Drag Race: Tesla Model S vs Tesla Model X

[smk4565]

Why are we holding NASCAR up as the standard for endurance racing? It's the Walmart of racing, the lowest common denominator, the lowest of skill requirements, the easiest of mechanical requirements.

Agreed.  A 2-3 hour race of relatively constant speed with only left turns (minus the couple road courses).   Not the highest skill level needed compared to other forms of racing and the cars are relatively low tech.  A stock Veyron could probably win the Daytona 500, and a stock Veyron couldn't win Le Mans or a Formula 1 race.

 

I think what is being overlooked here, is Tesla made an SUV that does 0-60 and runs the 1/4 mile as fast as a Corvette Z06.  We aren't talking the Model X is fast compared to other SUVs, it is fast compared to pure sports cars.

[surreal1272]

Why are we holding NASCAR up as the standard for endurance racing? It's the Walmart of racing, the lowest common denominator, the lowest of skill requirements, the easiest of mechanical requirements.

Sorry Drew but that is not true at all and I'm not the biggest NASCAR fan in the world here (even though I was raised in the heart of NASCAR country for 35 years). All racing is hard as hell.

Edited February 20, 2016 by surreal1272

[surreal1272]

 

Why are we holding NASCAR up as the standard for endurance racing? It's the Walmart of racing, the lowest common denominator, the lowest of skill requirements, the easiest of mechanical requirements.

Agreed.  A 2-3 hour race of relatively constant speed with only left turns (minus the couple road courses).   Not the highest skill level needed compared to other forms of racing and the cars are relatively low tech.  A stock Veyron could probably win the Daytona 500, and a stock Veyron couldn't win Le Mans or a Formula 1 race.

 

I think what is being overlooked here, is Tesla made an SUV that does 0-60 and runs the 1/4 mile as fast as a Corvette Z06.  We aren't talking the Model X is fast compared to other SUVs, it is fast compared to pure sports cars.

 

If you think a stock Veyron could win the 500, then you really don't know much about this sport at all. You have clearly never been behind the wheel of one, that's for sure.

 

BTW, in 43 years on this earth (and having watched literally thousands os races during that time) I have never seen a 2-3 hour NASCAR race. 4-5 hours is more like it, but not 2-3.

Edited February 20, 2016 by surreal1272

[smk4565]

Well with loads of caution laps and rain delays, I guess the races get dragged out.  Some of those Nascar races are 250 or 300 miles, with cars doing easily over 100 mph, that would take 3 hours.  Even a 500 mile race, if you avg 150 mph would be 3 hours and change.

 

On Top Gear USA (which isn't very good) Tanner Foust raced the mid-engine V8 McLaren, I forget the name of it, vs Karl Edwards in his NASCAR on a NASCAR road course.  The McLaren beat it on the road course section but obviously not on the oval.  But the fact that a 580 hp McLaren can keep up with a Karl Edwards driven NASCAR makes me think a Veyron could beat it.  The Veyron has more power, higher top speed, better acceleration to win on an oval, and on a road course forget it.

Edited February 20, 2016 by smk4565

[hyperv6]

Well with loads of caution laps and rain delays, I guess the races get dragged out.  Some of those Nascar races are 250 or 300 miles, with cars doing easily over 100 mph, that would take 3 hours.  Even a 500 mile race, if you avg 150 mph would be 3 hours and change.

 

On Top Gear USA (which isn't very good) Tanner Foust raced the mid-engine V8 McLaren, I forget the name of it, vs Karl Edwards in his NASCAR on a NASCAR road course.  The McLaren beat it on the road course section but obviously not on the oval.  But the fact that a 580 hp McLaren can keep up with a Karl Edwards driven NASCAR makes me think a Veyron could beat it.  The Veyron has more power, higher top speed, better acceleration to win on an oval, and on a road course forget it.

First off cars are built to many series so it is hard to pit one car vs another.

Second some cars take a lot more skill as some series are centered on the driver and not so much the car. For example an F1 car is more about the car than the driver skills. F1 is not like it was when Gilles Villenuve drove in the rain with his front wing off to finish a race in Canada. That was one great driving exhibition.

Today a computer dies and the F1 car is undrievable.

Today there are still some series that are really driver focused and these series are where the cars have less down force and generally smaller tires. These drivers can go and usually drive anything but the ones that have high down force generally fail at other modes of racing.

NASCAR stock cars are not just out there driving around in circles just riding. They are normally if competititve on the edge at all tims sliding and on the edge of control. Think of it as driving on ice at 197 MPH with the air from other cars just inches away pushing you around. These cars are built of steel Carbon Fiber and some very advanced technologies. They use Fuel Injection and are some of the most powerful and durable engines in the world.

Just look at Martinsvile Each lap is like a drag race to each corner. They can rev up to 9500 RPM a thousand times a race and never break a single part while pushing 800-900 HP.

I have been lucky to drive a Late model stock car as well as drive road courses, auto cross and even Drag Raced. The stock car is no less easier or simpler to drive. Knowing first hand it is not just riding around in circles.

I love road racing. It is a blast and the skill level is about the same as circle track. Autocross is also a blast and the most affordable racing one can do. I highly recommend giving it a go. Drag Racing is fun but The racing is so short and the wait between rounds can be boring. It is like golf ok to do but not as much fun to watch.

I helped on a Sprint Car team a while back and that is just amazing. When they has really no limits these cars were very high tech in weight loss. The materials used were much like a F16. The power to weight was staggering. Then put them on a slick dirt track with 700-800 HP with little weight and 24 cars that is one amazing sight.

Then they can flip and go bolt on a new suspension and wings and go right back out and qualify for the main race. That takes some skills and balls.

Same with Rally. These guys hold a big pair to do what they do. The Group B cars have never been matched but today rally drivers are some of the most skilled.

To make a statement about a Veyron is just a good example you really need to do some home work.

You put a Veyron on the track at Daytona with cars prepped for the race and you will be lucky to come back with a steering wheel. I remember Jay Leno at Talladega in a Carrera GT after he came off 4 and spun all the way down the front stretch. It appears the car did not like going that fast there.

Just look a the Ford GT at Daytona. While it was a race prepped model and not a street car it was fast but so much of the car broke. Technology also extends to durability over time, distance and speed. Something to remember.

[ocnblu]

I could post a link to the article where Elon wants to field an entry in 2017, using Chevy engines.

[FAPTurbo]

I could post a link to the article where Elon wants to field an entry in 2017, using Chevy engines.

Please do!

[ocnblu]

Judging by the time lapse, I'm guessing you could not find it.

[FAPTurbo]

I don't sit and hit F5 on C&G all day.

I do that while waiting for my Model X order.

[surreal1272]

Well with loads of caution laps and rain delays, I guess the races get dragged out.  Some of those Nascar races are 250 or 300 miles, with cars doing easily over 100 mph, that would take 3 hours.  Even a 500 mile race, if you avg 150 mph would be 3 hours and change.

 

On Top Gear USA (which isn't very good) Tanner Foust raced the mid-engine V8 McLaren, I forget the name of it, vs Karl Edwards in his NASCAR on a NASCAR road course.  The McLaren beat it on the road course section but obviously not on the oval.  But the fact that a 580 hp McLaren can keep up with a Karl Edwards driven NASCAR makes me think a Veyron could beat it.  The Veyron has more power, higher top speed, better acceleration to win on an oval, and on a road course forget it.

