Talk:Bugatti Veyron

Improving this article

I have made a temporary subpage in my user page to act as a “frame” to build up a rewritten version of this article. I have started with creating a well made outline for everyone to follow. Add in or change anything you like, but please note all edits, however minor they may be. This is so that a better version (cleaned up) may be made without disrupting the current one. —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 23:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a number of the gratuitous Top Gear references can be removed? This is not an advertisement for the television programme. Certainly there are other sources of credible information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.198.3 (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

W-Engine or DoubleV

In the German Wikipedia its not "a real" W-Engine its a Double-V that looks like a W-Engine. They show the picture, that is shown here in the W-Engine article, as a Double-V. VW himself call them W-Engine but technically its not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.64.49.144 (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Number to be produced

Does anyone have a reliable source that proves that Bugatti plans to produce 300 Veyrons? —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 23:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Errors in Kinematics of article

Quote: //Aerodynamic friction or drag is proportional to the square of the speed. That means to cover a a given distance at twice a given speed the engine must do four times the work to cover the distance at the given speed. Further, by going twice as fast, the engine must do that work in half the time. Therefore, to go twice the given speed requires eight times the power required to go the given speed.//

This is incorrect. Drag quadrouples when speed doubles. The author makes an error by including distance in the discussion. Air resistance quadrouples, necessitating four times the horsepower to drive at double the current speed - in terms of aerodynamic drag. Not sure where the "8 times the power" reference is from. In fact, seeing as speed is doubled, it takes 1/2 the time to cover a given distance. Therefore to drive at twice the speed over a given distance, requires twice the energy.

210.9.200.35 (talk) 05:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This calculation in the article confused me, too, and at first I also thought it would be wrong. However, power is the product of the force you have to overcome multiplied by the speed you travel at: P=F*v. The force in this case is mainly the aerodynamic friction (but also mechanical friction). If v doubles, the aerodynamic friction - meaning the force to overcome - quadrouples. That means, to double your speed you need the power P_faster = 4F*2v = 8P. Or am I thinking wrong here? --92.195.76.234 (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

23/12/08

Just use the equations: Power is equal to work done divided by the time taken (P=W/t). Work done is equal to the force applied multiplied by the distance travelled (W=Fd).So it follows that P=Fd/t. Distance divided by time is equal to Velocity, so P=FV. The drag force (F) is calculated from the air density (rho), surface area of the car (S), the velocity of the car (V) and the coefficient of drag (CD) using the equation F=1/2*rho*V^2*S*CD, so if we double the velocity we increase the drag force by a factor of 4. So doubling velocity gives us P2=(4F1)*(2V1), or P2=8F1V1, where F1 and V1 are the drag force and velocity at the original speed and P2 is the power required when the speed is doubled. Doubling the speed increases the power required by a factor of 8. In reality there are other factors, but this is a close approximation at high speed when aerodynamic drag can be said to dominate.

Street legal or not??

The article states that this car is street legal, but according to a review I have seen on it, it is not. What then is the point of buying this car?Davez621 (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It is street legal. 90.212.120.86 (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Not in Australia it's not. Davez621 (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Do any Australians besides Rupert Murdoch have that kind of scratch?

Yes, plenty do. I believe someone here has already bought one (or at least ordered one). Anyway, there's a difference between being able to afford something and actually buying something. Australians don't splash out nearly as much as Americans do.Davez621 (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The way it is written now does not necessarily imply that it is road-legal in every country. As for the point of buying one, that is subjective. You could try to ask an owner, I suppose... swaq 21:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Get off wikipedia if you are going to be obnoxious ozkidzez91 (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC) --> Who cares about Australia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.209.129 (talk) 06:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The Veyron is defenitely street legal in Germany, the U.K., France (and probably most countries of the EU) as well as the U.S.A. --92.195.76.234 (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If it isn't strictly road-legal in Australia, presumably you have something like the SVA (Single Vehicle Approval, as opposed to "type approval" of volume cars) that kit-car builders and hot-rodders must pass to get their cars on the road in the UK. I guess we'll see when that rich aussie's car hits oz, assuming they aren't leaving it at their house in another country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.183.201 (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely street legal in the U.S. I saw one for the first time today (in San Jose, CA) and nearly ran my own car off the road while staring at that STUNNINGLY GORGEOUS work of art! I am in love... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.47.202 (talk) 06:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC) It's not street legal in Canada. An example of another car is a 94-95 Dodge Spirit, which cannot be imported into Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitebro (talk • contribs) 15:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

most expensive car?

