Talk:Bugatti Veyron

Total Curb Weight

The curb weight for the Veyron is listed differently in two locations. In the quick-glance box at the top, the curb weight is listed as 1,888 kg (4,162 lb), whereas, in the body of the article, the curb weight is listed as 2,034.8 kilograms (4,486 lb). Bugatti's website lists a 'Lightweight Construction Concept' as having a curb weight of 1,888 kg, but most websites list the weight closer to the 2,000 kg mark. The Lightweight Construction Concept might have been some sort of a concept vehicle produced by Bugatti, or it might be the real weight of the car. In any case, someone should make a decision to correct these numbers, or at least make them the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.171.36 (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not really got any better. We now have the weight listed in the sidebar as "1838 - 1990" kg, but no mention anywhere else in the text, nor any sign as to which of the (at least 4) different sub-models rate at which weight. It may seem a bit pendantic but I'm trying to compare the Veyron's (in both original and Super Sport guises) power to weight against other hypercars for a list and this makes it impossible to be at all precise. 146.199.0.132 (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

Top gear is not a news source, regardless. It is a scripted entertainment show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.2.53 (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2014 (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)

Its not 2x V8 but 2x VR8, there are 2 banks of VR8 engines, as original W engine has 3 banks (Veyron 18/4 and Chiron 18/3 have W18 engines with 3 banks of cylinders), also original VW W8 or W12 engines from passats and phaetons are still 2x VR engines YBSOne (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The W engine article says that a W engine may have:

• 3 banks,
• 4 banks on a common crankshaft, or
• 4 banks on 2 cranks shafts (ie 2 V engines)  Stepho  talk  11:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

And W16 article says: "Volkswagen Group is the only automotive manufacturer currently producing W16 engines. Volkswagen Group's design is a stretched form of its W12 engine, which is itself based on technology from its VR6 engine." So its 2x VR8 NOT 2x V8, on the picture You can see 2 banks of cylinders, eachbank incorporating 2 rows of cylinders ie VR8.YBSOne (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Or in other words, they invented the damn thing and are the only manufacturer making it, so they can probably be allowed to define what does and doesn't count. If you want to be really pendantic about it, maybe call it a "WR" engine? 146.199.0.132 (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2018 (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.

Or in simple terms, the "power requirement increases proportional to the square of travel speed" rule only really holds at low-medium speeds, from about 15 to 100mph (below that, it's more linear because aero drag is pretty much negligble unless you're moving a very large, high drag object). For example, you need about 20hp to travel at 60mph, and about 40hp to travel at 85mph, in a car of about the same aerodynamic profile. Once you head north of that range, the rule goes out of the window as the aerodynamic effects create drag in a manner that moves more towards being cube rather than square law. Otherwise you would only need about 180hp to reach 180mph, and 320hp to reach 240mph, without changing the aero at all. Instead you need closer to 1000hp (50x more, not 16x, so more than 3x what you'd otherwise expect) to reach the latter speed, after radically improving the vehicle's aerodynamic profile. ((or as we need *roughly* 50hp to reach 150km/h... 405kmh/150kmh = 2.7x, 1000hp/50hp = 20x, and 2.7 cubed is 19.683... suggesting it may even be going quadratic beyond 200mph, not just cubed)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.0.132 (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Why not just use the well known equations and get the answer right rather than trying to incorrectly pick regimes where one term in the polynomial dominates? Greglocock (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Another way is to look at fuel consumption. At maximum speed, the car only rates 3mpg US, with the engine consuming 1.4 US gallons per minute. Versus city and highway economy of 8 and 14mpg US respectively. If we assume equal engine efficiency in both cases (the truth is, for something as powerful as the Veyron, it'll be far less thermodynamically efficient at the lower speed, because it's using such a small fraction of the total power - which for a typical petrol engine generally means extremely high pumping losses and most of the generated power actually going to just keeping the engine turning rather than the wheels, even if you use cylinder deactivation to only run it on 4 instead of 16; consider it similar to driving a typical 80hp hatchback around at no more than 18mph), and a highway cruising speed of 65mph (105kmh)... maximum speed uses nearly 5x as much fuel per unit distance, for less than 4x the speed. So even looking at that, the power use has increased at more than the square of speed. And the actual increase in fuelling rate is almost 20x. 146.199.0.132 (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

Wow, Canada sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.165.93.3 (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2011 (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)

