Talk:List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times

Timing entities

As of 2019 the track itself is now recording official times

https://www.nuerburgring.de/en/fans-info/info/record-drives-lap-times-nuerburgring.html

The lap record on the Nürburgring: A lap time that generations of motorists have considered proof of exceptionally good vehicles. As of the 2019 season, lap records are officially recorded, confirmed and published by the Nürburgring. With carmakers providing proof on the world’s most demanding race track: On the total of 20.832 kilometres of the Nürburgring Nordschleife, the Green Hell.

"People say it’s best if it passed the Nürburgring test”: For almost a century, the asphalt strip through the Eifel mountains has been the touchstone for carmakers around the world. The roughly 20 km Nordschleife has always been a benchmark of progress and performance. One track, one lap, one lap time – the lap record on the Nürburgring is the ultimate achievement for all manufacturers championing sporty driving. Since 2019, these record drives are officially confirmed and listed by the Nürburgring.

In addition to timekeeping based on calibrated measuring technology, official record attempts as well as attempts to clock a lap are always supervised by a notary. In addition to timekeeping supervision, the vehicles are scrutineered with regard to their series-production state and driver, among other things. Scrutineering regarding a vehicle’s series-production state is not required for racing cars, special vehicles and prototypes resp. concept cars.

The exact length of the track and the timekeeping spots are predefined: The official start/finish line in track section T13 is also the start/finish line for record lap attempts. A full lap around the Nordschleife (20.832 km) with a flying start is driven and timed.

The vehicles are classified and listed according to the official categories defined by the German Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.151.12.130 (talk) 09:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Production Car Defined

Years ago, this argument resulted in a generally accepted consensus for what defined production cars, in terms of numbers. Now it appears one user is going all over Wikipedia and changing this on his own accord, without consensus from other users, on any page where the term "production car" is used. This user is using terms like "as agreed to in discussion" when there is no discussion in the matter. This is disturbing. There were in fact agreed upon numbers for what a production car consisted of, and now it appears based on one person's opinion, they are being removed. Including, most frustrating of all, from the actual "production car" page itself on Wikipedia. The reason the number was agreed upon in the first place was to put a bunch of "edit wars" to rest. Allowing each individual manufacturer to determine what "production" means, simply opens the door once again to the same edit wars we got rid of in the first place.

So I ask, in the absence of this discussion here (despite one user stating there was discussion) What exactly is the number we are going to use to define a production car? RTShadow (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

No where has anyone agreed to "2 or 3 vehicles built" as being an acceptable definition of a "production vehicle". In fact, this was specifically the reason why it was agreed that either the Guinness definition or Road and Track number would be used because it gave a number that was more widely accepted for what a production vehicle would be. The whole argument was always whether it be 15, 20, 30, 50, at no point in the argument was it ever brought up that "2 or 3 vehicles" would define a production vehicle. You are inviting a host of problems when it comes to every page that defines records using production vehicles. So the original Cobra was a "production vehicle"? You should have seriously used the discussion page for this before making those changes. I ask that others weigh in on this discussion before reverting the changes I've made. I can't find a single reputable source that states "2 or 3 vehicles" defines a production vehicle. Please provide documentation before making that change, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RTShadow (talk • contribs) 01:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

This is just how it is handled on this site. Look at the entries and back into the discussion archives. It's better to write how it is as clarification above the table than just the misleading "put into mass production ... produced in large numbers" when even cars built only 2-3 times are accepted. This site uses different rules for production than the other sites (I'm not responsible for this) and the notification about this should be there. Drachentötbär (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I think there is little point in discussing this issue until the discussion at Talk:Production car speed record reaches some form of conclusion and follow whatever guidelines are decided on there, it seems sensible to use the same criteria for all articles. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

"Years ago, this argument resulted in a generally accepted consensus for what defined production cars, in terms of numbers." No, years ago one user took ownership of the article and unilaterally forced his one man consensus on the article. That user was subsequently banned for similar conduct elsewhere. 2A00:23C4:479A:F200:3DD8:2069:3550:F488 (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2018

For record of GT3 RS (2018) Please add "N0" mark. N0 MICHELIN Pilot Sport Cup 2 R VegoOV (talk) 10:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Looking closely at the press photos there's a MICHELIN Pilot Sport Cup 2 N0 marking (but no R?), so I added it. Feel free to provide further sources for what was used exactly, can't find any info yet about this new R tyre. --Epistolarius (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

edit request - new lap record

new record from porsche (919 Hybrid Evo) on june 29 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.254.197 (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Already added. Toasted Meter (talk) 05:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Radical SR8 information

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.

Reporting that sport auto timed the road legal production car lap time without further information will make users assume that it was a production car lap for them which isn't the case, omitting this information would be cherry picking. The remaining text is also informative and sourced and should stay too. Drachentötbär (talk) 02:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that we add weight to a certain opinion to make readers assume one opinion over another? That's exactly what we don't do. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually you are trying to keep facts away from the readers and lead them to a wrong assumption by removing information. This kind of censorship is not what should be done here.

"Purpose-built track car, modifications are available to get British Single Vehicle Approval." are sourced facts, not opinion.

"Timed by Sport Auto, not a road legal production car lap for them." is also a fact. Drachentötbär (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you understand "undue weight" because that's what you're trying to introduce to the article. And sorry, it's not up to Sport Auto to decide what is and isn't a road legal production car. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:UNDUE and get to the point. The laps are on the production car list which already gives lots of weight. No need to add even more by censoring a fact and make the readers assume wrongly about Sport Auto, the only independent observers of the laps.Drachentötbär (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Sport Auto is not a reliable source when it comes to deciding which car is and isn't road legal. Road legal isn't an opinion, it's a fact. If Sport Auto decide that the SR8 is a hybrid hatchback, it doesn't make that true either. Do I really need to explain this? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

For Autocar the Radicals are not production cars, https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/motor-shows-geneva-motor-show/lamborghini-huracan-performante-smashes-918-nurburgring

Thanks for providing that link. Could you point on where on that link it is stated that the Radical isn't a production car, please? I'm struggling to find that information, actually I'm struggling to find any mention of the Radical on that link.

The article states the 6:52 as Nürburgring lap record for production cars so the 6:48 time by the SR8 can't be a production car lap time.Drachentötbär (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

That's a great bit of original research by you. Are there any other assumptions that you would like to make regarding this article, or shall we just following standard conventions and rely on sources? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not OR, it's simple logic relying on a source. 6:52 can't be the fastest production car lap time ever if a faster production car lap had been done years before. Drachentötbär (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

However, this link from autocar https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/motoring/radical-sets-nurburgring-record clearly states "Radical sets Nurburgring record" "'Ring lap record smashed again by British car maker" "Radical has claimed the Nurburgring production car lap record with a time of 6m 48s." and "We’ve proved that the SR8LM is not only the world’s best trackday car, but it’s also practical enough to drive to and from the circuit. It is a genuine production sportscar, with genuine performance credentials, as we’ve shown today." - in light of this, I will be reverting your edit. Have a nice day. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

"Radical has claimed the Nurburgring production car lap record" is just the report of a manufacturer claim and your other quote is just a quote from Radical. Autocar doesn't call it production in the article, for them it might be just a record for cars they consider road-legal, or for ...

Even if we'd assume that Autocar considered it a production car lap while writing this article we'd have to conclude that they changed their mind since the other article is newer.Drachentötbär (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

In the Evo source https://www.evo.co.uk/news/10488/radical-ring-record Evo doesn't state that it's a production car, they just write Gumpert is "perhaps discounting the SR8’s road-going production car status" and quote the manufacturer who calls it production sportscar. In the older referenced Evo article 'production car' is set in quotes which might be there to quote the manufacturer or even be scare quotes.Drachentötbär (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

"It is a genuine production sportscar" who would know better than Radical themselves? But let's look for another source as you are complaining about the numerous ones that I have provided. https://www.pistonheads.com/news/general-pistonheads/radical-smashes-nordschleife-record/20475 "Radical has once again beaten the Nurburgring Nordschleife lap record for a production car." that seems to make it pretty clear. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Manufacturers are primarly interested in letting their car shine in the press. In the user manual they call it "racing car", not road car or production car: https://web.archive.org/web/20090611211439/http://www.radicalsportscars.com/uploads/range/download/2006-radical-sr8-owners-manual.pdf . The Pistonheads link doesn't change the fact that the EVO links don't prove that it's a production car for the magazine, it rather looks the other way around here: https://www.evo.co.uk/features/18801/ring-kings-the-fastest-nurburgring-lap-times . Drachentötbär (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Road & Track says about the Radical SR8 LM: "calling it a production car is far from rational" https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/videos/a32781/lamborghin-huracan-performante-sets-a-65201-at-the-nurburgring/ Drachentötbär (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