Most races are four hours with no delays. You also don't factor in these little things called "cautions". Also, only a couple of races a year are 300 miles. The rest are 400-500 (and don't forget the 600 miles Coca Cola 600 race in Charlotte, NC). You are wrong and clearly have never even watched these races.

 

The Veyron also weighs way more than your average stock car so you just go ahead and get a lesson in physics there (the Veyron weighs 700 lbs MORE than any NASCAR stock car). Besides, that MPC wasn't that close in an obviously "staged for TV" race. What I love is how some like to talk smack about stock car racing saying "it's the easiest style racing out there". Well, if it's so easy, how come outside racers (F1, Indycar, etc) have never succeeded in NASCAR (for the most part anyway)?

Edited February 21, 2016 by surreal1272

[hyperv6]

Well with loads of caution laps and rain delays, I guess the races get dragged out.  Some of those Nascar races are 250 or 300 miles, with cars doing easily over 100 mph, that would take 3 hours.  Even a 500 mile race, if you avg 150 mph would be 3 hours and change.

 

On Top Gear USA (which isn't very good) Tanner Foust raced the mid-engine V8 McLaren, I forget the name of it, vs Karl Edwards in his NASCAR on a NASCAR road course.  The McLaren beat it on the road course section but obviously not on the oval.  But the fact that a 580 hp McLaren can keep up with a Karl Edwards driven NASCAR makes me think a Veyron could beat it.  The Veyron has more power, higher top speed, better acceleration to win on an oval, and on a road course forget it.

Most races are four hours with no delays. You also don't factor in these little things called "cautions". Also, only a couple of races a year are 300 miles. The rest are 400-500 (and don't forget the 600 miles Coca Cola 600 race in Charlotte, NC). You are wrong and clearly have never even watched these races.

 

The Veyron also weighs way more than your average stock car so you just go ahead and get a lesson in physics there (the Veyron weighs 700 lbs MORE than any NASCAR stock car). Besides, that MPC wasn't that close in an obviously "staged for TV" race. What I love is how some like to talk smack about stock car racing saying "it's the easiest style racing out there". Well, if it's so easy, how come outside racers (F1, Indycar, etc) have never succeeded in NASCAR (for the most part anyway)?

Ask Matt Kennseth how easy it is to win a NASCAR race today. There were more passes on the last lap than F1 all weekend.

What many miss is F1 is all about technology and strategy not the race where NASCAR is all about the driver and the race itself. Both are great series but they both have different agendas.

Like soccer and NFL both have players and balls but they both are much different in how they use it to entertain. That is what most people forget Racing anymore is entertainment like any other sport.

Edited February 22, 2016 by hyperv6

[ocnblu]

I don't sit and hit F5 on C&G all day.

I do that while waiting for my Model X order.

Be careful doing that, my boy.  Carpal tunnel syndrome is no one's life goal.

[G. David Felt]

 

I don't sit and hit F5 on C&G all day.

I do that while waiting for my Model X order.

Be careful doing that, my boy.  Carpal tunnel syndrome is no one's life goal.

 

 

Neither is a Smoky Tail Pipe!

[smk4565]

 

Well with loads of caution laps and rain delays, I guess the races get dragged out.  Some of those Nascar races are 250 or 300 miles, with cars doing easily over 100 mph, that would take 3 hours.  Even a 500 mile race, if you avg 150 mph would be 3 hours and change.

 

On Top Gear USA (which isn't very good) Tanner Foust raced the mid-engine V8 McLaren, I forget the name of it, vs Karl Edwards in his NASCAR on a NASCAR road course.  The McLaren beat it on the road course section but obviously not on the oval.  But the fact that a 580 hp McLaren can keep up with a Karl Edwards driven NASCAR makes me think a Veyron could beat it.  The Veyron has more power, higher top speed, better acceleration to win on an oval, and on a road course forget it.

Most races are four hours with no delays. You also don't factor in these little things called "cautions". Also, only a couple of races a year are 300 miles. The rest are 400-500 (and don't forget the 600 miles Coca Cola 600 race in Charlotte, NC). You are wrong and clearly have never even watched these races.

 

The Veyron also weighs way more than your average stock car so you just go ahead and get a lesson in physics there (the Veyron weighs 700 lbs MORE than any NASCAR stock car). Besides, that MPC wasn't that close in an obviously "staged for TV" race. What I love is how some like to talk smack about stock car racing saying "it's the easiest style racing out there". Well, if it's so easy, how come outside racers (F1, Indycar, etc) have never succeeded in NASCAR (for the most part anyway)?

 

Sunday's Dayonta 500 was 3 hours and 17 minutes.  

 

A Veyron also has 1200 hp vs about 450 hp for a stock car with the restricter plate, the 700 or 900 lb weight difference would be easily overcome.  .  I think the top speed Sunday was 201 mph, a Veyron would crush those cars on the straights, the question is what speed the Veyron would hold in corners.  A Veyron also has a larger fuel tank but 8 or 9 gallons.

 

As far as other racers being successful, I think most drivers are conditioned and geared to one style racing.  I don't see Earnhart Jr or Kyle Busch winning any F1 championships either.  Race car drivers rarely cross over and there is no way that Richard Petty or Dale Earnhart Sr (for as good as they were) are better drivers than Ayerton Senna or Michael Schumacher.  

[smk4565]

 

 

Well with loads of caution laps and rain delays, I guess the races get dragged out.  Some of those Nascar races are 250 or 300 miles, with cars doing easily over 100 mph, that would take 3 hours.  Even a 500 mile race, if you avg 150 mph would be 3 hours and change.

 

On Top Gear USA (which isn't very good) Tanner Foust raced the mid-engine V8 McLaren, I forget the name of it, vs Karl Edwards in his NASCAR on a NASCAR road course.  The McLaren beat it on the road course section but obviously not on the oval.  But the fact that a 580 hp McLaren can keep up with a Karl Edwards driven NASCAR makes me think a Veyron could beat it.  The Veyron has more power, higher top speed, better acceleration to win on an oval, and on a road course forget it.

Most races are four hours with no delays. You also don't factor in these little things called "cautions". Also, only a couple of races a year are 300 miles. The rest are 400-500 (and don't forget the 600 miles Coca Cola 600 race in Charlotte, NC). You are wrong and clearly have never even watched these races.

 

The Veyron also weighs way more than your average stock car so you just go ahead and get a lesson in physics there (the Veyron weighs 700 lbs MORE than any NASCAR stock car). Besides, that MPC wasn't that close in an obviously "staged for TV" race. What I love is how some like to talk smack about stock car racing saying "it's the easiest style racing out there". Well, if it's so easy, how come outside racers (F1, Indycar, etc) have never succeeded in NASCAR (for the most part anyway)?

 

Ask Matt Kennseth how easy it is to win a NASCAR race today. There were more passes on the last lap than F1 all weekend.

What many miss is F1 is all about technology and strategy not the race where NASCAR is all about the driver and the race itself. Both are great series but they both have different agendas.

Like soccer and NFL both have players and balls but they both are much different in how they use it to entertain. That is what most people forget Racing anymore is entertainment like any other sport.

 

NASCAR is more about the driver because they all have the same car.  They don't have the same car in F1, Mercedes has the best chassis and the most powerful engine, therefor they win every time.  F1 is more about the car, and that is the downside to it, there isn't much passing because the tracks aren't wide in all areas, you can't draft like you can in NASCAR and the slower cars can't catch the faster cars.

