Talk:List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times/Archive 3

Vandalism

Please someone ask to block the page, a ferrari fanboy (or employee) is vandalizing the page, elminating radical times and adding 599xx time in production car category, the car is not road legal.

Production Cars

I thought the Production Cars section was for production cars only? Production car is not an ambiguous label. The SR8 is as much of a production car as the Viper SRT-10 Competition Coupe (that is to say, it isn't a production car). Instead of trying to label nonseries and nonroad legal cars as production cars, why not investigate the claims on the Mosler beating the Viper SRT-10 ACR? Das Viper (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you say the SR8 isn't a production car? Radical (and independent motoring press) say it is and Radical will happily sell you a road legal one today. Its been in production for going on for 5 years now and has sold in greater numbers than Zondas for instance. By what definition of "production car" is the Radiacal excluded? The Viper SRT-10 Competition Coupe was not road legal and designed specifically as a GT-class race car. The Radical SR8 on the other hand is designed to be a road legal track day car. A more accurate comparison from the Radical range would be the SR9 which is not a road legal vehicle. Unless you have a source to say it is not road legal or not a production car you are in the territory of original research. --LiamE (talk) 07:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Cars like the Radical SR8 are not required to meet the same rules as fully homologated road cars therefore they should be classified in a different class. The UK has special relaxed requirements that allow just about anything with four wheels to be declared a passenger car. A quick glance at the Radical reveals these shortages - i.e. lack of bumpers, lack of windscreen, lack of air bags, lack of full set of reflectors, lack of energy absorbing structure, etc. The "Non-Series" chart should be re-titled :"Non-Series and Small-Series/road legal cars without full homologation". Looking at the Radical is a matter of common sense. It is a purpose built prototype race car that happened to skirt the law in the UK and be classified as a road legal car. It is hardly in the same class as a Nissan GT-R, a Corvette ZR1 or a Viper ACR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sauron22 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

While the above comment is interesting to read, it is pure OR. Just because a car lacks certain features does not mean it is not a production car - what you are saying would basically remove a huge amount of British lightweight sportscars (Radical,Westfield,Ariel,Caterham) from the production car section. As far as limitied production is concerned, only 50 Maserati MC12s were made, only 25 Zonda F Clubsports were made. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Sennen Goroshi. A production/road legal car is not defined by the current US regulations as to what is / what is not road legal. If its road legal in its target market it is by definition road legal. If it is in standard mass production it is by definition a production vehicle. Stating anything else without a good source is OR. Would you discount every car sold in India as not being road legal as they wouldnt meet the emmisions and safety laws in other markets? Do we retroactively discount old cars that once met but now fail to meet current US regulations? Many cars were built without bumpers, without deformable stuctures (which the radical has by the way), without seatbelts, without airbags (which many cars still dont have today), without a full set of reflectors (which the radical has by the way) and so on. The car that set the time was clearly sporting a British licence plate and was therefore a road legal car. The SR8 was clearly not built as a racing prototype as Sauron22 suggests but designed from the ground up as a road legal track day car. --LiamE (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The biggest reasons why I would say the SR8 (or most any other Radicals) is not a production car is for the same reasons Nissan, Pagani, Chevrolet, Dodge, Porsche and any other production car record holders around the 'Ring don't consider it a production car. When Nissan took the record with their latest GT-R, everyone recognized it as the production car recorder holder (magazine articles and websites). The same for Pagani with their Zonda, Chevrolet with their C6 ZR1, Porsche with their Carrera GT and Dodge with their SRT-10 ACR (although I think the Viper should be questionable, since it had a nonstock race harness. However, last time I checked, it managed to qualify as a production car even with the racing seat). All of these production car records were set at the time the SR8 had already obtained its nonseries or nonroad legal tests. Keep in mind, this was not merely the companies themselves, but websites and car magazines (there's mention of it in last year's Car And Driver, around the Winter season, to name one. I'm not sure of the exact month. There's also Jay Leno's website, where he gave the ZR1 credit for holding the production car record at the 'Ring) stating this information. When Nissan's GT-R took the record, for example, it wasn't just Nissan spouting off that it took the production car record. Everyone was all over the information. No one said anything along the lines of "Nissa GT-R takes 2nd place at Nurburgring."

So it was with great curiosity I logged in one day and found that someone had moved the SR8 into the production car league. Has the definition of what a production car changed? Does Wikipedia's definition differ from what auto makers and auto magazines call a production car? Or has production car become an ambiguous label that could apply to virtually any car? Das Viper (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The thing is there is no one authority on what is and what is not a road legal production car and what cars hold the records at the ring. When a car sets a time it is often in the interests of the manufacturer or publication in question to claim a record so a hard and fast definition is a bit hard to pin down. The shenaigans with the GT-R "record" you mention kind of proves my point. It certainly seems now that that time was nothing more than a publicity stunt as the actual stock car is some 20 seconds slower as tested by Porsche. The facts remains that the SR8 IS road legal, the car that set the time was in road legal trim and was clearly sporting a British licence plate and it is clearly a production car in the same sense that most other high end exotic cars are - ie low volume but still a standardised product mass produced. Furthermore there are good independant sources that confirm it to be both a production car and the ring record holder. --LiamE (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of Porsche running a GT-R around the 'Ring to get a dubious lap time to discredit Nissan. And I say that because the GT-R humiliates all but one Porsche model (and almost ties with that one exception) around the Top Gear test track and many others. In any case, would you mind giving sources that say the SR8 is the production car record holder and is in fact a production car, please? I'd very much appreciate it. The link linking to the supposed info doesn't work on the main page. Das Viper (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well there are the sources listed in the article for a start. On top of that we have this from autotrader [1] which talks about both the SR3 and SR8 breaking the production car lap record. From EVO magazine - which is used to support many of the claims on the page you have this [2] which kind of kills the argument to my mind. If EVO are solid enugh to support the other times they must be accepted here too. Fastestlaps.com which specialises in such matters also considers it a production car. To be honest I havnt seen a source that says it isnt. The closest I've seen to its rejection as a production or road car was the top gear test where they reject it as a road car (not as a production car) for the purposes of their laptime list because it cant pass their "speedbump" test and is therefore impractical on town roads. Quite who would be buying one to pootle around town I don't know but there it is. I live by one of the main routes leading to Brands Hatch and I can assure you plenty of people drive them on the roads - including top gear themselves. In fact just last night I saw a program with James May from top gear driving a radical on public roads running on whiskey spirit. --LiamE (talk) 05:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh and just for the record I wouldnt say it Porsche being dubious with their laptime for the GT-R. If a pro driver and ring specialist can't come within 20 seconds of nissan's claimed time on the same day and in the same conditions with a stock car I would say its pretty certain Nissan where not running a stock car as they claimed. Until any independant tester matches Nissan's claim it should be veiwed with great suspicion. --LiamE (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Liam, you and the reading public are entitled to be as sceptical of the GT-R's ring time as you would like to be. But looking at the lap time from a factual point of view there is no reason to be any more suspicious of the GT-R's ring time than any other.

At present no Supertest has been conducted and the only documented lap time from an independent reviewer was conducted in poor weather on a wet track, with a series 1 GT-R on Bridgestone tires. I am of course referring to Chris Harris' Driver's Republic article where he clocked a 7:55 for the GT-R and a 7:49 for the GT2. When you examine the difference in lap times between Chris Harris and the manufacturer's claims (7:38 for the series 1 GT-R on Bridgestones, 7:32 for the GT2) they lag by precisely the same 17-18 second margin.

Porsche's claims are almost irrelevant as they have not produced any supporting documentation what so ever to indicate that they ever ran a timed lap in the GT-R, let alone with the intent of setting a fast lap time. There is no video, no data trace, no comment from their engineers, nothing at all to support their 7:54 claim. In fact the source for the 7:54 lap time claim was a comment made by their product chief at the launch of the 911 PDK in Australia, where the base model 911 is a direct price competitor to the GT-R. In a court of law their claims would be dismissed instantly as hearsay, given the lack of evidence, even more so due to their position as a market competitor. Regardless of this, their lap time has been listed on the table, for fairness.

