Talk:Production car speed record

minimum of 20 cars to qualify is outdated.

There is no valid reason for cars by Koenigsegg and SSC not being on this list, apart from an outdated rule that doesn't take into account the current state of the automotive industry.

Of course one off cars should not be here, they should be legitimate roadcars, available for sale, manufactured by a recognized company. But 20? It serves no point to exclude some very well made and legitimate supercars from this list, just because someone who doesn't know what they are doing, thought that 20 is a nice number.

I suggest that this article is made to match the fastest cars by acceleration article and use the same criteria. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is it outdated? What event or development happened that made it outdated? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The origins of the 20 car limit is at Talk:List of fastest production cars/Archive 3#Page protected/20 car limit - new discussion. There you will find the reasoning behind the rule and the decision made:

Decision

The closest any reliable source comes to a number is the FIA and its rules date from 1968. Guinness seems to be inconsistant and as it doesn't publish its rules, we can't tell. All of us accept that the 20 number is arbitrary, but until someone posts a substantive argument to the contrary that we can agree on - the 20 car minimum rule remains. The reason for this decision is because there is no consensus to change the rule.

You will need to come up with significant reasons, citing reliable sources, for a change to a level that is lower than 20. There is in fact better reason to raise the limit - namely Guiness, with reliable sources citing 50 cars, or the 1968 FIA 25 car rules - for more detail see Production car.

As for the List of fastest production cars by acceleration - it has deteriorated into a fanboy article with a range of one-off or non-production cars being represented. NealeFamily (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The main reason is that I see Koenigsegg and similar manufacturers as highly reputable and it seems a shame not to have them on the list. With the current situation, the list is going to consist purely of VAG/Ferrari/Porsche, which doesn't seem to be very representative of the supercar industry. I do agree that one off cars should not be here, neither should modified cars or tuner cars - RUF belong in the list, Hennessy do not. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

If they were included then you are no longer dealing with Production car's. Also many of these cars like RUF and Koenigsegg, are so individually tailored as to make them one off's. Then your next problem is to find a valid road test. NealeFamily (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting to agree with you, it's going to end up with cars being included just because people like that car. I think Koenigsegg are awesome and Hennessey are a glorified tuning company, but that's purely my opinion and slipping into the territory of fanboys. The only other solution that I can think of is to have the "cars that didn't make it" list that is on this talk page, on the main article. I'm not sure if that is a good idea, or has been suggested before. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

We have an excellent list of cars that didn't make it, above. Personally I think koenigsegg gets short shrift from our rules, but given the agony of establishing rules, I'd actually prefer BIGNUM to smaller. I am despondent at the lack of cars between 1900 and 1950ish, they were fun and interesting. Que sera sera Greglocock (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the further we go into history, the more difficult it will be to get reliable sources for top speeds. I have serious doubts about the XK120's top speed, Jaguar were rather devious about specs on test cars, kinda like Ferrari nowadays. But there does seem to be something missing without a lot of the classics. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we should come to a consensus about the Hennessey before 20 examples are sold. Looking through the archives some people have mentioned that it is based on the Exige, raising the question about whether a production car can use a chassis designed for another car by another company. According to the dedicated Venom GT Wikipedia page, "For road use, the car is registered as a Lotus Exige (modified) and is not a series production car." Hennessey has never been registered as an automobile manufacturer, and the Venom GT has not passed any of the crash and environmental testing that new production cars are subject to. This is in contrast to Saab and Tesla which were mentioned as other car makers building on other companies' chassis. IMO a car can't be considered a production car if it is not recognized as such by any government, and it shouldn't be on the list even if they sell 20+ cars.

P.S. Maybe this should be a new talk thread, but I couldn't figure out how to do that. Feel free to start a new thread about the Venom GT and move this there.

P.P.S. For the record, I am in favor of changing the required production number to 10, in order to include the CCR and SSC UA TT. That is the number I use for my own list of fastest production cars (using estimated or plausible speeds rather than verified tests). Jvshenderson (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

This list should not even consider cars that are not 100% street legal, passing all safety, noise, and emissions rules. Mere hobbyists are capable of building really fast cars as long as they don't have to make them conform to any rules. The only media that pay much attention to these obscure cars are fanboy blogs and magazines. Mainstream media only take notice when someone builds a real production, street legal car that sets a new speed record. I'd raise the minimum to 1,000 units, at least.

That doesn't mean there is no place for low-volume, non-street legal records on Wikipedia. The articles Wheel-driven land speed record or Land-speed record can and should be expanded to include more FIA or SCTA categories/classes where Koenigsegg or SSC or whatever can be listed and given an appropriate amount of recognition. We don't have to limit ourselves to the top unlimited or "outright world record" class. We can included classes for vintage only, internal combustion only, and so forth. From what I've seen they have a class for just about everything you can imagine. The point is to compare apples to apples. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

There are several challenges with your suggestion. Countries have different rules when if comes to safety, noise, and emissions. There are moves through the United Nations to address these differences - see UNECE vehicle regulations. Also if you moved the minimum to 1,000 units then there would be very few cars that would qualify. Personally I would prefer an increase in the minimum numbers to at least the 1968 FIA sports car level of 25 cars. This is less than Guiness, but could be cited as a reliable source on which the minimum number is based. I realise that it is tough on Koenigsegg and the like, but I think counting them as production cars with such minimal numbers is pushing it.

Greg, I did take a look at trying to take the list back before 1945 and found that sorting out production cars from race cars (see the incomplete Bentley debate on this talk page) and one off's became almost insurmountable. There was also a lack of reliable test data. NealeFamily (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, if 1,000 is too high then 200. It should be a short list, not a everybody-gets-a-prize roll call. Making a street legal car in volume that can reach 250 mph or more is a huge accomplishment and it shouldn't be diluted with dinky outfits that cut corners. Cars that are only "street legal" [sic] in Yemen or Kazakhstan or something should be described as such; cars that are street legal in the US and EU should be given due credit for an amazing engineering feat.

And it bears repeating that there are ways to recognize cars and bikes that don't meet the criteria. There are lots of FIA and FIM classes that meet our verifiability and neutrality rules that allow us to include them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

What are/were the requirements when SSC held the Guinness record? They didn't keep it, of course - but it was awarded to them according to SSC's media section. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is the earler discussion about the SSC being in Guiness

Earlier, IP-93, you said: Yes, 25 seems realistic if they accept claimed total production number. However, I would accept claimed production number only until production run is over. If manufacturer fails to build sufficient number, then it must be disqualified and removed. If Guinness really uses this approach, they would probably disqualified Aero TT already since it is not being built any more and apparently way less than 25 were ever produced. BTW, the claimed production number of 25 Aeros may be an indirect proof of this version. They may have had to claim exactly this much to fulfill Guinness requirement. Anyway, since we know Guinness was reconsidering Veyron SS record lately, they could do the same with Aero, since now its actual production run is known. But they don't So, perhaps, their definition is a bit different. Or they don't care. Or Jerod paid enough. Or whatever... :-\ IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

My view is once Guinness had published the Aero TT as the fastest, it was superceded reasonably quickly by the Veyron. Guinness probably had no interest in correcting it. NealeFamily (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Since then we established Guiness are using a 50 car minimum -see Production car article for reliable source. NealeFamily (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion we shouldn't do the same as the Guinness Book of Records. Else we could simply copy the book entries year for year and our list would be worthless. Guinness often changes its rules and offers exceptions, just read Wikipedia article about "Production vehicle" where some say at least 50 and others at least 30. Looks a bit to me as if Guinness first decides which car they want and bends the rules accordingly. Important for the credibility of this site is setting clear rules and not changing them. The 20 car minimum rule is here since over 3 years (Personally I'd have chosen a lower number), changing this fundamental rule will cost credibility.Drachentötbär (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

My thought is to move the minimum number to 25, thereby matching the FIA rule for sports cars which coverted a significant portion of this list. There would be no change to the vehicles currently on the list as all exceeded that number (I will need to change the AC Cobra number, but that is only a minor edit). It would also give a plausible source to base the number on rather than just our own conjecture. NealeFamily (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. But then I would say that. `Greglocock (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The 20-25 minimum production volume has nothing to do with if a car fulfill the authorities requirements for a production car such as COC, OBD, crash worthiness, airbags etc. Nor that the producer of the car is recoginized as a producer of series production cars. In order to give the public and the readers a fair understanding of the real situation, this rule needs to be removed as it keeps proper real production cars away from the list in an unfair way. Sagenode (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2017

Ruf CTR from 1987 fulfills all current list requirements

1.) Constructed principally for retail sale to consumers, for their personal use, and to transport people on public roads

2.) 29 were made and offered for commercial sale to the public in new condition (see its wiki article for example)

3.) They were street-legal

4.) Road tests with a two-way run were made (for example 211 mph in Road&Track July 1987)

Since the current list rules are fulfilled the car should be added.

79.248.191.180 (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

See the definition for this list, especially "having had 20 or more instances made by the original vehicle manufacturer, " Porsche isn't Ruf. But I am open to persuasion.Greglocock (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

A bit further digging - the two way run averaged 210.7mph [3]. I think it can be accepted.NealeFamily (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The 29 CRTs weren't built by Porsche, they were built by Ruf. Ruf bought components from Porsche and other sources, combined them with own technology and made the cars. 87.164.102.190 (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree that it might match the requirements, but need someone to check that the test version was a stock version and not modified for the test run. I don't have access to the 1987 article. NealeFamily (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I found a scan of the article here: http://porschecarshistory.com/world-s-fastest-car-1987-road-track-mag/ 87.164.102.190 (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks that's great. How much of a manufacturer is RUF, it sounds like they take a full vehicle and bolt some bits on? That isn't much different to Hennessy is it? What does it say on the VIN plate, porsche or RUF?Greglocock (talk) 03:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

RUF made 29 genuine CTR’s with RUF Vins, the tested car is one of them. 93.216.228.87 (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Found the 1988 Nardo test, where the Ruf did 342 km/h: http://porschecarshistory.com/porsche-959-vs-ferrari-f40-vs-amg-6-0-vs-ruf-ctr-automotorsport-25-1988-deutsch/ 93.216.228.87 (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

RUF make cars, they have their own VIN as a manufacturer, not a tuner. I have no idea if they had that status all the way back in 1987, but until something says they didn't, the CTR should remain on the list in place of the F40. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

This is why I think it should not be included. At that time, nearly every books and magazines out there cited the F40 as the fastest car, they also cited the Jaguar XJ220 in 1993, but nothing and nothing on the CTR, why? Its just like the Koenig Competition, another modified sportscar and yet they claimed to modify over 50 Testarossas. Also Guinness World Record cited the XJ220 as well, they also cited the Countach 5000QV in place of the F40; IIRC at the local library, if not go find a library that has a copy of the book dated in around 1994-96 (the F1 was ignored by them). Regarding buying "parts and components from Porsche", it still makes it a Porsche or do we call it a badge engineered Porsche. So therefore I am going to be bold out there and remove your entry. Donnie Park (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Since your bold action caused a side which didn't even follow its own stated rules (Ruf qualifies), I reverted it. We should start a discussion first and get to an agreement before changing this side fundamentally.Drachentötbär (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure this car satisfies the list requirements. It seems, according to Herr Ruf, that only 28 were built, not 29 - he considers the #1 car as a prototype. 22 of the car tested were made and offered for commercial sale to the public in new condition. Six more were custom built as "lightweight" versions, with aluminium and fibreglass bodies instead of the standard steel and these were not offered for general sale. One of the "lightweight" CTRs was sold in the US five years ago, and a good deal of detail about how custom the build was is on the original eBay listing. Robmoss2k (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The car at ebay had a Porsche VIN and wasn't an original CTR. It's not the only ad where people falsely used the name Yellowbird hoping to get more money for their car. Drachentötbär (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

959

In the worlds fastest car 1987 article linked above the Porsche 959 comfort version (called deluxe version there) was also tested, it made 197 mph so its top speed should be upgraded from 195 to 197 mph.

The text in the 959 comments column needs an upgrade, not all but 6 were comfort versions, among the 959s built were also 29 performance-enhanced sport versions with 515 HP for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GDnf6KoKZk 79.248.172.76 (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

youtube is not a reliable source also only road not race or tuner versions are allowed NealeFamily (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

On the wikipage other sources are used, the 959s are no racing cars and Porsche is no tuner. Please address things directly instead of indirectly so it's less unclear what you want to say. If you really think the vid is fake: http://www.porsche.com/germany/aboutporsche/pressreleases/germany/?pool=germany&id=361844 93.216.246.242 (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at Talk:List of fastest production cars/Archive 1#Porsche 959 Sport which outlines much of the debate around the two respective models and why the lower speed version was chosen. Hopefully this clarifies the reason for the lower speed. As to the use of You Tube or the Porsche website - take a look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. The object is to try to reduce or eliminate bias as much as possible.

One of the difficulties with this type of list is the lack of a single definition for a Production car. After much debate the current set of rules included a 20 car minimum, although there is argument for raising it to a higher number. NealeFamily (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The 959 "Sportversion" is not a stripped down version with extra tuning, is the normal version with standard equipment. The "Komfortversion" is the "Sportversion" with supplementary equipment added. http://porschecarshistory.com/wp-content/old/959/02/07.jpg It's the same car (most magazines didn't make a difference either), the little difference in Top Speed is only because of the second mirror increasing the drag. Therefore the speed measured with the "Sportversion" should be accepted into the top speed column. This will also save us the discussion if 20 of them were built, the old claim on this site that all but 6 were comfort versions has been proven wrong. (The 515 hp version shouldn't be accepted however since it wasn't built in 1986 and we have the Ruf CTR as faster car since 1987.) Drachentötbär (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Any chance of an article in English? It's hard to understand if they should be treated as different trim levels or different versions. Porsche make it hard with all their different versions, packages, etc... Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

As with Spacecowboy, I don't know German. If the Sportversion was sold in its final form then it probably counts as there seem to be enough made. Others may wish to comment. NealeFamily (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Options - how should we treat them

It makes me wonder what is an option, what is a version and how we should deal with relevant cars. I was under the impression that AMG offered to remove the speed limiter (at least the first stage of the speed limited) on certain models. Porsche offer sports packs increasing power and their chrono plus thing, certainly increases some aspects of performance. If a model has an option that increases top speed, do we require a source stating that at least 20 models must have that option fitted? that would seem silly. In the same way the Nurburgring times are sometimes based on cars with factory option tires. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you raise a good point so I have highlighted the question. If we accept the various options, then they must comply with the minimum number and then finding a reliable source could become much more challenging. Are models with different options treated differently under the VIN system? Also are the options fitted during production or post production? NealeFamily (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

haha, it's becoming more complex. We have to consider factory options VS dealer options as well. My thoughts on the whole process are: If an option is available on a certain model, then we should only consider the amount of models sold, with the possibility of having that option. If a specific version is made available, then we have to consider the amounts of that actual version sold. ie. the Porsche 911 (991) Carrera S was available with the factory option of a powerkit, that increase power, and models with that powerkit fitted saw a top speed increase from 188mph to 191mph. We should consider the top speed of the 911 (991) Carrera S as 191mph, because the option was available to all purchasers of the model. That way of dealing with suitability for this list, would make the suitability of certain cars less ambiguous and therefore easier for us editors. If something has been roadtested with a certain speed, and it has factory fitted and street legal options, then I think it's fine. Perhaps having a source to say it's an official option, rather than a case of "if you pay us, we will build you anything" would be best.

Dealer options should be viewed as modifications, I can't remember the dealer but there was a UK mk1 RX7 dealer option that involved fitting a turbo, this is no different from any other post production modification and should be dealt with in the same way.

Having said all that, we have a very limited number of cars that we have to deal with, and perhaps with good editor cooperation, we can deal with all proposed entries on the list individually, gaining consensus via discussion and ensuring that we follow the spirit of the production car criteria, in addition to specific rules. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Never a dull moment. So let me see - the rule would be if the option was fitted at manufacturing then it counts and the number of cars is based on the number produced the could have the option rather than actually have it? NealeFamily (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That's what I feel would be good. Not based on any logic, just it feels fair. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to see if our thinking is ok I would like to see what User:Greglocock and User:Dennis Bratland think of the idea as they frequently patrol this article.and have strong automotive backgrounds NealeFamily (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I would interpret the number produced narrowly -- the actual numbers that go that fast, not counting other versions that don't. And only configurations that are themselves street legal. If a car were to disable emissions controls at the push of a button to go faster (a selectable mode something like that in the Volkswagen emissions scandal), we should only consider the mode that is street legal. Many exhausts have a neck restrictor that can be easily removed, exceeding noise rules but letting the exhaust flow more freely, and Ducatis often come with a track-only exhaust.

Versions, options, modes or sub-models that don't strictly meet all the criteria should be listed elsewhere. On another table, or another list with looser criteria, so that cars in that group are ranked against others that are just as free to ignore regulations. There should be some FIA classes for "lightly modified" or "slightly less than street legal" cars, similar to the FIM 1000 P-P, where you basically take off a bike's lights and mirrors, change the pipe and tune the ECU, simple DIY mods rather than re-engineering, building a real racer. The importance of leaning on a FIA/FIM class is that it isn't a criteria made up by us editors, but one that we can say was devised independently by reliable sources. We should look hard for such list criteria, and if we can't find them, then rely on rules something like List of films considered the worst, where each entry has a high-quality expert source saying it belongs on the list. So each non-qualifying car would have been nominated as "world's fastest" by somebody reliable, not just us. Otherwise we'll end up ticking off all the reasons why the Ford Pinto isn't on the list.

By the way, the guidelines MOS:NOTED and MOS:SELFREF says we shouldn't be directly addressing reader, instructing them to go read the talk page to understand our editorial reasoning, or referring to our articles/talk pages in the article. It's helpful now because I like inviting more input here, but eventually we should remove links to the talk page from the article body, and rephrase the "Cars excluded from the list together with basic reason" table so that it is defined by its own criteria, rather than existing as a byproduct of our editing decision-making process. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I think if you can tick the box when you order the car it should count. There is a problem with dealer fit options vs factory fit. I know nothing about how VINs are generated. Sorry not much help, I've never really got involved with that side of production.Greglocock (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis I took a look at the FIA's rules. Series production cars fall under Category 1.

Category 1

Cars of which the production of a certain number of identical examples (see definition of this word hereinafter) within a certain period of time has been verified at the request of the manufacturer, and which are destined for normal sale to the public (see this expression). Cars must be sold in accordance with the homologation form.

• Group N Production Cars

At least 2500 identical units must have been produced in 12 consecutive months and homologated by the FIA in Touring Cars(Group A). (Appendix J Article 254 2016)

• Group A Touring Cars

At least 2500 identical examples of these cars must have been manufactured in 12 consecutive months. (Appendix J Article 255 2016)

• Group R Touring Cars or Large Scale Series Production Cars

• Group E‐I Free Formula Racing Cars

Up until 1990 in FIA puplicaton Appendix J 1990 (Art 251-256) page 189 there was also

Group B sports cars – at least 200 must have been built in the last 12 months

(Appendix J 1990 (Art 251-256) page 189

I am not sure if we want to go this low, or alternatively we could go with Guinness' stated 50 as being a minimum number, which would put it out of range of a number of spurious claims and be an almost reliable source. The FIA definition (other than numbers) would generally match the lists current requirements NealeFamily (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The next question is, is it hard to find complete lists of cars in these classes? And for how many years has this class existed in the same form? The one we'd most like to have is one that's been around a long time, and is easy to find the data for, especially published, objective top speed tests. Then creating and maintaining the list becomes a fairly mechanical task, with little need for editorial negotiation or creative thought. A list like that should be last longer than us, and remain in the same form no matter who comes along to maintain it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

FIA rules evolved over time - Group B started with a 25 car requirement, but changed in the end to 200 cars. Now there is no Group B and Groups N and A require the cars to have 4 seats as a minimum. I do think we need to hook on to some outside parameters based on outside sources and think that the overall definition for Category 1 cars fits, but the numbers are more difficult to pin down. As in past discussion anywhere between the old FIA 25 car requirement or the 50 car Guinness requirement would be reasonable. At the most the 200 car requirement for Group B would also fit. The most recent known requirement is Guinness' and we reliable sources for there numbers. It's Guinness' application of its rules that seems questionable NealeFamily (talk) 08:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Although it seems highly immoral to tailor criteria to favor certain content (ie. what car makes the list), how any changes regarding production numbers affect our list, (and how they are perceived by readers) should be considered. If our criteria changed, and that resulted in the Veyron SS not being listed as the fastest car (and not having various Hennessey/Koenigsegg/SSC models on there), would the article lose some credibility? We have to stop carefully, as our job should not be making some academic criteria for a list, our job should be making a damn fine article, on what is already a very interesting topic. One (possibly insane) consideration is to list any car that claims to be a production model and list the proven top speed. We could explain other organization's criteria for production cars, and give the details for production numbers (and anything else relevant) in the existing table, and let the readers digest this information and come to their own conclusions. I personally view the Hennessey Venom as a modified Elise, that is not a production model, but various Koenigsegg models as legitimate production models, that is the conclusion I would come to, with a "free for all" list. I would view the Ruf CTR as a modified 911, and the F40 as the legit top speed record holder for that era. More than anything else, a "free for all" would allow a lot more space for truly interesting content. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Which ever way you look at it there will always need to be a definition for the lists content. Having slept on it my conclusion is as FIA no longer defines production sports cars (Group B's) and the only organisation that still does is Guinness then their definition would take the definition out of the range of guidelines MOS:NOTED and MOS:SELFREF. The one problem I have with their definition is that apart from the number of cars, we don't know why they allowed the Veyron World Record Edition to retain its title when removing the limiter on the other versions would constitute a modification. Maybe some nice person at Bugatti or Guinness could enlighten us.