How is this the most expensive car...i ean respectfully there is the ccx agera which is way more expensive. 94.200.176.6 (talk) 29 May 2011

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)

I know. But what I meant was to point out in the comment above mine by Brainiack16 that he misspelled the word "misspelled". So I was loosely quoting the incorrect statement above and at the same time correcting his own spelling mistake. I thought it was clear that I knew "Tyres" wasn't misspelled. I did point out that they used the British spelling. Sorry it was so confusing. Racerx11 (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2011 (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)

"Wrong again, idiots!"? - Please do not use insults. This is not proper Wikipedia etiquette. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackercraft (talk • contribs) 21:37, 23 November 2011 (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

The Veyron is the fastest Production car in the world. The Veyron accelerates from 0-100Km/h (0-62mph) in 2.562 seconds and that isn't a claim by Bugatti. Also the Bugatti Veyron Super Sport is even faster still with 2.487 seconds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calibreslicer (talk • contribs) 07:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the established convention is the title of the fastest car goes to the one with the highest top speed. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. There are so many different definitions of fastest car, and circumstances surrounding it. Have a look at the Top gear power lap board - the Ariel Atom V8 was more than a second faster around the track than the super sport, and there were 8 cars faster than the original Veyron (not counting the Super Sport). Thus the Atom is "faster" than the Super Sport, and there were 8 others "faster" than the original. a_man_alone (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear lord, not everything revolves around top Gear. Feudonym (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Check the date stamps - this is an old conversation from 2010/2011.  Stepho  talk  12:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

The Veyron's official classification is a Dream Car — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calibreslicer (talk • contribs) 07:22, 5 April 2011 (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)

Whilst I've not seen that episode for a while, whilst browsing earlier I ran across a alleged quote saying that Hammond wasn't using the Veyron's launch control or other special features - which presumably include not putting it into Super Speed mode - in order to make it a fairer and "more interesting" race against the much older and "lower tech" McLaren. IE, both cars were driven in the normal configuration that an everyday driver would leave them in - the Veyron in non-Super Speed, and the McLaren in the only config it has. As the Veyron's top speed is listed as (and limited to?) 375km/h in normal mode, which is *just* quicker than the F1's supposed 231mph Vmax, it should have been a pretty close call but with ultimate victory still going to the Bugatti. 146.199.0.132 (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2018 (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)

Plus, the F1 was driven by the Stig, vs Clarkson in the Veyron. The skill difference might have caused the irregularity. Joesolo13 (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2012 (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)

The Bugatti Veyron Super Sport is the fastest production car in the world. The Bugatti Veyron SS does 431km/h or 267mph and does 0-100km/h (62mph) in 2.4 seconds. Guinness World Records have even proven it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calibreslicer (talk • contribs) 07:40, 5 April 2011 (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)

The Top Speed of the Bugatti Veyron Super Sport is 431km/h (267mph) so yes it is a typo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calibreslicer (talk • contribs) 07:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Really, that's all ? When I take the maglev to the airport we go faster than that. On the train. With all our luggage and stuff. 116.231.78.79 (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2018 (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)

What about Top Gear Car of the year award by James May for the Veyron Super Sport? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calibreslicer (talk • contribs) 07:44, 5 April 2011 (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)

Given the usual slapdash, round-it-off-to-the-nearest-10 Wikipedia approach to Metric/Imperial or Metric/Standard conversions, only being a tenth of a MPH out is pretty small beer. 146.199.0.132 (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2018 (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)

References

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)

Thats true Wikipedia is meant to have a non-biased view on every article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calibreslicer (talk • contribs) 07:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually his comments after driving it were at least neutral, if not a glowing review, something along the lines of 'well if you HAVE to have 1000 hp in a sportscar then this is a pretty good attempt'. But yes, i think the comments are redundant. Greglocock (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

With the unsourced, maybe even invented bad mouth stuff removed it looks ok. Drachentötbär (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2017 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozkidzez91 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Design, production beginnings??

Can anyone/someone add something to the article re this? As in who came up with the idea to design and build what is the world's fastest production car? Who designed the engine? Who designed the bodyshell of the car itself.

What was the timescale between the initial meeting of the 'suits' at Volkswagen, the decision on naming the car Veyron and the decision to resurrect the long deceased 'Bugatti' name to promote the car.

The whole history of the car from boardroom musings, to actual decisions, to people screwing in carbon fibre need addressing.

