Talk:Bugatti Veyron/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Talk archives for Bugatti Veyron (current talk page)
<< 1		Archive 1	Archive 2 >	2 >>

145.94.89.202 17:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

How does one go about in putting educated guesswork and speculation into a Wiki article? I leave that up to experienced wiki writers. Here are some pointers:

Ray Hutton, Times Online, a 2005 article: http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/new_car_reviews/article578444.ece

"The total price of the Veyron project has been a closely guarded secret."

Automobile magazine mentions a total R&D cost of US$ 384 million

http://www.automobilemag.com/new_and_future_cars/2009/0701_2009_bugatti_veyron_spider/

Another clue at ABC news online, http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Moms/story?id=1406161

"Bugatti admitted it won't make money off the Veyron, but Keller said that's due to the costs of re-establishing the brand -- including building a new multimillion-dollar factory for the first Bugatti in over 50 years."

IF the last statement is only mildly accurate then the number of "5 million pound" that Jeremy Clarkson mentioned during the episode of Top Gear show featuring the Veyron is far off the mark.

300 cars at £5 million is about £1500 million. The car is listed for little under £800k so selling all planned 300 cars would net roughly £240 million. Even if Bugatti looses on "re-establishing the brand", as their 2005 statement linked above mentions, and if it goes over firmly budget it is still quite unlikely that the total costs reaches the £1.5 billion that Clarkson inferred.

I uploaded what I think is a nicer image of the same car, but didn't replace the original. If any one of the major contributers to the article would like to consider it, it's located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bugatti16_4_clearerP7092230.jpg --TorrentFox 16:07, Oct. 6 2005 (UTC-5)

Wanted to talk about the description of the W16, specifically the following sentence:

It features a W16 engine—16 cylinders in 4 banks of 4 cylinders, or two W8 engines mated together at 90 degrees.

I changed it to this:

It features a W16 engine—16 cylinders in 4 banks of 4 cylinders, or two W8 engines mated together in line.

I'd like to explain why I feel it's a better description. The W8 is 4 banks of 2 cylinders, or two (theoretical) VR4 engines mated at 90 degrees. Mating two W8s at 90 degrees yields a WW16, with 8 banks of 2 cylinders ;-) A W16 is two W8s in line, or two (theoretical) VR8s mated at 90 degrees.

When I speak of, for example, a theoretical VR4, I mean a narrow angle V4 similar to VW's VR6 design. I'm going to revert my change back. TomTheHand 13:47, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

You're right. I was thinking "V8" not "W8" when I read that comment. Perhaps we should add both - it's both two W8s in a line and, conceptually, two V8s intermeshed. --SFoskett 13:54, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I partly agree with you, but I don't know if it's a good idea to try to explain VW's narrow angle engine concept on every page (VR6, W8, W12, W16), so I wonder if we can explain it in one place (perhaps VR6) and then refer the other pages to that explanation. TomTheHand 14:35, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'm an idiot and don't know how to post, but the first paragraph says it was designed in the UK, and the second says it was designed by Helmut or something in Germany. If you got the first bit of info off topgear, he was referring to the gearbox, which was designed and built in the UK by Ricardo.

MSN Car of the Year

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)

http://cars.msn.co.uk/caroftheyear2006/

Most expensive?

I have done my research and this is not the "most expensive" car as stated in the artical at 1.3 million. Instead the Ferrari FXX Super (seen here http://drautos.com/search/srDetails.asp?itemid=257282&sessionkey={E98F7F81-2479-49C4-8F00-75E6CBC178DC}) - which looks very similar to the Enzo appart from some noticeable differences. Also if possible add the FXX picture to the FXX page.

The Veyron is the most expensive road legal car. Although the Ferrari FXX is more expensive, it can't be driven on the road or even raced. It's a testbed for new technology. --- Trench 00:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Really? I thought the FXX was road legal. So who would want to pay 3,000,000 million dollars for something that cannot be driven. Who would pay 3,000,000 million dollars for a car anyway?

You people don't know anything about the FXX. It does cost 3 million, but the 29 (I believe) lucky owners receive a special pass to a private race track owned by the company, where they can do anything they want with the car...

If you can afford to spend 3 million dollars on a car then you can probably afford to have your own racetrack in the backyard anyway..

Very rich playboys

Hahahaha. That's a good one.

Ha-Ha, people who love racing will buy those cars obviously, as far as I know you have to recieve an invitation to be able to buy it.--Old Guard 09:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

What about Schuppan 962CR? That's street legal and should cost about US$1.5 million. Check: [[1]] [[2]] --Mr. Orange 62.168.125.219 16:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The Veryon is 1.5 million$ US so this is a dumb comment.

