Record Breaking attempt Koenigsegg One:1 ends up breaking itself
They say you cannot make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Well it turns out you cannot break the Nurburgring lap record without breaking some Koenigseggs! (ba dum tss)
Puns aside, this one One:1 that had been running laps in preparation for an attempt to take away the production lap record from the Porsche 918 Spyder has had a...
Read more on this...
Results 1 to 20 of 30
Record Breaking attempt Koenigsegg One:1 ends up breaking itself
Wow what a pun!
Im sure it'll buff out
TDU Online again - 28.09.2014
Uplay : RobikV3
Yes, because Koenigsegg released an official statement on their own facebook page about it. It was a test car, and it was driven by one of the factory test drivers who was brought to hospital by standard procedures but was released quickly after.
Koenigsegg Automotive AB can confirm reports online that a Koenigsegg One:1 was involved in a crash during testing as part of Industry Pool at the Nurburgring on Monday, 18 July. The driver was taken to hospital as per standard procedures in such situations and was released the same afternoon.
Koenigsegg has participated in Industry Pool testing for a week in each of the last two months, working primarily on vehicle setups both for ongoing vehicle development and for an attempt at a Nurburgring lap record at some time in the future.
A Koenigsegg is an extreme performance car and must be tested accordingly. This is an inherently dangerous undertaking that must be conducted progressively and methodically, working point by point on all areas of our highly adjustable vehicles. Our primary concern is always driver safety and any testing is structured and conducted accordingly.
This incident is confirmation of just how difficult it is to drive at this level on the world’s ultimate proving ground. Obviously we are dismayed with this development but pleased that our safety systems worked as designed to protect our driver.
@CLR: That's not entirely clear either but after further searching I found that this car is Koeni's own and was apparently bought from the private owner last year.
I'm a bit mental.
I don't see why it's not at all clear but ok, maybe I'm just applying the wrong common sense to the story then that Industry-Pool means industry-only with full responsibility and insurances at the manufacturer, something that's not the case with a privately owned vehicle that will most likely have been modified to get road approval.
Why I say it's not clear is because all it says is "testing" and "tested" in places and nowhere is there a simple 'the car which is factory owned' type mention. Unless I am missing something with the Industry Pool in some way determining only factory cars being allowed?
Help me out here. Where is it obvious in that admittance that the car is owned by them? It's not that I don't believe you, I'm just wanting to see what I missed in the text.I'm a bit mental.
Don't all manufacturers who test at the 'ring use 'test vehicles' (however each classifies them)? Otherwise @Koenigsomelette wouldn't have responded at all. Not that it really impacts your story.
Grammar needs some attention though.
Being that there is only seven One:1’s in existence
This is why I want to bring on an editor or two. I like to write but man am I terrible at it.I'm a bit mental.
Happy to read over anything as that doesn't take 90 minutes
Here it is: the crashed Koenigsegg was One:1 number #107. It was delivered to a german customer in 2014 but bought back by Koenigsegg. They will rebuild it, btw.
Little wonder, ofcourse they need special insurance and legal conditions to meet before they participate in Industry Pool. And you can't get that done with a privately owned vehicle under regular insurances.
And where does it say that? I don't know how to make this any clearer. What you have said above is not in that excerpt by Koenigsegg unless I cannot see it for seeing it!!I'm a bit mental.
I can't make it clearer that you can't enter industry pool manufacturer sessions with a customer owned road-insured vehicle. That's just common sense plus a little bit of knowledge I have from my Spyker job and a colleague who did certification for them. Test vehicles need special documenation and insurances and the manufacturers need to comply with special regulation before they can get such an approval for a car. It's not as easy as getting your Big Brother label on a car and you're suddenly able to floor it anywhere you want. Let alone a customer who pays so much money for a car, only to not drive it himself but have it filled with measuring equipment all over the place and have somebody else flat it out on a track. Kind of silly would that be.
I never stated the info in my last post was in the press release. It was stated by a dutch source. Also, the license plate is not german but swedish, since the german plate was D FU 107. Just by typing Koenigsegg #107 in google gives you more than enough info. Also:
107 - One:1 Clear CF Gold? - Page 4 - BMW M5 Forum and M6 Forums
2014 Koenigsegg CCX (YAK136), Svart / 1366 hk pĂĄ biluppgifter.se
Agreed it's not the same license plate as visible on the pictures, I assume there are some exemptions or possibilities there for small manufacturers. Also a quote:
Many times I referenced what Koenigsegg said and you kept posting quotes that I couldn't find said by them. The info you have shared above is what I found out after seeing what TDUFREAK500 said and hence I made the change to the article. But the way you were talking it sounded like this wasn't even needed as Koenigsegg had already admitted it somewhere.I'm a bit mental.
Sorry for being unable to smell what you have and have not found on the internet. But then it still leaves me with some questions:
So, the info I shared above is what you found out. You voiced doubts about it being a manufacturer testing vehicle. Where does it state that #107 was privately owned by a customer on the date of the crash? If you see those links to the swedish registration database, you can see it's been bought back by Koenigsegg. Why do you still have to question it's current form of ownership then? It's owned by Koenigsegg, not by a customer.
There must be a language barrier issue or something going on here as it should be completely clear what happened and why there was confusion through all this. I was going to break it down but there's really no point.
All I will say is, if you cannot make out what happened after post #6 then just please stop.I'm a bit mental.
Koenigsegg's detailed analysis: Koenigsegg Analysis Of Nurburgring Accident - Koenigsegg | Koenigsegg
Pretty unexpected if you ask me, most manufacturers go silent when their test vehicle crashes.
Re the ownership of the car: