Talk:Bugatti Type 57

Untitled

Perhaps it should be added one was found in a barn out of nowhere and it had been stored for 45 years-- http://jalopnik.com/cars/retro/greatest-barn-find-evar-1938-bugatti-type-57c-atalante-coupe-260775.php 71.226.60.137 21:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the Atlantic was made out of Magnesium is a hoax. The rumour was in fact spread by Bugatti to explain the rivetting and to give it a (then) space age aura. 20 nov 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.135.228 (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

2009 - Last one found?

How many "Atlantics" were made (and just what counts as one) and is the Tyneside Earl Howe car in any way the "last missing Atalante"? Either way, there's some copy editing needed - either that last one has no longer been "lost to time", or else the things are hiding in every shed. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be two types of "Atlantic": the 57SC Atlantic (three built), and the 57S Atlantic (17 built according to the BBC article). The one recently discovered is a 57S. Rcawsey (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I have found while creating the new article Bugatti Type 57S with chassis number 57502, it goes something like this: The Atlantic was a short lived body style for the 57S lowered car, but was no good to produce, with only three made. I beleive the dorsal fin was only fake on these three, but real on the Aero prototypes. The Atalante was a similar two door coupe style, developed after the Atlantic, and used on both the standard 75 (no V grille) like this one, and the lowered 57S (V grille) like this one (which is an SC). I don't think this counts as a 'last one', but it could be. I haven't tried to collate, or even seen, definitive records of all 17 to say one was missing (and lets face it, it wasn't completely 'lost'). I have not seen any indication that the 'lost' one refers to an Atlantic either. It should also be noted that there were other two door 57 coupe styles that weren't any of these. I suspect that this image has been mislabled as an Atlantic when in actual fact it is a tall Atalante. Having just found this, Of the 710 Type 57s built, about 40 carried the sleek two-door coupé body named Atalante, I am not now 100% sure I haven't mixed up the 43 and 17 figures in that new article, where I said there were only 43 lowered chassis built, it may be possible that there were 40 odd Atalantas (high and low models), and the 17 figure represents only the low ones. MickMacNee (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge Bugatti Type 57S Atalante number 57502

Note. The articles being discussed in this proposal are now different, due to this change made to the Bugatti Type 57S Atalante number 57502 article since the merger was proposed, whoch brough some information that was in that article to here, for merging (See #Background section cut and pasted from 57502). Opinions registered here after this note may no longer reflect the current consensus. MickMacNee (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Can't believe the negative responses of two recent editors to this. 8-( And people wonder why good editors give up opn trying to contribute to Wikipedia? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you think we should create own article of every 17 that has been made? --Typ932 ^T·C 23:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite possibly! That would depend on their individual histories, and whether each specific history involved notable events. This one has, so it warrants its individual article. As we're talking about a handful of cars, for one of the very rarest and most expensive models by one of the most exclusive marques, then I wouldn't be surprised to find an interesting and notable history behind all of them. Now, who fancies expanding the Earl Howe period of this one? It deserves it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• (e/c)Oppose. There are several issues here. If we are just going by the general notability requirements, then an article for chassis number 57502 passes by a mile: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.. There are no specific notability guideline for cars, although there is an essay on vehicles but looking at its history (permalink), it is only the work of two people between 15 and 17 August, while observers on its talk page question its value. It looks far from complete, and skewed towards aircraft and ships. Given the unique history of this particular vehicle, I do not think that other stuff doesn't exist is a particularly relevant point. It can be definitely argued that it is an important example of its type, which is itself a rare type worthy of its own article - it should be noted that this is a request to merge to this Type 57 article, which would double that article's size. If absolutely necessary, it could be converted into an article for the rare 17 Type 57 Atalante's (although I am not sure if that was only the S model, see above). But frankly, I think even that article would look a bit odd, given the lack of any information about the other 16. MickMacNee (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This would be probably the fist own car article for a car which has been made more than one? , it would be nice to double the Type 57 article size as it is now almost stub... why this article has been made now when the car was discovered , if it would be so important the article should have been much ealier, I dont see the historical importance so big that it needs own article --Typ932 ^T·C 00:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This would be probably the fist own car article for a car which has been made more than one?

