
Bugatti has broken the 300mph barrier - tiernano
https://www.topgear.com/car-news/bugatti-has-broken-300mph-barrier
======
MrGilbert
It's pretty impressive.

In terms of a daily driver, I think the fun comes from the acceleration, and
thus the torque a car can produce.

My daily driver is a Mazda 3 / Mazda Axela, which comes with 200 Newtonmeter
torque at 6400 rpm. It's ok, it's fun, but yeah.

So the other day I drove a 2013 Nissan Leaf (BEV), which gives you ~250 Nm
torque right at the beginning. This was so much fun to drive.

So for me, a car doesn't need to have a ridiculosly max speed - I need max
torque from the start.

~~~
bartread
I ride bikes and from a practical standpoint, along with small size and
manoeuvrability, the acceleration (a result of torque) is one of the most
useful attributes. Much moreso than top speed, or even speeds significantly in
excess of the posted limits.

Bikes don't tend to have high torque in general, but their light weight and
gearing are designed to maximise what torque they do produce. This means there
are quite a few that will do sub 3 seconds to 60, and sub 5 seconds is
practically the norm.

What this means is that you can more easily get past, and through, traffic
because you can safely take advantage of gaps that no car can. Also, that
sense of having your arms ripped out of their sockets and hanging on for dear
life is fun.

Still, there's something to be said for going really fast as well: the feeling
of the world blurring past you, and the road or track flowing and snaking
underneath you like mercury, is hard to beat (if sometimes a little
terrifying).

~~~
hazeii
Bikes like Harleys and BMW twins have plenty of torque, where bikes like
Kawasaki Ninja's major on power (peak torque at high revs). Hence Harleys and
BMW's are first off the line at the lights (no need to build revs) but the
Ninja's will come steaming past seconds later.

There are some fun youtube videos demoing bike performance, e.g. Ninja H2's
doing 0-250MPH in 26s [0], outdragging a Bugatti [1] and outpacing an F1 car
and an F16 fighter at the same time.

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_n7ru1e-rg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_n7ru1e-rg)
[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi5_GQ78wM8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi5_GQ78wM8)
[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ESq00zi7bU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ESq00zi7bU)

~~~
sniglom
You cannot compare just engine torque numbers, without adjusting for gear
ratios, wheel size and sprockets.

As another commenter said, you rev a Ninja (just like a sports car) and launch
it using the clutch.

~~~
hazeii
I believe I did point out that on Ninja's (I have one) you need to build the
revs; you can't just dump the clutch and go like you can on a BMW Boxer or a
Harley (which I also have). Hence the Ninja is generally slowest away when the
lights change (but is by far the quickest bike overall).

In fact _bicycles_ are fastest off the line, since they produce max. torque at
0rpm (just keep weight on a pedal, release the brakes to go). But acceleration
is modest, so motorbikes and cars will soon go past.

And of course electrically-driven vehicles are also capable of producing
torque at 0rpm, hence their acceleration advantage.

~~~
dpark
> _In fact bicycles are fastest off the line, since they produce max. torque
> at 0rpm (just keep weight on a pedal, release the brakes to go)._

I doubt a bicycle would actually cross the starting line before a high end
bike or car would surpass it. A 180lb rider would produce about 90lb of torque
at most (assuming 6” crank) and that’s only for the instant that the crank is
parallel with the ground.

A high end car would deliver significantly more than 90lb of torque
instantaneously by dumping the clutch (or using launch control).

~~~
msandford
You can produce torque in excess of your weight by using pedals that clip in
and pedaling "circles" instead of "squares". When I was in good shape I
figured I could produce torque much closer to my weight than half of it.

~~~
dpark
The average rider probably cannot produce more torque than their weight that
way. A quick search indicates that professional cycling sprinters can generate
slightly over 100 ft-lb of torque. The average rider won’t be producing
anything close to that. (Hard to find anything definitive, though.)

If you aren’t standing up sprinting, you’re definitely not going to be getting
anything close to your “body weight torque”.

------
tialaramex
It's futile to actually have road-legal cars that go this fast because you
can't do very much useful with the speed.

This is much too fast for the human operator (driver) to safely react to
things outside the cockpit, which is why for example Britain owns trains
capable of 140mph in service but deliberately limits them to 125mph. Tests
suggested drivers couldn't be relied on to reliably observe and react to a
lineside signal (showing e.g. double amber, "Prepare to find the next signal
at: Prepare to find the next signal at: Danger") passed at 140mph. The
"obvious" upgrade is to put the signals inside the cab with the driver, and
that's how high speed trains work. But a car doesn't have in-cab signals
either, and it has a LOT more external signals to respond to, including
several signs we see in that video.

