Talk:List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Production Car Defined[edit]

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

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

No where has anyone agreed to "2 or 3 vehicles built" as being an acceptable definition of a "production vehicle". In fact, this was specifically the reason why it was agreed that either the Guinness definition or Road and Track number would be used because it gave a number that was more widely accepted for what a production vehicle would be. The whole argument was always whether it be 15, 20, 30, 50, at no point in the argument was it ever brought up that "2 or 3 vehicles" would define a production vehicle. You are inviting a host of problems when it comes to every page that defines records using production vehicles. So the original Cobra was a "production vehicle"? You should have seriously used the discussion page for this before making those changes. I ask that others weigh in on this discussion before reverting the changes I've made. I can't find a single reputable source that states "2 or 3 vehicles" defines a production vehicle. Please provide documentation before making that change, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RTShadow (talkcontribs) 01:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
This is just how it is handled on this site. Look at the entries and back into the discussion archives. It's better to write how it is as clarification above the table than just the misleading "put into mass production ... produced in large numbers" when even cars built only 2-3 times are accepted. This site uses different rules for production than the other sites (I'm not responsible for this) and the notification about this should be there. Drachentötbär (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I think there is little point in discussing this issue until the discussion at Talk:Production car speed record reaches some form of conclusion and follow whatever guidelines are decided on there, it seems sensible to use the same criteria for all articles. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
"Years ago, this argument resulted in a generally accepted consensus for what defined production cars, in terms of numbers." No, years ago one user took ownership of the article and unilaterally forced his one man consensus on the article. That user was subsequently banned for similar conduct elsewhere. 2A00:23C4:479A:F200:3DD8:2069:3550:F488 (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2018[edit]

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

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

edit request - new lap record[edit]

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

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

Radical SR8 information[edit]

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

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

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

Actually you are trying to keep facts away from the readers and lead them to a wrong assumption by removing information. This kind of censorship is not what should be done here.
"Purpose-built track car, modifications are available to get British Single Vehicle Approval." are sourced facts, not opinion.
"Timed by Sport Auto, not a road legal production car lap for them." is also a fact. Drachentötbär (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Read WP:UNDUE and get to the point. The laps are on the production car list which already gives lots of weight. No need to add even more by censoring a fact and make the readers assume wrongly about Sport Auto, the only independent observers of the laps.Drachentötbär (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Sport Auto is not a reliable source when it comes to deciding which car is and isn't road legal. Road legal isn't an opinion, it's a fact. If Sport Auto decide that the SR8 is a hybrid hatchback, it doesn't make that true either. Do I really need to explain this? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
For Autocar the Radicals are not production cars, https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/motor-shows-geneva-motor-show/lamborghini-huracan-performante-smashes-918-nurburgring
Thanks for providing that link. Could you point on where on that link it is stated that the Radical isn't a production car, please? I'm struggling to find that information, actually I'm struggling to find any mention of the Radical on that link.
The article states the 6:52 as Nürburgring lap record for production cars so the 6:48 time by the SR8 can't be a production car lap time.Drachentötbär (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
That's a great bit of original research by you. Are there any other assumptions that you would like to make regarding this article, or shall we just following standard conventions and rely on sources? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not OR, it's simple logic relying on a source. 6:52 can't be the fastest production car lap time ever if a faster production car lap had been done years before. Drachentötbär (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
However, this link from autocar https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/motoring/radical-sets-nurburgring-record clearly states "Radical sets Nurburgring record" "'Ring lap record smashed again by British car maker" "Radical has claimed the Nurburgring production car lap record with a time of 6m 48s." and "We’ve proved that the SR8LM is not only the world’s best trackday car, but it’s also practical enough to drive to and from the circuit. It is a genuine production sportscar, with genuine performance credentials, as we’ve shown today." - in light of this, I will be reverting your edit. Have a nice day. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
"Radical has claimed the Nurburgring production car lap record" is just the report of a manufacturer claim and your other quote is just a quote from Radical. Autocar doesn't call it production in the article, for them it might be just a record for cars they consider road-legal, or for ...
Even if we'd assume that Autocar considered it a production car lap while writing this article we'd have to conclude that they changed their mind since the other article is newer.Drachentötbär (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
In the Evo source https://www.evo.co.uk/news/10488/radical-ring-record Evo doesn't state that it's a production car, they just write Gumpert is "perhaps discounting the SR8’s road-going production car status" and quote the manufacturer who calls it production sportscar. In the older referenced Evo article 'production car' is set in quotes which might be there to quote the manufacturer or even be scare quotes.Drachentötbär (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
"It is a genuine production sportscar" who would know better than Radical themselves? But let's look for another source as you are complaining about the numerous ones that I have provided. https://www.pistonheads.com/news/general-pistonheads/radical-smashes-nordschleife-record/20475 "Radical has once again beaten the Nurburgring Nordschleife lap record for a production car." that seems to make it pretty clear. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Manufacturers are primarly interested in letting their car shine in the press. In the user manual they call it "racing car", not road car or production car: https://web.archive.org/web/20090611211439/http://www.radicalsportscars.com/uploads/range/download/2006-radical-sr8-owners-manual.pdf . The Pistonheads link doesn't change the fact that the EVO links don't prove that it's a production car for the magazine, it rather looks the other way around here: https://www.evo.co.uk/features/18801/ring-kings-the-fastest-nurburgring-lap-times . Drachentötbär (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

