Bugatti VGT? #imaginEBugatti (Update 15/9: So many screenshots!)

  • Thread starter FoRiZon
  • 1,061 comments
  • 109,417 views
Those rear-view cameras on each side of the car look okay. I was expecting to see some monitors in the interior, but I see nothing. They must be incorporating the rear-view screens somewhere in that driver's dashboard display unit. It will be interesting to see. If they have modeled the interior, that is...
 
Think we'll see a Bugatti race suit? Maybe they'll just write that the rear view cameras are displayed in the visor of the helmet...
 
There are 2 displays in the cockpit. Projected in the windshield, which will probably have the tachometer and other instruments since it's marked as 3 circles, and the display panel in front of the steering wheel that I suppose it could display either the tail camera or both the side mirror ones.
 
NixxxoN
Im just trying to make you guys see the light ;) You guys should realise that the physical cockpit + physical wheel is what matters, the virtual one doesn't. The cockpit is the real one, the TV screen is the windshield of the car
Click to expand...
No. What matters is the view i like most, the view that is of this age, i'e fully modeled cockpits. Not having them is just lazy. When im in a Ferrari i want to see im in a Ferrari and not that im just in my room in front of a tv that is suposed to be a windshield which in fact doesnt apear to be a windshield but rather a camara outside of the car thus not giving me any sense of imersion like the cockpit view does as i have sat in many cockpits but have never driven a car from the bumper.

In any case, if people say they want and enjoy cockpit view i dont see ho9w it effects you in any kind of way.
 
I must say i am pretty excited to see the Bugatti VGT enter GT. The design is great, its like a more futuristic Veyron. I would probably drive the hell out of this beast when it first comes out.
 
pokemonfan58
Well that Bugatti looks very neat but the Hyundai is looking more interesting IMO. The only thing we hope for is that the Hyundai is not a 2000 HP speed demon.
Click to expand...

In terms of top speed 2000 BHP is only twice as much as 250 BHP, because in order to double the speed you need to multiply power by 8. The increase in acceleration is far more dramatic than the increase in top speed.

Ignoring other forces, top speed is when the force of traction pushing the car forwards is equal to the force of aerodynamic drag acting in the opposite direction, when Ft = Fd.

Ft = force of traction
Fd = force of drag​

The force of drag increases with velocity square:

Fd = x*v^2​

v = velocity (meters / second)​
x = 0.5*air density*drag area (air density in kg/m^3, drag area in square meters)

Force of traction depends on wheel torque and the amount of friction between the tyre and the road. To simplify we can use a tyre with no slip, i.e. all the wheel torque gets converted to traction and no torque is lost. Since we're dealing with power and not with force, we need to convert the force of traction to power:

F = p / v​

F = force (Newton)
p = power (Watt)

So in the equation we substitute Ft with p / v and Fd with x*v^2:

Ft = Fd becomes p / v = x*v^2​

Now we can multiply both sides with v to find that the power needed to reach velocity v increases with the cube of v:

p = x*v^3​

Feeding the equation with values, here is the power required* to reach some speeds with a typical car (drag area = 0.6 m^2, air density = 1.225 kg/m^3):

50 km/h: 1.34 BHP
100 km/h: 10.71 BHP
200 km/h: 85.68 BHP
300 km/h: 289.16 BHP
350 km/h: 459.17 BHP
400 km/h: 685.40 BHP
450 km/h: 975.90 BHP
500 km/h: 1338.68 BHP
550 km/h: 1781.78 BHP
600 km/h: 2313.24 BHP​

(*Plus the power required to overcome rolling resistance, friction and other forces that acts in the negative vector.)

So even a small increase in speed requires a big boost of power. The difference in top speed between a 1000 BHP car and a 2000 BHP car may just be 100 to 120 km/h.
 
eran0004
In terms of top speed 2000 BHP is only twice as much as 250 BHP, because in order to double the speed you need to multiply power by 8. The increase in acceleration is far more dramatic than the increase in top speed.

Ignoring other forces, top speed is when the force of traction pushing the car forwards is equal to the force of aerodynamic drag acting in the opposite direction, when Ft = Fd.

Ft = force of traction
Fd = force of drag​

The force of drag increases with velocity square:

Fd = x*v^2​

v = velocity (meters / second)​
x = 0.5*air density*drag area (air density in kg/m^3, drag area in square meters)

Force of traction depends on wheel torque and the amount of friction between the tyre and the road. To simplify we can use a tyre with no slip, i.e. all the wheel torque gets converted to traction and no torque is lost. Since we're dealing with power and not with force, we need to convert the force of traction to power:

F = p / v​

F = force (Newton)
p = power (Watt)

So in the equation we substitute Ft with p / v and Fd with x*v^2:

Ft = Fd becomes p / v = x*v^2​

Now we can multiply both sides with v to find that the power needed to reach velocity v increases with the cube of v:

p = x*v^3​

Feeding the equation with values, here is the power required* to reach some speeds with a typical car (drag area = 0.6 m^2, air density = 1.225 kg/m^3):

50 km/h: 1.34 BHP
100 km/h: 10.71 BHP
200 km/h: 85.68 BHP
300 km/h: 289.16 BHP
350 km/h: 459.17 BHP
400 km/h: 685.40 BHP
450 km/h: 975.90 BHP
500 km/h: 1338.68 BHP
550 km/h: 1781.78 BHP
600 km/h: 2313.24 BHP​

(*Plus the power required to overcome rolling resistance, friction and other forces that acts in the negative vector.)

