Bugatti Veyron and Top Gear

To the guy who dislikes the Veyron: Are you telling me that if you were given the choice to have either a Bugatti Veyron or a SSC Ultimate Aero TT for free you would take the Ultimate Aero? If so, that is the most stupid thing ever. The only advantage the Ultimate Aero has over the Veyron is that it can go 2 mph faster at the top end and do a 1/4 mile 0.4 seconds faster. The Veyron can go from 0-60 slightly faster (2.6 s vs. 2.8 ), it has 4WD, it is more comfortable, and at great speed, a lot more stable. The Veyron is build for regular use. The Ultimate Aero is probably less reliable and if you try to achieve it's performance figures, you won't survive too long.
 
I can't remember the model or the race (although I have a suspicion it was the 'Ring) but for one race the "A" drivers just flat out refused to drive the 917. Too scary.
The first one they raced in 1969 with the long rear was the scary one. But as soon as the fully sorted 1970 model was put into service the 917 became the racing car that ALL racing drivers wanted to drive, it was paramount, they would literally sell their mother to get to drive one.

As for the 956/962, look at the in car 956 video from Le Mans and you'll see how effortlessly it goes down the Mulsanne at 250 mph, with no waving around or anyting, just some vibrations from the raicing suspension.
 
There's a 19 year old kid with a Veyron. I saw it on VH1...pretty nuts.

And like everyone who's on VH1 that owns a Veyron, in 20 years he'll realise - as the repo men are taking away the last of his bejeweled shower faucets, that he shouldn't have spent all his wealth on stupid, tangible, things.

Not saying the Veyron is a stupid thing that won't be worth lots later on, but you know the type I'm talking about.
 
"The Veyron features a W16 engine?16 cylinders in 4 banks of 4 cylinders, or the equivalent of two narrow-angle V8 engines mated in a "W" configuration. Each cylinder has 4 valves, for a total of 64, but the narrow V8 configuration allows two camshafts to drive two banks of cylinders so only 4 camshafts are needed. The engine is fed by four turbochargers, and it displaces 8.0 L (7,993 cc/488 in?) with a square 86 by 86 mm bore and stroke."

You see, right there. F***en Genius!

Under Specifications: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugatti_Veyron

Also, Jeremy Clarkson: "... I mean it has two 4.0 liter V8 engines joined together to make an 8.0 liter W-16..."

Top Gear - [07x05] - 15:24

Mr genius CAMSHAFT is diferent from CRANKSHAFT if u look at what u posted it says "only 4 camshafts are needed" that's perfectly normal if u know a bit of mechanics but with your logics 4 camshafts that makes it 4 I4 engines not 2 V8, why don't u drop it we get it u don't like the Veyron

BTW: If u want to see how silent it is check out when james may took it to 407km/h he was talking normaly didn't have to raise he's voice, and that's smthn.
 
I have seen the Veyron 2 times now in person on VW carshow.
When you stand right next to it , it looks absolutely amazing.
I would sell my mother to drive one of those oh and she wouldn't be mad at all because she would sell me for one as well :)
 
It's significantly lighter.
Weight has very little to do with top speeds. Aerodynamics and power count here, more weight only means that it'll probably take longer to get there.
 
And like everyone who's on VH1 that owns a Veyron, in 20 years he'll realise - as the repo men are taking away the last of his bejeweled shower faucets, that he shouldn't have spent all his wealth on stupid, tangible, things.

Not saying the Veyron is a stupid thing that won't be worth lots later on, but you know the type I'm talking about.

Nah, it was a show about the richest people in the world. He's the child of a Billionaire somewhere overseas (from the US.) He won't be having any financial troubles risking his ownership of a Veyron. He's got a whole fleet of nice exotics and luxury cars.
 
Because VW are morons.

No one in their right minds actually thinks that the Veyron could top the lap board. Not letting Stig at won't create the illusion that it could outdo a CCX.
 
Because VW are morons.

No one in their right minds actually thinks that the Veyron could top the lap board. Not letting Stig at won't create the illusion that it could outdo a CCX.
Yes but it's better to remain stationary and and be thought slow than to hand over the keys and remove all doubt.
 
Nah, it was a show about the richest people in the world. He's the child of a Billionaire somewhere overseas (from the US.) He won't be having any financial troubles risking his ownership of a Veyron. He's got a whole fleet of nice exotics and luxury cars.