[oldshurst442]

 

 

Well with loads of caution laps and rain delays, I guess the races get dragged out.  Some of those Nascar races are 250 or 300 miles, with cars doing easily over 100 mph, that would take 3 hours.  Even a 500 mile race, if you avg 150 mph would be 3 hours and change.

 

On Top Gear USA (which isn't very good) Tanner Foust raced the mid-engine V8 McLaren, I forget the name of it, vs Karl Edwards in his NASCAR on a NASCAR road course.  The McLaren beat it on the road course section but obviously not on the oval.  But the fact that a 580 hp McLaren can keep up with a Karl Edwards driven NASCAR makes me think a Veyron could beat it.  The Veyron has more power, higher top speed, better acceleration to win on an oval, and on a road course forget it.

Most races are four hours with no delays. You also don't factor in these little things called "cautions". Also, only a couple of races a year are 300 miles. The rest are 400-500 (and don't forget the 600 miles Coca Cola 600 race in Charlotte, NC). You are wrong and clearly have never even watched these races.

 

The Veyron also weighs way more than your average stock car so you just go ahead and get a lesson in physics there (the Veyron weighs 700 lbs MORE than any NASCAR stock car). Besides, that MPC wasn't that close in an obviously "staged for TV" race. What I love is how some like to talk smack about stock car racing saying "it's the easiest style racing out there". Well, if it's so easy, how come outside racers (F1, Indycar, etc) have never succeeded in NASCAR (for the most part anyway)?

 

Sunday's Dayonta 500 was 3 hours and 17 minutes.  

 

A Veyron also has 1200 hp vs about 450 hp for a stock car with the restricter plate, the 700 or 900 lb weight difference would be easily overcome.  .  I think the top speed Sunday was 201 mph, a Veyron would crush those cars on the straights, the question is what speed the Veyron would hold in corners.  A Veyron also has a larger fuel tank but 8 or 9 gallons.

 

As far as other racers being successful, I think most drivers are conditioned and geared to one style racing.  I don't see Earnhart Jr or Kyle Busch winning any F1 championships either.  Race car drivers rarely cross over and there is no way that Richard Petty or Dale Earnhart Sr (for as good as they were) are better drivers than Ayerton Senna or Michael Schumacher.  

 

It is rare, that drivers crossover, but...it does happen, and when it does happen, its rarer that these drivers are successful in other racing venues...

But, there is a handful of drivers that are supreme driving Gods and had success no matter what racing venue...

 

From the top of my head...and I know there are others except Im not a very big racing car fan...I dont watch too many races. I dont find the races entertaining. Im more of a traditional sports kinda guy: baseball, football and hockey.

 

F1, Indy Car and NASCAR Champions among other races.

1. Mario Andretti

2. Dan Gurney

 

F1 and Indy Car champ, 24 hour Lemans winner.

1. Jacques Villeneuve.

 

Emerson Fittipaldi fits in somewhere in there also...

 

And there are plenty of others!

 

Just to say though, that each racing venue has its own unique skills that drivers need to master in order to compete successfully...

Just to say,  NASCAR has its own set of skills that are at least just as hard and intimidating to learn as the other racing venues...if not HARDER to master...

 

Its the only racing series I know of that has high high banks on curves that allow the race cars to achieve 200 mph speeds...on the curves themselves...

Its the only racing series I know of that going into a curve, the cars NEED NOT slow down...

Its the only racing series I know of that takes skill just to STAY on the high end of the bank of the curve while trying to tailgate the leader while trying to stave off any guy that wants to pass...on the bloody curve itself...

Its the only racing series I know of where TAILGATING is necessary in order to save gasoline and when the time is right, slingshot pass your opponent.

 

So while we could make fun of NASCAR all we want...with those left only turns, it aint as easy as it looks...and it takes special skills to race in that racing circuit.

 

Jacques Villeneuve...an Indy Car SEASON CHAMPION, Indy 500 winner, a Formula One SEASON Champion, a 24 hour Lemans winner could not actually compete competitively at NASCAR, and...we cant deny the fact that this guy...could actually race...

 

He showed the world that his skill set is impressive and could make a NASCAR race car dance at Circuit Gilles Villeneuve in Montreal with the Xfinity Series...I think he won his first race with NASCAR in Montreal...because he also knows that race track very well...

 

We could say that F1 is all technology and its the car that won it, and that at Lemans, its as much luck as it is skill...but...he did win the Indy 500 and was Indycar Season champ....so....maybe we could stop with the excuses and the laughing of NASCAR...

 

Also...its one heck of an entertaining spectacle...

The fans are allowed to see the cars up close and personal...I wont get into the F1 snob thing...because espionage IS a real threat...but THAT is what makes NASCAR entertaining, n'est pas?

Edited February 23, 2016 by oldshurst442

[hyperv6]

Well with loads of caution laps and rain delays, I guess the races get dragged out.  Some of those Nascar races are 250 or 300 miles, with cars doing easily over 100 mph, that would take 3 hours.  Even a 500 mile race, if you avg 150 mph would be 3 hours and change.

 

On Top Gear USA (which isn't very good) Tanner Foust raced the mid-engine V8 McLaren, I forget the name of it, vs Karl Edwards in his NASCAR on a NASCAR road course.  The McLaren beat it on the road course section but obviously not on the oval.  But the fact that a 580 hp McLaren can keep up with a Karl Edwards driven NASCAR makes me think a Veyron could beat it.  The Veyron has more power, higher top speed, better acceleration to win on an oval, and on a road course forget it.

Most races are four hours with no delays. You also don't factor in these little things called "cautions". Also, only a couple of races a year are 300 miles. The rest are 400-500 (and don't forget the 600 miles Coca Cola 600 race in Charlotte, NC). You are wrong and clearly have never even watched these races.

 

The Veyron also weighs way more than your average stock car so you just go ahead and get a lesson in physics there (the Veyron weighs 700 lbs MORE than any NASCAR stock car). Besides, that MPC wasn't that close in an obviously "staged for TV" race. What I love is how some like to talk smack about stock car racing saying "it's the easiest style racing out there". Well, if it's so easy, how come outside racers (F1, Indycar, etc) have never succeeded in NASCAR (for the most part anyway)?

Sunday's Dayonta 500 was 3 hours and 17 minutes.  

 

A Veyron also has 1200 hp vs about 450 hp for a stock car with the restricter plate, the 700 or 900 lb weight difference would be easily overcome.  .  I think the top speed Sunday was 201 mph, a Veyron would crush those cars on the straights, the question is what speed the Veyron would hold in corners.  A Veyron also has a larger fuel tank but 8 or 9 gallons.

 

As far as other racers being successful, I think most drivers are conditioned and geared to one style racing.  I don't see Earnhart Jr or Kyle Busch winning any F1 championships either.  Race car drivers rarely cross over and there is no way that Richard Petty or Dale Earnhart Sr (for as good as they were) are better drivers than Ayerton Senna or Michael Schumacher.

Like the old saying goes you are only as smart as where you come form.

The truth is most drivers today have to pick and choose where they go as it is difficult to find sponsorship to take you in more than one series. Also it is difficult to run more than one.

In the old days many drivers crossed over and were sucessful in all mediums of motorsports.

Parnelli Jones won on dirt Open wheel indy and stock car. Foyt won on dirt, open wheel, Stock cars, endurance and I bet he would even win in a bulldozer race if they had them.

