Talk:Bugatti Veyron/Archive 1

message: Not sure if this is worthy of being noted in the article, but MSN readers voted this car of the year 2006. -- Trench 18:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MSN Car of the Year 

message: A link with a review done by influential and controversial Jeremy Clarkson: http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,12529-1890873,00.html (I didn't edit the article, left it to whoever will judge if it's appropriate.)
The Reviews that are currently in article appear to be fictitious, I've marked them with . --BMT86 17:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can find the interview in which you can see the quote in this article has been posted in the Talk Page of the McLaren F1.  Or just go here.  I've looked for it in google but didn't find anything. --Cirilobeto 05:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The Barabus TKR doesn't exist. TomTheHand 18:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reviews

message: The article states an acceleration from zero to 60 mph in 2.5 seconds.  The specifications say zero to 60 mph in 2.9 sec, now what is it?
2.5 Seconds, Car January 2006 the fastest car to 60 in the world I believe.
 So can you add the source to the body of the article as the reference associated with the numbers at the minute quote 2.9s? Meio 
Another "contradiction": a quarter mile of 10.8 seconds.  What is the source of that? A simple quarter mile weight/hp calculator? I somehow doubt that will be correct. If he accelerates from 0 to 60 in let's say 3 seconds, and the "0-200mph time is quicker than the McLaren F1's 120-200mph time", he's not going under 10 seconds on the quarter mile? right ;)
:I removed the part about the quarter mile as I too have my doubts about that number.  The new Koenigsegg does it in 9.9 seconds and doesn't accelerate as fast as the veyron nor does it have the same top speed. LPJ 12:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  quarter mile / performance 

message: Can someone tell me what ubercar is. All the motoring articles and television shows I've ever watched rate the best cars in the world in either Supercars or, in the case of the Veyron, a Hypercar. What is the categorisation of Ubercar supposed to mean? --KryptonZone 06:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an über-neologism that has now been removed ;-) TomTheHand 14:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cool thanks, got über-confused when I saw that haha :) --KryptonZone 19:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was über-funny!  --SpinyNorman 04:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ubercar 

message: I still don't understand this in the slightest:
:In a speed race, the McLaren F1, could reach 120mph, while the Bugatti is at 0mph,
Gzuckier 15:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the McLaren F1 page, the F1 could get to 100 mph in 6.3 sec, and to 200 mph in 28 sec.  That means it would take the F1 21.7 seconds to go from 100 to 200.  Presumably, it would take less than 21 seconds, probably less than 20 seconds, to get the F1 from 120 to 200.  Now, according to this article, the Veyron takes 22 seconds to get from 0 to 200.  So it's close, but it sounds like it's a slight exaggeration.  However, giving the McLaren a 6 second head start (allowing the F1 to get to 100 mph before the Veyron started) would be an interesting race... --Serge 06:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Either way, if the article is to be completely objective, it should be clear in that the 120 mph - 200 mph (for any car) takes significantly more time than 0 mph - 120 mph.  Which means that performance claim isn't as substantial as it first sounds.  Perhaps this is a good spot to mention wind resistance is proportional to the square of the speed, although I am not sure if people will understand quite what this implies without further explanation. JasonAD 19:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Eh? Say what? How in any conceivable way can the claim be disregarded as "(less) substantial as it first sounds"?  It is very simple: it is completely irrelevant how long it takes to get from 120 to 200 when the Veyron has to get from 0 to 200.  You see, it doesn't matter if it takes two days, the Veyron still has to do exactly the same thing - as well as get to 120 in the first place! Get it? LOL! -- 86.17.211.191 17:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I believe this whole Veyron 0-200MPH vs McLaren F1 120-200MPH started with Clarkson's frankly unsupported claim in Top Gear and in his Times review of the Veyron.  He's using the unfairly optimistic 0-200MPH estimate of a Bugatti engineer rather than Car and Driver's published 0-200MPH times.  As Serge has pointed out, even if the McLaren F1 was only given a 100MPH head start, the F1 would still reach 200MPH first (but just so).  I'm rather surprised at how widespread Clarkson's statement has become, without any actual data to back it up.  Sadly, I can not publish this contradiction in the wiki article for the Veyron as that would be "original research" which is not allowed.
---- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.188.209.30 (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  trivia 

