Hypercars

[Zynerji]

KTM GT-XR

transverse 5-cyl
7 spd DCT
1250 kilo kerb

https://www.pistonheads.com/news/ph-eur ... t-xr/46177
https://images.pistonheads.com/nimg/461 ... 116969.jpg
https://images.pistonheads.com/nimg/461 ... 006865.jpg

My fav! An I5 C8 Corvette!

[johnny comelately]

Mate Rimac explains (nearly) everything and almost sans benzino, very instructive
One interesting thing is the difference in the F1 battery flood cooling and the road batteries with end cooling plates.

[vorticism]

The Nevera’s headline 0-400-0kph time (400kph is 249mph) was 29.93 seconds. That’s a second quicker than the previous record holder, the Koenigsegg Regera, which set a time of 31.49 seconds in 2019. A Bugatti Chiron, for context, managed 32.6 seconds to do an equivalent run. The Nevera also posted a 0-60mph time of 1.74 seconds, 0-100mph in 3.21 seconds, and 0-200mph in 10.86 seconds. It also ran the quarter-mile in 8.25 seconds.

https://www.pistonheads.com/news/genera ... cord/47217

[Greg Locock]

1250 kilo kerb

That's superficially impressive, if it meets crash. OTOH a single seater, so that's saved about 20 kg at least, and I'm guessing no airbags and no crash structure.

[ValeVida46]

Rimac: Because if you look at Bugatti, it's all based on the W-16 engine, which is almost two decades old. It is an amazing powerplant that created the hypercar business. [...]

The F1 was probably the first hypercar in reality, but the Veyron certainly put a big flag in the ground on the summit of that particular automotive mountain.

Some might even suggest the F40 and the 959 as being the first hypercars. They were certainly a level above the previous generation of supercars. But the F1 was a step again above them. Actually, probably two steps and thus the first hypercar.

I have to disagree. The F40 preceded the F1 by 5 years, in a decade where every year a new breakthrough allowed for huge leaps in performance and tech, as demonstrated between a '86 BMW 3 series vs a 1991 BMW 3 series.
What Ferrari did so brilliantly with this car is keep the weight low, which was around 250kgs+ lower than the directly comparable 959, and keep everything as basic as possible. Obviously, Gordon Murray was not a fan because it was as basic as a farm shed to him:

It's not even '60s technology, from a frame point of view, it's '50s twin-tube technology, not even a spaceframe. It's only got local frames to hold the bulkhead to the dash, attach the front suspension, rear suspension and roll bar. And then you have the marketing Kevlar glues in with a quarter-inch of rubber

However, the critical thing is that while the F1 was designed with precision, tech and all sorts of fancy ideology, the Ferrari was the antithesis of the F1 going for simplicity over complexity to achieve the same targets. That the F40 could live with a McLaren F1 in competizione guise many years after the original F40 came out (Shocks, mostly the standard engine with more boost(700bhp)) is proof positive that far from the F1 being 2 steps ahead, the F40 was still ball park F1 territory which is a huge achievement.

A bit like that fabled (sadly false) tale of NASA ingeniously developing a pen that would work in zero gravity space.
The Russians simply took a pencil.

[SiLo]

clipped

The colour combo on that Nevera is lovely.

[Just_a_fan]

The F1 was probably the first hypercar in reality, but the Veyron certainly put a big flag in the ground on the summit of that particular automotive mountain.

Some might even suggest the F40 and the 959 as being the first hypercars. They were certainly a level above the previous generation of supercars. But the F1 was a step again above them. Actually, probably two steps and thus the first hypercar.

I have to disagree. The F40 preceded the F1 by 5 years, in a decade where every year a new breakthrough allowed for huge leaps in performance and tech, as demonstrated between a '86 BMW 3 series vs a 1991 BMW 3 series.
What Ferrari did so brilliantly with this car is keep the weight low, which was around 250kgs+ lower than the directly comparable 959, and keep everything as basic as possible. Obviously, Gordon Murray was not a fan because it was as basic as a farm shed to him:

It's not even '60s technology, from a frame point of view, it's '50s twin-tube technology, not even a spaceframe. It's only got local frames to hold the bulkhead to the dash, attach the front suspension, rear suspension and roll bar. And then you have the marketing Kevlar glues in with a quarter-inch of rubber

However, the critical thing is that while the F1 was designed with precision, tech and all sorts of fancy ideology, the Ferrari was the antithesis of the F1 going for simplicity over complexity to achieve the same targets. That the F40 could live with a McLaren F1 in competizione guise many years after the original F40 came out (Shocks, mostly the standard engine with more boost(700bhp)) is proof positive that far from the F1 being 2 steps ahead, the F40 was still ball park F1 territory which is a huge achievement.