Mario. Hell he started out on Pennsylvania dirt and won. Went to Open wheel and won, endurance and won, stock cars and won and even some series called F1 and won.

Dan Gurney started out on dirt in for speed trials and then went road racing and then went to Indy, Can Am, Trans Am and even NASCAR and won in all.

All the Unsers started on dirt and won in nearly anything in America.

Fangio he even started out on what? Dirt in South America.

The fact is most of the best drivers ever started on dirt. Today even Gordon, Johnson Stewart, Harvic and almost half the NASCAR Field started on dirt. Earnhardt while he stayed in one series of his own choice even ran the Pratt and Miller Corvette a 2 weeks before he died. He had tested the car and loved it. He had won on road tracks and was planning to retire at the end of 2001 to drive for Pratt and Miller. He wanted to win the 24 Hours of Le mans and may have done it with the P&M team. Hell he qualified on the pole and almost won the race at the Glen with a broken Sternum.

Prost has not proven himself out side F1 much and he won only when he was in a good car. Senna on the other hand I believe was one of the greatest as he even did well in some of the bad cars and his car control was the best since Gilles Villinueve. He was truly gifted and could have won in anything he attempted. Not many F1 drivers could say that.

We have seen several F1 drivers come to NASCAR and fail, Indy come and fail and most other drivers who had driven nothing but down force cars fail as they have little car control. Even the great F1 driver Jimmy Clark and only moderate sucess in a stock car and he came even from a no down force era. He could only qualify 25th and even said he was struggling and it would be much more difficult to adapt to than Indy. To his credit he wanted to come back and try to learn the series but was killed before he could Rindt was there too but faired much worse.

But racing is much like life. You can take a country boy to the big city and make him a fool but you also can take a city man and take him to the country and make as great of fool of him. Some people adapt and some don't those with dirt back grounds tend to adapt best to any kind of racing be it sprints or rally drivers. There are always an acceptation like Senna but they are rare.

One underrated driver I feel is John Andretti. He has driven Indy and won, NHRA Top Fuel and won, Sprints and Won, NASCAR and won IMSA and won. He mostly has been on secondary teams and won with these teams. Even Kurt Bush dropped into Indy driving a Indy car for the first time and finish in the top ten if I recall.

As for F1 today it is all about the cars and strategy. Most drivers today only have to be in good condition to handle the G forces and bring enough money to get put on the team. There are many drivers that could easily drive F1 but they just don't have the money sponsor with them. It is a shame as only half the drivers there really should be in the series as better drivers labor in lesser series.

[surreal1272]

 

 

Well with loads of caution laps and rain delays, I guess the races get dragged out.  Some of those Nascar races are 250 or 300 miles, with cars doing easily over 100 mph, that would take 3 hours.  Even a 500 mile race, if you avg 150 mph would be 3 hours and change.

 

On Top Gear USA (which isn't very good) Tanner Foust raced the mid-engine V8 McLaren, I forget the name of it, vs Karl Edwards in his NASCAR on a NASCAR road course.  The McLaren beat it on the road course section but obviously not on the oval.  But the fact that a 580 hp McLaren can keep up with a Karl Edwards driven NASCAR makes me think a Veyron could beat it.  The Veyron has more power, higher top speed, better acceleration to win on an oval, and on a road course forget it.

Most races are four hours with no delays. You also don't factor in these little things called "cautions". Also, only a couple of races a year are 300 miles. The rest are 400-500 (and don't forget the 600 miles Coca Cola 600 race in Charlotte, NC). You are wrong and clearly have never even watched these races.

 

The Veyron also weighs way more than your average stock car so you just go ahead and get a lesson in physics there (the Veyron weighs 700 lbs MORE than any NASCAR stock car). Besides, that MPC wasn't that close in an obviously "staged for TV" race. What I love is how some like to talk smack about stock car racing saying "it's the easiest style racing out there". Well, if it's so easy, how come outside racers (F1, Indycar, etc) have never succeeded in NASCAR (for the most part anyway)?

 

Sunday's Dayonta 500 was 3 hours and 17 minutes.  

 

A Veyron also has 1200 hp vs about 450 hp for a stock car with the restricter plate, the 700 or 900 lb weight difference would be easily overcome.  .  I think the top speed Sunday was 201 mph, a Veyron would crush those cars on the straights, the question is what speed the Veyron would hold in corners.  A Veyron also has a larger fuel tank but 8 or 9 gallons.

 

As far as other racers being successful, I think most drivers are conditioned and geared to one style racing.  I don't see Earnhart Jr or Kyle Busch winning any F1 championships either.  Race car drivers rarely cross over and there is no way that Richard Petty or Dale Earnhart Sr (for as good as they were) are better drivers than Ayerton Senna or Michael Schumacher.  

 

And rarity. Most are four hours. I've been to two of them at Daytona. 

 

And please stop this Veyron non-sense. It doesn't even merit a response. It is just that asinine. It's as asinine as your race driver assumptions because you can prove neither and what little evidence there is out there, is not on your side. Maybe will just discount the fact that NASCAR stock cars are built for that 200mph all out for all 500 miles of Daytona (save for speed drops in the turns of course). A Veyron would not make it 10 laps all out like that. It is not built for it. A stock car also has a better power to weight ratio than the much heavier Veyron. Just that little bit of evidence right there, kills your silly argument. Sorry, until someone is willing to pony up a $2.6 billion dollar risk by racing that Veyron that long, it is all a pipe dream.

[ccap41]

 

 

Well with loads of caution laps and rain delays, I guess the races get dragged out.  Some of those Nascar races are 250 or 300 miles, with cars doing easily over 100 mph, that would take 3 hours.  Even a 500 mile race, if you avg 150 mph would be 3 hours and change.

 

On Top Gear USA (which isn't very good) Tanner Foust raced the mid-engine V8 McLaren, I forget the name of it, vs Karl Edwards in his NASCAR on a NASCAR road course.  The McLaren beat it on the road course section but obviously not on the oval.  But the fact that a 580 hp McLaren can keep up with a Karl Edwards driven NASCAR makes me think a Veyron could beat it.  The Veyron has more power, higher top speed, better acceleration to win on an oval, and on a road course forget it.

Most races are four hours with no delays. You also don't factor in these little things called "cautions". Also, only a couple of races a year are 300 miles. The rest are 400-500 (and don't forget the 600 miles Coca Cola 600 race in Charlotte, NC). You are wrong and clearly have never even watched these races.

 

The Veyron also weighs way more than your average stock car so you just go ahead and get a lesson in physics there (the Veyron weighs 700 lbs MORE than any NASCAR stock car). Besides, that MPC wasn't that close in an obviously "staged for TV" race. What I love is how some like to talk smack about stock car racing saying "it's the easiest style racing out there". Well, if it's so easy, how come outside racers (F1, Indycar, etc) have never succeeded in NASCAR (for the most part anyway)?

 

Sunday's Dayonta 500 was 3 hours and 17 minutes.  

 

A Veyron also has 1200 hp vs about 450 hp for a stock car with the restricter plate, the 700 or 900 lb weight difference would be easily overcome.  .  I think the top speed Sunday was 201 mph, a Veyron would crush those cars on the straights, the question is what speed the Veyron would hold in corners.  A Veyron also has a larger fuel tank but 8 or 9 gallons.

