Bugatti Veyron vs SSC Standard Aero

[Craigy]

One open question: what speed are the michelin pilots that the SSC ultimate aero uses rated to?

The Bugatti's tyres are bespoke (specific to the car), as were the McLaren F1's.

Craigy

[JakRcr]

By the same token, if we take JakRcr's line on this, a current model BMW M5 (205mph top speed), or one of the Brabus twin-turbo V12 saloons (all of which go over 200mpg) would be supercars, while the countach would not. Does that sound right you you? It doesn't to me!

This says just about everything on JakRcr's definition of a supercar really.

For what it's worth, anything I see that screams "supercar" will be one to me. I don't really care if it can't crack 200mph; all it has to do is be significantly above average in performance and it ought to look the part.

Craigy.

Supercars change with time, once they are labeled as a supercar they forever will be a supercar but...i was just stating that nowadays it is a min top speed of 200 to even be considered...i'm glad when you see what screams "supercar" will be one IN YOUR EYES. For people in the industy or just knowledgeable people who want to have some type of stardard there are flexible yet definitive standards. It is the combination of multiple staistics that make a supercar include: top speed, quickness, handling, etc...what is so hard to understand?

[JakRcr]

Surely it is not in the interests of the company to suggest that their car can do 273 when it cannot?

You know what Americans are like, they'll start suing when they find it can only do 253.

Might as well claim "It'll do 500mph*"

* If you drop it out the back of a C130 at 25,000ft

Langley windtunnel gave those spec, so who's lying? Did they say it would go that fast? No. That spec speaks about the power, potential, and aerodynamics of the car. Read between the lines of the obvious.

[Craigy]

For people in the industy or just knowledgeable people who want to have some type of stardard there are flexible yet definitive standards.

It is the combination of multiple staistics that make a supercar include: top speed, quickness, handling, etc...what is so hard to understand?

I think a supercar is defined subjectively; that is, each car is taken on it's individual merit.

You seem to be saying that it's more of an objective test (statistics).

I don't think there's an agreed standard for what makes a supercar. There's certainly no set of SI measurements or an ISO standard to define it, unless you can tell me different.

What are the statistics to define what you think a supercar is?
I got the over 200mph vMax part. What are the others?

C

[RazaBlade]

The 550 Maranello, 911 Turbo and GT2 are classic examples of cars that do below 200mph (199, 192, and 196 respectively) but are, without a shadow of a doubt, supercars in my book.

[Cyco]

Bentley CFS gets in on that definition at 208mph with 4 inside and the airconditioning running

[razz]

In my opinion, supercars are all about boundaries. Specifically about exceeding comtempary boundaries or limits at the time of the vehicles release.

There are many boundaries (with some examples) that can be considered such as:

performance / speed

vmax > 200MPH
0-60 < 3.7s
bhp > 500
nurburgring lap time < 7.45 secs
power/weight
etc

styling
subjective and popular opinion about the degree of innovation with the styling

handling
lateral g > 1.0 G
braking < 35m from 100 kph

technology
composite unitbody construction
adaptive suspension
automated vehicle dynamic tracking (yaw/pitch etc)
electonic differential
automated manual or DSG style gearbox
automated speed sensitive aerodynamics
variable AR ratio turbo's
etc

comtemporary refinement (separates kits from production vehicles)
ABS
ESP (that works properly)
Airbags
Integrated trip computers
Integrated Sat Nav
Durability

records
exceeding speed/weight/price other records

I believe that in order to be considered a supercar, a vehicle has to exceed many of the limits (that are constantly changing) as well as meet several of the technology and refinement expectations.

This is where cars like the SSC are in a difficult position as although it may exceed some of the performance limits, it fails in many other areas. For example what technology is there in the vehicle? I'm not sure there is any. What about expected refinements in modern vehicles, ABS, ESP, Airbags? I'm not sure there are any of those either. How about durability, has SSC done 100,000 mile accelaerated wear testing, high temperature testing, etc that Ferrari, Bugatti, etc will all do - I doubt it.

The SSC may have impressive performance, but I don't believe this is enough on its own to qualify it as a supercar, let alone be considered in the same league as cars like the Enzo, Veyron, McLaren F1. As Gordon Murray said while developing the F1, it is easy to make a fast track car, but very difficult to make a fast and usable road car.