You're right. They do say that. It's nice of you to actually quote the source word for word here to make things easier. It's a shame you neglected to quote the sentence directly before that though... "Of course, the Radical SR8 LM still holds the fastest time for street-legal vehicles at 6:48"

That doesn't change the fact that it isn't a street-legal production car for Road & Track.Drachentötbär (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

It's interesting that you are willing to base your edits on the opinion of Sports Auto, but you don't consider EVO or Pistonheads to be quite as relevant. We have stated that Sports Auto don't consider it to be a production car, so to add balance I have stated that Evo, Pistonheads and Road & Track did consider it to be the record holder. If you wish to demonstrate why Sports Auto is a reliable source and Evo, Pistonheads and Road & Track aren't, then feel free - otherwise you might want to cease with your disruptive edits. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Sport Auto timed the runs so they are the most competent source. I didn't challenge the other sources as you imply, I disagree with your conclusions from them. An article quoting manufacturer claims about production car status doesn't make EVO see the Radicals as production cars especially considering their article which calls the Lamborghini Huracan Performante's 6:52 time a production car lap record in spite of the Radical SR8 LM's older 6:48 time listed just below. For Road & Track the Radicals clearly aren't production cars. You didn't add balance, you created false balance. The wider automotive industry and the biggest part of the press didn't count their laps as road-legal production car laps and mostly ignored them in spite of the manufacturer claims and Wikipedia entries. As per WP:WEIGHT you shouldn't be giving triple space to what is not the majority viewpoint. Drachentötbär (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we must change the rules here, thís is ridiculous to have a "car" like that in list. WHo even has decided this "For the purpose of this list, a car is “street legal” if it can be registered in at least one EU country for road use, even if it can't pass German TÜV" this should be changed and discussed in WP:Automobiles -->Typ932 ^T·C 20:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I also wonder if the capability to pass the SVA truly makes a car a road going production car? It seems like a car not delivered with a type approval, that requires individual approval and does not need to pass the crash standards necessary for type approval is not the same as a GT3, which you can drive off the lot anywhere in Europe just the same as a Fiat Panda. Toasted Meter (talk) 07:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

"The wider automotive industry and the biggest part of the press didn't count their laps as road-legal production car laps and mostly ignored them in spite of the manufacturer claims and Wikipedia entries. As per WP:WEIGHT you shouldn't be giving triple space to what is not the majority viewpoint." really?

[23] Top Gear "a street-approved version of the old SR8LM still holds the road-legal Nürburgring lap record"

No production car status given by the source.

[24] Motor Authority "Radical SR8 LM sets new Nürburgring record for street-legal cars"

Source asks the reader to discuss what is a production car.

Source states "But as an example of a production car's capabilities, the lap time is essentially meaningless. While the Radical SR8 LM technically qualifies for the title" so they consider it to qualify as a production car. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The same magazine reported that the 918 Spyder attained "the production car lap record for the Nürburgring" without any "while": https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1086880_watch-the-porsche-918-spyders-record-nrburgring-run-video Drachentötbär (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

[25] Evo "road-legal SR8LM that set the time..."

Sources quotes manufacturer claims about production car status as discussed previously.

Source states "SR8’s road-going production car status." - this isn't a manufacturer quote. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed. "C says: A discounts B" doesn't imply "C says: B is true" Drachentötbär (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

[26] autoblog "But despite its racecar styling and tarmac-scraping ride height, the Radical is completely street legal"

Source doesn't call it production car, following the link to the Gumpert Apollo Speed's 7:11.5 strongly indicates that's because they don't see it as production car.

[27] autoweek "Both the Radical vehicles were powered by a 2.8-liter V8 that produces 449 hp and were both road-legal by the Single Vehicle Approved (United Kingdom ECWVTYA equivalent)."

Source is flawed (the SR8 engine differs from the SR8 LM engine) and uses a self-proposed definition by the journalist who recognizes there are also other definitions for production. "Here's what happens if we take the proposed definition..."

Source states "The current record holder would be the low-production/high-fun Radical SR8 LM." If you wish to dispute the reliability of autoweek as a source, then take it to Reliable sources/Noticeboard Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

[28] evo "Radical sent its race team to the Eiffel mountains to retake the outright 'production car' lap record"

As discussed above, 'production car' is set in quotes which might even be scare quotes.

I'm sorry, but your original research on the use of quotes, is exactly that - original research. They state "production car", so that is what we report. We don't try to read their minds and say "oh well, they said production car, but I think they meant something else" Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

That's not original research. Context does matter, as does the use of quotation marks which are usually used for quoting.Drachentötbär (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

[29] msn "Its SR8 is the only licensable car to post a sub-seven second time around the famed German circuit."

No production car status mentioned.

[30] car advice "Michael Vergers, the actual lap record driver, drove the SR8 LM from the factory in Peterborough in UK, all the way to the ‘Ring’ just to prove that the car was in fact, road legal."

Production car status only as manufacturer claim

"Sport Auto timed the runs so they are the most competent source." - you're correct, Sport Auto oversaw the tests. But so did Evo magazine. [31] "British sports car firm Radical has emerged from the Nordschleife with a time of 6m48s, and evo Magazine was there to oversee it having joined the company’s team to help out with the record attempt."

So Sport Auto was the neutral instance.Drachentötbär (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

In light of the above, it seems very clear that it isn't undue weight in the slightest. It also seems clear that you are pushing an agenda. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Ur wider is mostly UK journos -->Typ932 ^T·C 19:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

None of your listed sources really works as you claim as witness for "road-legal production car" status. They're either philosophizing about the definition of production car, quote manufacturer claims or simply avoid using production car status for it. There are many websites which contradict the "road-legal production car" claim, let's to focus on the biggest magazines:

For Car & Driver, Motor Trend and Road & Track the SR8 laps don't belong into the production car category:

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/watch-the-lamborghini-huracan-performante-set-the-fastest-ever-production-car-lap-of-the-nurburgring-video

"Of course, the Radical SR8 LM still holds the fastest time for street-legal vehicles at 6:48, but calling it a production car is a stretch."

https://www.motortrend.com/cars/lamborghini/huracan/2017/2017-lamborghini-huracan-performante-first-drive-downforce/

"Lamborghini's own Aventador Superveloce set a time of 6 minutes, 59.73 seconds. The only production car to ever circumnavigate more quickly is the Porsche 918 Spyder, which laid down an ice-cold 6:57.00."

https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/videos/a32781/lamborghin-huracan-performante-sets-a-65201-at-the-nurburgring/

"calling it a production car is far from rational"

Drachentötbär (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Drachentötbär, firstly - why did you refactor all the comments? It makes it so hard for people to read and work out who said what. Secondly, again you have been using original research to support your claims. Reliable sources state "production car" and we don't get to second guess them and assume they actually meant something else. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Taking the context into account isn't original research, it's what you should do too instead of cherry picking words out of context. Remember that for the 1:4 + etc imbalance you put into the article you need a huge majority for your side among the published sources, you can't even show equality.Drachentötbär (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Saying "although they said production car, I don't think they meant production car" is original research. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you're doing original research by putting something into the article based on your personal interpretation of the quotation marks around the term "production car" in the source although other interpretations are possible. Drachentötbär (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Let me try to make sure that I'm understanding you correctly. I don't want to put words in your mouth...

Are you trying to say that when a source clearly states that something is a "production car" that it's original research to assume that they meant to say that something is a "production car"?

I'm sorry, I don't wish to offend you but if that's what you're trying to say, then it's the most ridiculous statement I've heard in a long time.

We don't second guess content from reliable sources. That's exactly what we shouldn't do. We don't try to come to conclusions. We state facts. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

For checking properly whether the SR8 is "considered a road legal production car lap by Evo" or not we need to look at all Evo articles available. As discussed above we have one article which contradicts this statement and one which puts "production car" in quotes. Saying that the first article and the quotation marks in the second can be ignored is evaluating those primary sources which is original research, entries shouldn't be based on them.Drachentötbär (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

heh you still arguing this, this is simple its not production car, we should just delete it from article . Put vote to to WP:Automomobiles and we can stop this silly conversation here. We should also chance that stupid rule "The Nürburgring is a public (toll-) road, and regulations of Germany and the EU apply. For the purpose of this list, a car is “street legal” if it can be registered in at least one EU country for road use, even if it can't pass German TÜV" who ever has wrote this stupid rule to the article -->Typ932 ^T·C 21:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

C Ah, okay - got it. Despite reliable automotive media stating that it's a production car - we should ignore that and consider it not to be a production car because you don't think it is. Also, we should change the rules regarding production car criteria because it's a "stupid rule" - nice logic.

Drachentötbär - which Evo article states that the SR8 isn't a production car? I have that says it broke the production car record and that says the SR8 has a production car status. Was there a third article, or am I missing something?

