Specialist Sports Cars

[Dave A]

Nope, the production lap record for the Nordschleife is under 7 mins.

 

[Danoff]

Nope it has a F1 style shifter or you can have sequential twin clutch gearshift similiar to audi's DSG. So you wouldnt need two feet to drive it but you would be quicker if you did.

Some Gumpert Apollo Facts.

Mainly uses audi parts.
Weight is only 2,161 lbs
0-62 mph in a whiplash inducing 3.0 seconds, hitting 124 mph in 8.9 seconds.
Top speed 224mph
2205-lbs. of downforce at 224 mph (Thats more than the car weighs. Around the same amount of a DTM race car)
8-piston calipers with 15-inch rotors at all four corners
Rolling rubber at the front are 255/35-19 Pirellis and even wider 345/35-19 Pirellis at the rear.
4.2-liter V8
650-hp at 6800 rpm and torque to 597 lb ft. at 5000 rpm. That result is a whopping 156-hp per liter.
power-to-weight ratio of 583bhp per tonne.

A potential customer has managed a 9min 25sec lap of the combined Nürburgring circuits (GP track and Nordschleife) which would leave it at close to 7min 10sec over the Nordschleife alone. This would give the Apollo the production-car lap record if it were attempted.

A ugly car but when its will pawn everything and anything else road legal on a track I dont care.

I've been reading up on the Veyron and I think it might out-do your pick here.
0-62 in 2.5 seconds, 124mph in 7.3 seconds - all wheel drive.
Top speed 253mph
64valve 16 cyl engine making 1001 hp @ 6000 rpm, 922 lb-ft torque @ 2200 rpm.
At speeds above 124 mph, the rear wing also acts as an airbrake, snapping to a 70-degree angle in 0.4 seconds once brakes are applied, providing up to 0.6 g of deceleration. Bugatti claims the Veyron will brake from 252 mph to a standstill in less than 10 seconds
Only 770lbs of downforce though.

Plus, it has a CD player and A/C so that your trip around the track is comfortable and luxurious.

Granted, this car isn't what the thread is about... I was just pointing out that it would probably beat the Apollo.

 

[Poverty]

Nope, the production lap record for the Nordschleife is under 7 mins.

Yeah but thats a estimation taken from a potential customers lap. Stick a race driver in the seat and the record will surely be apollos.

Danoff the Veyron is uber fast but around a track that isnt a oval id put my money on the apollo.

They are also saying that they might possible boost the engine to 800-1000hp as they said its more than achievable. All this from a audi RS6's crank. Shows that audi makes some tough engines that are capable of being tuned to extreme power.

A/C and a CD player are optional in the apollo.

 

[eliseracer]

It won't break 7 minutes. If I knew you personally I'd put money down on it.

 

[Poverty]

Only time will tell.

 

[TheCracker]

I've been reading up on the Veyron and I think it might out-do your pick here.
0-62 in 2.5 seconds, 124mph in 7.3 seconds - all wheel drive.
Top speed 253mph
64valve 16 cyl engine making 1001 hp @ 6000 rpm, 922 lb-ft torque @ 2200 rpm.
At speeds above 124 mph, the rear wing also acts as an airbrake, snapping to a 70-degree angle in 0.4 seconds once brakes are applied, providing up to 0.6 g of deceleration. Bugatti claims the Veyron will brake from 252 mph to a standstill in less than 10 seconds
Only 770lbs of downforce though.

Plus, it has a CD player and A/C so that your trip around the track is comfortable and luxurious.

Granted, this car isn't what the thread is about... I was just pointing out that it would probably beat the Apollo.

It also weighs more than twice as much as the Apollo! - the Veyron would destroy its tires and brakes before completing a lap of the ring.

 

[Dave A]

No the Veyron would be able to do a thundering lap of the ring driven hard. Bugatti have spent million's on developing the tyre's it has so it can do all this without them tearing up ect. It won't break 7 mins, it won't break 7'20 imo, but It might get close to that. The Apollo migh, just might get to around 7 min's, I've heared a lot of good stff about that car's performance.

 

[Danoff]

It also weighs more than twice as much as the Apollo! - the Veyron would destroy its tires and brakes before completing a lap of the ring.