I read this article because I recall reading that this car was or is the most expensive car in the world, which isn't mentioned here. Is this, in fact, the world's heftiest purcase price for a street-legal car? - Alan 24.184.184.177 (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It is the most expensive street-legal production car in the world. --Ctrlfreak13 (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

you go buddy drop a clutch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.72.122.94 (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The numbers don't match up

It says that the car goes from 0-150mph in 9.8 seconds, then a few lines later it says the car reaches a speed of 143mph in 10.2 seconds in the quarter mile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.127.174 (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The article actually states that the 1/4 mile time is obviously faster than what that one source states. The times are from different sources, so there will be inconsistencies (altitude and weather heavily affect this) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeldest (talk • contribs) 19:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Most likely you'll find the 0-150mph times were recorded by repeated attempts with a proper test-driver employed by Bugatti, on an optimal track. The quarter-mile times were most likely recorded in a few passes by a motoring journalist on the nearest drag-strip or runway. After the Bugatti PR guy told him "DON'T BREAK THE £1,000,000 CAR!!!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.183.201 (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I wrote to Bugatti SAS regarding this issue, and according to them, the correct 1/4 mile time is 9.8 seconds. I also have Bugatti veyron's brochure which says 9.8 seconds to 1/4 mile.

Is this the right word?

There is a quote from a Mexican magazine that's translated to English. It uses the word "stucked" ("it stucked in about 850 CV"). I don't know Spanish, can someone check what it should be? --Theeldest (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If you offer the original word and its context, or a link to it, may be... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.86.163.88 (talk) 09:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Tyres

What tyres does it use to go at 407km/h?

Tyres are one of the most important parts of a car. In Formula 1 tyres are one of the most talked about things, along with engines and drivers.

Can somebody find out what tyres it uses and put that info in the specifications of this page? Tri400 (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe they're specially-made Bridgestone tires. —Mr. Grim Reaper at 04:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

They are actually Michelin - they use the Michelin PAX run-flat system, and the tyres are the Pilot Sport PS2 tread patern. HTH. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You miss spelled Tires.--Brainiack16 (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

They misspelled tires. And they used the British English spellingRacerx11 (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean they DIDN'T misspell tyres. British/Australian/American English have different spellings, your way isn't the only right way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozkidzez91 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Fastest car?

It appears like the Ultima GTR is the fastest accelerating and decelerating car in the world, not the Bugatti Veyron.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_GTR

http://www.ultimasports.co.uk/gtr/

Maybe this can be fixed to give credit to the right car? 206.248.128.31 (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No, people, the Veyron is quicker to 60 mph than the GTR. The GTR does 0-60 in 2.6 seconds, whereas, the Veyron does it in 2.46 seconds. Furthermore, this article states that it can reach 150 mph in 9.8 seconds over the 1/4 mile, making it the most rapid accelerating production car in history. So there, end of story. --Tony Feld (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not as simple as that - AFAIK, the Ultima holds the world record at 2.6 seconds, whereas 2.46 for the Bugatti is just a manufacturer's claim. I've never seen test figures of less than 2.7 secs for the Bug, does anyone know of any? Jellyfish dave (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong again, idiots! The fastest-accelerating car is the Red Victor 1 with a 0-60 time of just 1 second. Try to beat that! --Doy-doy people (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The fastest car is the satanic machine http://www.perrotfeeler.com/Vehic1.htm (400 m in 3.5s, 621km/h), it is is still a car :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.30.139.86 (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

RV1 isnt a production car, its a one off mod. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.20 (talk) 11:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The record will be broken then the [Ariel_Atom#Ariel_Atom_500|Ariel atom 500] reaches production, the 0-60 time at least Thomashauk (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say yes.--Purz12 (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

                                                            This is the fastest car in the world

popular culture

I think it's worth mentioning that the first video game to license the Veyron was Need for Speed Pro Street (via the energizer lithium pack). Before that, Volkswagen wouldn't license it to anyone.

Also, does anyone know why Volkswagen originally didn't want to license the Veyron (at least that's what they say on the Forza 2 forums every time someone asks for it as DLC)? They pretty much gave the developers of Beetle Adventure Racing for the N64 free reign with the (then) new beetle and that was a flagship model as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.104.40 (talk) 05:23, 16 July, 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a video game appearance is notable unless it has some sort of significant impact on the vehicle. I'm certain no one will be buying a Veyron because they saw it in a video game. swaq 21:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sports Car?

Can this really be classified as a sports car? Why not Ultra-mega-super-car? 76.71.209.129 (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Because that wouldn't be a neutral point of view. Also, we don't use the term supercar, see the following discussions:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 11#Car Classifications
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 11#Supercar eradication
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 12#Return of the Supercar category
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 13#Supercars
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supercars
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 11#Category:Supercars
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 22#Category:Supercar swaq 16:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In strict definition, this is not a sports car. The sports car article itself makes at least four mentions of low weight being a common goal of cars in that category. (Volkswagen clearly did not consider weight an issue when designing the Veyron.) Comfort, passenger space, and ride quality were given consideration, which is further evidence that this is more like a grand tourer than anything else. --ColinMB (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you're probably right. swaq 16:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Errors of Kinematics

