Talk:List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times

Article needs to get sorted out

1. First of all, official lap times of competitions have to come first
2. Second, the 10+ year tradition of standardized, comparable, independent Super-Testing by sport-auto must not be mixed with other times
3. Third, claims by manufacturers etc. need to be but in a separate miscellaneous section. These can not be compared nor verified by independent tests.
4. All times must be well-referenced, by a reliable source.

-- Matthead  Discuß   21:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Separating hot lap times of production cars into two sections

That's a very good idea, personally I've wanted to make it myself for a long time but didn't have time.

However, I'm suggesting to sepparate the times into Manufacturers' claims section and Independent sources, mainly because Companies have basically been using Nurburgring as a marketing campaign for advertising their own product recently and lots of people actually suspect all of them of cheating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.52.43.191 (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a good idea to separate the manufacturer claims, too.-- Matthead  Discuß   00:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, before I jump in a revert this back to its previous state, I would like to see where things are heading - however as this seems to be one editor changing everything, it might take a while before we can assume consensus. I like the idea of dividing the times into sections based on the layout of the track in different periods of time - I not however like the fact that the Sport Auto seem to have been deemed to be the one and only true source of accurate times, neither do I see why (yet again) the Radical is in a different section, despite the table saying they were timed by Sport Auto.

While different track layouts deserve a different table, just because the test was conducted by someone other than Sport Auto makes it damn confusing and implies some form of higher accuracy in the Sport Auto times. I would suggest all times that are confirmed on the current track layout are in the same table, with who confirmed the time in the table, as it stands I would probably revert back to the previous consensus backed version, but then again I am very happy to wait a while and see where this goes. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if this seems damn rude, but at the moment I see German editor giving added credibility to a German magazine, which happens to have two German cars at the top of the list - read into that what you wish, but modern era times are legit no matter who verified the times. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. In the current state the it is a clear WP:UNDUE violation, butting a single magazine source above all others. While I agree that sport auto is the best source for directly comparable data to get a good comparison of cars relative pace around the 'Ring it is categorically not a repository for all 'Ring records and lap times. Genuine lap records - which is what this article is about - are rarely set by a driver jumping from one car to another but by drivers with intimate knowledge of the vehicle being run. Why should a time by Horst von Saurma be given greater prominence than a time by for instnce Tom Coronel or Walter Röhrl if the later can get the car round quicker? Sport Auto excellent tests should have their own article if they havn't already but here they should be counted as any other magazine source. Also lumping road legal production cars in with non road legal and non production cars, prototypes and preproduction test mules is not helpful in my view. --LiamE (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that Matthead did not respond to the comments above, however within 5 minutes of me reverting to the previous version, he undid my edit. A little more discussion, and a little less diving in to make substantial changes without consensus would be good カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Article split

The current version of the article is mixing oranges, apples and bananas. It shows manufacturers claims on top, while results of World Championship racing events are given lowest priority. The edit and talk history proves that the article, similar to internet forums, has become a battle field of car fans, of which some even show a bias against (among others) the country the track is located in. Thus, I am going to create new articles: List of Nordschleife lap times (racing) and List of Nordschleife lap times (sport auto). -- Matthead  Discuß   20:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free, and unless they offer something that this article does not, I will put them up for deletion. The racing times are fine on this article and an article dedicated to Sport Auto times is not required. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest this article stays much as it is listing both race times and production car time plus other ones. The Sport Auto times should certainly be included here but not given undue weight. A seperate article for the sport auto times is warranted I feel though as it is a major source that has unique criteria. This article should remain the place for all sorts of times, but a Sport Auto only article, with its own criteria as decided upon by Sport Auto would be useful for its comparative information. As such I wouldnt recomend a split, but rather a second article that can focus on the Sport Auto info in depth. --LiamE (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the Sport Auto times would be best on the Sport Auto article, rather than a dedicated article just for Sport Auto times? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I added the Sport Auto table to the Sport Auto article. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably the best compromise as it doesn't look like there is enough info between Sport Auto and their 'Ring times to warrant 2 articles. --LiamE (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

New GTR time

This source is in Japanese. Since the article is in English wouldn't it be a good idea to have the link for the source point to, say, a google-translated page? I've checked it and it comes out more or less readable. Definitely gets the point across. A translated page still has a link to the original at the top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.11.213.246 (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone? If there are no objections I will switch the link target to a translated page. Any tips on what is the best Japanese-English page translator out there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.11.213.206 (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I would leave the original source linked. People can use translator sites if they wish. --LiamE (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have left the original source intact, but also added the news story about the time from pistonheads - best of both worlds? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That's perfect, except the formatting of the external link is a little different. Does anyone know how to fix that? Is there really a good reason to have the same information cited in two different languages though? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.11.213.206 (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Categories need to be defined

I originally browsed to this page to post a link to a digital copy of the Radical's owner's manual showing the car's requirements for a 45 minute start up procedure involving a laptop plugged into the ECU, 108 octane fuel, engine rebuilds every 30 hours, transmission inspections/rebuilds after every race, etc. - but then I realized that there is no current definition of "production" in use here. There is no hard rule to decide if any of that information is even relevant. It's no secret that there has been a lot of disagreement here recently and this is at the heart of it. Concrete requirements for what constitutes "production" need to be decided on, and a small paragraph should be added under each heading in the article to inform readers of exactly what type of vehicles are contained in the chart they're looking at. If the requirements are to be that 1. Money can buy it and 2. It can be declared road legal somewhere, then that is all very well, but since most people hear the word "production" and think "Corolla", "assembly line" or something of the like, this must be made clear to the reader, otherwise it is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.11.213.206 (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The definition of what is a production car is very simple. It is what can be cited as such. Nothing more, nothing less. --LiamE (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

But that's exactly the issue here: What can be cited as such? Do you simply have to find a quote of someone calling it a production vehicle? Or at the other end of the spectrum does it need to meet a minimum production volume and meet safety/emissions requirements (and in what market must those requirements be met?) We need specific wording to put on the page: "This list is composed of cars meeting X requirements to be classified as production vehicles." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.11.213.206 (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Liam - my personal opinion is that a production car is: A car that is built by a car manufacturer (not modified by a tuner) Ruf makes cars, they have manufacturer status as do AMG - not a company like Hennesey - A car that is built in numbers higher than one - A car that is road legal in at least one of its markets - and a car that is in standard form, or only has road legal options fitted, from the manufacturers option list. (not including safety/timing equipment) Setting up the car using stock equipment should not have any effect on its production status

But that would be my opinion and as such original research - カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well putting those headings up that say "Production" and "Non-Series/Road Legal" (need to define this as well, I don't even know what it means.) in the first place was someone's opinion and therefore original research by that logic. Unless we can find a dictionary definition of "production vehicle", there is going to have to be a consensus on this.

Tentatively, I would like to suggest the addition of a blurb directly under "Production vehicles" reading: "Vehicles in this table must be built in numbers greater than one and be street legal in at least one target market." This reflects the strictest requirements that all cars currently on the list meet. (as far as I know) I'm sure someone's going to want this sentence modified, so have at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.11.213.206 (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are trying to complicate things unnecessarily. Yes I do mean if you can find a reputable source that says a car is a production car and it can be shown to be road legal it goes on the production car list. No blurb needed as we are not here to define what a production car is and if we tried to we would be opening up a can of worms that would never get closed. Stuff that isnt production/road legal, ie modified cars, cars on slicks, experimental cars, one off, prototypes, stuff that isnt allowed on the road and so on go in the Non-series/road legal section and of course official race record go in their approrpriate sections. --LiamE (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Anon IP editors

While I realise that this does not apply to every IP editor, recently there have been lots of edits by IPs, that are subtly changing the times in the production car table - based on the locations of the IP, it seems like one user using proxies. Can other regular visitors to this page check for such edits - or can an admin semi-protect this article please. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Lexus LFA

1. 2nd hand verbal from a Toyota company exec is a not a robust citation. The Toyota guy can say anything he wants but that does not make it real.
2. Nobody in the world believes that car is as faster than the ACR viper which is basically a race car. And its not going to happen with only 560hp and 3200lbs, unless Toyota has invented a new type of tire, or actually tested a race car.
3. The car might be vapourware still. DEFINATELY not a lap by a production car, so does not belong here.

--CJ DUB (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

1. The LFA's 7:20 lap time is no less truthful than the 2010 Porsche 911 Turbo's 7:39 lap time quoted from a Porsche exec by Autoweek.
2. There are a lot more factors to a good lap time than mere power-to-weight ratios. Vehicle balance, for one, is just as important if not even more so than raw power (the Nissan GT-R with its horrendous power-to-weight ratio has more than proven the point). For example, the LFA has an unprecedentedly low center of gravity of 17 3/4" by using a world's first counter gear to raise the relative height of the torque tube, allowing the engine to be mounted incredibly low in the car [1].
3. Lexus has confirmed orders for the production LFA all over the world, with production to begin in 2010. The quoted lap time was regarding the production car during the production car's official debut at the Nurburgring track.

--Blhsing (talk) 00:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

From wiki WF:P:

Questionable sources Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. (See below.) Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties.

1. The Porsche GT2 example is a not a good idea of what should be in this list, and should also be removed. It does not justify the inclsuion of more poor quality adds.
2. You are not an auto engineer. Neither am I, but those technologies will not make the car faster than a street prep race car like the Viper ACR. The LF-A does not introduce any new "go faster" technologies that did not already exist. Ferrari for example has been mounting engines low in cars for decades, and the Vantage V12 is the nearest comparator using a nearly identical layout, very low midmount, and is nowhere near as fast.
3. There is no evidence that this was a production car.