Anyway - if we did accept this then the only change in criteria is a 50 car requirement with the rest remaining the same, as far as I can tell. That would result in RUF being replaced on the list.

Just a footnote FIA Category II includes Group CN Production Sports Cars, but the Category is defined as Cars built as single examples and destined solely for competition. So is outside the Series Production Cars used in this list NealeFamily (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I have a similar issue with Guinness criteria. Their rules seem to be highly flexible, subjective and ambiguous. I see no logical reason as to why the they Veyron SS World Edition was disqualified and then reinstated. Also, although their site has no content for the production car 0-300km/h record, from what I remember they did at one time award it to Hennessey. I have huge doubts as to the credibility of Guinness as a reliable source, in regards to classifying a production car, they seem to operate on whims (and possibly lobbying from Bugatti?) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, Guinness seem entirely susceptible to all sorts of pressure, often commercial. I was involved with a dispute on another world record http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2015/10/microsoft-lab-sets-new-record-for-the-worlds-quietest-place-399444 which quite frankly ignored good experimental technique, and seemed to be designed to publicise the owner of the facility and the people making the measurement. Specifically with the fastest car record they seem to blow in the wind. Now, the wiki answer is that they are a reliable source. But that's rubbish, they don't stick to their own ruules if it means more publicity. Greglocock (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok if Guinness is an unreliable source then the next step back is FIA's Category 1 Group B from 1990 - that requires 200 cars made within a 12 month period, but it looks like their definition includes the idea that if you produce a particular model with a whole lot of different sub-types the sum total of all the sub-types makes up the 200. I am not sure if my interpretation is correct so I am open to correction. FIA also allow a range of specified modifications. The problem we would have is, as the FIA are no longer assessing which cars qualify, we would still need to interpret their rules to determine which cars qualify. Darn - I feel like there is hole in my bucket dear Liza. NealeFamily (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This makes Guinness reinstating the Veyron SS WRE look even worse... https://www.yahoo.com/autos/bp/265-7-mph-hennessey-venom-gt-claims-fastest-195530561.html "All five World Record Editions built were sold with its restrictor in place." and Guinness were fully aware. Which makes the WRE seem like something they specially modified for the record, and then removed the modification in order to sell it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Except I think we've consensed that suppressing electronic speed limiters is OK? If not where did we end up? Devils advocate argument - JimBob modifies 30 fast cars, gets new VIN plates for them. Therefore he's a manufacturer. JimBob reprograms the ECU to remove the speed limiter from his prototype (one of the 30) and sets a good two way max speed record. Then he installs the original ECU and sells the car. Is he a contender for this list? Greglocock (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The way I see it, if it was street legal when it hit the record speed, and if removing the speed limiter is an option available at the time of purchase, then yes. I'm not sure how easy it would be get a new VIN. I was under the impression that the Hennessey Venom had a Lotus VIN and had to be registered as a Lotus. I'm guessing that to get your own name on a VIN, that you would have to go through type approval. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

So to conclude: A factory fitted option that complies with regulations and is offered to all customers at the time of the purchase of the vehichle does not exclude the factory optioned cars from the total model car count.Sagenode (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Also the removal of the speed limit on Veyron Super Sport is not an option from Bugatti so this car should not be allowed on the list.Sagenode (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

VIN numbers - here are the rules for them in the European Union

Types of vehicles concerned

This Regulation applies to vehicles of category M, N and O, namely:

•motor vehicles designed and built for the carriage of passengers and having at least four wheels; •motor vehicles intended and built for the transportation of goods and having at least four wheels; •trailers (including semi-trailers). Requirements for the manufacturer’s statutory plate

Each vehicle must be fitted with a statutory plate that shall consist (at the manufacturer’s discretion) either of:

•a rectangular sheet of metal; •or a rectangular self-adhesive label. The manufacturer’s statutory plate must contain certain items of information, including:

•the manufacturer’s company name; •the vehicle type-approval number; •the vehicle identification number; •the technically admissible laden masses. Requirements for the vehicle identification number (VIN)

The manufacturer must affix a VIN on each vehicle and ensure its traceability for 30 years. The VIN consists of:

•the world manufacturer identifier (WMI); •the vehicle descriptor (VDS); •the vehicle indicator section (VIS). It must be affixed in an accessible position and be visible. It must be stamped so as not to disappear under normal conditions of use of the vehicle.

Provisions concerning EC type-approval

The vehicle manufacturer must submit an application for EC type-approval to the competent authority. The application must contain certain items of information, in particular:

•the brand and type of vehicle; •the position and method of attachment of the manufacturer’s statutory plate; •the location of the VIN.

If the competent authority deems that the vehicles complies with all requirements concerning the manufacturer’s statutory plate and the vehicle identification number of motor vehicles, it shall grant EC type-approval and issue a type-approval number pursuant to Directive 2007/46/EC.

WMI numbers are allocated by SAE International. NealeFamily (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

For me cars with different engines are different cars, hp define a car. I'd accept all other modifications which keep the cars recognizable as long as the cars stay street-legal and can be driven outside the speed test this way on public roads. Drachentötbär (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

For me, that would be an entirely different list. I wanna see something that you can buy from an official dealer. For example - this looks kinda stock. Take the stickers off and not many would notice it... [[4]] Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the list would change much, two top speeds would change because of accepting the rev limiter. Most top speed runs change so much that they loose street-legality or alter the engine.

The linked car had an engine modification, so I wouldn't accept it. I'd accept its interior lightweight modifications since weight is important for acceleration but doesn't really matter for top speed, in the Road & Track contest they did successful top speed runs with a journalist on board. I see no big aerodynamic outside modification, only the tires are different which I'd accept.

"accept all other modifications which keep the cars recognizable" might be too tolerant, but it's hard to find a precise definition. There are often slight unremarkable changes during a production run and some little things like changing wheel rim and tires or adjusting ride height can be done easily (and are often done by buyers), affect little and are often not even mentioned in tests, it's impossible to proof that the tested car is exactly like the other production cars, so some tolerance will help. Demanding street-legality will disallow major changes.Drachentötbär (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Drachentötbär if you're interested, why not make a "fastest street legal non production car" list? It's an idea that I've been toying with, it could have all of the tuner cars, limited production models like Koenigsegg, modified by owner cars, and street legal racers. If it's street legal, and has a reliable source for top speed, it would be ok. 06:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Spacecowboy420 (talk)

If you decide to make such a page I can help searching the web for information.

Why would you put Koenigsegg on a "fastest street legal "non" production car" list when they are fully homologated production cars sold through a world wide dealer network, series produced and design for road use compliance in most markets?! That would not make sense at all and I think all Koenigsegg car owner would disagree, as most of them went in to their local Koenigsegg dealers and bought their Koenigsegg production cars homologated and ready for road use with registration. Putting Koenigsegg on a "non production car" list would be the same as knowingly twist the truth and make it look like Koenigsegg car owners did not buy what they actually bought. The curators of this list need to wake up and smell the coffe that the present rules are unfair, illogical, directly wrong and therefore needs to be updated. If nothing else, just to treat Koenigsegg and its car owners fairly and to give the general public a reasonable ideas what is actually going on - isnt this what wikipedia is about?! A production Agera RS presently holds the fastest production car spot in the world according to 3rd party measurements and this claim is not only accepted by hundred of the worlds largest automotive publication and most influential journalists and experts - they manifest it! - just google it! Not to including the Agera RS on this list, makes the curators/controllers of this list look incompetent and this list in itself becomes irrelevant and "cought in its own bubble" Sagenode (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2017

image out of date.

In regards to the Veyron SS World Record Edition, not being classed as a production car for the purposes of the Wikipedia list, this image is no longer accurate. It shows a top speed in excess of 260mph (I'm guessing 268), so I have removed it until such time as it can be remade showing the 258mph top speed of the "production model" 06:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Spacecowboy420 (talk)

This diagram should be updated to include the Agera RS. If someone is used to working with this diagram - please update. Thank you.Sagenode (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Ferrari Americas and Supeamericas

Those cars are excluded because 'some of them were made in less than 20 examples' and 'some of them are racing cars'. This might be true in case of Ferrari 340 America and Ferrari 375 America. Whilst Ferrari 342 America was not a race car but existed in only 6 examples. Still Ferrari 410 and 400 Superamericas were made in higher numbers. A whoping 35 units for 410 Superamerica that were very much the same but had 2 different body styles among their 3 series. But... Ferrari 400 America was made in even higher numbers. 47. Out of which a total of 32 were of the same body style 'coupé aerodynamico' by Brovarone. Some of them may had some alterations between 2 series, it was still a handbuilt car, but most of that era's cars, that contested with them, were. I understand that there are (probably) still no independent speed tests, but if they do exist i vote on counting Ferrari 400 Superamerica as a valid contender.YBSOne (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the problem with the 400s and 410s is the lack of road tests. They would quite likely have been amoung the fastest cars in their day, but they needed to prove it. If we can find some indenpendent tests then we are in business NealeFamily (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The thing with race cars was in those days, race cars can be driven on public roads and cars were not tested for exhaust noise. Donnie Park (talk) 07:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Jaguar XJ220

Hey, what happened to the jaguar XJ 220? Was n't it the fastest car in the world for a time (briefly) before the F1? I've been silent for a while, but I don't think I could overlook this one. 14:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RacingPhreak (talk • contribs)

The Ruf was just as fast 5 years earlier. I would be happy to see proof fatcat was faster. Greglocock (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Guinness Book of Record of the time is a proof. Donnie Park (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

If Guinness states that it's faster than 342 km/h than it belongs to the list.

Guinness' first real set of "fastest production car" rules were created in 1993, when they brought in the two way run thing. The XJ220 was taken to 217.1mph by Martin Brundle at the Nardo ring in Italy in 1992 after disconnecting the catalytic converters and raising the rev limiter - much like Bugatti did recently. It's in the 1993 Guinness Book of Records at 217.1mph/349kmh, which I believe is replaced by the McLaren F1 for 1994. I don't have the 1992 or 1994 edition to hand, but I have them somewhere. 81.134.200.21 (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

GWR still listed the XJ220 as the fastest even through the 1990s, IIRC. Donnie Park (talk) 07:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, on http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/news/jaguar-xfr-schnellster-jaguar-aller-zeiten-1046116.html it states "Als schnellster Jaguar galt bisher der XJ220 mit dem 1992 aufgestellten Rekord von 349,4 km/h. Der britische Mittelmotorsportler holte sich damit auch den Titel als schnellstes Serienfahrzeug der Welt, bis diese Auszeichnung 1994 an den McLaren F1 ging." Google says this means "As the fastest Jaguar so far was the XJ220 established with the 1992 record of 349.4 km / h. The British agent Motorsportsman grabbing himself the title as the fastest production car in the world, to this award in 1994 went to the McLaren F1." 81.134.200.21 (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I weakly remember that the Jaguar XJ220 was tested with 347 km/h by Auto, Motor und Sport but couldn't find the article anywhere. I could only find this website http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/fahrberichte/tunerversprechen-300-km-h-sind-pflicht-775801.html with this quote "In der zweiten Vollgasrunde verharrt das GPS-Messgerät bei 358 km/h. Damit überholt der Bimoto den Jaguar XJ 220, den mit 347 km/h schnellsten von auto motor und sport je gemessenen Sportwagen." which translates into: "In the second full speed round the GPS instrument remains at 358 km/h. Thereby the Bimoto overtakes the Jaguar XJ 220 , the with 347 km/h fastest ever recorded sports car by auto motor und sport." AMS is a reliable source and always does two-way runs so it would be okay for me to use the 347 km/h even without access to the original test from AMS issue 19/1994. http://www.histoquariat.de/Auto-Motor-und-Sport-/-AMS-/-19-1994 Your opinions ? Drachentötbär (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with AMS, looks fine to me. Greglocock (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Provided the Jag was stock it is ok. It would be useful to locate the original test. Unfortunately Auto Motor und Sport is not available in my part of the world NealeFamily (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem with the 349.1kmh test is the car was modified - disconnecting the catalytic converters and raising the rev limiter according to User:81.134.200.21 above. The Bugatti top speed in the list is the unmodified speed, which still meant it qualified as the fastest production car without modification. NealeFamily (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Which brings me to propose this: we should increase the minimum produced of 25 to 30 (the same requirement of GWR), plus regardless if it was sold as it was, the Ruf is still a modified 911 and as I said earlier, most people then acknowledged the F40, Diablo, EB110 and the XJ220 as the fastest car of the time. Donnie Park (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You are conflating two questions. (1) was Xj220 the fastest at some point, according to our current rules, and (2) should the rules be changed. I suggest you separate the two questions, both have been discussed.Greglocock (talk) 09:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

OK Donnie Park then on what basis is RUF not a manufacturer, when it is recognized as one with its own WMI NealeFamily (talk) 05:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't find the original XJ220 test but found 3 other websites quoting values from the test which treat the 347 km/h as factory claim so AMS most likely didn't test it. I found another candidate for 1992 however: French Sport Auto measured 351 km/h for the Bugatti EB 110 SS http://up.autotitre.com/9063478e23.jpg and EVO also states that it managed 351 km/h http://www.evo.co.uk/group-tests/14208/bugatti-eb110-meets-edonis-the-offspring . (I've even read someone quoting 355 km/h tested in Autobild Sportscars 03/2010 but I don't have access to it for verifying) Drachentötbär (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Countach - claimed AMS numbers wildly optimistic

Someone just added the 500S at 182 mph There is a ref to a dead tree AMS test. The only online ref I can find is car and driver, at 160 mph. So, can anyone provide a scan of the AMS test? Frankly if you plot engine hp vs top speed of the various countach models, 182 mph is just some made up fanboi number. Similarly the LP400 number in this article disagrees with the ref on the Countach page. Greglocock (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's the quote from C&D " Our driving was done in a six-Weber European-specification car rated at 368 hp at 7500 rpm; the U.S. version is said to have a torque curve at least as strong, but its power trails off above 6000 rpm to a peak of 348 hp. In any case, the Euro ver­sion maxed out at 150 mph—fast, but cer­tainly not out of the range of Boxers and good-running 930 Porsches. Unbolting the optional (at $5500) wing from the rear increased speed to 160 mph with only a very minor loss in directional stability. Not ordering the wing has to be the cheapest speed secret in the world." Greglocock (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The 293 km/h (182 mph) top speed for the LP500 S (AKA 5000 S https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamborghini_Countach#Countach_LP500_S) is shown here: http://www.tuningarchive.ru/scans/scansbig/0025s-03.jpg

AMS often repeats the results tested in later issues so more than one issue can be used as correct reference.

There is a comparison test with the 288 km/h (179 mph) LP400 in AMS 9/1978, but the first test of the car was in AMS 15/1975, the LP500 S was both in 15/1983 and 22/1984 and probably even more issues.Drachentötbär (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Puzzlicious to say the least. I'll have a look at the implicationsGreglocock (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

New column- engine HP

In view of the rather odd Countach result above, I was just wondering if the addition of an engine hp column would work. It's an easy number to lie about, for earlier cars, but once it got properly defined it became more useful (tho i would say that DIN power measurements were still fudgeable to the ingenious mind) Greglocock (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

We should definitely do it, I suggest an engine column with official HP/kW/PS in the first line and cc and cylinder in the second but other designs work well too.Drachentötbär (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

McLaren F1 top speed - need new reference ?

The more I dig into it, the more I think that AMS didn't top speed test the car themselves but were referencing to Autocar numbers. I've only found a small fraction of the test https://img3.picload.org/image/rrlirppg/amsmclarenf1.jpg which shows the acceleration and top speed numbers. (Reasons: are the 0-322 km/h time mentioned which is the 0-200 mph time from Autocar, top speed number is multiple of 10, never seen the number anywhere else in AMS, in later articles online they use the 386 km/h tested at Ehra-Lessien as top speed and in a 2002 article they wrote that 347 km/h was the fastest sports car speed the magazine had measured before.)

The problem is, we don't have anything better:

The 231 mph from Nardo which was there before definitely doesn't qualify (company internal test with an early prototype with different engine and handling with the top speed calculated from the data-recording inside the car).

Autocar exclusively tested the car in 1994; didn't get a top speed and wrote the because of "tire growth" the rev limiter would be hit far above 230 mph. Car and Driver later in a test (performance numbers "courtesy of autocar") wrote that the top speed is at rev-limited at 221 mph. AMS did a compromise with the top speed of 230 mph.

In my opinion the enormous "tire growth" claim by autocar is unrealistic, the magazine biased in their close cooperation with McLaren. The Car and Driver top speed seems realistic. If we assume the Ehra-Lessien 240 mph were made at 8100 rpm, it would have met 7500 at about 222 mph. The Ameritech F1 was capped at 217,7 mph at the same 7500 rpm limit.

Some of the options we have:

1) Leave it as is 2) Take the lower top speed from C&D 3) remove the car from the list 4) ...

Autocar test: https://web.archive.org/web/20071114030711/http://www.mclarenautomotive.com/news/Autocar_December_F1.pdf http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/mclaren/f1-1992-1998

Car and driver: http://media.caranddriver.com/files/mclaren-f1-road-test-review-car-and-driver1994-mclaren-f1-archived-road-test.pdf http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/mclaren-f1-supercar-road-test-review Drachentötbär (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to check the Auto, Motor und Sport article of 12/1994 to be sure, before making a change. I don't have access to that magazine. The question is then, what speed has been confirmed for the stock version, From reading your comments it appears that there is no test to confirm its top speed. If this is so then it does not qualify at all for the list. NealeFamily (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Found the AMS article. It's not explicitly stated but I'm quite sure now it's just another report of the same exclusive test and the top speed was estimated. Autocar Journalist Andrew Frankel was named as co-author. Drachentötbär (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Based on that then the Car and Driver test would be the most reliable. NealeFamily (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a more realistic guess but it's still an estimation. I'll change it for now so it's correct until a decision is made. A Japanese source https://www.germancarforum.com/attachments/image-jpg.375962/ says 335 km/h but I can't read Japanese so I don't know if they really tested it. Drachentötbär (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Drachentötbär. I think it would be reasonable to accept this speed based on the tests with the limiter removed. I think that a test with the limiter on may be unlikely because of the test with it removed. NealeFamily (talk) 07:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem is, we currently don't follow our own rules by accepting an estimated speed for this car so we loose credibility. If we keep this estimation we need at least a short explanation why we do so in the List rules section.Drachentötbär (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes Ithink that is a reasonable suggestion as it looks like several manufacturers are doing this so that they can claim to have the fastest production car. Maybe a suggestion is that where a car has demonstrated that it can attain certain speed with a limiter switched off, then we accept the speed at which the limiter is set as being the top speed or something along those lines. NealeFamily (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Post 1945 only?