Drag is square law but the power needed to overcome it is a cube law and I have seen it stated in physics books but I have never understood the proof. It is also true if you apply it to road cars. Pick a car where the manufacturer fits a large ranges of engines - maybe BMW 5 series. For example a 520d with 177bhp will do 140mph and a de-restricted M5 with 500bhp has been recorded at 205mph. Now if we take the difference in power as a ratio 500/177 = 2.824 and take the cube root you get 1.41 and mutliply this by the 520d speed (140mph) you get 198mph which is close to the 205mph I have seen. Apply a square law and you get a top speed of 235mph which is clearly incorrect. ==== —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.16.207 (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems counterintuitive at first. But think of it as the engine having to overcome two independent sources of work: 1) Doubling the vehicle velocity under a constant load (on the dyno in a lab for example) alone would require twice as much power, since while the force (= engine torque) is fixed by the dyno setting, the velocity has doubled, and so thus the rate of work (which equals power) must double as well. 2) The familiar square-law air resistance term, for which a doubling in air velocity quadruples the drag force applied to the vehicle. So now if we combine these two terms, we get the factor of two increase from the velocity change alone, in addition to the factor of four increase from the increase in air drag. This product equals the factor of eight increase discussed earlier. An interesting consequence of this is the difference in engine workload between driving a car at 200mph on a still day vs. driving at 100mph into a 100mph headwind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.55.200.20 (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Crashes.

As the car is one of the most expensive and exclusive cars about, would it be apropriate to list the known crashes for this car? 2 have been crashed in the UK to my knowledge and I believe the first UK crash was the very first Veyron Crash. I a similar vein, does any one know of anyone in particula that owns one?(Morcus (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

Good idea but not encyclopedic.  A M M A R  01:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Simon Cowell owns one [1] and another - unless its had a paint job [2] 86.147.161.8 (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be notable until some celebrity totals one. However, there has been a notable crash already. [3][4] The irony is in the link, but the video would make some car enthusiasts go into a corner and mutter to themselves for a while. --Hourick (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

Many of the number in this article do not add-up, also are wrong figures and edits to external quotations, clearly inappropriate, There is no reference to either the ssc aero or koenigsegg CCXR, both of which have beaten the veyron in terms of speed and power. Article clearly needs expert attention —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor sponge (talk • contribs) 15:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Which numbers do not add up? Which figures are wrong? What quotations have been edited? Do you have reliable sources to show how these should be corrected? The SSC Aero is mentioned in the second sentence. If the CCXR is mentioned it will need a reference. swaq 15:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

0–240 km/h (0.0–149.1 mph) 8.6 seconds VS standing quarter-mile (402 m) 10.2 seconds at 230 km/h (142.9 mph).

I'm not the person writing the numbers do not add up, but these numbers do not add up... Of course these numbers will not have been from one source, so nobody knows who drove the car the quarter mile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.28.169.139 (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The air intake is given as 45 000 000 L/min. This corresponds to about 750 cubic metres or about 900kg every second. At a speed of 360 km/hr, a duct with an area of 7.5 m^2 would be needed to achieve such a high intake; this compares with its cross-sectional area of only about 2 m^2. Also, it is not clear what the intake is to — cooling system, engine? An 8 litre engine turning at 10 000rpm would consume 40 000 L/min (or a bit more depending on how much the air is compressed before entering the cylinders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.69.34 (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe it stated the air consumption as 45,000 l/min. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.55.200.20 (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

never achieved fastest production car record

it should be noted that the veyron never achieved the record of highest top speed for a production car because it has never ever made back to back runs in the opposite direction to account for wind speed and/or ground slope. on the other hand, the koenigsegg CC[insert correct letter] and SSC ultimate aero TT have, which is why the koenigsegg was recognized by guiness even though the veyron has a higher rated top speed(this isn't a "bash" of the car, i love the car, but i believe it should be noted in the article). Ry Trapp0 (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The SSC Ultimate Aero still has to be tested under credible conditions. Until then, many people will continue to find the Bugatti Veyron the fastest production car in the world. When the day comes that Shelby Supercars loans of those cars to a reputable motor TV show, allowing everyone to see the Aero reach the claimed speed, measured by a GPS tachometer, then it will be the fastest. A Guinness World Record certificate isn't proof. Their "rules" are also not credible to the eyes of many motor experts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.244.183.8 (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

i'm assuming that this is the person that also added the oppinionated bullshit to the article("...many people...") too, correct? i'm gonna assume that your a veyron fanboy simply because of the ignorance of your comment here. as i stated before, the veyron has NEVER made a back to back top speed run within an hour of each, as required by ALL CREDIBLE TOP SPEED/TIMING ORGANIZATIONS, including both the FIA and the SCTA. however you can claim that the veyron record still stands because it completed its SINGLE runs with GPS, yet claim that the ultimate aeros record is "questionable" because of certain peoples OPINIONS is outright ignorance. and, all of this is ignoring the fact that the ONLY organization that claims the veyrons top speed to be 'official' is the German government, who is obviously not credible in any way, shape, or form, to make such a claim.

it would be much appreciated if you(or anyone) could provide ANY sources(such as these "many motor experts" that you claim have the right to approve or nullify a record) to support these moronic claims.Ry Trapp0 (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

HERE is a link to the SSC Ultimate Aero TT top speed run video, including the telemetry gathered by the Dewetron GPS data aquisition system, which can be confirmed HERE. furthermore, this is the SAME GPS data aquisition system that was used by Top Gear on James May's Bugatti Veyron top speed run, as confirmed HERE.

might i suggest that you do some actual research before you make such frivolous claims/assumptions.Ry Trapp0 (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least with the new record they did make two runs in opposite directions, so we can lay this issue to rest. -- Toothswung (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

movement energy

just thought that you all would like to know the at maximum moving velocity the kinetic energy of the vehicle is approximately 13M joules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.92.49 (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

0-100-0 Speed... Units of measurement?