CJ DUB (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Neither am I, but those technologies will not make the car faster than a street prep race car like the Viper ACR. Since you are not an engineer your personal view is of little use.  Dr. Loosmark  02:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point, except that it doesn't take an engineer to differentiate between a hardcore race prep car and a soupy GT car. CJ DUB (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless WP:NOR applies. You have to find a source to back up your claim.  Dr. Loosmark  03:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

What claim? It has been verified everywhere that the Viper was a higly prepped entry and basically a race car. The LF-A is not a race car in production trim. So how does it do it exactly? Hmm, I'll leave that to you. Getting back to the article, WP:V applies, since the car has such incredible hype and the reference for the lap time does not stand up to wiki scrutiny, being an offhand remark by an Toyota engineer, with no information provided on the specifications of the car, prep, or anything really, that would allow this to be used as a citation. Buddy's assertion "toyota employee said it so it is a good citation" is complete nonsense and a poor argument. 03:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The source provided is no worse than the sources for most laps in the article. If you really want to argue the point find a source that says that the Lexus LFA can't be faster than the Viper ACR or stop edit warring.  Dr. Loosmark  13:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Dude, you're backwards. That LFA reference is no good; and neither are the other useless ones from a company rep. Offhand remark from company rep, that provides nothing for context, does not meet this wiki standard. PERIOD. Remove it CJ DUB (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

First for you I not "dude", you can address me as Dr. Loosmark or just Loosmark if you prefer. Second regarding the source, it is no worse then most sources used for other lap times here.  Dr. Loosmark  23:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"no worse then most sources " is hardly surprising, as most sources here are plain crap, just PR claims and rumors. As they say "when the flag drops, the bullshit stops", so I rather trust official timing in racing. Driven by pros, the fastest lap of the Lexus_LFA#2009_2 race car (with slicks, rear wing etc.) in the 2009 24h race was at an average of 172 km/h (107 mph), which equals a 7:16 lap on the 20.8km track - which actually is "better than 7 minutes 20 seconds", barely. So the Lexus "Production vehicle" in road trim matches or beats the Lexus race car, which has already two 24h races under his belt, finishing 121st and 87th overall? Do you guys really want to make the world believe that the still-not-produced-Lexus road car can beat an Audi R8 5.2 or a 997 GT3 by 20 seconds or more, when the race version is at least 10 seconds slower? Even worse when average race performance is compared. Same for Vipers or Corvettes, Nissan's Godzilla, or those "super sports": front-runners in internet hype, backmarkers in races on the Ring - if they show up at all. The last time a Ferrari was seen racing on the Ring was when Lauda still had two ears. -- Matthead  Discuß   00:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Having had a look into into this there are several points of concern. Firstly production has not started for the LFA so they are either talking about a time for a preproduction model or the race vehicle. I can find no evidence that they tested the LFA in road trim at the Ring but plenty supporting the fact that a preproduction version in race trim was tested there. The sub 7-20 time ties very well with the performance of the race trim vehicle. Based on the above I think the LFA should be moved back to the non series/road legal section until one is tested in road trim. --LiamE (talk) 01:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Just found this so they have taken production prototypes there and the close ups certainly look like road tyres. No mention of times though which is a shame. --LiamE (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the LFA as it was fitted with a roll cage when it set the lap time, and the production car will not be outfitted with a rollcage. Not a legal time. Any problems with this can be discussed on my talk page or here. Thank you.(Hostile Rain (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC))

The roll cage was fitted as a safety measure as did several others cars on the list. Blhsing (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. It's not a production option. If the car is unsafe, it should not be on the track or worse yet, public roads.(Hostile Rain (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC))

It is only responsible and a common sense to equip cars with roll cage when brought to the track. All GT race regulations mandate the use of roll cage for good reasons. The LFA Nurburgring Package is designed to be fitted with a roll cage with sun visors removed from the standard trim. Your suggestion that a roll cage being fitted to a car when brought to the track implies the car is unsafe otherwise is obviously laughable. Of course, if fitting a roll cage or roll bar makes a car non-production, I am going to move all such cars on the list to the non-production section. By the way, moving the content is the right action, not removing it. Blhsing (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Unverifiable stuff about the Lexus LFA lap time on Lexus LFA

Here: Talk:Lexus LFA. Please give input.

Same user as on here (Blhsing), is still using the Toyota employee offhand remark as gospel when it doesn't even meet the wiki standard. CJ DUB (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Porsche GT2 Official

The cited page is very null on details. Does anyone have a more completed cited page, the current one doesn't seem completely reliable. Nem1yan (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is a little lacking on details, however Pistonheads should be considered a reliable source and unless there are other equally reliable sources that suggest that the time given is not true, there are no reasons to treat the time and the source as anything other than accurate.カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

As all of the top manufacturers have video proof of the laps, until a video of the lap time is produced, the Porsche lap time should reflect the fact that NO VIDEO PROOF of the lap exists. Too much to ask?.(Hostile Rain (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC))

A claim is a claim. Almost all the lap times published by magazines are claims too and don't come with video evidence either so I don't see the need to single out the GT2 RS's lap time by specifically adding a note that says "NO VIDEO PROOF". Furthermore, there's no need to use bold font or all-capital letters just because YOU think it's more important than all the other texts. Blhsing (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I see. You don't have a problem with Porsche's claim, BUT you did have a problem with the Dodge Viper ACR's claim. Luckily, Dodge provided proof. Unlike Porsche.(Hostile Rain (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC))

You don't seem to get it and you're twisting my words. What I had problem with was not "the Dodge Viper ACR's claim", but a claim from the Viper Club of America, a Viper owner/fan club little known by those outside of the club itself. I don't have a problem with the claim from Porsche because it is the words of Porsche, the manufacturer of the car itself. I don't have a problem with "claims" from Sport Auto or Evo magazines either because they are well reputed 3rd parties. Again, please refer to Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiablity and reliable sources if you still have a problem. Blhsing (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a shame what some are trying to wikipedia. This is not a question of tastes but a question of facts! Times published by porsche have always been conservative and true. It's the manufacturer claim so you haven't got the right to contest it! If you think it's not correct so you must prove it! Wikipedia is based in facts so do it the correct way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.136.26.14 (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This time is best left off the list until BsBsBs or another credible source gives justification for the entry with no on-board video or verifies the manufacturer claim with reference. Bs: Time-stamp on the GT2 edit: 02:00, 5 March 2013Philonetic (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I see know reason why the GT2 RS time of 7:18 should not be entered. The vast majority of the times on this page have no corroborating video proof, including other manufacturer claims; to not allow Porsche's time screams of blatant hypocrisy and bias. This is a manufacturer we are talking about, and highly respected manufacturer who have been lapping the 'Ring before it became a "fashionable" thing for car companies to do, at that. If you really feel the need you could put something like "Manufacture Claim" or "No Video" next to the time, and not just of the Porsche, but all times without video. Wikipedia is supposed to be a site dealing with fact, not a place witch allows peoples personal opinions to affect what is recorded. Put the damn time up. FlyingPineapple (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyingPineapple (talk • contribs) 16:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

semi-protect this article?

With the amount of IPs editing this article and the amount of their edits either being vandalism or misguided, perhaps it is time to consider semi-protecting this article? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The cited page is very null on details. Does anyone have a more completed cited page, the current one doesn't seem completely reliable. Nem1yan (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is a little lacking on details, however Pistonheads should be considered a reliable source and unless there are other equally reliable sources that suggest that the time given is not true, there are no reasons to treat the time and the source as anything other than accurate.カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. The article seems prone to both active and passive vandalism. People are passionate about their particular car brand and as such tend to edit the article accordingly. Some outright lie others just twist the facts to suit their beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urapnes (talk • contribs) 00:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 Subaru Impreza STi, official: 7' 55"

What is wrong with you people? There is no room for argument, here. Right on their web site, and published, in Subaru's Drive magazine, on 2010.07.16 their 2011 factory Impreza clocked a 7'55". They've even got a video on it. That's not going to be something Fuji Heavy Industries is going to lie about. That is not something Tommi Mäkinen's going to lie about. I already put this in, once. I well know, we got some really big egos, in control of this here page. So, if it's the credit you people want, for sourcing this thing? Then, go ahead. By all means. You can have the credit. Fine by me. Fair enough? If you people lean the other way, that this whole thing's a publicity stunt? That it never happened? That Subaru and Tommi Mäkinen are in collusion, lying about the whole thing? That they cooked-up the video? Then, you people are dimwits. Source: http://www.subaru.com/enthusiasts/index.html] 05:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.68.123 (talk)

You are correct there is no room for argument, it is a modified car as per source. --LiamE (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I am far too sleepy to find the source right now (but will later if requested) but the recent Impreza time was a prototype of the 2011 STi with a number of evaluation parts fitted - ie. not a production model. It's a good time and a deserves its place on the article, but it can't be on the production car section. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The source currently used in the article where it correctly listed in the non road legal/series section is very clear on that, it even lists the parts. No need to look further. --LiamE (talk) 03:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

easy then. It is correctly cited and in the correct section. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Worth a footnote that this is the fastest time by a 4-door? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.220.26 (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Why the Impreza is back on the production models section, when clearly it's not the right place for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamperesuperstars (talk • contribs) 15:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Done by Philonetic (talk) 09:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Ferrari 599XX

It's not a production car, it's a production car derived, and it's not road-legal road car, so let's remove the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.48.157.16 (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

agreed. it is not road legal, is it? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ferrari describe it as "production derived" as opposed to a production car. Its a non-road legal prototype that was running on slicks and you cant buy one. It must go in the non-series/road legal section. If they do end up selling them and it runs a lap in road legal trim of course it can then be revisited. --LiamE (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of not a production car,

the Pagani Zonda R ran a 6:47 around the N-Ring, but does it fall in the category with the Ferrari 599XX?

- http://theclippingpoint.blogspot.com/2010/07/pagani-zonda-r-does-627-at-nurburgring.html

- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPd0ATqvoJM&feature=player_embedded#!

Jamie. 31st July 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.155.160 (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup the Zonda R is already listed in the same section as the 599xx. Its not road legal and Pagani dont intend to make a road legal version. --LiamE (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Track length

I added citation tags for track distances, claims for non-standard distances need to be verified. Needcitationsppl (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC).

You seem to have added them for 20,832m track lenghts. For modern laptimes that is the standard complete lap and is the default assumption for any lap not timed by Sport Auto. Sport Auto times are invariably given for the 20,600m lap distance. Where it is not clear which distance was used it is probably best to leave the field blank. --LiamE (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Manufacturer times, Sport auto times and Evo magazine times are all done in the 20.6km lap, Autobild is the only magazine that tests in the full 20.832km lap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.159.55.83 (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Mini Cooper time

The 8:52 lap time of a Mini Cooper S links to the original Mini, I can't find anything on Google about this lap time but as a Classic Mini owner I strongly believe it would have been the new Mini Cooper S that set this time as the old Cooper S had a top speed of approx. 120mph. Avergae speed of around 90mph seems unlikely unless significant work was done on the Mini which surely means it is no longer a production vehicle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.29.16 (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Lexus LFA Nordschleife Package

I removed the part that the length of the circuit is unclear. Both the article in Thetruthaboutcars (which was written with input from the Deputy Chief Engineer of the LFA) and the press release of Toyota (added) mention the 20.6 km track length. BsBsBs (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, after careful checking of the sources: There is no "Nürburgring Edition." That could be a separate car. Its was an LFA with a "Nürburgring Package" - i.e. an LFA with an optional extra (to the tune of $70,000 ....) BsBsBs (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Viper ACR lap time Validation Required

Next ACR needs the new viper competition crate motor installed (800hp/695ft-lbs.) power band to 7000rpms, plus lighter, the new traction control, gearing. Can crush the euro trash exotics that are 5times the amount. :) viper acr-x wiki page says that it did the ring in 7:03.058, why isn't listed under non street vehicles????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.160.109 (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I intend to remove it because there is no credible sources for this rumour, not even information about the specifications of the cars that were used. Also as a side issue am wondering doesn't production vehicle imply that the vehicle is at factory default i,e the issue of tires used during the test, shouldn't they be the factory fitted specification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.194.174 (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I am always inclined to leave these up for a few days unverified, because actual verification takes a while. However, I could find no further proof, and challenges remained unanswered. Contacts at the Ring told me that Coronel was there last week, and went home. They had nothing on that listed Viper record. I guess we remove it until proof becomes available. BsBsBs (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: please sign your comments. Thank you. BsBsBs (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Stop removing the time posted by the 2010 Dodge Viper ACR. It is a manufacturers time as set by SRT. The video will be posted soon. The Porsche GT2 RS time is up and has NEVER been proven with a video. The tires used by the ACR are well known and are OEM Michelin Sport Cups. Same street legal tires used by the Porsche. It looks to me like the Lexus fanboi's are determined to keep removing the time.(Hostile Rain (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC))