A bit like that fabled (sadly false) tale of NASA ingeniously developing a pen that would work in zero gravity space.
The Russians simply took a pencil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXouu9O ... munication

I guess it comes down to the definition of "hypercar". The F40 wasn't that much quicker than the 959 even though it was stripped out like a race car and weighed c.200kg less. They managed that weight reduction by making it laughably basic. The F1 was lighter than both and had creature comforts and could be used as a day-to-day road car just like the 959 but had performance that neither could live with.

In race car trim, the F40 benefited from being a turbo-charged engine. Dead easy to add some boost to get more power. The F1 in racing trim had less power than the road car so an F40 being quicker with 700bhp+ over c.600bhp is hardly a surprise. What was impressive was that the F1 won Le Mans with very little work done to make it comply with the rules.

The F40 was a effectively a race car for the road. The 959 was a road car version of what would have been a Group B rally car had Group B not been cancelled. The F1 was a road car pure and simple. That the F1 was miles ahead of either of the other two speaks volumes about it.

[ValeVida46]

I guess it comes down to the definition of "hypercar". The F40 wasn't that much quicker than the 959 even though it was stripped out like a race car and weighed c.200kg less. They managed that weight reduction by making it laughably basic. The F1 was lighter than both and had creature comforts and could be used as a day-to-day road car just like the 959 but had performance that neither could live with.

In race car trim, the F40 benefited from being a turbo-charged engine. Dead easy to add some boost to get more power. The F1 in racing trim had less power than the road car so an F40 being quicker with 700bhp+ over c.600bhp is hardly a surprise. What was impressive was that the F1 won Le Mans with very little work done to make it comply with the rules.

The F40 was a effectively a race car for the road. The 959 was a road car version of what would have been a Group B rally car had Group B not been cancelled. The F1 was a road car pure and simple. That the F1 was miles ahead of either of the other two speaks volumes about it.

Adding caveats to qualify the F1...They're arbitrary.
Race car for road, Group B rally car, Basic, Turbo, Stripped out etc etc are not disqualifiers in road legal production Hypercars.
We can discount the 300SLR as that was based on a race car. AC cobra too.
And the Veyron as it used Turbos. Koenigsegg too.
Ferrari using turbos on their own engine no bueno you say. How do you reconcile that with McLaren not even building the F1's engine?

I would also be reticent to qualify the F1 as "miles ahead" given it won Le Mans, it had 5 years on the F40, with the F40 still racing 9 years after it's inception. The McLaren was only raced for 3 years(4 if you include privateers), and could not be modified to compete in any evolved racing series.
We could just as easily say the Porsche GT1 was the greatest....which used a 962 rear end from 1988, and a 993 front end from 1990, beat the McLaren handily with a similar head start.

Also, creature comforts and being used as a daily are totally not what the hypercar category is about.
Disqualifying the F40 for being poor at both, you lose what Chris Harris describes as the "greatest roadcar" of all time.

Note, I'm not downplaying the F1 as it's a masterpiece of engineering. I just don't think it's right to disqualify the F40 on parameters that literally have no deference for what it means to be a hypercar.

[Just_a_fan]

So you're a Ferrari fan. OK. Facts don't matter if they impinge on the love. Yay.

[ValeVida46]

So you're a Ferrari fan. OK. Facts don't matter if they impinge on the love. Yay.

I'm questioning why you'd say the McLaren F1 is the first hypercar because the F40 has turbos and therefore doesn't qualify.

I provided you with facts, and that at Tskuba the F40 managed a faster time than the F1. 1m.037 vs 1m.046.

If it cant have turbos, must include creature comforts, not allowed to be "laughably basic", and must be a McLaren, then yes the F1 was the first hypercar.

[Just_a_fan]

So you're a Ferrari fan. OK. Facts don't matter if they impinge on the love. Yay.

I'm questioning why you'd say the McLaren F1 is the first hypercar because the F40 has turbos and therefore doesn't qualify.

I provided you with facts, and that at Tskuba the F40 managed a faster time than the F1. 1m.037 vs 1m.046.

If it cant have turbos, must include creature comforts, not allowed to be "laughably basic", and must be a McLaren, then yes the F1 was the first hypercar.

The race version of the F40, with more power thanks to more turbo boost, was quicker than the race version of the F1 which was effectively detuned and had its clever aerodynamics removed thanks to racing car rules. That's hardly surprising, is it?

When comparing the road cars - which the term hypercar is used to describe - the F1 was miles ahead on every metric. The F40 was neck and neck with the 959. If the F40 was a hyper car before the F1, then the 959 was the first hypercar - it was as fast and hit the road first.

[ValeVida46]

The race version of the F40, with more power thanks to more turbo boost, was quicker than the race version of the F1 which was effectively detuned and had its clever aerodynamics removed thanks to racing car rules. That's hardly surprising, is it?

Turbos are a feature of the car. That it could easily get more power does not disqualify it. We may as well arbitrarily say any car should use it's own engine, thereby disqualifying the F1. Not that I would, I'm saying the metrics you are using is totally biased.