Oh right, actually I think I saw that one...or maybe a show like it.
 
The veyron is an amazing car but the Aero TT is faster and probably a lot more fun

besides being off topic,

Id agree with most other people as to why top gear hasnt had the veyron on the show. Bugatti never meant for this car to be record breaking around a tight track. so I really doubt it would be, but it suceeds in doing what its supposed to do
 
There seem to be some severe cases of "Bugatti Envy" in this thread...

Personally I would never talk or assume or speculate about how it's driving or feeling, until I have actually done it.

Since it is very likely that no one here will ever even be able just to sit in one, we are all damned to believe what those who have driven it say.

And if you check that out, you stumble on the same pattern everywhere: Experienced motor journalists who suddenly go bonkers and run out of words to describe what they experienced.

I think that is a very good indicator for the qualities of the Veyron.
 
Because VW are morons.

No one in their right minds actually thinks that the Veyron could top the lap board. Not letting Stig at won't create the illusion that it could outdo a CCX.

Chris harris reckons the veyron's handling and braking are in a class of its own.

It's significantly lighter. If you removed the limiter, it'd probably hit 260 MPH.

Weight has nothing to do with top speed.
 
Weight has nothing to do with top speed.

From everything I've learned in physics, it does have some bearing.

If you're telling me that I could put a whole thing of lead in the passenger seat of a Veyron, then get to 253 MPH, I don't see how that's possible. While it may get there theoretically, there's no track in the world where they would have enough straight line distance to get the theoretically heavier car up to that speed. IE: The Pur Sang, at Ehra Lessen, could get to 253 MPH faster, and in less distance, thereby providing more distance for going faster.

PS: On my formula sheet for physics, mass is in just about every equation for solving for Vf.

EDIT: Just realized that I may not have been the most eloquent in what I said above. Let me rephrase it:
You've got 8 miles of straight, flat, smooth road. On the left is a Bugatti Veyron. Completely stock, completely normal. In the middle is another Veyron. Absolutely identical to the first, except there's a bunch of lead in the passenger area. And on the right is a Veyron Pur Sang. All 3 set off at the same time. The one that will get to 253 MPH first will be the Pur Sang, followed by the normal one, followed by the one that's been weighed down (if it can get there in 8 miles - I haven't bothered to calculate it). Since the Pur Sang has gone to 253 MPH first, we assume that it still has some track left, and the driver continues to floor it (assuming the speed limiter has been removed, he has enough fuel, tyres are intact, etc). He will be going the fastest by the end of the track. Theoretically, the weighed down Veyron should get to the same top speed, it'll just take much longer and you'll need a lot more track. Since the normal Veyron only really just gets to top speed at Ehra Lessen, I doubt there is a facility in the world that you could get to the same speed in one that's much heavier. By the same token, you should need less track to get to the same speed in the Pur Sang. You'll have more track left over to play with, then.
 
Last edited:
still, weight has nothing todo with the topspeed. you said that yourself :p

the more the mass, the more the force it would need to get moving. the concept of inertia.
but since it has started to move, means the inertia has been overcame, and now the mass wont act as a resistance (MASS OF THE CAR REMAINS CONSTANT UNLESS THE CAR STRIPS ITSELF DOWN DURING THE RUN :p or GAINS DUE TO THE LITTLE DUST PARTICLES settling over it). much like the friction between the road and tyres.. the drag increases with increasing speed, so the more the slippery (aerodynamic) the car is, the faster it would reach its top speed. once the topspeed has been reached, the driving force (by the engine) would be equal to the sum of frictional force and drag due to air at the TOPSPEED.



yes, the more the weight, the more the time it would need to reach the topspeed, given that there is enough track, as said by NHeer-Design.
 
Last edited:
Back on topic...
Didn't Jeremy say in the same episode that Bugatti wouldn't let the Stig drive it around the track? Maybe they saw what he did to the Koenigs-abba before they put the spoiler on it and thought "Hmmm...No.".
 
The veyron is an amazing car but the Aero TT is faster and probably a lot more fun

But the advantage the Veyron has over the Aero is that it can (to an extent) be used everyday. The Aero will have a terrible interior compared to the perfectly polished Veyron's. And in the real world it wouldn't be any faster. The conditions they wait for months for to test the top speed are the best they will ever encounter. And the SSC is so much more ugly than the Veyron.
 
Top