Jump to content

Talk:List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Others: Archive 2009 · Archive 2010 · Archive 2011 · Archive 2012 · Archive 2014–17

McLaren P1 LM 6:43.22

McLaren P1 LM time is being intentionally misplaced into the wrong category. Please correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.29.72.30 (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC) 6:43.22 McLaren P1 LM (2017) Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). 166.137.208.25 (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

They said it was only a simulation. 166.137.208.19 (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Please stop disrupting Wikipedia, and please stop referencing forgeries that apparently were written with Google Translate. The original March 2006 Sport Auto version is here.BsBsBs (talk) 09:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Archived threads of 2009-2013

I have archived over 56 older talk-page threads, from years 2009-2013, into subpages of this talk-page:

Some topics from 2010 might still be listed in earlier archive pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

SEAT Leon Cupra 280

With a heavy heart, I have removed the new entry for the | SEAT Leon Cupra 280. The entry does not comply with the inclusion requirements, which say:

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

I don't doubt that the run took place. But rules are rules, and not enforcing them would set a precedent. I'm sure SEAT can supply the documentation.BsBsBs (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2014

There's a new record for FWD car: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5N3_7ZDRcU 84.79.251.55 (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Tire Technology

This is just a general wondering I often have, but given that the technology and capabilities of tires increases yearly, I often wonder how much of a difference it makes. For instance, The 2000 E46 M3 and the 2007 Cobalt SS both lapped the ring in 8:22; it makes me wonder how much time a ten year old car would shave with today's best street legal rubber.

Are there any comparisons on record for taking an older car and re-testing with better, newer tires? Clearly the big ones are doing or did this, such as the Corvette, Viper and GT-R, seemed like every years there for a while they kept re-testing and doing better, granted they made more improvements than just tires. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.78.28 (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Please add E60 M5 Lap Time (7:52)

Time performed by the legendary Hans Joachim Stuck back in 2005 on stock tires. Lap performed with speed limiter removed (205mph now possible).

Here's the link to the article:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060629152411/http://www.rhein-main.net/sixcms/detail.php/1879435?topic_id=731907 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.76.143 (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

2015 Nissan GT-R Nismo

The 2015 Nissan GT-R Nismo should either be removed or at least have a notation beside it stating that it is a pre-production vehicle as it is not yet a vehicle available for sale and changes to the car are ongoing. This makes its lap time as a "production vehicle" invalid.24.229.228.16 (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Sean S.

I think this is resolved now. At the time of the record (end of 2013) it was definitely a controversial attempt at a production record but the utilised OEM "N Attack Package" was made available by NISMO to customers in 2015 (see citations in the entry) and the GT-R itself is certainly a production car. -- Epistolarius (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add BMW M135i Lap Time (8:18)

Sport Auto magazine issue 01/2013 Arik TG (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Would be nice however if Sport Auto (even though they're a generally trusted source) retroactively made onboard footage for older cars publicly available. -- Epistolarius (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Schubert BMW Z4 GT3 (SP9 GT3) new competition lap time

The Schubert BMW Z4 GT3 did a 7:59.045 lap during todays VLN race (24,369 m track layout).
Current lap time is 8:02.418. List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.228.122.64 (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Inofficial source: timingdeluxe.com
Official source will be here, once updated: VLN.de Ergebnisse — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.228.122.64 (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2014

Please add to the notes section beside Chevrolet Corvette C6 Z51 (7:59): "Hill stated that the car used in the test was a 2005 model built out to 2006 specifications. A 2005 spec. car did not do under 8:00 minutes. This run was done in very hot and humid weather immediately after the 2005 running of the 24-hours of LeMans race in France. Cooler weather probably would have been conducive to a faster time."

Please change the driver from "Dave Hill" to "Jan Magnussen." This is because Dave Hill did not drive this car and achieve this specific time on this specific day in 2005. Please add the year of the run to be 2005.

