Faster than a Veyron

[Blitzen]

1) The F1 isn't really a track monster. In fact, as far as supercars go, most modern ones will own it. So will an F40.

2)The Veyron is just as one-trick as the SSC and don't let anyone allow you to believe otherwise. They're both straight line warriors that can't really do anything else.

1)Thats right......Thats why both of theses won Sports car endurances(F40: 4 Hours of Vallelunga, 4 Hours of Anderstorp), and the F1 winning Le Mans in 1995, as well as comming 3rd, 4th, 5th and 13th outright, and in 1996, finished 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th and 11th.
The F1 also also won the 1996 JGTC, 1st and 3rd in the 1996 FIA GT Championship, as well as a number of victories and places in various championships between 1995 and 2000, so clearly, a track monster, the F1 isn't... And it did all of this without turbo's!!!
2)Until you or I has driven a Veyron or SSC, we can both hardly comment, BUT, with the SCC having the typical American approach to fast cars(HUUUUGE engine, but why use the steering wheel as nothing more than a suggestion).
The Veyron has been proven that it can actually do more than drive fast in a straight line, and deploy its airbrake when it needs to. Having lapped the Nurburgring in 7min 40sec, it has proven that it is a quick beast. I doubt the SSC would know what to do when it got to a corner other than swap end from end until it found the nearest armco.
Like I said earlier, I am very biased toward the F1, but as an over all package, I think the Veyron has it over the SSC, and to paraphrase Pump Duse..."don't let anyone allow you to believe otherwise..."

[Pumpe-Düse]

1)Thats right......Thats why both of theses won Sports car endurances(F40: 4 Hours of Vallelunga, 4 Hours of Anderstorp), and the F1 winning Le Mans in 1995, as well as comming 3rd, 4th, 5th and 13th outright, and in 1996, finished 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th and 11th.
The F1 also also won the 1996 JGTC, 1st and 3rd in the 1996 FIA GT Championship, as well as a number of victories and places in various championships between 1995 and 2000, so clearly, a track monster, the F1 isn't... And it did all of this without turbo's!!!
2)Until you or I has driven a Veyron or SSC, we can both hardly comment, BUT, with the SCC having the typical American approach to fast cars(HUUUUGE engine, but why use the steering wheel as nothing more than a suggestion).
The Veyron has been proven that it can actually do more than drive fast in a straight line, and deploy its airbrake when it needs to. Having lapped the Nurburgring in 7min 40sec, it has proven that it is a quick beast. I doubt the SSC would know what to do when it got to a corner other than swap end from end until it found the nearest armco.
Like I said earlier, I am very biased toward the F1, but as an over all package, I think the Veyron has it over the SSC, and to paraphrase Pump Duse..."don't let anyone allow you to believe otherwise..."

Professional competition race cars have no relevance to road cars at all, so your first paragraph is null and void.

7:40 around the 'ring for a car that has 736kW 1250Nm, can pull a high 9 1/4 and 2.3 sec 0-100km/h is pretty crap. Considering that a much slower 911 Turbo can beat it (7:38.), or a Viper SRT-10 ACR (a stripped Viper with some suspension revisions) can do 7:22.1. 1950kg and big size = fail at turns. Physics.

[Blitzen]

Professional competition race cars have no relevance to road cars at all, so your first paragraph is null and void.

7:40 around the 'ring for a car that has 736kW 1250Nm, can pull a high 9 1/4 and 2.3 sec 0-100km/h is pretty crap. Considering that a much slower 911 Turbo can beat it (7:38.), or a Viper SRT-10 ACR (a stripped Viper with some suspension revisions) can do 7:22.1. 1950kg and big size = fail at turns. Physics.

The first paragraph was a retort to you saying that the F40 and F1 were not track cars, and I proved they were, so you saying that they have no relevance to road cars just proves that your first statement was wrong in the first place.

This is true about it not being as fast as it could be, but even the Viper wasn't stock(Racing seat, stripped, and revised suspention are not stock). Until we see the SSC on the "Ring", you previous comment is null and void also.

Maybe should see how an XR4 and XR6 Turbo go against the SSC...

[Pumpe-Düse]

The first paragraph was a retort to you saying that the F40 and F1 were not track cars, and I proved they were, so you saying that they have no relevance to road cars just proves that your first statement was wrong in the first place.

This is true about it not being as fast as it could be, but even the Viper wasn't stock(Racing seat, stripped, and revised suspention are not stock). Until we see the SSC on the "Ring", you previous comment is null and void also.

Maybe should see how an XR4 and XR6 Turbo go against the SSC...

Racing seat, stripped and revised suspension are stock. Its an SRT-10 ACR. The ACR Viper is like a GT3 RS Porsche.

The fact that there are racecars based on the F40 and F1 means nothing. There are racecars based on Falcons and Commodores, what's your point? You proved nothing except that some racecars that look like McLaren F1's beat other racecars that look like Ferrari F40's. The road cars are a completley different kettle of fish.