Can someone please check this statistic then include its unit of measurement (I assume its miles). Also, just a reminder to maintain good faith and treat each other with respect when making edits to wikipedia articles and discussions. 203.45.1.54 (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Knowing that the Ultima GTR, with a similar power-to-weight ratio does 0-100-0 mph in ~9 seconds, it sounds reasonable that you're right and the units are miles per hour. Probably worth adding those units in, as "0-100" means 0-100kph to those in predominantly-metric countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.183.201 (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

specs

Bugatti Veyron is too short (only 4462mm) and too heavy (around 1888kg). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.210.152.57 (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

BBC TopGear, 28th June 2009. Bugatti Veyron vs McLaren F1

On the episode on the above date, Richard Hammond raced the Veyron against The Stig in the McLaren F1 in Abu Dahbi in a 1 mile drag race, while the F1 had the intial lead the Veyron caught up and over took the F1 to finish first. The more observant would have noticed that during the sequence the Veyron deploys its spolier, which based upon James Mays experience (Top Gear Series 9 Episode 24 February 2007) with the Veyron previously, would suggest that the car had not been placed into super slippy max speed mode (sorry couldn't think of a better name for it than that!) Which is activated while stationary and in which the spolier is kept retracted and the car hunkers down to minimise drag. If it had been so would the Veyron crossed the line with a greater margin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.8.49.225 (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I also noticed that. It just so happens that the car is very expensive, and is loaned to motor TV shows by the people who own it. In that case, it was loaned by some sheik or a deluxe car stand. It seems they can use it, but only with all the safety on. So, no second key, unleashing the full 1001 PS...

Also, the fact that Richard Hammond is not a pro, may have also influenced the result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.244.182.83 (talk) 09:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"The McLaren was faster up until 170 because of the Bugatti's cooling. That car belongs to Rowan Atkinson. I can tell you, seeing as Andy Wilman, producer of Top Gear, gave a detailed account of the race to him, that it was not, 'driver error'. On a dry British road, the Bugatti may have been faster but the race was done in the blistering heat of Abu Dhabi and the McLaren was faster" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.208.5.3 (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed content

I removed the following lines:

"The fact the F1 was ahead until those speeds appears to be staged. Referencing the straight-line performance figures for both cars on their respective Wikipedia entries reveals that the Bugatti is superior in every level of acceleration. Though desert heat may have affected the Veyron's turbos, making it somewhat slower, this does not explain the differential shown in the video."

This is not accurate. The acceleration times for the Bugatti are as good as they will ever be. 4WD prevents traction loss and the gearing is automatic; the driver need only floor the pedal to achieve the car's potential. This is not so in the McLaren. The original times were achieved by a journalist on 1993-era tires. In this configuration, the car is traction-limited until third gear. If the McLaren owner had equipped Michelin Cup tires or equivalent for the Top Gear test, the F1 could easily have reached into the 5-second range to 100 MPH. Likewise, a racing driver would have improved both shift times and traction modulation. Given that the F1 has a superior power-to-weight ratio to the Veyron, and the latter's reduced output in hot weather, a reversed result is hardly surprising. Alexdi (talk) 06:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Another point of interest: the Veyron can vary in performance quite a lot from test to test. Here's Evo's run, without launch control:

http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/cargrouptests/238672/nissan_gtr_v_bugatti_veyron.html

The acceleration curve is almost identical to the F1, except that the Veyron is a half-second faster across the board because of superior traction. I can only assume Hammond's Veyron was quicker, because if Evo's car had raced the F1 and fallen behind at the start, it might never have caught up. Alexdi (talk) 05:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Jerermy Clarkson

Jeremy Clarkson drove Bugatti Veyron illegal. Jeremy Clarkson was 6'5. Can't tall drivers drive Bugatti Veyron? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.210.152.57 (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Fuel consumption to size

In the USA, Lamborghini Murcielago gets poorer milage than Bugatti Veyron, because the Murcielago is available in mountainous area (Idaho, Utah, Colorado, etc.) but the Veyron is not available in mountainous area. Bugatti Veyron is too small and it has too much fuel consumption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.210.152.57 (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

comments

actually buggati veyron is not the fastest car and it is the 2nd fastest car

by rishit kotian pune maharashtra india —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.65.241 (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

this car is the best in the world if you actullaaaaaaaaaay look at it you will se that it is made for the circuit at 1,001 hp it can go from 0 to 60 in 2.5 sec now thats fast —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.119.173.2 (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Conan O'Brien's use of the vehicle

I'm not a regular editor of this page so I thought I'd leave this info here in case someone wants to add it to the article.