Even if that is true, then it highlights a lack of articles, more than a policy. There are several examples I can think of related to '60s true sports cars (i.e. retail cars capable of being competitive on a track) where individual articles are deserved (several Ferraris, a couple of GT40s, the show Miura). Then we have cars with "peculiar" histories (James Dean's Porsche, which had a more interesting career post-crash than before it) and the heavily campaigned rarities like almost every dark green Bentley which would have a notable history to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ill add this to WP:CARS to get more opinions --Typ932 ^T·C 00:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't see what notability rules this article breaks to warrant unbalancing other articles. If this were a stub with a few lines I could maybe understand. As it is, I don't at all. Perhaps if you (or WP:CAR members) had some other examples of precedent where individual car articles have been merged/deleted, so that we can compare their individual claim of notability to this one, then we could say something with certainty. I would find it quite odd to learn that nobody has ever created an article on an individual cars where they share circumstances to this one. It certainly doesn't gel with, for example, the trains project, which has many articles for individual locomotives with unique histories, while also having class articles for the less notable members of their class. Are individual cars less notable than trains? I wouldn't have thought so. But this is my first car article, so I honestly wouldn't know. To be clear though, this particular car due to its condition and expected price arguably marks it out as unique amongst its class members, even preserved ones (as many of the sources assert). I fully appreciate that every preserved car is going to have some sort of researchable ownership history, and that that fact alone may not necessarily justify individual articles. But uniqueness within a type is always deemed a notable quality in any 'thing' article (as the essay states). MickMacNee (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Its not just about notability, but as we have already article for this car it should be merged to it, also as it is the main article for this car and it is now much shorter than this , also this new article has general info that belongs to the main article and its now missing there --Typ932 ^T·C 02:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The general information is not 'missing' it was simply created in a different place. It sensibly exists in that specific car article as background information. That does not mean it cannot be repeated in the parent article. It does not have to be in either one place or the other. I didn't add it to the main article at the time because I was concentrating on that article. There is nothing to stop you from adding the general information to it now, as I did with the Atalante section. MickMacNee (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Merge - the cars notability is based on the speculation that it might in early February be the most expensive cart sold at an auction. Should we have lots of articles based on most expensive X sold at an auction? If you take that one issue away, it becomes one of 17 cars - even the more interesting and rare Bugatti Royale (only 6 of those ever made), don't have their own articles. The article contains lots of good but thinly referenced information about the type that should be inserted into the main article, but after that becomes sentimental and speculative. Yes, lots of media coverage but that is all based on the story of car plus the speculation of price: only the later gets scored in WP:NOTABILITY. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

What you seem to be saying is, once you take away the reason for it being notable, it is no longer notable. That is self-evident. The reasons it is in the sources are the reasons why it is considered different from the other 17, so obviously if you ignore the reason it is in the sources, then you have no article. The article does not assert that the price alone is the notable characteristic. But even if you were to simply treat auction price as the only fact which gives it notability, then based on its factual reserve price alone and not the speculated price, that would only imply you would only have to create 6 'more notable' articles to cover each more expensive car ever sold at auction. And there are not lots in history either, the current record stood for decades. Like I said, I have no clue why there are no other car articles such as the 6 Royales, and vague assertions that this means anything with regard to this specific article doesn't help anybody. Certainly obviously one of them at least deserves an article as the current record holder. But I am willing to bet without even looking that none of the 6 Royales were left in a garage for 50 years for example. And even if they all had unique stories that could be adequately sourced into big articles, and I went and created articles for all six, then what? By your argument I can then use them as a reason to keep this article. This is exactly why WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't exist is not a good argument. Instead of comparing other stuff to other stuff, the correct approach is to either cite an established guideline as a justification, or show a directly comparable precedent. Per the general notability guideline this specific car is clearly notable, there is no automobile specific guideline (and clearly other kinds of unique vehicles are deemed notable elsewhere), and I have yet to see a precedent for a comparable car article such as this one being merged. I will repeat, because it has to be stressed, I am not claiming that all preserved cars are simply notable. All in all, I fail to see how it can be argued this car is not unique, or in any way just one of 17. MickMacNee (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merge - It's notable, well written and cited, and would unbalance the parent car article. Put it for GA maybe, not merge. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Rearrange: It certainly meets the general standard for WP:N, so it's hard to argue to delete or merge. However, some of the information is generally applicable to the Atalante, and that should be in the parent article, not in an article about an individual car.—Kww(talk) 21:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose merge: There's a lot of material on this page, and it is well-written and well-sourced. I also agree with Peregrine Fisher's page that including it in the main article would unbalance that article. Cazort (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes lots of material, which should be on the main page, and add those owner info for own section for same page, it would make the main article much better and not unbalancing it --Typ932 ^T·C 21:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Merge Too much unencyclopedic or redundant detail here. This could be reduced to a few sentences with no real loss of information. As such it should be merged. Eusebeus (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Merge Specific car is notable, but I can see it being a section on the main article and not a full article. A lot of redundant data here as well that probably needs some cleaning up. roguegeek (talk·cont) 22:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Merge After reading the article for the Type 57 (which seems to border on a "stub") and the article for chassis number 57502, it appears that the general article would benefit from having the information on the specific example added. For car geeks who know the historical signifigance of the specific instance, separating the articles seems logical. However, for the general reader who has a limited background, merging seems to be a more logical approach, educating the reader that "Atalante number 57502" is a Type 57 Bugatti. (Regushee (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC))