~~~
parsimo2010
Pretty much all modern cars will go faster than is useful and/or safe. Only a
small set of public roads allow cars to go their top speed. I have a 1991
Corvette that will go 153 mph, and I've only done it twice. It scares the crap
out of me. Top speed is a cool thing to boast about, but most people won't
ever see it, and a few stupid people will hurt themselves with it. That's okay
on the balance, because millionaires are spending their money and supporting
the economy. Buying one of these cars probably funds an engineer's salary and
likely a few others supplying materials to Bugatti.

~~~
brosinante

      a few stupid people will hurt themselves with it. That's okay on the balance, because millionaires are spending their money and supporting the economy.
    

I fail to see how that is ok.

~~~
GhostVII
As a society we generally seem to be OK with allowing a few people to be hurt
or killed in exchange for a type of entertainment. For example if you are a
race car driver, you are certainly increasing your risk of dying, and
increasing the risk of killing spectators or other people on the racetrack,
but we accept that because it is entertaining. Now I think it is a problem if
people are driving a Bugatti recklessly on the roads and endangering others
who are just driving around, but I think you are just as dangerous in one of
the many cars which can go almost 200 mph as you are in a car that can go
300mph, since it is pretty difficult to approach 200mph on a public road.

------
Tempest1981
I'm sad that, on HN, I had to read thru 50+ comments about how impractical 300
mph is, before I found any discussion of the engineering challenges.

~~~
grecy
HN has become extremely negative in the last couple of years.

I came over here when I got sick of Reddit's negativity in ~2013. What's the
next alternative?

~~~
CSSer
I agree. I want to know the answer to the same question. Pseudo-intellectual
sophism seems to be abundant here.

------
Tempest1981
For those interested in the science and physical limits of acceleration (not
just top speed), this video talks about the physics behind the fastest 0-60
runs:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAvIVGGhEis](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAvIVGGhEis)

He works at it starting with tire limits during ABS braking, and throws in
real-world examples like Tesla and the Dodge Demon.

He covers a bunch of other car engineering topics. For example, the Atkinson
cycle:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z45fM2N-4C4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z45fM2N-4C4)

------
mrleiter
The milestone of reaching faster speeds with combustion engines seems to be a
wrong goal in this day and age. Climate change is a fact, and the burning of
material based on oil/coal is a major driver of this. The effects have been
known for decades, but only now major impacts can be seen and felt.

In German, there is this phrase, which describes the time period after a
certain success/enjoyment/well-being. Literally translated it meanss the fat
years are over ("Die fetten Jahre sind vorbei."). It's usually used in the
context of forced savings vs voluntariy expenditure, but it fits with the
current state of our environment as well. The times of making faster cars and
enjoying high speeds are over, if we don't want to demise as a species.
Environmentally safer beahviour should become more fun.

~~~
gavia1
I think you are missing the forest from the trees. If we want to truly reduce
climate change we should start by reducing international shipping,
consumerism, and non-essential air travel for both pleasure and business.

A 300MPH speed run in an ultra low production Bugatti car is more or less
insignificant in the fight against climate change.

~~~
geff82
You write we should reduce: international shipping, consumerism, and non-
essential air travel

Sure you can but it will be heavily inconvenient (at least for many in the
west). But do you know what reduces the carbon footprint by about 75% in a
country like Germany? 1.) Electric cars/trains 2.) Electricity from renewables
3.) Heating using electrical power from renewables (heat pumps)

Of the last 25%, there are 20% from industrial production and in the last 5%
you could include air travel (2%) among other things.