Not a production car. Only five were made by modifying race cars. TomTheHand 21:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should first set a standard by what we mean by 'most expensive.' Do we mean MSRP or highest sold auction price? There are many other cars which sell for similar prices, some higher some lower. —Mr Grim Reaper ^{(Talk | contribs)}, 14:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

a classic ferrari was sold for 18mil at auction in the 90s. i think the selling price of a new one should be used.

Describing a W16

Is this a W16 or a W18 the article says both

Simon.bastien 00:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The original 1999 concept car had a W18, but the 2001 concept car and the production car use the W16. TomTheHand 01:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

400-km/h

There's some more dispute going on over how to describe the W16 engine. Volkswagen's W16 is based on its VR6 engine technology, which is sort of a cross between a V6 and a straight six. It operates most like a straight six, with a single cylinder head and two cams driving 24 valves. The W16 is based on two of these, stretched to eight cylinders and mated at 90 degrees. It's not really accurate to describe the W16 as two V8s next to each other. It could possibly be described as two V8s intermeshed, but I think it's better to describe it in terms of other VW engines, since it really has no other automotive equivalent. The VR6 article explains the whole thing pretty well in my opinion, but I think it'd be a good idea to add more detail to the W pages and add more links back to VR6. I have a week off coming up, so hopefully I'll find some time to do it. TomTheHand 14:36, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Just noticed this link: http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/engine/smooth5.htm It has a nice pic of a W12 block that shows that I'm talking about. However, it says that the W12 is two VR6s mated at 72 degrees! Thought it was 90. I imagine that means all of VW's W engines are mated at 72 degrees, so I've got some updating to do. TomTheHand 14:39, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your explanation. Describing a general W16 with two V8’s seemed okay with me. But, with respect to the Veyron, VW apparently really based it on their W8’s (your own edit in W16 I think). I get the feeling your edit is more development history then explanation, but okay… 212.102.225.147 16:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I do understand what you mean, and I would like to offer a more complete explanation of VW's W engine line in the respective engine articles. I've been meaning to do it for some time but I just never get around to it. There are just two or three different ways to get the idea across, and trying to describe them all feels unencylopedic. TomTheHand 17:35, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Fastest Ever?

There is an article in this month's Car and Driver by Csaba Csere states that he took the Veyron to 253 MPH, hitting the rev limiter as he did so. Is it acceptable to call this car the fastest street-legal production car ever, or should we wait for more substantiation?

Attention: The Callaway Sledgehammer Corvette achieved a top speed of 255 mph and counting as a production model, is the fastest car in the world. For more information email me at pwilson@palmertrinity.org for data.

Are we talking with Nitrous or without?

The Ultimate Aero never achieved a top speed of 273, that was the capabilities due to downforce and body design.

We need to wait for independent instrumentation (Csere used the speedo in the car, I think) as well as actual production. Apparently 5 cars have been completed as of December, but none are in customer hands. --SFoskett 11:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Another issue, It is not doccumented that the top speed of the Veyron is electronically limited. Please fix this issue.

NEWS. "Just when you thought the supercar war was over, out of nowhere come two potentially Veyron-whopping cars from an American company called SSC." -- Road & Track magazine. http://www.sscautos.com/ Ultimate Aero is claimed to have 1046 bhp and a top speed of 440 km/h (273 MPH). -- 4l73

The important word is "potential". As far as I can determine, the 273 is a wind tunnel number or a paper exercise. The other thing is that SSC isn't a production company yet. Lots of people over the years have appeared, made big claims and then disappeared without selling anything.

The gearing/gearbox specification from the manufacturers own webside now indicates that 259.75 MPH is maximium achievable in 6th gear. Looking at the tire specification it appears that different (likely no road legal) tyres would/will be needed to actually see that speed as the standard pilot sport ps2's used are only rated upto 186mph by michelin. Veyron is fitted with custom version rated to 252MPH whilst still road legal, called pilot sport ps2 purely for marketing reasons, it is in reality a radically different tyre construction complete with the in wheel PAX system. --Swedishchef 02:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a note to those who care, the officially recorded top speed for the Sledgehammer was 254.76 MPH. --TBIRallySport 05:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Imho the Callaway Sledgehammer Corvette does not count as a production model. With (afaik) only 1 car ever produced, even if it was street legal at that time, you can not say it's a production model. --LPJ 08:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Only one car was built and it did not achieve this speed in road-legal state. It used custom-made tires, leaded 107 octane fuel and the catalytic converters were removed (source: C&D article). Bal00 01:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Depending on how one classifies "production car", the Hennessey Venom 1000 Twin Turbo is in fact that fastest street legal car. It has a top speed of 255MPH, 1,000BHP, 1,100 ft-lbs of torque, and at $225,000 is $1.5 million cheaper to buy. http://www.tuningnews.net/news/051101b/hennessey-srt-10-viper-venom-1000.php and http://www.hennesseyperformance.com/hennesseyperformance/ItemDetail.php?Item_ID=238&cart=BTEpxfMV&DoThis=Dodge+Viper+SRT10&ActionReq=Where