Also, let's not forget the Pistonheads article which states "Radical has once again beaten the Nurburgring Nordschleife lap record for a production car."

Look, I get it. It's a very extreme road car. It's obviously biased towards the track. But it's absolutely road legal and absolutely a production car. A few German and American publications might whine and cry about it, because it's not as comfortable as their precious vipers and 911s - but that doesn't change its production car status. Move on, there are reliable sources saying it's a production car and that's what wikipedia relies on. Reliable sources, not someone saying "but even though they said production car, I think they meant something else" Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

loL reliable automotive media, which most seems to be UK ones. Funny coincidence -->Typ932 ^T·C 20:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

"Funny coincidence" of course it's not a coincidence. This is English language Wikipedia, so sources from English speaking nations are likely to be common. Are you going to complain about the plethora of German sources as well? Nope? Didn't think so. And I have added UK, US and Australian sources to this article, so you don't need to worry about it. Have a nice day! Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes and English car and english magazines, so ofc they say its road legal. Was it so hard to understand? -->Typ932 ^T·C 13:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

"Was it so hard to understand?" no, your less than subtle implication was easily understood. So, English car and English magazines are a problem. So, are you suggesting that we not allow any source that comes from the same nation as the car it mentions? Remove all American sources on American cars, all German sources on German cars and all British sources on British cars? Or is it only the British sources that you consider to be biased?

And BTW - you are aware that Australia and America are not actually part of the United Kingdom, aren't you? Or is that hard to understand? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

There isnt any german or usa car that isnt road legal, the problem is only with radical. And most referemces that says its road legal are british ones, thats bias-->Typ932 ^T·C 17:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear. Sorry, but content doesn't get removed just because you claim bias. A reliable source is a reliable source. Oh and (an Australian source) and an American source, both call the Radical road-legal. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Someone linked to the SR8 owners manual. That's useful, that should clarify a lot of things. Let's take a look. "The SR8 is a very fast RACING car" oh, damn! That's pretty clear isn't it? It's a racing car. But, as we all know with racing classes such a Group N - racing cars can still be road legal production cars. So let's find out what else they say..."if you are using it for trackdays or on the road" oh. The road. THE ROAD. Seems pretty clear doesn't it? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

There are times it is unfortunate that there isn't a way to provide original research. We have emails from the manufacturer themselves clarifying that the car is in fact not road legal. What is also unfortunate is that, from appearances, all of the publications that are used to source that the car is in fact a "production car" are using the company themselves as the source, from the Nurburgring run itself, which Radical was using as a way to build hype for the car. It appears perhaps the intent was there to make a version of the car that was actually road legal, but it never happened. It is rather dubious to claim that, in it's Nurburgring racing setup, the car was road legal. "Take my word for it" says the manufacturer. RTShadow (talk) 04:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Removal of pre-production manufacturer records y/n

Perhaps it's time to open a discussion here and get to a consensus on how to proceed from here based on feedback from multiple editors. Clearly there are some indifferences about what constitutes a production car and if records made with pre-production vehicles (records made before the first customer deliveries but after reveal and open order books) should be allowed on the production record list. Should we remove manufacturer times made with pre-production vehicles or should the entries stay? To be consistent choosing the former would constitute to the removal/move to the non-series list of entries like the Aventador SVJ, 911 GT2 RS, 918 Spyder, Aventador Superveloce, GT-R NISMO 'N-Attack' and more. In fact most of the older manufacturer record entries on the list were made before the cars were produced in series with no knowledge of potential differences between pre-pro and production vehicles. I would appreciate some feedback on this. -- Epistolarius (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Unless there is evidence of significant changes between pre-production and production versions we should accept them. Toasted Meter (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

No we dont otherwise there is no idea to keep the whole list, for example Jaguar XE SV Project 8 time was driven over 6 months before production and Jaguar has said its different than production car, this is very clear case. Most those you mention are driven weeks or mostly month before production and are real preproduction cars, this Jaguar cant be even classifed as preproduction car its more like test mule. Most preproduction cars are similar than prodcution cars, they are produced just to check all things are ok in manufacturing process. http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Pre-production_car -->Typ932 ^T·C 20:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, to keep consistency we then would have to disallow all other times set with pre-production vehicles (or "mules" if you disagree on that term). The same logic you apply to the Jaguar would apply to several other entries also. You haven't addressed that so far. By the way, attempting to get me blocked from editing because you have a different view of the matter and while you couldn't be bothered to discuss the subject on this talk page beforehand is really low. -- Epistolarius (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The fact that this article already contains many pre-production models that have remained on the list without any dispute demonstrates consensus for their inclusion. In addition the use of pre-production models for top speed/fuel economy/lap time tests is standard in the automotive industry. We certainly can't check every single car article and confirm that every single claim is backed up without the use of a pre-production car. The best we can do is - if a pre-production car is used, and after full production there a specification/performance changes, we then look at that particular entry. But as it stands, the Jag is fine on the list. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Dont mess other cars for this, the problem is with Jaguar, if you find problems in other cars, just edit them or remove them. That Jags is as far as car can get from production status, those others are nowhere so different. -->Typ932 ^T·C 17:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

So, we should remove the Jaguar, but "don't mess other cars" because of your opinion? We should ignore consensus and remove this content based on your opinion, ignoring standards that have been set over years of having this article? I'm just trying to clarify if that's what you're suggesting. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

"That Jags is as far as car can get from production status, those others are nowhere so different." - You'll have to provide a source on those statements. -- Epistolarius (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

No because your opinion that jaguar is production car, ITS NOT, very simple , if page has errors in some other cars that doesnt make Jaguar as production car. You need to fix those other errors and not add more wrong data , And what consensus Epistolarius and Spacecowboy420 doesnt count as consensus. You both keep adding wrong info to article, with radical and jaguar -->Typ932 ^T·C 13:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

"Wrong info" - Wrong information on what? It's your opinion that the car totally changed from the record to entering its production run and that no other car record was done this way. Why would Jaguar even bother setting a record if the car was so unfinished ("mule" as you say) and so different from the production car as you claim? I think you're taking this well out of context and what Jaguar have been doing was mainly setup work and finetuning, just like any other manufacturer. -- Epistolarius (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Wrong info means that you add car that is not production car to list of prodcution cars. pls stop that, did you ever read those links and sources that I gave for you? "Why would Jaguar even bother setting a record if the car was so unfinished ("mule" as you say) and so different from the production car as you claim?" lol, read the link and sources. "production in June, but Jaguar engineers are still making changes" "perhaps it would have been had the Project 8 actually started production and been classified as a production car." they made chancges to car over 6 months time -->Typ932 ^T·C 05:46, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Would you kindly stop filling my talk page with threats over vandalism, disruptive editing, etc., while you can't be bothered to come to a consensus with other editors before taking action? For a "Master Editor" your approach to this has been anything but "masterful", you didn't bother to open a discussion on the talk page before editing the Jaguar entry nor did you add sources to the entry that specifically mention what's been changed from the "mule" as you call it to the production car to support your claim that the production car has totally different specs, nor did you provide those since. If you're looking for someone being disruptive perhaps you should look in a mirror. Frankly, I'm sick of these antics and edit warring and since it's clear you're not going to accept anything but what fits your own opinion I feel like the best action forward is removing the Jaguar entry entirely until a consensus has been found about production records set before cars entered the market in general. -- Epistolarius (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments such as "what consensus Epistolarius and Spacecowboy420 doesnt count as consensus." lead me to believe that either there is a major competence issue, or just an unwillingness to accept the way things are done here. Previous comments that state " who ever has wrote this stupid rule to the article" shows a total lack of respect for consensus. Continuing to complain and use warning templates is not the way to gain consensus. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2018

"prodcution" = "production" 2605:E000:1301:4462:EC3E:AE50:96D8:6F9 (talk) 02:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2018

Include Porsche 911 GT2 RS MR lap time 6'40"33 as the new record on the Production, Street-Legal table. Alecalixto (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Manthey seems to be acting as a tuner here, modifying a finished car. As this is not available as a factory installed package, the time was accomplished with a modified street-legal production car and is therefore not representative of the GT2 RS as manufactured. Toasted Meter (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2018

Add new record for street legal car record. On October 25th, 2018 Porsche set a new record of 6:40:33 with a 911 GT2 RS MR driven by Lars Kern. They were testing a performance kit for the GT2 RS and presumably wanted to beat the Lamborghini record. Source: https://www.manthey-racing.de/de/911-gt2-rs-mr-schnellster-sportwagen-am-ring Seulberg1 (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Manthey seems to be acting as a tuner here, modifying a finished car. As this is not available as a factory installed package, the time was accomplished with a modified street-legal production car and is therefore not representative of the GT2 RS as manufactured.