Post 1945 only is ridiculous. There was the 1902 Mercedes 35 hp/40hp driven by William K Vanderbilt II on May 3 1902 between Ablis and Chartres with 111,8 km/h. The Mercedes Simplex 60hp did 120kph shortly after. Superchargers were used in Bugatti and Duesenberg after WWI. The Type 43 was noted at the time as the world's first 100 mph (161 km/h) production car — in fact, it could hit 110 mph (177 km/h) when most fast cars could only reach 70 mph (113 km/h). The 1928-32 Mercedes SSK had a top speed of up to 120 miles per hour (190 km/h), making it the fastest car of its day., SS_Cars_Ltd#SS_100 with 100mph in 1938.

I sort of agree, in that the prewar cars were vastly more interesting than the countach clones we've seen since the 80s. However, the numbers were obtained by dubious means, the cars were modified from stock, and who knows which way the wind was blowing? Look in the talk archives for long winded discussion of this and many other decisions. Greglocock (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

We should drop the dubious 1945 and 1947 entries and start with the 1949 Jaguar XK120 entry instead which really set a new record (124+ mph (200+ km/h)) instead of "post 1945 only"). The list is misleading in its current state, looking at it I thought such speeds weren't reached before 1945. The 1945 entry only lists a manufacturer's top speed claim and the speed in the comments applies to another model. The 1947 entry contradicts its linked Wikipedia site which doesn't know this model or any whose production started in 1947. Information about the time before 1945 would be interesting, depending on how many reliable sources like books are available, maybe in an extra table or a text section, it's at least as relevant as the "Controversies" section. Drachentötbär (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

This whole list is ridiculous because its missing a lots of cars, this lists just some random cars from random years with claimed speed- >Typ932 ^T·C 19:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hennessy Venom

This car broke the record like 5 years ago or something, shouldn't it be here Aacfsftw (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Only 16 were built and the test was in one direction only. Greglocock (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Notes for editors

• Discussion and determination on the 20 car limit
• The most recent review of the 20 car limit

Cars excluded from the list together with basic reason

Make and model	Year	Claimed top speed	Number built	Reason
Alfa Romeo 6C 2500 Super Sport	1946–1951	106 mph (171 km/h)	Unknown	No road test
Allard J1 and K1	1946–1948	92 mph (148 km/h) to 93 mph (150 km/h) with one source claiming over 100 mph (161 km/h)	151 K1's	No road test
Aston Martin DB4 GT Zagato	1960	153.5 mph (247 km/h)	19	excluded because of number built
Barabus TKR	2006	270.0 mph (435 km/h)	unknown	crashed on record attempt – no record set
Bugatti Chiron	2017	275 mph (443 km/h)	70 (500 planned)	excluded because of no road test (260 mph) and removal of speed limiter (275 mph)
Bugatti Veyron 16.4 World Record Edition	2010	267.557 mph (431 km/h)	5	excluded because of number built – see discussion on this articles talk page. Out of the initial production run of 30 there were 5, named the Super Sport World Record Edition, which had the electronic limiter turned off, and were capable of 267.857 mph (431.074 km/h), although Guinness World Records later re-verified the official land speed record.
Dauer 962 Le Mans	1994	251.4 mph (404.6 km/h)	13	not enough built
Delahaye 135	1946–1954	100 mph (161 km/h)	unknown	no road test, numbers unknown, coachbuilt
Ferrari 340, 342, and 375 America, and 400 and 410 Superamerica	1950–1959	159.69 mph (257 km/h)	varies depending on model – almost all custom made	less than 20 made for any model and many were racing cars
Ferrari 250 GTO	1962–1964	158 mph (254 km/h)	>20	no independent road test and each car tends to be customised
Ferrari 500 Superfast	1964–1966	171 mph (275 km/h)	23 Mk 1's, 12 Mk 2's, 1 custom made	excluded because of no independent road test
Hennessey Venom GT	2010	265.7 mph (428 km/h)(2013) 270.49 mph (435 km/h)(2014)	16	excluded because of number built and single direction top speed test run
Hennessey Venom F5	2016	290 mph (467 km/h) proposed	30 to be built	unconfirmed numbers and no road test
Koenigsegg Agera (models R and One:1)	2011–2014	273 mph (439 km/h) to 280 mph (451 km/h) depending on model	less than 20 for any model	excluded because of numbers built and/or unverified top speed
Koenigsegg CCR	2004	242 mph (389 km/h)	14	excluded because of numbers built
Lamborghini Countach 5000QV	1985	185 mph (298 km/h)		speed record already higher
Lamborghini Muira P400S	1969	172 mph (277 km/h)	338	this model was introduced after the Ferrari Daytona
Maserati 5000 GT	1959–1965	172.4 mph (277 km/h) claimed – more an estimate than a true measure	34 but with different bodies	no independent test
Monteverdi Hai 450	1970	180 mph (290 km/h) claimed	only 2 proto-types built, the SS and GTS	no production version
Ruf CTR2	1995	217 mph (350 km/h)	31	16 of the 31 CTR2s were normal, while 15 were CTR2 "Sport". Top speed test missing.
Pegaso Z-102 BS 2.8 Supercharged	1953	151 mph (243 km/h)	<20	less than 20 built
Shelby SuperCars SSC (all models including TT, Ultimate Aero, and Tuatara's)	2004–2014	236 mph (380 km/h)to 276 mph (444 km/h) depending on model	less than 20 for each model	excluded because of numbers built
Studebaker Avanti R2	1962–1963	158 mph (254 km/h)	unknown for version tested	data on speed tests and configuration of the car tested unknown at this stage
Studebaker Avanti R3	1962–1963	171.1 mph (275 km/h)	6	insufficient made
Talbot Lago T26 Record and Grand Sport	1946–1954	105 mph (169 km/h) (Record) and 124 mph (200 km/h) (Grand Sport)	less than 20 for either model	excluded because of numbers built and lack of independent road test
Vector W8	1990–1993	242 mph (389 km/h) for prototype	17 production models	excluded because of number built and no verified top speed for production model

Many of these cars have been debated on this articles talk pages. Should more detailed reasoning be required refer to the relevant discussion or raise the issue on the talk page.

Agera RS

An enthusiastic editor added the following to the top of the lede. It needs cites and production numbers

Koeniggsegg Agera RS just did a new world record for production cars! A Koenigsegg Agera RS driven by Koenigsegg factory driver, Niklas Lilja, has completed high speed runs in Pahrump, NV, today. 4th November 2017.

The average speed achieved, measuring runs in both directions, was 444.6 km/h (277.9 mph). This is a new world record for a production vehicle. All data recorded and verified on site by Racelogic.

Cheers

Greg Locock

The language is over the top but for once the claim seems to be true. http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a13301712/koenigsegg-agera-rs-speed-record/ They are still waiting for official confirmation.  Stepho  talk  22:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Trouble is, the list requires a minimum of 25 units. Koenigsegg planned to build 25, which it claims it sold and built. BUT, there's two engine options, a pure 98 octane option with 1160hp and a E85 compatible "Megawatt package". Not sure how this affects production figures. Alguemimportante (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I would think that the 25 units would have to be to the same mechanical specification (ignoring such differences as trim, colour, fluffy dice, 8-track) as the record breaking car. It gets hard when Guinness lists a car that we reject (not clear if this will be true for the Agera yet). With the number of exceptions growing, we might have add a section for popular claims not included on this list (eg Hennessey Venom GT for one direction and possibly the Agera for number of units built).  Stepho  talk  01:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't see how different engine alternatives would change the production numbers. Take Volvo XC90 as an example, with 5 different engines alternatives and different equipment packages on top of that you can get close to hundred combination. But in the end all is reported as one model, this is confirmed when you look at the first section on the VIN numbers.Morkul (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

What if you bought a Volvo XC90 because somebody told you the XC90 could do 0-100 km/h in 7.3 seconds? Except the diesel version you bought does it in 11.8 seconds. Unhappy! Or somebody told you it could do 10.5 L/100 km but the V8 version you bought does 19.9 l/100 km. Engine makes a huge difference. So does weight and aerodynamics. If these differ then the car is not capable of reaching the world record speed. And if it is not capable of reaching that speed then it's not the same thing.  Stepho  talk  11:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Every single car out there have different option, including engine and still is the same model. When buying a new car the engine options is one of the first thing a seller asked you about so if you as a buyer miss that information you shouldn't buy new cars. If this was so strange as you say why do all cars have different engine options without the manufacturer are sued? I know why, because it general practise. But perhaps more important is that FIA and Guinness book of records don't count engine options as a separate models. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morkul (talk • contribs) 14:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Cars with different engines are handled as different cars in this list, especially if the horsepower output differs, else we would have to change the list a lot like adding the Countach LP5000s because of how fast a factory tuned customer car was and other examples.

The Koenigsegg RS doesn't belong on this site because of WP:NOTNEWS. Koenigsegg wrote an unconfirmed short message and we sell it as fact here. The entries should be removed until the speed is officially confirmed and we know that there are 25 cars with the same power output. Drachentötbär (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Even Guinness book of record allow factory tuned cars, that why Bugatti Veyron got their record approved. So as I wrote above I fail to see why this list, that follows other Guinness guidelines would not follow this one.

I do however agree about the Koenigsegg Agera RS production numbers, until they are confirmed it should be removed.Morkul (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

While there is a question mark over its elibilty for this list, I have shifted it to the Production car speed record#Difficulties with claims section.  Stepho  talk  20:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Full disclosure - I work for Koenigsegg Automotive.

I was there in Nevada when we broke the record with the RS. If you're waiting for Guinness to verify this record, then don't hold your breath. We're not asking them to. If Guinness recognises this record, it's because they decided to. Guinness is a brand. A marketing exercise. They charge more than we can afford to come out and observe the things we'd do regardless of whether they were there or not. We measure our performance using industry-standard measurement techniques. In this instance, it was Racelogic and we had the guy from Racelogic come out to fit the device and confirm the data that was captured. We had our own device from AiM in the car, too, in order to provide a second source if the Racelogic system didn't work. It wasn't needed. And the readings from the AiM system matched the readings from Racelogic. If you need external citations, Jonothan Klein from Automobile Magazine was also present during the runs. His stories from that magazine are first-hand. He was a witness. In fact, there were about 200 witnesses there that day, including me.

With regards to production numbers, 25 Agera RSs have been sold and the last one is on the production line right now. In addition, there are three special edition RSs called 'Agera Final'. One of those has already been produced (shown at the Geneva Motor Show 2016) and the other two are in production at the moment. Your reasoning that a different engine option means it's a different car is incorrect. These are all Agera RSs and the engine is fundamentally the same whether its the Megawatt package or not. The customer makes the choice as to which RS engine they want but ask them what car they're buying and they'll tell you it's an Agera RS.

By your reasoning, a car with a suspension option is a different car. Have you checked all the cars on your list to see how many customers ordered cars with suspension upgrades? Or aero packages? Because if you think these elements don't contribute to a car's ability to reach top speed, then you're incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.4.107.250 (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It's only wikipedia. What's the top speed with the lesser engine package fitted? I'm somewhat sympathetic to your reasoning, but I'll wait and see what others think. I'd usually improve the top speed by eliminating the wings, probably not what your customers want to hear when they spend up big for an aero package. Greglocock (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

"It's only wikipedia" - OK, but isn't this supposed to be the people's encyclopedia? Shouldn't it reflect the reality of (in this instance) the work that's been done by a company to achieve a record if that record is run according to accepted standards? This is supposed to be a resource that records credible claims without the involvement of money changing hands for a marketing fee. To us, that's important. Wikipedia may be more important as a central record than you think.

Here are our claims on the Agera RS and its eligibility:

(1) The Agera RS has been crash tested, emissions tested and tested every other way in order to become a fully homologated production car that is available for sale, worldwide, with a Koenigsegg VIN. We have the homologation documentation to prove it. Homologation with a manufacturer's VIN should be the ultimate determinant of whether something is a production car, not some arbitrary number that has its origins in racing (FIA) rather than public availability. The artificial number of 25 cars gears this list towards large manufacturers that can subsidise the production of fast cars with sales of smaller cars and SUV's. It penalises small manufacturers that innovate and dedicate their entire existence towards pushing the performance envelope and building the best performing cars in the world.

(2) Regardless of the irrelevancy of that number, the fact remains that the Agera RS is being sold in a volume of 25 units, with three additional RS's called the 'Final' edition. The last of those is on the production line right now.

(3) The Megawatt engine choice is available to all customers and all cars can be retrofitted with the Megawatt engine at any time. The choice belongs to the customer at the time of the order and can be altered at any time the customer wishes. All of those 25+3 cars are Agera RS's. They don't have a different model name, number or VIN.

(4) The exclusion of a car based on an option (in our case) but without noting the options available or chosen on other models in the list is a case of inconsistent treatment. I am not calling their place on this list into question at all by asking this, but... Do you think the Veyron SS had no options availiable? Were all of the Ruf cars you cite built exactly the same? Would any variations, however small, aid performance? It's never been looked at, I'll bet. You're looking at it with regard to us because we were transparent enough to tell you about it. Now we're being penalised for that.

(5) The record runs were conducted using industry-standard measurement techniques, with third party witnesses involved in the measurement of data and telling the story of what happened that day. Everything we have ever stated publicly with regard to performance is measured using industry-standard measurement techniques. We have a well-deserved reputation for being the most transparent company in the market when it comes to talking about landmark events and activities, either good or bad (for reference, see our post on the crash at the Nurburgring). We put our hands up when we make an error, but we also think we have earned our place at the production car table through some very hard work over a lot of years. ~~Steven Wade (Koenigsegg Automotive AB)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.31.164.79 (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

With regard to the Megawatt engine being an option, let me quote opinions on this page under the heading Options - How we should treat them

- "If a model has an option that increases top speed, do we require a source stating that at least 20 models must have that option fitted? that would seem silly." - SpaceCowboy

- "I think you raise a good point so I have highlighted the question. If we accept the various options, then they must comply with the minimum number and then finding a reliable source could become much more challenging. Are models with different options treated differently under the VIN system (No, that's what option codes are for)? Also are the options fitted during production or post production? (1MW in the Agera is factory fitted)" - NealeFamily, with insertions in parentheses by me.

- "My thoughts on the whole process are: If an option is available on a certain model, then we should only consider the amount of models sold, with the possibility of having that option. If a specific version is made available, then we have to consider the amounts of that actual version sold. ie. the Porsche 911 (991) Carrera S was available with the factory option of a powerkit, that increase power, and models with that powerkit fitted saw a top speed increase from 188mph to 191mph. We should consider the top speed of the 911 (991) Carrera S as 191mph, because the option was available to all purchasers of the model. That way of dealing with suitability for this list, would make the suitability of certain cars less ambiguous and therefore easier for us editors. If something has been roadtested with a certain speed, and it has factory fitted and street legal options, then I think it's fine." - SpaceCowboy, again.

- "the rule would be if the option was fitted at manufacturing then it counts and the number of cars is based on the number produced the could have the option rather than actually have it?" - NealeFamily, again

- There is some dissent from Dennis Bratland, who says "Versions, options, modes or sub-models that don't strictly meet all the criteria should be listed elsewhere. On another table, or another list with looser criteria, so that cars in that group are ranked against others that are just as free to ignore regulations" but it should be noted, again, that the Agera RS is fully homologated and road legal. It doesn't ignore regulations.

- "I think if you can tick the box when you order the car it should count." - GregLocock

According to the majority opinion on your own discussion page, the availability of an option doesn't stop a model being a model. It doesn't create a new class of model or a new designation. The 1MW engine is a *factory* option that's available to all customers at the time of their order, and can be retrofitted to all Agera RS models if a customer wishes. It has the same 5 litre V8 twin-turbo configuration, the same block, pistons, exhaust, etc. ~~Steven Wade (Koenigsegg Automotive AB)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenWade (talk • contribs) 11:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Steven. I should mention a couple of things before I get into the main point. First, I think the Agera RS is awesome and fully deserving of its claim. I would love to own one but sadly it's out of my reach. Secondly, Wikipedia tries to strike a balance between flexibility (at the risk of changing with the wind) and strictly following our own rules (at the risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater). When things seem wrong then discussions can often either confirm the rules or find the new balance.

There is no doubt in my mind that the RS is the fastest production car. I've even said so in the Koenigsegg and Koenigsegg Agera articles. However, this article defined production as meaning 25 units being made by the manufacturer. An arbitrary count but how else do get production cars while weeding out the tuner cars and manufacture one-off specials. I've seen so many racing categories where the rules for production sedan cars were twisted like pretzels. Eg minimum weight of the 6 cylinder taxi stripper version but maximum engine capacity of the V8 version, making 25 race cars but counting taxis for the require homologation count. Since the big boy racing organisations can't get it right then we probably can't either. So we just choose some reasonable rules and try to stick with them. When the rules stop working then we'll adjust them.

Same model/VIN doesn't mean much. I can point to plenty of other cars on the road where 6 cylinder taxis share the same model and VIN as the hairy chested GT models. It just means they are related. If we use counting as one of the criteria then we should only count versions that are substantially the same as the actual record breaking car. No fair claiming the version with 10% less power is the same as the record breaker. However, this discussion may remove counting as a criteria. We'll see where the discussion leads.

We really want to strip out the one-off specials. Even when from the manufacturer they are not representative of what a customer can buy and put on the road. The RS is not in this category but by removing the count we might let one-off specials in. How do we keep the specials out while allowing true production models?

Some of the cars currently in the list do not fulfil our own rules. That's the downside of volunteer editors. Once we work out our rules from this discussion then we will do some housecleaning - either removing cars or doing better research.  Stepho  talk  23:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Stepho. I'm encouraged by your belief that the Agera RS is a worthy addition to the list, although it's a bit frustrating to know that that hasn't happened (yet)

I disagree with your notion that the VIN is irrelevant. The question of a proper manufacturer VIN, when combined with other questions, is very valuable. One important element of being a 'production car' is that it's produced by a manufacturer for sale to the public. That requires homologation and a VIN. A tuner can't produce a VIN, for example. Or if they can, then they've moved on to being a manufacturer (e.g. RUF). The VIN is one form of proof that the seller of the vehicle is the manufacturer of the vehicle (or their authorised representative). The work that we have to do in order to homologate a car for sale in a certain region is mind boggling. In the USA, for example, we have to do exactly the same crash tests, emissions tests, etc to sell a handful of cars as what Ford has to do to sell boatloads of Focuses (Focii??).

VIN aside, however..... If you're looking to remove the arbitrary count number - which I personally think would be a good idea as it penalises genuine small manufacturers - then I'd suggest the following... Is the car sold by the manufacturer (or their authorised dealers) to end users as a road legal vehicle and in the same state of trim used for the record attempt?

Such criteria eliminates the tuners. One-offs? I'd be interested to know how this list would substantially change if a manufacturer was proven to have gone to the trouble of homologating a vehicle to be road legal and available for sale on a one-off basis. I don't think there would be many. The money involved in producing such a vehicle and homolgating it for sale is huge.

My end game, however, is to persuade you all that the Agera RS genuinely belongs on this list. It IS homologated for sale, it IS sold by Koenigsegg and our authorised dealers as a road-legal vehicle in the state of trim used for the record run and it DOES have a Koenigsegg VIN. It is/was not specially tuned. We don't do dealer options. Everything is factory fitted. It is not a one-off. The discussion about options, above, indicates the contradictory thoughts and opinions among editors here but the prevailing thought seemed to be that if it's available on the standard options list, it counts. With 25 vehicles made (+3 in the 'Final' series) it also satisfies your volume requirement.

Thanks for your input. I just hope we can progress the discussion quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenWade (talk • contribs) 12:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Steven, at http://www.koenigsegg.com/koenigsegg-agera-rs-achieves-multiple-production-car-world-speed-records/ the top speed is listed as '446.97 km/h (277.87 mph)'. The metric conversion doesn't quite add up. Should it be 446.97 km/h (277.73 mph) or 447.19 km/h (277.87 mph) ? Can you ask somebody at the company to correct it. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  20:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

447.19 is correct. The number out of the Racelogic datalogger was the mph number. The conversion error is mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenWade (talk • contribs) 11:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Veyron speed limiter

I think the reasoning behind including the Veyron at 267 mph rather than 257 is poor, and leads to attempted justification for the Agera of allowing cars that are NOT capable of the record top speed to count towards the production total. This can be solved in one elegant stroke by reducing the claimed top speed for the Veyron to 257 and adding a note that removing the speed limiter gives an extra 10 mph. Then we don't have to put up with any nonsense about less powerful engines counting towards the production totals. Waddayerreckon? Greglocock (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the Veyron is justified at the full 267 mph. Most of the cases we discuss are because the production car needs something extra or better to make the record speed. For the Veyron it is the removal of an artificial restriction. Of course we should have a note that most productions cars have that speed limiter.  Stepho  talk  23:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can understand the McLaren F1 does not get to use the record run with its rev limiter raised - but the Veyron Super Sport does. This seems very inconsistent. Can anyone explain why they are treated different? Secondly, the removed Veyron Super Sport speed limiter is a software change - so is the 1MW engine upgrade in the Agera RS. -Why is one software upgrade judged differently than the other? The Agera RS upgrade actually was a choosable customer option, while the Super Sport software upgrade was not. So why is the latter more acceptable, when logically it should be the other way around? Please explain. Sagenode (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2017

What is a production car really?

