Official Countach disagreement poll. No it isn't. Yes it is.

[mik]

not keen on those side skirts...

Nupe. Has to be round-belly for me.

The skirts are one of the main things that ruins the Anniversary for me. Although the front spoiler, fussy wheels, puffy rear light panel and lower rear aero "thing" are all a significant backward step for me too. Not a huge fan of the revised intakes either but they don't offend me quite as much.




vs perfect (for me.... Harry's car of course.... actually the same in black would probably be perfect, but hey)

[240PP]

Cannonball Run spec without the front wing, for me. Whatever that one’s called. LP400 S?

[Rich B]

Christ they look awful without the wing!!!

I do love the cannonball one, but the front wing and exhausts are too much. I'd definitely have black as a preference though.

[mik]

Yes - Cannon Ball Run was an LP400S with apltly named spoilers at each end.

Here is a replica with even more awesume rear end mods.

[mik]

Christ they look awesome without the wing!!!

I know!

[Gavster]

Christ they look awesome without the wing!!!

I completely disagree!

Spoilers FTW

[Mito Man]

The body kit needs the spoiler otherwise it’s the car equivalent of a body builder that skips leg day.

[nuttinnew]

I'll have to check but istr legislative reasons were the reason for the Anniversary (poss.US bumper regs ). I'm sure I heard mention of it somewhere. It won't change how it looks or what you think of those looks of course, but maybe feel for L'ghini rather .
Picking a favourite is difficult, it can depend more on how individual car is specced.

[mik]

I'll have to check but istr legislative reasons were the reason for the Anniversary

Harry talked about it before - safety regs (not US) so things like bodywork had to extend beyond exhaust tips etc.

[nuttinnew]

I'll have to check but istr legislative reasons were the reason for the Anniversary

Harry talked about it before - safety regs (not US) so things like bodywork had to extend beyond exhaust tips etc.

No surprise it was Harry talking about it

[mik]

Back in the day Fast Lane magazine figured a newly released 455bhp Countach QV (driven by Pierluigi Martini) at 195mph. This part of the test had to be done on the Autostrada - which I don't think was closed - with mag editor Peter Dron (now verified) doing the timing using the km posts. This was a 2-way average speed.

Mr Martini advised that adding the rear wing wiped 15mph from Vmax. Lets assume that is 180mph (ie 92.3% of the lower-drag configuration).

Messing around with excel during a meeting (for interest only - no attempt to influence opinions) > as we know that Power requirement varies with the cube of speed - some rough numbers :

> A wingless QV could achieve the 180mph Vmax of a winged QV using only 357bhp (which is pretty much what an LP400S pushes out).
> Conversely, a winged QV would need 578bhp to reach the 195mph Vmax of a wingless QV.
> With 578bhp a wingless QV could achieve 211mph (nah not really - the test above noted that the car was already going beyond the stated redline to reach 195).

[Jimmy Choo]

Mik, none of us bothered to read any of that.

If you want the ultimate driving machine, a Cuntach is the wrong car. You get it because it's outrageous, preposterous and even today looks like the US military would shoot it out of the sky because it looks too alien. I'm allowing your weird round belly, wingless perversion because even though you're wrong, you're right.

Q.E.MF.D.

[Gavster]

I’m revising my vote to whatever this is

[Gavster]

https://www.lambopower.com/forum/upload ... 770507.jpg

[Gavster]

If you want the ultimate driving machine, a Cuntach is the wrong car.

I’m choosing purely by whatever is going to look best when I’m not driving it, because I’ll spend more time looking than I ever will behind the wheel, let alone driving fast

[Mito Man]

I’m not sure how upset I’ll be knowing my Countach is lacking 15mph top end whilst I’m driving around the French Riviera at all of 60 mph towards my yacht in Monaco with supermodel wife sitting beside me.

[Rich B]

Can someone do the testing to see how much the wide arches affect top speed?

[Jobbo]

Mik, none of us bothered to read any of that.

I still have that copy of Fast Lane so read it in the 1980s. So for at least 35 years it's been better without the rear wing and that won't change.

The Anniversary's main crime is the rear lights, IMO; the rest of the changes aren't too awful in themselves but the taillights are so wonderful on all Countachs up to and including the QV that sticking some which look borrowed from a van in a plastic surround is utterly bizarre.

[nuttinnew]

Mik, none of us bothered to read any of that.

I still have that copy of Fast Lane so read it in the 1980s. So for at least 35 years it's been better without the rear wing and that won't change.

Does it mention anything about lift or stability?
(I've probably got a copy...somewhere...).

[Jobbo]

I think it mentioned something about not being unstable at top speed without the wing, and the wing only adding drag not downforce. But it’s a long time since I read it.