Veyron vs Mclaren F1.

[ActiveAero]

Yes the Veyron is a super bad ass beast of a car. However, I'm sure most of have heard the insane claims that you can spot the F1 to 110mph and the Veyron will still beat it to 200mph.

I did some simple math.

McLaren F1's power to weight ratio is 4.03
The Veyrons is 4.15

Yeah you read that right (lower is better). The McLaren F1 STILL has a better power to weight ratio. I was pretty shocked myself when I punched the numbers.

I find it very hard to believe that the car with a BETTER power to weight ratio and 110mph head start is going to lose to 200mph even given the Veyrons AWD launch ability and massive torque.

I also find it odd how certain automotive journalist freaked out with the power of the car when they have driven things like the Koenigsegg that are even LIGHTER and MORE POWERFUL than the McLaren giving them a substantial power to weight advantage over the Veyron.

I know most people won't care but with the way journalist are reviewing the thing it's like every other supercar is a complete slug in comparison.

[Black Kat]

umm... gears

[ActiveAero]

umm... gears

and? I don't remember the McLaren lacking in that department.

[Black Kat]

and? I don't remember the McLaren lacking in that department.

Thats tru, but it could be the difference. going from 110 to 200 is a lot different than goin from 0-90.

[A418t81]

Every test I've seen, the Veyron SLAUGHTERS the mclaren after 100 mph. Thats probably where it pulls out ahead. I wouldn't be suprised if the Veyron has fairly superior aerodynamics as well with all the active suspension/wings, flaps, etc. Also, what weights and hp are you using?

[ActiveAero]

Veyron 4162lbs, 1001hp.
McLaren F1 2540lbs, 627hp.

I have no doubt the Veyron accelerates faster due to it's extremely flat torque curve but I have a hard time with the 110mph flying start scenerio.

Oh after some quick reading the McLaren trounches the Bugatti in the aerodynamics deparment as well. .32 vs a quite aweful .36 for the Bugatti.

[adam p]

Coefficient must be bad on the Bugatti b/c of the emphasis on downforce...Apparently it handles quite well for 4100lbs

[Grider]

What speed were those aero numbers taken from? And what mode was the Bug in, cause there are like 3 different aero modes.

My personal prefrence is for the McLaren.

[Zx RaTeD]

Gears and aero, and where does each car achieve it's max power? heh.

[ActiveAero]

What speed were those aero numbers taken from? And what mode was the Bug in, cause there are like 3 different aero modes.

My personal prefrence is for the McLaren.

Coef. of drag calculation isn't dependent on speed. It's what you use to determine a cars aero drag at any given speed unless I'm mistaken.

I'm sure the quoted drag coef is directly from Bugatti in the cars most slippery configuration. I doubt journalist are going to sit around and try to figure it out for every car they test.

[1.8t]

All I know is all the journalist say the bugatti doesn't feel as fast as they thought....while everyone who has driven a Mclaren freaks out when they hit the gas. I would like to see a heads up race.

[CPMaverick]

I did some simple math.

McLaren F1's power to weight ratio is 4.03
The Veyrons is 4.15

Yeah you read that right (lower is better). The McLaren F1 STILL has a better power to weight ratio.

Higher power to weight ratio is better, not lower. Although I see in your later posts that you are doing weight-to-power ratio, so you are right, the F1 wins in this case.

However, for top speed, weight doesn't matter at all. It's completely power and drag. So the car with WAY more power is going to go faster (assuming proper gearing). It will get there slower, yes, but weight does not limit top speed.

So, the faster you go, the less weight matters, and the more aero matters. So it's not completely out of the question that a car with so much more power is going to be better in a straight line at high speeds.

Of course for an overall car I'd rather have the lighter car with better power to weight ratio...