As it stands the article just seems to begin with 'look, here's a new car, let's thrash its' arse off and draw up some new figures'.

It's important to know where the nexus of the car came from, and the timescale/decisions which then created it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.240.253 (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I have some information your looking for. The Veyron was named after Pierre Veyron who was the last person to win the Le Mans 24-hour race in a Bugatti. The reason why they named it Veyron, I don't know but that's where it came from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calibreslicer (talk • contribs) 07:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

With all the vandalism in the past two weeks, I suggest that the article be protected to some extent to prevent further vandalism. I wanted to see what anyone else had to say about protecting the article. Md2 943 (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. We are averaging well under one vandal edit per day and this article is watched by a bunch of people, it hardly ever lasts very long. You could take it to requests for protection if you disagree. --Leivick (talk) 08:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Defaulting to km/h instead of mph

The Top Gear section of the article wasn't consistent in choosing which speed measurement system to use first, and which to later convert in brackets. For example: "253 mph (407.16 km/h)" and then later in the text "431.072 km/h (267.856 mph)".

The Bugatti Veyron is made in Europe, and I have thus defaulted all measurements to the metric system. Even NASA uses it. Imperial measurements will be displayed in brackets.

This is a minor edit, but the reason for it must be displayed here for the sake of understanding.

Feel free to disagree with me.

Milan J. (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It can go 500.3km/h —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.101.128 (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No Milan is correct. 500.3km/h is a ridiculous claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calibreslicer (talk • contribs) 07:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Grand Sport

The Grand Sport version of the Bugatti Veyron is as important as the Super Sport or the 16.4. I see it in the specials section but it is a different car. The Audi Spyder is different from the normal Audi. So the Veyron Grand Sport is a convertible of the Veryon. Thius needs to be looked at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.124.7.166 (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

LEGO R/C model Veyron

Probably not encyclopaedic to put in the main page but this is too cool to miss. It's a radio control Veyron model made with Lego - with a working 7 speed gearbox, and retractable spoiler. http://www.geekologie.com/2010/04/shrinkray_me_i_wanna_drive_it.php  Stepho  talk  02:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Citations

A lot of citations are missing, including for claims relating to Top Gear. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 10:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Configurator website

The Bugatti Configurator website has been online for several years (I think late 2005/early 2006), not since Dec 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.59.56 (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Specifications and performance

"The engine is fed by four bi-turbochargers"

No.

This article is a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.59.56 (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free to make corrections or to reword it. Factual changes must have a solid reference to back them up. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  10:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Trivia section

Half of the information in the newly added 'Trivia' section are engineering facts that belong elsewhere in the article - as long as there are references for these 'facts'. There should also be metric conversions for readers outside of the US.

The other half is a list of owners. Unless those owners affect the car in some way, the list should be deleted. Also be aware that some editors will delete Trivia sections without warning since it is general Wiipedia policy to avoid 'Trivial', 'Popular culture' and similar topics in articles to avoid useless clutter.  Stepho  talk  22:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

James May speed perception comment

The below comment is completely incorrect and gives a false perception of the vehicle.

"May remarked (perhaps jokingly) that the Veyron took so long to slow from top speed to a complete stop that he almost accidentally opened the door at seventy miles per hour in his haste."

This above statement makes it sound like the Veyron is a very slow decelerating vehicle when in fact it’s the exact opposite.

James May never said it "took so long to slow down" what he said was (Not in these words exactly) that his speed perception was so distorted from travelling so fast that going at 70miles an hour it felt like the car was almost stopped hence he nearly opened the door. 80.231.29.20 (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to add or change anything that can be verified.  Stepho  talk  12:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Power-to-weight ratio

This article states that the veyron super sport weight is 1,888 kilograms (4,162 lb), and that the engine output is 1,200 metric horsepower (883 kW; 1,184 bhp), and according to Volkswagen Group's figures this gives the car a power-to-weight ratio of 446.3 metric horsepower (328 kW; 440 bhp) per ton.

This does not seem to add up. 446,3 metric horsepower per ton x 1,888 tonnes = 842,6144 metric horsepower total. Given the figures above, the power-to-weight ratio should be 635,59 metric horsepower per ton (1200/1,888), which makes a 42% increase of the numbers originally given in the article.

Or is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.176.233.200 (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The 1200bhp is referring to the supersport edition, whereas I think the VW figures refer to the original "slow" Veyron.