The fact is that Nissan has provided an unprecedented amount of supporting information to back up their claim. Everything from video to data traces for both laps, to the very tires that were used for the 7:29 lap. The Supertest will be conducted fairly soon as the car goes on sale in Europe in April so we will have one more point of reference with which to judge the GT-R. gp900bj. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gp900bj (talk • contribs) 09:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really discounting the GT-R time just pointing out it was never the record for the ring and was never in fact claimed to be. Nissan set out to beat the 911 Turbo not to break the production car record. Nissan say it did that and they announced it and the record times for their car. That is not actually claiming the production car record though - people are looking at the articles for the GT-R and seeing it as an outright record when no outright record was ever claimed or reported. Das Viper above said the no one said "Nissan GT-R takes 2nd place at Nurburgring" and therefore took their time as a the outright record when of course it never was and they weren't even there to attempt that record. I, like many others, think the GT-R's 7-29 is a bit iffy but that is a secondary issue. --LiamE (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I just checked the ref links for the radical and the first one was indeed broken. I've fixed that and added the EVO article too. --LiamE (talk) 06:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

A couple of further points regarding inconsistencies. You say the "everyone" accepted the GT-R "record" set in 2008 when it is well documented that a Carrera GT lapped the Nordschleife quicker some 4 years earlier. Clearly the GT-R was never the outright record holder even if their time is true. A Radicial SR3 had also lapped quicker before then too. I also note that the motor trend article that seems to be being taken as gospel for the Viper claims to a record at no point says the car broke broke the production car record for the ring, just that it broke the record set by the GT-R. --LiamE (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Radical SR8 and SR8lm

You guys are crazy if you think the Radical SR8 should be in this list. ColdNoun (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The SR8 holds the fastest production vehicle lap time around the Nürburgring; why ignore Radical's own claim that it is a production sportscar and road legal (within Europe). Please amend the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjallraven (talk • contribs) 18:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It is currently listed under "Non-series/road-legal vehicles" despite being both road legal and in series production. I've pointed out that glaring innacuracy before but it seems people are too busy arguing over whether ther viper or corvette is quickest to notice. --LiamE (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is that in US people are far too obsessed with American cars or at least cars that the American public have heard of while in Germany a lot of the automotive publications want a car to meet German guidelines ie Ruf,Gemballa etc - so both the American and German media ignore all of the Radical/Caterham/Ariel style lightweights. Either way, I have removed the Radical from the non series section and placed it in the production section. Let's see if it can stay there, or if the Viper fanboys are going to whine about it and remove it. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 05:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem I see with the Radical SR8, and the reason I think it should be omitted from the production list, is because it's nothing more than a glorified, high-powered, road legal go-kart. I mean, it doesn't even have any doors for god-sake. And in terms of practically, there's nothing practical about it. Now just imagine what would happen for instance if every sports car manufacturer started building high-powered go-karts (like the Radical and Donkervort) just so they could try take the Nurburgring title and increase their share value in the process? Therefore, I think it pays to employ a certain level of judgment when it comes to determining exactly what should be put on the list and what should not, and for that reason I will be removing any "go-karts" from the production list until someone can provide adequate reasoning beyond the mere fact that such automobiles are claimed/certified as road legal. Siddhi.powers (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So what you would like to do is remove European style lightweights from the category? Get rid of Ariel, Caterham, Radical, etc. So what if they don't have doors? I wasn't aware of the category being "production cars with doors" There should be zero judgment when it comes to what is and is not placed on the list - wikipedia is not about opinions, it is about facts, is it not about original research. I am well aware that the Radical is one of the most extreme and track biased road cars available, but it is road legal and it is a production car.カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What I would do is use a level of fair judgment so that we don't end up with a list of go-karts dominating what is basically a super/sports car category. High-powered go-karts like the R8 and Ariel need to be relegated to a separate category, since there is quite a lot of difference between a high-powered go-kart and a typical sports car, and I think those difference need to be taken into account when determining exactly what should and should not be on the list. Because what's going to happen then if every car manufacturer starts to build road-legal go-karts and rocket boosted jet cars? Logic and reason should tell you that we would do better to avoid this development. But if you're too attached to the idea that high-powered go-kart's should be allowed on the list just because they meet the two criteria of having passed road-legal certification and production car status, then it really begs the question of whether you've actually considered the implications and potential developments of your assertion. Siddhi.powers (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Welcome for OR central. --LiamE (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It is more than OR, it is totally irrelevant to Wikipedia and absurd, just to clarify I should NOT include the SR8 because it is like a go-kart, and if a go-kart like car is the fastest around the ring, then other car manufacturers will feel compelled to build similar go-kart type cars so they can be fastest round the ring, and it all be our fault. I guess we should make a new category "Fastest round the ring - weighing at least 1000kg, including air-con, airbags and navigation and built in either Italy, Germany or America - that will get rid of all these nasty lightweights. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh Dear, you don't seem to understand do you? I shall try to make this as clear as possible without being rude. I am not a respected automotive expert and I am assuming that the same applies to you - as non experts our opinions as to if the Radical is suitable to be called a production car or not, is irrelevant. I don't understand why you claim that this is a super/sports car category, maybe my eyes are failing me, but I read it as production car. The Viper that you seem to be happy to be at the top of the list is a track car, as are many many cars that have been on the list for a long time - other editors seems to be happy for them to remain - ie. there is consensus. To be on the list a car has to be a car, be road legal, be a production car ie. not a one off, and be unmodified. The Radical fulfills the requirements for being classed as a production car. Your feelings what will happen to the auto industry if we allow cars like the Radical to remain on the list are irrelevant and highly unrealistic. This car was on the list, we had reached consensus, please obtain new consensus if you wish to remove it. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, while there may be consensus, consensus is not necessarily an indicator of correctness, since it was once consensus that the earth was flat. However, keeping it simple and logical, anyone who uses sensible judgment and a clear reasoning intellect, instead of merely pointing to the fact that the Radical R8 meets road legal / production car regulations, will no doubt conclude that the Radical R8 should be placed in a more appropriate category given its obvious and eminent differences. Because if the day arrives when non-practical rocket-fueled jet propelled go-karts become road legal, then I think you will find yourself asking the exact same question, i.e. "Do these types of automobiles really deserve to be placed in the same lap-time category as typical sports cars (which have a level of practicality to them), OR should they be classified under a category which is more definitive of their distinctiveness?". Think about it, it's not that hard to figure out. Siddhi.powers (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

And another thing I would like to say too about the Radical R8 is that while it may be road legal in certain parts of Europe, it is not road-legal in most other nations. Therefore, by your own reasoning, it has not reached global consensus with regard to road-legal status, and should therefore be placed in a separate lap-time category given this fact. Siddhi.powers (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There are many cars on the list that are not road legal in every nation, that does not change the fact that they meet the criteria of what can be considered a production car - anything else is your original research. Also please do not make edits based on the fact that you consider your opinion to be more important than consensus, as you did in your last edit summary - consensus is what makes Wikipedia work, your current edits are bordering on disruptive. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly there are many cars on the list that are not road legal in every nation, but i think it's pretty clear that 99.9% of the cars listed are road legal in MOST countries (more than 50%). On the other hand, the SR8 is only considered legal in specific parts of Europe. Therefore, by this reasoning, if the SR8 does not meet road legal status in 50% or more of the worlds nations, then I think the global consensus is clear and it should be placed onto a separate list that reflects that consensus. But not only this, I think its also quite clear that there are many aspects to the vehicle itself that make it quite distinctive from the other cars on the list, and this also needs to be taken into consideration. Siddhi.powers (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

We are going round in circles, everything you have stated is original research, you are not allowed to base your edits on original research. Just because you consider your edits to be correct, does not mean that they have priority over important wikipedia rules such as editors gaining consensus, or no original research. If you don't like those rules of don't think they should apply to you, then please contact the powers that be and explain your case - until such time as you are exempted from these rules, I suggest you stick to the rules as everyone else does. I see no point in continuing the discussion based on your original research, although I am of course happy to consider any new and valid points that you may make. As it stands the SR8 is included on the list due to editors combining to achieve consensus based on correctly cited facts from reliable and verifiable sources. Please read the following articles before you consider making any further edits: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Consensus カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Point acknowledge goroshi. My attempts to remove the SR8 was wrong and based on my own self-assertion and disregard for protocol. Forgive me for my stupidity on this. Siddhi.powers (talk) 11:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about what is right or wrong - it is about what can be cited. We have several cites to say the Radical is a production car and no one doubts its time seeing as it was independently timed and video confirmed. The Radical has good cite for both the time and its production car status. Trying to argue it isnt a production car can only be OR unless you can find a cite to say it isnt. Until then it should stay on the list.

Every car is a compromise between many factors such as comfort, practicality and performance. Why is it so hard for people to accept that the fastest cars are likely to be the ones which take an extreme stance in putting performance before other factors?

We seem to have a group of people that seem to want a push a specific agenda to get the list to include only the cars they want to see rather than what can be cited as a road legal production car. I can only guess at the motives for this but seeing as we have already had edits from employees I think a firm stance needs to be taken and wiki policy followed closely so as not to let an OR POV be pushed on the article by those who may be partisan for whatever reason.