The arbitrary 20 or 25 cars production run as a denominator for a production car is completely arbitrary and irrelevant and seemingly "invented" by persons active here. It is completely irrelevant that the FIA once had a rule that dictated - in order to be allowed to race, at least 25 road cars had first to be produced. This FIA ruled later changed to several hundred cars and then was totally removed. To use this as a criteria for what a production car is today, is arbitrary, irrelevant and takes away what a production car really is and what goes into it. In order to acheive series production car status in todays world in any market of significance a production car has to pass crash testing and emission testing. Features like closed loop lambda control, catalyc converters, OBD and closed crankcase ventilation, together with interior and exterior features in order to reach a (COC) Certificate of Conformity status for the EU and the US has even more stringent requirements. The series production and homologation regulation from for example the EU, clearly separate a production car from any other type of vehichle. In no market is a production car defined by the amounts of cars produced. Instead they are qualified for what they are, how they are built and under which regulation. Given this the criteria of 20 or 25 cars as a minimum number should be excluded as a criteria to make the list. Instead proof of production car status should be mandatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagenode (talk • contribs) 17:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

This would destroy this list. I'm far more interested in the historical line than the latest overgrown kit car with a nice engine. How would you establish what a production car is from the 1950s? Or as I would prefer, 1930s? Greglocock (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

-Why would it destroy the list? On the contrary it would makes the list reasonable, trustworthy and accountable. That you personally have a bigger interest in vintage cars rather than modern cars is not a viable/resonable argument to keep the list in its present disfunctional and missleading state. When it comes to establish if a vintage car is a production car or not, seems to require a reasonable, not to large effort. If they were series produced and followed regulations for road registration for series produced cars in their era - they should be considered production cars. If they did not - then they were not production cars. It is of course sometimes difficult to know which, since it was a long time ago. Especially the state of the tested car - was it tuned? was it original? how was the speed measured? If there are uncertainties, I guess the uncertain cars should be put on the excluded list, just like the more modern cars. I dont see why they should be treated any different. Having said that, I believe many of the vintage cars should go on the excluded list... Sagenode (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2017

In the general understanding of what a "production car" is and what not the numbers built play the main role, just check the wiki site or do a web search. Barely anyone cares if the cars fulfill bureaucratic time- and country-specific laws. I wouldn't mind using 10,15 or 20 (like it was most of the time) as minimum number. I agree that having new car after the old Veyron would benefit this list and think that the Agera RS deserves to be more on this list than the McLaren F1 for example (independent high speed tests like the one offered by R&T avoided and used a modified prototype which clearly had far more HP than when it was exclusively tested by Autocar for the Guinness entry) but credibility would suffer a lot if we change the rules according to the cars instead of checking if they fulfill the requirements.Drachentötbär (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

"Barely anyone cares if the cars fulfill bureaucratic time- and country-specific laws" - couldn't be further from the truth. The ability for a manufacturer to gain a VIN identity and the ability for a car to pass homologation requirements in the markets it is sold in should absolutely be key to the definition of a production car. You can't sell in a country unless you comply with that country's laws. A vehicle having a valid VIN plate defines it as a car that's been produced by the manufacturer claiming the record (rules out tuners) and the fact that it is complied for a market means that it's a production car, not a one-off created purely to do special things like break records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenWade (talk • contribs) 20:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggested updated production car and test specification definition/list rules

I suggest the list should define a production car according to the following rules:

1. Made by a production car vehicle manufacturer that is approved as such by the authorities handling production car regulations in the country the car is produced and possibly other countries.

2. The production car needs to have been offered in new condition for commercial sale to consumers, legal for personal use and in full compliance with regulations for road cars at the time of sale in the country the car is delivered in, directly from the car producer or its official dealer network, without any tampering needed with the car from the customer or end users side in order to make the car legal for road use.

3. The same car model needs to have been registered for road use and beeing street legal in at least two different countries with two physically separate cars, before this list considers it to be a true production car.

4. The production car needs to have reached the third party verified top speed in a state that it can be order in and produced by the production car vehicle manufacturer without outside/3rd party tampering. At the same time the exact specification that is tested needs to comply with point 2 and 3 above.

The above covers all the needed aspects to determine if a car is a true production car or not. No company is allowed to produce series production cars intended for road use, unless they have approval for such activities from the authorities of the country the company is in. If a company has this approval then the likelyhood they are actually producing production cars are great. Still with the other three points in the list - all doubt will be gone. Also the "homebuilt" or "hot rodded" cars are naturally excluded.

It is very easy to find out if a company is a "real" production car company from public documents in the public domian as long as they are produced in an industrialized country. Also it is very easy to see in public ledgers if a car model has been registered for road use in most countries. If we need harsher "series production" requirements, we could add a car or two and a country or two in point 3 - but more than that can never be motivated or needed to be 100% sure of what is a production car or not. For sure any serious series production cars producers will be able to forward these documents if they want to be on this list. So it should not be difficult at all to get the needed information. Sagenode (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Many countries waive safety (and other) homologation requirements for small numbers of cars produced, thereby legalizing things that are scarcely more than kit cars. I'm pleased, that means people can try exotic designs without crash testing 5 or 10 (or 40 as in one program I worked on) prototypes, but it means the barriers to entry are so low are as to be meaningless unless you add a minimum number made.Greglocock (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

This discussion about what is accepted for this list is being fragmented into many places. I suggested we keep it in one place.

We need to decide what we accept and what we reject a a production car. I'll sketch out some of the boundaries are we will see what emerges.

1. This is for production cars, from a registered manufacturer that appears on the registration papers of the car. This will gives us serious thought about whether to include the Hennessey Venom GT if they do a bidirectional run (the Venom GT is registered as a modified Lotus Exige in its home country of the US, making Hennessey a tuner company but the Venom GT is made in enough numbers to be more than a custom job).
2. The vehicle needs to be something that a customer could buy from the catalog - no special on-offs, no special tweaks.
3. The vehicle need to be street legal in a reasonable number of countries. No playing with countries that accept anything with 4 wheels and a large amount of cash as legal. However, it's ok if some countries reject it if it didn't go through a length and expense certification process for that particular country.
4. As laymen editors, we usually don't get to see the certification papers. We also don't get to see how the world record version of the car differs from its lessor siblings. Eg Is the Agera RS E85 engine mechanically different or just tuned differently (software parameters in the ECU). We need factors that we can verify from a layman's point of view.
5. Does the software and/or its parameters count as a difference? As a professional ECU software engineer, I have seen engines changed from low revving, smooth torquey engines into higher hp (but skittish) engines purely through software changes. We also changed petrol and diesel engines in CNG engines by changing the fuel supply and injectors and changing the ECU. The engine internals remained unchanged. It could be argued by some that this is the same engine (note: governments made us do new certifications of the vehicles because it affect emissions).
6. We want to specifically exclude tuner companies that make only a handful of customs. As noted above, Hennessey is bit of a corner case.
7. Production counts is a poor standard but does remove the tuner customs and manufacturer specials. I have seen it abused in racing (make a single special racing sedan version but claim it was sold in the thousands because it shares the same basic body as a taxi).
8. If we use counts at all then we need to specify what counts. Do we count all variations of the basic body (see above note for abuse)? Do we count only those that are mechanically identical? Minor variations allowed (colour obviously allowed but also diff ratio, suspension springs, spoilers) ?
9. WP is not contracted or obligated to any manufacturer or organisation to include or exclude a particular car or manufacturer. However, we will try our hardest to make a set of rules that represents the industry fairly.

I'd like very much to include the Agera RS. But we can't do this arbitrarily. We need to apply the same rules to all the vehicles on the list and the rules should not be made just to allow the RS on.  Stepho  talk  23:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It's logical to not do it arbitrarily, but when your rules dump a genuine car company that is homologated around the world, crash tested, emissions, tested, a company that builds its own engines, builds its own carbonfibre chassis, programs its own software, builds its own wheels (by hand!) and nearly every other component - when your rules dump that company in with a bunch of tuner companies... the rules are wrong. When every other automotive journal recognises something that you don't, the rules are wrong. And speaking for my colleagues at Koenigsegg, they're a slap in the face. GregLocock wrote above that "it's only Wikipedia" but it's actually a bigger thing than that. Right or wrong, there is a segment of content writers out there that will click the first link they see on Google when they're looking this stuff up. That link is often from this site. To weigh your criteria towards large manufacturers penalises genuine companies like ours and in some respects, robs us of genuine achievements. Don't make rules "just to allow the RS" on the list. Make the rules fair and the RS will qualify automatically. It already does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenWade (talk • contribs) 07:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I think Stepho is asking the correct questions above. How can we make it into check list for criterias? Perhaps it is a 8 point list and at least 6 or 7 out of 8 "boxes" needs to be checked in order for a car to comply?Sagenode (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

While I have some sympathy with the arguments presented, we face a basic dilemma. If you take a look at the Production vehicle page you will find that there is no single definition of a production car at present. There is a range of possible definitions. If we accept less than 25 vehicles, then how many less and on what basis? If we drop the current rules, then the current fastest production car under Utah Salt Flats Racing Association rules is a 297mph 2006 Pontiac Transam - this will meet WP:RS. NealeFamily (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Production vehicle seems to be looking at various definitions of "production vehicles", but the lede for this article clearly says that we are using the definition from List of automotive superlatives:

1. are constructed principally for retail sale to consumers, for their personal use, and to transport people on public roads (no commercial or industrial vehicles are eligible);

2. have had 25 or more instances 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);

3. are street-legal in their intended markets, and capable of passing any official tests or inspections required to be granted this status. Meters (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the definition of "production". How many (or how few) need to be made to qualify? Because batches of 5 or so wouldn't meet my definition of "production", nor, I suspect, would it meet most people's. And what is "manufacturer"? Would Fiberfab, frex, qualify? Would Meyers Manx? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the quoted definition? It clearly answers your question about minimum numbers, and I believe it also answers your questions about Fiberfab and Meyers Manx. Those were kit cars, not made by the original vehicle manufacturer. Meters (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I would normally define manufacturer as what is on the VIN plate (or its equivalent). Which creates a problem for companies like Hennessey, who I haven't quite decided in my own mind if they are a manufacturer (making many substantially similar cars with crash tests, etc) or a tuner (making custom cars).

I seriously doubt if that Pontiac was straight off the production line in a form that could be ordered by customers and it's probably not road legal (eg, emissions compliant).

Another boundary condition I should have mentioned is that the run must be done in opposite directions to counter the possible effects of downhill with a tail wind (Hennessey fails in this). Otherwise we can include the stock VW Beetle that did the quarter mile in less than 4 seconds with a top speed of 201 km/h - by being dropped from a helicopter.

Meters, point 2 is not perfect and is currently under discussion for something better. I would not automatically rule out kit-car manufacturers if they are producing complete, certified cars to a stock design that is registered with them as the manufacturer. Of course, any kit-car that is further modified by the owner (eg, owner supplies the engine) would be ruled out as a custom car. Luckily, kit cars are rarely fast enough for this list.  Stepho  talk  01:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The American Le Mans Series GT class regulations In 2001 stated that cars must be for sale on two continents. This seems like a good compromise if we are to remove production volume based rules, this should prevent all one offs and require compliance with more than one set of design rules and testing schemes. And like Stepho noted preventing quirks and loopholes in one country's rules from messing up the value of street Legality as a factor is essential, and I think this serves that goal elegantly. Toasted Meter (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with idea of a two-continent rule to establish credibility for a company as a production manufacturer. It does seem like a very elegant solution. Koenigsegg's contention with a minimum of 30, 25, or even 20, is that it favours large manufacturers and rules out the little guys. There is no doubt in anyone's mind, looking objectively, that Koenigsegg manufactures production cars. We have a manufacturer code on our VIN plate and we have to do all crash tests and emissions tests before we can sell cars in a given market via official dealer channels. We are no different from Bugatti, Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini or any other recognised manufacturer EXCEPT for the number of cars we produce. That we can do it and sell them around the world indicates that these are serious production vehicles that should be recognised. A requirement such as selling on more than one continent is indeed indicative that the car is properly complied by authorities and sold through an established dealer network. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenWade (talk • contribs) 01:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Whether a car is sold in only one country or many continents doesn't affect the production car status. Why should a car sold 10,000 times in the US be less production than a car sold once in Saudi-Arabia and once in Egypt for example ? Drachentötbär (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The scenario you picture is purely hypothetical and extremely unlikely to effect anything to do with this list. The proposal for cars being compliant and eligible for sale in more than one continent is an indication that they're actually being made by a valid OEM, i.e. they are actually production cars. If you keep it to one country/continent then you open the list up to cars that, for example, can only be sold in the UK, where you can get a motorised office desk registered for the road if it's got headlamps in the right place (not theoretical - fact). — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenWade (talk • contribs) 20:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Stepho, with respect..... you seem to be very Hennessey-conscious in your deliberations. Hennessey is an amazing engine builder and vehicle customiser but they don't do what a full-service car company does. Not at the moment, at least. They don't design their own chassis and design/build their own cars from the ground-up. They don't do crash tests or other forms of vehicle compliance etc. When they do, they'll get a manufacturer VIN and all discussion can be silenced. Until that happens, or at least until they actually do a record attempt that meets with basic criteria (two-way, verifiable), they shouldn't be occupying too much attention here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenWade (talk • contribs) 20:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I am deliberately Hennessey-conscious. As I mentioned above, they are not quite a manufacturer (for the reasons you gave) but they are also more than a tuner, having produced a series of cars to the same spec. I would like to clarify the rules to specify that the car must be as it was delivered from the factory. Which would effectively rule out Hennessey but at least things would be clear. They don't seem keen to do bi-direction runs, so it may not be a problem anyway.  Stepho  talk  12:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Sagenode, in spite of your claim, consensus has not been reached. Therefore the article cannot be changed to included the Agera yet. I was sympathetic to the Agera's claim but your insistence is pushing me in the other direction.  Stepho  talk  12:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Definition of the minimum requirements for being production car

Obviously here, there are many people who has strong or biased opinion towards Hennessey, and even call Hennessey Venom GT a kit-car? Just because it is from "Tuner House"? Stop being so aggressive like this, because here is the discussion not war, you can go to anywhere else to unleash your biased hatred to any car or anyone you want. The minimum requirement of being qualified to be "Production Car" is suggested by Guinness in 2014, because this institution created "World Fastest Production Car" title, so any hyper car who wants to pass the requirements of Guinness have to meet the rules of these 1. Record vehicle has to be made 30 units or more. 2. Top speed run must be done with standard engine specification. 3. Top speed run must be done in Two directions, the average number of maximum speed will be taken as Official Top Speed verified by Guinness. Both Venom GT and Agera RS can't meet these requirements, and both runs are solo runs, aren't they? So, both top speed runs were not done by third party, so now, the "World Fastest Production Car" title holder is still Bugatti Veyron Super Sport, any problem with that? Savitar Shinoh (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Obviously you have not read the the entire talk thread on this list. First of all Guinness is a beer company that only proclaim - Guinness(beer) World Records. Guinness is not the authority on World Records - They are only Guinness Worlds Records. To put it into context. Budweiser could any day start Buweisers World Records and set up their rules, comities, fees, promotions etc and this would be the same thing. The FIA is considered a far more serious "record keeper/scrutineer" than Guinness. Still the FIA does not have an "exclusive" on world records. Boil it down and world records are in "the eye of the beholder". What is different today compared to past times, is that now there are very good tools to measure speed etc from very reliable sources, for example like Racelogic and others, That use trustworthy methods of measuring for example speed. This equipment is also approved by Guinness for speed records. OF course a record becomes more trustworthy if an independet third party conducted the meaurement and datalogging etc. Even more so if there are several independant parties, like with the Agera RS runs - both Stalker Radar and Racelogic measured the speed independantly. Furthermore to make a speed pass in both direction of the same stretch of road, takes out other question marks, such as road angle/condition - wind influences etc. Finally the specification of the vehichle, depending on the record type is important to establish. So, to boil it down - A record is only as good as its data, independancy and transparancy. Guinness or not is completely irrelevant as described above. Furthermore Guinness definition of a production car seems to vary a lot and to be completely inconsistent. Furthermore Guinness seems to change opinion if a powerful company ask them to change their opinion. Furthermore how "neutral" do you think this beer company is, when they ask the record takers for money in order to promote thier records. I think it is time to consider Guinness record holding abilities as obsolete, until they change their behaviour. Instead we should focus on how the "records" are performed and if they can be considered credible from 3rd party point of view and the status of the actual vehicle tested. Sagenode (talk) 13:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Given the above, please stop edit war:ing the list according to how you interpret the Guinness "rule book": it is irrelevant for this list. So therefore also please stop changing the 25 car limit to 30 on the list as this goes directly against all consensus on this list and will only result in escalation.Sagenode (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

For the record, my reverts of the article that restored the 30 cars definition was in error and was unintentional. I thought I was reverting back to the 25 car version. My apologies for my error.

In the past I would have been in favour of following Guinness - if it works for a large company like them then it should also work for us. However, there are 2 points against following them.

1. Wikipedia has no compunction to follow any external organisation except for the laws of wherever the WP servers are hosted (United States, I think). Just because Guinness chose some rules doesn't mean that we also have to follow them. It's convenient if WP agrees with Guinness but it's not strictly required. The rules for WP are set by a consensus of WP editors, not Guinness.
2. I found out recently that Guinness accepts some records only if they receive payment. Which means some manufacturers can actually perform a feat that obeys all Guinness 's rules, is witnessed by a suitable independent body but still not count as a world record unless they pay. That makes Guinness inherently untrustworthy.

Again, apologies for my misguided reverts. Please let's continue the discussion.  Stepho  talk  09:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest backwards and forward on main list discussion

The last few days there have ben a lot of backwards and forwards on the main list. There was a contributor - Savitar Shinoh - who threw in 30 cars minimum and that only Guinness rules apply, which goes against the views and consensus of all discussions I have managed to find in the talk section. In the meantime I posted comments in 4 or 5 threads that still remains unaswered in the talk section several days ago. Given that no one has bothered to adress/answer my ideas/comments/questions in the talk section, I can only see them as accepted points of views by the contributors active on this talk page - as I have to assume someone would otherwise give input or questions them. Furthermore I truly believe my point of view corrulates much better with the "rules" of this list than the ones Savitar Shinoh promotes by "spamming" Guinness and 30 cars ever other minute, which is the version Stepho-wrs keeps reverting back to. Given this I will keep on reverting back to my edit until something potentially more apropriate comes a long. Hope the discussion continues. I believe Stepho-wrs who is reverting back, several time, to Savitar Shinohs edit because he is not fully reading it and therefore by misstake removes my input and keep 30 cars and Guinness rules instead. At the same time Stepho-wrs keeps asking me to dish it out in the talk section, but still he leaves my comments/arguments unanswered there. It is a mystery to me.Sagenode (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it appears that user:Stepho-wrs is not aware of what he is reverting, and I have previously pointed this out to him on his talk page. I have now done so a second time, pointed out that you have indeed attempted to discuss his edits on the talk page without any response from him, and left an informal edit warring warning. Do not continue to revert him. Meters (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there is no reason Wikipedia should be using Guiness World Records' definition of what a production car i to determine article content. Meters (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, I thought I was reverting back to the original - unfortunately I was actually unintentionally reverting back to the wrong one.

Sagenode, I have not intended to ignore you but was too busy trying to revert the edits of multiple people on contentious issues on this and other pages. My limited time was thus wasted and I could not contribute to every aspect of a complex discussion.