So even a small increase in speed requires a big boost of power. The difference in top speed between a 1000 BHP car and a 2000 BHP car may just be 100 to 120 km/h.
Click to expand...
that's some hardcore physics and math :embarrassed:
 
eran0004
In terms of top speed 2000 BHP is only twice as much as 250 BHP, because in order to double the speed you need to multiply power by 8. The increase in acceleration is far more dramatic than the increase in top speed.

Ignoring other forces, top speed is when the force of traction pushing the car forwards is equal to the force of aerodynamic drag acting in the opposite direction, when Ft = Fd.

Ft = force of traction
Fd = force of drag​

The force of drag increases with velocity square:

Fd = x*v^2​

v = velocity (meters / second)​
x = 0.5*air density*drag area (air density in kg/m^3, drag area in square meters)

Force of traction depends on wheel torque and the amount of friction between the tyre and the road. To simplify we can use a tyre with no slip, i.e. all the wheel torque gets converted to traction and no torque is lost. Since we're dealing with power and not with force, we need to convert the force of traction to power:

F = p / v​

F = force (Newton)
p = power (Watt)

So in the equation we substitute Ft with p / v and Fd with x*v^2:

Ft = Fd becomes p / v = x*v^2​

Now we can multiply both sides with v to find that the power needed to reach velocity v increases with the cube of v:

p = x*v^3​

Feeding the equation with values, here is the power required* to reach some speeds with a typical car (drag area = 0.6 m^2, air density = 1.225 kg/m^3):

50 km/h: 1.34 BHP
100 km/h: 10.71 BHP
200 km/h: 85.68 BHP
300 km/h: 289.16 BHP
350 km/h: 459.17 BHP
400 km/h: 685.40 BHP
450 km/h: 975.90 BHP
500 km/h: 1338.68 BHP
550 km/h: 1781.78 BHP
600 km/h: 2313.24 BHP​

(*Plus the power required to overcome rolling resistance, friction and other forces that acts in the negative vector.)

So even a small increase in speed requires a big boost of power. The difference in top speed between a 1000 BHP car and a 2000 BHP car may just be 100 to 120 km/h.
Click to expand...
Ow... my brain hurts... :lol:
 
Curiosity got the better of me, so I cranked up GT6 to check out some numbers.

Here's some comparisons of cars mentioned in this thread.

FFX : PP - 629 : BHP - 788 : Weight - 1155
Zonda R: PP - 630 : BHP - 739 : Weight - 1070
Veyron: PP - 639 : BHP - 987 : Weight - 1888
GT by Citreon: PP - 673 : BHP - 778 : Weight - 1400

Looking at the base Veyron figures, I'm a little worried.
While shaving off 400 or 500 kgs. to match the Citreon seems somewhat reasonable considering it's clearly a track race-car (let's even call it substantially less than that), my concern is the BHP output vs PP.
As much as I hope for this VGT to be in some sort of competitive PP range, I fear it will be beyond too many other cars.
Can anyone see a reason why they would de-tune the 16:4 engine to the point where it's not excessively beyond other cars?
 
Last edited:
Aussie_HSV
Curiosity got the better of me, so I cranked up GT6 to check out some numbers.

Here's some comparisons of cars mentioned in this thread.

FFX : PP - 629 : BHP - 788 : Weight - 1155
Zonda R: PP - 630 : BHP - 739 : Weight - 1070
Veyron: PP - 639 : BHP - 987 : Weight - 1888
GT by Citreon: PP - 673 : BHP - 778 : Weight - 1400

Looking at the base Veyron figures, I'm a little worried.
While shaving off 400 or 500 kgs. to match the Citreon seems somewhat reasonable considering it's clearly a track race-car (let's even call it substantially less than that), my concern is the BHP output vs PP.
As much as I hope for this VGT to be in some sort of competitive PP range, I fear it will be beyond too many other cars.
Can anyone see a reason why they would de-tune the 16:4 engine to the point where it's not excessively beyond other cars?
Click to expand...
I don't think it's something to worry about, we can look at the Peugeot VGT which uses a similar set up to the Veyron but weight 1000 KG less, and that only breaches 700 PP after an oil change.

The Veyron overcomes its lack of finesse around corners by having immense straight line speed, it could be the same story for this newer car but on a level comparable to LMP, Group C and similarly paced cars. Essentially the "Veyron of Race cars" if you will.
 
Well I hope you're right with regards to the Bugatti VGT.

To my eyes, the Citroen only gets a PP advantage due to better aero.
Should the Bugatti VGT shed a few 100 kgs, keeps it's power (or even increase it as I see no reason why it shouldn't), plus get a PP boost due to better aero courtesy of the fact it's now a race-car, not a road-car, I'm still a little concerned it's PP will be too much for other cars.

That's not to say other cars in the game couldn't match it.
But that other cars that people may hope to race against it will be too under-matched, and it falls into some sort of 'only race against each other' type of grouping.
 
Since it's likely really powerful and light, and looks like a pseudo LMP/GTE, I'd guess it's in the high 690s or early 700s.
 
Double quote??
Nope. :lol:

Very few cars when you 'search' are in the 700PP range.

Whereas '615 to 680' seems a very conservative guess. :sly:

Bear in mind we are already at 640PP
Better power?
Are Bugatti actually going to release a car that has less power with the same engine?
Less weight?
Surely a given.
Better aero?
No question.

PP?
To me it's how much extra power is given to the 16:4.
And how much weight is shaved.
And then add aero.

I can't see it being lower than the GT Citroen.
That puts it in a very elite class.

Could be wrong of course.
 
It seems like it's a LMP/GT mashup, so I'd expect it to have around 600-800hp and around 1300-1400kgs. Depending on it's downforce levels, that could easily put it in the range I guessed.
 

Latest Posts

Back