And no Siddhi, almost no educated people since the 3 century BC has thought the Earth was flat. Try and keep up. And yes if a rocket powered go-kart becomes road legal and becomes a production and gets round the 'Ring quicker than everything else it should be at the top of the list as the list is for production road cars. Were the list titled "fat American sports that aren't quite as quick as European models, particularly those darned lightweights with downforce which we can't seem to beat if they are on our list" then of course you should feel free to exclude cars such as the Radical. Until then leave the OR alone please. Siddhi, as has already been pointed out the list is not exclusively for cars that meet todays restrictions in the American market, it is for all road legal production cars. To try an exclude a car for "only" being legal in the EU would be about as silly as excluding American cars that are not for sale in the EU. Radical are a small manufacturer and whether or not they have submitted their vehicles for some tests in a country several thousand miles from their base is neither here nor there. You may as well try and excluded them for not having been passed fit for use by inspectors in Mongolia. --LiamE (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You obviously missed the point about flat-earth consensus Liam. The point was that just because it's consensus doesn't make it true. But I agree strongly with the point you made when you said: "Every car is a compromise between many factors such as comfort, practicality and performance. Why is it so hard for people to accept that the fastest cars are likely to be the ones which take an extreme stance in putting performance before other factors?". This makes a lot more sense to me when I think about it, and I am willing to concede that I was mistaken in my attempt to shift the SR8 from the list. My apologies for being so pushy. And thanks for that clarification too, I appreciate your perspective :) Siddhi.powers (talk) 11:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

C6 Z06 lap times

I removed the lower C6 Z06 lap time, because I do not understand why more than one lap time is listed even though, as far as I know, there is no controversy about GM's test. If we are going to list every lap time ever reported for every car, won't that greatly expand the chart and make it very confusing? Roguegeek replaced the entry and wanted to discuss this. Any input is welcome. Shielse123 (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

My problem comes from you calling this a standard practice, which it is not. It's a change you want to make and I think you should get consensus from editors to do so. Maybe it's a good idea. Maybe it isn't. I think significant times should be listed here. roguegeek (talk·cont) 22:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There is an important difference between Manufacturer conducted tests and an independent test. Manufacturer tests are faster 99% of the time because of the resources available to them, and usually can't be compared to independet tests. The 430 Scuderia's lap times is a good example. Most head to head tests show that it is faster, or at least as fast as the 911 GT2, yet it has a slower ring time because Ferrari does not run its car there. Exorcet (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

EVO magazine lap times

Will anyone be adding the times set down by Marc Basseng for EVO magazine?

They ran the Maserati MC12, Pagani Zonda F Clubsport, Koenigsegg CCX, Porsche Carrera GT and Ferrari Enzo with help from Black Falcon.

The times for the cars were:

• MC12 - 7:24.29
• Zonda - 7:24.65
• Enzo - 7:25.21
• CGT - 7:28.71
• CCX - 7:33.55(Homers Oddity (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC))

I was thinking about adding these after i saw yesterday they weren't on here but a quick look to EVO's website shows no trace of the article leaving us nothing to link to to evidence. WE can't just say we read the mag and they were in there... 81.79.208.165 (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Let's find a source we can cite before they go up. That is really just a general rule for all vehicles here. roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Although the full video has not yet been released at least this confirms the test took place http://www.evo.co.uk/videos/planetevovideos/229368/ring_video.html

The Enzo & CCX laps are now up at www.supercarmovies.com(Homers Oddity (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC))

The MC12s lap is now up http://www.supercarmovies.com/html/interface.html (Homers Oddity (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC))

The Zondas lap is now up at www.supercarmovies.com(Homers Oddity (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

GT-R

I never believed the 7:29 to be driven with a stock car. Even more than others japanese manufacturers are known for "producing" laptimes for marketing reasons. Nevertheless I wonder why noone changes the tracklength to 20.6 km, as anyone can clearly see in the video that it is the shorter "sportauto-lap". I hope that wikipedia will get better protection from adulterant contributions, some users seem to do marketing in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.106.22 (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The 7:29 has been proven to be false by two different independent test now. Three or four seconds difference may be believable, not 25. The number must be pulled. Leaving it up only encourages others to lie as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joecooool1 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

7:29 is not full tracklength, but 20.6km - proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBZ5i15yVU8 please edit! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.16 (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The GT-R times are also "manufacturer claimed". Best Motoring did not conduct the test. They reported on the test conducted by Nissan. Best Motoring is a secondary source (which is good if you read the policy) and Nissan is the primary source. Check out what the difference is and how they are defined WP:PRIMARY. roguegeek (talk·cont) 18:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

When your standard is applied, most Rancined cars become the manufacturer claimed. the sports auto is not only necessarily a source tested alone.--Wikiarrangementeditor (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so how would you define the difference? roguegeek (talk·cont) 01:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Nissan's claim has been achived by way of cheating. They didn't use stock tires and possibly other problems. Acutual production car was tested and could only come within 25 seconds of Nissan's claim. Source:http://www.autoblog.com/2008/09/30/porsche-accuses-nissan-gt-r-of-cheating-the-ring/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.229.136 (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

They're just claims that question the time. We've placed the new tests onto the article, but I don't think this is enough to remove the Nissan test. roguegeek (talk·cont) 16:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Nissan claims that Porsche is lying, so the Nissan time should stay. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree. roguegeek (talk·cont) 00:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There's more evidence here. JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Drivers Republic attempts to answer which is faster on the 'Ring, GT2 or GT-R? http://www.autoblog.com/2008/11/24/drivers-republic-attempts-to-answer-which-is-faster-on-the-ring/

Direct link http://magazines.drivers-republic.com/driversrepublic/thetruth030/(Homers Oddity (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC))

The Japanese website citation for the 7:26 GT-R time has nothing to do with its ring lap time, nor does it prove that it is using stock tyres or any specified tyres. Please do not simply cite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.101.36.187 (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Also why do people continue to question this when it is for the obvious reason that they do not believe a car that retails for the price the R35 does, could possibly be that good? It simply boils down to the fact that there is no 'fact' about anything here in regard to lap times. Moreover it seems that if a Ferrari had posted the exact same time it would not have been brought into such scrutiny as has the R35. Many here have to take into account also that (according to Motor Trend http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0803_2009_nissan_gt_r_dyno_test/index.html) Nissan was held in high regard for having been very conservative with the real numbers when talking about the car's top speed and horsepower. So it serves only to question why then, they would go out of their way to make such false claims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HolyB144 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism upon the GT-R's lap time data

in the video on youtube of the GTR running the 7:26 it clearly shows the GTR in question with spec-v wheels.

Myself and the multitude of wikipedia users can only watch on in complete bewilderment as the GT-R's nurburgring data is repeatedly molested by unidentified net vandals. As of right now the lap time has been completely removed based on an incredibly flimsy assertion that begins with this line: "I never believed the 7:29 to be driven with a stock car". Is it now the role of wikipedia to report information based on the whims and fancies of poorly informed arm chair critics?

I'm under no misconceptions about the fact that the GT-R's 7:29 lap time is indeed a manufacturer claim but it must be made absolutely clear that despite all the grand claims that have been made about the 7:29 lap, not a single shred of evidence exists which proves without a doubt that the 7:29 lap time was performed with a tampered car. All we have at present are the unsupported claims of a direct competitor, Porsche, which has a vested interest in ensuring the GT-R's failure as a product.

Additionally, the fact that Driver's Republic could not achieve Nissan's lap time claim, while informative in studies of lap time variations across drivers of different skill and across varying conditions, says absolutely nothing about the validity of Nissan's claim. It goes without saying that the chief vehicle test driver, in ideal conditions, should be able to easily outperform a motoring journalist in less than ideal conditions.

Ask yourself this: Does the fact that you are not able to run the 100m sprint as fast as Hussain Bolt constitute evidence that Hussain Bolt cheated? I think not. I think we are all well aware of Hussain Bolt's far superior athletic prowess.

That the GT-R's lap time is disputed by multitudes of inconspicuous internet professors says nothing more about the GT-R's lap time than it does about every other lap time result which manages to upset fanbois/fangirls of another vehicle.

All I am asking for is consistency in reporting. Right now an unconfirmed lap time for the ZR1 is listed in the table and yet the GT-R's 7:29 is not listed, even as a manufacturer claim, despite both telemetry and video evidence to support Nissan's claim. Even worse, multiple instances of Porsche manufacturer claims, none of which provide telemetry or video evidence of any kind, are very craftily listed as "Porsche conducted tests". Is Porsche now considered to be an independent testing authority? This should be listed more correctly as a "Porsche claim".

The GT-R's 7:29 lap time should be returned to this table and correctly identified as a manufacturer claim. The Driver's Republic journal results and Porsche claims should also be listed clearly as what they are. This way wikipedia users can digest all of the relevant information and come to their own conclusions, rather than having their information "managed" beforehand.

