The perfect road legal car...?

[blaaah]

Sounds perfect to me, I have been waiting ages for a single seat road legal sports car.
"The Briggs Automotive Company’s ‘Mono’ is powered by a Cosworth-sourced, 2.3-litre engine producing 280bhp at 7700rpm and 207lb ft of torque at 6000rpm. The power is transferred to the road through the rear wheels via an F3-spec six-speed sequential gearbox.


Weight has been kept down to an impressive 540kg, giving the Mono a power-to-weight ratio of 520bhp per tonne. This translates to a 0-60mph sprint time of just 2.8sec and a top speed of 170mph, according to the firm.

For use on track or road, the car features fully adjustable pushrod suspension and 295mm ventilated brake discs.

Director Neill Briggs – former engineering manager of the Mk1 Ford Focus RS - told Autocar he is aiming to produce 50 units this year, and between 100 and 200 cars per year thereafter. "

 

[Dan_]

The perfect road legal car....?

Is a BMW M3 to me. This thing doesn't have a roof, doesn't look very comfortable and neither is the most pleasant view when sitting on your driveway.

And on the top of that, it's a render, not a car.

 

[YSSMAN]

I DISAGREE.​

 

[Clark]

No, I disagree!

Road legal GTR (which finished 3rd at Le Mans in '95 no less).

 

[Luminis]

I DISAGREE.​

I do too!

 

[kikie]

Sounds perfect to me, I have been waiting ages for a single seat road legal sports car.
"The Briggs Automotive Company’s ‘Mono’ is powered by a Cosworth-sourced, 2.3-litre engine producing 280bhp at 7700rpm and 207lb ft of torque at 6000rpm. The power is transferred to the road through the rear wheels via an F3-spec six-speed sequential gearbox.


Weight has been kept down to an impressive 540kg, giving the Mono a power-to-weight ratio of 520bhp per tonne. This translates to a 0-60mph sprint time of just 2.8sec and a top speed of 170mph, according to the firm.

For use on track or road, the car features fully adjustable pushrod suspension and 295mm ventilated brake discs.

Director Neill Briggs – former engineering manager of the Mk1 Ford Focus RS - told Autocar he is aiming to produce 50 units this year, and between 100 and 200 cars per year thereafter. "

You forgot to mention this:

Prices start at £66,625 ($107,640) plus on road taxes.

Is this single seater going to be left or right hand drive?

 

[blaaah]

What I like the most is single seat, that's all I really wanted. From the very first moment a car is designed with more than 1 seat it becomes a heap of inferiority.

 

[Ru-fus]

the perfect road legal car...nonsense, yeah sure it is small light and prob goes like a bat out of hell, but not fully practical (useless in rain, no proper boot) so not the perfect road car by any means

when i seen it i automatically thought of the Ariel Atom 500

3.0-liter, DOHC V-8, 475 hp at 10,500 rpm and 268 lb-ft of torque at 7750 rpm; in race tune, it’s capable of 500 hp at 10,600 rpm and 284 lb-ft at 7750 rpm. Ariel predicts 0-to-60-mph sprints of 2.3 seconds and to 100 mph in just 5.4 seconds.

although the Atom would eat it on a track for breakfast!

 

[blaaah]

I loved the Atom since it first came out. Would love one, but I now want this new single seater more, even if it's slower. It's the principle and ethos of spirit. Ultimate speed is not what I like, but purity.
....
It appears from just the images, that the Mono generates it's downforce from the car floor, no need for a high draggy wing.

The Atom V8 at £150,000 the Mono is a comparative bargain.
I suppose the choice would be Atom 300 or the Mono.

 

[boiltheocean]

No, I disagree!

*Parked Porn*

Road legal GTR (which finished 3rd at Le Mans in '95 no less).

This man speaks the absolute truth.

 

[TheCracker]

Looks alright i guess. But i'd prefer to save £20k and buy a well proven Caterham Superlight R500 instead.

It might be down 20hp, but it's also 40kgs lighter. You can also scare the hell out of a passenger too.