Conan O'Brien, to spite NBC, featured a Buggati Veyron on his show at the reported price of 1.5 million US dollars (an expensive Rolling Stones song was playing in the back ground to add to the price).

Ref: http://jalopnik.com/5453417/conan-obriens-15-million-bugatti-veyron-mouse

OlYeller^Talktome 19:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, it's pretty significant.

The skit was epic, though. This opinion from a guy who doesn't like Conan. LOL. --Hourick (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Though it was recent, I think if we can find actual significance to this that is citable, such as a reputable news source saying that this is the straw that broke the camel's back for NBC then I'd say include it. And OlYeller21, anyone can add to articles so if you find these sources feel free. I would take a look at WP:EVENT and then you can test it against these criteria to see if it passes the notability test. However I can tell you right now that the source you gavve from jalopnik would probably not be considered a verifiable enough reference. [User:Valley2city|Valley]]2city^‽ 06:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Owners

"Becky Kelly - expensive Prostitute" is this verifiable? "Ranjit bagha - stole it" this does not seem to make sense, and be verifiable. Stole what? From Who?

I don’t think either of the listings are encyclopedic or responsible without clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.156.194.53 (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Top Speed

Under Top Speed, the article says that the final production car reached 500 km/h (310 mph). All of the numbers I have read are in the 250 mph range. It has to be a typo, unless I am reeaaallly behind the times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.187.27 (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the “Mansory Linea Vincerò” section relevant?

I’m a little confused as to why the Mansory Linea Vincerò is listed under “Special editions.” Isn’t it a third-party modified car (as per “German car tuner”) rather than a factory-made edition? If I’m not mistaken, then I wouldn’t think it’s appropriate to have it mentioned, or at the least, not to its own section. On top of that, the section doesn’t sound like it was written in an encyclopedic way. —Mr Grim Reaper 22:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I would indeed not mention the Mansory version, as Mansory is simply a German tuner (tunes Bentley as well...) Greetings, Belgian man (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ooooh no, you mustn't call him a "tuner". According to the most recent issue of CAR magazine he really hates it. Mr Larrington (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Nationality

The first Country mentioned in this article with regards to the cars origins is Germany, Yet it is a French car with a German parent company and it would surely make more sense to put it the other way around. Opel Articles don't start by mentioning GM and America.(90.219.214.188 (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

Good point, I will have a look at it. Greetings, Belgian man (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I see you changed it already yourself :) Belgian man (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Specifications

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, measures engine displacement in gallons so I removed the unit conversion code. The exact cc/cubic inch conversion is included later in the paragraph so removal of the English units completely seemed best.Es330td (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Autocar Magazine Car of the Decade Award not validated?

Upon checking the Autocar website, it appears that the Range Rover won the prestigious award, and the Bugatti tied the Nissan GT-R for third place.

Article: http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/Range-Rover/246211/Excerpt:

Of more than 7500 votes, some 18 per cent - nearly a fifth - were for the Range Rover, a car launched in 2001 to widespread acclaim.

“The Range Rover is a fine choice for Car of the Decade,” said Autocar editor Chas Hallett. “Most polls like this have results skewed towards the latter end of their timescale, but not this one. That the Range Rover was launched nine years ago yet remains a benchmark speaks volumes for the brilliance of its design – and for the taste of the people who voted for it.”

The Range Rover saw off strong showings from the MkII Lotus Elise, which took second place with 12.5 per cent of the vote, and the Bugatti Veyron and Nissan GT-R, which each polled 8.8 percent of the total to finish joint third.

As no citation is listed for this quote, perhaps we should consider removing it?

AluminumHaste (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed it, it's BS. Snapperkeeper (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Trim variants

A model in a new color hardly warrants a new subheading, so I've re-org'd this area, and trimmed some breathless puffery (honoring the marque's precious heritage, refined volumes and surfaces and newly-developed Gaucho leather just don't belong in an encyclopedia, imho). Snori (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Targa *replaces* std model?

Has the Sport targa model replaced the original? Iff so, it deserves its own section.Snori (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Hammond

He actually drove it twice on Top Gear. First in series 10 episode 3 against a Eurofighter Typhoon manned by an RAF pilot in RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire, in a two mile horizontal vs. vertical race. Can someone reword that and put it in the article. VEO15 (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency

The start of the article states that the average top speed is 267.81 mph (431.072 km/h) Whereas the final section, Top Gear's comments, says it is 267.91 mph (431.16 kph)

It's 0.1mph difference, but still. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.224.143.169 (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably from different editors citing different articles conversions of the reported numbers. I just fixed them to all use the official km/h numbers to 3 decimals (431.072 km/h (267.856 mph)). —MJBurrage^(T•C) 23:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Super Sport world record speed and general statistics

The Specifications and Performance section referred to a top speed of 253mph - this is wrong, and the article to which it referred only mentioned 268mph. I'm not sure where the decimal places are coming from - they may well be correct, but the opening sentence to the article referred to the same source, and the second paragraph in Specifications and Performance has no citations at all (I've marked this in the article). Does anyone have any sources for these figures?