This argument speaks to the very credibility of wikipedia as a source of information. Let's get real about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gp900bj (talk • contribs) 11:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the fact that Driver's Republic could not achieve Nissan's lap time claim, while informative in studies of lap time variations across drivers of different skill and across varying conditions, says absolutely nothing about the validity of Nissan's claim. It goes without saying that the chief vehicle test driver, in ideal conditions, should be able to easily outperform a motoring journalist in less than ideal conditions.

Not intended as an argument for or against your overall point, but I like to add two notes to two of your arguments. He is a motor journalist yes, but the fact he also has some racing experience (especially on the Nordschleife) might not be completely irrelevant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drivers_Republic). Furthermore it seems reasonably obvious to me that the Driver's Republic comparisons intent and significance is not comparing laptimes of a single car with different conditions and drivers, but to compare two different cars (The GT2 and the GT-R) with identical conditions and drivers. The fact that a 3rd party test shows the GT-R to be 6.9s slower than the GT2, while the manufacturer's claim is in fact 3s faster, is in my view relevant to the validity of Nissan's claim. That said there is no guarantee of DR's objectivity or driving consistency either.

The GT-R's 7:29 lap time should be returned to this table and correctly identified as a manufacturer claim. The Driver's Republic journal results and Porsche claims should also be listed clearly as what they are. This way wikipedia users can digest all of the relevant information and come to their own conclusions, rather than having their information "managed" beforehand.

Considering the above I would agree with this statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CSpronken (talk • contribs) 11:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This whole table is garbage basically, since any true racer knows you can only compare two cars under the exact same conditions. The head to head test of the Porsche and GT-R tells you all you need to know. The GT-R is slower than the Porsche on the ring, period. This whole GT-R was pure hype. Nobody has been able to verify to the R33 time either after many many years, in fcat tests have found it to be waaaay off. CJ DUB (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

EVO and GT-R Contriversy

There are multiple observers of the EVO test that have different accounts of the tires and suspension setups that were used on these magazine runs. Obviously one driver on one day taking three different cars and posting three of the top four fastest times ever is enough to raise serious suspicions as to the validity of the runs.

And exactly who are these multiple observers?(Homers Oddity (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Regarding the GT-R, Porsche is now formally claiming that Nissan "cheated" to get these times. Porsche has just run its own back-to-back tests with the Japanese company's GT-R supercar and says it could not get within 25 seconds of Nissan's claimed record time of seven minutes 29 seconds in April. BMW has reported that the GT-R that turned in the 7:29 was actually running 693 hp, which is about 200 hp more than the production car comes with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joecooooooool (talk • contribs) 15:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask exactly what is it about Porsche's claims that makes them "formal"? Have they registered a complaint with any mediating governing body like the TUV, or the fair trading commission, or the police? Are they pursuing legal action? The original article [3] makes it clear that the accusation was made during an informal conversation between the Porsche product chief and a CARSguide journalist during the press launch for the 911 Cabrio in Australia. In fact there isn't even any Porsche press release regarding this issue. Given the lack of supporting information, e.g. video, data traces, press release, this accusation can only be treated as hearsay. Is there even any evidence to suggest that Porsche ran a timed lap in the GT-R at all?

Do you have a source you can cite for any of this? roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Source 1 - http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/Nissan-GT-R/235197/

Source 2 - http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/7259/nissangtr693my0.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joecooooooool (talk • contribs) 14:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite source 2 a little more fully? Who published? When? Edition? Author? That kind of stuff. roguegeek (talk·cont) 15:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Roundel is BMW's official magazine. This article was published in the July 2008 edition.

Roguegeek, I can clarify this for you. Source 2 is a scan of the Roundel magazine which is the official magazine of the BMW car club of America. The BMW CCA is a completely separate business entity from BMW and the magazine is printed independently. So Joecool's suggestion that "BMW has reported that the GT-R that turned in the 7:29 was actually running 693 hp" is entirely false. BMW has reported no such thing and no BMW press release exists to support this claim. Furthermore, the section of the Roundel magazine that is being referenced is essentially the Roundel magazine's equivalent of a gossip column, titled "Heard on the Street (Strasse)". Considering this article provides no supporting technical documentation, like dyno graphs or engineering citations, it must be asked: How is it possible for the writer of a gossip column for the BMW car club of America to know the specific amount of power being developed by the Nissan GT-R used to run the 7:29 lap time?

"But many commentators are sceptical about the value of comparing Nordschleife times, in case manufacturers have fettled with their car."(Source 1). That exactly is the problem. The type of tyres is very important, and turbocharged cars can easily be tuned to more power. Only the times driven&reported by independent sources, like sportauto magazine, or in races have any meaning. Skyline and Supra were entered in 24h several times, as was the Lexus LF in 2008, and the results were not overwhelming. Recently, in CHC/RCN events on the 20.8km track, the Alzen 997 Turbo did 7:00, and Sabine Schmitz in a GT3 was only a few seconds slower. Very experienced drivers in well prepared race cars, with slicks and wings and all, but with limits on weight and power according to the rules. Being only 20 seconds slower with heavy standard road cars & tyres is, well, interesting. One wonders what magazines and websites are willing to do to produce headlines, and manufactures to get top rankings. I'd like to see Nissan and Lexus and others to enter their "road cars" in races, subject them to scrutineering, and repeat the claimed times. The 2009 24h [4] will accept FIA GT Championship GT3 and SRO GT4 entries, so now almost all cars with big engines are allowed, but subjected to certain limits. Factory entered BMW M3 and Audi R8 are expected to show up, so a good opportunity to beat the Germans on their home soil. -- Matthead  Discuß   14:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Nissan R33 Skyline GT-R & Porsche 911 996-type GT3

In the record table, it's stated that the R33 GT-R has done a 7:59. There is no a single source on the internet to confirm it, so I hope you'd remove it. You also stated on Porsche 911 GT3 section that the 996 GT3 has done a 7:56 but you didn't put it on record table. (Challenger64hemi (talk) 07:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC))

No reliable source for the 7:22 C6 ZR1 time

I'd love for this to be true as much as the next Corvette fan, but blogs and forums are generally not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia references (the biggest exception is when a posting is from a verified expert - certainly not the case here). Sometimes you can figure out where they got their information and it may lead to a reliable source, but in this case, it actually leads to an even more unreliable source.... Motorgears even gives the source: "IP: 24.208.168.135" posted it to fastestlaps.com. Do you think that we can consider a random user of roadrunner.com to be a reliable source? Not only that, but that post has since been removed - if you click on it, it now shows nothing. So now, it is completely unsourced (except that a blog saved a copy from the web posting). If this data can be verified as reliable, it can be restored, but until then, the 7:22 needs to go as it is backed up by no hard data. Said another way, I could post the exact same info to fastestlaps.com, only this time with 7:22.1. Some blog picks up that data and now we put it in Wikipedia. NOT the way to build a reliable encyclopedia. —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 22:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

A valid point(Homers Oddity (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC))

It should be kept up until one of these media groups reporting the time formally says something about it. I'm finding far more sources about this reported time and none saying anything different. Until someone reliable says something about it, I think we can consider this "rumor" original research. roguegeek (talk·cont) 23:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? We can't wait "until one of those media groups reporting the time formally says something about it." That isn't how Wikipedia works. Policy is quite clear on this issue: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should only include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." We would be swimming in dubious information otherwise while we wait for confirmation that never arrives. So, please list your "far more sources" because so far, we have none. As a show of good faith, I'll leave the claim few more days. —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 14:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The only "source" claiming it's a rumor is you and that's considered original research. The secondary sources (which Wikipedia should always be built on) all claim this story to be true and I can find a dozen more that all say the very same thing. If the time is dubious, then you need to find a reliable secondary source that say so. You are not a reliable secondary source. roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Roguegeek, is there any news yet from GM over this lap time?(Homers Oddity (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

Nothing that I can find, but do they need to for this to be a time posted here? I don't think so. If anything, I think we just pull off "manufacturer tested" or something. roguegeek (talk·cont) 20:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Howdy Roguegeek, I'm begging you ... would you PLEASE list your "far more sources" here on the talk page for discussion, - because so far, we have no reliable ones. The two sources you've cited point back to the same single blog, which picked it up off a forum-like web site (Fastestlaps.com), which actually deleted the original post. Do any of your other sources point to something more authoritative? As for WP:OR, I'm not trying to add unsourced data to the article, so it isn't original research. Lastly, WP:PSTS specifically mentions "reliable". The current (single) source fails that test - hence the reason I'm disputing this. —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 21:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

To save any arguments can't someone put in Notes something like 'yet to be confirmed' and when we have more evidence then it can be updated.(Homers Oddity (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

The wording of Template:Unconfirmed would imply not. Unconfirmed implies not verifiable or reliably sourced, which typically means it should be removed. —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 17:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Jan Magnussen along with a GM factory driver, drove the ZR1 to a 7:22.4 on Oct.28, 2008. What else is there to discuss? Yes, Jan Magnussen is a professional race car driver and he lapped the track 4 seconds faster than Jim Mero, a GM engineer. These facts are posted on numerous websites, why is this a point of disagrteement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ORYXGTO (talk • contribs) 03:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it isn't considered "fact" until published by a reliable source, which so far, we have not been able to locate. If you know of an official statement about this, please let us know. —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 04:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

THE Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 HAS SINCE RUN A 7:22.4. at the hands of Jan Magnussen ! second ONLY to the R compound, tired Viper ACR! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.94.204 (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

See above. Thanks! —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 04:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The times were published on Fastestlaps.com but have since been retracted. Along with the fact that GM did not release a press release of said time, unlike every other nurburgring time they have done, we can assume that the 7:22.4 time is false and never happened. The only sources still claiming this are forum oists that lead back to blogs that lead back to Fastesttimes.com, which has since removed that time from their database. --Mwmorph (talk) 06:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Motorcycle laptimes.