I think the earlier comment regarding tyres was very telling - who cares if SSC has enough power and is slippery enough to go 270MPH if the standard tyres fail at some unknown speed significantly less than that.

[razz]

I noticed there were no reasons given as to why the Noble might be considered a kit car, so I will share my thoughts. Reasons could include:

1) use of hand-laid up body work (kevlar, carbon, fibreglass doesn't really matter).
2) lack of bespoke componentry in major areas such as engine, gearbox, brakes, lights, etc.
3) lack of features commonly available on most modern vehicles such as ABS, Airbags, ESP.
4) Relatively small amount of automated construction (largely hand-built)

Now the question is - if these are valid reasons then why shouldn't the SSC cars also be considered kit cars?

[JakRcr]

The 550 Maranello, 911 Turbo and GT2 are classic examples of cars that do below 200mph (199, 192, and 196 respectively) but are, without a shadow of a doubt, supercars in my book.

Once again that isn't the only stat/spec, there is a realm of stats/specs that loosely, yet still encompass/define what a supercar is.

top speed
quickness
handling...
are some of the considerations...

[Cyco]

I noticed there were no reasons given as to why the Noble might be considered a kit car, so I will share my thoughts. Reasons could include:

1) use of hand-laid up body work (kevlar, carbon, fibreglass doesn't really matter).

How else do you intend the FACTORY to make composite body pannels? These are not supplied with a mould to make your own from

2) lack of bespoke componentry in major areas such as engine, gearbox, brakes, lights, etc.

Other than the block I think you will find that most of the othe engine componens are bespoke. I never realised it before all the other cars out there with Brembo or AP (or.....) must be kit cars as companies like Ferrari are only selling kit cars due to their inability to make their own brakes (and gearboxes).

3) lack of features commonly available on most modern vehicles such as ABS, Airbags, ESP.

That a Noble has more grip than may driver will ever be able to use so rendering the requirement for ABS, ESP and the like a lot lower as well as keeping the electronincs of or the way of the drive puts the McLaren F1 in the kit car class?

4) Relatively small amount of automated construction (largely hand-built)

SO when a FACTORY hand assembles a car that is also a kit car? So now we include the McLaren F1 and SLR, every Bentley, Aston, Ferrari, Lambo, Bugatti, and pretty much anything that is sold in low volumes with high ability to select any components you like.

A kit car comes as a pile of bits you assemble yourself.

A Noble comes fully assembled from the Noble factory.

How hard is this concept to grasp?

QED the Noble is NOT a kit car.

[JakRcr]

QED the Noble is NOT a kit car.

Ask any reputable magazine, the Noble it a kit car. In the states you have to put your own drivetrain into it...enough said.

[Rockefella]

Ask any reputable magazine, the Noble it a kit car. In the states you have to put your own drivetrain into it...enough said.

I thought you just choose the drivetrain and everything is installed in-factory. All you do is pick up the car, or am I wrong?

[JakRcr]

I thought you just choose the drivetrain and everything is installed in-factory. All you do is pick up the car, or am I wrong?

You get the car from an authorized dealer and they put in the drivetrain if you choose, but when it comes from Noble it comes less a drivetrain...so a Noble is a kit car.

[aNOBLEman]

You get the car from an authorized dealer and they put in the drivetrain if you choose, but when it comes from Noble it comes less a drivetrain...so a Noble is a kit car.

Who cares if you consider it a kit car. It's fast, handles well, looks good, and is definitely a supercar.

[Coventrysucks]

Ask any reputable magazine, the Noble it a kit car. In the states you have to put your own drivetrain into it...enough said.

The Noble is not a kit car!

It doesn't matter if you can only buy them without an engine in the USA alone, everywhere else they are fully built, no different from any other car out there.

If for some bizzare reason you had to take the engine out of a Corvette if you wanted to import it into the EU, would you then consider the Corvette a kit car?

A "kit" car is something where you can buy all of the components of a car, and assemble them yourself.

AFAIK you cannot buy the Noble as a self-build "kit" in any market.

You cannot contend that the Noble is a kit car only because in one market in 8 a third party has to install the drivetrain for legislative reasons.

AMG and BMW's M division work in the same way as Noble in the USA - installing tuned drivetrain components into standard MB /BMW body shells at seperate facilities.

By your logic that makes them kit cars!

As for "reputable magazines" none of the UK automotive publications; Top Gear, Autocar, Evo, Car, Auto Express, What Car? etc consider it a "kit".