The only "source" for the Dodge Viper ACR's lap time so far is a forum post on Viper Club of America[2]. The Porsche GT2 RS's lap time, though not video-confirmed or witnessed/validated by any 3rd-party, at least comes from Porsche's official PR on its official website[3]. There's a clear difference between the sources of the two. If official confirmation for the Viper ACR's lap time is coming "soon" like you said, it will get posted on SRT or Dodge's official websites in due time. Until then, please refrain from adding lap times not posted by manufacturer officials or reputable 3rd-parties. Blhsing (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, when it comes to Viper, the VCA is more more "official" then you think. If you think that the President of the Viper Club of America would release a statement that is not based on fact and open Dodge to the ridicule an incorrect time claim would incite, you are not using your head. BTG and other site's are privy to the times. You and the rest of the Lexus fanboi's keep your head in the sand when it comes to this, and I'll expect an apology when the video is posted. (Hostile Rain (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC))

You are not doing your cause a favor by calling other people "fanboi's" (sic). Although I personally don't see a reason to doubt the truthfulness of the lap time posted by whom appears to be the president of the Viper Club of America, it is simply per Wikipedia's guidelines to verifiability that self-serving forum postings are generally not acceptable sources. When the onboard video footage and/or official PR are published as promised by that forum post, you can rest assured that the Viper ACR's lap time will be included on this page with a source worthy of Wikipedia's standards. Blhsing (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I also find it funny that despite the lap time quoted in the president of the Viper Club of America's original post being "7:12 and change", it later became "7:12.13" all by itself. When I tried to track down the original source of this "7:12.13" figure, all references to this figure eventually point their source to an article on Torque News[4], which in turn quotes its source in the footnote: "Note: Many sources are stating that the Viper ran a 7:12 and "some change", while Wikipedia's page on the Nürburgring is reporting that time to be a 7:12.13." So guess what, Wikipedia just became a source of itself! Bravo! Blhsing (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Folks, please try to observe Wikipedia policies and standards. Contributions must be verifiable and referenced to a reliable source. Forum postings, personal messages, tweets etc expressly do not qualify. BsBsBs (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a FYI. The Video and "official" announcement of the 2010 Dodge Viper ACR's laptime of 7:12:13 will be made tomorrow or the next day. Someone who is better at editing in the proper format please post it. Thanks.(Hostile Rain (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC))

I don't see any source mentioning what tires were used for the Viper ACR's time attack. If you find one, please add it along with your update to the note of what tires were used. Blhsing (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If you took the time to read the Official anouncemnet, you would see that it says "Showroom stock 2010 Dodge Viper ACR". The ACR comes stock with Michelin Pilot Sport Cup's. JUST like the Porsche that has no video proof of it's lap time. Look up the 2008-2010 ACR on wiki. It says Michelin Pilot sport cup.(Hostile Rain (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC))

The press release stated that that stock car comes with the Michelin Pilot Sport Cup tires, but it did not state that the Viper ACR that was used during the Nordschleife lap used the tires. I contacted Chrysler, and Chrysler spokesperson Daniel Reid wrote back: "The team used the factory stock Michelin Pilot Sport Cup tires for all the runs in the Viper ACR." I am not using this in an edit, because it could be called Original Research. I have the email if someone wants it. That settles the issue for me. BsBsBs (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I just moved the lap time of the Viper ACR to the non-road-legal section after noticing in the official video that the Viper ACR used for the record run was equipped with the track extension to the front splitter that is not legal for road use according to the Viper ACR's official owner's manual[5]. The detachable track extension is what allows the car to be aerodynamically balanced with such an unusually large rear wing but at the same time violates the federal bumper law as it extends beyond the front bumper.[6] Feel free to discuss if anyone sees an issue with the move. Blhsing (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely bogus claim by Blhsing. The manual states "The track extension should only be used during closed circuit track events. The track extension can cause premature damage to your vehicle if used on public roads". Nowhere does it say NOT street legal. Nice try though. As a matter of fact it is a "consumable item" and is meant to be replaced when worn. Nice try, your bias is showing through. I am reporting you due to your inability to be an impartial editor. and also for trying to start an "edit war".(Hostile Rain (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC))

Added reference to the research from compositesworld.com above for your information. Read it before you disagree. Blhsing (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere in that article does it say the car is NOT street legal when running the track extension. This was actually an argument used when the 2009 ACR ran the 7:22:1 and was debunked then. The car is street legal even with the track extension on. Again, you have been reported and I hope you enjoyed showing your bias against other cars and editors. (Hostile Rain (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC))

I have researched as many site's as possible and still cannot find anything stating the Dodge Viper ACR with track extension fitted is not street legal. As a matter of fact, if you look on the page below this section, it says, " A car that is legal anywhere in the EU is automatically legal in Germany. Since 2009, the certificate ( European Community Whole Vehicle Type Approval) is issued on an European basis anyway. As long as the car can be legally driven on a public road to the Ring (and not on a trailer), it qualifies. A Dodge Viper by the way already has the certificate". 1st it was the tires, then it was the splitter extension. Whats next?. Perhaps another editor could look at this page, and put the cars back where they belong. Thanks (Hostile Rain (talk) 05:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC))

See my comments below. It looks like we all agree that the car needs to be road legal according to applicable (i.e. German or EU) law. U.S. bumper law does not apply here, but many other EU laws do. Having a road legal certificate is one thing, conforming to the certificate is another. Technically, under German and EU law, a car is in violation if the band-aid in the first aid kit has expired. (Don't laugh, people do get cited for this). However, this cannot be determined from sitting in front of a computer. Please set the matter aside, it cannot be solved this way. BsBsBs (talk) 11:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Road legality

Should have an astericks on vehicles that are not WORLD, "street legal" or have a seperate list. If your going to be that vague, The Ultima GTR would probably crush even the Radical, A KIT CAR assembled at the plant is STILL IS A PRODUCTION CAR. I have amended the heading "Production vehicles" to "Production / road-legal vehicles" to put it in sync with the follow-on list that has "Non-series/non-road-legal vehicles".

Which brings us to the topic of what is "road legal." The Ring is considered a public road (except when closed for racing) and German/EU rules apply. Under German/EU law, a "production car" is one that has achieved European type approval and is legal to be driven on the open roads. A car that is "road legal" in another part of the world may not be legal in Europe. I assume that cars listed under this heading should be legal to drive to the Ring under their own power and should survive a routine traffic stop. Please discuss. BsBsBs (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Long overdue indeed. Might I add that that the slash symbol ("/") means "or", and in this case we really need the list to be of both production AND road-legal vehicles. But if we change the heading to "Production and road-legal vehicles", the "and" in this case could also have the meaning of "union", possibly making the heading confused as "production vehicles and road-legal vehicles" (a union of two separate lists), effectively having the same semantics as "production / road-legal vehicles". This is the pitfall of a natural language, of course. A more precise heading would be "Vehicles that are both production and road-legal", but that sounds kind of wordy. Any better suggestions? Blhsing (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be solved with a complicated heading. A sentence that the car must be street legal according to applicable law suffices. Under German and now European law, the manufacturer of a production vehicle obtains a certificate, and all cars adhering to this certificate are legal. Single cars imported from abroad can be made legal with little fuss. A car that is legal anywhere in the EU is automatically legal in Germany. Since 2009, the certificate ( European Community Whole Vehicle Type Approval) is issued on an European basis anyway. As long as the car can be legally driven on a public road to the Ring (and not on a trailer), it qualifies. A Dodge Viper by the way already has the certificate. Sure, a one-off car can be made street-legal. To make it a "production" car, a certain production number is usually needed for homologation. 200? 500? Someone pick a number. BsBsBs (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not a page to define what a production car is so we simply take what can be sourced as such, anything else is OR. If it isn't a one off, is for sale to the public and a reliable source says its a production car then it is a production car. --LiamE (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Lists don't work that way. List usually define as precisely as possible what they include and exclude. This would become a very short list if every entry would need the word "production car" in a source. In the future, anyone could get on the list, simnply by writing "production car" in a press release. A lot of the race cars listed could be on the list. Sure, anyone can buy them, and they are being produced. Establishing criteria for list inclusion or exclusion is no OR. Standing next to the Ring with your own stopwatch is. Sorry, this needs a little more work. BsBsBs (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I have done a little more digging. When looking for a definition of "production vehicle," one finds a lot of mentions of what isn't a "production vehicle," but very little of what is. Autoweek even claims that "there is no specific 'production vehicle' definition." With A LOT of digging I found this official definition in the UK:"Production Vehicle: A vehicle of a make, model and type mass produced by the vehicle manufacturer." BsBsBs (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. As there is no clear definition we can only go on what can be sourced as such. This list enforcing any arbitrary restrictions can only be OR. If a reputable third party says it is a production car for our purposes it is. --LiamE (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, I have to beg to differ. When it comes to the list definition, we cannot just rely on third parties alone

• The criteria of a list are up to the list editors. There is a list title and the definition of the list. If someone would decide to compile a "List of red-haired triplets", then it would be ok to say "For the purpose of this list 'triplet' means identical triplet, and 'red-haired' means natural color, undyed hair." This has nothing to do with OR.
• This exact definition is especially important if the title of the list is vague, as seems to be the case here
• In any case, there appears to be a definition of "Production vehicle" from a reliable (government) source, see above. I also wikilinked the title to the entry for Production vehicle
• If a reputable third party says that it is a production vehicle, even better. BsBsBs (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to OR. Wikipedia relies ENTIRELY on what can be sourced. Nothing else. --LiamE (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that articles in WP must be reliably sourced. This list is a prime example. On the production list, I count more than 40 entries without a single reference. Spot checking just a few casts doubts on the reliability of many cited sources. The very first reference for instance, which supposedly backs up the top record holder, does not even mention the Nürburgring, or any record on it.

While everything that goes on a list needs a reliable source, the scope of a list demands even more careful attention. The scope of the list is usually given in the first paragraph of a list. A list on Wikipedia lives and dies by that definition. By its very nature, that definition is created by the authors of the article. It would be desirable that the definition of a list is backed-up by a reliable source, but this is not the rule, neither in theory nor in practice. Reliable sources rarely write definitions for Wikipedia lists.