Heating and driving and getting power from renewables makes your lifestyle
about 0% different from what it is now. Buying goods that last longer even
means giving life a touch of luxury. A better, more luxurious lifestyle that
produces about 75% less carbon dioxide. Impossible? In a growing number of
countries, this will be possible soon. Of course, not flying, not consuming
gives you that "holy" feeling of "having done something". But done right, a
sustainable lifestyle makes the life we have now even better. It takes a bit
of political willpower, of course.

~~~
gavia1
I am not disagreeing with electric cars at all, I think it is important.

But the carbon footprint created within the West is just a small amount of the
carbon footprint that the West contributes to. We can't just reduce our own
carbon footprint if it simply pushes that carbon footprint onto other, less
developed countries.

I think it will be very unlikely that we will continue to live with the same
luxuries that we enjoy today while still aggressively reducing climate change.
It won't be a case of "we have electric transport, but I can still buy a new
iPhone once a year". It will be a case of aggressively cutting back everywhere
and and ultimately growth and our economy will suffer in the short-term for
long-term sustainability.

~~~
geff82
If you freeze the economy to today‘s state and technology, there will be no
growth any more, sure. But at least in our lifetime, the move to a sustainable
economy will create more growth and opportunities than will be cut in
unsustainable industries. I do not what happens in 150 years, but for the next
50 years I do not worry. As we need more intelligent technologies than we used
to have, the value ofhe output will rise, thus economies that are able to
adapt will profit.

Using solar, wind and water to create power will, by the way, not push the
carbon footprint somewhere else. It will, to a great part, vanish. And those
economies who, in future, produce their own energy instead of importing them,
will have a higher GDP and less dependence of foreign markets.

------
SCdF
Does anyone have any insights to if this brings any interesting science to the
table that is applicable outside of this context? I personally have zero
interest in a fast car going fast, but it's always interesting to see how
these sorts of difficult feats help humanity in more general ways.

~~~
neor
For the Veyron I know they developed special tires with Michelin to be able to
handle the extreme high speeds.

Such development might help "normal" tires improve in durability.

I can imagine this is something that happens in a lot of area's. Pushing every
part to the extremes might help make them more reliable under normal usage.

Ultra high speeds also require efficient aerodynamics, which in turn helps
reduce drag/fuel usage.

~~~
ska
It wasn’t just tires, but rims as well. If I recall correctly for the original
at top speed the useful life of rims was about 30min, tires about 15. You on
my had 12 min of fuel at that rate though. Rim + tire replacement was
something like 100k USD. Not that anyone was going to be able to put many top
speed minutes together in practice.

~~~
tobylane
I recognise James May's delivery of those numbers!
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO0PgyPWE3o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO0PgyPWE3o)

~~~
ska
I didn't remember that but it must have been what stuck it in my head!

------
rusteh1
Non-production car, not replicated in both directions. Impressive, but not any
sort of record. Looking forward to them doing it in the forthcoming production
car.

------
trymas
In the video the car accelerates from 300 to 400 kmh in around 10 seconds. It
says "raw footage" at the bottom.

Remarkably quick.

------
Tepix
That car looks remarkably non-aerodynamic for that insane speed.

~~~
TylerE
Many things that look very aerodynamic really aren’t, and vice versa. Much of
fluid dynamics is non-intuitive.

~~~
noneeeed
Yeah, one of the lightbulb moments for me when learning more about
aerodynamics and talking to my dad (former aircraft designer, workedon
concorde) is how often what's happening at the back can be more important than
what happens at the front, or how air leaves a surface can really bump up your
drag in unexpected ways.

------
safgasCVS
Incredible! A celebration of silliness in all its absurd glory. I was not
expecting Bugatti would do a top speed run at least for a few more years for
the tyres to become available so I think we all expected Koenigsegg to be the
first to 300mph. Massive achievement for Michelin as much as VW.

------
vinay427
I'm not sure what record they have here. There have already been multiple
road-legal 300 mph cars as well as a stock road-legal 300 mph car for sale
(Koenigsegg Jesko).

The article says that this is the first from a series manufacturer. Why does
Koenigsegg not count, or was this the first?

~~~
parsimo2010
They don't have a record yet, but the record they are aiming for is for the
fastest "production" car. The car they used was modified from stock so it
doesn't count for the record yet. But this will almost certainly lead to a
small batch of cars with the same configuration from the factory, which they
will use to (re)claim the fastest production car crown.