However, I get different results again:

Supersport - 1200/1888=635 bhp per tonne

Original - 1001/1888=530 bhp per tonne

Confusing. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly they were mixing their units and giving it as horsepower per non metric ton. The presence or absence of the final "ne" being crucial here. One tonne = 1000kg, whereas one long ton = 1016kg. Which... hmm, really shouldn't make that much difference even so. Could be they went via the short ton (907kg) and then did a multiply instead of a divide somewhere, which would at least get closer to 1000hp, even if not 1200. The rest maybe made up by the slight difference between (B)HP and PS. 146.199.0.132 (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

"permanent 4WD"

....Wouldn't this be AWD? --RThompson82 (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The two terms mean the same thing for a four-wheeled vehicle. The perceived difference is more to do with marketing.  Stepho  talk  22:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Originally sold under cost?

On the original Top Gear show, one of the key points (in my recollection) was that this was a car that, despite it's very high price, was actually being sold for less that it cost to make. Anyone find a reference to this? Was this *actually* the case? Presumably this has changed? Snori (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I expect the orignal claim was based on the same fallacious reasoning as was recently applied to the Volt, lumping in development costs and tooling costs and dividing them by the number built so far. Having been involved in developing some high end one off cars I think I can say very confidently that it is hard to spend more than about a million dollars on parts and labor for a car if there is not any real super technology in it. Greglocock (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the math reliable surce are making the statement that the car sells for significantly less than it costs to make. And it should be noted, that developement costs are always included in total production costs for a particular product. Developement isnt "free" so it must be included in the total production cost. If you read a few annual reports from auto manufacturers you;ll be able to see this is normal and industry standard (as are costs to retool a line, marketing, etc.) [ref]http://jalopnik.com/260477/bugatti-veyron-164[/ref] 96.49.237.199 (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There should be a more reliable source than the Jalopnik blog to state each Veyron costs $10 million to produce. 72Dino (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

By that reasoning, pratically every car ever made in the last 50 years was sold under cost. Development and tooling costs are expected to be amortised over the lifetime production of the vehicle (typically 3-5 years), not just the first year. Some costs are amortised over a few vehicle generations (eg building a new factory or developing a new engine family).  Stepho  talk  22:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There should be a better source, and once it is found, it can go in, because in wikipedia verifiability beats truth. But, YOU don't have to buy into journalists stupidity. So if you don't try very hard to include it, wiki is a better encyclopedia. Imagine that, the easy option (do nothing) is also the correct option. Greglocock (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure I heard "5 Million" in an episode of Top Gear. Are YouTube videos from official channels allowed as sources? CHCSPrefect (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Naming convention

Is it really 16.4=16 cylinders and 4 turbos? Veyron 18/4 doesn't have any turbos and still 18 means 18cyl, also the Chiron 18/3 could mean 18 cyl and 3 banks in a W engine. So 16.4 could mean 4 rows of cylinders (still only 2 banks as its 2x VR8 and not 2x V8) or even 4WD YBSOne (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

How come there is no reference to the rpm at which the claimed horsepowers are achieved?

Seems like a quite basic information to me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.83.92.202 (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Well there is, just need to make "some" effort: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Volkswagen_Group_petrol_engines#W16

Its' 6,000 rpm YBSOne (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Guinness Title revoked

Can someone add this source? Seems Guinness believes the tested Veyron isn't mechanically similar. http://www.gtspirit.com/2013/04/07/bugatti-veyron-super-sport-stripped-of-world-record-by-guinness/

Kensuke Nogami (talk) 04:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Guinness Title re-instated

http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/bugatti-veyron-reinstated-guinness-world-fastest-production-car-181741988.html

So, looks like the Super Sport had a dream- it was king, woke up -still king.

