Coming in 2007, 1012bhp, eat ya heart out Bugatti

http://www.bristolcars.co.uk/FighterT.htm

Dan,

Quote :

A potential maximum speed of more than 270 mph has been electronically limited to a more than sufficient 225 mph

Boo

I am sure we could whip that bugger off in no time

£351,000? cheap though, aint it LOL

Dan,

I can just see the entry in some crack-related site:


Weird looking rear that car has.

What happens when you twin turbocharge a Dodge Viper's engine to 1000+bhp and mount it to a chassis MUCH more effecient than a Veyron's? Hmmm......

The real problem with the bugatti was that it was built around arbitrary targets (e.g. MUST have 1000ps and 245mph top speed) and had it's appearance revealed WAY too early n development. Usuually with such potent machines the car starts with a basic bodystyle which is modified to work aerodynamically before it is even shown. Instead, they worked the other way round, forcing themselves to make this aerodynamically (and stylistically) disasterous shape to stick to generate sufficient downforce without generating too much drag. The shape itself generates MASSIVE aero lift. Then there's all the radiators required to keep the 1000hp thing well-cooled, adding again MORE drag.

The final nail in the coffin is the fact that the McLaren F-1 could reach the same top speed with only around 750hp. All while sticking on the ground with no obvious spoiler (besides the tiny one at the back that pops up partially at high speeds).

Quote from xaotik :

I can just see the entry in some crack-related site:


Fighter T (c) Bristol Cars
RELEASE.DATE ............ : 09/2007 :: SUPPLIER ........ : M3chMike
RELEASE.SIZE ............. : 1 CAR :: PACKER .......... : M3chMike
PROTECTION ................ : SpdLmt :: CRACKER .............. : M3chJoe


Weird looking rear that car has.

LOL nice one.

Dan,

0-60 in 3.5 seconds, the buggati would still nail it...

yea, the 3,5 is WAY TO SLOW , bugatti accelerates like a rocket , man...

there is no way on earth 3.5 secs is slow...........

Bristols are far too overpriced for what they are. Theoretical top speed, eh? I'll call BS on that until I see it.

Quote from danowat :

there is no way on earth 3.5 secs is slow...........

Bah, at anything over 3 seconds you fall asleep. What a pitiful performance.

But at least it won't be a girly 4WD car like the Veyron (hence the traction limited time for 0-60).

In fact, Bristol might have a vague chance of making a supercar that a car lover could actually like, because there hasn't been a good supercar since the F1.

I'd choose 4wd Veyron, atleast i'd have better control over car, but hey, Some people like RWD more, so i don't blame them

So, Tristan, you mean Formula F1, or Mclaren F1?

EDIT: And, btw, i just saw Fifth Gear Subaru Sti-25 video on internet, which has 415 horsepower and can go 0-60 in 3,8 seconds.

This is not a supercar, this is just a hyper muscle car. Wonder when will topgear test it.

Quote from whitey6272 :

0-60 in 3.5 seconds, the buggati would still nail it...

There's one simple reason for that slow time: sheer LACK of traction.

With so much power, 4WD is the only solution if you want to actually put your insane levels of power to the ground instead of sending those precious horses into a cloud of tire smoke. TC helps, but again the tire's longitudinal grip limits maximum acceleration.

There's no substitute for sheer longitudinal grip.

It does weigh much less then the Veyron though, so agility will be superior.

Quote from tristancliffe :

But at least it won't be a girly 4WD car like the Veyron (hence the traction limited time for 0-60).

In fact, Bristol might have a vague chance of making a supercar that a car lover could actually like, because there hasn't been a good supercar since the F1.

A matter of opinion of course, I think it's fair to think 4wd is a genuine option when you have 1000bhp+, and I don't think any road car with that sort of time-stopping performance could be called "girly"

Also a matter of opinion, but I'm frequently surprised by how strongly opinionated you are about a lot of cars. You either love them, or they suck
Certainly not McLaren F1 beaters, but Zonda Fs, Carrera GTs, even, dare I say it, Enzos are at least "good supercars" if not great.