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

You're right. They do say that. It's nice of you to actually quote the source word for word here to make things easier. It's a shame you neglected to quote the sentence directly before that though... "Of course, the Radical SR8 LM still holds the fastest time for street-legal vehicles at 6:48"
That doesn't change the fact that it isn't a street-legal production car for Road & Track.Drachentötbär (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
It's interesting that you are willing to base your edits on the opinion of Sports Auto, but you don't consider EVO or Pistonheads to be quite as relevant. We have stated that Sports Auto don't consider it to be a production car, so to add balance I have stated that Evo, Pistonheads and Road & Track did consider it to be the record holder. If you wish to demonstrate why Sports Auto is a reliable source and Evo, Pistonheads and Road & Track aren't, then feel free - otherwise you might want to cease with your disruptive edits. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Sport Auto timed the runs so they are the most competent source. I didn't challenge the other sources as you imply, I disagree with your conclusions from them. An article quoting manufacturer claims about production car status doesn't make EVO see the Radicals as production cars especially considering their article which calls the Lamborghini Huracan Performante's 6:52 time a production car lap record in spite of the Radical SR8 LM's older 6:48 time listed just below. For Road & Track the Radicals clearly aren't production cars. You didn't add balance, you created false balance. The wider automotive industry and the biggest part of the press didn't count their laps as road-legal production car laps and mostly ignored them in spite of the manufacturer claims and Wikipedia entries. As per WP:WEIGHT you shouldn't be giving triple space to what is not the majority viewpoint. Drachentötbär (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I think we must change the rules here, thís is ridiculous to have a "car" like that in list. WHo even has decided this "For the purpose of this list, a car is “street legal” if it can be registered in at least one EU country for road use, even if it can't pass German TÜV" this should be changed and discussed in WP:Automobiles -->Typ932 T·C 20:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I also wonder if the capability to pass the SVA truly makes a car a road going production car? It seems like a car not delivered with a type approval, that requires individual approval and does not need to pass the crash standards necessary for type approval is not the same as a GT3, which you can drive off the lot anywhere in Europe just the same as a Fiat Panda. Toasted Meter (talk) 07:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
"The wider automotive industry and the biggest part of the press didn't count their laps as road-legal production car laps and mostly ignored them in spite of the manufacturer claims and Wikipedia entries. As per WP:WEIGHT you shouldn't be giving triple space to what is not the majority viewpoint." really?
[1] Top Gear "a street-approved version of the old SR8LM still holds the road-legal Nürburgring lap record"
No production car status given by the source.
[2] Motor Authority "Radical SR8 LM sets new Nürburgring record for street-legal cars"
Source asks the reader to discuss what is a production car.
Source states "But as an example of a production car's capabilities, the lap time is essentially meaningless. While the Radical SR8 LM technically qualifies for the title" so they consider it to qualify as a production car. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
The same magazine reported that the 918 Spyder attained "the production car lap record for the Nürburgring" without any "while": https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1086880_watch-the-porsche-918-spyders-record-nrburgring-run-video Drachentötbär (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
[3] Evo "road-legal SR8LM that set the time..."
Sources quotes manufacturer claims about production car status as discussed previously.
Source states "SR8’s road-going production car status." - this isn't a manufacturer quote. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Your logic is flawed. "C says: A discounts B" doesn't imply "C says: B is true" Drachentötbär (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
[4] autoblog "But despite its racecar styling and tarmac-scraping ride height, the Radical is completely street legal"
Source doesn't call it production car, following the link to the Gumpert Apollo Speed's 7:11.5 strongly indicates that's because they don't see it as production car.
[5] autoweek "Both the Radical vehicles were powered by a 2.8-liter V8 that produces 449 hp and were both road-legal by the Single Vehicle Approved (United Kingdom ECWVTYA equivalent)."
Source is flawed (the SR8 engine differs from the SR8 LM engine) and uses a self-proposed definition by the journalist who recognizes there are also other definitions for production. "Here's what happens if we take the proposed definition..."