But it isn't a production car. It's a car modified in the aftermarket. TomTheHand 13:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a production car and it has never actually done 255MPH. 88.76.83.135 21:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Corvette Sledgehammer is NOT production and NEVER reached 255 anyway. PERIOD.

And anyway, even if the CS was production, the Veyron looks a lot cooler.

Reviews

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 {{fact}}. --BMT86 17:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I've done some investigating into the Clarkson statement, and I can't find that specific quote either. However, I read this, in which he basically says that he used to think the Veyron was dumb but, having driven it, now thinks it's amazing. We could pull a quote or two from the above article and say the same thing but without the factual inaccuracy. TomTheHand 18:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In reference to the criticism by Gordon Murray, again, I can't find that specific quote. It was added by an anon who hopefully might be able to source it. I have read plenty of criticism of the car by Murray, so I'm sure we can easily add something sourced.

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)

On the subject of him supposedly recanting, I didn't find it either, but a little Googling gave me this (continued onto the next page), in which he talks about things he does and doesn't like about the Veyron.

Basically, I agree with you that the article needs sources and I can't find where the quotes came from. I also think it'd be relatively easy to put some good, easily sourced quotes in, if nobody comes forward with sources for the current ones. TomTheHand 18:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity - as i could not find any proof - Forbes claims Saleen 7TT to be the fastest production/street legal car. This, while bold, is vague and is based on following statement: capable of speeds 240 - 260mph (manufacturer estimate) Saleen 7TT is the fastest car in the world. Best i could find was that Saleen did 243 mph. I keep my heart and my desktop with Veyron.

Yeah well im pretty sure the Barabus TKR is the fastest street legal car accelerating 0-60 in 1.67 sec and reported top speed of 270 mph heres the article:http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/07/21/barabus-tkr-takes-over-as-worlds-fastest-car/ --Jonni ^_^

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

quarter mile / performance

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)

So what's the actual ground clearance here? --UNHchabo 07:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The veyron does the quarter mile in less than that: http://www.dragtimes.com/Bugatti-Veyron-Timeslip-11310.html

Remember that this is ONE try, it could do even better. But at most 10.2 is a reliable figure. nihil 23:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that even using Bugatti official figures the Veyron loses out to the Ultima GTR720 at 0-100mph, 0-100-0, and the standing 1/4 mile, so to state that it is the 'fastest and quickest' is not strictly true. Meio 06:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

I removed the following:

Some see the Veyron as being an example of a sub-par design. The car seems to have been constructed with the idea of giving up almost everything in favor of performance on top speed and acceleration benchmarks. The car delivers performance by brute force and weight rather than elegance.

I was thinking about it and wanted to talk about it further here. The above statement is ridiculous, and I'd love to know what the writer thinks was "given up." The Veyron is incredibly fast, powerful, and luxurious. It also offers amazing handling. I've heard of skidpad figures of 1.3 G's.

No, 1.3 G's is physically impossible with a 4000+ pound car and 1000hp running through the tires. The fastest skidpad belongs to the Molser Mt-900 at 1.08 G's.

The Ultima GTR set a new skidpad record last year of 1.176 G and it just recently set a 0-100mph-0 time of 9.4 seconds Andynormancx 15:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Weight or power has nothing to do with skidpad performance. It's not even a measure of handling, just tire grip. Bal00 02:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Weight is a very important factor in skidpad performance. Add more weight to any car and tire grip will give up a few G's. Tire grip is only one of a few factors. --Cirilobeto 04:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

But then you need proportional more grip to move the extra weight. Weight cancels out exactly in the equation I believe. Double the weight, you double the grip, but you need twice as much grip to move twice the weight at the same number of G's. JasonAD 19:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