message: An editor added a claim that the engine "produces approx. 3000bhp".  This is not correct.  The claim evidently stems from an article  in which Wolfgang Schreiber, technical director of Bugatti Engineering, said "The maximum combustion energy adds up to 3000 PS".  That is nowhere near the same as saying that the engine actually produces that power.  --SpinyNorman 04:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "3000 horsepower" claim

message: The weight specified is different between the right hand summary panel and the specifications section. Which is right? Can someone change this? T. J. Day 03:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight 

message: Sorry for not being that knowledgeable, but if this is the fastest production (street legal) sports car out so far, why hasn't it been used in the 24 Hours of Le Mans competitions? Are the sports cars featured in that race not limited to production-only models (meaning non-street legal cars are allowed)? 24.23.51.27 12:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Le Mans cars are heavily modified and there are rules in place to level the playing field within a class. Basically, Bugatti would have to have to ditch the turbos if they wanted to race there, and racing a detuned slower car would be pretty bad advertising. Bal00 10:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dumb question 

message: The EB110 article lists the Veyron as that car's successor, but on the veyron page it lists no predecessor. I agree that it's not a straight continuation since VW took over, but the EB110 and Veyron are both big fast cars with a Bugatti badge on the front and, to me, they look like successive models in the same line. Anyone else vote for the EB110's listing as the Veyron's predecessor? wimbledon andy 14:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but I'll fix the EB110 article.  --SpinyNorman 05:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Predecessor? 

message: It says in the first paragraph of the article that the Veyron has been in production since September 2005 but in the infobox it says 2006. Which is correct? James086 05:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Production Date?

message: Is there a reason that "approximatley 3,000 metric hp, of which two thirds is lost in heat leaving" should not be included in the article.  Is there a valid countersource? Or somewhere that will discredit this information.  I have a source that I obtained it from.  Any information on the removal of this information would be much appreciated.  -- Thanks! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the best reason is that it's a silly, worthless figure.  How is it useful to note the chemical energy of the fuel an engine burns?  Just because something is true and found in a reliable source doesn't mean it matters. TomTheHand 19:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it just a worthless as all the other numbers that are thrown around in the article?  I am not disputing the validity of such numbers, however, I think it is interesting to note that over 2/3 of the horespower is lost in heat.  It may be better tied into the talk about all 10 radiators and such.  Would you have an objection to adding it to the setion on the radiators, stated like (not word for word but a rough idea)"Of the cars maximum 3000 hp produced, over 2/3 is lost as heat, which is counteracted by the cars 10 radiators?"  I am not set on the wording, however, I find the fact fascinating, and have a feeling other wikipedians may also.  Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All but the most efficient cars have a thermal efficiency below 33%; the Veyron is neither especially good nor especially bad in this regard.  It's deceptive to involve the radiators here; most of the heat simply heads straight out the exhaust pipe.  TomTheHand 19:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, I assure you have no association with this car or marketing, I just found the fact fascinating, and think that it adds value to the article for a regular, non car enthusiast, reader.  Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that you're not trying to market the car, but you've bought into its marketing. The figure's purpose is to impress regular, non car enthusiast readers. TomTheHand 19:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I may have been impressed.  However, I was not more impressed to see the 2000 lost hp as opposed to the 1001 hp the car already has.  Do you think that having that fact, somewhere in the article, will un repariably affect the article in a negative way?  I am all for trying to find  way to squeeze the fact in that wont make it sound like marketing or something like that.  Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The chemical energy of the total fuel burned by a car is either useful information or it isn't.  If it's useful, what is it useful for and why don't we include that information in every car article?  Why don't all manufacturers brag about that same figure?  If it's not useful information, then why do you want to put it in an encyclopedia? TomTheHand 21:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it comes down to, is that number notable.  Are there any other cars that have that high that much of there horespower burnt up by heat?  There are alot of things like that that wouldent be included in, lets say an article on the Dodge SHadow, because the number is not large, or notable or nobody would find it interesting.  THe fact that 2/3 of the power is is let off in heat i think is an interesting fact.  It is a statistic of the car, and i believe every bit as notable as any other number thrown out in the article, such as every g force the spoiler produces, etc etc.  I do no tbelieve all the other articles on a car contain this information.  The thing is this car is different than most, and may require different aspects in it, that oare not contained on less impressive cars.  Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that over 2/3 of the chemical energy of the fuel is wasted as heat is true of every automobile, and therefore does not need to be noted here.  The fact that multiplying 1001 by 3 results in a larger number than multiplying 150 by 3 also does not need to be noted.  I agree that the Veyron is a unique automobile, but this particular issue is actually one of the things about it that is pretty much the same as every other car.  To state otherwise is deceptive. TomTheHand 22:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  - That is a great argument.  I will do a little research (not that I dont trust you, but I want to  learn a little more on the topic.  If it all checks out, I will concede the point.  Thanks for being civil about this with me!  Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Chris. What Tom is saying above is precisely the reason why I removed this section. Gasoline passenger car engines have a thermal effiency of roughly 33%, which means all of them only convert about one third of the energy of the fuel to mechanical power and the rest is turned into heat. So basically if you filter out the marketing lingo from this statement, you're left with "The Veyron's gasoline engine works just like a gasoline engine.", which isn't particularly noteworthy. ;) Bal00 06:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep, that is what I learned.  Wikipedia is def a learning expieriece.  Thanks for working through it with me.  I lieu of the current information, I have no problem not having that information in the article and do not plan on readding it.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3,000 HP