~~~
vinay427
Alright, that makes sense, and I suppose the title doesn't claim they're the
first to build a road-legal 300 mph car (as they're not).

------
hinkley
I remember when Top Gear took out their first Bugatti, they pointed out that
the tires were... I can't remember if they £10k apiece or per set, and at top
speed their range diminished drastically. At top speed the life of the tires
was measured in hours, and not many of them, not unlike a race car. So wear
and tear to 'open her up' was astoundingly high.

What's the range on this one, I wonder?

------
XJ6
300mph is a milestone, not a barrier.

------
tim333
It's kind of interesting to look at the first car to go 300mph in 1935
[https://craighill.net/2012/09/03/september-3-1935-sir-
malcol...](https://craighill.net/2012/09/03/september-3-1935-sir-malcolm-
campbell-exceeds-300-mph/) vid
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcM740YDgzs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcM740YDgzs)
Not sure if it doesn't look cooler than the 2019 version though probably it
would be harder to park at Sainsbury's.

------
huffmsa
Full cage and likely doesn't pass the sleeping Bobby test would disqualify it
according to a certain unnamed host of Top Gears past.

Cool anyway, but will be cooler when it's a true production car.

~~~
anonu
Can you explain what this means?

~~~
huffmsa
A welded in / bolted in roll cage isn't something you find in a production
vehicle, I'm not even sure if they're allowed.

The sleeping Bobby test is the ability to go over a speed bump (so names
because it's like a policeman laying down).

These two metrics were often used by Clarkson to disqualify certain cars from
the lap time leaderboard.

Cool car, but it'll be cooler when anyone can theoretically buy a road legal
300mph from the showroom.

------
body_lump
"The 300mph project will inevitably result in a production Super Sport version
of the Chiron". Can't wait to see that happen.

------
lucas_membrane
The article says that the speed is a record, but besides 'supercar' (which is
what?) it does not say for what kind of car on what kind of track for what
distance. Can anyone here explain it to me?

------
pascalxus
I love reading about stuff like this: I just wanna see that 300 mph
speedometer in the car!

But, in my little Nissan Rogue that can barely manage 90mph, I don't need a
160mph speedo, LOL.

------
sniglom
Sadly not 500km/h. Really impressive though.

------
tener
Once again the IC cars manufacturers underperform. This is non-production car
and very late to the party. Meanwhile Tesla Roadster, an EV car, is doing cool
4513 mph - or 15 times faster, with insane fuel economy of ~0.03 l/100km.

Source: [https://www.whereisroadster.com/](https://www.whereisroadster.com/)

Joking aside, a really nice car I wouldn't mind owning!

------
bitL
Wow, congrats! They almost hit 500km/h! That would be the next "easy" goal I
guess.

------
alinspired
gives me similar chills as to spacex boosters landing - what an achievement!

dual walled exhaust is peculiar - is there an air feed into the gap?

------
moonbug
Not a barrier.

------
jdnenej
That's 482km/h for those using modern units.

~~~
dang
Information is fine but please keep the flamebait away.

~~~
jdnenej
How is it flamebait. Was something I said untrue?

~~~
dang
I answered this here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20861098](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20861098).

------
dakom
“Sometimes it's a little better to travel than to arrive” ― Zen and the Art of
Motorcycle Maintenance

I'm a bit surprised this book doesn't come up more often in tech circles. Has
quite a bit of overlap with the philosophical questions we face daily.

------
axilmar
It's too bad that the state of roads in most countries is aweful and can't
support anything approaching high speeds, let alone this insane 490 km/h.

~~~
mosselman
Yes it is such a shame that the roads are such that when I am on the road with
my family some crazy daredevil can't drive 490km/h near us.

The roads are for getting from A to B, not racing. If you want to go 490km/h,
go to a race track.

~~~
axilmar
Wouldn't you like to reach your destination in a much shorter time than usual?
I certainly would.

~~~
mosselman
Yes, because people who want to go 490km/h want to do so because it gets them
to B quicker, not because they want to have fun.

Also, no, I'd rather be safe from my own and other's mistakes, which are far
more likely to happen at that pace and I'd rather have lower emissions from
all cars. I am happy to sacrifice speed for that.

