WHAT MAKES A SUPERCAR SUPER?

When I was a kid, two posters were ever-presents on my bedroom wall. The first was a poster of a Debbie Harry in a slightly risque outfit. The second was a black Lamborghini Countach. It was an LP400S, with the big wing on the back and it was disappearing down an arrow-straight desert road into the setting sun. Nothing could say supercar more eloquently than a Countach. Not only was it eye-wateringly expensive and searingly quick, it was also ludicrously impractical and, from an eight year old's perspective, impossibly cool.

But what defines a supercar? That's a question that has never really been clearly defined. The job was a lot easier before 1992. Until that year the established supercar set included the likes of the Lamborghini Diablo, the Ferrari F40 and the Porsche 959 and the rules were straightforward. If it was low, sleek and nudged 200mph, it was a supercar. Then, all in the same year, the Bugatti EB110SS, the Jaguar XJ220 and the real game changer, the McLaren F1 arrived. The term 'hypercar' was coined to cover these next level vehicles and the waters got muddied. They've stayed muddy ever since.



Today's hypercars would certainly include the Bugatti Veyron. Probably the Koenigsegg CCX-R and the Pagani Huayra. Beyond that we're into the realms of argument. Perhaps it's easier to whittle down the list by defining what's not a supercar. A BMW M5 might top 200mph with its speed restrictor removed, but it's a saloon car and that excludes it. A Caterham R500 would set a pace around a track that a Countach could never hope to approach but it's just too cheap and nerdy to be a supercar. Honda NSX? Despite the Ayrton Senna associations, an NSX is too sensible. You can see out o...