When you factor in downforce the Veyron comes up just a little harder on the tires than the Apollo. Veyron wins.

 

[Carl.]

But then you factor in inertia, along with an hairpin...

 

[Danoff]

... good brakes.


Edit: Ok let's see the number of g's the apollo can turn. We'll compare it to the Veyron and that'll be that for turning.

Ok, the specially desgined Veyron tires hold 1.3g's. I suppose you could put any old racing tires on the apollo and get more than that eh? But would it be enough to make up for the lack of power?

 

[Dave A]

And then factor in the fact the Veyron has probably the best brakes complared to any other supercar, it's also one of the most stable supercars under braking, ever. And it corners sharp too. I think the Apollo could win, but it'd be close.

 

[Carl.]

If the Veyron was so good around a track, I believe we'd already seen one racing, or at least we'd have some comparative lap times to see how it's crushing other supercars on a racetrack. Until that happens, I'll assume that it's an incredibly fast straight line rocket, and that it behaves decently on a race track.

It wasn't built to be a race car, it was built to reach 400 kph.

 

[Danoff]

If the Veyron was so good around a track, I believe we'd already seen one racing, or at least we'd have some comparative lap times to see how it's crushing other supercars on a racetrack. Until that happens, I'll assume that it's an incredibly fast straight line rocket, and that it behaves decently on a race track.

It wasn't built to be a race car, it was built to reach 400 kph.

That's why they made it brake like a bastard huh? So that it could reach 400 kph. That's why they give it several ride settings for optimized handling - so that it could reach 400 kph.

I'm not a huge Veyron fan. I only really found out about the car a week ago when I spotted one on the road and wondered what the hell it was. But your post here is pretty cynical.

 

[YSSMAN]

I dont think any Veyron owner is going to be putting their $1.25 Million ride on the line by taking it to any racetrack anywhere in the world... Leave it to Volkswagen to take a Bugatti to Nürburgring with a professional driver to get an outstanding lap time. I would place a bet in the neighborhood of 7:30, give or take a few because of it's slightly softer nature and relitively large size overall. Its strengths are going to (for the most part) on just the Nordshelife, particularly on the strightaways on the west, east, and south sides of the track.

 

[Dave A]

If the Veyron was so good around a track, I believe we'd already seen one racing, or at least we'd have some comparative lap times to see how it's crushing other supercars on a racetrack. Until that happens, I'll assume that it's an incredibly fast straight line rocket, and that it behaves decently on a race track.

It wasn't built to be a race car, it was built to reach 400 kph.

And this shows how little you know about the car. Sure it won't corner as fast as a GT racer, but the car goes like stink. Theres no competitive laps for the same reason it took 2 years and prvate owner's willingness to let someone rag his car to get competitive laps of the Enzo, apply that rule to one, apply it to all, yet we all know the Enzo is a ***** on heat round a track. You keep assuming it can only go fast in a straight line, you'll be wrong but by all means keep assuming that. The numbers on the Veyron speak for themselves, right up to the downfoce it generates, and every review said it has handling to match, every reciew. Even Gordon Murray had to concede how fantastic round a track it was. So yeah, keep assuming it isn't that good round a track.

 

[Carl.]

That's why they made it brake like a bastard huh? So that it could reach 400 kph.

If I was going anywhere near 400 kph, you bet I'd really want a car that brakes like a bastard.

That's why they give it several ride settings for optimized handling - so that it could reach 400 kph.

Several ride settings? there are 3:

1. Normal settings (street driving)

2. Handling. (sports driving)

3. High speed (which requires a separate key to access, and disengages if you turn the wheel more than a few degrees.)

So the only special setting, really, is the one for top speed.

I'm not a huge Veyron fan. I only really found out about the car a week ago when I spotted one on the road and wondered what the hell it was. But your post here is pretty cynical.

I'm not being cynical. In fact I love the Veyron, but I love it for what it is. Heck, If I'd have tons of cash to spare, I'd probably buy one, but I wouldn't bring it on a racetrack thinking It would be faster than cars that were designed for that purpose.