I already added the 911 GT2 RS MR under the section non-series records a few days ago. The MR Performance Kit is road-legal & sold through Porsche-subsidiary Manthey Racing... but I'd still count it as modified/non-series production car. --Epistolarius (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

new lap record - NIO EP9

Hi, can the lap record of the NIO EP9 of 6m 45.900s described here: 1, 2 or 3 be added to the list? A video can be found here. The Tweet from Peter Dumbreck linked on motor1.com --Username1204 states 'The NIO EP9 and I broke the production car record around the Nordschleife today.' --Username1204 (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The lap is already on the site. Drachentötbär (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2019

I would like to introduce a new data to the record time lap table. I've got a reference. It's a Renault Sport Clio 182 which had a time of 8:20. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tMuP-N9ut4 Thank you! Munga 92 (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2019

Porsche 911 GT2 RS (991.2) new best time is 6:40.3 minutes done On Thursday, 25 October 2018 Toniibrahim (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, i looked for some sources:

Lap Onboard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ror87RYTqE

German Press:

https://www.welt.de/motor/news/article183186868/Rundenrekord-vom-Haustuner-Porsche-GT2-RS-MR.html

https://www.auto.de/magazin/porsche-911-gt2-rs-rast-640-minuten-ueber-die-nordschleife/

https://www.automobil-industrie.vogel.de/porsche-911-gt2-rs-neuer-rundenrekord-auf-der-nordschleife-a-772195/

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/sportwagen/rekorde-nuerburgring-nordschleife/

Offical from Porsche:

https://newsroom.porsche.com/de/produkte/porsche-911-gt2-rs-mr-manthey-racing-rekordfahrt-nuerburgring-nordschleife-sportwagen-lars-kern-16356.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.90.9.62 (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It's already on the page, in the Non-series/non-road-legal vehicles section. The reason it's not on the production car list is due to the fact it did not do the run in a factory condition, it had a "performance kit from Manthey-Racing" added which replaces the front splitter, rear diffuser and modifies the rear wing and adds lighter wheels. Toasted Meter (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Regulatory Capture

No room for argument whatsoever, it is painfully apparent this particular page has been subverted, tainted and grossly distorted, by a special interest group associated with organized motor sport, in conjunction with the marketing component to the automotive oligopolies. Such is the extent to which this page has been subverted, those in its custody are woefully unable to intellectualize its holistic, intrinsic or historic significance sufficient to differentiate common passenger vehicles, from purpose build racing machines cloaked as passenger vehicles.

Henceforth, a motion is now in order that a prerequisite need be mandated, of those in custody of this page, that you people are able to perform rudimentary, basic, 6th grade level analysis, that you must demonstrate axiom and wherewithal for objectivity and fair-play, AND you must able to differentiate bona fide passenger vehicles, from purpose built racing machines.

Humblemost apologies to you, in advance. I'm sorry, there is no gentle way of putting this: your beloved Radical is not (NOT) a production vehicle. And, everyone knows it. No production run in the history of the Radical Sportscars Group ever achieved minimum efficient scale. No more than could be a Porsche 962 with Alabama license plates, nor can the Radical you people have been clinging to the last two decades ever be considered a bona fide production passenger vehicle.

Reclassification of the Radical SR8, a bona fide production passenger vehicle, is no more an abomination to automotive journalism than would be, performing a sex change on Roger Federer, reclassifying him a woman, but for no good reason than to score a Women's singles major, at Wimbledon. The absurdity - asj.

I kind of agree about the Radical, although for different reasons. The SVA is not a process for production cars, one can register a motorised sofa, and to compare something that went through that process to vehicles that are type approved for the entirety of Europe is apples and oranges. I don't agree with you about some kind of "subversion" by motorsport. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Discrimination based on source of vehicular power, internal combusion versus muscles?

What are the times cyclists achieved on the Nürburgring? I would like to recommend including results in the table for aces like Sir Wiggins and Peter Sagan mounted on their time-trial type bicycles. There isn't any fundamental difference to motorcycles, whose results are included. Two wheels are two wheels, in fact motorcycles originate from bicycles! 80.99.11.157 (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure it would be prohibited, as long as you have reliable sources and put them in a separate table, to me that would seem fine. Toasted Meter (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

No intended discrimination from my side, just not familar with cycling lap time attempts on the Nordschleife: My focus has been solely on maintaining the messy production/modified automobile lap time chart. In my eyes nothing speaks against adding a section for bicycles. Not sure where to start looking, though? -- Epistolarius (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for addition of the lap time for the Jaguar XE SV Project 8 into the "Production, street legal vehicles" list

'Request for addition of the lap time for the Jaguar XE SV Project 8 into the "Production, street legal vehicles" list'

Length 20,600m (67,600ft)

Time 7:18.361

Vehicle Jaguar XE SV Project 8

Driver Vincent Radermecker

Date 8 July 2019

Notes Jaguar SVO conducted lap record. Production-specification two-seat Track Pack version of Project 8. Msimpso4 (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Source https://media.jaguar.com/news/2019/07/jaguar-xe-sv-project-8-worlds-fastest-saloon-car-beats-its-own-nurburgring

|ans=no — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msimpso4 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The 7:18.361 and 7:23.164 times seem to be the same run, just on different lengths. The longer one is what the Nurburgring is currently going with as their "official" time since 2019 (see [32]). I think a split into two tables would be reasonable here; in fact, I'll work on it later. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I think a wider consensus is necessary here for a split.  On hold. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

"Street legal"

I have removed “ … even if it can't pass German TÜV” from Production, street-legal vehicles. The sentence now reads “For the purpose of this list, a car is “street legal” if it is registered in at least one EU country for road use” which simply is the EU definition of “street legal.” Passing German TUV does not apply in this context, it is superfluous, and confusing. A car registered in the UK for instance does not need to “pass TÜV” in the literal sense to be street legal. “Passing TUV” means to comply with the mandatory regular safety checks in Germany, similar to MOT in the UK, Contrôl Technique in France etc. If the car would have an expired sticker, it automatically would not be street legal. BsBsBs (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

BsBsBs (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Lynk & Co 03

The lap time currently reported for this vehicle is incorrect in that it is referring to the shorter distance 20.6 km, the vehicle actually managed the complete 20.832 km in 7:20.143 and the shorter 20.6 km in 7:15.123.

Reference:

62.80.196.42 (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Done Corrected and expanded the entry. -- Epistolarius (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Typo in Sport Auto 997 GT2 7min33

Please fix: The Sport Auto lap for the 997 GT2 has been mistakenly included in the table as "GT3". The reference points to the Sport Auto article that confirms it's a time for the 997 GT2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.154.155.75 (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Done Sorry for the late reply. Corrected. -- Epistolarius (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

No idea why is this protected

Tesla Model S plaid at 7:23 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-porsche-nurburgring/teslas-nuerburgring-run-revs-up-debate-over-speed-records-idUSKBN1WX1DL 2601:602:9200:1310:79C9:A18F:2E98:5C09 (talk) 07:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not a production car yet and we don't have a video of it, or independent timing. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2019

Under the subheadings Motorcycles Racing, in the second entry, last column to the right (Notes), please change the text: "last Moto-GP held there" to: last [[Grand Prix motorcycle racing|world championship event]] held there

FYI, not only is "Moto-GP" incorrectly formatted (should be MotoGP) but this marketing designation did not start until 2002 (the table entry refers to 1980); see the lead of Grand Prix motorcycle racing for confirmation of the year. Thank you.--86.29.222.228 (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Porsche Gt2rs MR

I would've edited the page if it wasnt protected but its well known that after lamborghini beat the gt2rs record, porsche got angry and put their official racing team to work creating a new wheel, suspension and aero package for the gt2rs calling it the MR( Manthey-Racing). Anyhow that car absolutely smashed the record doing 6:40:33 beating the lambo by 4 seconds and the original gt2rs by 7. I think this should be listed on the page since the mr package is a 90k optional (or something along those lines) and its the curent record holder not lamborghini Msa120 (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

It's in Non-series/non-road-legal vehicles category, as it is not available from the factory. Toasted Meter (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

New lap time!

Why we can't add the McLaren 720s lap record that submitted by sport auto? Muffyogsan (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's not a new time. And nothing stops you from adding it. Unless it was removed I suppose I never added it because they never released the Sport Auto magazine article on the Auto Motor und Sport website and I didn't buy the magazine - but I guess I might as well now since we pretty much accepted Sport Auto on-board videos with reference to the respective print issue as sufficient proof. -- Epistolarius (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Done - Added it. -- Epistolarius (talk) 04:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Lap time of CLK63 Black Series on Nordshleife.