Let's look at the beginnings of some real live lists, picked in haste and at random (except for the last two):

• World's largest cities "ranks the world's largest cities, in population and/or land area, using a variety of ranking methods." It is a meta list of list entries.
• List of the oldest buildings in the United States "attempts to list the oldest extant freestanding buildings constructed in the United States of America by Europeans (English, Spanish, Dutch, French, Swedish, Germans), Africans, Native Americans and other immigrants and native born people." (This must have taken some work ...)
• List of sovereign states gives "an overview of states around the world with information on the status and recognition of their sovereignty." It does so in two columns, one for UN membership, one for sovereignty disputes.
• Wheel-driven land speed record "differs from the absolute land speed record in requiring that the vehicle be wheel-driven; thus, vehicles that use thrust from a jet engine or rocket are ineligible (although the use of such engines is permitted if they drive the wheels)."
• List of fastest production cars supplies "a progressive history of the world's fastest street-legal production car over the years (as opposed to concept cars or modified cars)." It also acknowledges that "comparing claimed speeds of the "fastest car(s) in the world", especially in historical cases, is difficult due to there being no standardized method for determining the top speed, nor a central authority to verify any such claims."
• A List of discontinued Volkswagen Group petrol engines should not need more explanation. Apparently, it does: "The spark-ignition petrol engines listed below were formerly used by various marques of automobiles and commercial vehicles of the German automotive concern, Volkswagen Group, and also in Volkswagen Industrial Motor applications, but are now discontinued. All listed engines operate on the four-stroke cycle, and unless stated otherwise, use a wet sump lubrication system, and are water cooled." (Inevitably, the first entry is an aircooled engine.)

The Wikipedia Manual of Style/Lists requires that "the contents of an article that is a stand-alone list should be clear. If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list." It also says that "the precise inclusion criterion of the list should be spelled out in the lead section." Both the main list/article itself and the embedded lists currently lack the required precise inclusion criteria.

I agree 100% on the necessity of reliable sources for every entry. Unsourced entries need to be removed. The validity of new entries must be checked with great vigilance. There also is a need to precisely define what goes where on these lists, which lightens the chore of policing the lists, and which hopefully will reduce the frequency of edit wars. This discussion is bringing us closer to that goal. BsBsBs (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

So you found a broken link on the first entry? Repair or remove the reference. If you feel others need more sourcing add a citation needed tag. Some could certainly do with it. But don't be too hasty with deletion, particularly with those that are supported by magazine articles. There is a great deal of scrutiny of entries that appear towards the top of the list, less so in the lower end of the list but then again down there there is far less incentive for exaggeration.

As for the question at hand regarding what is a production car there are clearly any number of definitions and this page is simply not the place to arbitrarily pick one over all others. For instance the link you provided that supposedly defined what a production car was did nothing of the sort and only mentioned what is considered a mass production vehicle for one purpose. If we were to place a limit based of number built where do you think we would be able to get those figures from? And when would a car be eligible for the list? When the required number has been made? Been sold? The intention to make x number announced? If you feel Wikipedia would benefit from such a list and you think such issues are surmountable feel free to start yet another Nurburgring lap time page. As it stands the definition that has been used on this page for a production road legal vehicle is what can be cited as such and has been for 5 or 6 years. I don't see that changing. --LiamE (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We can't pound the table insisting on reliable sources and then have a cavalier attitude towards completely unsourced material. We can't say "a production vehicle is whatever a reliable source says" and then attack a source if it says so. (Careful, that British source can take your car off the streets.)

As for the definition, the glaring problem is that there is none. Never has been. Wikipedia expressly demands definition. Precise definition. Going through the discussions, many editors had demanded that definition again and again. It's hard, and it was not done. It must be done. A list with no definition makes for a low quality list that quickly sinks into irrelevance. Precise definitions are even more important when it comes to any records, and record keeping. As practiced in Wikipedia, as required by the rules, a list is the place for a definition, and the place is right in the first sentence of the list.

Regarding the invitation to create a new list, no thanks. There already are List of Nordschleife lap times (racing) and List of Nordschleife lap times (sport auto). These splits were caused due to a lack of clear definition, and it would not be helpful to create yet a new one. Even after the splits, the calls for definition continued. With clear definitions, these senseless schisms could quite possibly be ended. Right now, we need a disambiguation page just for the different lists of Nordschleife lap times. BsBsBs (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as the "definition that has been used on this page for a production road legal vehicle is what can be cited as such and has been for 5 or 6 years" goes:

• The (undefined) category "Production vehicles" exists since 30 Jul 2008, when Editor Roguegeek thankfully made the effort of bringing some long needed order to the list.

• The (undefined) category "Production / road-legal vehicles" ( later renamed to "Production, street legal vehicles" after discussion) exists since 28 September 2011, when I brought it in congruence with the (likewise undefined) "Non-series/non-road-legal vehicles" category.

The idea of Wikipedia is that it evolves and gets better over time. The quest for continuous improvement is a traditional enemy of "it always has been that way." At some point, there comes a time for a house cleaning, and there always will be people who are comfortable in the current mess. BsBsBs (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be the only person that thinks the list is undefined. The previous split of the Racing data was so that could go into detail and the split of SportAuto data was to produce a list with more directly comparable times. This list is an inclusive list that includes cars SportAuto have not tested and those that would be excluded by them for any number of reasons. You can continue to argue the toss as long as you like but this list will remain for cars that can be reliably sourced as road legal production cars. Furthermore you have suggested no workable alternative. --LiamE (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm the only person? This discussion is from top top bottom chockablock full with demands for definition. I see one person that keeps saying we don't need one. This list already created two forks because there was no definition, to be exact because the "article is mixing oranges, apples and bananas." Wikipedia demands a definition. Logic demands a definition. If there is agreement to constructively work on one, then we'll do it. I'm ready. I complete agree that this list should remain for cars that can be reliably sourced as road legal production cars. The fundamental premise for this is that the list defines what a road legal production car is - a far as this list goes. BsBsBs (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No. We are not here to decide what is road legal or what is a production car. This list exists simply to collate times for cars that have been defined as such by other parties. Now, what alternative do you propose? --LiamE (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

With a little will for constructive, responsible cooperation, matters should be quite evident, especially to longterm and seasoned editors who should know better. Once someone quotes WP:OR, then we can assume familiarity with the rest of the rules. I cite again the pertinent parts of The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists:

• "The precise inclusion criterion of the list should be spelled out in the lead section, not the title"
• "The list title should not be misleading"
• "The contents of an article that is a stand-alone list should be clear."
• "Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list."
• "However short or schematic a list description, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view applies "
• "Wikipedia:Featured list criteria recommends that [a list] has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list."

The guidance essay Lists in Wikipedia says:

• "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. "
• "Beware of those cases in which the definitions themselves are disputed. "
• "Many lists on Wikipedia have been created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or whom should be included only from the name of the list. Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit. "
• "To avoid problems with lists, the criteria for inclusion must comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. That is, if someone is listed as an X, that person must have been identified as an X by a reliable published source."
• "Also be aware of original research when selecting the criteria for inclusion: use a criterion that is widely agreed upon rather than inventing new criteria that cannot be verified as notable or that is not widely accepted."

In short, a list an Wikipedia must have clear, precise inclusion criteria. The criteria must observe WP:NPOV, must be widely agreed upon and notable.

Disregarding these rules and simply collating what has been said elsewhere can be a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

As long as these rules are disregarded, and as long as it is being argued that a definition is not necessary, spending the work on a (certainly nontrivial) definition is a waste of time. If list editors are not able to comply with the rules, then they implicitly admit that the list is not encyclopaedic. If editors declare that they are unable to bring the list in compliance, the honorable thing to do would be to nominate the list for deletion. BsBsBs (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

And still you suggest no workable alternative. --LiamE (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I hear the sound of a broken record. I have addressed this issue in the preceding paragraph and in other contributions. See below for some rough ideas. Are you willing to abide by WP rules or not? BsBsBs (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, to be frank I must have missed it in the rambling and quoting of policy. Try and be to the point. --LiamE (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The expected answer is: "Of course I will abide by the rules and policies of Wikipedia. I will constructively take part in the consensus-finding process in regards to the required inclusion criteria."

The walls of text would not have been necessary if mentions of rules would not constantly be followed by pouting, foot-stomping, and mono-syllabic "no!". The excerpts are here as a courtesy to readers who don't want to look up the rules themselves. A mere mention of the rules should suffice, but sadly, in this case it does not seem to. BsBsBs (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Your posting prompted me to have a look at your posting history. This isn't the first time you've tried to make a drama where none existed, is it? I think you are just looking for another article to troll for drama. Now you can write another essay, you can quote more rules without even suggesting how the article does or does not follow them, or you could actually write what you want to do or suggest how the article could be improved. I'm easy whatever you decide to do. --LiamE (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are you sidestepping the issue? Your statement that I "can quote more rules without even suggesting how the article does or does not follow them," is perplexing. The rules demand a definition. The article does not deliver a definition. The article does not follow the rules. Easy to understand. And while on the topic of edit history, there is one editor who has been steadfastly opposing a definition. If that editor abandons this untenable position, then we can get to work. If he does not, then the atmosphere will not be conducive to productive work. BsBsBs (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to add that German/EU law is not applicable internationally. Track location notwithstanding, for a vehicle to appear in the road legal production category it should be required to fall under all EU and North American (even Canadian) road legal standards. For a vehicle to be considered a "production" model it should by definition be "mass produced" and have at least 500 sales in the same year of the model used. The very definition of mass production stipulates that it "involves making many copies of products... using assembly line techniques to partially complete products" If entries are regulated in this manner then "kit" vehicles, decade long development platforms, and race-specific non-road worthy vehicles would be more easily categorized, and their category debated less often. This entire list needs to be refreshed and evaluated to some degree of formal regulation, including the removal of all half-sourced or incomplete entries. Philonetic (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please keep the discussion civil and don't revert to edit warring, otherwise the users will be blocked, and the article will be protected to be edited by administrators only. These issues can simply be resolved by providing references to reliable sources. Unsourced material can be removed as it has no place in the article and will not be replaced until adequately sourced, so please avoid making false claims of vandalism. Thank you for your comprehension. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Make articles, not war

Gentlepersons, please STOP THE EDIT WARRING IMMEDIATELY. A lot of good content is getting killed by the fallout. The war seriously disrupts the utility of this list. It is getting increasingly impossible to come to a sensible conclusion. If the warring continues, then I have no other choice than to request semi-protection, and to report ALL parties involved in the war. I have reinstated the most recent version that appears to make some sense.

There is no doubt that the Viper was fast around the ring. It is a true production car. So is the LFA.

What we need is a definition for road-legal and production vehicle. Unless this definition is found and agreed upon, please refrain from further changes. Note: U.S. bumper rules do not apply in Germany. Europe has very strict and clear rules about what is a road legal vehicle. Once it is certified as such, it is quite simple to determine whether it still complies with these rules. However, this determination cannot be made from an armchair in front of a computer and by reading factory brochures. So please set discussions about a front splitter aside for the moment. Someone who works for Germany's TÜV could make this determination in a few minutes and for a nominal charge. We cannot do this remotely.

So please, drop your guns, and hold your horses. Thank you. BsBsBs (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Front splitter etc.

