Talk:Gumpert Apollo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Driving Upside-down[edit]

http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/gumpert-apollo-ceiling - I Quote: "Weighing in at just 1,100kg thanks to a carbon-fibre monocoque, the Apollo generates 1,500kg of downforce at 200mph - theoretically enabling it to drive upside down." note that this article also claims , I quote again: "That's good for a top speed of 224mph, which would presumably be even higher if it wasn't for all the downforce." because there is much less friction on the tires when the car is driven upside down, theoretically htis would mean that the car could reach a speed higher than 224mph, and if 200mph generates 400Kg of downforce more than the weight of the car at 200mph, this would almost certainly allow it to drive upside down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarzEz (talk • contribs) 22:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please cite that theoretical upsidedown driving claim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.46.88 (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hammond made the claim for them on the episode of Top Gear when it was tested. He stated that Gumpert was going to actually test this claim in a tunnel they'd picked. However, the physics of the claim don't make sense. 190 mph is most likely the speed at which the Apollo doubles its own weight from aerodynamic downforce. Because of this, supposedly the upwards force when the car is upside down would cancel out the force of gravity. Unfortunately, that means that the normal force between the tires and the ceiling of the tunnel is almost zero, therefore the tires have no grip, and with no grip they would be unable to overcome the aerodynamic drag present at 190 mph, so it would immediately drop below the necessary speed and fall to the ground.--199.111.186.135 (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^But this thing makes 300kg more downforce than it weighs. If that's enough to counter the normal force the tires need to keep up top speed (which I strongly believe), this thing can still ceiling crawl. 207.210.29.71 (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Same guy as 199.111.186.135) 300 kilos of downforce more than the weight of the car means 300 kilos of normal force between tire and ceiling. Your typical supercar generates about 1.2 g in the average corner. F=ma, F=1100kg*(1.2*10m/s^2)=13,200N. If we assume that in a 3rd gear corner it generates more than 100kg of downforce (not an outrageous claim at all), and realize that tires on ceiling tile have much less grip than tires on asphalt, the tires are gonna generate less than 20% of that figure, probably quite a lot less, but being generous, let's say 3000N of grip. Aerodynamic drag is calculated as F=.5*p*v^2*Cd*A. p (mass density) in 20-degree air is about 1.2kg/m^3, Cd (coefficient of drag) for the Gumpert is supposedly about .43, v=220mph=98m/s, A (frontal area) is greater than 2m^2 (about 2 meters wide a 1 meter tall). F=.5*1.2*(98m/s)^2*.43*2=5000N of aerodynamic drag pushing it back. Unless you can find better math for it, you can't put the claim in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kickflipthecat (talk • contribs) 02:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck the Top Gear record in a 'Trivia' section instead of part of the opening paragraph, because although many people do know what Top Gear is, we can't expect the whole of the English speaking community to appreciate what the record really means, and therefore its not important enough to be in the opening section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunsnroses15 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it is stated on the gumpert homepage (http://www.gumpert.de/eng/index_html.html) under the "Apollo" tab that this is possible. i have added a citation. MarzEz (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They can say whatever they want. It doesn't make it true. I'm going to add that the claim has not been proven. Don't delete it.--Kickflipthecat (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is why it is merely stated as a claim. If it was ever actually done I think the article would be making more of a big deal of it. With the lack of any reference challenging the claim; whether it is true or not is not for this article, of its editors, to decide. The reader can read the claim and decide themselves. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the dubious nature of the claim, I don't think it's right to just go by their word. It doesn't have any challengers because people (other than myself) can't be bothered to do the math, or those who can don't have magazine columns they can publish it in. You've seen the math. A realtor can claim that inside a certain house 2 + 2 = 5, and we can see that that's idiocy, but if it was technical math involved, a lot of people wouldn't realize the dubious nature of the claim. It's like the guy who said it would be the fastest supercar in the world in a few years. Just because the manufacturer made the claim doesn't make it any more legitimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kickflipthecat (talk • contribs) 18:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is that you're smarter than other readers, so they need your disclaimer added to the claim to help them out. Even if this was true (and it may be), Wikipedia doesn't work this way. You state what is said, and who said it, and let the reader decide. What you don't do is state what is said, then add your own personal questioning of its veracity. It doesn't take a genius to realise that just because the manufacturer says it doesn't make it true. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is this talk page is like a glass cage where you can say anything but you can't reach out to people and tell them. I'm trying to push more people to look at the mathematical backup and you're saying that's unacceptable. I want to stop people from spreading this rumor as truth that will soon be proven, which the manufacturer seems to be trying to do since they've told motor journalists what to say on the matter. From this fairly simple math, I conclude that the Gumpert doesn't have enough grip for the claim to be valid, but I can't bring them to the talk page and I don't have something to publish the information in, so how am I supposed to get people to listen to me? There's a lot of talk about free speech- free speech means every viewpoint gets heard before people make decisions about what to think and many people can't see that. Objective means you don't try and inaccurately portray one side of a debate. This seems to me to be a lot like saying evolution is just a theory and deleting the edits of the guy who says, "but scientists around the world have largely come to a consensus in support of evolution." He has a right to say that in that debate, and I have a right to say Gumpert's claim is dubious here.--Kickflipthecat (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't. Wikipedia is not some place for you to 'get people to listen to you'. Your calculations are not "one side of the debate". Your calculations are, like practically all Wikipedia editors', not notable original research. And in the example you give; well fortunately plenty of cites can be provided that show "scientists around the world have largely come to a consensus". We are not reliant on the edits of one guy.
It's unfortunate, but true. If you want to campaign about this you'll need to start your campaign elsewhere. In the meantime I hope you can agree that my edit makes it clear that this is a claim, for what it is worth, not an actual occurrence. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the Koenigsegg CCX briefly had a mention in the CCXR section that closed-door testing had shown potential top speeds of over 260 mph. That was supposedly an actual fact- something that had actually happened, but it was removed from the article. Your edit leaves certain things ambiguous- I read that and think this may just be speculation, or it may already have been tested and proven, the company just hasn't gone public with it. Saying it remains to be tested removes that ambiguity. I'm not saying put on the page that it's not true. And I still disagree with your argument that my math is invalid as original research. If I randomly add two numbers whose sum has never been written down, that's technically original research, but it's also completely valid assuming I'm correct. I haven't seen anyone say my math is wrong, so I don't think it's unreasonable to have people read that sentence and have reasonable doubts to the claim's validity.--Kickflipthecat (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it hasn't been tested, you'll have a cite that says that? Or are you speculating that it hasn't been tested? You don't know, do you? All you are basing this statement on is on you own calculations. As I've said before; whether your calculations are correct or not is irrelevant. Wikipedia works on Verifiability not truth. If you want the statement to remain then cite it. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was mentioned in the same episode of Top Gear where the lap record was broken. They haven't found a driver who wants to do it and nothing I've seen suggests they have. I imagine it's fine to cite Top Gear, since each piece they do is supposed to be factual and of an academic nature.--Kickflipthecat (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Engine section[edit]