 

As far as other racers being successful, I think most drivers are conditioned and geared to one style racing.  I don't see Earnhart Jr or Kyle Busch winning any F1 championships either.  Race car drivers rarely cross over and there is no way that Richard Petty or Dale Earnhart Sr (for as good as they were) are better drivers than Ayerton Senna or Michael Schumacher.  

 

 

Have you seen any of the open wheeled guys be successful in NASCAR? I think JPM had 2 wins and they were at road courses. Danica? Nope. Tony Stewart is by far and away the only one with any sustained success. 

 

Okay while researching I got a good list of drivers who've done the open wheeled thing and the stock car thing. 

 

"Here are four great drivers who have met that challenge successfully:

Mario Andretti: Famously frustrated at the Indy 500, with only one victory in 29 starts, Andretti won everywhere - 109 times in major series. That includes 52 in USAC and CART and the '67 Daytona 500. He only raced 14 times in NASCAR, but had three top 10s.

A.J. Foyt: Between 1963 and 1997, Foyt moonlighted NASCAR, with seven wins and 36 top 10s in 128 starts. He won back-to-back Firecracker 400s at Daytona, then won the Daytona 500 in 1972. He's a four-time Indianapolis 500 winner and the only man to win Daytona, Indy and the 24-hour races at Daytona and LeMans.

Dan Gurney: Any conversation about the best driver ever must include Gurney. Yes, his five NASCAR wins were at the old road course at Riverside, Calif., but he had three top 5s in six Daytona starts. In 16 stock car starts, he had 10 top 10s. Add that to seven USAC wins in 28 starts and a Formula 1 victory.

Tony Stewart: His success in the leap to NASCAR spawned a dozen imitators since the mid-1990s, none of whom has come close. Stewart is the only driver to earn series titles in IndyCar (1997) and NASCAR Sprint Cup (2002, 2005, 2011). After his three Indy victories in two years as a full-time driver, he has 48 in Sprint Cup, 13th all-time.

 

There's a long list of drivers who have tried to cross over from IndyCar racing into NASCAR - and vice versa. Here are notable ones:

Bobby Allison: The NASCAR Hall of Famer twice skipped the Charlotte race to try his hand at Indy, with 32nd and 25th place finishes.

Donnie Allison: The 10-time NASCAR winner was fourth and sixth in his two Indy 500 attempts and had three other open-wheel starts.

A.J. Allmendinger: After five Champ Car victories in 2006, he made the jump to stock cars and twice won in Nationwide, but mustered only31 top 10s in 199 Cup starts. After a suspension in Cup, he raced IndyCars last year before returning to NASCAR this year.

John Andretti: The first driver to attempt the Indy 500-Coca-Cola 600 double-duty on the same day. He only had one Indy series victory, in 1991 at Queensland, and won twice in Sprint Cup, driving for Richard Petty in one, Cale Yarborough in the other.

Patrick Carpentier: He won five times in CART after the open-wheel divorce of the 1990s, but never cracked the top 10 in 40 Sprint Cup starts.

Dario Franchitti: The three-time Indy 500 winner was 0-for-10 in Sprint Cup starts, then broke his ankle in a Nationwide race at Talladega that effectively ended his stock car career.

Robby Gordon: One of the most well-traveled and versatile drivers, but only had three Sprint Cup wins in 396 starts (and 39 top 10s) to go along with a pair of Indy series victories in 1995 (Phoenix and Belle Isle)

Janet Guthrie: The first woman to compete in the Indianapolis 500 and the Daytona 500, she had five top 10s in 33 NASCAR events and finished as high as ninth in three Indy 500 starts.

Sam Hornish Jr.: The 2006 Indy 500 champ and a 19-time winner in IndyCar was runner-up for the Nationwide Series title last year after some hard luck in Sprint Cup. At 36, he has time to become the next break-through crossover driver.

Bobby Johns: He finished seventh in his Indy 500 debut in 1965 and was 10th in 1969, and had two wins (Atlanta and Bristol) as NASCAR journeyman.

Juan Pablo Montoya: The Formula 1 ace had victories at both of NASCAR's road courses (Sonoma and Watkins Glen) but otherwise seldom contended. His average Cup finish was 19.8.

Danica Patrick: The sport's glamour gal, who had one IndyCar victory, earned the Daytona 500 pole in her first attempt in 2013, but has an average Sprint Cup finish of 26.5. Johnny Rutherford: An Indy legend, he did win a Daytona qualifying event, but collected only five top 10s in 35 NASCAR starts scattered over 12 seasons.

Tim Richmond: He was the "Rookie of the Race" for the Indianapolis 500 before making leap to stock cars. He won 13 Sprint Cup events before his career and life was tragically cut short.

Jacques Villenueve: A Formula 1 superstar and five-time winner in 33 CART events, he had a couple of infamous incidents in Nationwide, causing wrecks, and was a non-factor in four Cup starts.

Cale Yarborough: The NASCAR Hall of Famer was the first man to race in both Charlotte and Indy in the same year, but he crashed in his first two Indy 500 and never finished higher than 10th in four tries.

Lee Roy Yarbrough: A wreck and two engine failures spoiled the three Indy 500 tries for the NASCAR stalwart who finished in the top 10 in nearly half his starts.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/04/few_drivers_have_made_successf.html

 

If you're actually trying to say a Veyron would hold a stick to the Sprint Cup guys you just don't understand the sport or any form of professional auto racing. A Veyron is set up to handle very neutral and it probably plows into every turn. There is no way it could maintain the 190mph in the corners like the Cup guys or probably even the Nationwide or Truck guys. It'll have to pit more often, it would probably overheat as it isn't a track car, mechanicals aren't designed to be run all out for 500 miles consecutively.. all sorts of things working against the Veyron. 

 

3300lbs w/o driver vs 4486lbs(C/D tested - also w/o driver). 

Edited February 24, 2016 by ccap41

[ccap41]

3300/750= 4.4lbs per hp

4486/1001=4.48lb per hp

Prior to 2016 they were ~850hp and 3350lbs = 3.94lb per hp

 

So even your straight line theory isn't the greatest. I'll give you that they still use very old school 4 speed transmissions though. 

[oldshurst442]

About 4 speed transmissions...

 

Do they work for their intended purpose?

Is there a reason to go to 10 speed paddle shifters?

I heard that this "old" transmission is still the lightest in the industry...so...is it really necessary to change? Because after all, in most cases, its an oval race track, like I asked in the first question....does a 4 speed transmission work for its intended purpose?

 

If there is  no need to complicate things, then why fix when it aint broke?

 

 

My question is, are carburetors still used? Or have they gone to fuel injection?

Either way...even if NASCAR is still using carbs, it dont bother me....part of the charm.

Just like how Formula One wants all out technology. Part of Formula One's charm...

 

As an example:

Canadian Football versus American Football

Its a matter of preference. Its not a case of one being better than the other.

The CFL as of late, is actually MORE entertaining than the NFL currently is...

Edited February 24, 2016 by oldshurst442

[oldshurst442]

Plus...the BUMPING and GRINDING the NASCAR car endures.

 

We ALL  forgot about how RUGGED the NASCAR race car is...

Try tailgating and hitting the guy next to you, in front of you and hitting the side of the race track in ANY other race venue and see if your car continues to run...

[ccap41]

About 4 speed transmissions...

 

Do they work for their intended purpose?

Is there a reason to go to 10 speed paddle shifters?