There has been a new lap time which needs to be added to the unofficial lap times. The bike was ridden by Andy "Andypath" Carlile on the 11th September 2008. The bike was ridden for Fast Bikes magazine and will be in the January issue of that magazine. The bike as a P3 Unlimited Suzuki GSXR600K6 Superlite. The time for the lap was 7 minutes 17 seconds. The bike was the first of a limited edition production run of lightweight GSXR600's built by P3 Unlimited and is the exact same spec as the production bike at 153Kg wet and 120 BHP at the rear wheel.

If this could please be added that would be appreciated.

 RacerX67 (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RacerX67 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC) 

-Also the fastest two motorcycle laptimes tested by PB (myself[Dale Lomas], The Baron and Andy Carlisle have been reduced by 20 seconds. The true times are 7min22.8 for the MV and 7min28 for the R1 as cited in the references. As I'm also the guy who did the testing I can email the datalogs should these be required. These are factually incorrect and wholly unrealistic. Dalomas (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Please correct the bike laptimes as Dale has said your laptimes are 20 second adrift for the Performance bikes laptimes. Also please add the P3 bike as the time has been checked and is correct and currently the fastest bike to have lapped the tourist lap. If you are going to put times as fact please check them and make sure they are accurate.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by RacerX67 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

EVO magazine lap times

Hi Guys about the Norschleife nurburgring Evo mag track times watch the vidéos , the starting point for the crono is not the same as the stop point you can add easy 5 or 6 sec on all the lap times showed for get the real laptime . . I was in Nurburg this summer , Viper laptime is true & they didn't reach it at the first lap Note to euro supercars makers : guys its swell to resale $1,000,000 cars but if you like to catch really the kings of the hill its time to stop talking & begin to work (some efforts would be appreciated ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.11.20 (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Editing

I noticed it's impossible to edit the lap time article. I understand if this is to prevent vandalism and untrue lap times from entering into the data. However, how old and outdated is the data currently on display in the article? Das Viper (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Viper ACR notes

"suspension adjustments" should not be cited. the GTR and many other vehicles have a "sport mode" which makes the same adjustments to shocks as what was adjusted on the ACR-yet no one ever cites those. this whole "aero adjustment" "suspension adjustments" is misleading and biased. the veyron has an adjustable spoiler yet there are no citations for its times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gray cobra (talk • contribs) 01:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the note on the ACR's time from "suspension modifications" to "suspension adjustments" as "modifications" implies something more extensive than turning a knob on the dampers. It also more accurately reflects the cited source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.246.210 (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is the Viper ACR not on the list at all? I notice the article link at the bottom highlights suspension adjustments but it comes from the factory with fully adjustable suspension. It is more of a production car than many on the list. You can go into a Dodge Dealer and purchase one just as you would any other car. Technically the ACR package is an option that is added to the car. It has full interior, a radio, air conditioning, airbags, etc. There is no roll cage and it has real glass windows. If it does not qualify as a production car I don't know how others such as the Radical do. Somehow the media (and apparently now this page as well) focus on the ZR1/GTR Nurburgring times, but ignore the time of the ACR. I didn't want to jump in and edit the page since I have never really edited much, so I thought I would reach out and see if there is a reason it is not included. Notacop (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Notacop

Look at the list again. Its been listed since the time was reported. --LiamE (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Having had a look at the history the entry was breifly vandalised. I can only assume you looked at the list at that moment. The ACR has been been there, barring vanadalism, for a long time now. --LiamE (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Source For The 7:22.4 Lap Time Of The Corvette C6 ZR1?

Just because there's no video doesn't mean it didn't run 7:22.4. I found this article of ZR1's 7:22.4 lap time from Motor Authority. http://www.motorauthority.com/corvette-zr-1-laps-the-ring-in-7264.html. Check it out. It might look reliable. -Gohardnal (talk) 06:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually that seems like a pretty unreliable source. Nowhere in that article does the writer state how, where, when he obtained this information. He just states it as though it is fact. The world could very easily descend into chaos if everybody decided to report news like this.

A whole swag of automotive blogs reported this as "news" simply because they heard rumors of the story on forums. The source for all of this was a fraudulent lap time posting on fastestlaps.com. The poster subsequently hot linked a whole series of forum threads to fastestlaps and eventually, when the rumor reached a critical mass the blogs started reporting it. Fastestlaps has since permanently removed the fraudulent lap time due to repeated fraudulent posts.

I don't get it. If it is true that the ZR1 has posted a 7:22.4 and GM spent time and money getting Jan Magnussen to drive the lap, why on earth would they not report it themselves? Why is there no GM press release? Furthermore, when Jan Magnussen drove the 7:42.9 in the c6 Z06 his p.r. people wrote a complete article regarding the lap on his personal web page including a gallery of images. Yet his web page says nothing about a 7:22.4 in the ZR1?

New Information from a GM insider confirming that the ZR1's 7:22.4 lap time claim is a hoax (Road&Track Confirmation now added)

I know there are a lot of questions surrounding the ZR1's 7:22.4 lap time claim and that the claim is beginning to look increasingly like a fraud. Aside from discovering that no GM press release exists for the claim and that nothing has been mentioned on Jan Magnussens web page and that no video has been produced in the 4 months since the claim was made, I have also discovered the following information on the corvetteforum web page.

A thread was started on that forum, reporting the supposed 7:22.4 lap time, just 1 day after the lap time was posted on fastestlaps.com by an anonymous submitter. How this information moved so quickly is beyond me, especially considering the insignificance of the source and his/her/it's inconspicuous nature. Link to the thread: [5]

Observe how that thread unfolds and then, importantly, observe how that thread is finally locked when another corvetteforum member obtains inside information from GM which confirms that the corvette team has not returned to the Nurburgring since recording Jim Mero's 7:26.4 lap time, clearly indicating that the 7:22.4 lap time is a fraud. Link to the final post which confirms the 7:22.4 as a hoax: [6]

In light of the lack of evidence to support the 7:22.4 lap time and given this new information from the corvetteforum web page I would strongly suggest that the ZR1's 7:22.4 lap time be removed from the list. Admin please confirm this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gp900bj (talk • contribs) 05:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Update, Road&Track has confirmed the lap time to be a hoax and has issued a correction to their publication of the time:

[7]

I think this is pretty much all we need to remove the 7:22.4 from the table.

Agreed. Per the discussion above, we were NOT listing it until a reliable source arrived. An anonymous user slipped it in right before a bunch of vandalism, and so it went unnoticed. Thank you for pointing it out! —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 14:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarified and revised heading for "Non-Series/road legal vehicles".

In regard to the discussion of "Production Cars" the "Non-Series" chart should include vehicles that do not meet the full homologation requirements. This gives an unfair advantage to certain low volume manufacturers in certain regions.

Cars like the Radical SR8 are not required to meet the same rules as fully homologated road cars therefore they should be classified in a different group. The UK has special relaxed requirements that allow just about anything with four wheels to be declared a passenger car. A quick glance at the Radical reveals these shortages - i.e. lack of bumpers, lack of windscreen, lack of air bags, lack of full set of reflectors, lack of energy absorbing structure, etc. The "Non-Series" chart should be re-titled :"Non-Series and Small-Series/road legal cars without full homologation". Looking at the Radical is a matter of common sense. It is a purpose built prototype race car that happened to skirt the law in the UK and be classified as a road legal car. It is hardly in the same class as a Nissan GT-R, a Corvette ZR1 or a Viper ACR.

The BBC TV series agrees with this common sense approach to what is a road car and what is a race car with a registration. They have simple common sense rules that say wether or not a car is allowed on their production car lap time leaderboard - e.g. 'The car must be able to travel over a speed bump'. Fans or employees of Radical should not dismay. They are still at the top of thier class.