When comparing the road cars - which the term hypercar is used to describe - the F1 was miles ahead on every metric. The F40 was neck and neck with the 959. If the F40 was a hyper car before the F1, then the 959 was the first hypercar - it was as fast and hit the road first.

A Mercedes/BMW luxo barge can crush a McLaren to 100mph today. Does this now disqualify it from the argument?
The F1 had 5 years more tech to take advantage of, did not need to invest in an engine, and utilised the technology from the F1 team directly. Regardless of what succeeded the F1, the F1 remains a hypercar.

And saying the 959 is the first hypercar, well sure it came out in 1987( same year as the Ferrari), but it has Turbos....So why would you ok the Porsche and not the Ferrari? Turbos for thee, not for me
The other difference is that the F40 was archaic in terms of tech compared to the Porsche. Which should then give reason to say that advanced tech is no special requirement for making these kinds of cars.

[ValeVida46]

Schuppan made the CR in 1991. Inspired by the 962 but a bespoke chassis was made by Reynard with a carbon fibre tub.
Reminds me a bit of the Isdera Commendatore.
End results 230mph, and 0-60 in 3.4 seconds.
But it lacked creature comforts and had turbos....

[chrstphrln]

Adding caveats to qualify the F1...They're arbitrary.
Race car for road, Group B rally car, Basic, Turbo, Stripped out etc etc are not disqualifiers in road legal production Hypercars.
We can discount the 300SLR as that was based on a race car. AC cobra too.
And the Veyron as it used Turbos. Koenigsegg too.
Ferrari using turbos on their own engine no bueno you say. How do you reconcile that with McLaren not even building the F1's engine?

I would also be reticent to qualify the F1 as "miles ahead" given it won Le Mans, it had 5 years on the F40, with the F40 still racing 9 years after it's inception. The McLaren was only raced for 3 years(4 if you include privateers), and could not be modified to compete in any evolved racing series.
We could just as easily say the Porsche GT1 was the greatest....which used a 962 rear end from 1988, and a 993 front end from 1990, beat the McLaren handily with a similar head start.

Also, creature comforts and being used as a daily are totally not what the hypercar category is about.
Disqualifying the F40 for being poor at both, you lose what Chris Harris describes as the "greatest roadcar" of all time.

Note, I'm not downplaying the F1 as it's a masterpiece of engineering. I just don't think it's right to disqualify the F40 on parameters that literally have no deference for what it means to be a hypercar.

Excellent post.

[Just_a_fan]

The race version of the F40, with more power thanks to more turbo boost, was quicker than the race version of the F1 which was effectively detuned and had its clever aerodynamics removed thanks to racing car rules. That's hardly surprising, is it?

Turbos are a feature of the car. That it could easily get more power does not disqualify it. We may as well arbitrarily say any car should use it's own engine, thereby disqualifying the F1. Not that I would, I'm saying the metrics you are using is totally biased.

I was merely pointing out why the F40 race car was quicker than the F1 race car in the case that you posted back in the thread. Increasing boost from 1.1bar to 2.6bar is always going to have a massive effect on the car's performance, isn't it? It's not a disqualification, it was an observation.

When comparing the road cars - which the term hypercar is used to describe - the F1 was miles ahead on every metric. The F40 was neck and neck with the 959. If the F40 was a hyper car before the F1, then the 959 was the first hypercar - it was as fast and hit the road first.

A Mercedes/BMW luxo barge can crush a McLaren to 100mph today. Does this now disqualify it from the argument?
The F1 had 5 years more tech to take advantage of, did not need to invest in an engine, and utilised the technology from the F1 team directly. Regardless of what succeeded the F1, the F1 remains a hypercar.

And saying the 959 is the first hypercar, well sure it came out in 1987( same year as the Ferrari), but it has Turbos....So why would you ok the Porsche and not the Ferrari? Turbos for thee, not for me
The other difference is that the F40 was archaic in terms of tech compared to the Porsche. Which should then give reason to say that advanced tech is no special requirement for making these kinds of cars.

It's not all about 0-60 times, but we are comparing cars from 3 decades ago. A modern hot hatch would piss all over a Ferrari, Lambo or Porsche from the 60s. Woo hoo.

The F1 did "invest in an engine" - it was built specifically for them by BMW after Honda got cold feet and wouldn't play. The F40, however, used an engine derived from the Dino V8 (also used by the 308 and the 288GTO (the real competitor for the 959 as both of them were originally intended for Grp B)). So the F40 didn't have to invest in an engine where the F1 did.

As for the 959 / F40. You claimed that the F40 was the first hypercar. I'm just pointing out that the 959 was first and it was basically the same, in terms of performance, and thus would be the first hypercar if you think the F1 wasn't.

As it happens, many commentators put the F1 as the first hypercar, with the F40 and 959 being the pinnacle of the supercar brigade. Which seems eminently reasonable when considering the performance of the three and their various competitors. We have left the hypercars behind now, anyway, with the move to megacars (as Koenigsegg refers to them) such as the Swedish cars and the Bugatti stable.