I heard that this "old" transmission is still the lightest in the industry...so...is it really necessary to change? Because after all, in most cases, its an oval race track, like I asked in the first question....does a 4 speed transmission work for its intended purpose?

 

If there is  no need to complicate things, then why fix when it aint broke?

 

 

My question is, are carburetors still used? Or have they gone to fuel injection?

Either way...even if NASCAR is still using carbs, it dont bother me....part of the charm.

Just like how Formula One wants all out technology. Part of Formula One's charm...

 

As an example:

Canadian Football versus American Football

Its a matter of preference. Its not a case of one being better than the other.

The CFL as of late, is actually MORE entertaining than the NFL currently is...

Oh there's no reason for any more gears than 4 in NASCAR. For all but the road courses, Pocono, and I think Phoenix..maybe.. they get to top gear and leave it until a restart. Maybe one of the big ovals like Michigan or California instead of Phoenix.. I'm not sure where it is but there are a small handful o non-road courses that they shift at. That is only by choice though.

 

In fact, my ingnorant sounding statement should have made me look into it a little more but with the technology flowing through the rest of the car I bet they are using one fantastic transmission it just sounds bad saying "4 speed". 

 

They are fuel injected. I believe it was te 2013 season they made that switch and I think it was more for efficiency than power but don't quote me on that. 

[ccap41]

Plus...the BUMPING and GRINDING the NASCAR car endures.

 

We ALL  forgot about how RUGGED the NASCAR race car is...

Try tailgating and hitting the guy next to you, in front of you and hitting the side of the race track in ANY other race venue and see if your car continues to run...

Ab-so-freakin-lutely! 

 

That's what makes the sport great if you ask me. That and just the close quarters racing and passing. No other form of racing(dirt excluded as it isn't nationally covered as well but is crazy intense) has passing like NASCAR. I bet NASCAR had more passes at Daytona than F1 will have all season. 

[oldshurst442]

Its sounds "bad" because of stupid elitism that marketing "geniuses" have instilled in most of us to be pretentious about things that we know nothing about, yet marketing catch phrases have made experts in all of us...and hence this dialogue we are having about NASCAR...which results in us questioning the validity about left only turns and carburetors and 4 speed transmissions. OHV and OHC valves and horsepower per liter and shyte like that.

Edited February 24, 2016 by oldshurst442

[G. David Felt]

As EV moves into the main stream, it is going to be very interesting to see how racing in all forms evolves. 

 

Drag Racing

Nascar

Sprint

F1

Ralley

 

etc. It will be interesting to see how electric motors and battery packs affect our driving pleasure.

[ccap41]

I think it will take a long time to get down to the dirt racing. Very intriguing stuff though. 

[G. David Felt]

I think it will take a long time to get down to the dirt racing. Very intriguing stuff though. 

 

I used to think that too but having seen Tesla and their powerpack quick change feature. I am thinking you can swap out a battery pack faster than you can refill a fuel cell. This would help to minimize pit stop changes. Faster recharge and all the torque plus safety for the pit crew by not having a flammable liquid sitting around.

 

Imagen a slot on the back of the race car that has the battery pack over the rear tires for better traction and you just yank out the old pack, slid in a fully charged on and boom, off you go.

 

As has been said many times, we are living in interesting times. 

[hyperv6]

Well until you can change a battery in 11 seconds it will be out of most racing series that do pit stops.

The key will be to have a battery that will last a race and only pit for tires.

Motor cooling will be an issue too. They will really have to focus on this as these motors will under a load and heat up fast same for batteries in a long term use. Anyone who has raced RC cars can tell you about the hear. We even had a boat catch fire once because it over heated racing.

[smk4565]

3300/750= 4.4lbs per hp

4486/1001=4.48lb per hp

Prior to 2016 they were ~850hp and 3350lbs = 3.94lb per hp

 

So even your straight line theory isn't the greatest. I'll give you that they still use very old school 4 speed transmissions though. 

At Daytona and Talladega NASCARs have restricter plates so the cars are making about 435 hp, so their power to weight ratio is about the same as a base model Corvette.  A Veyron SS with 1200 hp has a 268 mph top speed, I think it has a chance.

[surreal1272]

 

3300/750= 4.4lbs per hp

4486/1001=4.48lb per hp

Prior to 2016 they were ~850hp and 3350lbs = 3.94lb per hp

 

So even your straight line theory isn't the greatest. I'll give you that they still use very old school 4 speed transmissions though. 

At Daytona and Talladega NASCARs have restricter plates so the cars are making about 435 hp, so their power to weight ratio is about the same as a base model Corvette.  A Veyron SS with 1200 hp has a 268 mph top speed, I think it has a chance.

 

If the stock has to keep that plate on (which is only for the safety part of rules), then the Veyron should get one too. Take it off, and the Veyron really does not stand a chance. Just stop man.

[balthazar]

A Veyron also has 1200 hp vs about 450 hp for a stock car with the restricter plate, the 700 or 900 lb weight difference would be easily overcome.  .  I think the top speed Sunday was 201 mph, a Veyron would crush those cars on the straights, the question is what speed the Veyron would hold in corners.

 

NASCAR 'stock' cars have about 850 HP, not 450 (and without 4 turbochargers).

Tho VW claims the veyron can reach 1.4g, tested figures I saw said .94. NASCAR drivers see close to 2.0gs in the speedway turns (NOT the same as a 200-ft skidpad, of course).

Sprint Cup cars weigh about 3300, veyron is a porky 4200. Tires are not comparable.

 

The 2 would be close in a straight run (one bit I saw said the veyron has been tested in the 1/4 miles @ 139 MPH, older NASCAR car has been tested @ 147), but the weight & tires would be a major disadvantage to the bugatti on an oval track. There's really no comparison.

[balthazar]

At Daytona and Talladega NASCARs have restricter plates so the cars are making about 435 hp, so their power to weight ratio is about the same as a base model Corvette.  A Veyron SS with 1200 hp has a 268 mph top speed, I think it has a chance.

At the 2015 GEICO 500 held May 3rd 2015 @ Talledega, the 3 top qualifiers set lap speeds of 200.xxx MPH. Do you REALLY think they did that with only 435 HP ???

 

Cutting power from 850-900 down to 435 would cut race speeds in HALF. Who's going to watch a gaggle of race cars going 100 MPH?? Actually, with cautions & such, the average speed at the end of that race was 160 MPH, so change that '100 MPH' to something like 60 MPH.

 

Yeah; 435 HP.

[surreal1272]

At Daytona and Talladega NASCARs have restricter plates so the cars are making about 435 hp, so their power to weight ratio is about the same as a base model Corvette.  A Veyron SS with 1200 hp has a 268 mph top speed, I think it has a chance.

At the 2015 GEICO 500 held May 3rd 2015 @ Talledega, the 3 top qualifiers set lap speeds of 200.xxx MPH. Do you REALLY think they did that with only 435 HP ???

 

Cutting power from 850-900 down to 435 would cut race speeds in HALF. Who's going to watch a gaggle of race cars going 100 MPH?? Actually, with cautions & such, the average speed at the end of that race was 160 MPH, so change that '100 MPH' to something like 60 MPH.

 

Yeah; 435 HP.