You could make an arguement that that the Viper Competition Coupe race car is more of a road car than the Radical. It has a windscreen, windshield wipers, a roof, doors, bumpers, can navigate over a set of speed bumps, etc. There are certain countries and certain states in the US that allows an extremely liberal registration of vehicles. In this regard, where do you draw the line as to what a production car is? A car that meets the rules of full production homologation (i.e. no loop holes) should be called a "Production Car". Anything short of this is a "Small Series" vehicle that plays by a more liberal set of rules.

The "Non-Series" chart should be reworded to "Non-series and Small-series/road legal cars without full homologation.

Reference UK Small Series Laws - [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sauron22 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Very nicely written, however all of the above is original research - it really is not up to an editor of wikipedia to decide that a certain car is not worthy of being called a production car. To me the Dodge Viper ACR that you worship is the racing version of the road car, it happens to be road legal, but it is just like the Radical a car destined for the track not the road. There are many many cars out there that don't have doors/windows/air-bags/etc and they are just as much production cars as your Viper. I am really sorry if you are offended by the inclusion of such a bare-bones car, but the facts are: 1. it is a production car. 2. it is faster than any other production car around the Nurburgring. I think I might have to add the Mclaren F1 next, didn't that lap in 7.11??カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Your reference on the McLaren F1 is insufficent. This listing is as unsupported, just like the listing of Jan Magnussen's ZR1 time of 7:22.4 which didn't happen. I have not been able to find any reference that F1 time. I'm sure McLaren would have publicized this event if it actually happened and it should be quite easy to find. Part of contributing to Wikipedia is backing up your posts with strong sources. This listing coupled with the lack of any other evidence doesn't meet that criteria.

To return to the discussion of what a true series-production car is. Your comment "There are many many cars out there that don't have doors/windows/air-bags/etc" is true. But it is also true that these vehicles are not constructed under the same set of government regulations as other cars and thereby they should be classified in a different group. An automobile manufacturer has to live to a set of rules just like the manufacturers of racing cars. Different classes have different rules. Under the laws of some countries and some regions you are able to homologate and sell racing cars. There have been several purpouse built race cars that have been registered and are driven legally on the road. This is exactly what Radical is doing. The Viper ACR is built to the same laws and rules that a high volume car is. Your comment "To me the Dodge Viper ACR...is the racing version of the road car, it happens to be road legal, but it is just like the Radical a car destined for the track not the road." is incorrect. The best comparison of the Viper ACR is the Porsche GT3RS. A simple survey of the Viper and Porsche club forums reveals that the overwhelming majority of the time these cars are driven on public roads. The opposite is true of the Radical. The ACR and GT3RS were both designed, conceived and built as fully homologated street cars. They play by a much different set of rules than racing cars such as the Radical. Your comment "it really is not up to an editor of wikipedia to decide that a certain car is not worthy of being called a production car" is one that I agree with. It's not up to you or me to say if the Radical is a fully homologated passenger car. The government of the United Kingdom has a well documented set of rules that puts a line between full homologation and "Small Series" homologation. Did you read the linked reference to the Small Series manufacturers laws? Small series cars are only requred to meet half of the regulations by number per the chart on page 4. Items number 4 and 5 on the chart includes five separate "smoke and exhaust emissions" requirements. None of these things are required by Radical. In other words, they have complete flexibility to pollute and produce emissions (i.e. just like a race car). It is not reasonable to put a car that has this major advantage in the same class as the vehicles with extremely burdensome regulations regarding emissions. Here is the Small Series summary again - http://www.vca.gov.uk/additional/files/vehicle-type-approval/vehicle-type-approval/vca002.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.9.163.106 (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

yeah blah blah blah blah blah.. and you still have failed to show that the Radical is anything other than a production car. A survey of how the cars are used is as relevant as if I like eating cheese. Do you know anything about British cars? A car in the UK has to pass an MOT, if the car causes major pollution, it would not pass an MOT and would not be legal for road use - if a car does not meet certain safety standards, it will not pass an MOT - according to your logic I could make an F1 car and register it in the UK - which is not the case. It is a road legal production car - end of story. Your edits are starting to become disruptive and you are clearly an editor with a single purpose/agenda, I suggest that you step back, and leave this article alone. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Load of rubbish. Go read that paper you linked to again. For small volume cars things like emmissions are tested to the full EEC/ECE requirements. --LiamE (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this section does bring up some important questions about what constitutes a "Production" vehicle and whether or not that term adequately covers the type of vehicle we are aiming to display in that particular section. It is my understanding that the table for Production vehicles is essentially attempting to display the lap times for "street legal" or "road going" vehicles.

The term "Production" can be ambiguous as there are numerous manufacturers who specifically "Produce" track dedicated vehicles, many of which would not satisfy registration requirements in certain countries. Then comes another question, which country's road legislation should we apply as a standard?

The situation becomes even more complicated by the fact that the majority of these vehicles offer a high degree of component adjustability and/or chassis alteration which, when configured for track use, can make the vehicle non-compliant where it would have otherwise been compliant in a less track focused configuration. Adjustable ride height is one of the features which can result in this outcome.

I am amused by the actions of the recently discovered Chrysler employee (or associate, see section below, Conflict of Interest) and his/her repeated attempts at removing the Radical SR8 on grounds of "Not street legal". They should be more concerned about the validity of the ACR's lap time as there a plenty of indications that the Viper ACR which ran the 7:22.1 lap time was configured in a way which would have violated a key FMVSS statute making the car non-compliant. I am of course referring to the pair of front splitters which Chrysler had fitted to the ACR which violate FMVSS statute 215 regarding pedestrian safety and 2.5mph crash survivability (See Car&Driver November 2008, Page 24). Of course the splitters are removable but when fitted they contribute approximately 1/4 of the vehicles down-force and are key to eliminating under-steer.

The important question is: whether or not the "street legality" of the particular configuration which was used to obtain a lap time matters more than the vehicles production status. This would be something to think about for the future. gp900bj —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gp900bj (talk • contribs) 12:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I am admittedly new to the Wikipedia system and haven't read all of the guidelines including the COI guidelines. I thank all the editors that have given me guidance so far. Each time they've given me guideance I read the links and improved my posts with better supported information. Yes, I am an employee of Chrysler and my edits regarding the Radical were intended to restore the board to what it was previously and to propose a clarification of the "Non-Series/Road Legal" chart. For several years, the Radical SR8 and other such Small-series cars were in the "Non-Series/Road Legal Cars" chart on this Wikipedia listing. The Carerra GT was at the top of the prodution car chart. Most enthusiasts and most publications see clear a difference between cars like the Radical and other full production cars. That's why they recognized the Carrera GT as the fastest production car lap time for years. That's why they recognize the ACR now. I think that's why this article was set up the way it originally was (Production vs. Non-Series/Road Legal). If someone beats the ACR with a full production car, so be it. It's bound to happen sooner or later.

All of my edits regarding the Viper ACR have only been to clarify and provide accurate information. I have tried to provide a 3rd party unbiased source for each of my posts. I just read the COI guidelines that were provided and have no problem admitting my COI. If I had understood this policy I would have declared it from the beginning. I think the other editors agree that having a COI doesn't mean you can't provide accurate information. Also, having a COI does not mean you are distorting the facts. If you can read all of my previous edits (I'm a novice and don't know if/how to do this) you would see that I have posted other manufacturers lap times. I was the first one to post the Corvette ZR1 time of 7:22 based on the Autoblog article. This is the opposite of "advancing outside intrests" and only diminishes the gap with ACR time doesn't it?. And I was also the first to post the EVO magazine shoot out with the Zonda and other cars that closed the gap with the ACR. Neither of these things could be considered "self promoting" or "distortions". My edits have all been about getting the correct information on the chart.

A classification for Non-Series or Small-Series/road legal cars is a logical and common sense approach in grouping cars like the Radical. That is exactly how this chart was used previously. I did make a mistake on one of my earlier comments about the emissions requirements and am glad to see there are other Wiki-editors reading the regulations and acknowledging the fact that there is a different set of rules for small manufacturers. In the United States there are certain states that have a more flexible set of homologation rules as well. Rather than endlessly debate this, a simple deliniation for a "Production" and "Non-Series/Small Series" should be used. There have been owners of Viper Competition Coupe race cars that have registered them for road legal use in their state. This car is a Small-series production car that is road legal. Should this guy be able to run the Nordschleife and post his time? Should a Hennesey Viper be able to run the Ring and post a time as a production car? There is an easy way to avoid confusion - full homologation.