The really time of CLK63 Black Series is 7:45:00 (159 km/h) by Berndt Schneider in 2008. But this information didn't paid into record table. And where is the time lap of Ferrari F40 (7:40:00) and E63 on 2010 (8:10:00) Please, fix it!!! Tsikhotskyi19 (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Could you provide onboard videos and press releases/magazine articles for these lap times? The only reference to a 7:45 I could find is "Below eight minutes for sure, with Mercedes officials suggesting as quick as 7:45" from a C&D article. -- Epistolarius (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Where is true: an Auto motor und sports article or C&D article? Tsikhotskyi19 (talk) 08:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, the Auto Motor und Sport (also published under Sport Auto) article is an independent test from a reputable source in Germany, aside from manufacturer record attempts most times on this Wikipedia list are from them since for the longest time they regularly did independent tests and there was no official governing body. Back in 2017 I was retroactively going through all entries on the list and all Sport Auto tests published online and added and corrected several entries. One of the entries I changed was the CLK 63 Black Series from 7:46 to a 8:05, because the 7:46 was the time for the 2011 C 63 AMG Coupe Black Series and 8:05 was the only CLK 63 Black Series time with source (from Sport Auto). Sadly no onboard video, but no surprise given how old the test is. As for C&D, the one article I linked only states a comment from AMG of a possible 7:45 lap time, while the one you linked doesn't mention a Nordschleife lap time at all? -- Epistolarius (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I was wrote a letter to Bernd Schneider, in which I'm asked him about that lap on CLK63 AMG. And I'm waiting for him answer now. Tsikhotskyi19 (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm think, that 7:45 is true time for CLK63 BS: https://fastestlaps.com/tracks/nordschleife

CLK63 BS and C63 BS have the same dynamic, more than that, CLK has more torque. 0-100 km/h +- same too: 3.9 by C63 and 4.2-4.1 by CLK: 1)https://youtube.com/OmzFrNmhJAk;

2)https://youtube.com/h4LmG5C0gTU. Tsikhotskyi19 (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Honda NSX lap time founded

I saw an article of auto motor sport's. They claimed they tested the NSX on Nordschleife and did a lap time of 7.36 minutes. Can we add it to this list?

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/test/honda-nsx-supertest-nordschleife-hockenheim/ Muffyogsan (talk) 05:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

But driven by sport auto magazine Christian. So I it's did by sport auto. I'll be waiting for reply. Muffyogsan (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. Toasted Meter (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Fine! Muffyogsan (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2020

Sorry why you put porsche 911 gt2 rs mr into non series non street legal?? You wrote on the side that 911 gt2 rs mr is Street legal!!! 6.40 miutes street legal!! 188.219.235.42 (talk) 09:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It's excluded because it is an aftermarket modification of a road car. Toasted Meter (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Lap time of BMW M5 Competition (F90)

Where is lap time by Christian Gebhardt in BMW M5 Competition (F90) (7:36)? Please add. Tsikhotskyi19 (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Done - Added it. -- Epistolarius (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Corvette C7 Lap times

Even though GM never officially posted Corvette C7 Lap Times, the attached article in Road and Track Magazine identifies the following times that are not disputed.

All driven by Jim Mero:

C7 Z51 September 2013 7:39.76 C7 Grand Sport April 2016 7:27.46 C7 Z06 May 2015 7:10.43 C7 ZR1 April 2018 7:04.2 (started on cold tires -1.2 seconds for chicane at start finish)

https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a28197754/chevrolet-corvette-c7-nurburgring-lap-time-jim-mero-interview/

Right, and I believe the cars are capable of the times. But GM never released videos and press releases about the record attempts, so it's not going to get added just on account of the driver. As unfortunate as it is, officially the cars never set records. -- Epistolarius (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, I'm not a fan of the fact that - as I just noticed - the C8 was added without any official source based on a hint in a video. I'll await official material surfacing soon, but the text above the table doesn't state that any additions of official records require onboard videos and press releases for no reason. Especially now that the Nürburgring claims authority over these record attempts. -- Epistolarius (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. The reason I asked about the C7 times was because the C8 time was listed on Wikipedia. The C7 times were never intended to be claimed track records. Arguably, the Z06 7:10 at that time might have been a production car record as the GT-R Nismo time included a $100,000 upgrade after the purchase of the car. If you had a chance to look at the Road and Track article it explains why GM never released the videos. Also, GM never disputed the lap times when the article was posted in the actual magazine as well as online. To me this implies they do not dispute the lap times. At the time of the article, GM had no interest in promoting the C7 when they were introducing the C8. Nonetheless, I believe there are many laps on the list without video support. The videos do exist, but it would cost GM $30,000 USD per video to post them.

The only other thing I can provide is the youtube video below. No need to watch it all, but if you go to the time 5:49 to 6:23 there are still photos of the finish off all the laps listed above. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk0WxB92Jv0 thank you for your time.

It has been over 6 months since the C8 time has been posted, no video. I know this is a legitimate time. The only source is a lap time photo shopped on the track that you would not notice unless you step through the video frame by frame. In contrast, the C7 times were posted in the Road and Track article with no dispute from GM, in my opinion a more credible source. Also in Jim Mero's Nurburgring highlight video all times are again posted with photos at the finish, again a more credible source. There are many laps on the list with no video support, I believe the C7's should get the credit they deserve. Thank you.

Viper ACR - not the fastest manual transmission car

Last time I checked Lauda's Ferrari was a manual, and he raced under 7 minutes. I suggest to change it to "by a production car with a manual transmission". Andersmy02 (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Revisiting "Road Legal", particulartly re:The Radical SR8

There has been much debate about the Radical here and elsewhere with regards to its "Road Legal" status. The Radical is allowed on lap boards for road legal cars in many places on the site, including this page, and elsewhere by virtue of its ability to get single vehicle approval (SVA) in the UK. That said, per the classification set forth for this page:

"For the purpose of this list, a car is “street legal” if it is registered in at least one EU country for road use."

Given that the UK is no longer a part of the European Union the Radical SR8 and the Radical SR8 LM no longer meet the page's criteria for legality.

Obviously Radical could begin offering (or may already offer) an SVA Kit on SR8's that allows them to be registered in an EU member nation. I have not turned up evidence of any Radicals under such an arangement, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Barring that evidence however, I should think that the Radicals would no longer be eligible for inclusion on the "Road Car" lap boards.

SelEag (talk) 06:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I believe that "in the EU" is a bit general as there is a couple of cars that I believe were only sold in the US on this list (Camaro ZL1 1LE comes to mind). It makes more sense to amend the rule to "In the EU, UK, or US. The legality should be determined based on when it was manufactured and/or the lap time was set. A change in laws (e.g. Brexit) should not retroactively change the cars lap status. That would be the same as, if 20yrs from now ICE vehicles are outlawed, moving lap times for all non-EVs to the non-road legal section. IPBilly (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I think treating SVA approval the same as EU type approval is wrong, SVA approval has been applied to all kinds of odd things (see Edd China's sofa) and putting cars you can buy off the lot that have to comply with all the same regulations as any family car up against something that is assessed by regulators one at a time and does not need to meet the same standards seems wrong. Toasted Meter (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree, for much the same reason that any random 1000hp car isn't the same as a 1000hp Veyron. I don't know what a good standard for series production road car would be in this case, crash testing? On one hand I'm not opposed to moving the Radical, only the justification that "the UK is no longer part of the EU". If the question is whether SVA qualifies the Radical as a "road legal" production car, the answer is surely not. One needn't look further than the name "single vehicle" approval to reach that conclusion, as becoming a truly road-legal car would extend that status to all units produced, therefore making it a multi-vehicle approval. On the other hand, the issue regarding the radical has been beaten to death, and it's still listed as a road-car. And to what end, so that somebody can feel better that their car is 2 places nearer to the top? The more you have to qualify the "record" the less it starts to be a "record" (see: Panamera setting the record for executive car). IPBilly (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that "production car" and "single vehicle approval" don't match. The SR8, about which Road & Track wrote "calling it a production car is far from rational", didn't fit into the road-legal production car list even before the Brexit.Drachentötbär (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

They wouldn't match if they were all made for the road, but that is not the case. Radicals are made in pretty large numbers but only a few are licenced for the road. So they are certainly a production car by their volume, and the cars as tested were certainly road legal. WHich kind of does make them road legal production cars. As for retroactively trying to say a car that was road legal at the time of its test may or may not be road legal today that would open up a can of worms that could never be closed. Are we going to remove every car that doesn't meet the current ever changing legislation? Really? Then you'll only ever be able to list cars from the last couple of years. The Radicals were certainly road legal at the time of their tests and were driven to and from track to emphasize that point. The same cannot be said of many other cars on the list. And yes, there are German registered Radicals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4784:1B00:D005:A4AC:3358:891B (talk) 05:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Order for times with or without hundredths of seconds

For instance, 8:01.12 versus 8:01

The former is fully specified to the hundredths of seconds. The latter is not fully specified (not even to the tenths of seconds).