 

[Luminis]

It might be down 20hp, but it's also 40kgs lighter. You can also scare the hell out of a passenger too.

And that's why two seaters are cool, period.

 

[Ru-fus]

Looks alright i guess. But i'd prefer to save £20k and buy a well proven Caterham Superlight R500 instead.

It might be down 20hp, but it's also 40kgs lighter. You can also scare the hell out of a passenger too.

Caterham Superlight R500 = also win! 👍

 

[Bigbazz]

I would definitely take the Mclaren, so sexy .

 

[The Outlaw]

That's one helluva toy

Sorry to go a bit OT, but the term "road leagal" is rather amusing to me. Good luck putting such a car through its intended usage (to go extremely fast) on the "road", without the police/government sapping a bunch of money from your pocket book and throwing you in jail IMO, the only reason such cars are street legal (or any car that is capable of breaking the speed limit to begin with), is because they create another avenue to generate massive tax dollars. What a silly/twisted world we live in...

 

[Famine]

That's one helluva toy

Sorry to go a bit OT, but the term "road leagal" is rather amusing to me. Good luck putting such a car through its intended use (to go extremely fast) on the "road"without the police/government sapping a bunch of money from your pocket book and throwing you in jail IMO, the only reason such cars are street legal (or any car that is capable of breaking the law),is because they create another avenue to generate massive tax dollars. What a silly/twisted world we live in...

For reference, my brother pays less car tax and insurance for both of his Ariel Atoms (Mk2 240; Mk3 300 supercharged) than I do on a 13 year old BMW 5-series wagon.

Yes, he drives them to work.

 

[Luminis]

IMO, the only reason such cars are street legal (or any car that is capable of breaking the speed limit to begin with), is because they create another avenue to generate massive tax dollars. What a silly/twisted world we live in...

Well, with a road legal car, you don't have to buy a trailer to haul it to the race track

 

[The Outlaw]

For reference, my brother pays less car tax and insurance for both of his Ariel Atoms (Mk2 240; Mk3 300 supercharged) than I do on a 13 year old BMW 5-series wagon.

Yes, he drives them to work.

I take it the insurance company has no clue as to what an Ariel Atom is

Well, with a road legal car, you don't have to buy a trailer to haul it to the race track

True. I guess my comments were more intended torwards ~ 99% of the cars on the street which are capable of violating speed limits by a wide margin...

Why does an USDM Toyota Camry need to be capable of travelling say 140mph when the maximum speed limit in the U.S. is 70mph at most...

 

[Luminis]

Why does an USDM Toyota Camry need to be capable of travelling say 140mph when the maximum speed limit in the U.S. is 70mph at most...

Because you don't want to sit at 6000 RPM doing 70mph. Therefore, the long gear ratios will allow higher speeds than what's allowed in the US when you're revving higher and higher.

 

[The Outlaw]

Because you don't want to sit at 6000 RPM doing 70mph. Therefore, the long gear ratios will allow higher speeds than what's allowed in the US when you're revving higher and higher.

That doesn't seem like the greatest answer to me. Why not implement a speed limiter since they want to make such a big deal (i.e. throwing you in jail and fining you lots of money...and accusing you of being some type of lunatic) for travelling over 100mph (or the speed limit in general)? Oh wait, if they did that then the government wouldn't be able to extract money from another questionable source. It's all about generating money in the end...

*turns a blind eye*

 

[Famine]

I take it the insurance company has no clue as to what an Ariel Atom is

It's insured - as all Atoms in the UK are - as a kit car on a limited mileage policy.

 

[The Outlaw]

I see, well that's a sweet deal then

 

[Luminis]

That doesn't seem like the greatest answer to me. Why not implement a speed limiter if they make such a big deal (i.e. throwing you in jail and fining you lots of money) for travelling over 100mph (or the speed limit in general)? Oh wait, if they did that then the government wouldn't be able to extract money from another questionable source. It's all about generating money in the end...

*turns blind eye*

Because it would a) cost more money to put additional speed limiters into the cars, b) be bad PR for a given company, c) because people are going to remove them often enough either way (see 250km/h limit on a lot of German cars) and d) because it only requires you to lift your foot a little to not get a speeding ticket.

