with the 1999 R7 for the way the lower front of the fairing integrates with the rest of the bike.
|
|
|
|
Instead of an R1? No way!
I wouldn't complain if I was given an R1, but Suzuki's four cylinder engines are incredible. Torquey, tough, reliable, and immensely tuneable.
Mark Brewin of BSD Motorcycle Developments in Bike last month, nominated the GSX-R1000 unit as his favourite bike engine:
"The rest of the Japanese companies have gone for a wide bore and short stroke for more revs, but Suzuki have held on to a longer stroke in the GSX-R (1000). For a road engine, the low-down power of the GSX-R wins hands down. It makes bags of torque and it makes it for a long time because its a long stroke motor."
This engine is making 50lb/ft of torque (more than a typical sports 600) by 2,500 RPM, swells to 79 lb/ft at 8,700 RPM and then the power curve doesn't stop climbing until it reaches11,400 RPM and 160 bhp! Surely, no other litre sportsbike engine has that kind of useable grunt.
Cheers
DP
|
>> Instead of an R1? No way! I wouldn't complain if I was given an R1, but Suzuki's four cylinder engines are incredible. Torquey, tough, reliable, and immensely tuneable.
Shame about the paintwork. Also GSXR1000 K5 and K6s have had bigend issues.
Mark Brewin of BSD Motorcycle Developments in Bike last month, nominated the GSX-R1000 unit as his favourite bike engine:
>>
I read Bike every month and that article was carp, it was acontrived story, they featured best 4cyl airclooled engine etc so the GSX1400 was featured though the CB1300 and ZRX1200 which beat the GSX hand down in their class did not get a look in because the best water cooled 4cyl engine was in the sports bike category.
Surely, no other litre sportsbike engine has that kind of useable grunt.
Mark Brewin has/had not ridden a 2007 R1, he is also a bit of a Suzuki specialist. The 2007 R1 and ZX10R are both more powerful than the GSXR, they also rev higher and the R1 beats the GSXR low down as well via clever variable length inlet tracts.
|
|
|
|
|
>>At £840,000, how relevant is the Veyron, really? I'll take the bike, and £832,000 change please, except make mine a GSX-R1000 please.<<
The Veyron is relevant because its about doing something very difficult and proving what is possible, pushing the boundries.
You also cant go on a long trip on a bike with the same luggage you could in the Bug, so while the bike may be faster, you give up any sense of practicality - the bike cant do everything that the Bug can, yet in real world terms, the Bug can do 95% of what the bike can.
You may well want your £832,000 change, but if you crashed at say 150mph, which would you want then?
The whole purpose of a car over a bike is comfort and safety - to make it nearly as fast as a bike within the confines of such a breif is rather clever given how much weight and restrictions apply.
|
|
I suspect that crashing anything at 150mph will be fairly painful. Not sure you'd be alive in the Bugatti either............
|
I suspect that crashing anything at 150mph will be fairly painful. Not sure you'd be alive in the Bugatti either............
Not so sure, the Bug like the Porsche Carrera GT is Carbonfibre & I've heard of CGTs occupants remain relatively unscathed after high speed crashes.
|
|
|
stunorthants, I take your points, and agree that car and bike are very different things.
The big problem the Veyron has as a boundary pusher is the McLaren F1. 15 years ago, Martin Brundle took it to a verified 241 mph at Nardo, and the acceleration is virtually identical. Yet it does this with 2wd, less than 2/3 of the power, natural aspiration and no active aerodynamics or other electronic acronym nonsense. Yet it can still be ambled around in rush hour traffic without overheating or throwing a strop, Gordon Murray also managed to package all this in something that seats three in comfort, and weighs the same as a contemporary Ford Escort.
While I acknowledge the Veyron is massively impressive, I don't think it pushes boundaries. It weighs two tonnes and relies on brute force and gadgetry to achieve its performance. The F1 was the defining example of engineering excellence (and elegance) with the ridiculous performance really only a by product of obsessive attention to detail throughout the design and manufacturing processes. Gordon Murray reckons it wasn't ever designed to break speed records, but as a no compromise driving machine. To me that makes it even more impressive that it turns in such ridiculous performance. A result merely of every single component fitted to the car being designed to strict weight and performance limits, right down to the CD autochanger.
Of course I'd love to experience a Veyron, but if this is 15 years progress at the cutting edge of automotive design and engineering relative to the McLaren, I actually think it's a little depressing. A little quicker, sure, look at the route they've taken to achieve it.
Cheers
DP
|
|
Que? Post removals on this thread too?
|
Actually, if I'd paid for a Veyron with my own cash I would expect EVERY single component in the entire bleedin' car to be blueprinted :-D
Not as if it's a Jag XJ220, with a warmed-over Metro 6R4 motor (itself six-eighths of a Rover 3.9 V8) is it?
|
|
stunorthants, I take your points, and agree that car and bike are very different things.
I do see what your saying, however the F1 was a different animal. While the Bugatti is very fast, its not designed as an out and out racer - its more of a very fast GT. As such, its loaded with equipment which if removed Im sure would change its nature and abilities.
What is also significant is that having watched Top Gear when James May took the Bugatti to its maximum, he was saying the faster you go, the harder it is to make small gains in speed so perhaps the 12 mph gain is more significant than it sounds on paper.
What you also have to consider is that when the F1 was made, the rules were far less restrictive regarding safety and minimum requirements from legislation, so Im sure that plays its part too.
All that said, I think that the Koenigsegg CC models are even more impressive on account of getting nearly as fast as the Bugatti, but for half the price, less than you would pay for an F1
I believe.
I must admit, if I had a million to spend on a supercar, Id be going to Koenigsegg with my money.
What is also reassuring is that as fast as the authorities change the rules, new and immensely fast cars are still being produced - just think how many cars can crack 215 mph now when 200 was once a benchmark. We have luxury cars that can do 200 mph now for heavens sake.
|
>>he was saying the faster you go, the harder it is to make small gains in speed so perhaps the 12 mph gain is more significant than it sounds on paper.
In purely aerodynamic terms, you need about 16% more power to do 253 mph than you do for 241 mph - there will also be extra power demands from the rolling resistance of the tyres.
Number_Cruncher
|
Is the Verywrong manufactured on a production line? I doubt if the Mac thing was. So it's comparing apples and skip lorries (?)
Having said that, the average biker on an R1 is going to disappear over the horizon from the average driver in anything. production or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