I've changed the source for both the opening sentence and the start of that section to a different one, which refers to the K/PH since the car will most likely (from the Top Gear show) have had a K/PH reading which was converted - I'm not sure what devices the record keepers would have used, although this could have been in both (I doubt MPH only since the international standards are metric).

Reading the article further there are quite a few stats without refs - for example, the dimensions of the vehicle in the same section. Does anyone have any sources for this info? Bertcocaine (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The original source (linked in the article) gives the offical numbers of: First run (427.933 km/h), second run (434.211 km/h), average (431.072 km/h). Between other articles rounding of numbers, and converting them to mph, and then editors here converting them back to km/h, we ended up with a hodge podge of rounding errors. Should be fixed now (at least for top speed). —MJBurrage^(T•C) 23:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Which source is that? I've read quite a few of them and they are all either in mph or whole numbers. There is one in German linked to List of fastest production cars which has the kph - I think the discrepancies are exactly as you say, but we should have sources in the original (i.e. non converted) and the convert here. The citation needed section I added only has kph at the moment without conversion. Bertcocaine (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Both: #2 DieselStation (431, 072 km/h) and #4 TopSpeed (434, 211 km/h) give three decimal places. So does sub5zero (431.072km/H) which is not used in the article. Many more to be found if you Google Veyron "431.072" OR "431,072" OR "431, 072". —MJBurrage^(T•C) 01:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I should have scrolled down further! That's what comes of editing late at night while tired.. Thanks for the correction, and apologies for any confusing edits! I've now added the refs to a couple more places further down that section, replaced the quoted top speed limitation with kph and added conversions to the other parts of that section. Bertcocaine (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of significant digits

I don't think we should be reporting the top speeds to 6 significant digits for a number of reasons. In no particular order:

• Stylistically, for the lede, we should be trying to convey the most important facts to the reader in as clear a way as possible. Saying that the car goes 427 km/h does that. Adding in the extra three digits, 427.933 km/h adds verbosity without conveying any real meaning to the reader. If we were to include the digits after the decimal point at all, they should be in some infobox or further down in the article in a section that talks in detail about performance measurements.

• I am not at all convinced that the experimental conditions under which these measurements were performed justify the use of this many significant digits. Measuring things to 1 part per million is not something done lightly. From what I can read in the topspeed.com reference, they used a GPS-tachometer. I can't find any reliable reference which tells me what a GPS-techometer is. I'm assuming it's something like [5], which has lots of hype, but shows no precision specification. Bluntly, I just don't believe the instrument can do 1 ppm speed measurements, nor do I believe the experimental setup was controlled enough to justify that level of precision, no matter what instrument they used.

• Finally, from Template:Convert/list of units, it looks like our conversion template uses a factor of 0.44704 to convert from m/s to mph. That's only 5 significant digits. Even if the raw km/h data were accurate to 6 digits (which I don't accept), the conversion to mph can't be more than 5 simply because of the way we do the math.

In short, from an engineering / metrology point of view, there is simply no justification that I can see for reporting 6 significant figures, regardless of the fact that the original cited reference does so. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Roy, you make some interesting points.

For the first, I'm not sure I agree - While as you say the most important facts are conveyed more cleanly with no decimals, your the first person (that I've noticed) who has objected to this on grounds other than the source not showing it. It may not be key given the current second place (world record wise) but it may become so - for example, timing is done to this level in Formula 1, and so to the casual reader I suspect that three decimal places does not seem verbose. While your comment about the purpose of the intro is valid, consistency is a major problem with this article and I think it's best to keep consistent. I'm also curious about the record, presumably that's recorded to the 'official' level. (in quote because of next points!)

The engineering points your made I lack the knowledge to offer opinion - I don't know what your field of expertise is, but your tone and diction on the subject suggest at least a fair working knowledge? If so I'm happy to bow to your knowledge as mine is lacking in that particular area. I can fix car engines but i couldn't make one.

The maths I'm not sure about - it's late as I type this and while I normally have a good head for maths I'm not going to calculate if you're correct casually and risk being shown up! I may well revisit and think this through at a later date.

In conclusion, I'm thinking the official record and consistency are important, but I'd like to hear more from you, and see if others would like to offer opinion on your points. Thanks for not reverting the edits in the meantime, much appreciated. Between vandalism and IP editing this article is patchy enough around the stats and I still haven't had time to research more thoroughly (anything to offer on the horsepower debate below?). Thanks. Bertcocaine (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to read what I wrote. I'll address just the "qualification" issue. My formal training is in engineering. One of the skills you are taught in engineering school is proper use of significant digits. On an exam, if you gave your answer to more significant digits than were justified by the given data, your answer would be marked incorrect! 17.5 and 17.50 mean different things; that latter implies four significant digits of precision, while the former only implies three.