I have rolled-back the front splitter edit. As noted above, short of an official declaration that modifications to the car were road legal or not, there is no reliable source for the claim of the non-legal front splitter, the car needs the benefit of the doubt, and the edit should be viewed as a WP:Good faith edit.

As far as road legality goes:

• NHTSA/FMVSS is not pertinent on the Ring. The Ring is in Germany and comes under German/EU law.
• Real production vehicles fall under the European Community Whole Vehicle Type Approval (ECWVTA) regulations
• European Community Small Series Type Approval (ECSSTA) is for very small series (limited registration ceiling 75)

It is debatable whether this list should insist on ECWVTA as the benchmark for "road legal", or if it also admits ECSSTA. Please find consensus. Both are "road legal," and whether a run of 75 is "production" is a matter of opinion.

One-offs that require an Individual Vehicle Approval should be excluded as a clear sign of "non-production" car. These IVAs are only legal in the country where they have been obtained. For instance, a kit car that has received an IVA in France cannot be registered in Germany without a German IVA (or "Einzelzulassung").

Cars that have ECWVTA or ECSSTA come with a Certificate of Conformity, which is accepted as proof of road legality by any EU country, regardless of the origin of the car. So equipped, you can buy the car anywhere in Europe and register it anywhere in Europe.

• To maintain conformity, most additions to the car must either be type approved (via ECE registration or similar), or inspected by a Technical Service (such as TÜV in Germany). They must be added to the vehicle papers. Compliance with this can only be checked by inspection of the car and the papers. Which would be Original Research ....

Come to think of it, a lot of entries on this list have no references. With all the recent edit warring, it has become very possible that nonsensical entries have infiltrated the list. Please find references to reliable sources and reference old and new work. All entries must be verifiable. If they are not, they can and should be deleted.

Also, if any have gripes with entries, please discuss them first, or at least give a rationale for your edit on this talk page. Thank you. BsBsBs (talk) 11:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"It is debatable whether this list should insist on ECWVTA as the benchmark for "road legal"" Agreed 100%, but please keep this topic in "Road Legality" to maintain consolidation. "a lot of entries on this list have no references... they can and should be deleted" Agreed. Beginning June 1st 2013, all incomplete and unsourced entries will begin disappearing if not completed or reliably sourced. The few people that consistently moderate this page have neither the time nor inclination to research and fill in the details of every entry. Philonetic (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Wordless, anonymous edits

• Please do not remove entries from this list without giving a reason.
• Please add entries to this list only with references to reliable sources, preferably citing an official statement, a video, and a mention of tires used.
• Please take part in the consensus-finding process of what is a "production, road-legal vehicle".

A list lives and dies by its definition.

Also, I have removed the Viper ACR from the Non-series/non-road-legal vehicles. Reasons: No reference, no source. The Chrysler press release covering the Viper ACR in the production class does not mention it. It talks about a start of testing on Sept 12 and an end of testing on Sept 14. A record on Sept 13 was not mentioned. This was most likely a duplicate entry. If I'm wrong, please re-insert with proper references.

Thank you! BsBsBs (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 27 February 2013

The following entry is nothing more than a manufacturer claim, no official time or video confirmation to be found. 7:18 Porsche 911 GT2 RS Timo Kluck April 2010 [12] [12] Manufacturer claim. Michelin Pilot Sport Cup Plus N2 tires. Quote from article: "Oh, and Porsche says this car will lap the Nürburgring Nordschleife in 7 minutes, 18 seconds" This does not justify a lap time. Removed.

Edit request from , 16 February 2013

The following entry is false, it is a composed theoretical best time when compiling best times from each section, there is no video confirmation.

7:19.18 Nissan GT-R (2013) Toshio Suzuki 14 May 2012 Nissan conducted test with standard Dunlop run-flat tires. Video confirmed. Nissan GT-R 2013 Official Video (11/2012).[13]

Please remove.

Agreed. I went looking around and couldn't find a time that was any faster than what is listed already, so I've removed it. —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 20:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request from , 7 October 2011

The first 2 records on this list show no evidence of the times claimed. Please remove

199.75.180.199 (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Done by User:LiamE. — Bility (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 7 October 2011

Some idiot has added 2 vehicles at the top as a joke. They just need to be deleted from the fastest 2 spots. 24.249.99.67 (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Done --LiamE (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Production, street-legal vehicles

Following the intensive discussions (see above), I have provided an attempt on the "unambiguous statements of membership criteria" for "Production, street-legal vehicles." These criteria are required as per Lists in Wikipedia, and were missing. The criteria are based on discussions with volume manufacturers, conducted over several months. The criteria condense the ideas set forth in "Front splitter etc." (see above), which remained unopposed for an extended time. (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It makes me sad that an honest, good faith attempt to abide by the rules is being attacked twice. It had been established in the discussions above that a list MUST have inclusion and exclusion criteria. The rules are cited above. There was one editor that had opposed compliance with the rules before. It is the same editor who did two reverts. This editor had later conceded that criteria are needed, only to complain that none are forthcoming. Now that a good faith attempt for criteria has been made, that editor goes on a revert rampage. The way it works here is that matters are being discussed, and/or cooperatively solved. It is quite unproductive to come up with solutions only to see them deleted in an arrogant way. Reverts with snippy remarks do not agree with the spirit of WP. The matter is complicated and needs a solution. I am very open to a collaborative solution, but I am opposed to edit wars. I had been concerned that this would happen after this editor would not commit to abiding by the rules before. My concerns appear to be justified. Please note that another revert will collide with 3RR. I am asking editors to join this discussion and to solve this in a collaborative way. I do not buy into "no support" if there is only one editor who runs roughshod over this list and attempts to impose anarchy rule on it. BsBsBs (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Get consensus or drop it. You are trying to impose your arbitrary rules on an existing list edited by 100 plus other editors without issue. You have a history edit warring, disruptive editing and drama. Please don't bring it here. Feel free to ask for a vote between the existing rules (Unmodifed, road legal, not a prototype) vs your arbitrary rule set. Until then the status quo ante should remain. --LiamE (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The only consensus that does not exist is with one editor who wants a list without definition. This violates the rules of Wikipedia. It also has driven away many editors, spawned forks, and puts the list in danger of losing its relevancy. Again, editors are invited to cooperate on the creation of inclusion and exclusion criteria. A list without such criteria simply is not allowed. And please, refrain from ordering me around. It will not work. The criteria proposed are everything but arbitrary. They are based on the input of production car manufacturers who have the cars on the ring. They all support this carefully chosen minimum rule set. It may be a bit technical, and it requires an understanding of the matters involved, but that is the nature of the beast BsBsBs (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The current list has a definition. I have told you what it is on multiple occasions. Feel free to use that one in the article rather than the unworkable rubbish you are trying to impose. Oh and if you wish to continue to force your views onto the article at least use English punctuation. --LiamE (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

A.) The list has a definition? Could I please be enlightened where in the void between "Production, street-legal vehicles" and the list that definition can be found - now that it has been removed AGAIN?

B.) "Unworkable rubbish" is highly uncivilized.

C.) Your reverts and arguments are highly uncooperative and disruptive. I don't see any attempt to come to a workable solution.

D.) Once we come to a cooperative solution, I will welcome your input on the proper English punctuation. Complaining about punctuation in a deleted paragraph is not very productive. It becomes humorous in a sentence that reads "Get concesus. And when you get concensus use english punctuation please."

As long as there are only invectives, I see no other solution than to reinstate the original edit. Another revert would break 3RR. As you had announced your disregard of WP policies on numerous occasions, you should either state that you will abide by the rules, or remove yourself from the discussion. BsBsBs (talk) 13:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

A) The working definition for the list is unmodified cars that can be cited as road legal production cars. Feel free to add that definition while a consensus is reached. Changing that definition unilaterally and trying to enforce that change without support is very unhelpful and is clearly leading to article disruption. Please get consensus for such a major change. Until such consensus is found the status quo ante should be left in place.

B) You may see it as uncivilised. However it is accurate. Exactly who is going to be checking the certification, what about cars from outside Europe and where exactly are we getting the production figures from and why should road legal tyres that are not factory fit discount a time are a few question that spring to mind.

C) You dont see me wanting to find a workable solution because you don't want to. It has become clear to me all you want is drama. I do not want drama I wish you to seek consensus but you wont.

D) " Both „production“ and „street legal“ " is not English punctuation. That you find that being pointed out humourous is frankly baffling. I do not disregard WP, in fact I follow it very carefully. It is clear to me that you have come here looking for drama and I think I am being used as a pawn in that. On that basis I will refrain from all future direct discussion with you as it can no longer be productive. If you are unwilling to start a vote calling for consensus on this point I will start that one week from now. In the mean time, as mentioned before the status quo ante should remain in place until consensus for such a major change is reached. Adding the currently used definition while discussion is taking place would improve the article without controversy.

You can stop "warning" me about 3RR while repeatedly reverting the article. It does nothing to distract from your article disruption. Now I don't for one second think you will self revert while consensus is sought but I will not be party to the article disruption you seem to be going out of your way to seek. On that basis I will not edit the article again in the next week other than in the case of blatant vandalism. --LiamE (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

A.) Maybe I am blind, but there is no definition. I can't find "This is a list of Nordschleife lap times of unmodified cars that can be cited as road legal production cars." (Which would be a quite silly definition anyway. Once a blogger who is paid $25 for an article writes that a Pagani Zonda is a "road legal production car", by that imagined definition, the Zonda would land on the list.)

B.) "Unworkable rubbish" is uncivil.

C.) I want a workable solution. There seems to be one editor who is opposing it, and who has done so for quite some while.

D.) There is no interpunction in „production“ and „street legal“. Interpunction is the insertion of points (or full stops for you), commas etc. What I find humorous is that someone complains about interpunction while spelling consensus as "concensus" and who writes "English" as "english." This is all besides the point, but you brought interpunction up.

Vote calling? Consensus? Do you see any others taking part in this alleged consensus building? There had been animated discussions about all this years ago, and editors after editors did throw up their hands in disgust and went elsewhere.

The warning about 3RR is required in case action needs to be taken.