The fully specified time should be given the benefit of the doubt. So 8:01.12 is placed before 8:01 on the list. Right?

Feelthhis (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. 8:01 can be anything in the 8:00.50 - 8:01.49 range if it was rounded correctly and 8:47.99 definitely isn't quicker than 8:47.Drachentötbär (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

This isn't about rounding, it's about precision. A stopwatch that doesn't read in tenths of a second doesn't round, it truncates. 8:01 is 8:01. The question is whether times recorded with more precise instruments (or reported with a greater number of significant figures) should be given higher priority on the list (i.e. placed higher). I don't think that is a practice that should be adopted. I appreciate the idea as many of the times here were probably not recorded with high precision GPS based or beam-break timing equipment it would set a weird precedent. If times start being reported to thousandths of a second, those shouldn't also be listed ahead of the times that were only recorded to hundredths of a second. It's a bit of a ridiculous example but with this system you could have a situation such as the following:

1. 7:59.991
2. 7:59.997
3. 7:59.10
4. 7:59.75
5. 7:59.1
6. 7:59

It would result in confusion for many, and be more difficult to readily understand. IPBilly (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@IPBilly: Thanks for the example, I think that will clear things up. Using your example, the sorting would be like this:

1. 7:59.10
2. 7:59.1
3. 7:59.75
4. 7:59.991
5. 7:59.997
6. 7:59

My proposal is to use the decimal places kinda of as a tie breaker criteria (the "benefit of the doubt" criteria). Well, I admit I'm having a hard time trying to put this into words, so I hope with the example it's clearer what I'm thinking. Feelthhis (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Reliable car magazines measured acceleration times of 2.56 seconds (mentioned in the text) and published 2.6 seconds in the acceleration tables. It's common practice among the reliable sources to measure the hundredths or even more numbers and round afterwards, if a source does differently that's a reason to doubt its quality.Drachentötbär (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

How would you rank the examples given by IPBilly? Feelthhis (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

In numerical order.

1. 7:59
2. 7:59.10
3. 7:59.1
4. 7:59.75
5. 7:59.991
6. 7:59.997

Drachentötbär (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

We should return to numerical order. Proper sources do proper rounding. A time of 7:34 was actually 7:33.67 [[33]] A time of 7:24 was actually 7:23.77 [[34]] Drachentötbär (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm still opposed to this, and other reliable sources disregard rounding and truncate. As far as drag racing is concerned, it's generally convention for pass that takes 11.99s to be an "11 second pass". To this end, both these "proper" sources seem to eschew rounding in favor of truncation. 7:59.74 "breaking the eight minute barrier" [35] and 6:59.73 being a "sub-seven minute car" [36].

It does appear that the list is mostly ordered as was originally suggested above however, and I'm more infavor of leaving it as is than re-sorting. IPBilly (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Both these "proper" sources don't truncate, they just use the mathematical order 7:59.74 < 8 and 6:59.73 < 7. Even at the List of fastest production cars by acceleration which includes dragstrip times numbers are sorted numerically. We should do the same here. Drachentötbär (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I guess I'm confused what rounding has to do with it then. IPBilly (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

If Sport Auto publishes a time of 8:47, the exact time must be in the 8:46.50 - 8:47.50 range (because they do proper rounding) and is definitely quicker than a 8:47.99 time. Drachentötbär (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Besides confusing readers who might think we cannot sort numbers properly the main problem is that the list has evidently many errors where slower laps put in front of quicker laps if we put x.xx before x, if we just sort normally there'll be no evidence of wrongly sorted numbers. An example is the VW Golf GTI TCR which lapped in 8:04.92. In the printed Supertest in 12/2019 its laptime is listed as 128th fastes with 8:05 and compared with similar cars like the Mercedes-Amg A45 on place 125, yet we would have to put the slower in front of the quicker car if we put 8:04.xx in front of 8:04. The BMW M5 (F90) was shown on 40th place on its test while the Ferrari 458 Italia as 35th, yet it's behind on our list. The change of sorting created many errors, alone from the fact that Sport Auto rounds and doesn't truncate we can find dozens definitely faster cars sorted behind slower ones in this list (at 7:25, at 7:28, at 7:33, at 7:35, at 7:38, ...) Seeing knowingly falsely sorted numbers hurts, we should return to numerical order (precision can still be a tie-breaker, like .00 is better than .0) so there won't be any known errors. Drachentötbär (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how long the order has been the way that it is, but I agree, it's not a great way to have the list display. Not to mention, it's formatted as a sortable table; it's almost non-sensical to have the default display be something other than shortest-to-longest. Sorry for getting into this whole rounding/truncating nonsense, I was not aware of the editorial practice of some sources to round times to the nearest tenth. I (wrongly) assumed that they would report times to the same level of precision as was measured. IPBilly (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The order change has been made by 29 September 2020 when this discussion thread was started, and we have been discussing since then, so the numerical order used since decades is the long time accepted one. On the official homepage [[37]] sport auto listed 18.Porsche 911 GT3 RS 7.33 min 19.Pagani Zonda F 7.33 min 20.Porsche 911 Carrera S 7.34 min and the sorting on this site should reflect it and not treat the Carrera S as quicker than the other two, so the long time established numerical order is the correct one. Drachentötbär (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

What? What are you trying to say? See, 7.33's are quicker than the 7.34 because these times has the 2nd decimal place numbers. If there's only 7.3 how could you find out GT3 RS and Zonda F were quicker than the Carrera S. And what are you trying to? How could you say old sortimg system is the correct one? Trusted RedZone (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Just take a look at the list after your edit. It shows "7:33.67 Porsche 911 Carrera S (991.2) in front of 7:33 Pagani Zonda F in front of 7:33 Porsche 911 GT3 RS" which contradicts Sport Auto's (who measured the time) "18.Porsche 911 GT3 RS 7.33 min 19.Pagani Zonda F 7.33 min 20.Porsche 911 Carrera S 7.34 min". After it was revealed that your sorting yields knowingly falsely sorted numbers you are the only one who opposed numerical order. Drachentötbär (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Giving only one for a only one time don't prove your sorting system is correct. And remember there is not only sport auto times.and I'm not the only one who accepted the correct sorting method Trusted RedZone (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

And see how wrong is there's sorting system. As Cerrera S, if another car did a lap time in about 7:33.67-7:34.00, then they sorting both times on 7:34. Then how could you know which is the fastest one. Sometimes the Cerrera S can sort behind of that. So that's we saying times with more decimal numbers is need to be sorted above the others and they are reliable than the others. Tell can you find out the real fastest time between them in a situation like this? Trusted RedZone (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I've proven that the sorting system change produces many errors where slower laps are above quicker ones. You didn't find a single error in the numerical sorting. IPBilly changed his mind to rejecting the sorting change after we found out how many errors it causes. You are the only one supporting it since then. Drachentötbär (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't think so, in List of fastest production cars by accerelation also editors recently accepted this sorting system. Can I ask you a question? For a example if 2 cars did 1 each lap times and publisher saying one did 7.52.13 and other one was 7.52, now can you find out which is the fastest? Trusted RedZone (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

And a another one,(imagine the publisher as sport auto) same 7:52.13 and another about 7.51.79, on the magazine they'll round it to 7.52, how could we find which is fastest if decimals doesn't available? Some times after rounding it to 7.52, 7:51.79 can go down than the 7:52.13. That's why I'm saying decimals are very important. (Note- According to Drachentötbär, only sport auto do this rounding system. There is not only sport auto times in the list. Also in List of fastest production cars by accerelation, there don't have any performance figure of sport auto's) Trusted RedZone (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

At the List of fastest production cars by acceleration your opinion is the minority opinion as well. Numerical sorting has some instances where we don't know if the sorting is correct, but changing the order leaves all this unknown while adding several cases where provably correct sorting is changed into incorrect sorting. Drachentötbär (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

How could you say it's correct? For an example according to old sorting system 2.3 us quicker than the 2.31, 2.3 can be anytime of 2.30 to 2.35. So it's unfair to the car that did 2.31. Can you tell what's wrong with new sorting system? Trusted RedZone (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Trusted RedZone: No answer for him because he, you, I or anyone else have absolutely no basis to affirm whether or not it is "correct". Comparing times from different sources (with different decimal places) is the root cause for all of this discussion and that is why we need a consistent methodology to compare times. If a source already did the job for us (comparing many cars), then that's our profit and we should just go with it. In all other situations where we need to make a decision, we'll have to rely on a criteria. I'm about to post a lengthy reply that's basically a draft of a proposed methodology, if possible please comment. Feelthhis (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Remove the Protection

Hey! I need to add some information for this page. I'm requesting to remove the vandalism protection. Trusted RedZone (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

You can explain what edits you want to make and I or another editor may apply them to the page. Toasted Meter (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I need to add a lap time for fastest passenger lap record, edit a lap time and readd a lap time for street-legal list. Trusted RedZone (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I can't apply that as an edit, you need to say what car and what time it actually is. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

And preferably with links to the appropriate sources as set forth in the article.