message: There is a discussion of having a list like the one on this one deleted, well I am totally up for it. Well it currently under discussion here. Willirennen 20.51 2 December 2006
:Considering nobody has objected to the removal of this list, it will be removed by the end of the week. If anybody want to object, feel free to discuss. Willirennen 03:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: but one thing you need to ask is, what is that list for and does it add value to the article and if I don't delete this bit, then peer review people are going to recommend somebody delete it if that page wants to be GA or FA, that was discussed elsewhere, well somebody brought this up at the Ferrari Enzo discussion. Also, not to mention a lot of these lists that are to do with luxury cars are now being or currently being nominated for deletion. Willirennen 22:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read over some of the debates about the owners sections of other cars, and a lot of good points were brought up.  I am not exactly in favor of deleting the section, but I withdraw my objections. TomTheHand 00:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous owners list 

message: The "2.1 mpg, 12.5 minutes to empty tank at full throttle" figure comes up at least three times.  Would be nice to condense the contents of this article a bit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crag (talk • contribs) 19:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also: 407.5 km/h figure mentioned six times. "Can burn all fuel in 12 minutes" - three times. Cleanup definitely in order. GregorB 01:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: These figures need to be checked, as well.  2.1 mpg does not equal 125 L/100km, and neither figure calculates to 12.5 min using the 26.4 gal (100L) and the top speed of 253.8 mph (408.47 km/h).Bedogus11 14:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetitive Article 

message: I think we should cease and desist from using TG as a source. It is an entertainment, not a technical reference. You might as well post the opinion of a bloke you met down the pub. Greglocock 03:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Top Gear may be entertainment, but it's also a researched show - they can't go blurting out rubbish. The figures must have a basis in fact. 82.19.7.50 20:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Top Gear

message: The aero drag force required is defined by 1/2 * Cd * A *rho*v^2
The aero power is aero force *velocity, ie 1/2 * Cd * A *rho*v^3
OK?
11:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right.  Therefore, "aerodynamic drag increases as the cube of the speed" is incorrect. TomTheHand 13:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Power/drag palaver

message: W need to protect this article to keep away vandalizers. Even though some of the anonymous users don't vandalize this article, we still need to keep it protected. Professional Gamer 13:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the level of vandalism on this article is way too low to justify protection.  It did have a rough couple of days back when reports of that accident came out, but that's largely died down and now we have a very manageable level of vandalism. TomTheHand 13:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In case when there are too many anonymous users vandalizing this page, the article needs to be protected. Professional Gamer 16:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  However, in this case, there are not too many anonymous users vandalizing the page, and so it does not need to be protected. TomTheHand 17:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi protect this good article 

message: Although Volkswagen claims 1001 horsepower, it is actually 987 horsepower (1001 PS/736 kW) . Therefore, the Saleen S7 (equipped with the competition package) is the most powerful production car, at 1000 horsepower (1014 PS/746 kW). However, 1000 horsepower sounds like an estimate and I have not been able to find hard evidence for the Saleen's numbers. —Mr Grim Reaper (Talk | contribs), 15:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Autoblog.com is not a reliable source. TomTheHand 14:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why. However, almost all other site have 1001 horsepower as the listed horsepower. Perhaps 1001 horsepower is the true number? I would also still like to see more exact numbers for the Saleen S7 competition package. —Mr Grim Reaper (Talk | contribs), 01:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most powerful production car and horsepower 