With modern electronic measuring devices, 3 or 4 digits of precision is easy and commonplace, with commodity tools you might buy at Radio Shack or Home Depot. 5 digits gets a bit harder. Once you get to 6 digits, you're probably into the realm of measurements that can only be made in a laboratory under carefully controlled conditions. If you want me to believe a measurement presented with 6 digits, you have to tell me how that measurement was done. I want to know what instruments were used, how you compensated for temperature, how the device was calibrated, etc. If you don't give me some insight into those things, I'm just not buying the 6 digits.

One of the cited references (the article at topspeed.com), says:

The GPS-tachometer stops at 427, 933 km/h. Now the same procedure from the opposite direction. This time the car reaches 434, 211 km/h. As average top speed the representatives of the “TÜV”and Guinness generate a value of 431, 072 km/h (268 mph). This even hit Bugatti’s engineering team by surprise.'

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to accept that you can average two readings which differ by 2% 1.5% and come up with a figure which is accurate to 6 digits. It just doesn't pass the sniff test. We insist on Reliable Sources. Usually, the bar for declaring a source reliable is something like, a well-known, established, periodical in the field, with no ties to the subject. I'll agree that topspeed.com probably meets that. But, we need to look further. If the methodology they are employing doesn't pass muster, we can accept most of the article as reliable, and yet reject those parts (i.e. the use of excessive numbers of significant digits) which are bogus (or at least suspect). -- RoySmith (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, both with your points about 6 digit accuracy, and about keeping things simple in the lede. I'd suggest we have to give up the fight in the main body - if the reference has xxx.xxx then we have to report xxx.xxx or clueless literal-minded editors will continually "correct" the figure. However, I suggest for the lede we could get away with the following:

...with a top speed of just over 431 km/h (268 mph).The original version has a top speed of just over 408 km/h (254 mph).

I'll leave this suggestion for you guys to implement if you agree. Snori (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the just over language helps any. The only data we have to evaluate is two measurements, which differ by about 1.5%, which implies a precision of not quite 3 significant digits (although, drawing any useful conclusions about precision from just these two measurements is iffy to begin with). Your just over wording implies a precision better than 3 digits. I know it's tempting to use language like this, but the hard data don't justify it. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Super Sport horsepower

Based on the sources listed below, I believe something I suspected is true. Namely that the SS actually has over 1,200 bhp, but for marketing purposes is "rated" at 1,200 local horsepower for the target market. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 04:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• 1200bhp Bugatti Veyron Super Sport unveiled. Creates a new land speed record!
• 267.81 mph // Bugatti Veyron 16.4 Super Sport // 1200BHP
• ames tells us more about his record run in the Veyron SS
• Bugatti Veyron 1200 BHP

Clarification and Cleanup required August 2010

I have added a confusing template as this article needs general cleanup. It currently switches between talking about the original 2005 Veyron and the latest Super Sport version without distinction, and some stats quoted are not clear as to which they might apply. There are also a few other format and naming discrepancies, such as the names of the two sounds in the first section, neither model is mentioned anywhere near. The sources and figures quoted for various speeds and others such as fuel economy come from a variety of sources - having spent some time sorting some of these into the original kph figures for speed (with assistance, see below) I'm running out of patience as the top ones then get changed. Some of the sources are not the best, as they quote several figures and some editors (myself included first time round) have been checking these and removing decimals, etc, etc. I've just corrected some parts when 'Super Sports' was used.. I could dig and find more but I have to go out and don't have time at the moment.. Can anyone assist?

I'm thinking a general cleanup of all these little things, and possibly a re-write to the change the style and tone may be required, as several sections seem to be quoting the press or other non-neutral viewpoints without clear reference - I'm undecided about that but would welcome some opinions. I've also inserted this at the top of this discussion page (not my normal practice) due to the large number of sections and the repeat of titles such as 'inconsistency' to avoid any further confusion. Bertcocaine (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

We can add the acceleration stats to the list - the 1/4 mile time keeps being changed, and although someone added a ref (removed during vandalism cleanup) google indicates that this is another area where the sources all contradict - since Bugatti don't quote these in imperial. I'm getting to the point of taking a day off work just to research and clear up all these issues! Might go and test drive one (yeah right) just to see the manual.. Bertcocaine (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

And another - a number of reverts and edits over acceleration times in the performance table - comments only added in the summary notes and briefly in an old section above (numbers don't match up). Replies indicate source is personally held letter and brochure? Brochure is probably a valid source but not the letter. Is anyone reading this? Plenty of IP editing to various stats going on (and fair bit of vandalism) yet few editors seem to do anything but revert the vandalism.. Comments please!! Bertcocaine (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Power quoted - horsepower!