So at the end we conclude that weight does affect grip directly. Cirilobeto 23:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Weight does affect grip. The more weight a car has, the more grip it can generate. However this increase in grip is cancelled out by the higher centrifugal force generated by the increased weight. This means that _lateral acceleration_ is not affected by weight. A properly set up car on regular street tires will do somewhere around 0.9G-1.0G, no matter if it weighs 1000lb or 10000lb. 88.76.83.135 21:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand that more weight generates more grip and that the centrifugal forces in theory cancel out the grip. But that is just thinking about physics and not the whole picture. In reality, more weight reduces grip. Try this: test your car with only you inside and see the Gs that result. Then get four more people inside your car and do the test again. You will see a drop of about 0.02-0.03Gs due to the inside tires lifting up higher and sending more weight to the outside tires. So contact patch has been slightly reduced, resulting in less grip. --Cirilobeto 07:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No. More weight transfer is the result of changing the center of gravity. If you simply made the car heavier without changing the CoG, the lateral weight distribution would be unchanged. Weight does not affect lateral acceleration. Bal00 11:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly the point. Whenever a car is turning, the center of gravity shifts because the car is rotating on it's own axis. Basically, a car would need to have no suspension at all in order for the center of gravity to not take an effect on it's rolling characteristics. --Cirilobeto 15:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not what I was talking about. In your example (adding passengers to a given car), it's the higher CoG and (now) mismatched spring rates that cause more lateral weight transfer. If you simply make a car heavier without shifting the CoG upwards and fit appropriate springs, it doesn't roll any more than it did when it was lighter.

If you double the weight of a car without changing the location of its CoG, you can simply fit springs twice as stiff and it'll have the same roll characteristics as the lighter car (and ride just as well).

In the end this means that a 10000lb car can do just as well as a 1000lb car on the skidpad.

Consider the other extreme: Model cars. The weigh like 4lb, yet they only pull the same ~0.9G as passenger cars. Bal00 09:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

When you make a car heavier you have to make changes to the suspension so that the handling performance, including skidpad, is not affected. This is how I interpret your comment on fitting stiffer springs. This is why I'm saying weight does affect skidpad. It is all relative. Model cars have a contact patch far smaller than normal cars. I don't know if they pull the same Gs though, have never seen it. --Cirilobeto 16:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course the suspension has to be matched to the weight of the vehicle, but that's not an issue for production cars because this is taken care of in the design process. VW didn't just take a Golf chassis and added a ton of weight. Bal00 17:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

So, in the end, again, weight does affect skidpad which is what we've been discussing in the begining. Oh and by the way, I just saw a test of one of those model cars: an HPI Nitro RS4 Racer 2 with the body of a Porsche 911, looks very good I might add. You'll find it in the April 2001 issue of Road & Track. The car posted 1.33Gs on the skidpad. --Cirilobeto 20:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No, weight does not affect skidpad, mismatched suspension does, but that's not the case with production cars. In the end, a 4000lb car can pull the same numbers on the skidpad as a 1000lb car, which is what we were talking about in the first place. As for the model car you quoted, it runs a much softer tire compound, which increases the friction coefficient. The lower weight does not help it. Bal00 13:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to just interrupt, but weight DOES affect the skidpad test greatly. The reason a heavy car can achieve the same figures as a lighter car is because of other factors. If you had the same car and a ton of metal on the passenger seat it would achieve different results. James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 14:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

a=f/m, f=μmg => a=μmg/m => a=μg. There is no "m" in there. Bal00 02:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Tires don't follow the schoolboy physics friction equation. The lateral drip increases as the evrtical load on them increases, but not as quickly. Therefore, as the mass of the vehicle is increased, in general its ultimate lateral acceleration will fall, for a given set of tires. There are exceptions, it is an experiment that needs to be done carefully. See any vehicle dynamics textbook. Greglocock 03:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, I think the article would benefit from some sourced criticism. I read an article in either Car and Driver or Road and Track that included criticism of the Veyron design by one of the designers of the McLaren F1. It was extremely interesting. When I get home I'll dig up the mag and see what I can incorporate.

Something that really jumped out at me was that apparently they built a concept, THEN decided that they would make a production car out of it that would manage 400 kph and 1001 hp. The McLaren guy felt this was a terribly backwards approach to making an automobile, and you should figure out your performance target, then design your engine and vehicle around that.

For example, the area at the back where the engine is exposed is horribly aerodynamically inefficient, and they could have saved 100 hp if they simply had a smooth transition back there. However, they were quite determined not to drop "features" that were seen on the concept vehicle. All of these issues led to a long development time and an end result that has had many sacrifices made that a better design process might have avoided.

Nevertheless, saying that the car gives up "almost everything else" for top speed and acceleration is a little off. TomTheHand 19:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree. I think its a ridiculous car. Its just too much of everything. Its too heavy with too much engine. 1001 hp doesn't impress me. It actually does the opposite.