Source states "The current record holder would be the low-production/high-fun Radical SR8 LM." If you wish to dispute the reliability of autoweek as a source, then take it to Reliable sources/Noticeboard Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
[6] evo "Radical sent its race team to the Eiffel mountains to retake the outright 'production car' lap record"
As discussed above, 'production car' is set in quotes which might even be scare quotes.
I'm sorry, but your original research on the use of quotes, is exactly that - original research. They state "production car", so that is what we report. We don't try to read their minds and say "oh well, they said production car, but I think they meant something else" Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
That's not original research. Context does matter, as does the use of quotation marks which are usually used for quoting.Drachentötbär (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
[7] msn "Its SR8 is the only licensable car to post a sub-seven second time around the famed German circuit."
No production car status mentioned.
[8] car advice "Michael Vergers, the actual lap record driver, drove the SR8 LM from the factory in Peterborough in UK, all the way to the ‘Ring’ just to prove that the car was in fact, road legal."
Production car status only as manufacturer claim
"Sport Auto timed the runs so they are the most competent source." - you're correct, Sport Auto oversaw the tests. But so did Evo magazine. [9] "British sports car firm Radical has emerged from the Nordschleife with a time of 6m48s, and evo Magazine was there to oversee it having joined the company’s team to help out with the record attempt."
So Sport Auto was the neutral instance.Drachentötbär (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
In light of the above, it seems very clear that it isn't undue weight in the slightest. It also seems clear that you are pushing an agenda. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Ur wider is mostly UK journos -->Typ932 T·C 19:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
None of your listed sources really works as you claim as witness for "road-legal production car" status. They're either philosophizing about the definition of production car, quote manufacturer claims or simply avoid using production car status for it. There are many websites which contradict the "road-legal production car" claim, let's to focus on the biggest magazines:
For Car & Driver, Motor Trend and Road & Track the SR8 laps don't belong into the production car category:
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/watch-the-lamborghini-huracan-performante-set-the-fastest-ever-production-car-lap-of-the-nurburgring-video
"Of course, the Radical SR8 LM still holds the fastest time for street-legal vehicles at 6:48, but calling it a production car is a stretch."
https://www.motortrend.com/cars/lamborghini/huracan/2017/2017-lamborghini-huracan-performante-first-drive-downforce/
"Lamborghini's own Aventador Superveloce set a time of 6 minutes, 59.73 seconds. The only production car to ever circumnavigate more quickly is the Porsche 918 Spyder, which laid down an ice-cold 6:57.00."
https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/videos/a32781/lamborghin-huracan-performante-sets-a-65201-at-the-nurburgring/
"calling it a production car is far from rational"
Drachentötbär (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Taking the context into account isn't original research, it's what you should do too instead of cherry picking words out of context. Remember that for the 1:4 + etc imbalance you put into the article you need a huge majority for your side among the published sources, you can't even show equality.Drachentötbär (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Saying "although they said production car, I don't think they meant production car" is original research. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually, you're doing original research by putting something into the article based on your personal interpretation of the quotation marks around the term "production car" in the source although other interpretations are possible. Drachentötbär (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Let me try to make sure that I'm understanding you correctly. I don't want to put words in your mouth...
Are you trying to say that when a source clearly states that something is a "production car" that it's original research to assume that they meant to say that something is a "production car"?
I'm sorry, I don't wish to offend you but if that's what you're trying to say, then it's the most ridiculous statement I've heard in a long time.
We don't second guess content from reliable sources. That's exactly what we shouldn't do. We don't try to come to conclusions. We state facts. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
For checking properly whether the SR8 is "considered a road legal production car lap by Evo" or not we need to look at all Evo articles available. As discussed above we have one article which contradicts this statement and one which puts "production car" in quotes. Saying that the first article and the quotation marks in the second can be ignored is evaluating those primary sources which is original research, entries shouldn't be based on them.Drachentötbär (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