 

[Danoff]

So the only special setting, really, is the one for top speed.

The handling is optimized for different speeds. The middle setting is for the track.

but I wouldn't bring it on a racetrack thinking It would be faster than cars that were designed for that purpose.

That's the cynical aspect of your post - to assume that this thing is a one-trick pony. I think it's a pretty darn good trick, but I'm not going to assume that that's where they stopped.

 

[Carl.]

And this shows how little you know about the car. Sure it won't corner as fast as a GT racer, but the car goes like stink. Theres no competitive laps for the same reason it took 2 years and prvate owner's willingness to let someone rag his car to get competitive laps of the Enzo, apply that rule to one, apply it to all, yet we all know the Enzo is a ***** on heat round a track.

Every times Ferrari releases a car, I've also seen them bragging about lap times on Fiorano, to compare them with previous models. Ferrari afraid to toss their own cars on a race track? (I'll give you that for the Nurb, though)

You keep assuming it can only go fast in a straight line, you'll be wrong but by all means keep assuming that. The numbers on the Veyron speak for themselves, right up to the downfoce it generates, and every review said it has handling to match, every reciew.

The numbers I care for, track times, aren't anywhere to be seen, and every review I've read that it has impressive handling given its size and power.

Even Gordon Murray had to concede how fantastic round a track it was. So yeah, keep assuming it isn't that good round a track.

ahem.

In summing up the Bugatti Veyron, had I not driven it, I would have great difficulty in deciding just what it stands for and where it fits in. To be absolutely fair, the Veyron team did not set out to challenge the McLaren F1, Enzo or Porsche GT as the ultimate driving machine. This it certainly doesn't do at two tons with turbo lag.

Source

 

[Carl.]

That's the cynical aspect of your post - to assume that this thing is a one-trick pony. I think it's a pretty darn good trick, but I'm not going to assume that that's where they stopped.

I'm not cynical, I'm being objective:

- The car weighs around 2 tons.
- It has ginormous turbo lag.
- It was designed with top speed as the main goal.
- It won't see any racing action, since it wasn't designed for that.

Please don't get me the "it's too expensive to race one" excuse... do you have any idea of how much an R8, or an F1 costs to produce? (excluding development costs, as it's already done)

Once more, the Veyron isn't a race car.

 

[Danoff]

I'm not cynical, I'm being objective:

Certainly what you just wrote isn't objective.

- The car weighs around 2 tons.

What's your point?

- It has ginormous turbo lag.

Not according to the reviews - and I'm assuming you haven't had first hand experience/

- It was designed with top speed as the main goal.

Show me where that says there are no other goals.

- It won't see any racing action, since it wasn't designed for that.

Prove it.

Once more, the Veyron isn't a race car.

I'm not arguing that it is. I'm arguing that it can compete. You don't sound very objective, you sound like you have an axe to grind.

 

[Carl.]

What's your point?

I thought an engineer would figure that one out quite easily.

Not according to the reviews - and I'm assuming you haven't had first hand experience

Yeah, I'm sure Gordon Murray doesn't have a clue of what turbo lag is , or that he imagined it. (see above post) Perhaps "ginormous" was a bit of an overstatement, though.

Show me where that says there are no other goals.

Show me where that says that this car being a competent race car is/was one of the Goals of VAG. If that was the case, with all the money that went into that project, I think we would have heard about it already.

Prove it.

I guess we'll have to wait a few years for that huh? Can you prove that it can compete with [insert other supercar here] on a racetrack?

I'm not arguing that it is. I'm arguing that it can compete. You don't sound very objective, you sound like you have an axe to grind.

Why would I have an axe to grind against the Veyron? (or any other car...?) Do you think this is some sort of fanboy/bashing issue? I just find it quite obvious what this car was designed for, and that is not racing.

 

[Dave A]

1st, a cars weight does not dictate how that car handles, and engineer will know that. It's not a plus point, but it does not prevent that car from nipping around corners if you get the chassis setup right to compensate, also remember this car has huge ammounts of downforce, which is a massive plus. The Veyron wasn't designed to race, but neither was the Enzo. As for your source of Gordon Murray, he's totally defensive of the McLaren F1, he'll call any car crap in comparison and wrongfully so. In his review of the Veyron in TopGear he praised the Veyron's handling and track ability. Considering all the other reviews do the same I'd go ith that opinion since the two he gave appear to be different, and I've not read a single one that says it's good but only for it's weight.