As to your points: Exactly who is going to be checking the certification? The manufacturers state that they have the required certification. We are not in the checking business, we are in the citing business. What about cars from outside Europe? Both the Viper and the Corvette are already compliant. If you want to sell the car in Europe, you need that paperwork. Where exactly are we getting the production figures from? Did I mention production numbers? Why should road legal tyres that are not factory fit discount a time? They don't. In Europe, a tire must be type approved according to ECE R-30. Any type approved tire is "street legal." A racing slick without profile and without a type approval is not street legal. Taking the certification route also solves the problem of possibly illegal modifications. In Europe (and we are on a public road in Europe) what may or may not be modified, and with what is carefully regulated. BsBsBs (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring my article holiday for a moment I will leave you with a few points. Punctuation specifically Quotation mark, use English ones. As for B) Suck it up and deal with it. Your interminable windbaggery here and elsewhere has repeatedly caused otherwise civil editors to be uncivil to you. Have a good think about your own posting style. And no a warning is not required for 3RR action. Did you mention production numbers? Yes. "200? 500? Someone pick a number" ring any bells? As for the Zonda, its been in the list for years, along with Konigseggs, Rufs and many other extremely limited production cars. You seem to want to change the list from a list of production cars to list of mass production cars and don't seem to think consensus is required for such a huge change. It is. The list you want to change this list into would only be a subset of this list for no benefit other than you own perverse gratification of battering others into submission with verbosity, which would the lead to a more inclusive list being recreated so as to include cars excluded by your arbitrarily imposed rule set. For the record the Guinness book of records recognises the Veyron Super Sport as the fastest production of which exactly five can reach the record speed. Perhaps you should write them a nice long letter about why they have got it all wrong and why they need to to choose an arbitrary production figure which is impossible to check for their records. And while you are at it you better write to Sport Auto and every other motoring publication I have ever read as they all seem to think production does not equal mass production. Odd that. Different terms meaning different things, isn't it? --LiamE (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit anything but it seems like calling the SR8 a production car or a street car is just flat out absurd. Any car that takes 45 minutes and a laptop to start up, requires special fuel that you cannot buy at a normal filling station, and requires engine rebuilds after 30 hours of use is NOT a street car or a production car. Nobody would ever make that a daily driver, and I can't find production figures but how many did they make? 10? 30? Viper has sold tens of thousands of Vipers. Heck, in 2010 alone they produced 50 of the Viper ACR-Xs.. a specialized track version of the car even more limited than the regular ACR. Give props to the Apollo for being a super fast street car, but I think they've only made about 45 of those. I'm not a Viper fanboy, it's just that it makes the title of "fastest production car" completely meaningless if any operation can produce a racing car that NOBODY would EVER drive to work or the grocery store and that they have NO INTENTION of ever putting into mass production, make 2 of them so they can claim that it is not a prototype, barely squeak by the absolute minimum standards for street legality, and then steal the record. ANYONE taking one look at the Radical SR8 knows that it is not a production car, it is not a street car, it is a race car. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.40.3 (talk) 10:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC) --Ryan (not a registered editor)

GT-R October attempt

I removed the October GT-R attempt. Reasons:

• Based on an anonymous video only.
• Nissan had distanced itself from the video, and the video itself is being put in question.
• There are no other sources. A Youtube video alone is no reliable source.
• There is no official confirmation.

BsBsBs (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 April 2012

The information about the Corvette ZR1 is incorrect. The car was NOT in fact equipped with a roll cage. And the "super-slick track DOT competition tires" is a gross over exaggeration at best. The tires are in fact the same compound as found on the Porsche 911 GT2 RS, and Porsche 911 GT3 RS, yet neither of their descriptions mention "super-slick track DOT competition tires". The specs for all versions of Michilen Pilot Sport Cup tires can be found here:

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Michelin&tireModel=Pilot+Sport+Cup http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Michelin&tireModel=Pilot+Sport+Cup+ZP http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Michelin&tireModel=Pilot+Sport+Cup%2B+%2F+N-Spec

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yKb6iSWc0k This is the video that "Confirmed" the car having a roll cage? Starting at 2:34 into the video it is stated the car is stock except for safety equipment. At NO TIME is it mentioned there is a roll cage in the car.

SteveC68 (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Partly done: I removed the information concerning a roll cage since it's uncited, but the first suggestion appears to be original research. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Done — Slicks are defined as "a type of tire that has no tread or a smooth tread", the multi-surface Michelin Pilot Cups do not fall into this category and cannot be defined as slicks without redefining the word itself along with adding the description to every other vehicle equipping the same tire. --Philonetic (talk) 04:20, 08 May 2013 (EST)

Edit request on 29 June 2012

Add the R8 E-tron in the list Lap time was: 8.9099 mins Driver : Markus Winkelhock Date: Unknown Press release: 29 June 2012

Record for the fastest production electric car. Will only be on sale from the end of the year thou.

Link: http://www.autoblog.com/2012/06/29/audi-r8-e-tron-laps-ring-in-record-setting-8-09-celebrates-sil/#continued

Blackwolfsa (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Did you come here via Jalopnik, perhaps? :-)

I'll add it now. bobrayner (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Done  TOW  talk  04:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 July 2012

| Dodge Viper ACR-X (2010) | Dominik Farnbacher | 14 September 2011 | SRT conducted test. Video and manufacturer confirmed. OEM Michelin Pilot Sport Cup R compound track DOT competition tires. TTAC article. Chrysler press release [7] [8]

Rayfull (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 July 2012

Bad informations on this lap time record, it's the Viper GTS ACR, because the GTR ACR does not exist, and it's the lap time of the Dodge Viper ACR-X (2011 version, not the ACR which is the 2010 version. Not the same lap time!

Here the modifications :

| Dodge Viper ACR-X (2010) | Dominik Farnbacher | 14 September 2011 | SRT conducted test. Video and manufacturer confirmed. OEM Michelin Pilot Sport Cup R compound track DOT competition tires. TTAC article. Chrysler press release [9] [10]

Rayfull (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: With 4 days and ten edits you can edit it because your account will be confirmed. You could also ask at help desk. I am just trying to clear the request board is all.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 July 2012

Motoharu Kurosawa has several records on here, yet they don't link to his entry. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.20.73 (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

... malfeasance

... peer-review and post-segmentation of the Nordschleife lap time component for road-going vehicles, is an abject failure. The Radical SR8 is no more a contemporary, road-going production vehicle, than was Stephan Bellof's 956. And, everybody knows it. Your disclaimer (e.g., verbatim) "...Both 'production' and 'street legal' vehicles are not easy to define," constitutes a woefully insufficient apology which does little more than underline abject subjectivity, in tandem with the unqualified nature of the people who've abused their authority maintaining this page, run amok ensuring racing cars always somehow stay, atop the production car category. If you people can't rise to an intellectual plateau necessary, to muster scholastic objectivity sufficient, to perform segmentation, in adequately differentiating purpose built racing cars from road-going passenger vehicles, then you've got have no business editing this page. Specter looms large you people need to be thrown off this page, and replaced by those who can -- QED, asj. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.254.132 (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The SR8 is road legal, search the Internet for pictures of it and you'll see plenty of cars with UK number plates on them. No reason why you couldn't drive it on the road. 87.112.174.9 (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

... Re road legality: The question is not just whether the nameplate is street legal in Europe, the question is whether the car that made the attempt was street legal. According to EU rules, a car with modifications that are not covered by the original homologation, and that were not later approved by an accredited technical service is no longer street legal. These modifications can be as small as using a non-approved seat or tire. Theoretically, an expired bandage in a first aid kit can render a car illegal - according to EU rules. This may sound ridiculous, but people have been fined for that. Non-typeapproved tires or bodykits definitely would render a car non-streetlegal. BsBsBs (talk) 06:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Really? any form of non-homologated modification makes a car illegal in the EU? Considering the huge modified car market in Europe and the amount of modified cars that pass the relevant road worthiness tests in their countries, I doubt this. --Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 06:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I would love to see evidence for this hardline stance on homologation. Certainly, important parts have to be approved - if your lights aren't CE-marked, then in principle they're not road-legal. But where do you draw the line? There's certainly no homologation or CE approval paperwork for the new badges that I stuck on the back of my car - does this mean that it's no longer road-legal? BsBsBs, could you provide a link to the "EU" rules which you have in mind?

Most European countries have regular checks to see whether a vehicle is safe, legal, & roadworthy. For cars, it's often an annual check. (With the UK example, it's an MOT test). If a car passes checks like that and is legal to sell for road use, I'm happy to consider it road-legal. bobrayner (talk) 10:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I see most of the above as irrelevant anyway. The production car list is for unmodified production cars. I would not consider any car that had any modification that affects performance to be acceptable on that list. The addition of a fire-extinguisher or race harness would be acceptable as it does not affect the performance, but the addition of a cage (improving the chassis stiffness) or a different seat (changing the weight) should make the car ineligible for the production car list. --Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 05:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for removing the SR8 from the production car list. It fulfills the criteria required to be considered a production car. It is sold legally as a road vehicle. It is easy to differentiate from track only cars, by the fact that you are able to register it as a road car, it passes an MOT and there are many examples of it wearing number plates (something that only a road legal car can do) Unless someone can show that the example that lapped the ring was modified or that the SR8 is not a road legal production car, I see no reason for this discussion to continue. --Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 05:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The Nuerburgring is a public road. What is legal in Germany is not a matter of consensus, it is a matter of law, and defined here: http://www.stvzo.de/stvzo/inhalt.htm . The law, which is pretty much the same in all of Europe, is quite specific in what can be added to or removed from a car. Many parts added to a car must have a type approval specifically for that car (ECE, not CE), Passing MOT, TUEV or similar is not the only test for road legality. The car must be MAINTAINED in that road legal state.BsBsBs (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Porsche 918 Spyder

I took the liberty of removing the Porsche 918 Spyder entry. The entry is unsourced. Even if sourced, it would not meet the specifications of this list. According to a Porsche spokesman, it was no official attempt, and the time was “timed by hand." There is no official cockpit video, and the driver “wasn’t Walter Röhrl, it was a test driver.” Porsche most likely will soon be back with proper timing equipment and a camera. With the 918 not in production yet, there are doubts whether the car is a "production, street-legal vehicle." If the prototype used would already have an ECWVTA or an ECSSTA, then this would fulfill the requirements of this list. BsBsBs (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC) _______________________________________________________________ 6:57 ist a full lap, Porsche had an one our exclusive session. Video confirmed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc9UUPNaOzE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.177.248.96 (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 November 2012

I would like to add fresh new time from reliable source.

It is a BTG time of new BMW M135i (8 min 5 secs) driven by Pavel Janda, editor-in-chief of Autoforum.cz magazine.

Video of this drive is available at http://www.autoforum.cz/bleskovky/vyzkouseli-jsme-bmw-m135i-na-nordschleife-slape-na-ni-jako-hodinky-video/

I hope I am independent, I am just fan of this great car.

Thanks

Robert

Roviklan (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: - Forums are almost never reliable sources. This case is no different. Also, please make your request in a change X to Y format. Vacation^nine 06:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 December 2012

Ring time for 2013 JDM / 2014 USDM Nissan GTR is 7:18.6

Source http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J36CEnanlMM See time code 1:38 Simonlok (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

•  Not done Youtube is notconsidered a reliable source. Pol430 talk to me 23:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

False Tire Information Edit Request on 21 Dec 2012

Multiple cars using the "Michelin Pilot Sport Cup Zero Pressure" have the incorrect adjective of "super-slick". This needs to be changed to "semislick" or removed completely.