As of right now, the Bugatti Veyron Super Sport is indeed, the fastest production car. As of 4/13/2013 98.85.106.20 (talk) 04:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Bugatti SuperVeyron (2013) crystal ball gazing

The new 'Bugatti SuperVeyron (2013)' section has three reference, one a rather dated press release from 5 years ago that says little more than something will change and two recent articles that are mostly rumours. Even the engine size is questionable whether it is 8.0 L or 9.6 L and the 1600 hp figure is a target that might not be reached and may or may not require the assistance of an electric to reach (according to the autoexpress reference). This is seriously in WP:CRYSTALBALL gazing territory.  Stepho  talk  22:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Official website

There is a disagreement over how to link to the official website:

Simple form (Stepho)	{{Official website | http://www.bugatti.com/en/veyron.html }}	Official website
Complex form (Jimthing)	{{Official website|http://www.bugatti.com/en/veyron.html|Bugatti Veyron}} – official site	Bugatti Veyron – official site

Jimthing believes that readers will have trouble knowing the official site of what? I believe that readers will use the same reasoning they used for the section title like 'Name origin', 'Sales' and 'Special versions' - the article title provides the context for anything not explicitly labelled. Also, if the {{Official website}} template was meant to be used in the way that Jimthing believes then it is doing it in an overly complex way that provides no benefit to doing the markup manually. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Official_website and select some pages at random to see many other pages using it the simple way that I believe it should be used.  Stepho  talk  02:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Speed record is outdated

I don't have time to further verify or edit right now, so a quick note. It appears the Veyron record is now outdated. See http://www.nzherald.co.nz/motoring/news/article.cfm?c_id=9&objectid=11209552 etc. Uberveritas (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately as written the lede is still correct. Also an unofficial one way run by a modified production car is not quite the same record. Greglocock (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

From the NZ Herald article: "All that remains now is for the good ol boys at Hennessey to do it again in both directions with the Guiness World Record people watching for it to become official." Unofficial runs don't count for records.  Stepho  talk  06:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, Guiness requires 30 cars to be manufactured to be considered production. Only 29 of these will be made [6]. Bahooka (talk) 06:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Marketing Talk

The "Special Versions" section is completely irrelevant and should be entirely deleted. Giving a colour scheme a separate name might be a clever marketing idea, but isn't noteworthy in an encyclopedia, maybe, if you're tolerant, except for the fact that various colour scheme exist and are promoted by the producer. Chilrreh (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

rumoured 1.8 seconds 0-60 time

I do not think this should be in the article. First up it is a rumor in a blog, not an RS. Third up, it breaks the laws of physics, on any feasible tire. Fourth, is the lambda effect, ratio of rotating inertia plus mass to the mass. It would need tires with a mu of of about 1.8, stickier than F1 tires. OK that is OR, but some commonsense is required for such ill referenced, peacock, crystal ball claims. Greglocock (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

For the mouth breathers here is a bit on the lambda effect http://books.google.com/books?id=NSlSJtEy-NIC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=first+gear+acceleration+rotational+inertia&source=bl&ots=MpW62sap-b&sig=yEN12hVw1JJnNPwHWAt-WwK66UU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_g2-U6O4EobjkgX81IC4CA&ved=0CFYQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=first%20gear%20acceleration%20rotational%20inertia&f=false Greglocock (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - rumours should not be here. I should have deleted it outright like you did. Should we delete the entire section, especially since it is mostly predictions from 2-3 years ago.  Stepho  talk  05:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/no-bugatti-galibier-or-super-veyron-detroit-2014-01-15 let's kill it Greglocock (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Top Gear reliability

An IP editor has twice removed a section referring to comments made by Top Gear, with the initial summary of ""removing top gear "factual" references, since it is a scripted entertainment show and not a news source"". I maintain that in these instances, Top Gear is classed as reliable due to the technical nature of the testing. While I agree that some parts are not so reliable, it's the context that's important.

Anyway, I brought it up on the Reliable sources noticeboard and the comment there is that yes, it is (in this context - which is the important consideration) TG is reliable. So, I've reinstated the comment. Also, let's note that as per WP:BRD after the first reversion the ip editor should have begun discussion himself here, rather than just reverting again.

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Top_Gear_a_reliable_source.3F Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

As per wp:duck, I believe that this edit is the return of the previous editor who removed the Top Gear comments:

• The style of language is exactly the same as in the previous edit summaries "top gear is not a news source. They are a self-proclaimed entertainment show. Their statements are not guaranteed to be factual" and "removing top gear "factual" references, since it is a scripted entertainment show and not a news source"[7]
• Both IP addresses geolocate to Seattle, Washington.