After a fair bit of back and forthing, I have proof that the 'hp' figure is PS (metric horsepower) and NOT bhp - it's on the power dial in the dash, see pic: http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2006/2006-Bugatti-Veyron-Targa-Florio-Gauges-1600x1200.jpg I'm now going to revert to metric in the article. Bertcocaine (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The dial going up to 1001 ps does not mean that the engine puts out 1001 ps, only that that dial is calibrated in ps, and its faceplate has a mark at 1,001 ps. The first footnote explains that the engine itself puts out over 1,001 bhp. The multitude of sources giving the Super Sports 1,200 metric hp and 1,200 bhp bears out that they did the same thing this time. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 21:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If we use the linked picture as a source, than the Veyrons top speed is 280 mph. —MJBurrage^(T•C)

the dial matches exactly the official stats. Speedo comment is irrelevant methinks.. do you have any definitive sources that prove it's bhp? (other that sources that contradict each other depending on their target market?) Why is bhp assumed to be correct when the company is German? They never use bhp (unless you have one that does, and not an English conversion or assumption?) Bertcocaine (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The very first footnote quotes a Bugatti engineer on this exact matter. They make sure the engines have more power than claimed in either ps or bhp. Therefore using the a ps based value is further from the actual output than using a bhp based value. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 21:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The power gauge going to 1001 ps is no more relevant than the same dashes speed gauge going to 280 mph. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 21:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for not simply reverting - I'm interested to hear what other editors think?

Is it co-incidence it's an exact match? I suspect fudging on the basis of not wanting to disappoint anyone, but there should be two accurate sources (if we can find them) - the manual for the car (which must be accurate under law in the EU) and there must be an official note somewhere in the EU (such as a government info source) which will likely be in kW. Although, would it be better to remove all the conversions, and replace with something about the fact that the hp is in dispute, and engineers have stated that all cars will exceed both (as either is not the actual anyway)? Bertcocaine (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

A claim like horsepower, is only legally false if the actual value is lower than the claim. The Original Veyron engines actually put out 1,020 to 1,040 PS (750 to 765 kW). (Veyron development boss quoted in Car & Driver) That is enough for Bugatti to make a valid 1,001 PS (736 kW) claim in countries that use metric horsepower, and at the same time make a 1,001 bhp (746 kW) claim in countries that use brake horsepower.

The Veyron Super Sport claims 1,200 horsepower worldwide. (There are many sources that say 1,200 PS (883 kW) and many that say 1,200 bhp (895 kW)) So the Super Sport engine must output at least 1200 bhp to legally meet all claims.

In both cases the bhp figures—being larger than the PS figures—are therefore closer to the actual power output, and should be used in the article.

Having said that we could give the power in kW first as:

• 750 kW (1,020 PS; 1,010 bhp) Original Veyron per its development boss in Car & Driver.
• 895 kW (1,217 PS; 1,200 bhp) Super Sport per Bugatti's worldwide claims of 1200 unspecified (and therefore legally bhp in North America) horsepower.

—MJBurrage^(T•C) 12:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thinking further, the text should probably say "at least 1,001 horsepower" and "at least 1,200 horsepower" with out specifying type of horsepower or kW. Then the tables could use 746 kW; 1,010 PS (1,001 bhp) and 895 kW; 1,220 PS (1,200 bhp) per Bugatti's official claims. and lastly the section on the engine itself could discuss the quotes in Car & Driver.

We should use official factory figures not at least if the factory doesnt say so, despite magazine or other claims, these could be expressed in article though with proper sources. -->Typ932 ^T·C 16:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

My thought exactly, but as MJ has pointed highlighted finding consistent sources is difficult - I've put two suggestions above but as I don't know anyone who knows a Veyron owner seeing the manual might be tricky.. I'll try and find EU info somewhere, but the manufacturer keeps fudging the issues, all their official releases state 'hp' which could mean either, and the head engineer is on record as explaining that not only is it being given different units in different markets, but the actual output covers both anyway! So, the 'official factory figure' is unclear, and all other sources (official or otherwise) either assume or fudge the issue further..

MJ, in response to your suggestion, nice idea but wouldn't it look wrong and suggest that PS always equals bhp to those without knowledge of one or the other? I'd be more in favour of sticking with the generic horsepower as you suggest without conversions and then a note about the inconsistency in markets and explaination (which could cite the first ref). What do you think? Bertcocaine (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I am definitely getting behind them fudging - Bugatti's website shows a nice little graph of hp and torque, and the scale converts the generic hp in kW - showing 536hp = 400kW, which would make hp=bhp! See their page http://www.bugatti.com/en/veyron-16.4/technology/acceleration.html Bertcocaine (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

removal of sections

Maybe, in light of recent developments, it is time to remove the 'Gordon Murray' comments from the page. Does anyone really care what he thinks about the Veyron? He was a competitor, and his comments are pure sour grapes. Why are they in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.189.14 (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of acceleration speed

I removed the section "accelerates from 0–60 in 2.4 seconds and " as it does not have units for the 0-60 part. Please find the units and add them.