Also, I only said the McLaren F1 wasn't a track car, and it wasn't. Gordon Murray didn't want it to be. He wanted it to be the ultimate road car. It was to be a daily driver. It makes too many sacrifices to be a true track car in the name of streetability and civility. The barebones F40 on the other hand, doesn't. Even with the major power and acceleration deficit, the F40 was still capable of keeping ahead of the McLaren F1 on most tracks (road car vs road cars, racecars that have nothing in common with them are of no relevance).

Example

[Blitzen]

The fact that there are racecars based on the F40 and F1 means nothing. There are racecars based on Falcons and Commodores, what's your point? You proved nothing except that some racecars that look like McLaren F1's beat other racecars that look like Ferrari F40's. The road cars are a completley different kettle of fish.

Also, I only said the McLaren F1 wasn't a track car, and it wasn't. Gordon Murray didn't want it to be. He wanted it to be the ultimate road car. It was to be a daily driver. It makes too many sacrifices to be a true track car in the name of streetability and civility. The barebones F40 on the other hand, doesn't. Even with the major power and acceleration deficit, the F40 was still capable of keeping ahead of the McLaren F1 on most tracks (road car vs road cars, racecars that have nothing in common with them are of no relevance).

The fact that alot of F1's have been converted from race cars back to road cars(for example, GTR chassis number 06R ex Herrods car) proves that these cars wern't just made to "look" like track going road cars.

As you have shown in this and your other arguments before, when you dig your holes, you don't dig upwards like you should, instead you go to some obscure source to try and prove your point and convince yourself.

If it helps you sleep, good for you, but like your arguments about the Ford XR4 and XR6T, you don't have me or many other convinced. Maybe because of Shelby's relation to Ford has you siding with them again.
I suggest you go and buy a toy of the SSC to go along with your XR4 and XR6T, and play them off against each other.

[Pumpe-Düse]

The fact that alot of F1's have been converted from race cars back to road cars(for example, GTR chassis number 06R ex Herrods car) proves that these cars wern't just made to "look" like track going road cars.

As you have shown in this and your other arguments before, when you dig your holes, you don't dig upwards like you should, instead you go to some obscure source to try and prove your point and convince yourself.

If it helps you sleep, good for you, but like your arguments about the Ford XR4 and XR6T, you don't have me or many other convinced. Maybe because of Shelby's relation to Ford has you siding with them again.
I suggest you go and buy a toy of the SSC to go along with your XR4 and XR6T, and play them off against each other.

The SSC Ultimate Aero, Shelby Sports Cars, has no relation to Carroll Shelby who made the Shelby Mustangs and Cobras in the 60s nor the Ford Motor Copmany. The engine in it is actually based on a Chevrolet design. They started off building Lamborghini Diablo kit cars in the 1990's before producing their own vehicle.

Don't have many others convinced? You're the only one posting, I don't see any others?

I don't use obscure sources at all. How is a website dedicated to compiling data on sports cars and their track times, from real sources, in the case of McLaren F1 vs Ferrari F40 on Tsukuba its from Best Motoring (surely you've heard of that mob?), obscure?

Lots of racecars can be converted to road cars, what's your point? Look up the Porsche-Dauer 962 LeMans, one of the fastest supercars ever, made from converted 962 chassis' into road cars. Made into a road car from a car never intended to be one. Same deal with the Schuppan 962CR. Two quick examples. The original 75 McLaren F1 production cars sold were not, never have been and never will be intended as a track car. Murray wanted them to be the ultimate road cars and said so himself on many an occasion. Just because you think its a track car because there's a racing 'version,' of it means nothing. It made many performance sacrifices to be a civil street car. Its closest rival at the time, the F40, was the polar opposite. Nothing was getting in the way of its on-track prowess. That's why with 200hp less power, far slower acceleration, it can easily monster a McLaren F1 production car on-track.

Believe what you will, I am giving you facts. Your resorting to childish behaviour (read - last paragraph) just brings you down.

[RhysQ]

no-ones posting because...

A) they can't be bothered reading short stories for posts on crap you'll forget when you blink, and

B) they just don't care!

[Blitzen]

Believe what you will, I am giving you facts. Your resorting to childish behaviour (read - last paragraph) just brings you down.

I believe I am a child, I believe some of the facts you have provide(far from all though), and I am down with the funky sh*t....

[Pumpe-Düse]

I believe I am a child, I believe some of the facts you have provide(far from all though), and I am down with the funky sh*t....

lol.

[Oneofthegreats]

This thread is a joke I reckon sorry & has gone so far off topic, I'm lost.

Maybe you should actually look harder & find out about some of the thing's you've posed & re-read them carefully!

They don't make these race car's into road car's or road car's into race car's.

They're all purpose built to be one or the other.

That's why they make both race version's & road going version's , cause the manufacturer's have to meet homologation requirement's to race & have to build a certain amount of road going version's to meet the standard to be allowed to race.

Have anyone of you actually seen a road going say Porsche GT1 or a Leman's addition GT1 up close?

I can safely say I have when I worked at the motorshow's & they're not even in the same league!

How did this thread fall so far off topic?

I still reckon this statement stand's.

I suggest you go and buy a toy of the SSC to go along with your XR4 and XR6T, and play them off against each other.