The reason Radical is able to liberally build such a fantastic car is because it has a different set of rules and laws. Almost everyone understands this. The charts on this site would be more correct if they reflected this as well. --Sauron22 (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sauron, you have an obvious conflict of interest here and you are pushing an OR pov and trying to support it with incorrect facts and logic that is so full of holes it would put a polo to shame. Time to let it go. --LiamE (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Prior to the SR8 as far as I was concerned the record was held by the Radical SR3 turbo. Is the Hennesey Viper a modified car or a production model? Ruf might be modified Porsches but they have full production status, they are listed in Germany as a car maker, not a tuner. To me the Viper ACR is the track version of the Viper but belongs there because it is road legal in the same way that the Radical is obviously track biased, but road legal. We are not here to judge exactly how much of a road car certain cars are, or if having an airbag/etc is required. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 06:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You guys sure are going about this in a complicated way. It's very obvious that the SR8 is not designed to satisfy the same requirements as the rest of the cars on this list. Even if no information about the car's design were available, when the SR8 ran it's lap it beat out the next closest competitor that was currently on the list by nearly a full minute. You don't beat the next fastest competitor in this game by that much by following the same rules. I suppose what really needs to be decided is where a car must be road legal to count as "production". After all, if Sealand clears a space on it's deck and makes a law that Formula 1 cars are legal on it, does that count? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.94.180.63 (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It follows the same rules, its just they take a very uncompromising position in the blance between performance and other factors such as comfort and practicality. The Radical was not that much faster than other cars because it follows some magically different rule set it is faster for 2 simple reasons. Firstly it was built from the ground up for one purpose with no hint of compromise and that purpose was to go round tracks very quicky. Secondly (and most importantly) it has downforce, and lots of it. In any case it wasn't anything like a minute faster than the record holder when it made its run. The list on this page is far from inclusive. Have a look at this [9] for a more complete list. As for where a car needs to be legal to count whatever consensus is reached I would imagine being legal in the largest market in the world, the EU, would likely be considered a reasonable enough qualification. --LiamE (talk) 03:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The other cars you are referring to are not on this list for the same reasons that the SR8 souldn't be on this list. The rest of the cars on this list have met requirements for emissions and safety, and are sold in showrooms in many markets across the world. You can go to one of those showrooms and look at one. They might even let you test drive one. With the exception of maybe the Enzo Ferrari, and only because demand was so high, they are built first, and sold second. You do not have to request a one-off to be built for you. Given the extenive list of options for the SR8 and the low production volume, I highly doubt they keep more than one or two around, and those are for display purposes and not for sale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.11.213.246 (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You are now pushing an OR POV about what YOU think SHOULD be on the list. That won't fly on Wikipedia. Do you honestly think you can go and buy a Zonda from stock? The company made a dozen cars in 5 years for heavens sake, they are all built to specific requirements. In comaprison Radical have made over 400 SR3s alone. Most of the cars towards the top end of the list are not commonplace cars and not built in huge numbers, that is neither here nor there. You say that the other cars on the list have met emissions and safety requirements... here's news for you. If the Radical hadnt also met the requirements it wouldnt be road legal. It has, and it is. The small volume car legislation in the UK is there to make it cheaper not easier for small manufacturers to build road legal cars. They still have to pass very similar testing to cars built by major manufacturers and still have to pass a yearly MOT test. Differences in the testing come down to things like door hinges (I kid you not) and not being required to fit inertia reel seatbelts as they often choose to fit superior multi point harneses. The category is for road legal production cars. Any production that is road legal in a major market obviously fits that bill. --LiamE (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think about the Zonda. You're right. For more reasons than just the Zonda... I was feeling somewhat... argumentative earlier this week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.11.213.246 (talk) 07:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Guess what car I found for sale? --LiamE (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Major conflict of interest issues.

I have been trying to reinstate the Radical SR8 as the fastest production car for the last few days. Editor Sauron22 Special:Contributions/Sauron22 has been removing this fact. Upon looking at his edit history, I noticed that he only edits this article and the Dodge Viper article. (removing the Radical SR8 would make the Dodge Viper the fastest production car around the Nurburgring)

To me that is wrong, it is mildly disruptive - but overall nothing more than an OR and edit dispute..no big problem.

Well it was not a problem until the editor failed to log in and edited the talk page with his IP, instead of his account. Upon running whois on his IP, I found that the IP is registered to Chrysler Motors Corporation, the company that makes the Dodge Viper, the car that he is trying so hard to keep as the fastest on the list. One of the edit summaries used by the IP states # 04:34, 12 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Chrysler Headquarters and Technology Center ‎ (I changed the square footage from 4.4 million square feet to 5.4 million square feet. I work here and its posted everywhere.)

The IP in question is Special:Contributions/129.9.163.106 and the whois result is here [10]

I am not suggesting that there are any sock puppet/IP issues, there have been no attempts to use the IP to get around editing restrictions, form false consensus etc, however there is a clear conflict of interest and seeing that the Sauron account has only made edits to this article and the article of the Dodge Viper it is clearly a single purpose account with a clear agenda and an equally clear conflict of interest. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think thats what they call ownage in the states. --LiamE (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think once Ultima take their 700bhp beast round the ring, there will be a little more ownage. If the Caparo T1 can get round without setting itself on fire, there might be even more ownage. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If your facts are correct, this would constitute a clear conflict of interest and you can make a case on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. — Deon Steyn (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

McLaren F1 time

I feel that the time I added is a little dubious, the only references to this I can find list the car as McLaren F1 #LMXP1 - does anyone know any more about this? The time is awesome, maybe a little too good and I would like to clarify this one way or another. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The McLaren F1 LM (LM for Le Mans) is a road legal variant of the McLaren F1 GTR so I'm not if it can be classified as a "production vehicle" if that is your question. Looking at the WP article it seems only 5 were built and the 6th is an experimental version called the XP1, see third paragraph under section McLaren_F1_LM#Background. So the XP1 is one-off version of something that is already a very limited edition variant of a race car? — Deon Steyn (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The SPS-Automotive link does not meet the standard of a reliable third party published source. From all of the searches I've done there appears to be no other support that this lap time ever happened. --Sauron22 (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Both the production status of the car and the actual time record do seem a little dubious, as I was the editor who added it, I am going to remove it unless anything feels strongly about it. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Location of SR8's road legality

The three cited sources say nothering about where the SR8 is legal. I have found a motortrend article that does (Britain only). It's here: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/convertibles/112_0708_caparo_t1_first_drive/driving_impressions.html

Unless someone has a good reason why this is not valid, I will update the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.94.180.63 (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The car that ran the record lap was cleary sporting a British number plate and is therefore road legal in the UK. Any car legal in the UK is legal throughout the EU. --LiamE (talk) 03:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If that is true, than that should be cited. It sounds somewhat dubious to me. For example: Can a French citizen register a car that does not conform to French laws by that logic, or is that law merely to allow Europeans the freedom to drive thier cars across the border without fear of being ticketed? I'm not going to start an edit war, that's stupid. But whatever sources reflect, should be shown.

Yes its laws about the freedom of movement etc. And yes a Frenchman can register a car anywhere in the EU and drive it anywhere in the EU. It works both ways of course. Something like half of the foreign trucks tested recently in the UK were deemed to be unsafe by British standards and would not be able to be licenced in the UK but as they are registered in another EU country they are legal. --LiamE (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

But can that same French citizen, who owns a house in Paris and nowhere else, register his car in another country, and procede to drive it in Paris? I think if that was the case then every car in the EU would be registered in whatever country has the lowest fees and taxes.

For example, I used to go to school in Virginia, US, but my car was registered in Florida. This worked because I grew up in Florida and the car was still registered to my parent's address. If I had wanted to become an official resident of Virgina, that wouldn't have flown.

As for the cite it already has multiple cites to say it is road legal. This does not seem to be required for other vehicles - why the special case for the Radical? The list is for road legal poduction cars and it is cited adequately for the list. Perhaps we should go through every other car and see which countries they all are and are not legal in. --LiamE (talk) 04:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

My issue is only with the sources stating that the car is legal in one place, and the article saying another.