Michelin Pilot Sport Cup Zero Pressure tires are neither slick nor super-slick. A slick tire is one without tread. Picture of tire in question: (Notice that there IS tread) http://www.carid.com/michelin-tires/pilot-sport-cup-zp-run-flat-355608.html

According to Michilen's website this tire has a "semislick outer tread and a wet-styled innertread".

http://www.michelinman.com/tire-selector/category/ultra-high-performance-sport/pilot-sport-cup/tire-details (click on "Read more information"). This text can also be found here: http://www.carid.com/michelin-tires/pilot-sport-cup-zp-run-flat-355608.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbmonkey (talk • contribs) 19:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Done — Slicks are defined as "a type of tire that has no tread or a smooth tread", not a "semi-slick outer tread", the multi-surface Michelin Pilot Sport Cup ZP does not fall into this category and cannot be defined as slick without redefining the word itself along with adding the description to every other vehicle equipping the same tire. --Philonetic (talk) 04:20, 08 May 2013 (EST)

correct lap times

I noticed from here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IdpsR-GjLg that the Genesis Coupe ran a time of 8:40 and not 8:28 as listed. Can anyone confirm? Truetimers489498 (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Done — The Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8L on TopGear Russia did indeed run a time of 8:43 with -15secs for yellow flags and traffic, formulating the incorrect 8:28 entry. As this stipulation is not applied to other entries the time will be corrected to the actual time of 8:43. Philonetic (talk) 09:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The lap time of genesis coupe 3.8L should be 8:28, since there is 15secs wasted due to the accident on the track. The speaker said it should be minus 15 secs from 8:40, which has to be 8:28. The website below has official time (8:28): http://circuitodenurburgring.com/en/tiempos/coche/110/hyundai-genesis-coupe-rs-3800-.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarkliu1982 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria "Production, street-legal vehicles"

Dear editors:

1.) I have restored the inclusion criteria for "Production, street-legal vehicles". If you go through the discussion (and possibly the discussion archives,) you will see that these inclusion criteria have been here for a long time and had been accepted by a consensus of editors. The inclusion criteria were set up after a long and in-depth discussion. The inclusion criteria should only be changed after a likewise thorough discussion and consensus-building. A change may be unfair to past entries. Be advised that WP mandates unambiguous inclusion criteria for a list. The inclusion criteria do not need to be sourced, the list entries do. (For details, see discussion.) As Nurburgring lap times are not supervised by an independent sanctioning body, the current criteria represent the bare minimum of proof needed.

2.) The need for unambiguous inclusion criteria has been demonstrated by the recent edit war. Please add only bona-fide, confirmed, and properly sourced entries to this list. A desire to reach a certain lap time is not sufficient for an entry, the lap must be driven in that time. When denying new entries, please refer edit requests to the inclusion criteria. Some recent ones can easily solved by stating that the entry does not meet all criteria.

3.) As for tires, please note that in Germany, a car is not street legal if the tires are not homologated for that vehicle, and also if the tires do not have the minimum thread depth. Germany follows the EU recommendation of mandating a profile depth of 1.6 mm for the main profile. Entries of non-street legal cars should not be added to the list of "Production, street-legal vehicles."

Thank you. BsBsBs (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

GT-R 7:18 entry

Gentlemen:

I have removed the entry for a 14 May 2012 alleged 7:19.18 lap by the Nissan GT-R. The inclusion criteria for Production, street-legal vehicles says that new entries require

• An official manufacturer’s statement for manufacturer-conducted tests.
• An on-board video
• A statement that OEM tires have been used.

There is no official manufacturer's statement. If you check Nissan's press releases you will find no announcement of a record. To be sure, I called Nissan's PR department in Yokohama and asked whether they know anything about a record, they did not.

The video referenced in the edit is not the required on-boad video. This video is a promotional video made for the 2013 launch of the updated GT-R. A new list entry requires a full on-board video, from start to finish. The referenced video uses short clips, along with video shot during a press conference. I was at that press conference and talked to CT-R Chief Engineer Kazutoshi Mizuno. At the press conference, Mizuno-san talked about the POSSIBILITY of the GT-R making a new record. He definitely did not claim a new one. He talked about 7:18 during INTERNAL TESTS (they do not qualify, unless officially claimed and documented) and said that he might even do better during an official attempt. This is documented in a TTAC story written after the press conference.

Mizuno was very much aware of the list at WP, and its requirements. He did not claim that the 7:18 should be on the list, but he also said that some entries do not belong:

"However, Mizuno-san is energetically opposed to using heavily modded cars for the track attack: “We use the same car the customer uses.” Stock GT-R , no roll cage, regular three point belt. According to Mizuno, cars like the Radical SR8, a perennial list leader, have no place on a list of record of street legal production cars. “A car that needs its engine rebuilt after a few hours is no production car,” says the former Nissan race director as he crosses his forearms before his chest, the Japanese sign for “NO.”

PLEASE put only bona fide entries on that list. It is hard enough to make sure that official manufacturer claims qualify, let's not enter records nobody claims. Internal test do not qualify, see Porsche 918 above in the comments ...

Also, please participate in the discussion before playing ping pong with edits.

Thank you. BsBsBs (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

PS: I guess I will have to amend "On-board video" to "An original, uncut on-board video, showing the lap and the timing from start to finish." BsBsBs (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

A video is here...

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1080223_2014-nissan-gt-r-preview — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoff.shauger (talk • contribs) 17:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion above; "Edit request on 10 December 2012 This edit request has been answered. Ring time for 2013 JDM / 2014 USDM Nissan GTR is 7:18.6 Source http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J36CEnanlMM See time code 1:38 Simonlok (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Not done Youtube is not considered a reliable source. Pol430 talk to me 23:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)"

I also have to agree with the statement from Mizuno-san and that race specified vehicles such as the SR8 should stand apart from daily driven production models, perhaps in a category of their own such as "production street-legal race spec"? Any new vehicle entry in the production category should include A/C, stereo, spare tire and jack. Spare tire and jack should not be required on-board for entry, only that they are equipped on the production model. Awaiting feedback. Philonetic (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request from , 29 April 2013

Toyota Motorsport GmbH have a new EV lap record from October 2012, with an updated chassis EV P002. This is timed at 7:22.329 . Manufacturer claim: http://www.toyota-motorsport.com/en/latest-information-archive-en/275-ev-record-2012 Video proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZQV2G9W5vQ&feature=plcp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeshkallur (talk • contribs)

Done — Bility (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The 'Toyota EV P001' is already listed in the 'non-series/non-road legal' vehicles section, so just add the vehicle there as it is not a production vehicle that is in 'mass-production', see the section prior to the table for reference. --O-star1 (talk) 08:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

New Entries

When adding new entries, please do not replace or remove older entries even if with the same year, model and driver. Every listed time is a record in its own right. Philonetic (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Article Refresh

The entire article, talk section included, NEEDS to be cleaned of all completed edit requests, along with all irrelevance and concluded debate discussion. A new uncontested section should be included depicting all prior conclusions (i.e. October GTR attempt, etc) in consolidated form, with strict entry regulations located at the TOP of the article. Considering replacement; Any vehicle believed to be misplaced in category cannot be moved without consensus unless the previously mentioned information is missing from the vehicles description, in which case the entry should be deleted. Considering there has been no consensus on the matters of road legality or what constitutes a "production vehicle", I believe the main focus should be directed towards those two matters in the "talk" page, and a consensus should be reached before any major edits. All incomplete and un-sourced entries should begin disappearing if not completed or reliably sourced, such edits should be performed only by recognized editors of this article, always with a description of the edit and reasons for removal. Don't forget your signature or your edits will most likely be reverted by a recognized editor.

Until a consensus is reached on the subjects of road legality and what constitutes a production vehicle, then any such descriptions and the existence of such titled categories are irrelevant. NO ENTRIES should be judged concerning either of these matters until consensus is reached. Any arguments on such matters are wholly irrelevant until a standard is agreed upon. Please refer to the sections above. Philonetic (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

There IS a consensus for what a "Production, street-legal vehicle" is as far as this list is concerned. This consensus was reached after a long and often arduous discussion. The definition stood ever since. Being the product of a consensus, the definition is a bit convoluted, but this reflects the nature of the beast. I think most of us know what "Production, street-legal vehicle" really means: A car that can be bought in a store, a car that was made in large quantities, a car that is driven around the Ring unaltered, or at least so that it complies with local regulations - German regulations are quite strict when it comes to alterations. All this to set this category off from the purpose-built or heavily modified cars. The current definition describes such vehicle, albeit in a necessarily convoluted way. A more simpler definition has been abused in the past, and led to cars on the list that definitely not reflect its spirit. This has turned this list into a bit of a joke. If I would create a new list, I would require from each contestant that a TÜV (or equal) expert certifies that the car is a "production car" by virtue of at least an ECSSTA type approval, and not an Einzelzulassung or none, and that it is "street legal" according to STVZO (which, to a TÜV expert implies no illegal alterations, tires etc.) The same expert should also witness and certify the timing. This could be done at a minor expense compared to what the rest of the attempt costs.BsBsBs (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The talk section is a transcript of a discussion and definitely SHOULD NOT be altered or "cleaned up."BsBsBs (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to set that straight BsBsBs. "If I would create a new list, I would..." If there is any reason such a list shouldn't be included, it's beyond me. That sounds like something that would be appreciated by all. One thing not covered, should un-sourced entries be removed? Philonetic (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, what would be considered "made in large quantities"? 50, 500? For a vehicle to be considered "production", it should have an assembly line as well. Thoughts? Philonetic (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

A while ago, I talked to most involved auto manufacturers on this list, and asked them what their definition of a "Production, street-legal vehicle" is. (I did that as part of a story I wrote. It is no secret that I work as a journalist, covering automotive topics, which gives me direct access.) They all agreed on one thing: That it is a tough topic. "Street legal" was simple: Legal to be driven on a public road, as the Nuerburgring is. "Production" was harder to define. Some manufacturers, for instance Porsche, make bona-fide "production vehicles," but sell less than 100. The LFA sold a total of 500, and 75 of them had the Nurburgring package. Others, like Dodge (Viper), or Chevrolet (Camaro), or Nissan (GT-R) sell lots. So it's hard to come up with a number. That's where the ECSSTA small series type approval came from: It at least documents the INTENT to make a few. All manufacturers I talked to, and many voices in the media, feel strongly that purpose-built cars such as the Radical, or heavily modded cars, have no place on this list. A car that only has an Individual Type Approval (IVA) demonstrates and documents that it is not a "production" vehicle. It is patently unfair to the other cars on the list to admit the purpose-built one-offs. IVA approval has only the barest minimum of requirements, whereas true production cars must comply with stringent safety, emissions etc rules. The Radical with the UK IVA could not even be legally registered in Germany, where the Ring is. It can be driven on the road, if, and that's a big IF, if it complies with all tricky regulations.