Basically, if you're saying the government is extracting money from the people by forcing them to restrict themselves while driving a car, you're saying that they put a fee on acting dangerously and being dumb enough to be caught doing so. Which is totally fine by me

 

[The Outlaw]

Because it would a) cost more money to put additional speed limiters into the cars, b) be bad PR for a given company, c) because people are going to remove them often enough either way (see 250km/h limit on a lot of German cars) and d) because it only requires you to lift your foot a little to not get a speeding ticket.

Basically, if you're saying the government is extracting money from the people by forcing them to restrict themselves while driving a car, you're saying that they put a fee on acting dangerously and being dumb enough to be caught doing so. Which is totally fine by me

I still don't see any of these as any truly valid points, but that's from my perspective. Programming a speed limiter into a vehicles ECU cost next to nothing (the government puts taxes on cigarettes...so why not force auto manufacturers to put speed limiters on their "dangerous" products?...even if it cost a bit of money) but then again, how much money would that take away from annual revenue, due to lack of citations, etc. (probably billions and billions of dollars).

 

[Ru-fus]

That's one helluva toy

Sorry to go a bit OT, but the term "road leagal" is rather amusing to me.

when you mention road legal, i think of this:

lol

 

[JCE]

Ford GT, Porsche Carrera GT and a Saleen S7 are my choices.

 

[Scaff]

I still don't see any of these as any truly valid points, but that's from my perspective. Programming a speed limiter into a vehicles ECU cost next to nothing (the government puts taxes on cigarettes...so why not force auto manufacturers to put speed limiters on their "dangerous" products?...even if it cost a bit of money) but then again, how much money would that take away from annual revenue, due to lack of citations, etc. (probably billions and billions of dollars).

Your logic still doesn't work.

Take the UK for example, we have speed limits that cover the following (common) limits.

20mph
30mph
40mph
50mph
60mph
70mph


Now if you set a speed limiter to 70mph I can still break the speed limit in every one of those other areas.

How would that cut revenue at all?

You also forget that I am legally entitled to take my car to a track or private land and drive it as fast as I want, both of which a speed limiter would prevent me from doing.

Speed limiters would not stop people speeding, significantly cut speeding fines or even make the roads safer.


Scaff

 

[The Outlaw]

Your logic still doesn't work.

Take the UK for example, we have speed limits that cover the following (common) limits.

20mph
30mph
40mph
50mph
60mph
70mph


Now if you set a speed limiter to 70mph I can still break the speed limit in every one of those other areas.

Good point...I don't know how or why I didn't think of that

I guess my whole argument revolves more around the fact that the highest posted speed limit here in the US is only 70mph, yet for some reason the government has no problem allowing (I find it funny how they are so lenient on this particular matter...I can only imagine why) auto manufacturers to commonly produce vehicles that are capable of exceeding even the highest speed limits by a large margin (for what reason?)

You also forget that I am legally entitled to take my car to a track or private land and drive it as fast as I want, both of which a speed limiter would prevent me from doing.

That's a moot point - Many street cars already have speed limiters/governess which allow you to drive as fast as the car is capable of in that current state. If you want to drive faster than that, then it's your discretion to do so (by removing such a limiter).

 

[Piket]

Good point...I don't know how or why I didn't think of that

I guess my whole argument revolves more around the fact that the highest posted speed limit here in the US is only 70mph, yet for some reason the government has no problem allowing (I find it .................


........That's a moot point - Many street cars already have speed limiters/governess which allow you to drive as fast as the car is capable of in that current state. If you want to drive faster than that, then it's your discretion to do so (by removing such a limiter).

AGREED👍

Can't believe how everyone else doesn't get it.

 

[TheCracker]

Speed limiters would not stop people speeding, significantly cut speeding fines or even make the roads safer.

It would likely end up with even more folk sat at 70mph on the motorway concentrating even less than they do now. Accident recovery services will be the only people to profit from such regulations.