Actually they're 450HP for Daytona and Talledega.

http://www.buildingspeed.org/blog/2014/07/how-fast-would-nascar-cars-go-at-daytona-without-restrictor-plates/

[balthazar]

That's an interesting claim. From the link :

 

 

 

If we take 200 mph as a nice round terminal velocity for a restricted engine, removing the plates and doubling the engine power to 900 hp would only increase the terminal velocity for the unrestricted engine to 252 mph.

 

The unrestricted record for Talledega is 228. Pre-restrictor qualifying laps were around 212 MPH IIRC.

I'm not seeing the math that dropping 450 HP results in a decrease of only 12 MPH. If they went to 250 HP, could they still hit 180?

Edited February 25, 2016 by balthazar

[surreal1272]

That's an interesting claim. From the link :

 

 

 

If we take 200 mph as a nice round terminal velocity for a restricted engine, removing the plates and doubling the engine power to 900 hp would only increase the terminal velocity for the unrestricted engine to 252 mph.

 

The unrestricted record for Talledega is 228. Pre-restrictor qualifying laps were around 212 MPH IIRC.

I'm not seeing the math that dropping 450 HP results in a decrease of only 12 MPH. If they went to 250 HP, could they still hit 180?

Who but either way, they have been running with this lower HP setup since the introduction of restrictor plates. It's crazy how much it drops yet these cars can still push 200mph without much trouble.

[balthazar]

I have to question the claim of 450 hp. 

Surreal, do those numbers (900= 228 ~ 450=200) make ANY sense?

If the power dropped in half, and the SPEEDS dropped in half (or a huge degree), I could credit reduced airflow to fight. Not the case @ 200.

 

Unless the unrestricted cars were only giving it 3/4 throttle, but that makes zero sense, too.

 

- - - - -

Elliot did an unrestricted run @ Talledega and the car went 28 MPH faster.

Restricted cars are running 200 with 725-750 HP.

How are 450 HP cars running anywhere near 200? This is not a question of 'amazing', but of 'how'?

Edited February 25, 2016 by balthazar

[ccap41]

I have to question the claim of 450 hp. 

Surreal, do those numbers (900= 228 ~ 450=200) make ANY sense?

If the power dropped in half, and the SPEEDS dropped in half (or a huge degree), I could credit reduced airflow to fight. Not the case @ 200.

 

Unless the unrestricted cars were only giving it 3/4 throttle, but that makes zero sense, too.

 

- - - - -

Elliot did an unrestricted run @ Talledega and the car went 28 MPH faster.

Restricted cars are running 200 with 725-750 HP.

How are 450 HP cars running anywhere near 200? This is not a question of 'amazing', but of 'how'?

Those were also back in the times when they were running COMPLETELY different cars where the aero, tires, chassis, weight and everything aren't as finely tuned as they are now(meaning it took more raw power to achieve those peak speeds). Back then they also weren't 900hp cars probably more in the 750-800 range. I don't know if any ever made claims of quite 900hp. (edit before I even post - some are making the claims of touching 900hp but this was pre '16 where it appears there is an 850hp limit now)

 

So I'm trying my damnedest to look up about how much power they were making back in 2004 but it's quite difficult to get anything before 2007 when they went to the COT crap. Anyway, in 2013 they were making around 850hp. 

 

Elliot's run was not just a flat out 0 to as-fast-as-it-can-go. He was coming off of a turn and had to slow back down to another turn. He said with tuning and tweaking they could probably hit 235mph with that same car and track(Talladega). So the modern cars can keep them wound up more in the corners with the aero and tire packages. 

[balthazar]

The 228 MPH run was in 2012- certainly not much different from then to now (restrictor plates aside).

[Suaviloquent]

Wait... so why are talking about NASCAR? I needs a TL:DR.

[hyperv6]

The cars run at near 200 MPH with less HP due to the fact that the gearing is different, The engines are built different to run plates. The cars also can not use all the power they have to start with.

Finally drag is also a big part. The power it takes to get to 100 MPH and then as you increase speed the number of HP it takes to climb multiply for every MPH you gain. It takes twice the power to get to 200 vs 100 and that extra to get to 250 can take up to 3 times the power. Drag multiplies force needed. I do not have the figures handy but it has been published to the exponent that it increases for every MPH.

The truth is you can do 195 MPH on 450 HP easy with the way the cars are set up. Hell we did 150 MPH in a 65 GTO with just over 400 HP and the wrong gearing for it.

Nascar sets the ratio to be used and it helps limit power. You may get up to 200 MPH faster but you will not go over it even with more power.

Note too the drag on these cars are very low on these tracks too. Keep in mind too the track also limits speed as does the tire size too.

Cases like Tim Richmond drove his 1987 Monte Carlos Stock car at the TRC track in Ohio. They taped up the hood gaps and head light buckets and got to 240 MPH. This is a That track is 7 miles a lap. This was a car shaped like a brick back then and it out ran Al Holberts 962 with the Le Mans tail.

Nascar at Michigan with no plates are hitting 218 in the straights.

Patty Moise ran 217 in a Buick Regal Bush car at Talladega in 1990 and power was lower back then.

Rusty Wallace hit 216 MPH lap speeds in a heavier cup car with trap speeds at 228 MPH. He said the trap speeds could hit 235-240 with some tuning for the extra speed.

The bottom line is these cars do not use all their power they contain so even restricted they can easily hit the 190's.

While the technology is not sexy turbo charged 16 cylinder quad turbocharged it is still very advanced to meet the rules they run under. The work that goes into the heads alone is amazing as thousands of hours and untold dollars are poured into them and the intakes to gain power taken away from the restrictor plates. If you have not ever seen a plate it is amazing what power they do make with such small holes.

Making the cars fast is a challenge but keeping them on the ground is tougher. Once they get to 200 they are so easy to get in the air and into the stands. These are not like many cars with tons of down force and it is up to the driver to get the most out of the grip as possible.

Cars like Indy and even Donahue's 917 were restricted by drag and down force.

AJ Foyt Aerotech car was a good example of lower drag and an Indy car as it could hit 267 with only 2.0 liters. Under the body was nothing but a March Indy car.

Edited February 26, 2016 by hyperv6

[smk4565]

I have to question the claim of 450 hp. 

Surreal, do those numbers (900= 228 ~ 450=200) make ANY sense?

If the power dropped in half, and the SPEEDS dropped in half (or a huge degree), I could credit reduced airflow to fight. Not the case @ 200.

 

Unless the unrestricted cars were only giving it 3/4 throttle, but that makes zero sense, too.

 

- - - - -

Elliot did an unrestricted run @ Talledega and the car went 28 MPH faster.

Restricted cars are running 200 with 725-750 HP.

How are 450 HP cars running anywhere near 200? This is not a question of 'amazing', but of 'how'?

The current Sprint cup series cars make 725 hp, they lowered it from around 850.  I read one of the Waltrips said that 204 mph is the about the max speed for a stock car to stay on the ground with the air flaps they have on them.   Elliot's all time record speed is 228 mph, but today's cars are slower.   I think they can still hit 200 mph with 450 hp because a lot of that is based off the draft, in a group you don't have as much air so the cars use that draft to add speed and maintain it.  Plus gearing comes into play, on Talladega or Daytona they are mostly running a constant speed or in the 175-200 mph window.  

 

A Corvette can hit 180 mph or so with 450 hp and it isn't made for a race track.  An AMG GT has a top speed of 190 mph with 500 hp.   So with racing in mind and the drafting I think 200 mph is doable on 450 hp.  The acceleration is lessened, but they don't need acceleration at Daytona.