The sorces say it is road legal, and that is all that is required to be on the list. Many of the cars on this list would not be legal in say Switzerland for example. You seem to want to make a special case for the Radiacal and that makes it look like your are pushing an OR agenda. Any car road legal in the UK is road legal in the EU. And yes someone living in Paris can buy, own and run one on the road. --LiamE (talk) 07:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If that is true, then why is it that every car in the EU is not registered wherever it is cheapest to do so? Somehow I don't think the governments who passed those laws would have made it so easy for them to lose so much money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.11.213.246 (talk) 07:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

A very great many are. Have a look at Grey import vehicle. It is big business these days and has been for years. --LiamE (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

A grey import is a vehicle purchased in a foreign market and transported to where it is to be used (and presumably registered). There's a big difference between buying a car where the prices are best and registering one where is never was, and (may) never will be driven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.11.213.246 (talk) 05:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Production vehicles are required to be on the list, and while the Radicals are produced in numbers, they are mainly or only produced for closed track use. As for the street legal single SR8 that set the lap time: One swallow doesn't make a summer, see below. -- Matthead  Discuß   21:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay after some VERY boring digging around the EU statues I am a duller person but I also have a little light to shine on the subject. Type approval across the EU is automatic - ie a car approved in any member state is approved for all states - but there is a small get out clause that applies to Radicals and other cars that are approved on national schemes. I quote... "If your vehicle has obtained national type-approval, the authorities in the country in which you are applying for registration may refuse to accept the national Certificate of Conformity only (a) if it can be shown that the vehicle represents a serious hazard to road safety or the environment, and (b) the decision is properly justified." Sooooo.... it seems they are not completely automatically road legal throughout the EU but a country wishing to not accept it as legal would have the burden of proof on it to prove that the car is either a serious hazard to the environment or road safety. The first option can be discounted immediately as UK national small series testing includes emissions testing to the full Euro standards. Refusal on the second criteria is also very ulikely as the SR8 and other Radicals have to conform to the VERY stringent FIA crash and safety testing which as I understand it exceeds the standards required for normal cars. So unless an EU member state refuses to allow the registration of an SR8 and can justify its position in the face of the SR8s compliance with full EU emissions laws and its compliance with FIA and British small series safety regulaions, which seems stunningly unlikely, it is legal throughout the EU. --LiamE (talk) 10:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Has Radical obtained "national type-approval" for the SR8 series in the UK? I doubt very much. According to Autobild 2/2009, Radical is working on a "Kleinserienzulassung" "(small series approval) for the SR3. In other words, they haven't even got one for their bestselling entry-level model which is available for 5 years or more now. The "record" car in 2005 was fitted with a UK plate, meaning that individual car was road legal, but this could have been issued under special conditions, like limited to the manufacturer for testing and demonstration purposes, with prohibition to sell the car. Often, kit cars are sold with this loop hole, with each customer having to get individual approval - and the task of finding an insurance willing to cover such a one-off thing. Anyway, sport-auto rejected to acknowledge the lap time of the UK registered car. How many SR8 are street legal in the UK or elsewhere? Please show me where money can buy SR8 cars with a German license plate (permanent one, not a red one) without much further ado. The German dealer at http://www.radical-deutschland.de/radical/fahrzeugverkauf.html talks only about "Rennfahrzeuge" (race cars) and states "Radical Motorsports Deutschland - unser Name ist Programm" (no translation needed, I guess), as the whole site is dedicated to Radical-only track events. Funny, don't they want to make money from selling street legal cars, too? The large German online car trading platform Mobile.de has currently only 3 entries ([11]) in as many countries, but none of them street legal. I've seen Radical adverts in the used car market section of sport-auto, but no actual cars offered. The Nürburgring is in Germany, and anyone who wants to drive a lap there has to follow the rules of public driving or of the racing events. The "record lap" of the SR8 was in 2005, where has Radical been since? They haven't backed up their claim, provided no German-registered car to sport-auto or other journalists. In contrast, the KTM X-Bow is rather new, yet street legal (also in Germany) and FIA GT4 homologated, with already a full season under its belt, dominating in 2008 the GT4 Supersport category for smaller, lighter cars like Donkervoort D8GT, Lotus 2-Eleven, Peugeot 207 Spyder (and no Radical), while competing against Aston Martins and the like. -- Matthead  Discuß   21:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well firstly I think you are right... the Radicals do use SVA rather than small series approval. (I wish I had known that before trawling through the statues earlier.) So I had another trawl through the statutes. SVA approval is available throughout the EU. A SVA approved car in one EU state MAY require retesting for use in otehr states, though as the testing standard is uniform only issues arising over left/right hand drive might come into play. As left hand drive is available as an option on both the SR8 and SR3 it seems very unlikely there would be any issues though. Still SVA or small series approved it is clear that Radical have produced road legal cars and that they are not one offs ergo they are a valid entry in a road legal production car list so there is no material change. You ask where you can buy a road legal radical in Germany... well the German distributer list an SVA kit as an option for both the SR3 and SR8. [12][13] Also note there is clearly a picture of a road legal SR3 on that options list for the SR3. As for finding second hand road legal cars for sale it didnt take me long to find this SR3 - a car which I happen to have seen on the road. Other than the record setting SR8 I also found this SR8 so clearly the record car was not a one off. You say that Sport Auto rejected the time which seems a bit odd as they were the guys that timed it. Do you have access to any articles saying why? Why do you ask where has the Radical been since its record lap? I didnt realise multiple runs were needed for inclusion on the list and I didnt realise only German registered cars tested by German magazines were eligable. Forgive my obvious ignorance but I also didnt realise entry for any race series was prerequisite either. On a more serious note do you know much about the road legal status of the Donkervoort D8 GT? I suspect it may be valid for inclusion but they dont have a Brtish distributer and my German isnt good enough to get much info from the German site. One swallow doesnt make a summer you are right... but seeing as I've spotted 4 from the comfort of my seat in the last 10 minutes its probably spring at the very least. In any case I will remove the legal location from the SR8 record - it is a bone of contention and is not noted for any other car so there should be no special case made for the Radical. --LiamE (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The two PDF provided at radical-deutschland.de seem to be almost 4 years old, they are in English, and I doubt a German Straßenzulassung can be ordered there just by checking the SVA option. The road legality of that SR3-for-sale you have seen seems to be pointed out as very rare (that hardly refers to chassis no. 148), and it was driven only 1200 miles incl. two track events in 5 summers, which does not indicate usefulness on public roads. As for sport-auto, they rejected to acknowledge the laptime as record for road legal cars, not the lap timing as such. I have all issues, but not at hand, and I can't find it on their website (they have driven a road legal SR3, though, calling Straßenzulassung Nice to have, stating that track worthiness is its top priority.). As I remember, they had raised eyebrows on record attempts well before Radical showed up, and seem to have discontinued them since the series of sub-7:20 laps of Düchting (twice), Edo-Porsche and Radical in late 2005, due to concerns about safety and, well, dubious practices. As for the Donkervoort in general, it is based on the decades-old Lotus Seven design, inheriting its approval, in contrast to the Radical, which is a rather modern design, and thus judged by contemporary standards. The D8GT 210 has FIA GT4 homologation, and has competed in the 2008 GT4 series. Düchting asks for Registraturkosten 1.202,02 €, for road registration process apparently. Anyway, in my opinion, cars should compete against each other in racing, with a fixed set of rules, scrutineering and all, not by bragging about how fast they are when nobody else is taking a closer look. -- Matthead  Discuß   21:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Now you are just arguing for the sake of it. Above a poster was surprised that the EU would allow tax mitigation when in truth the EU has fined firms for putting barriers in the way of doing exactly that. I point them to the article regarding the matter and you argue the toss. You wanted to know if a radical can be bought and run on the road in Germany and I point out that a road kit is on the options list on the German site and you criticise that because the options list is 4 years old... is that any surprise on a 4 year old car? You wanted proof that the record car wasnt a one off suggested it wasnt allowed to be sold (a completely OR suggestion I might add) and when presented with similar cars being for sale you continue to argue the toss because it has a low mileage. I think you need to take a step back and think about this. No one has ever claimed that Radicals are either very practical road vehicles nor that they are in any way common. However the evidence that they can be purchased and legally run on the road is overwhelming. --LiamE (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Arguing for the sake of it? Sport auto has chosen not to compare the UK-registered Radical orange with the Germany-registered apples they accepted for their lap time record trophy (which is not the Supertest, BTW). Go arguing with them, or sue them in front of EU courts, or whatever. Feel free to show me an actual privately-owned German-registered SR8 when you find one. -- Matthead  Discuß   19:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but the onus is not on me to to show you a German registered Radical. There may very well not be one. Shall we discount the times for the Enzo if there isnt one registered in Mongolia? There is overwhelming proof that there are road legal Radicals and that they can be bought and sold like any other vehicle. Why does there have to be a German registered one? Seems a bit parochial of you. Any car in the EU can be used in any other member state for 6 months without doing anything so Radicals can most certainly be used legally in Germany and as the SVA legislation in Germany appears to be the same as that in the UK is is very likely that one can be registered there permanently should someone wish to do so and the German Radical site supports this. The point is though that doesnt not matter in the slightest. Its a road legal car in a major market and most certainly can be driven on the road in the UK and other EU states. This article is about times for the 'Ring, not just cars Sport Auto happens to have tested. --LiamE (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What do Sport Auto have to do with anything? Did I miss something? Is this the "Sport Auto fastest times around the Ring" article? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

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 [14].
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)

Mercedes SLS AMG

Gentlemen, New Lap record for the Mercedes SLS - 7:40 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfkDKznMH6c

Add, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.52.16.105 (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2009 (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)