For new entries, this list requires an official manufacturer's press release for manufacturer-conducted tests. If the test has been conducted by an independent publication, an article in that publication is required. New entries require an original, uncut on-board video, showing the lap and the timing from start to finish. A statement that road legal OEM tyres have been used is required.

IPBilly (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Why my edit was not showing in this page? Is you guys can see my reply? Trusted RedZone (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Readd to the road-legal and passenger lap record for Nissan GT-R Nismo. Nissan Skyline GT-R R34 time need a minor edit because given source say it's 7:52.06 minutes. Trusted RedZone (talk) 02:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody else feels differently and will make these edits, but I am declining to for the following reasons: The GT-R Nismo is specifically discussed in the article as having been substantially modified when that lap time was set, and that falls outside the rules we've set forth for inclusion of manufacturer conducted tests. Regarding the R34 time, both of the sources that I see cited in the article claim a time of 7:52. As it stands, the time should be changed to remove the 00/100 sec precision, which is inaccurate based on the sources. Perhaps you're looking somewhere I am not or I did not see it, can you please clarify which source shows that, and where. I looked here and here. IPBilly (talk) 03:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with R34. But sorry to say, GT-R Nismo is exactly road-legal. There's no sources that say it was not road-legal. I have sources to prove it probably a road-legal production car. Sources say it was a performance package such as Porsche's Weissach Package, Dodge's Extreme Aero Package and etc. Just like them GT-R Nismo do not come with this N-Attack package because of if it available with the car it will cost over $200,000. So that's why they don't equip it. If we have money we can fix it to the car after owning the car. I have proof prove it's road-legal.

I don't know why, I can't add the links. They were not showing in this edit. Can you please tell how to do it. Trusted RedZone (talk) 04:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

External links work like this "[example.com]".

The problem with the N Attack Package is that the criteria require that the car is both production and street-legal, the N Attack Package can not be had fitted to a new GT-R from the factory therefore by fitting it the car is no longer in the same specification as the production car and is no different from one modified by some outside tuner. This is why the Porsche 911 GT2 RS MR is not on the main list, it's street legal, the GT2 RS is a production car and the test was done by Porsche, but the MR package is not available on a new car from the factory so it does not meet the criteria. Toasted Meter (talk) 06:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Porsche's Weissach and Dodge's Extreme Aero is also cannot be fitted for brand new cars. Then how they belong to the list? N Attack Package is fitting by Nissan & Nismo. So it's from manufacturer. Nissan & Nismo is not a tuner company just like the MR. And they made N Attack cars over 25 units. So it's supposed to be a production car. Isn't it? Car magazine's also added this time for there's street-legal production car list. Why Wikipedia cannot? Trusted RedZone (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a fine line, but the Weissach and ACR Extreme Aero packages were equipped to brand new cars from the factory and included with the original MSRP/listed on the window sticker. If memory serves correct, certain aero parts were not physically attached to the vehicle at delivery, but were included with no secondary purchase. IPBilly (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Is there's any source that say this package cannot be equiped for brand new cars. Sources only say it can be fitted for only cars less than 10,000 miles of run length. Ok fine. Then why adding this time to non road-leagl list. I think we need to make a new list or add this to street-legal production car list. Trusted RedZone (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

It is street-legal but it's not the same as the production car. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The full N-Attack package is not street-legal. Nissan themselves wrote about the dedicated carbon hood gurney component of the N-Attack package "can not be used on public roads", as well as about the six-point seatbelt.Drachentötbär (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with its non production. But the both packages are street-legal. I have official resources and independent resources to prove them. Trusted RedZone (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Great. We're eager to see them and reach an agreement about its status. Please check out Wikipedia:Verifiability as well as consider whats written here Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth then provide the sources that you are referring to so that we can all see them. IPBilly (talk) 11:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

To be street-legal, all parts must be street-legal. The CarThrottle reference says: "A six-point harness and a carbonfibre bonnet gurney are also optional on Kit A, but when fitted, the car is no longer road legal."Drachentötbär (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I think some latitude could be allowed, given that driving the car around Nürburgring Nordschleife at an insane speed would mean that a higher degree of safety equipment would and should be both included and expected. I doubt a three point safety harness would cut it in an impact at tbose speeds. NealeFamily (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that additional safety equipment like the six-point harness is acceptable. The not road-legal carbon fiber bonnet gurney which is mainly for aerodynamics and doesn't improve safety at all is a modification which shouldn't be ignored however.Drachentötbär (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Drachentötbär - reading through the debates on this page reminds me of the wars that were held on the production car speed record page. I think it would be wise to distinquish between production vehicles and those with modifications on this list. I suspect very few of the cars are in a configuration that you could buy straight off the shop floor.

Defining "Street-Legal", once and for all.

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles#Requesting_Assistance_and_Opinions_re:_"Street-Legal" for a discussion on the various interpretations of the term street legal, as used here and more broadly to define a vehicle and its operation/sale/production. IPBilly (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

As you are going to run into the same problems as were experienced by the Production car speed record page my suggestion is rather than try to eliminate cars based on whether or not they are street legal or production or not modified etc, add an additional column to the list to capture what the status of the vehicle was that was tested. So for instance you could have a list that includes: prototype, pre-production, modified/tuner production, stock/production, FIA category, etc, etc. That way you can eliminate a lot of the debate and cater for reader preferences by using the sort button. NealeFamily (talk) 09:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Nissan GT-R Nismo - N Attack Package

Ok, now what gonna say? is the N Attack Package was street-leagl or not? Whatever, sources say it's street-legal. Trusted RedZone (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I haven't read the argument about whether or not the Nissan was street legal with the N attack package. The key thing if you use the definition under the Production car speed record would be to determine if the modified car is street-legal in its intended markets, having fulfilled the homologation tests or inspections required under either a) United States of America, b) European Union law, or (c) Japan to be granted this status. If it was then the category would probably end up as a modified production car. If the car wasn't street legal then it would be classified as a racing car or something similar. NealeFamily (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

But at this car all the references say it's street-legal. Trusted RedZone (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Trusted RedZone The question you need to answer is: Do the references you are citing meet Wikipedia's reliable source criteria? If so, then it is street legal and, if not, then it is not proven to be street legal. NealeFamily (talk) 07:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The sources that i'm saying is meets Wikipedia's reliable source criteria. That's why i'm saying it's street-legal. Trusted RedZone (talk) 09:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Great. We're eager to see them and reach an agreement about its status. Please check out Wikipedia:Verifiability as well as consider whats written here Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth then provide the sources that you are referring to so that we can all see them. IPBilly (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I added but it not showing after i published it. Why? How to do that? Trusted RedZone (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Trusted RedZone Not sure where you published it - can you post it here in this discussion so we can take a look at your references. That will assist IPBilly as well. Since you are using a mobile phone to edit can I suggest you type in the website or publication you are wishing to quote - not sure how good cut and paste works in your phone. NealeFamily (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to add to this discussion but I don't know why it's not showing after I published my edit. Trusted RedZone (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

What exactly are you trying to add? Is it a link or a file or something else? Your posts are coming through. NealeFamily (talk) 09:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

They were Links. Trusted RedZone (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Well you have never added one so you will need to tell us what link we should look at. Toasted Meter (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Go and search in google "is the n attack package was street-legal" then you can see some of the articles of authority.com, Nissan's official heritage website, carbuzz.com and etc. According to them, they saying both A and B packages were steet-legal. Trusted RedZone (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Toasted Meter these ones appear to be the references being relied on - [[38]] and [[39]]. I have no comment on its reliability as a source and leave that for you to comment. NealeFamily (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Having looked at these sources, this seems very much like an edge case and I cannot decide where it should fall. In the US, and it sounds like Europe, this absolutely falls into a non-production model because the packages were installed by non-OE tuning companies after delivery of the vehicle. They're still "street-legal", but not homologated. Based on this source [40] I have a harder time determining whether it's non-production or not in the Japanese market. Nissan Motorsports International definitely sounds like a separate legal entity than Nissan Motor Corporation, but whether its a subsidiary or subject to the same homologation requirements is unclear. It's also unclear whether or not the package was fitted pre- or post-delivery. Giving it the benefit of the doubt, we would have to decide whether being a production vehicle in Japan only, and not other markets, is sufficient for it to be considered a production model. IPBilly (talk) 02:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