Why should it kick the bugattis ass? Because the extra 11hp? I dont think so^^Looks really great....until you reach the rear,where it looks ugly as hell

I have the opinion of 'I love it' or 'they're crap' because that's how I view most cars.

Enzo - too many computers, and looks like it's been designed by a squirrel.
Zonda - too much attention to detail makes styling fussy. Capable mechanically though.
Carrera GT - just not that good compared to the others. The Audi of supercars (no one will notice you in one anymore).
McLarenF1 - no computers, lots of power, vaguely usable, bit too much understeer. Still my number 1 supercar
Veyron - Ugly PR exercise, neutered by huge weight and 4WD.

The McLaren and the Porsche (and I hate 99% of Porsches so far) are easily the most characterful. The MC12 thingy would be, but it's just an Enzo underneath.

So whilst you can the BEST car on earth, I might hate it. But you can have the worst car on earth and I might love it. If I neither love nor hate a car (i.e. it's in the middle) then it'll usually get's filed under Grannies Shopping Car or Completely Disinteresting or Computerised or 4WD (or cross-referenced under several).

Now you know the Tristan Guide to Rating Cars (abridged version).

That general shape of rear is needed to prevent the bodywork acting like a wing, IIRC the Bristol Fighter is like the only road car with zero rear end lift.

Traction is a MASSIVE problem for a car that powerful.

Analysing using road tyres and estimating the missing data I'm getting the follow results:
0-60 mph: 3.5 seconds
0-100 mph: 6.3 seconds
0-150 mph: 10.6 seconds
277mph top speed
Acceleration is traction limited until about 100mph

Now with AWD (still rubbered with road tyres and assuming no extra drivetrain losses are involved):
0-60 mph: 2.6 seconds
0-100 mph: 5.0 seconds
0-150 mph: 10 seconds
Acceleration is traction limited until about 65mph

for $225,000 i'd rather have http://www.hennesseyperformanc ... o+SRT&ActionReq=Where

Performance:
0-60 mph: 2.9 sec.
0-100 mph: 5.8 sec.
0-150 mph: 10.9 sec.
0-200 mph: 19.6 sec.
Top Speed: 255 mph

To me the car looks like a morph between the Viper and the old Corvette's from the 70's. Would be nice to see one in person =)

the Engine sounds like the engine Hennessy made for their 800TT Venom Viper93 just tweaked =)

Ofcourse AWD is going to be quicker in 0-60, duh. You cannot compare the veryon to this in 0-60 because of the veryon AWD.

this car weighs in at 1595 or 3500 pounds, not too bad, a bit on the heavy side, but hey it has a V10 =)

Quote from danowat :

there is no way on earth 3.5 secs is slow...........

it is pretty slow lol
over 1000 hp and 3,5 secs...something is wrong there :P

Quote from S0ul :

Why should it kick the bugattis ass?

Lack of excess mass does wonders for decreasing moment of inertia and top end performance, when downforce comes to play.

Unnecessary mass is always bad. It slows the car's acceleration/braking down, wastes fuel, increases load on drivetrain and generally increases wear and tear on all major components. Then you compensate by using a BIGGER and more powerful engine, which will weigh more again, whilst increasing drivetrain mass due to the need for extra-beefy hardware... and the viscious cycle continues.

In my opinion it looks similar to the Dodge Viper, with a really messed up rear end.

Quote from Jamexing :

Lack of excess mass does wonders for increasing moment of inertia

I think you need to retake a physics or dynamics class or something. A vehicle with more mass is harder to stop, i.e, has more inertia. And moment of inertia has to do with rotation about an axis.

Quote from NetDemon01 :

I think you need to retake a physics or dynamics class or something. A vehicle with more mass is harder to stop, i.e, has more inertia. And moment of inertia has to do with rotation about an axis.

It's a typo. That's all. Now it's fixed.

For a massless bar with 2 masses of equal mass:

I = MR^2

I = moment of inertia
R = radius of turn (half the bar's length, length is form COG of mass 1 to COG of mass 2)
M = combined mass of the 2 objects

So I is mostly R dominated, but M has a significant linear effect too.