heh you still arguing this, this is simple its not production car, we should just delete it from article . Put vote to to WP:Automomobiles and we can stop this silly conversation here. We should also chance that stupid rule "The Nürburgring is a public (toll-) road, and regulations of Germany and the EU apply. For the purpose of this list, a car is “street legal” if it can be registered in at least one EU country for road use, even if it can't pass German TÜV" who ever has wrote this stupid rule to the article -->Typ932 T·C 21:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
C Ah, okay - got it. Despite reliable automotive media stating that it's a production car - we should ignore that and consider it not to be a production car because you don't think it is. Also, we should change the rules regarding production car criteria because it's a "stupid rule" - nice logic.
Drachentötbär - which Evo article states that the SR8 isn't a production car? I have [1] that says it broke the production car record and [2] that says the SR8 has a production car status. Was there a third article, or am I missing something?
Also, let's not forget the Pistonheads article [3] which states "Radical has once again beaten the Nurburgring Nordschleife lap record for a production car."
Look, I get it. It's a very extreme road car. It's obviously biased towards the track. But it's absolutely road legal and absolutely a production car. A few German and American publications might whine and cry about it, because it's not as comfortable as their precious vipers and 911s - but that doesn't change its production car status. Move on, there are reliable sources saying it's a production car and that's what wikipedia relies on. Reliable sources, not someone saying "but even though they said production car, I think they meant something else" Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
loL reliable automotive media, which most seems to be UK ones. Funny coincidence -->Typ932 T·C 20:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
"Funny coincidence" of course it's not a coincidence. This is English language Wikipedia, so sources from English speaking nations are likely to be common. Are you going to complain about the plethora of German sources as well? Nope? Didn't think so. And I have added UK, US and Australian sources to this article, so you don't need to worry about it. Have a nice day! Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes and English car and english magazines, so ofc they say its road legal. Was it so hard to understand? -->Typ932 T·C 13:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
"Was it so hard to understand?" no, your less than subtle implication was easily understood. So, English car and English magazines are a problem. So, are you suggesting that we not allow any source that comes from the same nation as the car it mentions? Remove all American sources on American cars, all German sources on German cars and all British sources on British cars? Or is it only the British sources that you consider to be biased?
And BTW - you are aware that Australia and America are not actually part of the United Kingdom, aren't you? Or is that hard to understand? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
There isnt any german or usa car that isnt road legal, the problem is only with radical. And most referemces that says its road legal are british ones, thats bias-->Typ932 T·C 17:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh dear. Sorry, but content doesn't get removed just because you claim bias. A reliable source is a reliable source. Oh and [4] (an Australian source) and [5] an American source, both call the Radical road-legal. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Someone linked to the SR8 owners manual. That's useful, that should clarify a lot of things. Let's take a look. "The SR8 is a very fast RACING car" oh, damn! That's pretty clear isn't it? It's a racing car. But, as we all know with racing classes such a Group N - racing cars can still be road legal production cars. So let's find out what else they say..."if you are using it for trackdays or on the road" oh. The road. THE ROAD. Seems pretty clear doesn't it? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
There are times it is unfortunate that there isn't a way to provide original research. We have emails from the manufacturer themselves clarifying that the car is in fact not road legal. What is also unfortunate is that, from appearances, all of the publications that are used to source that the car is in fact a "production car" are using the company themselves as the source, from the Nurburgring run itself, which Radical was using as a way to build hype for the car. It appears perhaps the intent was there to make a version of the car that was actually road legal, but it never happened. It is rather dubious to claim that, in it's Nurburgring racing setup, the car was road legal. "Take my word for it" says the manufacturer. RTShadow (talk) 04:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Removal of pre-production manufacturer records y/n[edit]