Can we all agree to leave the article in its original state while we discuss potential solutions.  Stepho  talk  09:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Great that the missunderstanding is gone. There is of course no "original version" to go back to - just earlier versions. Since you were the only one who reverted back (by misstake) the a "wrong" version and the present hopefully makes more sense to the general opinion on this list and reflects "reality" better than what you ask to revert back to - I truly hope we can keep it as is for now. Or at least discuss the various topics before any further changes are made, as the present version seems to resonate much better with general consensus and the reality for that matter - due to the following reasons: 1. The numbers produced of the Agera RS is actually 30 - please see info at list. Thus covering any kind of volume required. 2. So far 11 Agera RS has the 1MW option out of the 30 cars. 3. The 1MW option is also available as a factory software upgrade to all existing Agera RS, while the accepted software speed delimiter of the Veyron Super Sport is not, nor does it seem to be fitted to any customer cars whatsoever. This should put the amount of 11 customer 1MV Agera RS in very good light compared to the Super Sport. That the Veryon Supers Sport is still allowed on the list (given the limiter manipulation) does not make sense to me, but it surely gives the Agera RS 1MW factory software option a "cart blanche". So given all the above, please see my point of view that it makes more sense to keep list as it is for now, rather than reverting back to a state that surely reflects reality in a less "fair" way - clearly.Sagenode (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, under the current rules it is still not clear whether the Agera RS is allowed or disallowed. 25 units of the Agera were made but does the rule of 25 units count all RS's ever made (regardless of what speed they can make) or only those that are capable of reaching that speed? The rule is unclear, which is what the above few sections are discussing. As the article stands now, we have an entry in the 'Difficulties with claims' that says the RS made a bidirection run, makes no points about not being allowed and yet the RS is not in the list for unspecified reasons. This is the inconsistency I was trying to avoid. Which way to make it consistent (exclude it with explicit reasons, include it or to clarify/change the rules) is the subject of the above few sections.  Stepho  talk  20:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Stepho-wrs - first you need to ask yourself is the Veyron Super Sport allowed on the list, as it had a software change that increased the speed - seemingly only on the car they used for the test. Does this make the production car/run of the Veyron Super Sport eligible for this list or not? If the answer/consensus is yes, which I personally would find strange, then for sure the Agera RS is eligble for the list - right? As the Agera RS has a software change as an option that are already on 11 customers cars and given the record soon on many more... This means the Veyron more than fully justifies the Agera RS. If the answer is no - to me the Agera RS anyway belong on the list, as optioned cars are allowed to be counted in the total production run according to consensus on this list. Given these two conclusion, I do not see why the Agera RS inclusion or not on the list needs to be discussed at all, since which ever direction we turn, given previous consensus, we should allow it. However the Super Sport is a different matter, which should be discussed first. - Makes sense?Sagenode (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

If I may, let me put a final nail in the coffin of references to Guinness as a yardstick for this page. I've been researching this a fair bit over the last 24 hours. A lot of people like to reference supposed Guinness record-holders and supposed Guinness 'rules' for what is a production car. Let me tell you, no such rules exist today and believe it or not, there is no Guinness record holder for the Production Car Speed Record today either. Don't believe me? Create an account at Guinness (anyone can do it, and it's free of cost), log in so that you can see their full database of records and search for 'Production Car'. It'll bring up all the records related to Production Cars and when you click on the appropriate record it will tell you "there is no current holder for this record" (or words to that effect).

Guinness is a marketing and publishing organisation. They work with paying companies to create records, which are usually invented to give some extra spice to product launches. The Jaguar F-Pace's "Largest Loop-the-loop" is one such an example. There's even a case study on Guinness' site that you can read as to how they came up with it.

We have four Guinness certificates on the wall at Koenigsegg's showroom and yet if you do a search for Koenigsegg on Guinness' page it returns ZERO results. Again, don't take my word for it, try it for yourself. That's because Guinness is not a record-keeping organisation. Their business case most likely relies on records 'expiring' and companies paying to retain them or set new ones (a guess) but either way, a company's ability to continue marketing using the Guinness name relies on paying a licence fee (not a guess - we were quoted a five-figure fee (GBP) for the use of their name for one month).

If Guinness say something happened, then it happened. I'm not suggesting for a minute that they're liars and I know they create stringent criteria for some of the records that people attempt under the Guinness name. What I am suggesting, however, is that there are other perfectly valid ways of setting, and therefore acknowledging, a record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenWade (talk • contribs) 20:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Agera RS should be included until list rules are (re)defined

Again, in the interests of full disclosure, I will mention once again that I work for Koenigsegg Automotive. Regardless of that, however, I am going to use logic to make a point that the Agera RS should be included in this list until such time as the new list rules being discussed above are finalised and it is either confirmed for good (as it should be) or removed (which would be a travesty).

My point, in a nutshell: The Agera RS meets all conditions of the definition on the article page as it currently stands. It has been withheld from its rightful place by concerns over an option, the 1MW engine, but the definition doesn't say anything about options. Any talk of options is being held here and is not included in the current definition. Its exclusion is presumptuous.

The definition of a production car, as it stands right now, is as follows:

→being constructed principally for retail sale to consumers, for their personal use, and to transport people on public roads (no commercial or industrial vehicles are eligible);

The Agera RS meets this condition. It is for sale worldwide and is registrable to be driven on public roads in all markets in which it is sold.

→having had 25 or more instances 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);

The Agera RS meets this condition. There are 25 customer examples of the car, plus 3 'Final edition' Agera RS's, plus two factory cars.

→being street-legal in their intended markets, and capable of passing any official tests or inspections required to be granted this status.

The Agera RS meets this condition. It is fully homologated, has been crash tested and emissions tested and is registrable for the road in all markets in which it is sold.

As you can see, the RS meets all conditions. Given that the RS meets the current definition as listed on the page itself, there is no logical reason for it not to be there. Its exclusion presumes that the RS fails on a matter being considered for inclusion in the definition (options), which it doesn't fail according to the consensus opinion evident here anyway.

This page obviously needs to update its definition to consider the topic of options, as well as other aspects of what makes a production car (VIN, homologation, availability in diverse markets, etc). The position I'm offering to you here, just using logic and fairness, is that the Agera RS should be listed on the table until that discussion is finalised, and not withheld until that definition is finalised.

I understand that you, as laymen and independent, do not want to put something here simply because a manufacturer suggests it. But I would also ask you to consider whether you're (wrongly) deliberately withholding its inclusion as some sort of proof to yourselves of that independence. The case I've made here is very fair. On logic alone, the RS deserves its place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenWade (talk • contribs) 21:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

An IP removed the record claim with the invalid summary "Not in Guinness World Records". We don't decide what is included in Wikipedia based on what some other company chooses to include in their list. Having said that, there was no independent reliable source for the record claim so I have not restored it (and I have removed the remaining mention of the car). Even if we do decide that the car meets the production car criteria then we will need an independent reliable source before we can include the record in this article. A company posting by a Koenigsegg Automotive Communications and Copywriter employee (named Steven Wade) is not an independent reliable source. Meters (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

References

It seems that my word is not trusted here. It also seems that you want some sources other than the Koenigsegg story on this. OK.

Jonathon Klein is a journalist from Automobile Magazine in the USA. He was present for the entire campaign and he wrote several stories about it. The most relevant story is this one - http://www.automobilemag.com/news/koenigsegg-came-nevada-beat-records/

A guy named Julian Thomas posted video of the run - even before we did (which is why his video has 3.5 million views and ours has relatively few). The video is taken directly from the Vbox data logger. Julian Thomas is the technical director for Racelogic USA (Racelogic is the brand that makes Vbox data loggers). Of course, you will want to contact Racelogic to verify that info. The video is available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xj4gar5dKAU

Jim Lau was the guy from Racelogic who was present on the day. He fitted the Vbox to the Agera RS and he also retrieved and verfied the data recorded on the system. Jim Lau wrote an article about the campaign for Autoweek. You can read it here: http://autoweek.com/article/supercars/behind-scenes-koenigsegg-top-speed-run

We had representatives from Michelin present at the event to verify that the tyres were the ones used on our regular cars, and to monitor the condition of the tyres to make sure they were safe after each run. Eric Schmeddling, the guy from Michelin, has been interviewed and quoted in many articles since the run was made. One such article is this one, from Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-17/exactly-how-did-koenigsegg-break-the-land-speed-record-with-its-agera-rs

Hopefully this satisfies any doubt and saves you some legwork looking for external references.--StevenWade (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Re-instating the Agera RS on the list, for the sake of sanity, thruth and fairness...Sagenode (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

And removed again. As I said, the source is not a reliable one. There are now reliable sources available (see above), but even with those sources the material is contested and should remain out until there is consensus that the car meets Wikipedia's criteria as a production car. Meters (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Reliable Sources are not the problem, since 8 November 2017 they were available and the top speed run was standing here as fact. The problem is "having had 25 or more instances made", cars with different HP output are not the same cars. It was handled this way on this site before the Agera RS appeared and it's only fair towards the other contestants to treat a newcomer according to the existing rules instead of changing the rules just to benefit him. 181 extra HP are a big difference, if we allow this we have to allow almost everything else. Drachentötbär (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. If the car does not meet the current inclusion criteria it should not be included. If and when the inclusion criteria are changed then the car's inclusion can be re-evaluated. Meters (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The car DOES meet the current inclusion criteria, which was the whole point of this new section. According to your own words in the definition, the car meets the criteria. The three points in the definition are listed above, as are the ways the RS meets them. The only way it doesn't is if you reinterpret the words in the definition to suit your own personal point of view.--StevenWade (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a continous mix of apples and oranges here in argumentation and frankly many of them does not makes any sense. This is were we are at: 1. Options are considered OK. 2. The Agera RS has a production run way over 25 cars. Still the 25 car rule is completely arbitrary and has no real bearing on the fact if a car is production car or not. 3. The Agera RS record is probably the best documented in history with several 3rd party, fully trustworthy sources for speed measurement, plus around 150 individuals and journalist on site recording the event and listening in on every word that was said in the team around the car. 5. The Agera RS is a homologated, crash tested, emission tested, OBDII capable, smart airbag equipped, SERIES PRODUCTION CAR(!!!) street legal in Europe, the US, the Middle East, Asia etc. There can be no question whatsoever if the Agera RS is production car or not! This discussion is a waste of time... 6. Given the hard time the Agera RS has to become accepted here, it blows my mind as to why the Veyron Super Sport is accepted, as it clearly was modified from standard, in a way that is not available in the production cars at all. I have now raised the Speed limiter question around 4 or 5 times on this talk page and absolutley no one cares to answer why this is considered OK while the Agera RS fully customer available Power option is not! - Even tough reasonably the power option should be treated much more favourably than the removed speed limiter, both increasing top speed with the help of software. So - given the above - until someone cares to answer this highly relevant question, I will re-instate the Agera RS and if it is removed again, without any proper reasons, there is no way the Veyron Super Sport can stay on the list, if we use any common sense or logic. Therefore, please, before taking any other action, please respond to the Super Sport "issue". Thank you.Sagenode (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Wow, with the discussion trying to shoot off in so many directions it's no wonder we haven't been able to address every point raised!

Steven, as an employee of Koenigsegg you naturally interpret the rules to the advantage of Koenigsegg. I can't really blame you for this. The 25 count rule is not clearly on your side because editors have already asked if we count all vehicles with the 'Agera RS' name (under which the RS is allowed and of course favoured by you) or if we count only vehicles that could actually reach that speed (under which the RS would not be allowed). That is the single point which started this discussion and has not been decided yet. Have patience, the odds do look to be in your favour.

All records need an independent witness. Thank you Steven for supplying references for us to check with.

As said above, if Guinness says an event happened then it can be taken as having happened. However, it looks like they also ignore other events where $$$ didn't come their way and hence they are untrustworthy in terms of who is currently the fastest. I will follow Steven's links and poke around Guinness's website.

Note that if we change the rules to allow the RS in then we also have to examine the affect on the other cars in the list. We want production cars included and one-off tuner cars excluded. Most companies are pretty simple to classify as manufactures of production cars or as tuners. But Hennessey is a blurred case. They are not legally a manufacturer - the car is registered as a modified Lotus Exige and I'm not sure of whether it has been crash tested or not. Yet they make enough cars that are substantially the same. If they did a proper bi-direction run with independent witnesses then I would be 50/50 whether to include them or not. But perhaps we can simply dodge this question because they don't seem to like bi-directional runs and thus exclude themselves.

Sagenode, the Veyron issue has been ignored probably because it has been thrashed out before and because newer issues are overtaking it. With so many issues under discussion at once it is the mostly likely to be ignored. The consensus agreed upon at the time was that the vehicle is truly capable of reaching that speed except that an artificial limit was place on it. With the limiter removed the vehicle would still pass certification and otherwise perform in every function that it was supposed to. But the question has been asked whether allowing a change in software for the Veyron is the same allowing a change in software for the RS (which I presume is done by using a different A2L-file). I am more familiar in this because I designed ECU software for 5 years. The base engine and even the software can be identical but the calibration via the A2L-file can radically change the torque characteristics, emissions (the bane of most of those 5 years trying to pass certifications) and of course top end power (which affects the top speed of the car). To tune the engine for E85 would require quite a different cal that will give a different top speed (although some racer friends got better race times after converting to E85). Anyway, changing the cal is a significant change. Removing an artificial limit but keeping the same maps in the cal is an allowable change. And it may be a moot point if we don't use counting as a way to avoid one-off vehicles.

To make it more concrete, one possibility for a set of the rules is that the record must be by the same company that appears on the rego papers (ruling out tuners and Hennessey), it is possible for a customer to buy a car the same as the record car in every respect just by ticking boxes on the order form (possible exception allowed for the removal of artificial limiters) and the resulting car is 100% legal in a reasonable number of countries. Still need to define reasonable number of countries but I could see a car being sold only in Europe and not expensively certified for the US (read up on the trouble Bill Gates had registering his Porsche 959), making the 2 continents rule a bit problematic.  Stepho  talk  14:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Stepho-wrs - apriciate your efforts to shed more light on the topic. To adress your concern that the Agera RS 1MW option might cause hawok on the Agera RS emissions, drivability etc, you could ask the customers/owners already using the Agera RS with this option, that it does not. If that is difficult to do, as they are few and far apart, perhaps it is easier, if I state what I know - and that is that the 1MW option does not affect any of the aspects of your concern. What the the 1MW option does is that it activates the Flexfuel sensor fitted to all Agera RS cars in order to sense the % of alcohol in the fuel and adapt fueling amount, timing, boost etc to compensate for the alcohol content in the fuel - nothing else. This is a feature Koenigsegg has pioneered since the CCXR model in 2007, which was the world first homologated enviromentally consious sportscar, as it was out before the Tesla Roadsters. As alcohol has higher octane, includes water and burns cooler, than petrol, the alcohol compensation also allows for more boost and timing at high rpms and thus enables the engine to generate more power - up to 1MW if the alcohol level is 85%. The tuning and behaviour of the engine stays exactly the same, apart from adjusting to the alcohol and what it enables. If the Agera RS is filled with normal petrol, there is no difference to the Agera RS not having the 1MV upgrade, as there is then no alcohol in the fuel. Getting back to the argument of the Veyron Super Sport, removing the speed limiter means that engine is revving higher in top gear(7th) than in any production Veyron. This means that the car is also running in "engine calibrations maps" that the normal car never does, as this high engine rpm can never be reached in 7th gear in the production car. So purely from an "engine mapping" perspective, it is impossible to judge if the boost, ignition timing, fueling etc, was different or not compared to the road cars rpms range, as they are never run "there". I am just putting this in context of how similar these changes should be viewed, apart from that one is sold to customers and bought by customers and one solution for speed is not. There is a big difference for sure.Sagenode (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

A question: According to Koenigsegg, they have only factory produced 11 versions of the RS which can reach the speed stated. The remainder could be modified if the owners added the MW1 upgrade. If that is the case then, aren't the cars modified or are we accepting that potential modifications completed post-production may be counted? The reason I ask is that if we allow the Agera RS then the speed of modified versions of the Bugatti Veyron and, if you go back to the first car, the Jaguar XK120, on the list should be accepted. Reason: an owner of any one of those cars could potentially make the same changes to their cars. That also brings the Studebaker Avanti R3 into contention as an RS2 owner could bring their car up to the RS3 spec.

I might add that I have considerable sympathy for car makers such as Koenigsegg - the problem always comes back to no WP:RS definition of a production car NealeFamily (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The Agera RS cannot be modified to 1MV output. It can only be software upgraded by the factory to this level if the owner so chooses and pays for it. This is the same method most car companies use when fitting factory options after delivery. The option then becomes originial equipment of the car, as it could have left the production line exactly that way - like many of the Agera RS did. I dont see any contradiction or issue with this.Sagenode (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Please don't add it until consensus is reached in this discussion. And if consensus is to add it then reference it with some of the independent reliable sources, not the company blog. Meters (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Meter. There is consensus, right now only you are questioning it, for un-founded reasons. There are several other sources linked and to this topic at this list already - still I will link some more here, please pay attention to the weight of the publishers -. and the list goes on and one if you care to google.Sagenode (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

References

I'm not disputing that the car went that fast. I said that some of the reliable sources would have to be added to the article, and that it should not be included until we have a consensus as to whether this car meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. You added reliable sources, but still included the non-WP:RS source written by the company employee, and several people have questioned whether this is a production car by our standards, not just me. Meters (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the information Sagenode. However that does not change the fact that only 11 cars were made in production with the 1MV output. Which then brings the question back to how many cars are required to be made before a car becomes a production car. While all 30 Agrera's could have been manufactured with the 1MV output, they were not. Based on the current limit of 25 cars the Agrera fails to meet the lists criteria.

There has, over the years, been considerable debate around this number limit with some wanting more and some, I presume including yourself, wanting less. The compromise that was reached after considerable debate was a slightly arbitrary 25 based on earlier FIA rules for sports cars. Until something more in line with WP:RS can be found to establish a better number, or there is an overwhelming desire by editors to change, then I think it would be best to leave the list as is. I appreciate for the people at Koenigsegg who make incredible cars, this may not be very satisfying. NealeFamily (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

NealeFamily - It seems you are missunderstanding the situation. The Agera RS had a total production run of 30 cars. So the arbitrary 25 car limit is of no consequence to the Agera RS.Sagenode (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so, because what was said earlier was, while there were 30 Agera RS's made, only 14 were the 1MV type or are you saying all 30 were the 1MV? NealeFamily (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes from what I have gathered there were 11 Agera RS's with the 1 MW option and then 3 more were made as the "final edition" all 3 having the 1 MW. Toasted Meter (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

What the question at hand is, has to do with if the option makes the 1 MW cars too different than the cars without the option. I would usually say yes, but if the claims that the ECU software is the only change are true I fail to see a large enough difference from the Bugatti Veyron Super Sport's speed limiter. Toasted Meter (talk) 07:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

If it makes a difference or not - the 1 MW upgrade is a software option, that can be bought as new from the factory or as a factory upgrade to an already existing car. As consensus on this list is that options are allowed, this option should be allowed. Still this is different to the non-available software modification of the Veyron. Perhaps the focus of the discussion should be there instead, as there is no consensus on this list to allow modified cars that differ in specification to what the public can actually buy.Sagenode (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The Agera RS keeps on beeing deleted from the list by a few individuals without basis or explanation. As we have consensus of options allowed, production volumes there is no reason not to allow the Agera RS - Hence I am putting it back on this list.Sagenode (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

As I said yesterday in the section above, there is not consensus about whether it obeys our rules or not. The 25 vehicle requirement is unclear about whether it is 25 instances of any vehicle with the same name (which the Agera RS has) or whether it is 25 vehicles with the same options (which the RS does not have) or whether the E85 option counts (undecided). You know this. This is the main point of most of the above discussion. The discussion has not completed and there is no consensus yet. We would certainly be more favourable towards including the RS if you'd stop trying to bully your way in.  Stepho  talk  00:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

There is consensus that factory options are allowed within the 25 car volume - which makes the Agera RS eligble for the list. So I am not bullying my way in. The Agera RS is on the list because it matches the requirements. -Or are you saying that option now are not the consensus? -Any one else?Sagenode (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus yet as to whether we should include this car as meeting our inclusion criteria. Its inclusion has been challenged. It stays out until (and if) we reach a consensus that it should go in. Meters (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

My last comment outlined the differences under discussion. A read of the last month's entries on this page also shows there was no consensus. At best, we have editors such as myself who say the RS probably should be in this list but that it currently loses out due to poorly chosen rules. Saying there is a consensus does not make it so. Editing the article under the obviously false pretense of consensus just annoys the other editors.