As I took pains to make clear last time - Top Gear (in this instance) is considered reliable. If the IP editor believes differently, then they should at least join a discussion here first. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I normally class Top Gear as a clown show and very unreliable as a source of factual information. However, in this case, they suspended their usual crap and actually did a factual review. So I support Chaheel Riens in this instance.  Stepho  talk  14:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Special editions

I've just removed a bunch of single instance special editions from the article. It's in danger of becoming nothing more than a list of one off models produced for uber-rich members of the elite. To be a "proper" production run there needs to be more than one car produced. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I streamlined the special editions section a bit too (as did others). But every time I see this article I wonder who started describing all the paint schemes sold under a precious sounding name. My strong guess is it must be Bugatti's sales department or somebody "inspired" by them. Anybody opposed to the idea to delete the whole part and simply saying that Bugatti shows from time to time special versions of the car which are distinguished by special paint schemes and other details of appearance? Chilrreh (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

They can go. Your wording is good. If there were significant mechanical or equipment differences that'd be another thing altogether, but colours? no. Greglocock (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

2013 Bugatti Veyron 16.4 Grand Sport Vitesse 'Le Ciel Californien'

2013 Bugatti Veyron 16.4 Grand Sport Vitesse 'Le Ciel Californien'~
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BugattiVeyronVitesseSE.jpg
http://www.rmauctions.com/lots/lot.cfm?lot_id=1068284 YBSOne (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bugatti Veyron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110717232446/http://www.volkswagenag.com/vwag/vwcorp/content/en/investor_relations.-bin.acq/qual-MarginalParSys.Single.Component.0003.ContextBoxImageTeaser.0001.DownloadFile/GB_2010_e.pdf to http://www.volkswagenag.com/vwag/vwcorp/content/en/investor_relations.-bin.acq/qual-MarginalParSys.Single.Component.0003.ContextBoxImageTeaser.0001.DownloadFile/GB_2010_e.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100805225627/http://www.roadandtrack.com:80/tests/data/technical-analysis-anatomy-of-a-supercar to http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/data/technical-analysis-anatomy-of-a-supercar

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bugatti Veyron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bugatti.com/en/tradition/history/bugatti-stories/pierre-veyron.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011011915/http://www.bugatti.com/en/veyron-16.4/technology/speed.html to http://www.bugatti.com/en/veyron-16.4/technology/speed.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Dollar Conversions

The Base Prices shown, converted to dollars, are out-of-date. Using the XE.com posted exchange rate as this comment is written of $1.04548 = €1 gives €1,225,000 = $1,280,713 and €1,912,500 = $1,999,480.50; I leave the rounding to whoever maintains this entry. ☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think they should be updated to today's exchange rate. The car is not being sold anymore today, hence the rates presented are historic. However, since pound, dollar and euro fluctuated wildly between 2005-2011, I'm in favour of removing the comparisons altogether unless the $ and £ prices can be cited to the manufacturer. Daß Wölf 15:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

If you bring them up-to-date then you will have the same problem next year, and the year after that, and the next year after that, and so on. It will be a never ending task unless you find a way to automatic it - which doesn't exist at the moment. It is best to either use the conversions with the exchange rate valid at the time the source price was valid or to remove the conversion altogether (as suggested by the wolf). If the conversion is used then it must be made clear the month and year of the exchange rate - eg €1,000,000 (US$1,500,000 at July 2005 exchange rates). Since Euros, British Pounds and US Dollars are almost universally treated as world currencies (except in the US), it seems a bit redundant to convert between them, so my preference is to simply remove the conversions.  Stepho  talk  20:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bugatti Veyron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081008001739/http://www.skoda-auto.com/globalold/company/press/notice.htm?PostingGUID=%7B46BB7BA3-7572-4EC8-8FA9-D95D0C319DC0%7D to http://www.skoda-auto.com/globalold/company/press/notice.htm?PostingGUID=%7B46BB7BA3-7572-4EC8-8FA9-D95D0C319DC0%7D
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bugatti.com/en/tradition/history/bugatti-stories/pierre-veyron.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203010534/http://www.driving.co.uk/news/video-hennessey-claims-fastest-production-car-title-with-265-7mph-venom-gt/10373 to http://www.driving.co.uk/news/video-hennessey-claims-fastest-production-car-title-with-265-7mph-venom-gt/10373
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130618020935/http://www.driving.co.uk/news/bugatti/veyron/10413 to http://www.driving.co.uk/news/bugatti/veyron/10413
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100331073048/http://bugatti.ogaracoach.com/pdf_documents/veyron_brochure.pdf to http://bugatti.ogaracoach.com/pdf_documents/veyron_brochure.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)