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

Unless there is evidence of significant changes between pre-production and production versions we should accept them. Toasted Meter (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
No we dont otherwise there is no idea to keep the whole list, for example Jaguar XE SV Project 8 time was driven over 6 months before production and Jaguar has said its different than production car, this is very clear case. Most those you mention are driven weeks or mostly month before production and are real preproduction cars, this Jaguar cant be even classifed as preproduction car its more like test mule. Most preproduction cars are similar than prodcution cars, they are produced just to check all things are ok in manufacturing process. http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Pre-production_car -->Typ932 T·C 20:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Again, to keep consistency we then would have to disallow all other times set with pre-production vehicles (or "mules" if you disagree on that term). The same logic you apply to the Jaguar would apply to several other entries also. You haven't addressed that so far. By the way, attempting to get me blocked from editing because you have a different view of the matter and while you couldn't be bothered to discuss the subject on this talk page beforehand is really low. -- Epistolarius (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
The fact that this article already contains many pre-production models that have remained on the list without any dispute demonstrates consensus for their inclusion. In addition the use of pre-production models for top speed/fuel economy/lap time tests is standard in the automotive industry. We certainly can't check every single car article and confirm that every single claim is backed up without the use of a pre-production car. The best we can do is - if a pre-production car is used, and after full production there a specification/performance changes, we then look at that particular entry. But as it stands, the Jag is fine on the list. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Dont mess other cars for this, the problem is with Jaguar, if you find problems in other cars, just edit them or remove them. That Jags is as far as car can get from production status, those others are nowhere so different. -->Typ932 T·C 17:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
So, we should remove the Jaguar, but "don't mess other cars" because of your opinion? We should ignore consensus and remove this content based on your opinion, ignoring standards that have been set over years of having this article? I'm just trying to clarify if that's what you're suggesting. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
"That Jags is as far as car can get from production status, those others are nowhere so different." - You'll have to provide a source on those statements. -- Epistolarius (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
No because your opinion that jaguar is production car, ITS NOT, very simple , if page has errors in some other cars that doesnt make Jaguar as production car. You need to fix those other errors and not add more wrong data , And what consensus Epistolarius and Spacecowboy420 doesnt count as consensus. You both keep adding wrong info to article, with radical and jaguar -->Typ932 T·C 13:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
"Wrong info" - Wrong information on what? It's your opinion that the car totally changed from the record to entering its production run and that no other car record was done this way. Why would Jaguar even bother setting a record if the car was so unfinished ("mule" as you say) and so different from the production car as you claim? I think you're taking this well out of context and what Jaguar have been doing was mainly setup work and finetuning, just like any other manufacturer. -- Epistolarius (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Wrong info means that you add car that is not production car to list of prodcution cars. pls stop that, did you ever read those links and sources that I gave for you? "Why would Jaguar even bother setting a record if the car was so unfinished ("mule" as you say) and so different from the production car as you claim?" lol, read the link and sources. "production in June, but Jaguar engineers are still making changes" "perhaps it would have been had the Project 8 actually started production and been classified as a production car." they made chancges to car over 6 months time -->Typ932 T·C 05:46, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Would you kindly stop filling my talk page with threats over vandalism, disruptive editing, etc., while you can't be bothered to come to a consensus with other editors before taking action? For a "Master Editor" your approach to this has been anything but "masterful", you didn't bother to open a discussion on the talk page before editing the Jaguar entry nor did you add sources to the entry that specifically mention what's been changed from the "mule" as you call it to the production car to support your claim that the production car has totally different specs, nor did you provide those since. If you're looking for someone being disruptive perhaps you should look in a mirror. Frankly, I'm sick of these antics and edit warring and since it's clear you're not going to accept anything but what fits your own opinion I feel like the best action forward is removing the Jaguar entry entirely until a consensus has been found about production records set before cars entered the market in general. -- Epistolarius (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Comments such as "what consensus Epistolarius and Spacecowboy420 doesnt count as consensus." lead me to believe that either there is a major competence issue, or just an unwillingness to accept the way things are done here. Previous comments that state " who ever has wrote this stupid rule to the article" shows a total lack of respect for consensus. Continuing to complain and use warning templates is not the way to gain consensus. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2018[edit]

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2018[edit]

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2018[edit]

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

Manthey seems to be acting as a tuner here, modifying a finished car. As this is not available as a factory installed package, the time was accomplished with a modified street-legal production car and is therefore not representative of the GT2 RS as manufactured.
I already added the 911 GT2 RS MR under the section non-series records a few days ago. The MR Performance Kit is road-legal & sold through Porsche-subsidiary Manthey Racing... but I'd still count it as modified/non-series production car. --Epistolarius (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)