As to Gordon Murray's comments, I didn't originally include them because quite frankly they come across as really childish and sore loser. The sole claim to fame Murray's BMW-powered kit-car derived F1 had was the speed benchmarks. There wasn't much else to recommend it other than the big price tag.

I really don't know what you want out of a car. Is the problem a lack of practicality? If so, I'm sorry, but there is no need to note that sports cars are impractical. The car goes well, turns well, stops well, and is extremely comfortable. It may be ridiculously excessive, but it's not supposed to be a Honda Accord. "Heavy" and "too much engine" do not equate to "giving up almost everything." If the car were slow, or handled like a cow, it would be closer to a valid point.

I do see your points about Gordon Murray's comments. I felt sort of the same way reading the article, but I also thought he brought up many things that were valid. He would be a great source to cite, in my opinion, as long as it's made clear that it's a competitor's criticism and not without bias. TomTheHand 20:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ubercar

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)

It's an über-neologism that has now been removed ;-) TomTheHand 14:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool thanks, got über-confused when I saw that haha :) --KryptonZone 19:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That was über-funny! --SpinyNorman 04:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

trivia

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)

I believe what's meant is that if both cars were at a stop, and the McLaren was allowed a head start up to 120 mph before the Bugatti started, the Bugatti would still reach 200 mph faster than the McLaren. Does that make sense?

I want to correct it, but I want to verify its factual accuracy first. TomTheHand 17:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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).

Can we at least reword that point to make it sound more like just a claim jeremy clarkson has made, rather than a provable fact he has stated? "According to jeremy clarkson, in a speed race, if the McLaren F1..." would be an improvement in my opinion R42 16:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed references to the Koenigsegg CCX testing and engine from trivia since the former was speculative and the latter irrelevant.

The "3000 horsepower" claim

An editor added a claim that the engine "produces approx. 3000bhp". This is not correct. The claim evidently stems from an article [3] 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)

Yeah, that's more of a "Chuck Norris" kind of claim anyways...'cause before Chuck Norris goes to sleep, he checks his garage for a Veyron!70.106.36.130 21:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Weight

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)

Dumb question

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)

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)

0-100-0 performance

could someone add the recent domination of the veyron in the 0-100-0 challenge. I would, but not exactly sure where it is meant to go.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/06/28/bugatti-veyron-dominates-0-100-0mph-contest/

No Predecessor?

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)

No, but I'll fix the EB110 article. --SpinyNorman 05:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Veyron makers refuse to sell to Rappers?

So I was reading either DUB or Rides (The one with the N.E.R.D.'s Pharrell Williams on front; forgot which one) and in his interview, the interviewer stated that the makers/creators of the Veyron refused to sell the Veyron to "rappers" because he didn't want the car to be in the hands of these folks and wanted to get an opinion from Pharrell. I'm assuming that there is a stigma that some rapper would turn the Veyron into a rolling mockery of the design with flashy rims and whatnot. My question is, is the interviewers claims right? Did VW or soemone related to them outright say "We won't sell the Veyron to Rappers?" --293.xx.xxx.xx 10:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Like Ferrari and other respectable carmakers, if Bugatti (VW) doesn't want you to have a Veyron then you are not going to get one. They have to select deserving customers. For instance, VW was outraged when Tom Cruise showed up in a Veyron, a guy who obviously don't corner a car too hard because i) he doesn't know how and, ii) he is afraid the G forces are going to mess up his hair. Same with Rappers. You are respectable when at least you show you deserve the money you have. That means having class. There is nobody with less class than a friggin Rapper. No matter how rich you are, having 10 pounds of gold chains hanging from your neck and dressing in baggy Nike jogging suits with a big fat gold-white Nike Shox shoe is NOT class. Lets not mix those kind of "people" with a Buggati please. Thanks.

I imagine they're more nervous about the possible negative publicity from a bunch of guys with more money than driving ability blasting around in these cars. --SpinyNorman 05:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

i dont know if the guys said they werent gonna sell it to retarded rappers, but it would be a good thing if they did.. it costs vw about 4 mill $$ to make the car, so i'm guessing they're choosing their clients instead of the clients choosing them.. and no1 whats to deal with stupid rappers..

I say, good luck to any rapper who manages to even be considered for one. It's not as if you can just walk into a showroom and buy one, no matter how important you may think you are. You get a Veyron if VW wants you to get a Veyron.