I've read it's very good, which is suprising considering it's weight. I've also read that it corner's like an Elise, an exagerration no doubt, but it paint's the picture. And you don't sound objective, you sound like your mind is closed that the Veyron can't corner well, exept for it's weight. JC said it's one of the finest handling car's he's driven. Autocar said the same, they said it's too perfect. As for the turbo lag, Gordon Murray said the same thing in TopGear, but that was from a steady 30mph in 3rd gear at low rev's, if your racing, your in a gear that give's you high rev's for your speed, in that situation the car has almost no turbo lag.

As for Ferrari, yeah they normally do lauch their car's aroun Fiorano, but that doesn't change the fact that they actively wen't out of their way to prevent people from track testing the Enzo, it was 2 years after the Enzo was launched when I saw the first track time recorded. Ferrari didn't release a single recorded track time for the Enzo.

 

[Carl.]

1st, a cars weight does not dictate how that car handles, and engineer will know that. It's not a plus point, but it does not prevent that car from nipping around corners if you get the chassis setup right to compensate, also remember this car has huge ammounts of downforce, which is a massive plus.

For Pete's sake, it's 1.5 times heavier than an Enzo, and the Enzo also has cutting edge aerodynamics and chassis. I don't believe they managed to conpensate for that much of a weight difference over an Enzo, a Carrera GT or a McLaren F1.

The Veyron wasn't designed to race, but neither was the Enzo.

The Enzo was designed as a track car, and is currently racing in the form of MC12s.

As for your source of Gordon Murray, he's totally defensive of the McLaren F1, he'll call any car crap in comparison and wrongfully so. In his review of the Veyron in TopGear he praised the Veyron's handling and track ability. Considering all the other reviews do the same I'd go ith that opinion since the two he gave appear to be different

He still praises the car in the R&T article, the only thing is that he puts it in perspective with the F1, and I think he knows what he's talking about.

....oh well, the quotefest is getting a bit tiresome, we're running in cirles, and neither of us have hard evidence or experience of what we're assuming about the car.

The day I see a Veyron winning a race (or even just racing), I'll change my mind. Until then, it's a fast toy to go 400kph, with good handling.

I've also heard that the stig will do a lap with it in Top Gear, that might give us a better picture.

 

[Joey D]

- It was designed with top speed as the main goal.

I thought it was designed just to say...look what we can do?

 

[Dave A]

^ It was, there was no single goal for the Veyron.

Get the idea of seeing a Veryon racing out of your mind, it's way too far over spec to race, the engine is too big for a turbo engine, it's 4wd and it's need a load of thoes radiators taking out and a lot of restrictors putting in. And then it still wouldn't be allowed at LeMans. You can aim for top performance, but not for racing, thats what they did with the Veyron. And 1.5 times heavier, no quite by a couple of hundered kg's. Back onto Gordon Murray, he compares EVERYTHING to the F1, in his opinion the Enzo isn't as good as the F1, NOTHING is as good as the F1 and in his opinion, NOTHING ever will be. But he stillsaid he was amazed at how good the Veyron was round a track, he said it's far more a track car than a road car. Add that to all the comments that it's a fabulous handling car, and it corners superbly ect and I have abhsolutely zero reason to listen to you. I'm basing my opinion on prefessional drivers and car testers, your basing yours on your own calculations of what you think a 1800kg car SHOULD handle like, without every having the chance to experience it. Since I don't have that chance either, I'll base my opinion on thoes of the peopel that have, and since they ALL pretty much agree, I'd say it's a pretty damn good place to base my opinion from.

 

[Danoff]

I thought an engineer would figure that one out quite easily.

Engineer doesn't mean mind reader. Weight is everything in my line of work, but not in cars.

Yeah, I'm sure Gordon Murray doesn't have a clue of what turbo lag is , or that he imagined it. (see above post) Perhaps "ginormous" was a bit of an overstatement, though.