message: I removed the following paragraph:
:The cars will be sold directly from the factory to customers or at 20 Bentley dealers worldwide. These include dealerships in Beverly Hills, London, Miami, Riyadh, San Diego, Troy, Pasadena, Greenwich and Sofia|Bulgaria
It's constantly having stuff added and removed, and the changes sometimes seem unlikely.  The paragraph needs to directly cite a reliable source and then any changes that aren't supported by that source can be reverted easily. TomTheHand 14:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealerships 

message: The "Performance", Specifications", and "Final numbers" sections need to be condensed into one single article, without the use of lists. Perhaps an "Overview" section with "Engine", "Chassis", Exterior", and "Interior" sub-sections would do much better. —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 14:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, someone has added a trivia section, completely unnecessary, when it could be included in more appropriate sections. —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 18:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many unnecessary sections 

message: The Barabus TKR does exist and more importantly it can go faster than the veyron (270 mph).
(See site below)
<http://www.autoblog.com/2006/07/21/barabus-tkr-0-60-mph-in-1-67-secs-270-mph-top-speed/>
sorry, i couldn't get this to hyperlink
:Car doesn't exist; see vaporware. TomTheHand 04:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Barabus also hasn't been tested to that speed, it's an estimate. —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 21:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not the fastest! 

message: ...As Bugatti, and therefore Volkswagen, are making such a loss, it has been likened by automotive journalist Jeremy Clarkson and his Top Gear programme team in their story on it to the Concorde, in that both were test-beds for advancements in technology and developed as exercises in engineering rather than profit.
I believe this misses the point. The argument Clarkson made, which I think has a point, is that both the Concorde and the Bugatti are a significant leap forward in technology, but the car will probably, like the plane did, lead to economical loss and will be discontinued. In the proces discouraging others to try anything like it for quite a while ("in his lifetime"). It's one of those very rare occasions where technological progression stalls and reverts to a lower level of achievement.
--145.97.197.100 23:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concorde comparison 

message: Just a correction, the bugatti veyron is not the most expensive car in these days, actually, the Maybach Exelero is more expensive!! it costs $8,000,000.00
here's the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maybach_Exelero  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.192.220.100 (talk) 20:58, August 26, 2007 (UTC) 
:: the exelero is a concept car, that might have cost $8M to take, however is not for sale.Sennen goroshi 16:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not the most expensive car 

message: Or is this like NOS incarnate?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.161.22 (talk) 09:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's theoretically possible for any car, but why ask? Also, don't forget to sign your comments. —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 01:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it possible to NOS this? 

message: Wasn't it actually called the Bugatti EB 18/3 Chiron?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugatti_Chiron  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.207.157.5 (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1999 EB 18/4 "Veyron"  I believe was called something else. 

message: The Ultimate Arrow is not, repeat not, a full production car. SCC is not a manufacturer of cars. It is a speciality company that has produced a speciality car. Even if it makes more than one car, or 5 cars, it is still a speciality company. The Veyron is made by Bugatti, which is a full production company. It invested many millions of dollars in the creation and production of the car. The Veyron was subjected to literally thousands of hours of testing by Bugatti, so as to comply with the requirements of VW (to which all of its' cars are subjected) in all types of climates, from Arctic conditions to the desert. It fully complies with all government requirments, in terms of emissions and saftey standards. 300 vehicles will be made, and over 165 of them have been sold. It has a world wide distribution network and mechanics are available to service the car. SCC can hardly make any of these claims, nor would it be expected to. It is really no different than an aftermarket company modifying a car, like the souped-up Viper Venom. It is a niche company, making a niche car, and nothing more. Also, let us not forget the that Veyron does not yet have an "official" top speed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.19.218 (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that Shelby Super Cars isn’t a full-scale manufacturing company shouldn’t change the fact that the Ultimate Aero (please note it’s called the Aero not the Arrow) is a production car. —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 22:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SCC Ultimate Arrow