• (e.c.) Support merge. This isn't really an article about the car, it's an article about the barn find. Smacks a wee bit as being more suitable for Wikinews than here, really. As User:Eusebeus mentioned, could be cut down substantially without a loss of encyclopedic value. Move the general, about-the-Bugatti-Type57S info to the main article, and rename this one to something more appropriate (e.g. 2008 Bugatti barn find). --DeLarge (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note I previously closed this discussion at this point, because I had cut and pasted the Background section of the 57502 article to this talk page to be merged into this article (see below section). This closure was reversed by User:Eusebeus on the basis that discussion is still ongoing. The 57502 article now proposed to be merged does not now contain any information that is general type information that could justifiably better belong here. The fact that common type information being in the 57502 article was a common theme in some of the above supports, together with the presence of opposes for total merging, showed to me that there was no realistic prospect of closing this discussion now as a full merge, given that a partial merge has now happened. Because the 57502 article is now only about the specific car, if people still want to merge it, opening a new merge discussion (or even taking it to Afd if people think this is Wikinews material) was more appropriate (if necesessary requesting a new opinion from everybody above). Reopening it without acknowledging the situation is now different, affecting the rationale of the above registered opinions, merely confuses the issue. MickMacNee (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Background section cut and pasted from 57502

Note: The material in this talk page section should be integrated into the article (see above discussion). MickMacNee (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A Type 57SC with Atalante bodywork

The Type 57S was a redesigned short-wheelbase "sportier" version of the standard Type 57 chassis, distinctive by its 'V' shaped radiator grille and by being considerably lower. A supercharged version, the Type 57SC, was also offered (as had occurred with the standard model as the Type 57C) but was initially not bought in great numbers, possibly even only one, but many Type 57S's were retrofitted to SC by Bugatti in the 1950s. These lowered chassis Type 57s are often considered one of the original supercars. The 57SC could reach 130 mph (210 km/h) in an era when the average top speed was 50 mph (80 km/h). The cars were solely considered road going cars by Bugatti, not intended for use on race tracks, although they were sometimes raced by their owners. A true racing Bugatti model, the Type 57G, which was developed from the 57S, won the famous 24 Heures du Mans twice.

The Type 57 was built with a range of in-house and external coachwork styles, of which the 17-strong Atalante are often referred to as the finest looking, built on both the standard and lowered chassis. The Atalante had been adapted for production from the less suitable Atlantic body. The Atlantic itself had been developed from the Aerolithe prototype, which introduced the "teardrop" shape at the 1935 Paris Motor Show. Only three Atlantics were built in production, and differ from the similarly-shaped Atalante in having a split windscreen, and differently-shaped doors, windows and boot. Being hand built, each Atalante was different in detail, and some had noticeable differences such as in the roofs, in the fenders and in the headlight body mounting style. Other Bugatti factory coachbuilt Type 57s wore bodywork named after Alpine passes, such as 4-door sedans named Galibier, various styles named Ventoux, and drophead coupes named Stelvio. Unlike the names of the Alpine pass models, the Atalante was a derived name, from a heroine of Greek mythology, Atalanta. For their rarity and style, the Atalante bodied Type 57's are considered prized assets to classic car collectors. Four Atalantes are owned by the Cité de l'Automobile Museum in Mulhouse, France (formerly known as the Musee Nationale de L'Automobile de Mulhouse)

Factual fault with article

Type 57S Atlantic "Only two of the cars survive. One is in the collection of Ralph Lauren"

[Ralph Lauren] Automobile collection

Ralph Lauren is also well known as a collector of automobiles, some of which are extremely rare. A large portion of his over 70 automobiles are held in his estate in Katonah, New York. He owns a 1962 Ferrari 250 GTO, two Ferrari 250 Testa Rossas, three 1996 McLaren F1s (one of them an ultra-rare F1 LM), a Mercedes 300SL Gullwing, a 1929 Blower Bentley, two Bugatti Type 57SC Atlantics, a Porsche 997 GT3 RS, a Bugatti Veyron, a 1930 Mercedes-Benz CountTrossi SSK (aka "The Black Prince") and 1938 Alfa Romeo 8C 2900B Mille Miglia.