Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bugatti has broken the 300mph barrier

topgear.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 302 posts

Re: Bugatti has broken the 300mph barrier

#41

Post by ollie87 »

mrweasel wrote: post #37
ollie87 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mmmmhmmm, don't really see it as an issue here given that not many folks are going to be buying a £2.5m hypercar to drive at three times the speedlimit to work on a Monday morning.

True, but that just makes the whole exercise even more pointless. There's really no point in building a car that can go above 150km/h, but perhaps some of the aerodynamics can translate into more fuel efficient car. I'm also slightly annoyed by the usage of the word "barrier". There's physical or perceived 300mph barrier. People have built cars that will go a super sonic speeds, so there was never any doubt that it w…

A lot of things humans do are pointless, but all the same we do them. Doesn't stop it being fun does it?

Re: Bugatti has broken the 300mph barrier

#42

Post by simias »

kijin wrote: post #8
steve_taylor wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s 490.48 km/h (304.77 mph).

Why is the "300mph barrier" even a thing when we're talking about a French-turned-Italian-turned-German automaker doing test runs in Germany? They only barrier they need to care about is the metric one at 500km/h.

It makes for good marketing in countries still using miles obviously. They'd be stupid not to publicize it.

Re: Bugatti has broken the 300mph barrier

#43

Post by jdietrich »

adrianN wrote: post #30
tialaramex wrote: post #13

It's futile to actually have road-legal cars that go this fast because you can't do very much useful with the speed. This is much too fast for the human operator (driver) to safely react to things outside the cockpit, which is why for example Britain owns trains capable of 140mph in service but deliberately limits them to 125mph. Tests suggested drivers couldn't be relied on to reliably observe and react to a linesid…

A train going faster than 25mph or so is already too fast for the operator to react (braking distances are huge!), so I doubt that the top speed is limited for that reason.

The driver can't usefully brake in response to a person on the track, but they do need to be able to brake in response to a trackside signal. At 140mph, braking distances are greater than sighting distances - by the time you've seen a signal, it's too late to stop. That's catastrophic in a fixed-block signalling system, which can only detect the presence or absence of a train in a particular signalling block; if you end up with two trains in the same block, you've got to run the whole line at a crawl to restore safe separation distances between trains.

High speed trains universally use moving-block signalling with in-cab signal indication; rather than relying on fixed trackside signal lights, the signalling system constantly tracks the exact location of each train, creates a virtual signal block around that train and indicates signal aspects and line speeds to the driver on a display in the driving cab.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_signalling#Fixed_block

Re: Bugatti has broken the 300mph barrier

#44

Post by jacquesm »

Svip wrote: post #25
tialaramex wrote: post #13

It's futile to actually have road-legal cars that go this fast because you can't do very much useful with the speed. This is much too fast for the human operator (driver) to safely react to things outside the cockpit, which is why for example Britain owns trains capable of 140mph in service but deliberately limits them to 125mph. Tests suggested drivers couldn't be relied on to reliably observe and react to a linesid…

This is why the TGV has no signals. Instead it uses a radio communication system. If no radio signal is received within a time frame, the train will warn the driver, and eventually stop. If a train has to perform an emergency stop, all other trains behind it are informed via the same system. If the driver does not react, the train will stop itself. There is a reason why the TGV has seen no accidents since its launch…

The most important reason why the TGV has not had any accidents is actually a really simple one: it only runs on very high quality rails with large turn radii and excellent maintenance of the railbed.

Re: Bugatti has broken the 300mph barrier

#45

Post by jsiepkes »

Svip wrote: post #25
tialaramex wrote: post #13

It's futile to actually have road-legal cars that go this fast because you can't do very much useful with the speed. This is much too fast for the human operator (driver) to safely react to things outside the cockpit, which is why for example Britain owns trains capable of 140mph in service but deliberately limits them to 125mph. Tests suggested drivers couldn't be relied on to reliably observe and react to a linesid…

This is why the TGV has no signals. Instead it uses a radio communication system. If no radio signal is received within a time frame, the train will warn the driver, and eventually stop. If a train has to perform an emergency stop, all other trains behind it are informed via the same system. If the driver does not react, the train will stop itself. There is a reason why the TGV has seen no accidents since its launch…

While it may be safe, no accidents since launch might be a bit of an overstatement: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_TGV_accidents

Re: Bugatti has broken the 300mph barrier

#46

Post by krapp »

edejong wrote: post #39
jlg23 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's futile .... But it is fun .

This got me thinking. Once I thought it was fun , but the more I look at it, the more I feel it is utterly pointless. A racing car has a function: to get around a track faster than other cars (over a period of laps). To do this, it needs to be versatile: turning, braking, acceleration, fuel consumption, range of vision and suspension (among others) play a role. That's the true engineering challenge. It's why it has w…

The pointlessness is kind of the point, along with a bit of juvenile thrill. These cars are a display of wealth and excess. You're telling the world you can afford this much power and don't need to worry about things like utility or efficiency, and maybe you'll just keep it in a garage or drive it around a track, but still you can have a car so powerful it's almost illegal and most people can't.

Re: Bugatti has broken the 300mph barrier

#47

Post by SCdF »

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

Re: Bugatti has broken the 300mph barrier

#48

Post by MrGilbert »

It's pretty impressive.

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

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

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

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

Re: Bugatti has broken the 300mph barrier

#49

Post by mytailorisrich »

tialaramex wrote: post #13

It's futile to actually have road-legal cars that go this fast because you can't do very much useful with the speed. This is much too fast for the human operator (driver) to safely react to things outside the cockpit, which is why for example Britain owns trains capable of 140mph in service but deliberately limits them to 125mph. Tests suggested drivers couldn't be relied on to reliably observe and react to a linesid…

Bugatti and all supercar manufacturers are in the "futile" business.

Re: Bugatti has broken the 300mph barrier

#50

Post by dvdbloc »

mrweasel wrote: post #37
ollie87 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mmmmhmmm, don't really see it as an issue here given that not many folks are going to be buying a £2.5m hypercar to drive at three times the speedlimit to work on a Monday morning.

True, but that just makes the whole exercise even more pointless. There's really no point in building a car that can go above 150km/h, but perhaps some of the aerodynamics can translate into more fuel efficient car. I'm also slightly annoyed by the usage of the word "barrier". There's physical or perceived 300mph barrier. People have built cars that will go a super sonic speeds, so there was never any doubt that it w…

I know you are probably just speaking in jest but "faster" is all relative. If you put this Bugatti in an F1 race, it probably wouldn't win. They are both engineered to do their very specific things.
Post reply on HN