I have other commitments to family, job and other WP articles. Only a limited amount of my time goes into this article. If you insist on wasting our time on railroading your choice then the final resolution (which would probably have been the one you want) will either be massively delayed or we get annoyed enough to simply block you at every move until you give up. Personally I would rather spend the time discussing the merits of the arguments and choosing fairer rules instead of playing games.  Stepho  talk  23:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

There are 3 main things to consider about the Agera RS:

1) The tires of the record vehicle were only guaranteed up to 300 km/h.

2) "Each Agera RS can be fully customized by its owner. Some customized versions of the Agera RS include: Agera RS Draken, Agera XS, Agera RS Gryphon, Agera RSR, Agera RS Naraya, Agera RS1, Agera RS ML and One of One." Using a web search for the different versions yielded articles using words like "exclusive", "unique" and "limited" a lot, so I got the impression that the Agera RS differ even more from each other than the Bugatti Veyron Super Sport World Record Editions from the standard 2005 Bugatti Veyrons.

3) Can cars with different HP output be considered to be the same cars ?

1) is no problem for me, the list is about the cars, not the tires and we can't verify it for the other cars.

2) we could change our rules to something like "chassis variations by the manufacturer don't matter as long as the tested car wasn't specifically modified significantly for the high speed test"

3) this causes me trouble no matter how the extra hp are gained. Cars with the same cc and more hp than the tested vehicle should be counted towards the 25 cars requirement but not weaker ones. Drachentötbär (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Drachentötbär If I may, please allow me to clarify those points you made. I'm not trying to be pedantic here but two of those three points are completely wrong and need to be corrected. Those misperceptions are important to clear up. The third one is an open question that we're trying to answer with the discussion of options.

With regard to point 1 - Do you have a source for that assertion about 300km/h? Because it's absolutely false. The standard tyre on the RS is a Michelin PilotSport Cup2 rated to 420km/h. We had Michelin do additional testing on the tyre before the event in Nevada to ensure that it was safe to run at the speeds we anticipated. They did the testing and gave us the go-ahead. AND we have a Michelin rep on site. He inspected the tyres after each run and they were in such good condition that we only used one set of tyres for the whole event.

With regard to point 2 - our customers like to give their cars individual names, a request that we're happy to accommodate. Agera XS is a play on words (i.e. excess). Naraya is the name of the customer's company. ML is the initials of the owner. Gryphon and Draken are homages to Swedish aircraft. All of the cars you list are Agera RSs.

With regard to point 3 - that's what the option discussion is all about, and the debate about production numbers. All RS's have the same engine with the same block, capacity, etc.StevenWade (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

1)http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5054365/Koenigsegg-Agera-RS-world-s-fastest-car.html "they are only guaranteed by Michelin up to 186mph"

2) A little web search yielded 3 articles about Agera RS with one-off in the title and the others tell of exclusivity too: http://www.carscoops.com/2017/03/new-one-off-koenigsegg-agera-rs-gryphon.html http://www.carscoops.com/2017/01/one-off-koenigsegg-agera-rs-naraya-is.html https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1109885_koenigseggs-one-off1360-hp-agera-rs1-invades-new-york-to-define-exclusivity http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/interviews/a30905/koenigsegg-agera-xs-kris-singh-interview/ https://www.koenigsegg.com/koenigsegg-agera-rsr-debuts-in-japan/ Drachentötbär (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

As to point one, the Daily Mail getting something wrong would not shock me, this may also have stemmed from tire speed rating systems having a maximum of Y, with Y being (300 kilometres per hour (186.4 mph)) but (Y) meaning 300 kilometres per hour (186.4 mph) and up. In the datasheet for the tire Michelin notes that it is rated (Y) and states "For speeds above 186 mph (300 kph), consult your vehicle manufacturer and tire dealer." [5] Toasted Meter (talk)

Also direct from R&T "The name had been changed at the request of the buyer, but for all intents and purposes, it would be the first Agera RS in the U.S." Toasted Meter (talk)

Toasty has it right. The Daily Mail is not a source you want to be relying on for specifics. The web is full of people wanting to be experts on something, who aren't. You can generally trust recognised motoring titles (Evo, Top Gear, etc) because they're experienced and know where to look for the right technical info. The Daily Mail? Not so much. I've outlined the rating we had on the tyres from Michelin and what we did to verify higher speed integrity, so I won't go through that again.

Our customers pay a LOT for a car. They feel a lot better about that when it's a "one-off" and "exclusive". The RS is already pretty exclusive at just 25 cars (+3 'Final' editions + 2 test cars) but if they can make it more exclusive by choosing a name, bespoke paint schemes, etc, then we're absolutely OK with accommodating them. Mechanically, they're all RSs. StevenWade (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

My view is that the Agera fails to meet the 25 car requirement as the MW1 option has only been fitted (or programmed into less than 20 cars during production. The logic is the same as was applied to the Veyron because all could potentially achieve the higher top speed than list states. User:Stepho-wrs suggests that the rules are unfair, but any change will require us to find a better WP:RS than FIA rule currently used - see discussion in the section below. NealeFamily (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

It is very frustrating that one or two edititors of this list keeps on removing the Agera RS from the list based on "lack of consensus". At the same time these editors leaves no reference to which part of the consensus it is not following.... Furhtermore these editors leave the highly questionable Veyron Super Sport on the list even though it goes against consensus "to not allow "tuned" cars" on the list. Meddling with the rev limiter is tuning the car! In this context it makes it even more unreasonable and "unfair" to not allow the Agera RS on the list, as it ticks all the boxes of a production car according to consensus - especially since OPTIONS ARE ALLOWED ACCORDING TO THE CONSESUS OF THIS LIST!..... If options are not allowed, well then we would be back discussing the arbitrary 25 car rule - but we dont have to go there as OPTIONS are allowed! Given the above, until there is consensus why the Agera RS should not be allowed on this list and why the Veyron Super Sport still is, I will steadfast make sure the Agera RS is on the list, as otherwise this list does not give the readers of Wikipedia a fair picture of what is going on in this area of the automotive industry. Finally it seems to be one or two persons frantically removing the Agera RS from the list and vaguely or not at all arguing why it should not be there. Remember this person do not create consenus by himself, especially without foundation. So please think about this and contribute.Sagenode (talk) 12:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I see one editor saying consensus has been reached. I also count 4 reverting editors, each saying consensus has not been reached and each having given reasons on this talk page. Where there is disagreement there is not consensus - by definition.

Have you also noticed that in the section below most of us have said that we feel the RS should be in the list but that the current rules are open to interpretation to its eligibility and that we are actively refining the rules so that it is included? We are already moving towards the solution you want. We can follow the standard engineering practice of working the problem (ie redefining the rules) or we can take shortcuts that just put band-aids on the problems (ie ignoring any inconvenient rules and just throwing the RS into the list). Which would the fine engineers at Koenigsegg do? Speaking for myself, I find it hard to find the time and energy to fix the rules and to also fight a lone wolf trying to change the page according to his own interpretation (that has already been noted to be ambiguous).This is why the guideline WP:BRD suggests that we leave the article in the earlier state and concentrate our energy on a discussion. Have you also noticed that my proposal in the section below is based around some of your own points? Please choose if you wish for us to proceed along a path is already heading strongly towards the answer you want or if you wish for us to proceed along a path where we are fighting your edits, thus delaying the answer you want.  Stepho  talk  15:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with User:Stepho-wrs. There are multiple editors saying that the car in question does not meet the current criteria for inclusion as a production car, and we are already discussing whether the criteria can be or should be changed. As the criteria currently stand it's irrelevant whether the software is an option since there were not enough cars built with that option. It's question of whether we can count cars that were not built with that software option but could conceivably be upgraded with it. It appears that most editors (including me) don't think we should that. If the inclusion criteria are changed then we will look at whether the car meets the new criteria. WP:IDHT behaviour and claiming a non-existent consensus to include the material is not appropriate. I'm reporting the edit warring to the edit warring board. Meters (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This discussion has now been going on for months and my impression is that a majority - a fairly silent one - agrees that the Agera RS should be on the list. Clearly 100% consensus will not happen. Finding a majority, however must be possible. So why dont we have have vote? or should we let the list stay in limbo for several more months portraying "alternative truths"? this topic is fairly easy to settle. Finally as Meters says, this list is based on "The List of Automotive Superlatives". A list naturally already accepting the Agera RS as the fastest production car in the world. What does Meter have to say about that? Furhtermore, I would like to bring back the discussion to - are options allowed or not? Given this - the new headline below.Sagenode (talk) 08:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

1 month and 14 days to be exact. But half of that was fighting your brutish methods of forcing the article to your opinion. Also, WP rarely uses voting because it means the losing side is unhappy and keep stirring up trouble. Or new editors want things changed. Whereas a proper discussion tends to bring out the important points to find a decent compromise. As I said before, let's work the problem like good engineers instead of jumping around with band-aid efforts.

By the way, I might not have a working internet connection during the next week. I may be here sporadically or not at all for the week.  Stepho  talk  14:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Are Options allowed or not?!

The only arguement I can find that potentially has any bearing on not allowing the Agera RS on this list - would be if this list requries all 25 cars produced to be completely identically specced. This would of course delete several cars from the list. None the less, from what I can gather this list naturally accept Options. Please give your input here so we can settle this once and for all -Does this list accept options on a production vehicle and still let it count as a part of the production run of that specific model -Yes or NO? Lets settle this!Sagenode (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

If my proposal is accepted then the question of how to count cars is irrelevant. If my proposal is rejected then we can open this question again. If we try to keep too many questions open at the same time then we just wear ourselves out.  Stepho  talk  13:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Understand. Still why the Agera RS cannot be allowed in the meantime, beats me - and no one has cared to answer why it is not allowed! Which "rule" does it not comply with with? My guess is "options" as this is the only one I can think of that could be up for debate and that standpoint is already clear - rigth!? Anyway, I agree that the 25 car rule is silly, and I agree that it is better to use rules to corrulate with production car regulations, instead of made up arbitrary rules. Still to keep the Agera RS "hostage" in the process does not make sense to me at all and truly feels like the Agera RS is beeing discriminated. Until someone explains to me why it is not allowed, even according to present list understandings, I will keep on beeing "annoying" about this and fight! I will not sit complacent, I will fight for it - as it is correct. The Agera RS is the fastest production car in the world at this present point in time and not to allow it, while it really is that, before it might get beaten by Bugatti again, is really depriving it of rightful, perhaps shortlived glory. Unfortunatly, in this case, Wikipedia is seen "as the truth" by pundits and journalist and is taken as reference. As things stand now, with Veyron Super Sport at the helm of the list - a car that should not even be on there according to any consensus and then not allowing the Agera RS until new rules are settled, eventhough it already "complies" - Excuse me - is disgraceful and just nonsense.Sagenode (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

We are not trying to keep the Agera hostage - the reason for its exclusion has been elaborated on quite clearly from the beginning of the discussion. If we can reach a consensus on an appropriate rule change that allows the Agera RS in then we will put it in. As an interim measure there is a paragraph in the article about the Agera's top speed, which I am sure anyone reading it will make up their own minds on. In the mean time we are focused on deciding whether a change to rules is warranted. At the moment there is some divergence in opinion. Please feel free to contribute to the debate. Also just to be clear, Wikipedia aims to have a neutral point of view, which in the case of this list is difficult. As I have said before, this is because production car is an undefined term with a wide range of uses. Trying to pin down a definition that keeps some sense to the list, given that even Guiness is completely inconsistent in its application, is challenging. NealeFamily (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

NealeFamily Please show me where on this talk page it shows: - "the reason for its exclusion has been elaborated on quite clearly from the beginning of the discussion" No it is not clear. Just answer the question - Which present rule does the Agera RS break? It cant be that hard to answer - can it?Sagenode (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

user:Sagenode, coming back from an edit warring block over this article with a statement that you will continue to fight and be annoying is not a good idea. Meters (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Quoting NealeFamily, above.. "As an interim measure there is a paragraph in the article about the Agera's top speed, which I am sure anyone reading it will make up their own minds on."

Actually, there isn't a paragraph there anymore. There was one under Difficulties with Claims section in the early stages but someone removed it. I think it would be fair to put it there again. Koenigsegg has a legitimate claim that's the subject of genuine discussion. The least that the page could do (other than putting it on the actual record table) is to note the claim in the Difficulties section.StevenWade (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:Drachentötbär for reinstating the paragraph. And sorry User:StevenWade, I should have checked before commenting - it was there the previous time I looked. NealeFamily (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

No worries. It was removed at least 4 weeks ago but with all this discussion going on here, nobody paid much mind. Good to see it back.StevenWade (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see what User:Drachentötbär added was about the Dauer 962 Le Mans not the Agera. Toasted Meter (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

(←) Took another look - you are right, it was probably User:Sagenode. The main thing is that it is back. NealeFamily (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I can not see any mention of the Agera whatsoever in the article, the only Koenigsegg mentioned is the CCR. Are you sure you are looking at the current page? Toasted Meter (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is the Veyron Super Sport allowed eventhough it is modifed

As we all know Guinness even removed it from their list for a while. This list has its own rules and they clearly state that the cars should not be modified compared to how they are sold. No one can buy a Super Sport with removed Rev limiter and no one outside Bugatti knows if this has detrimental implications on the engines longevity or otherwise. Regardless why is this car on the list and why is it not questions harder by anyone else but me - seemingly?Sagenode (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts on software mods is that they count the same as bolt-on mods. Eg, changing the fuel map is equivalent to changing injectors or cams. However, rev limiters can be implemented in both software (anything with EFI) and hardware (the old carby days). Cars circa 1970 usually had mechanical rev limiters mostly for warranty reasons (companies didn't like paying for your "over enthusiasm"). Racing bodies in Australia typically allowed them to be removed even when nothing else was allowed to be changed because it was obvious that the rev limiter did not make the car go faster, it only removed an artificial limit - the engine, aerodynamics, etc still had to do the real job. Guinness seem to have the same opinion. Or put it another way, what I have a car that can do 500 km/h but a man in the passenger seat tells me he will shoot me if I go over 400 km/h. If I incapacitate that man then I can faster. Have I changed the car? A rev limiter is doing the same as that man.

As for longevity, how long will it last if the owner runs it at the speed allowed by the rev limiter? Surely not as long as running it at half those revs. The longevity question is irrelevant. It only has to do that speed long enough to record a top speed.

By the way, the Super Sport was seriously questioned many months ago - which is why we are not keen to open it again and again and again.  Stepho  talk  14:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed that someone has changed the Veyron back to version with the limiter disabled. That is not available for sale to the public, regardless of the name being on 5 models sold. All 5 have the limiter in place. So User:Sagenode is correct in pointing out the inconsistency. We should correct it once the rule change has been determined, as under either rule, it would be a modification. The Agera RS on the other hand was available for sale ex factory in its high speed configuration and would be eligible if the rule change is accepted. NealeFamily (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

User:NealeFamily Glad you picked this up. Just one clarification from my side - The Agera RS should be eligible on the list even without a rule change - right? if not - then why not? Thanks!Sagenode (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Please stop asking this. Asking the same thing in multiple threads or trying to make the same point over and over is WP:BLUDGEONING. We've already explained the issue. It does not meet the current criterion as a production car. Meters (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Meters Where have you already explained the issue - meaning which rule does the Agera RS not follow? I am not trying to be difficult - but I really dont see how or where it has been answered - hence I am asking this very legit question - that apparently seems "stupid" to you. So prove my "stupidity" by showing me how and where! Before you answer - remember - consensus here agree that options are allowed....Sagenode (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course options are allowed, but 25 cars with the required option to allow them to reach the reported speed have not been made. We're not going to count cars which were not made with that option. I'm sure you can find the discussion where we said that yourself since you've already replied to them. You might want to read WP:IDHT. Meters (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to say that we also don't have 25 cars with the option even counting those which have had the option installed after manufacturing (even if we do decide to allow that). Meters (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Meters Here I am sure you are wrong. Not all 25 cars in a series need to have the same options to qualify on the list. On the contrary this would delete ALL cars from the list! This is not consensus here....Please anyone chime in?!Sagenode (talk) 12:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

When we talk about options we do mean those that affect performance, not what color it is or what stereo it has. Anything that changes power, gear ratios, adds or removes significant weight, or makes large changes to aero (eg deletion of a spoiler), matter for the purposes of this page, all other options are irrelevant. Toasted Meter (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

User:MetersSo you are now saying that options that affect performance are not allowed but options that does not affect performance are allowed. Hmm this is incorrect - Excerpt From topic above :

[redacted unneeded quotes including sigs]

So you can see you are wrong - there is consensus is that options that affect performance are allowed within the 25.

Furthermore, User:Meters, how do you feel about the removed speed limiter on the Bugatti Super Sport? Of course it is not even an option - just curious why you let it stay on the list.Sagenode (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't copy editor's signature and their comments. It makes it appear as if they had responded to this thread when they didn't. There is no need to copy their responses from this page. We can see what they wrote. If you want us to read it again then just link to the to the thread or to the individual diffs. And for that matter, there's no reason to even point us to the comments since I did not say that options that affect power are not allowed. The point I was making, and which others have also made, and which you have previously replied to, is that the company has never made 25 cars with the software option which is required to allow the car to reach the claimed speed. The cars capable of reaching that speed simply don't exist. There are cars which could be upgraded to that option but which have not been. If those cars are later upgraded (after manufacture) with that option then maybe we will count them towards the minimum production number (I don't think we have reached a consensus on that), but we're not going to count cars which are not capable of reaching the claimed speed (and never have been) as part of the production run of cars capable of going that speed. Meters (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

As for the Bugatti Super Sport issue, I am not letting it stay on the list. I'm simply not involved in the issue. I have never commented on it, I don't believe I have ever edited it, and I am happy to let other editors reach consensus on that issue. Meters (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

You should also note that Meters and Toasted Meter (me) are not the same person and have differing opinions. What I was trying to do was note which opinions might be relevant to this descuson, not pronounce that they are or are not allowed. Toasted Meter (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Sagenode keeps using this word "consensus". To quote from The Princess Bride, "I do not think it means what he thinks it means". So far, the major views presented are:

• The RS doesn't have 25 identical clones, so it doesn't belong. End of discussion.

• The RS name has 25 units, so it belongs. End of discussion.
• We like the RS, so just ignore the rules and add it anyway. End of discussion.
• Guinness doesn't list it (because of outrageous fees), so it doesn't count. End of discussion.
• Let's change the required 25 units down to whatever number our current favourite has. Rinse and repeat next year until it includes somebody we don't like.
• Let's clarify the rule to specify identical cars required. Life sucks for Koenigsegg.
• Let's clarify the rule to specify only the same name as the record car is required. Koenigsegg rejoices.
• Ooh, ooh, sir, sir, the Veyron is cheating! The Veyron is cheating! Let's delete it and replace it with my favourite without further discussion.
• New proposed rules (registered on road with manufacture's WMI and mechanically identical (including software controlling mechanical bits) car is available to customer for road use. No need to remove our socks to count.
• And one lone voice saying we already have consensus, why do you keep reverting my changes?

Does that sum up our "consensus" so far?  Stepho  talk  05:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

A very nice summary of the consensus - thanks NealeFamily (talk) 10:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

stepho-wrs - If it makes you feel better - you can make fun of me - no problem. Yes, I am new to contributing to Wikipedia and learning as I go along, which makes it easy for "veterans" like you and Meters to ignore my input and opinion and focus on my "incorrect" wikipedia manor. The reason why I keep on mentioning consesus - comes from this source - WP:CON - Maybe I´m reading it wrong, but it clearly states that Wikipedia articles should be based on consensus, hence I naively refer to it. At the same time it says that consensus on Wikipedia does not mean what consesus normally means - meaning that everyone agree. Apparently here it means something closer to the list you just posted above - which of course is really confusing. As I understand it - If enough persons agree - and the rest is more or less silent - then we have consensus here. Not really elegant or the true meaning of consensus - but that is how I understand it. If someone is fighting against and posting changes and gets someone more up on the same wagon - then there is no consensus. What I struggle to understand - based on consensus or "something else" - is when is the wiki info "allowed" to be changed and by whom? In my mind I was allowed to change it, when I could see there was "consensus" according to blurry explanation above and I feel I have common sense, the automotive press and the silent mass backing up my opinion. Apparently this was a rookie misstake according to most of you active here. Still I would like to understand then - when, if at all, anyone is allowed to change the info - since I seem to have gotten it all wrong. Thank you.Sagenode (talk) 11:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

We are not ignoring your input. On the contrary, we have responded to your input over and over again. Not agreeing with you is not the same as ignoring you. There is a certain amount of frustration starting to show up. It's unfortunate, but I understand where it's coming from. There is clearly no consensus as yet to change the existing inclusion criteria so as to include the Agera RS. Your repeated attempts to claim that there is such a consensus, to insert your desired material, and to repeatedly bring the issue up here (sometimes simultaneously in multiple threads) is WP:TENDENTIOUS. Again, please read WP:IDHT and WP:BLUDGEON (in case you missed the links elsewhere on this page and on your edit warring board case).

user:Stepho-wrs's 'Does that sum up our "consensus" so far?' with the scare quotes around "consensus" was probably meant as irony to show that these positions or opinions are not consensus.