[[41]] is Nissan's announcement what was developed for its time attack efforts with the Nissan GT-R NISMO on the Nordschleife, at [[42]] you can see that some of the parts cannot be used on public roads even in Japan. At [[43]] it's explained that the carbon fibre bonnet gurney is not fit for the road due to pedestrian safety legislation. You can see this sharp looking carbon fibre strip on the hood of the Nordschleife car at [[44]]. Drachentötbär (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Drachentötbär - looking at this information Trusted RedZone and aside from the debate around it being a modified production car, the conclusion is that the version used by Nissan to obtain the record included parts that meant it was configured for the race track and not in a street-legal configuration. NealeFamily (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for asking. Drachentötbär, is the given sources were 100% reliable? But I don't think so because all the manufacturer's and high amount of independent sources say it's street-legal. Only one source it's not. How can we come for decision from a one source that say it's not street-legal. In Japan they were street-legal with the carbon fiber bonnet gurney and the seat belt. But I don't have sources on internet to show them. Trusted RedZone (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

At the top of pg. 2 this PDF from Nismo international says "In addition, the car can also be equipped with the optional, competition exclusive parts of a dedicated carbon hood gurney and six-point seatbelt intended for use only in closed circuits", emphasis added. Again, I suggest reading over Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth to understand why everybody has come to the conclusion that we have. IPBilly (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, now only I just saw that Trusted RedZone (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

So for customers Nissan split the N-Attack package they used for the Nordschleife time into the A kit and into optional parts which are competition exclusive and intended for use only in closed circuits because they can not be used on public roads. This confirms that the car was not road legal. Drachentötbär (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I accidentally saw a video on YouTube which in UK a guy test driving a KIT-A installed GT-R Nismo N-Attack on city and highway. But that car has the carbon fiber bonnet gurney and the six point seat belts (which is not street legal in some countries). But he is not mentioned anything about that's not street-legal. I think this also like the Radicals. In some countries they legal. In others they are not.

In another video of same publisher. A US spec N-Attack car also has the street illegal parts. If anyone have thoughts about this please comment.

Sorry, my device has a problem with copying the link. So I can't add the link. But I'll add the link text. Then you can search and find it.

(2016 NISSAN NISMO N-ATTACK GT-R - FIRST DRIVE 最初駆動機構) Trusted RedZone (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

And also remember. The record attempt car has a street-legally registered number plate of Germany. Trusted RedZone (talk) 11:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Also in gtr-registry.com.I saw some N-Attack cars in japan which includes this parts and using on them at road too. I'm confused. What we do now for this? Trusted RedZone (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Is anyone didn't see my discussion? Trusted RedZone (talk) 11:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The record attempt car didn't have a normal number plate, it had a red number plate. Those car dealers' plates are not vehicle-specific and may be used on cars without approval for test driving but not for everyday use. Drachentötbär (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

All right then. We leave record attempt. But in some countries with road-illegal parts, some cars can go on road without any problems. So what about them? Trusted RedZone (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

According to given reliable sources this car is fully street-legal. It's seems a situation like Radical SR8 and SR8LM. Some sources say it's legal but some (only two) says it's not. According to this site if a car has road going numberplates it's street legal. (record car had red numbers, it means it's a test car, not a road illegal car), so it seems it's road legal. Do not do revisions without understanding. Game for Game (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Unlike the Radical SR8 the record attempt Nissan GT-R didn't have car specific number plates, red number plates can be switched from one car to another and even put on racing cars, no one controls on what you put them. The burden of proof that the car was fully road-legal is on you, some older Nissan marketing announcements and websites repeating them is not enough, especially with the newer carthrottle source and Nissan selling parts of the kit as not useable on public roads. Drachentötbär (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

As I and others have emphatically written multiple times before street legal is not the same as a homologated production vehicle. The addition of parts (even if supplied by the manufacturer) that cannot be equipped due to regulatory limitations (be it pedestrian impact, emissions, etc) makes the car ineligible for the "production/street legal" category of this unofficial list. Similarly, the UK's SVA approval does not make the car a homologated production vehicle. Just because the car was operated by some person, at some point, with a license plate on a public road does not mean that it was "street legal". Likewise, just because that person equipped their vehicle with the parts used to set the lap time, the car does not magically become "illegal" (speaking only to US laws); it is only prohibited for the manufacturer to sell the vehicle in that configuration.

For the purposes of this list, road legal does not refer to an individual's ability to register and/or operate the vehicle on public roads, but to the ability of a manufacturer to sell the vehicle, in the particular configuration, directly to the public for use on public roads. See Production car speed record § Production car definition for a good definition. IPBilly (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Fix Taycan model in lap records

The Taycan used by Porsche was a Taycan Turbo which made 7:42.34, there are 4 variants at this time. https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a29088855/porsche-taycan-turbo-s-nurburgring-lap-time https://soymotor.com/coches/noticias/el-porsche-taycan-del-record-de-nurburgring-era-turbo-no-turbo-s-969719 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davicico (talk • contribs) 16:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Done IPBilly (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Lamborghini Aventador SVJ LP770-4

This car is described as a prototype - why is it on the list of production cars? NealeFamily (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me like it was camouflaged because it was shortly before the media launch, the press release does not say what stage of development or production the car was in. When it comes to prototypes/pre-production/pre-launch I think it should probably be included if reliable sources are saying production car and it's not meaningfully different from the car as delivered. Toasted Meter (talk) 07:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

All the motoring publications I have now found say production car except for the entry in Wikipedia, but they all use the term rather loosely and seem to be closer aligned to FIA's definition which allows modifications that may not be street-legal. The lap time was set in July and the official publicity launch was in August, but none were available for purchasers until 2019 so I conclude that the car was most likely a pre-production version. The car was running Pirelli P Zero Trofeo R track (not road) tires which is an option with standard tires being Pirelli P Zero Corsas, The question then becomes does the use of track tyres mean it was not in a street-legal configuration when the lap was done? NealeFamily (talk) 08:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Pirelli says they are road legal and are an option [45]. Toasted Meter (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Thanks Toasted Meter NealeFamily (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2020

This sentence under Controversies is very speculative: "Testing prototype cars on a circuit is nothing new, obviously: it's probably been going on since someone drove a horseless carriage onto a disused donkey derby track."

I suggest change the paragraph by removing the sentence above. Johanneshultquist (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: This is part of a quote form notable motoring journalist James May's criticism and should be preserved. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17th October 2020.

Requesting to revert the edit did by Darchentötbär which is adding a wrong sorting system. I need to revert it to the new sorting system that discussed and accepted by other editors. Trusted RedZone (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed methodology (draft)

I posted a proposed methodology in the Talk:List of fastest production cars by acceleration that applies here too. Please comment if possible. Feelthhis (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2020

Add new Mercedes AMG GT Black Series time posted by mercedes today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWaz9HVgDeY

Time was 6.48.047, driver was Maro Engel. Mercedes claims car is fully stock, tire details unknown at this time. Cham423 (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021

20,600 m (67,600 ft) T.E.R.Sven (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

What about it? Toasted Meter (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

New lap time of AMG GT 63s 4Matic+

Please, add new lap time for AMG GT 63s 4Matic +. 11 November 2020, Demian Schaffert, Michelin Pilot Sport Cup2. 20,803 m. Tsikhotskyi19 (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2021

37.47.198.243 (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

https://www.motor1.com/news/148037/scg-003c-nurburgring-qualifying-time/ SCG003 NOT ROAD LEGAL DURING N24 - NORDSCHLIEFIE WIL BE 6:33 ;)

Please provide the text you would like to remove, replace or add. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2021

almost 1 month ago Porsche 992 GT3 did lap (20,6 km) in 6:55.34 -> source. Please add it to the table, thanks 2A02:768:742F:4DFA:1A2:CF97:EEEC:A4A7 (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

the 20.8km time is already in the list, with sources to the manufacturer's press release and original video. IPBilly (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2021

Change "Bikes were tested by Dale Lomas and a character named only as The Baron" to "Bikes were tested by Dale Lomas and Brendan Keirle (then known only as "The Baron")"

Reference: https://www.bridgetogantry.com/today-we-lost-a-good-guy-at-the-ring-and-we-need-to-fix-that/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robatwilliams (talk • contribs)

 Done. Volteer1 (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2021

Please add time for the Toyota GR Yaris: 8 min 14.93 sec. Here is the soruce: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdeptmXnSfo Trapezius77 (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. YouTube is not a reliable source. Aasim (talk) 06:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Here's the source, [46]. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems Prosches are road-illegal.

There are some reliable source available that saying Porsche using illegal parts (such as six point harnesses) for the record attempts.

Source - https://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-news/industry-news/porsche/porsche-918-spyder-sets-nrburgring-lap-record/

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/porsche/911/99047/new-porsche-911-gt3-rs-thunders-into-geneva-with-513bhp Game for Game (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? Six-point harnesses aren't illegal in Germany. Your links don't appear to be explaining or clarifying the matter either. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)