 

A Veyron has a 268 mph top speed though, in a straight line it would destroy any race car, F1, Indy, LeMans, NASCAR doesn't matter.  The Veyron isn't good in corners, but on a track like Talledega or Daytona where corning ability is not really needed, I think the Veyron could compete with a Nascar.  Not an Indy cary though as they would hold their speed in the turns better.

 

What we need is someone to lap a Veyron around Indy speedway, Daytona or Talledega so see how fast it is.

[Cory Wolfe]

That's an interesting claim. From the link :

 

 

 

If we take 200 mph as a nice round terminal velocity for a restricted engine, removing the plates and doubling the engine power to 900 hp would only increase the terminal velocity for the unrestricted engine to 252 mph.

 

The unrestricted record for Talledega is 228. Pre-restrictor qualifying laps were around 212 MPH IIRC.

I'm not seeing the math that dropping 450 HP results in a decrease of only 12 MPH. If they went to 250 HP, could they still hit 180?

 

I don't understand why we're talking about Nascar, but...

 

You're only looking at this from a single angle. Talladega is but a 2.66 mile track. You are not going to reach terminal velocity on a track of that shape and size. The track in which the Veyron achieved its record has a straight that is 5.4 miles; That's just the straight, not including the corners or the other half of the giant track. The listed terminal velocity of 252 is likely accurate for an unrestricted Nascar racer outside the confines of a track such as Talladega. The key here is that its limits are greater than the track allows. Add a restrictor plate, reduce the horsepower to 450, and 200 mph is also likely accurate. Taking into consideration the weight (listed as 3250lbs), the aerodynamics, and cornering ability, its likely that the terminal velocity is going to be less than what the track allows. Is it really that crazy to think terminal velocity for a vehicle of that weight, power, and aero is as much as 200 mph? Case in point, a 2006 Corvette Z06 weighs about 3150lbs with 505 horspower and was drag limited to 198 mph. I bet it wouldn't take much tweaking of the aerodynamics and gearing to exceed that. Furthermore, my cutesy VW with its measly 200hp, porky 3200lbs, stubby profile and without its electric limiter is drag limited to 150 mph. This isn't the 1950's, afterall.

[Suaviloquent]

I don't want to read any of these NASCAR comments. Someone do a TL:DR!!!

[ocnblu]

I don't want to read any of these NASCAR comments. Someone do a TL:DR!!!

It's so awesome though that this thread has taken a high-oval turn away from the original, rather ho-hum subject. 

[balthazar]

To return to subject :: much like many downplaying comments WRT the CT6's athletic abilities over it's competitors, people aren't going to take this price tier of car to the drag str—

 

 

 

oh. nvrmnd.

[ccap41]

The 228 MPH run was in 2012- certainly not much different from then to now (restrictor plates aside).

The article was written in 2004. 

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/news/rusty-runs-unrestricted-car-news

 

You had me second guessing my reading there! lol 

[ccap41]

 

I have to question the claim of 450 hp. 

Surreal, do those numbers (900= 228 ~ 450=200) make ANY sense?

If the power dropped in half, and the SPEEDS dropped in half (or a huge degree), I could credit reduced airflow to fight. Not the case @ 200.

 

Unless the unrestricted cars were only giving it 3/4 throttle, but that makes zero sense, too.

 

- - - - -

Elliot did an unrestricted run @ Talledega and the car went 28 MPH faster.

Restricted cars are running 200 with 725-750 HP.

How are 450 HP cars running anywhere near 200? This is not a question of 'amazing', but of 'how'?

The current Sprint cup series cars make 725 hp, they lowered it from around 850.  I read one of the Waltrips said that 204 mph is the about the max speed for a stock car to stay on the ground with the air flaps they have on them.   Elliot's all time record speed is 228 mph, but today's cars are slower.   I think they can still hit 200 mph with 450 hp because a lot of that is based off the draft, in a group you don't have as much air so the cars use that draft to add speed and maintain it.  Plus gearing comes into play, on Talladega or Daytona they are mostly running a constant speed or in the 175-200 mph window.  

 

A Corvette can hit 180 mph or so with 450 hp and it isn't made for a race track.  An AMG GT has a top speed of 190 mph with 500 hp.   So with racing in mind and the drafting I think 200 mph is doable on 450 hp.  The acceleration is lessened, but they don't need acceleration at Daytona.

 

A Veyron has a 268 mph top speed though, in a straight line it would destroy any race car, F1, Indy, LeMans, NASCAR doesn't matter.  The Veyron isn't good in corners, but on a track like Talledega or Daytona where corning ability is not really needed, I think the Veyron could compete with a Nascar.  Not an Indy cary though as they would hold their speed in the turns better.

 

What we need is someone to lap a Veyron around Indy speedway, Daytona or Talledega so see how fast it is.

 

190mph in the corners isn't exactly slowing down much for the Sprint Cup cars at Daytona and Talladega. There is no way a Veyron could take those turns at that speed. Actually, it probably couldn't go through the tri-ovals without letting off. 

 

Indy would be a no-contest for a Sprint Cup car. Those are real corners which the Veyron would look stupid. Full horsepower and real turns. 

 

I actually don't know i it would destroy an F1 car to 100, 150 mph. An F1 car can do 0-100-0 in under 5 seconds. 

 

"The 2006 F1 cars have a power-to-weight ratio of 1,250 hp/t (0.93 kW/kg). Theoretically this would allow the car to reach 100 km/h (60 mph) in less than 1 second. However the massive power cannot be converted to motion at low speeds due to traction loss and the usual figure is 2 seconds to reach 100 km/h (60 mph). After about 130 km/h (80 mph) traction loss is minimal due to the combined effect of the car moving faster and the downforce, hence continuing to accelerate the car at a very high rate. The figures are (for the 2006 Renault R26):^{[citation needed]}

• 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph): 1.7 seconds
• 0 to 200 km/h (124 mph): 3.8 seconds
• 0 to 300 km/h (186 mph): 8.6 seconds"
•  

"Britain's Autocar magazine recently gathered a formidable roster of supercars (and one of the greatest sportbikes ever produced) for its annual 0-100-0 showdown.

The winner of the gathering was the Bugatti Veyron, which continues to walk the walk like no supercar before it. Consider the breakdown of the Veyron's performance:

• 0-60: 2.8 seconds (!)
• 0-100: 5.5 seconds (double-!)

By the time the car came to a stop, 9.9 seconds had elapsed."

 

The bottom line. The Veyron is not a race car. It will not beat true race cars at what they are designed to do, race. 

To return to subject :: much like many downplaying comments WRT the CT6's athletic abilities over it's competitors, people aren't going to take this price tier of car to the drag str—

 

 

 

oh. nvrmnd.

Hahaha 

 

There are always the enthusiasts who get their hands on anything they want.. In this case, Teslas. 

[G. David Felt]

WOW learning something every day here at C&G.

 

NEDRA - National Electric Drag Racing Association

 

There is some sweet rides drag racing and some freakin funny ones also. 

 

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=electric+drag+racing&qpvt=Electric+Drag+Racing&FORM=VDRE

 

http://www.spike.com/video-clips/5izp10/electric-car-drag-race

 

 

World's Fastest Electric Dragster 7.596 at 159.85 MPH

 

[G. David Felt]

Don Garlits made it even faster.

 

DON GARLITS 7.25@184mph SR-37 electric dragster