Now looking at the owner's list, do they regret selling one to label-junkie Nigo[4] (as he is shown himself to be during an feature at the Intersection magazine), who had his in pink with some funny stuff on it, doesn't that make them hypocritical. Willirennen 15.15 14 November 2006 (utc)

Rappers shouldn't even be able to drive anything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.216.229 (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

I think Thomas Bscher may have been the source. I recall him being quoted on this in a magazine. But it could have been said musingly. The German banker and enduro racer was Veyron project leader for some time.86.90.51.217 19:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Bart

Production Date?

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)

in the German Mgazine Auto-Motor-und-Sport, the length of the car is 4662 mm and the wheelbase is 2710 mm.

3,000 HP

Is there a reason that "approximatley 3,000^[1] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

- 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)

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)

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)

Famous owners list

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)

Sorry, I didn't make my desires clear enough at the above discussion, but I think that the current, entirely sourced list should stay. Additions to the list must be sourced, however. TomTheHand 04:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Repetitive Article

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).

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)

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)

Top Gear

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)

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)

Can we get a confirmation that http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/17/Bugatti-EB-16-4-Veyron-interior-dash-brown-1280x960.jpg is a Veyron interior? I'm seeing an odd lack of paddle shifters, and a manual shifter with shift lines on it. Also, many features look far more different than being just custom.

Agreed. The TOP GEAR show, had a different interior if Im not wrong....

Is there any truth in the rumor Bugatti will not let Top Gear take the Veyron around the track as they are worried it will not top the board?

Power/drag palaver

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)

That's right. Therefore, "aerodynamic drag increases as the cube of the speed" is incorrect. TomTheHand 13:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

A correct way to make the intended point is to say, "The power required from the engine to overcome the aerodynamic drag increases as the cube of the speed." This captures the fact the ICEs produce power, not thrust and hence it is the cube of the speed that is of interest to the designer of the engine. If this were a jet powered car, it would be a different story. 131.122.87.7 16:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Semi protect this good article

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)

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)

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)

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)

Most powerful production car and horsepower

Although Volkswagen claims 1001 horsepower, it is actually 987 horsepower (1001 PS/736 kW) [5]. 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)

Autoblog.com is not a reliable source. TomTheHand 14:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Dealerships

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)

Too many unnecessary sections

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)

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)

Not the fastest!

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)

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)

Thats just like the SSC Aero with top (possible) speed of 273 MPH('07) and 286 mph('08). Uber555 03:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

bugatti veyron comparisons

If one adds the figures for the 0-100-0 times of the veyron and the car that supposedly is faster, one sees that the times are identical at 8.9 seconds. What gives?

Concorde comparison

...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)

US space program, civilian jet aircraft generally, high speed trains, high speed passenger liners, cargo ships in general. All of these things have plateau'd or fallen back from previous highs. Greglocock 00:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Not all pictures show production car

Of the pictures in the article, only the white/gray car is production spec. The other pictures show prototypes with slightly different air intakes. It's actually fascinating to watch these changes happen over the years. Some of the final pre-production cars (one black over yellow) had an air outlet behind the front wheel, but only on one side of the car. The site www.seriouswheels.com shows a number of press photos - which manufacturers tend to give out free of copyright. (Is it okay for me to give the name? 86.90.51.217 20:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Bart

White/gray? Do you mean the top one (white/blue)? The others are pre-production, on display at car shows.

Not the most expensive car

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)

Is it possible to NOS this?

Or is this like NOS incarnate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.161.22 (talk) 09:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

SSC Ultimate Aero TT

There is no indication that SSC has produced more than one Ultimate Aero TT, which makes its status as a production car dubious; more importantly, I have never seen a reliable source noting that the Ultimate Aero TT is street legal, having passed emissions and crash testing. Unless someone can provide a source indicating that the Aero is street legal, I would ask that people please refrain from modifying the first paragraph to state that the Veyron is the second fastest street legal full production car. TomTheHand 20:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"WEST RICHLAND, WA (SEPT 13, 2007) - Shelby Supercars (SSC), manufacturer of the ultra high-performance Ultimate Aero Twin Turbo, set the new "World's Fastest Production Car" record earlier today with an average top speed of 255.83 mph. Confident of the 1183 hp vehicle's abilities, SSC set out to validate their top speed claim in accordance with the strict guidelines set by Guinness World Records. Among other requirements, in order to meet Guinness' approval, a vehicle testing for the top speed record must race down the course, turn around, and make a second pass in the opposite direction within one hour." This car is not only faster than the Veyron, with 1183 horsepower, it is also the world's most powerful production car. This is early on in the verification process, hence I have not made changes to the article. But rest assured, this car is the fastest most powerful production car on the planet and will soon

be verified as such by Guinness. http://jalopnik.com/cars/breaking-news/first-chunk-of-sscs-world-record-press-release-299758.php RTShadow 00:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that the Aero went 255 mph yesterday. Now, does anyone have a source indicating that the Aero is street legal? Or that more than one Ultimate Aero TT exists? TomTheHand 03:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"American auto manufacturer SSC's is actioning off the first (#001) car of a twenty car production run of it's latest Aero supercar models. This is a no reserve action that is currently at $431,000. So what will the winner get:

The 2007 SSC Ultimate Aero "TT" (twin-turbo) supercar with serial #SSC-07-001. This 1180 HP beast is a U.S. legal production car that is designed to surpass the 253 mph top speed record held be the Bugatti Veyron." Link - http://dreaming-cars.blogspot.com/2006/08/ssc-aero-tt-selling-on-ebay.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.167.81 (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant reliable source, not some guy's blog entry talking about a fake Ebay auction. TomTheHand 16:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That's why I didn't make the change, I just added the article to discussion, I have heard the same thing on our car forum from some pretty reliable sources but until it's actually published that they are actually selling the car then it can't take over, but from what I've heard and seen it's coming. I'm still perplexed why a car that has sold all of 14 (the Veyron) is considered a full production car, but I guess if you sell more than 1 that's a production car by Guiness and industry standards. Oh well. RTShadow 16:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

it is confirmed and road legal. it was tested, with number plates in the UK. to have the plates, it must be registered and have a full MOT certificate. therefore road legal.Sennen goroshi 16:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

oh.. a link http://www.pistonheads.com/roadtests/doc.asp?c=47&i=16487 Sennen goroshi 16:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed the above comment and needed to respond to it. 14 Veyrons were produced as of March 2006. They've been in constant production since that date. TomTheHand 14:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have some issues with that you have done. First off, Guiness basically decides who has the world's fastest car, and until they certify the SSC as the world's fastest production car, this change shouldn't be made. Secondly, you changed only part of the article, if you want to make quality additions to wikipedia you need to read and research this entire article, because the Veyron is referenced as the world's fastest car in more than just one place, and with 10 seconds of review I found that. Quality should still be important along with reliability in source, even if you can prove it that doesn't excuse sloppy editing. RTShadow 21:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, could you clarify what you're saying? Are you looking at the last picture, which shows the car with an "AERO TT" license plate, and saying that the fact that it has a plate makes it a street-legal production car? Setting aside that that's not a safe assumption, it's also original research. TomTheHand 23:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

TomTheHand - I see your point, I assume (and I do realise that an assumption has to be 99.9% for it to be acceptable) that if the car was driven on the road, that it is road legal. It might be just from a website, but it is a pretty well known website and I cant imagine them for a moment, driving a car on the road, without it being legal. Afterall they are well known enough to get the car for a test drive. I am still very confident that it is a road legal car, SSC's website calls it road legal, it is driven on the road. Even if it is not classified for US road usage, as yet, in some cases it can be much easier for a small volume manufacturer to get their car approved in UK, compared with US. I think the speed of the car is not disputed. My opinion is that if SSC's site says its road legal, and it has been tested on the roads, then it is fair to assume that it is road legal - or at least it is road legal in at least one country. Wasnt the Maclaren F1 illegal for use in the states? along with the Porsche 959? but Im obviously open to opinions/suggestions/decisions regarding this. thanks Sennen goroshi 02:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

RTShadow, I dont see Guiness approval being needed in this case. Speeds/Prices/etc of cars should only need a reliable source. but when it comes to the low quality of the edit, you are right. I didnt check the rest of the article to see if there were other references to the 'fastest in the world' etc, sorry about that.Sennen goroshi 02:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to imply that pistonheads.com was breaking the law. Both the U.S. and U.K. have laws that allow you to drive kit cars or prototypes on the road which don't have to pass emissions or crash testing. If the SSC Ultimate Aero TT is type approved for use on roads, it should be possible to find government sources which say so... it's possible to go to epa.gov and look up the Veyron, for example. I think it's reasonable to be skeptical about SSC's claims; while there is no doubt that they achieved the speed they claim, their lack of production figures makes me skeptical about the "production car" claim and the lack of government info on the vehicle's legality makes me skeptical about the "street legal" claim. SSC has supposedly been producing and selling Aeros for several years, after all. TomTheHand 02:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

is there something clear that explains exactly what a production car is? something like the Veyron is obviously a production car, how about the small volume companies? How about Ultima, who constantly break records, but do so by just slapping a slightly more powerful engine in their existing car and saying its their new model (when only a handful of people will buy it) I have no objection to the SSC being removed as the fastest car, but there must be some form of consensus regarding what is a production car. There are small volume cars which are definately production cars - Ariel/Westfield/Bristol - but cars like the TT Viper are debatable is it a production car or a tuned car? Also when something is pretty much built to order is it a production car? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sennen goroshi (talk • contribs) 03:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, on list of automotive superlatives we went with the following four rules:

Vehicles constructed principally for the transport of people rather than other primary purposes.
20 or more examples must have been made by the original vehicle manufacturer and offered for commercial sale to the public in new condition - cars modified by either professional tuners or individuals are not eligible
They must be street-legal in their intended markets and capable of passing any tests or inspections required to be granted this status
They must have been built for retail sale to consumers for their personal use on public roads - no commercial or industrial vehicles are eligible

The SSC Aero doesn't meet those criteria, and neither does the Hennessey Viper, but if Guinness calls a vehicle of which two were produced a "production car" then I would imagine it's original research for us to say otherwise. Nevertheless I'm skeptical about the Aero for the reasons stated above, and many other people are as well. TomTheHand 14:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite happy for the Veyron to remain listed as the fastest - a tuned car has no place, unless it is something along the lines of the FQ range of Lancer EVOs, I think they were tuned in the UK, but it was done with Mitsubishi's approval, or something like RUF or Brabus, which are listed as manufacturers rather than tuners. As for the SSC hmmmmmm I view it as a custom built car, it might be a standard model, but they will make so few of them, I view it in the same way as I view the various road-going versions of the porsche 962 - road legal, but not a production model.

Sennen goroshi 15:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to take this article off my watchlist and stop reverting; I fear that I might not have a neutral point of view. I'm insufficiently satisfied that the SSC Ultimate Aero TT is a street-legal production car, but I feel like I'm requiring too high of a standard of proof. TomTheHand 15:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously. Your viewpoint is hardly neutral, and the SSC Ultimate Aero TT has been on sale for almost a year. If you go to the SSC website, which I referred you to and which you claim you did, you would see SSC has a dealer in Las Vegas, and that the car comes in 11-12 standard colors - hardly a "one off". Too bad, your bias has turned a lot of editors off of wanting to keep this entry updated and accurate, and the Veyron article remains inaccurate all because of you. Good job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.167.81 (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the Ultimate Aero qualifies as a production car.

A. Production Figures-SSC has sold more than 20 cars through Motorcars of Las Vegas (http://www.motorcarslv.com/) As far as I know the only way to go about obtaining a new Veyron is by an order form sent to Bugatti. I welcome anyone who can send me a dealership that sells new Veyrons to do so.

B. Emissions- "the Ultimate Aero produces more emissions-legal horsepower than any other production automobile in the world" (http://www.shelbysupercars.com/press.php#speed) Also The fact that there are few governmental sources regarding the Aero far from proves that it is not street legal. SSC is not a mainstream company and it will take time for their cars to attract the attention of the government.

C. Street Legality- I would appreciate it if someone could find me the "laws that allow you to drive kit cars or prototypes on the road which don't have to pass emissions or crash testing." as I'm having trouble finding them. I would like to see a better formulated list of solid reasons that disqualify the Aero as a production car. So far it seems that people have been refuting the argument for change with the statement that "The Aer isn't a production car" without any solid evidence as to exactly where it fails to qualify.

It seems a shame that this article is still inaccurate for no real reason other than the fact that there are still people who are heavily biased toward the Veyron -Stealthsloth22

1999 EB 18/4 "Veyron" I believe was called something else.

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)

yeah, that was the name of a concept http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugatti_18/3_Chiron Sennen goroshi 15:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

SCC Ultimate Arrow

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)

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)

It most certainly does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.19.218 (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

wow, somebody is so obsessed with the veyron that they refuse to listen to any right or reason, sort of reminds of extremist religious people! (192.197.54.27) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

My argument is motivated simply by facts, not emotion. If the Aero is truly a full production car, then I stand corrected. One caveat, however, is that the Veyron does not yet have an 'official' top speed. In the company test in April, 2007, the Veyron had an average speed of 253.81 mph, which means that, on one the 2 runs, it went faster. We don't know how much faster. Perhaps Bugatti will release that info some day soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.189.14 (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Some questions for the readers to answer if they can about the Aero. Does anyone know what tires were used on the car for its' 'record' run? Are they the same tires that will be on the model sold to the public? What kind of gasoline was used? These are important questions, as any deviation from the 'production' model- tires, gasoline, modifications to the engine, however slight- vitiate any claim to a production record. The Veyrons that are tested have been completely stock models. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.19.218 (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)