I said it would be my last one, but it's a lazy day and your hatred is just too funny not to answer :'D
"is reality of enough substance to you, german?"
No, because NONE of these cars actually is a Veyron. Neither would even the 1077hp by Speedking explain how your method would work, especially not since you ignore downforce and bend numbers to your liking.
"Poor idìot, do you think people do not know how to make a search on google?"
Obviously you can't. The Agera R shares its whole existence with the base Agera and is just modified to be able to run on E85. To quote your own link:
"As 95 octane fuel has less octane than ethanol E85, the power is reduced to 960hp with 1100Nm of torque due to the boost pressure and ignition timing being altered to match the fuel characteristics."
That's EXACTLY the numbers the base Agera has. What a surprise! The Agera RS however shares the base with the One:1, including almost all the aero except the back wing and one instead of two frontal flap pairs.
"prototype xp5 we do not know the power of"
It's not a turbo engine ffs, it won't suddenly increase the power by over 200hp out of nowhere, especially not with the rev limit just 700rpm above stock and a limited fuel injection.
"What was the temperature during the attempt?"
About 8-10°C, historical weather shows it was a pretty cold month. And with it comes increased wind resistance of course.
"if a formula shows german serial cheaters are lying on power"
Didn't know Koenigsegg or McLaren are German... you're not doing yourself a favour claiming fraud beforehand either, that's a Trump move.
"Rolling resistance of xp3 at 371km/h is 63hp on road tyres according to what you claim to be a faulty formula"
Actually it's 62kW, which is 84hp... and I even took the Chiron's tire pressure, however, the tire pressure for cars below 400kph never was communicated above 2.8 bar (e.g. Koengisegg CCX), in that case it would be even 95hp.
"Nardò temperature was close to 40C, always according to McLaren, which means 461hp drag resistance. Total: less than 524hp."
Actually 556hp then. Leaves 20hp for losses, even for me that's not enough ;)
But there's another HUGE problem you're completely forgetting about... Nardo being an oval and therefore g-force increasing the normal force (banked curve) AND lateral forces (bank is only designed for up to 240kph), both vastly increasing friction. Quoting the book:
"Even on Nardo's vast banking, at the speed the computer said it could do, the F1 would be cornering very hard indeed"
There's a reason why I didn't take Nardo as an example ;)
"You are so stupìd, you are not even able to bring up examples which prove your claims"
Yea, because Nardo was such a good example... oh dear. Veyron, Chiron SS300+, Agera RS, McLaren F1 Ehra Lessien. Should be enough already I thought. And yes, I'll come back to those in the end. Additionally, here's the Veyron SS as well:
Has 1200hp, a cd 0.35, A 2.1m^2, rho was 1.208kg/m^3 that day, weighs 1950kg without downforce. Wind resistance would be 1036hp then.
Rolling resistance would be 47hp with my formula, leaves 10.8% in losses. Rolling resistance would be 172hp with your formula, 8hp too much for losses at all.
"And when the "force of the tread shuffle pushing outwards and the weight pushing back become equal", what happens to the rolling resistance? Please do not be shy, say it bluntly."
You STILL don't get it, do you? When your tread shuffle gets smaller, the force gets smaller as well. However, that force does NOT apply to the tire contacting the asphalt, it ONLY applies to the tire stretching itself against the car's weight. Guess I'm just thinking too far right now and you don't get it...
"Veyron 407kmh [...] Rolling resistance=145hp @3.2 bar tyres pressure"
The Veyron has 3 bar pressure. Makes 158hp according to you. Total resistance higher than the claimed horses without even mentioning losses.
"easily offset by regular german cars power underestimation."
This is a hypercar, not a Golf. But what a cozy excuse it is, huh? :D
"Rolling resistance=135hp @3.2 bar" (Agera RS)
Koenigsegg never communicated 3.2 bar either, but who cares, took it anyway as well. You left out downforce. A One:1 does 830kg at top speed in aero setting (otherwise it wouldn't even reach 440kph), the Agera RS does 485kg at 250kph when the wing is up (One:1 610kg at 260kph), is it too much to assume at least 400kg for the Agera RS at top speed in aero setting? Then that would be 165hp, not 135hp.
"Drag resistance 965hp @15C" (Agera RS)
It was a bit warmer, and I included that. Anyway, as I said, the Agera RS shares its base with the One:1, which has 0.45, and on which Koenigsegg claims 440kph. The Agera RS just did a mere 7kph more. With a cd of 0.4, that would be 1170hp in wind resistance then, not 965hp - and 0.4 is a reach in your favour. The total would then make 1337hp - again, before losses. And I calculated to your favour!
Take a deep look at both. One:1:
And now compare it to the car you took:
And the Agera:
I hope you realize yourself that the Agera R doesn't have any frontal flaps, no side flap, a more closed off frontal bonnet and a far smaller spoiler. Not to mention the resistance through bigger cooling system not visible in the pictures. The only difference from the Agera R to the base Agera however is the rear wing, and both claim the exact same amount of downforce.
Sure it is... going round a corner at such a rate that they had to replace the tire because of security concerns :'D
"Let's see you claimed 3 cars would show the formula [...] by Reza N. Jazar [...] is useless"
No, I just said it wouldn't work in this case and thus added there must be more to it, simple as that.
"Maybe you should provide an explaination about this shìt you have been spreading around the world for at least a century."
I'm only 28 years old, and the Third Reich has fallen 75 years ago. Right now I only see one racist, and that's you.
Just take the L, before you'll get a heart attack :D
We're already turning in circles and you'll keep denying, so that's really the "farewell" for me now. Bye.