I didn't say he didn't know what he was talking about. I said I've never read a review that claimed the turbo lag was substantial (let alone ginormous).

Show me where that says that this car being a competent race car is/was one of the Goals of VAG. If that was the case, with all the money that went into that project, I think we would have heard about it already.

Why do I need to show you that? What statement have I made that requires some sort of evidence? I'm not the one claiming that I know everything going on in the mind of car designers...

I guess we'll have to wait a few years for that huh? Can you prove that it can compete with [insert other supercar here] on a racetrack?

I can give you numbers that suggest it can compete, that's it. I can't tell anyone for certain what time it would get. I didn't make a statment like "It was designed with top speed as the main goal" that requires some sort of proof.

Why would I have an axe to grind against the Veyron? (or any other car...?) Do you think this is some sort of fanboy/bashing issue? I just find it quite obvious what this car was designed for, and that is not racing.

I don't find that as self-evident. I think they set out to design a great car, not a one-trick horse. I don't know why you have problems with it but something about this car really seems to rub you the wrong way. Maybe you're just too attached to some other cars and are afraid this one will make them look bad. I have no idea what your motives are, all I know is what you're saying - and the way it comes off.

 

[Carl.]

It's not a 1800kg, it's 1880 kg. And that's dry weight. with oil and fuel, it's 1950 kg. No wonder i'm a couple of hundred kg off.

I've also barely even read a reviewer that didn't expected the car to be hard to drive in the first place, before raving about how, the car handled surprisingly well, finally.

Anyways, feel free to guesstimate whatever you want from the superlatives used by car magazines to describe a car after they drove it, Until I see lap times on a track that doesn't consists mainly of straitght lines, I'm not believing it's faster around a track than another supercar designed for that purpose.

 

[Carl.]

Engineer doesn't mean mind reader. Weight is everything in my line of work, but not in cars.

Well, just ask any racing engineer what their primary enemy is...

I didn't say he didn't know what he was talking about. I said I've never read a review that claimed the turbo lag was substantial (let alone ginormous).

As I said, perhaps ginormous was a bit of an overstatement.

Why do I need to show you that? What statement have I made that requires some sort of evidence? I'm not the one claiming that I know everything going on in the mind of car designers...

I can give you numbers that suggest it can compete, that's it. I can't tell anyone for certain what time it would get. I didn't make a statment like "It was designed with top speed as the main goal" that requires some sort of proof.

I never guessed that, that's what I've read everywhere since I've first heard of that car.

Piech — unyielding and autocratic but possessed with a vision as pure, in its way, as that of Ettore Bugatti — promised that the new Bugatti would be VW's crown jewel, the ultimate in automotive technology. It was he who set the well-rounded parameters for the Veyron: 1,000 hp and faster than 400 kilometers per hour (248 mph). Such a car would eclipse the McLaren F1's seemingly unassailable record of 240.1 mph.

There.

I don't find that as self-evident. I think they set out to design a great car, not a one-trick horse. I don't know why you have problems with it but something about this car really seems to rub you the wrong way. Maybe you're just too attached to some other cars and are afraid this one will make them look bad. I have no idea what your motives are, all I know is what you're saying - and the way it comes off.

I think I've been past juvenile fanboyism for quite a while, thanks. I absolutely don't care in the slightest about any car beating the Enzo, the F1, the Carrera GT, or [insert car X] in any aspect (in fact, It would be great). When that looks plausible to me that is.

 

[Danoff]

Well, just ask any racing engineer what is their primary enemy...

Some of them might say fuel consumption, others maybe tire wear, some of them drag, some of them grip...

As I said, perhaps ginormous was a bit of an overstatement.

I accept your apology.

I never guessed that, that's what I've read everywhere since I've first heard of that car.

Your quote actually works against you.

 

[Carl.]

Some of them might say fuel consumption, others maybe tire wear, some of them drag, some of them grip...

And all of these (except drag) would be related to?

Please. do yourself a favor and go ask one, I'd be willing to take bets.

I accept your apology.

Oh, but I didn't.

Your quote actually works against you.

By saying its goal were to reach 1000hp and 400kph? Huh?