Consensus does not have to be unanimous. You are attempting to add material that has repeatedly been removed by multiple editors, and multiple editors have supported that removal on this talk page. Support for the material is generally coming from WP:SPAs (and in one case a WP:COI) and such support may be given less consideration. Multiple editors are now discussing possible changes to the inclusion criteria and you have been told to wait until the discussion concludes. You have the option of following WP:DR if you think it is appropriate. The recent WP:COIN and WP:ANEW reports associated with this article were part of that dispute resolution process. Meters (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Your right that I shouldn't tease the rookie. Yet I feel that I'm feeding a troll by continually explaining things to you. WP:CON says consensus doesn't have to be unanimous. But it does need to be at least a clear majority and it needs to address the points raised. Your interpretation seems to be that if at least one other person agrees with at least one of your points then you have consensus. Or put it this way, if 3 experienced editors keep reverting your edits then you have don't have consensus. Multiple times I have very clearly laid out in front of you different opinions expressed so far, many of which differ from your own. My own proposal hasn't reached consensus yet either. The way forward is to make a coherent argument in support of the positions you like (try not to firehose the discussion by responding to nearly everything) or a polite counter argument of positions you don't support (my poking fun of you was about 3% on the WP rudeness meter, nobody has compared you to Hitler or called you an arsehole, yet like many other discussion devolve to).  Stepho  talk  01:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed rule change

"At least 30 examples were /manufactured/ that were capable of reaching the claimed speed without any further modifications"

That pretty much empties the list, or at least reduces the claimed speeds a lot. To be honest even in the eighties the cars that the serious mags got were very carefully pre prepared, and their performance was checked before being handed over. Greglocock (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Greg - only the RUF doesn't meet the 30 car limit and true, most cars were tweeked to get the absolute optimum performance. I don't think the number change is worth doing, but I think adding without further modification is.

Do you know if the Veyron limiter change was a software or a hardware change to the car? The argument in the previous section for the Agera is based on the only change being a software change. My inclination is that given you need to take the car back to the factory to enable the change, it is a significant post production modification, meaning only 14 Agera's were made with the modification in production. The website for the Agera states that the engine management system car can adapt to various fuel octane ratings without factory modification so I assume there some complexity in the software change, maybe a complete program change. NealeFamily (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The Arguement made by me, was that the Agera RS with the 1MV option should be allowed as the car could be bought like that and because options are allowed by this list. That the 1MV option is only software related was just to strenghten the argument as the software modified Veyron SuperSport is allowed on this list, eventough it´s software change is not a factory option or available at all. Hence the Agera RS clearly belongs on this list as it complies with the option consensus and if that consensus would be ignored for some reason, it would still belong on the list as the Veyron SuperSport is allowed on much looser grounds. Hope it makes sense and you see where I am coming from.Sagenode (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The Veyron was almost certainly just a new table in eeprom, ie software, rather than a new chip. In my opinion the 267 speed quoted for the Veyron is the example that confuses the issue completely. As the article stands it looks as if the rule is "30 cars were sold which could be factory modified to reach the same speed as the tested vehicle". I have some sympathy for that view but if the agera fanboys keep nagging then that will evaporate. Greglocock (talk) 07:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I am inclined to view a change to software as a insignificant modification and therefore acceptable in this context, as opposed to changing parts, engine or gearbox for instance. Hopefully others will make some input to this discussion so we can reach a consensus. A rule to cover this would be something along the lines that for the purposes of this list software changes are not classified as a modification. NealeFamily (talk) 09:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course a software change cannot automatically be considered insignificant per se. It depends on what it is. A software change can mean many things, even non-compliance, especially if it is outside what is officially offered by the manufacturer to the customers. Bear in mind most tuned cars, not allowed on this list, are only software upgraded, so it can definitely not be taken too lightly. The Agera RS 1MV software option, for example makes a big difference and for sure is not "insignificant", but it is an original approved factory option, which makes it OK according to this list. The SuperSport raised rev limiter, on the other hand, smells more like tuning.Sagenode (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you think that there should be any conditions applied to that rule? Manufacturer only? Available to customers? Emissions compliant? As on any forced induction engine one can wind the boost up, sacrificing longevity for power, similar to how the Mclaren F1's rev limiter was moved up, eventually to 8300 rpm for the famous run at Ehra-Lessien (likely done in software) to get more speed, They apparently thought the road cars were fast enough. The durability of the bonded crankshaft damper over 8000 rpm over the long term was (according Mclaren) the limitation, but for a short run posed no problem.[6] Toasted Meter (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

If the Veyron SuperSport is allowed on the list with a temporarily raised, non-customer available speed limiter - why should the McLaren F1 be threated differently and not be allowed on the list?Sagenode (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

If you can make an adjustment rather than the changing of parts, I think it could be argued that the car was capable of the speed. A concern I have is that we are moving further into the area of becoming the arbiter for a particular speed record - something which is outside the brief for Wikipedia. Really these matters should fall within the gambit of FIA or a similar organisation to take away the need for us to make these judgments. NealeFamily (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I can see the want to defer to an authority on the subject, and considering how the power output of even homologation specials differ from their racing versions I can only conclude that the FIA are somewhat permissive of some non trivial changes to output and performance so I see why that position makes sense. Toasted Meter (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree about raising the limit from 25 to 30. Originally it was agreed upon 20 cars, then it was raised to 25 without consensus but since it didn't change anything no one cared, it will hurt credibility if we keep on changing the limit arbitrarily. There are no official Guinness rules, Top Gear once wrote that Hennessey said that Guinness said they require 30 cars but we know that that several cars which were built less than 15 times were certified by them as record holding production cars and car magazines and other Wikipedia sites have treated cars built in lower numbers as production cars too. Drachentötbär (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The 25 car threshold is based on the FIA definition of a production car. Toasted Meter (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Just for clarity the FIA rule is now obsolete, but was a minimum for production sports cars in the 1969 International Sporting Code for Category A (recognized production cars) sub category Group 4 sports cars was 25 cars within a 12 month period. Groups 1 to 3 qualifiers ranged from 500-5,000 cars produced. As the rule was closest authoritative source with a modest number of vehicles and, as User:Drachentötbär correctly pointed out, it did not change the list the change was made to give some reliable source, albeit slightly obtuse, to work from. There was no other external source of use. Guinness' reported 30 vehicle requirement was applied by them in such an inconsistent manner as to be unhelpful.

I hold the view that unless a better source than the old FIA rule be found, the number required should remain at 25. If you accept a lesser number then the list would simply be the fastest car and that means world land speed record holders in my eyes. A greater number than 25 would increasingly discriminate against smaller as manufacturers as User:Sagenode has argued. NealeFamily (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to change the number from 25. It's low enough now that we can already include low production run vehicles without getting completely ridiculous (20? why not argue for 12, or 10 , or even 5?). The intent is not to exclude low production run vehicles by small companies (or we would just require a production run in the hundreds). Meters (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

When you start to get up to the speed and price of these vehicles you almost inevitably have very small production runs by boutique companies, Koenigsegg for example. Setting a limit based on a reliable source is the major problem that is why the FIA rules are used. See WP:RS which states

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

NealeFamily (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. This is a list of production car speed records, not an article about what constitutes a production car. There are clearly reliable sources that discuss production car speed records, so the list is justifiable. Unfortunately the sources don't all use the same definition of "production" (or even define what "production" is). Are you suggesting that we should not have the list at all because the various sources don't use the same definition? Wikipedia uses a viable, compromise definition of production in its inclusion criteria. I don't see any need to change it. I personally don't consider tiny runs of ridiculously fast cars by boutique companies to be production cars, but I didn't write Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. I'll follow the existing criteria, but I won't support tweaking the criteria to allow even smaller, special case production runs. Meters (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)+

Hi User:Meters - I agree with you that there is no issue with the cars in the list. Rather the issue is around the rules for the list. If an article states something applies then it needs to be based on a source external to Wikipedia. Wikipedia and its authors should not be the origin of the rule. As there is no set definition for the term Production car, we have been left to find something that is externally sourced that can be used to define the term. In this instance the FIA rule seems to be the most reliable and provided a position which most of us seemed comfortable with. I also agree with you that calling a car of which only a handful have been made does not to my mind constitute a Production car. The term production car is a shortened form of mass produced car with the idea that models produced ran into the hundreds or thousands of the same type.

If we were to adopt FIA's Category A Group 1 then 5,000 would be needed to qualify, making it more in line with my thinking of what a mass produced car is. For the sake of peace and making some sense in relation to claims such as Guiness, a couple of years ago, we settled on Category A Group 4 which has a 25 car requirement and is the lowest number in the FIA list for production sports cars. NealeFamily (talk) 06:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Thousands is more in line with what I think of as a production car too, and more in line with "constructed principally for retail sale to consumers, for their personal use, and to transport people on public roads" but as I said, I work with whatever criteria we have decided to use. I'd likely support a proposal to change the limit upwards if such a proposal were made (particularly if based on an outside definition), but I won't push to change the current criteria.

As for the current issue of the software upgrade of the Koenigsegg, I don't think it is appropriate to count units for which the software could be upgraded as part of the production run. For me this is the equivalent of arguing that we can count cars produced with a lower-powered engine as part of the production run of the same car with an optional higher-powered engine simply because they could have been produced that way, or could later be modified to be the same as if they had been originally produced that way. A case could be made for counting units which were later upgraded by the manufacturer to the higher-powered spec, but not for units which simply could be upgraded but were not. That's like arguing that the entire 2017 production run of, say, Ford Focus cars is painted Race Red because that was one of the factory colours and they all could have been produced in that colour, or could later be repainted in that colour. Meters (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed NealeFamily (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

You are both missing the point. The Record breaking Agera RS was not a MODIFIED or UPGRADED car when it broke the record - it came with the factory optional Agera RS 1MV option. It is A FACTORY OPTION to the Agera RS program and OPTIONS ARE ALLOWED ON THIS LIST!! Stop missintrepret and misslead readers on this point please!Sagenode (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I would say that it's more like if the entire Ford Focus production run was painted Race Red, and all other colors are just a vinyl wrap over the red, whilst all are capable of being red not all are, due to a easy to reverse change. Of Course User:StevenWade could always settle this by giving all the cars the 1MW package, call it a christmas gift. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toasted Meter (talk • contribs) 00:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

If it is a software change then it would be fairly inexpensive one would think, but it is post production and therefore a modification :) NealeFamily (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

VIN discussion

I like to think of the definition of production cars slightly differently. It's not so much about which we include but more about which we exclude. We want to exclude tuners, backyard tinkerers, factory one-offs that can't be registered on the road and similar. Sagenode mentioned something that is useful - true manufacturers will do crash testing and emissions compliance testing and tuners don't. True manufacturers will register the car on the road under their own company name - tuners don't.

The FAI has a slightly different purpose. They already know which companies are real manufacturers (by fact of the car having their company name on the build plate, not somebody else's). The number of cars produced is to stop them racing special one-offs that they have no intention to sell to the public. Hence homologation numbers of at least 25 (or 100 or 5000 or whatever depending on the class).

I'm perfectly happy if the company makes only one instance but that one instance is fully compliant, registerable on the road under their own company name and any customer can potentially order one just like it and actually register it on the road in a reasonable number of countries.  Stepho  talk  14:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

So just to be clear - User: Stepho-wrs are you suggesting vehicles with a VIN number would be eligible, but those without, not - rather than the number manufactured? NealeFamily (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Close but not quite. Tuner vehicles have a VIN and we don't want them in this list. It would have to have a VIN, the company claiming it as the fastest would have to be the same as the company on the VIN (eg for the Hennessey Venom, the claiming company, Hennessey, doesn't match the VIN, Lotus, so they are excluded), the car has to be as-is from the factory (further excluding tuners and Hennessey) and the car has to be legal in a reasonable number of developed countries (ie not a factory special that can't registered and not registered by a special dispensation in some out-of-the-way country). As long as any customer can potentially order one the same then the actual number made is irrelevant.  Stepho  talk  06:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

That would work for 1981 onwards - pre 1981 may need a modification to the rule. I take it only cars whose VIN's WMI number is matches the make. I note that RUF has WMI number WO9, but according to an article some RUF's are rebuilt Porsche's with a Porsche WMI - see [7]. Also for instance RUF is missing from the list of WMI's in the Vehicle Identification Number's article on Wiki - so we would need to be careful. NealeFamily (talk) 08:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Where I said VIN, for older cars we can replace it with some equivalent from the build plate that is taken by registration authorities as 'the manufacturer' of the original car. If a vehicle is registered as a RUF then it counts in this list. If it is registered as a Porsche but has been modified by RUF then it is a modified car and doesn't count for this list. Otherwise we would be treating RUF and Hennessey differently. But under my proposed rules, if RUF made a design based on Porsches and registered those cars under the RUF name plate (ie as a manufacturer) but happened to register some of them as Porsches (because they were made from a rebuilt chassis) then it would be valid because at least some of them were registered as RUF and numbers don't matter any more.  Stepho  talk  11:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

So the rules would look something along the lines:

being constructed principally for retail sale to consumers, for their personal use, and to transport people on public roads (no commercial or industrial vehicles are eligible);

having had 25 or more instances made by the original vehicle manufacturer, and offered for commercial sale to the public in the same condition as it was originally manufactured by the manufacturer whose WMI number is shown on the VIN;

cars modified by either professional tuners or others that result in a VIN with a WMI number in their name are eligible (for example if Porsche based car is remanufactured by RUF and has RUF's WMI W09, it is eligible, but if it has Porsche's WMI, WP0, it is not eligible);

being street-legal in their intended markets, and capable of passing any official tests or inspections required to be granted this status.

The logic being that the decision as to whether or not the car is made by a manufacturer rests with the WMI number (a WP:RS) and not a decision made by Wikipedians.

Looking at the list of potential pre-1981 vehicles. All would be recognised manufacturers, so I don't think there is an issue there. Does SSC North America have a WMI number? NealeFamily (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

We might have to nail down the cars that didn't use formalised VIN's and WMI's (it took awhile before it reached the entire globe) but yes, that expresses what I wanted to say. Sagenode, we would appreciate your comment on the proposed rules. I believe the proposed new rules will unambiguously allow the RS into the list and keep the tuners and factory special out.  Stepho  talk  15:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

There are several others who are active on this page whose comments should be sought - User:Drachentötbär, User:Dennis Bratland, User:Meters, User:Toasted Meter, and User:Greglocock. The change is a significant philosophical shift from a mimimum number of vehicles to WMI manufacturers only. NealeFamily (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Without a minimum number even a single car sold by a manufacturer would count as production car for this list which could be problematic. I don't need big numbers but No one-offs but cars that enthusiasts (who have the money) can buy. We should at least demand that more than one car was made.

For me a manufacturer VIN is not important, Guinness and other sources didn't care about it and important sources which call cars non-production because of the VIN have yet to be found. But it might be the best way to avoid unreliable companies and exclude cars which were specially made for record attempts and break down after a few hundred miles or are undriveable on the street. Drachentötbär (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of changing from a simple minimum number cutoff to a manufacture's VIN criterion. As Drachentötbär says, we don't have any reliable sources that use this criterion. We do have reliable sources that set a minimum production number. Why are we attempting to reinvent the wheel? The interesting cars that don't fit in this list should be listed elsewhere, rather than modifying our criteria to include special cases. And this is not a decision that can be made solely by editors on this page since it affects other pages also. We are currently using the definition as given on List of automotive superlatives. Is the suggestion to use a different definition on this page, or to change the definition on that page without having a general discussion?

For that matter, why do we have a section on cars which don't meet the inclusion criteria of this list? It seems to be a coatrack to mention cars which are not eligible for inclusion in the list. It's WP:UNDUE to have more material on individual cars which don't qualify for this list than for most of the cars that do qualify. Meters (talk) 05:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

We should put the table for excluded cars back to the main site, with the cars which obviously don't have a claim (even with another production car definition) removed and sorted by year. There never was a consensus for moving it, someone simply did it while the rest was too lazy to revert.Drachentötbär (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I've been quiet here due to being reported for conflict of interest by another editor. My understanding is that it's OK for me to contribute here on the talk page, however, and given that talk has turned to the question of what is a production car - a definition that is at the heart of what this page is about - I thought I might jump in again and offer an industry point of view. Again, I work for Koenigsegg so some of you will take my view as being biased. I'd ask you to consider the logic in what I'm saying rather than just write it off (which would be your own form of bias).

For the record, I'm in favour of what Stepho has proposed, above. i.e. the presence of a VIN being the key to identifying what is a production car. If a manufacturer takes steps to have the car certified for sale in sophisticated markets than you can pretty much rest assured that it's a vehicle that's in serial production (and by the way.... mass production has nothing to do with this. Mass production is to production as mass murder is to murder - you'd go about the 'mass' option in a completely different way but the end result per unit is the same).

The automotive industry has changed over the decades in how it defines a vehicle. That's why some of the criteria you might apply now won't necessarily apply to vehicles from the pre-1980's. Developments like VINs and WMIs have replaced the simple old serial number that manufacturers used to put on cars. There's a lot that goes into earning a VIN, however, which is why it should be the one key identifier of what is a production car. In order to certify a car for sale (i.e. earn the right to put a VIN on it and offer it to market), the car has to meet more than 60 different regulations in Europe and more than 40 regulations in the USA. Those regulations cover everything from crash tests to the size, height, placement and brightness of every single light on the car. There's even a detailed regulation about the horn (covering stuff like volume and even the strength of the body section the horn is mounted to). We have our cars abused at testing centres - hit with sledgehammers all over the body, chassis and every mounting point on the car. They're driven over surfaces you'd never go close to with your own car. They're emissions tested to kingdom-come and crash tested so many times it'd make you cry. After all of that time, and a LOT of money, you get a piece of paper saying your car meets standards required to be sold in certain markets.

This is not a process that one-off tuners or backyard shed builders go through. They can't afford it. This is a production car process. If a car goes through this process and gets certified, it's a production car. I'd suggest you forget about volumes. FIA had their reasons for that (racing and promises made to audiences/consumers that the deck wouldn't be stacked). Do those reasons apply here? Should they? I think not. If a manufacturer goes through the certification process and is able to sell their car through a dealer network to the market, what they're selling is a production car. StevenWade (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Uer:StevenWade - the WMI seems to have two different categories. Those who produce 500+ and those who produce less than 500 - the latter have WMI's that end in a 9 from what I have read. Can someone elaborate on whether that means the rules applied are different for the two categories and if so what they are. NealeFamily (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

In my digging around I came across a piece of United States legislation about low volume vehicles - H.R.2675 - Low Volume Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Act of 2015 with the term low volume manufacturer defined as a motor vehicle manufacturer, other than a person who is registered as an importer under section 30141 of this title, whose annual worldwide production is not more than 5,000 motor vehicles. The SEMA website states that the legislation is designed to allow turn key kit cars to be produced in the US. Given that, would it mean that these manufacturers could gain a WMI number and their own VIN numbers? If so, then where would Hennessey fit? NealeFamily (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

That legislation was created/amended to make life easier for replica manufacturers. The companies who make the Cobra replicas, the Porsche Speedster replicas, etc. Quote - "The term ‘exempted specially produced motor vehicle’ means a replica motor vehicle that is exempt from specified standards as defined in section 30114(b) of title 49, United States Code.”. Here's the Bill and to save you trying to wade through all that malarkey, here's a good summary explainer at Jalopnik.