The engine section is full of buzzwords. Anyone who knows engine building or just basic auto engineering principals will recognize this. I'm not up to it now, but this section needs a POV review; the bombastic language is designed to impress laypeople while saying nothing really noteworthy.

76.180.85.236 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

in Re: to the above comment - The engine statement contains a series of facts about the engine. I see no buzzwords bombast. I'm familiar with automotive engineering, and yes, I do build engines.

76.180.193.15 (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so tell me why it is necessary to know that this engine is equipped with a "3-way catalytic converter" or "four Lambda probes for gas mixture and diagnostics" or "Engine Management ME7.11"? most modern engines are equipped with these things. i'm sursprise there's no mention that it is eqipped with spark plugs.. i agree with the first comment: the paragraph on the engine is way too impressed with itself and half of its content is unnecessary - we dont see porsche bragging about its fabulous bosch engine management, do we?--87.171.97.167 (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burnout Revenge[edit]

This car IS the Alienware car. 207.210.29.71 (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^[edit]

Great Scryer_360 (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the engine[edit]

The page says that it's a 4.2l V8 from Audi. Now, Top Gear claims (last episode from the 11th season) that this is the same V8 that is used in the Audi R8, or S4, or even RS4, except that in this car, it has been fit with two turbochargers. As this is a V8, I suppose there must be one turbocharger per cylinder bank. This would only be very logical, but is not made clear in the current page.

If we acknowledge the fact that the basis for the engine in this car _is_ the aforementioned V8 (which would not be surprising at all - heck, its specific power output is more than 100 hp/l in the current Audi RS4, for one), we can reasonably assume that yes, the engine _is_ the same. ASSUME, not assert. But what other engine could this be based on anyway? I know Top Gear is here mostly for entertainment, but I know for sure that they won't be telling blatant lies about anything car related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.20.157.58 (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gumpert Apollo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gumpert Apollo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gumpert Apollo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gumpert_Apollo&oldid=1202505135"