As far as "street legal" goes, the devil is in the detail. German and EU regs are quite strict about what can be added or removed. For instance, an expired band-aid in the first aid kit can make a car not road legal. This might sound outrageous, but people received tickets for it. Unapproved tires, modded engines, body kits etc. definitely are the end of road legality. Non-standard tires can mean a few seconds, they also make the car illegal. Slicks? Sorry, no minimum profile depth, illegal. Some people, like Mizuno-san, the Chief Engineer of the GT-R, are very strict and won't even add a rollcage or a 5 point harness. Others are more cavalier. Many cars on this list allegedly were not "street legal" in the true sense.BsBsBs (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Edo Competition-Porsche

I'm missing the lap time from 4. August 2005 (7.15,63 Porsche GT2RS / Edo Competition, driver Patrick Simon, "Pirelli P Zero Corsa" tyres) between the two "Donkervoort D8 RS" (Michael Düchting, 7:18.1 and 7:14.89) entries. The nickname of that Porsche GT2RS tuned by EDO Competition is "Biene Maya" because of the yellow/black paintwork. [Source: Sport auto (Germany) and "Biene Maya"] --212.23.103.0 (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

 Not done The Edo Competition Porsche is not a production, street-legal vehicle. Philonetic (talk) 08:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The table says: "Production, street-legal vehicles" and the EDO Competition GT2 is a “street legal” car but not a production vehicle. It's still listed in german motorsports magazines in the "street legal" cars category. --46.115.114.241 (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

As BsBsBs recently covered, ""Production, street-legal vehicle" really means: A car that can be bought in a store, a car that was made in large quantities, a car that is driven around the Ring unaltered, or at least so that it complies with local regulations", the vehicle must comply to "production" standards as well. Philonetic (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Ford GT time is false

If i am not mistaken Octane magazine No.29 Nov 2005 only estimated Ford GT time of 7:41 how did that time even make it on the list with no proof, when 7:41 is a huge difference from Ford GT's best confirmed time of 7:52

The time doesn;t show up on nurburgringlaptimes.com/lap-times/lap-times-top-100/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.160.169 (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

7:40.6 Ford GT Markus Draper Octane Magazine[citation needed]

time to remove it, no sources since 2008?

i think it's time to let go of the fairy tale

20 sites on the web now quote this false time from wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by XXXVaporXXX (talk • contribs) 09:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 September 2013

|- | | 7:40.6 | Ford GT | Markus Draper | | Octane Magazine

Noone can prove this time, octane magazine said it was an estimate

XXXVaporXXX (talk) 09:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done: You are already autoconfirmed and can make these changes yourself. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 September 2013

Ford GT 7:52.00 '04

AND Put the real time back up, what is this Fordfanboy fantasy land, you put up a simulated time and take down the real time that could be verified Ford GT ran 7:52 in real life, next we will be seeing gran turismo times being posted XXXVaporXXX (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done: You are already autoconfirmed and can make these changes yourself. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 September 2013

Since there are many generations of the Porsche 911, can you add "996" to the end of this line:

7:56 Porsche 911 Turbo Horst von Saurma Sport Auto (06/2000)

Like this:

7:56 Porsche 911 Turbo 996 Horst von Saurma Sport Auto (06/2000)

See this page for confirmation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_auto_(Germany)

71.19.177.226 (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 September 2013

Just want to add this code, new time for alfa 4C | 8 min 04 s | Alfa Romeo 4C | | | topspeed.com (09/2012). Guillaumestyle (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Done, merci. --Stfg (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Porsche 918 Spyder

Editors: According to Car&Driver "Production of the 918 Spyder starts on September 18, 2013." The date of the 6:57 run is given as September 4, 2013. This was before the stated start of production. The referenced source http://www.ausringers.com/2013/09/10/porsche-918-spyder-breaks-7-minute-barrier.html itself talks of "a pair of production-spec 918 Spyders," and of "a production-based car homologated for road use."

According to these sources, the vehicles were pre-production units. Production-spec, production-based, but not yet production. This list is for "Production, street-legal vehicles." It is doubtful whether this car is in the correct list.BsBsBs (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

2013 Ford Shelby GT500 ( Mustang supercharged 662 HP )

My uncle's brother tested this car in Germany (at the Nordschleife), and it completed in under 7:20.000. Guess what? It completed in just 7:13.547 (100% stock)!

BTW, it was tested in normal condition and by a professional driver. :D

Source: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20131009204827AA9GHqb

Mrtacos2 (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

That's Answers. Anyone can post whatever they want on Answers. 119.252.27.68 (talk) 06:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Yahoo! Answers is not a reliable source. Also, don't worry, the guy who used to claim that fake personal time was full of cow. You do see how the question was deleted, because the Yahoo! Answers Team proved that he was a liar.

2014 Chevrolet Camaro Z28, Edit request on 15 October 2013

Video proven 7:37.47 done by Chevrolet (automaker conducted test).

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj1h75vA1Jw

Disclaimer

I'm a fan of racing and accurate statistics and would like to see a disclaimer on this page to announce that the laptimes that are on this page are claims made by manufaturers and media outside the frame of any competition and rules and with minimal ways to be verified and should be considered a guideline not official results in a sanctioned event.

Nurburgring has become a publicity stunt, going as far as to talk about 'official Nurburgring lap times' in the media when referring to manufacturer times.It's surreal what happens and wikipedia should not be part of this campain of disinformation.A disclaimer or a section to state the obvious that there is nothin 'official' about these lap times would go a long way in educating the public until a real solution is found, if one can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olengher (talk • contribs) 21:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 October 2013

From the Wiki article: A production vehicle is defined as "one that is put into mass production, as a model produced in large numbers and offered for sale to the public." Audi R8 E-Tron *not* a production vehicle, not on sale to the public anywhere in the world. Should *not* have included in table of production vehicles in mid 2012 in *anticipation* of being on sale at some ambiguous future date with no citation given for the ambiguous future date.

Citation 1: http://www.autoblog.com/2012/10/25/audi-r8-e-tron-program-on-hold-facing-cancellation/

Citation 2: http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1084434_audi-r8-e-tron-electric-supercar-wont-go-on-sale

Citation 3: http://jalopnik.com/the-record-breaking-electric-audi-r8-e-tron-is-reported-510160927

Citation 4: http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/audi-r8-e-tron-stillborn-greatness-motoramic-drives-141633004.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.40.204.26 (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2013‎

• Note to deciding editor: Please refer to the edit request on 29 June 2012 for related information regarding this edit request. Steel1943 (talk) 05:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 November 2013

Duplicate mention of van modifications and draft vehicle in Ford Transit notes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.237.245 (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Changes needed for 2015 Nissan GT-R Nismo entry

Two issues with the 2015 Nissan GT-R Nismo entry:

1. The official time is 7:08.679, not 7:08.69 as currently stated. Autoblog: "The official lap time is just seven minutes and 8.679 seconds..." (http://www.autoblog.com/2013/11/19/nissan-gt-r-nismo-nurburgring-lap-record-video/). Motor Trend: "The 7:08.679 Nurburgring car." (http://wot.motortrend.com/1311_2015_nissan_gtr_nismo_has_staggering_600_hp.html).

2. The right-most column in the entry simply states "Track Pack" & tire specification. However, Motor Trend reports a lot more changes were made to the GT-R that ran 7:08.679 on the ring. Many of these changes are not available for sale to the public, so does it even belong in the section of "production, street-legal vehicles" when you cannot buy the car as-is? Until Nissan or Nismo officially announces these changes are available for sale to the public, I would argue these changes made the 7:08.679 GT-R a non-series vehicle, and thus the entry should be moved down to the second table for "non-series/non-road-legal vehicles". At the very least, the right-most column needs to state these not-for-sale changes reported by Motor Trend.

Motor Trend: "The Nismo car you can buy next summer won’t circulate the ‘Ring quite this quickly. The so-called “Time Attack” car displayed in the camouflage has several additional upgrades. The engine is tuned differently with identical 600-hp and 481-lb-ft horsepower and torque peaks, but the curves are slightly fatter. The AWD system’s torque biasing program is tweaked slightly. The aerodynamics package also differs in a couple very meaningful ways that will likely erode that 0.27 Cd claimed for the mainstream model. The rear wing stands quite a bit taller; there’s an aero fence running along the rear edge of the hood, and the front fenders have little aero “whiskers.” Many of these upgrades will likely find their way into the Nismo Track edition (or whatever they call it), though it’s not clear whether the aero fence on the hood could pass pedestrian crash standards or whether the tweaked engine could be made clean enough to be legal." (http://wot.motortrend.com/1311_2015_nissan_gtr_nismo_has_staggering_600_hp.html). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.40.204.26 (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• There hardly is a new entry that is not disputed here and in the media. The list is led by two perennial targets of criticism. The "production" 918 Spyder rounded the Ring before production started. The Dodge Viper ACR allegedly had a street-illegal splitter. They (and sundry other doubtful entries) all are still on this list. Equipping contestants with special "Weissach," "Nurburg Ring", or "Track" packages also appears common practice. This contribution raises a valid point. However, as long as there is no independent verification that a car is in fact a production, street legal vehicle, we can't help but take the manufacturer's word for it.BsBsBs (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is the 7:08.679 GTR time in here?. The car is NOT a Production car. Why is this so difficult to understand?. The testing magazine even states that it is not a production car. C'mon people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.16.64.3 (talk) 08:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 November 2013 BMW E60 M5

BMW E60 M5 8:13. Said car was limited to 155MPH therefore restricting the top speed on the straights of the track.

A delimited yet still stock version of the vehicle was used and the track was completed in 7:52 by driver Hans-Joachim Stuck

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e60-m5-e61-m5-touring-discussion/323410-e60-m5-laps-ring-7-52-a.html

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Also, please provide a reliable source. That link connects to a discussion board and discussion boards are not reliable sources. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2013

According to http://circuitodenurburgring.com/en/tiempos/coche/110/hyundai-genesis-coupe-rs-3800-.html genesis coupe's lap time is 8:28. It's because when the driver tests the car on the track there were cars on the same track,so it takes time to pass them. Also there is a crashing car on the track too. He has to slow dowm. Although the vidoe shows the final time is 8:43, the driver said he has to minus 15 seconds for the traffic and the accident on the track. So, he just takes 15 seconds away from the result. The final time should be 8:28. Clarkliu1982 (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: We can't adjust the time to be what the driver says it might have been had things been different. We can only report on what reliable sources say it actually was. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2014

8:23 MINI John Cooper Works GP (2013) Motor Trend (5/12/12), Road & Track (9/27/12)

Howsoonisnow1985 (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Technical 13 (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Scirocco R: 8:39 / Focus RS: 8:40

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb4roZTPW4k 174.141.208.99 (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Does not comply with inclusion criteria BsBsBs (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

@BsBsBs: I agree with you. The Scirocco and Focus were not stock. There must be some modifications inside those cars. Altimgamr (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

We don't have to go there. "Production, street-legal vehicles" states: "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 OEM tires have been used is required." Entries that do not fulfill these requirements should not be considered. BsBsBs (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Forums and video games

Are they good, reliable sources? 174.141.208.105 (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. BsBsBs (talk) 09:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Remove all Koenigsegg cars from the Production/road-legal vehicles list!!!

The models from Koenigsegg did and do not provide at least 20 units. Altimgamr (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)