"Top Speed Isn't Important Anymore."

Aston Martin

Proudly supports terrible french cars
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
15,642
Location
Hull, England
Car(s)
Cactus and Panda Classic
This months EVO is a 'speed issue' they asked Lambo and SSC "Is top speed still important?"


Jerod Shelby of SSC
Yes.
"Top speed matters from an engineering and design standpoint because it's the most difficult performance specification to meet.
To achieve top speeds takes a perfect combination of aerodynamics, stability and down-force, an extremely durable powerplant and gearbox, robust cooling systems, and of course a massive mechanical and aero braking systems. We used the top speed record to gain notoriety and credibility, although it was a double edged sword as the cars amazing handling characteristics were overshadowed."


Stephan Winkelmann of Lambo
No.
"Until a few years ago our priorities were in this order - top speed, acceleration and then handling, in recent years this has been changing. Handling and acceleration are becoming more important. Top speed is not as important anymore, because all supercars are able to exceed 300KMH and this is a speed you cannot reach on a racetrack, let alone normal roads. The key factor in terms of better handling and acceleration, meaning more immediate pleasure in driving, is the power-to-weight ratio. This is not so much about top speed, so the future will not be so focused on increasing power. The key is in reducing weight."



jerod-shelby.jpg

482f557617e80_normal.jpg
 
Last edited:
<puts flamesuit>
I am with Stephen Winkelmann.
300km/h is enough for anyone.
Give me handling and acceleration over a bonkers top speed.
 
It matters to SSC because they can't compete on anything else. For everyone else, it isn't important.
 
Lets quote Top Gear Magazine's Paul Horrell
But that's an original I'm driving. The spectacular white car in this gallery is its yet-unnamed replacement. Which will have some vital driver aids, but will also have another 150-odd horses, better aero and a whole lot less weight. Oh. Good. Grief.

It's not so much that SSC can't compete on anything else, they need the Top Speed record to be able to compete at all.
 
They chose the douchiest-looking picture of Jerod Shelby with the slickest photo of Winkelmann. Of course Winkelmann is right.

(Though Winkelmann looks like that all the time, anyway. Don't hate on that dope-ass Italian/German steez.)
 
^
I chose the pictures. :p
In my defence that's the only Jared one I could find, and well a Reventon is a Reventon.
 
Neither one is wrong, they are just two ideas on how to build a supercar. The new SSC is infinitely more exciting than any Lamborghini I've seen yet:


ssc_ultimate_aero_2_images_main.jpg



I like how completely outrageous the stying is...even more so than the Reventon.
 
Well this is going to turn into a USA vs. Europe flame war in short order, but before it does I'll say that if a car will do 200mph that's more than enough for my enjoyment to not be inhibited. How often do you hit that speed? 0.0001% of the time you drive? The other 99.9999% of the time how it goes about getting to 200, slows down for the bits you can't do 200 around and how it goes around those bits is more important to your driving pleasure.
 
Lets quote Top Gear Magazine's Paul Horrell.

I read the article. He never got to drive the new one and found the old one better than expected,but still not really good. He has his hopes up the new one will be besser, but that's hardly what i'd call hard evidence for any side.
 
I agree, you almost never get to get to the top speed, the acceleration is what matters.
 
I'm not saying that going 275mph is really relevant. Going 200mph isn't really relevant for a car that will be driven primarily on public roads. What I am saying is that the idea that SSC couldn't build a car that would be competitive in performance with other cars is a fallacy, and that the next SSC will be lighter, easier to control, faster, and more powerful.

SSC needs the top speed record for the publicity and notoriety, so that they can sell their cars. The next SSC will further prove that to be a reality.
 
Ask more manufacturers and it'll be a foregone conclusion, laughing at SSC (basically).

Of course SSC is gonna say it's important cos it's the only damn selling point of their cars.
 
Last edited:
If I recall correctly, the motorcycle top speed wars ended when I was in high school (late 1990s) with a "gentleman's agreement" between the companies. Since then, the competition has been lightest weight, best handling, and best ability to put the power down. The results have been fantastic.

Top speed is overrated.
 
I'm with the welldressed german on this one.
 
For SSC top speed is a way of making their name. I think they succeeded, because this new company is well recognised. Since it's very hard (or even impossible) for a new car to make a car which can compete with Ferrari or Lambo. Of course I agree that acceleration and handling is more important in on a street or on a track. Nevertheless top speed is a very good marketing move.

But still, anyone have some numbers about how SSC really performs? Any on track comparison? Is it closer to the 480 bhp Datsun with a big boot or the 690 bhp mad Gumpert?
 
For SSC top speed is a way of making their name. I think they succeeded, because this new company is well recognised. Since it's very hard (or even impossible) for a new car to make a car which can compete with Ferrari or Lambo. Of course I agree that acceleration and handling is more important in on a street or on a track. Nevertheless top speed is a very good marketing move.

But still, anyone have some numbers about how SSC really performs? Any on track comparison? Is it closer to the 480 bhp Datsun with a big boot or the 690 bhp mad Gumpert?
Zonda and Koeniggsegg managed to compete w/o having to have retarded top speed. I seen the Jay Leno review of the Aero, that thing is a race car inside, no interior basically. Personally I wouldn't bother buying something like that over any of the other established marques.
 
Top