The bill seems to be designed to allow replica manufacturers to use homologated engines from OEMs, thereby bypassing all of the emissions testing requirements that we (i.e. Koenigsegg) have to go through. FYI - as an OEM selling in the United States, we receive zero concessions for being a small manufacturer. We have to do every test and conform to all the same rules that Ford or Chevy do if they homologate their highest volume vehicles. Same number of crash tests, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenWade (talk • contribs) 06:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The concern I have is whether or not, by virtue of the US law change kit/replica cars pick up their own VIN/WMI numbers. For instance in NZ, where I live, there are several who manufacture their chassis,and use either new parts or mechanical parts from donor cars. Would the donor cars VIN/WMI transfer across could/would they end up with a new one? NealeFamily (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't answer that from the information given but perhaps you could do some research into it to satisfy the questions. Are these NZ small manufacturer cars road legal? How are they registered, and as what make (WMI)? Can they be registered anywhere outside NZ or do they get on the road there due to a NZ loophole/provision that other markets don't allow? And perhaps more critically, are any of these vehicles in a class that's likely to threaten this record?StevenWade (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

(←) I will call one of the manufacturers or the Low Volume Vehicle Technical Association (LVVTA) tomorrow and see if I can find out (for the Wiki purest, that means a breach of Wikipedia:No original research). Kit or replica cars for use on NZ roads they are assessed by the LVVTA and, if certified, may be used on NZ roads. Highly unlikely any would ever reach this list, but what I am curious about is if any kit or replica car makers would have their own VIN/WMI's. A bit hypothetical I know, but I am trying to determine the likely impact of the rule change for the sake of the ongoing discussion. I'll post the answer tomorrow if I get the chance. NealeFamily (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed rule change discussion continued

To return to Stepho's proposed rule change...... NealeFamily had a crack at putting that into words similar to WP's current rules definition. I'd like to take NealeFamily's definition and tweak it slightly into something that I think better reflects what Stepho was getting at.

being constructed principally for retail sale to consumers, for their personal use, and to transport people on public roads (no commercial or industrial vehicles are eligible);

Is offered available for commercial sale to the public in the same specification as the vehicle used to achieve the record; (subsequent edit after initial posting)

The record claimant must be the manufacturer whose WMI number is shown on the VIN. Cars modified by either professional tuners or others that result in a VIN with a WMI number in their name are eligible (for example if Porsche based car is remanufactured by RUF and has RUF's WMI W09, it is eligible, but if it has Porsche's WMI, WP0, it is not eligible);

Being street-legal in their intended markets, and capable of passing any official tests or inspections required to be granted this status.

Criteria 1, 3 and 4 ensure that it's a production vehicle for sale. They examine different aspects of what is a production car. Does it have a VIN issued by the OEM, which is only available after passing tests imposed by recognised homologation criteria, and is it sold to the public for legal use on the road. That confines the list to OEMs and excludes the tuners. Criterion 2 ensures it's not a one-off special.

With regards to questions about how you might verify a car according to these criteria.... 1) If it's sold as a road legal car in a number of countries, then that's most of the battle already won. Companies can't sell a car for road use in a major market if it's not complied.

I would suggest using Europe as the yardstick for this as some small manufacturers don't always comply a car for the USA (Koenigsegg does, but hasn't always. A number of other reputable manufacturers don't either, including boutique manufacturers like Pagani (the Zonda) as well as some mass production companies like Renault, Citroen, etc). Pretty much everyone sells in Europe, though.

Back to how to verify.... 2) The company will tell you the specs of any record-attempting car. It's in their interests to. They want to sell them and to that, they want to talk about what they've built. Of course, you might be thinking they'll try to lie and run a wolf in sheep's clothing - read on.

3) if a company is making a 'record' car and that car's capable of speeds much higher than its regular models of that type (i.e. it's a production car on the automotive equivalent to undeclared and illegal steroids - the wolf in sheep's clothing) then you can bet it's going to be found out eventually. Journalists will find out when they test the car and it doesn't come close to claimed performance. It could even be an owner that finds out. Koenigsegg's record attempt in Nevada didn't come about because we organised it. It came about because *a customer* organised it. The customer got the highway closed, paid the police to control traffic, liaised with the local government, etc. We just built the car, shipped it and provided one of our factory drivers to do the run. Customers in this segment want to know that their car can do what's claimed. StevenWade (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenWade (talk • contribs) 20:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Number

Okay, I've got a reliable internet connection again. NealeFamily and Steven seems to have pretty much captured my thinking.

In a section above, NealeFamily wanted a reliable source to cover our replacing of FIA rules. Since a major point of my proposal is to exclude tuners by only allowing registered manufacturers, the requirement of an officially registered WMI is surely as reliable as we can get. FIA rules are mostly to exclude one-off race specials from companies that they already know are manufacturers. We cover the same need by insisting that cars mechanically identical (which includes software controlling the engine, drive train, suspension and aerodynamics) to the record car can be bought by customers and legally registered on the road in developed countries.

If my proposed rules are not accepted then we will have to tighten up how to count to 25. From the above discussion of nearly 2 months, this may take considerable effort to get agreement. And if a recognised manufacture makes only 24 identical units next year, do we tweak the rules again and again until we eventually get down to 2? To my mind, choosing an arbitrary number will always find somebody unhappy on either side of the limit.  Stepho  talk  04:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Back from the surf sun and sand. My thought is that unless there is something better than the FIA rule, which is 25 cars per annum, then it should remain the benchmark. Although I personally would like the Agera on the on the list, it still looks like it falls short from all the debates above and below. We can determine if the car is a manufacturer, rather than a tuner - but that still doesn't determine the numbers or definition to make a car a production car. NealeFamily (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

For the sake of relevance of this list - the rules needs to be made so that a car like the Agera RS can fit, as it is - truly - from every perspective, a series produced world wide homologated car. This list does not reflect "reality" if it does not allow a car like this. Also it fools the public to believe an alternative truth, which cannot/should not be the purpose of this list - I am sure. The only other viable alternative I can think of is to rename this list so it actually states what it is - for example: "Fastest cars produced in exact identical technical specification in numbers larger than 25 units - irrelevant if they are road legal/homologated or not". This is what the list means today... Seem like strange list, with a long name... but we should call it for what it is - or change "the rules".... Please.Sagenode (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

If you take a look at Talk:Production car speed record#Cars excluded from the list together with basic reason you will find various cars by manufacturers with numbers less than 25 made. The question then, as User:Stepho-wrs points out is, where should the line be drawn and on what basis. As discussed earlier, the danger this list has is that it is very tenuously based on the FIA sports car rule. There is no alternative reliable source outside of the FIA rule that we have found that gives a lower number for determining what a production car is. The other reason for having a number is to avoid one-off's from manufacturers being counted. If you can find a reliable source that cites a lower number then please share it with us. NealeFamily (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I think we are to locked in on the idea of "numbers produced". It should totally be taken out of the equation as it muddles the discussion and logic. If a company goes through the hoopla of setting up a production line, makes the cars pass crash test, emission tests, conformity of production, homologate the company as a car producer and homologate the car model for the markets and then only end up producing two or three of them, because nobody wanted the car - it is still a production car! No company would spend 10´s of millions of dollars to do all the above for only a few cars on purpose - even if that is what can happen in the end. It is still a production car. What I am trying to say is that status, productionability, compliance homologation and even intent is much more relevant and important than sheer numbers of for example identical "kitcars" or whatever.

There are many good suggestions on this talk page how to judge if a car is what I just described or not. Why dont we focus on agreeing on such a solution instead, as it is much more relevant than 10, 25, 500 or 5000 cars regardless of status.

For example - this would be a straightforward simple solution to the dilemma - by answering these questions we know if it is a production car or not:

• 1. Producing company - registered as a car producer in its country - Yes/No/?
• 2. Car model registered for road use in one or several countries - Yes/No/?
• 3. Car model safety compliant in one or more countries - Yes/No/?
• 4. Car model emission compliant in one or more countries - Yes/No/?
• 5. At least one(2,3..?) car(s) have been sold by manufacturer to end user(directly or via authorized factory dealer) ready for road use with road car registration, without the need for any modification by end user or other third party - Yes/No/?

If all these boxes are ticked - it is a production car. Perhaps point 5 can be discussed if it really is needed, but if it is there and all the other boxes are ticked - then there is no question - what so ever - that this actually is a production car. If it is difficult to answer any of these questions - well then, most likely, this is not a production car - right? To avoid the numbers discussion I would actually prefer to keep point 5 to only one car, as it should be enough, given all the other points.Sagenode (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

In essence we all agree on points 1-4, albeit with slightly different wording:

* constructed principally for retail sale to consumers, for their personal use, and to transport people on public roads (no commercial or industrial vehicles are eligible);

* offered available for commercial sale to the public in the same specification as the vehicle used to achieve the record; (subsequent edit after initial posting)

* record claimant must be the manufacturer whose WMI number is shown on the VIN. Cars modified by either professional tuners or others that result in a VIN with a WMI number in their name are eligible (for example if Porsche based car is remanufactured by RUF and has RUF's WMI W09, it is eligible, but if it has Porsche's WMI, WP0, it is not eligible)

* street-legal in their intended markets, and capable of passing any official tests or inspections required to be granted this status.

I think, if we were to exclude the number built, we will need to cover your point in some meaningful manner that

if a company goes through the hoopla of setting up a production line, makes the cars pass crash test, emission tests, conformity of production, homologate the company as a car producer and homologate the car model for the markets and then only end up producing two or three of them, because nobody wanted the car - it is still a production car

What do others think?

NealeFamily (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC) I would support that change. if it were carried out the Dauer 962 would also be added which I think is good. Toasted Meter (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually the Dauer 962 (and cars like the Henessey Venom) would be kept out while the 2004 Koenigsegg CCR and the Agera RS would be added to the list. Drachentötbär (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

How many Agera RS were produced?

Yesterday I corrected the info on how many Agera RS that were produced - which is 30. My edit immediately got reverted back to 11+19 and I got slapped by User:Meters who sent me a message that I will get blocked if I edit the information again....

So all you wise people here - how many Agera RS were produced? For sure it was not 11+19 - or at least it is a very wierd way of describing the number 30 and I should not get blocked for wanting to describe the number "in the normal way"

This place really is the twilight zone...Sagenode (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I need to back Sagenode up on this. Meters is a skilled Wikipedia policeman but my guess is that there are car people on this site and there are non-car people, and Meters is one of the latter. i.e. More interested in procedure than facts. There are 30 Agera RS's in existence - 25 regular series, 3 'Final' editions and two factory vehicles. The notes column is there to make any distinctions for the purposes of the page, IF required. To post a lesser amount and only apply an 'option' criteria to Koenigsegg when calculating volume - without applying it to others (which I'm sure is something Meters doesn't want to create time to do himself) - is unfair.StevenWade (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It';s not appropriate for any editor to add comments into the article about what editors are saying on the talkpage, and it's not appropriate for any editor to change the number of cars produced of a particular model when it is clear that from the talk page that other editrors do not agree that 30 cars of that particular version have veen produced. The article was clear as to why we distinguished between the the variants in the count. Not all of the cars produced were capable of reaching the claimed speed. Talk page discussion says that this variant of the car tdoes not have the minimum number of cars required to qualify as a production car for the purpose of inclusion in this list. That's why it is appropriate to distinguish between the numbers of hte different versions of the car. Removing this distinction and changing the number to 30 appears to be preparation for yet another attempt to include this car as a production car over the talk page consensus.

No suprise that a COI company employee backs that change. It's not appropriate for any editor to keep belabouring this issue, or to make comments about my interests or actions. That does not belong on the article talk page. If anyone thinks there is something inappropriate about my actions then either discuss it on my talk page or take me to the appropriate board. The article talkpage is not the place. Meters (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

That is absolute rubbish. The table in question has a volume column to note how many cars of that model were produced. There were 30 RS's produced. Any splintering into option types should be noted in the Notes section. Have you applied the same methodology for other models in that table? Have you used that methodology for other models in the main table? The inclusion of a car in a table such as that should be the same for every manufacturer but you have changed it for Koenigsegg because it suits your argumentative purposes. You are applying Wikipedia custom and tradition to the letter of the law in this discussion yet changing customary appearance in that table (volume in whole units and notes as explainers) because you prefer it that way. Apples and oranges.

You call me a COI employee again as if it's a revelation, a gotcha moment. I'm self-identified. But any discussion I've had here has been on merit, factual and honest. I can't say the same for you. There were 30 RS's built. Fact. Yet you don't want that to show, presumably because - to quote what you wrote to me on my discussion page when you reported me "It doesn't matter if it's true." StevenWade (talk) 07:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Steven here, 30 were produced and the text next to it should explain that not all of them had the same output as the car that reached the speed, I think that should provide enough information that readers can figure out why it's not on the main list. Toasted Meter (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Sagenode. 11+19 is meaningless without the text in the comment. And the comment makes it clear how the breakdown is. So leaving it at a simple 30 is fine by me.  Stepho  talk  13:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems we have "consensus":-) any one else care to change the article from 11+19 to 30 - so I dont get into trouble again?...Sagenode (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

If there's consensus to keep it as 30 that's fine with me. I just restored if to the original value that was in the article before Sagenode's change, as part of my undo of his inappropriate addition of commentary on the talk page discussion. It appears I should have left the number change. Sorry. Meters (talk) 22:41, s8 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't sweat it. My last change was a big screw up too :)  Stepho  talk  13:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed new wording for consideration

I'd like to offer the following as proposed new wording for the definition of a production car for the purposes of this page.

The most contentious issue is the number of cars produced. This is a carryover from the FIA from days when they were devising racing series that they wanted to be both commercially viable and appealing to manufacturers. It was convenient, perhaps, but also not really suitable for a list of this type. In this modern age, there are a number of boutique manufacturers capable of building cars that could enter this list. I work for one of them - Koenigsegg Automotive - but there are a number of others as well. Those companies could all challenge this list in coming years and they shouldn't be penalised for being small. Small-scale manufacturing involves a hell of a lot more risk. Innovation is mandatory - you need a reason why someone should buy your product instead of a more historically evocative brand. Those manufacturers shouldn't be penalised for being small when they have to do all the same compliance tests as the big players, for whom the FIA definition is written.

Anyway, please consider the following and discuss. Instead of a production number, it concentrates on the qualitative elements that go into making a production car. These are all measurable, so maintaining the list into the future should not be a daunting challenge.

BEGINS

For the purposes of this list, a production car is defined as:

1) A vehicle that is constructed principally for retail sale to consumers, for their personal use, to transport people on public roads (no commercial or industrial vehicles are eligible);

2) A vehicle that is available for commercial sale to the public via an authorised dealer network in the same specification as the vehicle used to achieve the record;

3) i) A vehicle manufactured in the record-claiming specification by a manufacturer whose WMI number is shown on the VIN, or ii) A vehicle that is modified by either professional tuners or others that results in a VIN with a WMI number in that professional tuner’s name (for example, if a Porsche-based car is remanufactured by RUF and has RUF's WMI W09, it is eligible; but if it has Porsche's WMI, WP0, it is not eligible);

4) A vehicle that is street-legal in its intended markets, having fulfilled the homologation tests or inspections required under either a) United States of America, or b) European Union law, to be granted this status.

5) A vehicle that is sold in more than one national market, subject to the conditions noted elsewhere in this definition

ENDS

StevenWade (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

From the above, criterion (4) is the one most likely to be contentious. It's one that I need to do some more homework on, but I thought I'd post it anyway as a starting point for discussion. To my knowledge, the EU and USA regulations are the ones used by other countries as a base. i.e. if you pass in Europe you pass in most (if not all) of Asia, subject to a couple of extra local criteria in some countries. If you pass in the USA you pass in Canada.

I just need to confirm some details about this with our homologation manager. StevenWade (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Further information as per the paragraph immediately above.

The EU and USA homologation criteria are the most comprehensive in the world and manufacturers must meet those if they wish to sell in those lucrative markets. Satisfying those regions will indeed satisfy MOST requirements of other regional authorities. There are some markets such as GCC that have their own homologation rules. Satisfying the USA or EU *will* satisfy GCC rules in in nearly all respects, but GCC has special provisions regarding batteries, the age of tyres, etc that are not typically covered in other jurisdictions.

Bottom line - a company taking the time and expense to satisfy USA and/or EU homologation is the best indicator that a vehicle is a production car. StevenWade (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment

It's been nearly a month since I posted these proposed changes to the production car definition. These changes were formulated after considerable debate amongst editors and yet there has been no comment posted by anyone so far. I *could* take that to mean there's no concerns or disagreement but I know better than that :-)

So please, editors, voice your thoughts.StevenWade (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support I do not really see this as likely to apply to any weird edge cases and it seems like we are excluding some legitimate production cars with the current rules. Toasted Meter (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Disagree Needlessly complicated definition with taylor-made rules contrary to public understanding. Drachentötbär (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

What part of it is complicated for you? Perhaps I can explain. None of the rules are tailor made. It's a reasoned definition that actually defines what a production car is (rather than relying on someone else's racing rules). It can apply to all and will let all genuine manufacturers of production cars be counted (which the current rules don't).StevenWade (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support It removes arbitrary counting (that produce so many arguments about what counts and what doesn't and how many shoes we need to remove to help counting) and replaces it with the simple rule of cars that legally run on the road.  Stepho  talk  22:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support It reflects reality, common understanding, intention of car producers(or not) clearly and is generally just more fair than present criterias of this list when educating the public of what is what.Sagenode (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Query How will we address pre-WMI vehicles. If you take a look at the list of exclusions, there are a number that will alter the list as it currently stands if the rule is implemented. NealeFamily (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I imagine some work will need to be done to assess them. It doesn't deligitimise the nature of the proposed changes, however. Having a quick scan of the exclusions list, it seems pretty clear as to which would be included or excluded.

Where a note states that there was no test, there's no inclusion. That takes care of most post-1980 vehicles. A manufacturer's claimed top speed doesn't count unless its tested (which rules the One:1 and Agera R our of that list as they've not been tested but the CCR would be included (covering the Koenigsegg end of things, which is my particular specialty. StevenWade (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Bugatti Chiron

I note that the Bugatti Chiron is currently listed as the top speed holder on the page. The Chiron has not been produced in the quantity claimed (200) as yet (not anywhere near it) and there's been no public record of it going over 400 km/h. There is no attribution to the claim on the table, either.

Ethics dictate that I cannot alter the table. However, I'd ask the moderators of this page to apply the same scrutiny and militancy to such claims as they've proven well capable of applying so far to Koenigsegg. The Bugatti claim should be removed until such time as they do a verified run according to the page's criteria.StevenWade (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I removed it, until we see a test it has no place on this list. Toasted Meter (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Cheers.StevenWade (talk) 06:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Jaguar XJ220 March 2018

Given that the XJ220's article states that the car was the world's fastest production car from 1992-93, and given that it is recorded in the Guinness book of world records as such, I guess we need to include a paragraph in this article with the reliably sourced reasons for not including it in the list here. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The XJ220 article itself states that the run was in a single direction only and that there were no independent judges. Either of these should rule out the record.  Stepho  talk  14:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Stepho-wrs: readers would expect to see the car mentioned here though, because many museum exhibits, car magazines, books, etc. carry the statement that it was the fastest production car of its day. We need to explain the technicalities and provide the reliable sources that the contents here rely on which excludes the XJ220. Currently it is very conspicuous by its absence. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Drachentötbär has added it now, thanks for that. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

And my thanks too.  Stepho  talk  22:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow. That was easy. Can I suggest that everything DeFacto cited re the XJ220 applies to the Agera RS, but the RS had dual-direction runs and more scrutiny than you can poke a stick at. (Goes back to slugging it out the hard way, above....)StevenWade (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for Verdict re: proposed citeria changes

After much discussion, it was recognised by many here that there was a case for altering the rules under which cars were admitted to this list. Guinness was/is not reliable and the FIA rules are discriminatory and formed on a basis that's not necessarily applicable to the purpose of this list.

I used info from Stepho and Neale Family to propose wording for a new criteria list on the 15th January. A month later, as there was no further input on that list, I called for opinions.

There has been no substantive, reasoned objection.

I'd like to suggest that we call for a verdict on this proposed change and put a timeline for an outcome - say, the end of March 2018.StevenWade (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)