Source: http://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/c6-z06-discussion/1138257-tomorrow-night-7-16-we-ll-know-for-sure-4.html#post1551433822 99.179.21.226 (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Please add Honda Civic Type R

Fastest front-wheel drive car to ever lap the Nurburgring with 7:50.63 lap time ( Mar 03, 2015) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.221.164.165 (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The formatting for that car's section is completely off by one column. ChineseToTheBone (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Lamborghini Aventador LP 750-4 SV

This is reported to be DEVELOPMENT tires by Lamborghini, could be anything! Prielli don't have a good history setting lap records. They reported Pirelli Pzero Corsa at BBC Top Gear when Pagani Huayra was tested, they later changed their mind and said P-Zero Trofeo was used. In the end the tires showed to be cut racing slicks! Run a side by side comparison with any other car (918 recommended) at the ring and notice how the steering wheel moves. The Pirelli tires on the Lamborghini is wearing out (or overheating) after four minutes (the driver who is Pirelli test driver is struggling to find grip)! That's not a tire that will ever hit the consumer/road legal market! http://www.lambocars.com/lambovids/superveloce_completes_lap_at_the_nurnburgring_in_less_than_7min.html http://teamspeed.com/forums/supercars/78235-pagani-huayra-top-gear-spoiler-alert-12.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.199.30.230 (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Please Switch Positions on List - Viper Faster than Corvette

According to the numbers on the list, the Dodge Viper ACR time of 7:22.1 driven on 18 August 2008 by Tim Coronel over a long course of 20832m, had a faster average speed than the Chevrolet Corvette ZR1 driven by Jim Mero on 9 June 2011 at a time of 7:19.63 over a shorter course of 20600m. The Viper's average speed was 47.12m/s (169.63kph or 105.40mph) compared to the Corvette's lower average speed of 46.86m/s (168.70kph or 104.82mph). The faster speed driven by the Viper would give it a 7:17.18 time on the shorter course the Corvette drove. The Viper, currently in 11th place, should appear in the list ahead of the Corvette, currently in 10th place. Bearurs (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2015

Alfa Romeo 4C Lap time by Horst von Saurma

http://www.carscoops.com/2013/10/alfa-4c-804-nurburgring-lap-time.html

TalevskiS (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Already done, it's been in the list for some time. Please note that you should format your request in the form "please add X" or "please change X to Y", or it may be automatically declined. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2015

Shelby Gt350R laptime is a rumor. Nothing concrete on the lap time even 8 months after the rumor came afloat, no reason for it to be up at all.

Not done: per [2]. The information listed is cited to a reliable source. If you have a reliable source which contradicts, please provide it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but a fan-made website is not a reliable source. You're "source" retrieved their information from the biggest known frauds in automotive reporting, Chevy called them out on falsely claiming Z06 ran a sub-seven minute lap: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueEyedSuicide (talk • contribs) 06:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://jalopnik.com/corvette-chief-engineer-says-claimed-6-59-z06-ring-time-1682322557

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2015

The 2015 Ford gt350r has no documented history, and is only rumored at this time. It should not be on this list of fastest ring times at all, and should be removed. The sited website even discloses it is only a rumor, with no documentation, video, witnesses or any evidence of it in fact taking place. "First, there's no video evidence to back this up. It's also not an official number from Ford or any 'Ring officials. It's from an unnamed source to HorsepowerKings, which, let's be honest, isn't exactly as reputable a source of information as Evo or Road & Track or what have you." - Jalopnik 172.76.248.4 (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: per [3] and per the request directly above. The information provided is cited to a source which is presumed reliable. If you could provide a link to your source ([4]) this would make it faster to process your request. The Jalopnik source suggests that a third website reporting on this is not reliable, but we are not referring to that third source here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2015

The Shelby GT350R does not have a confirmation that they ever attempted a lap record run. You have a fan-made GoDaddy Link as your source (Why?) that points to a rumor that was started by HorsePower Kings that this car ran a 7:32, HorsePower Kings also reported that the C7 Z06 ran a 6:59 Nurburgring lap time as well as stated that Ford was going to discontinue their V8 production entirely by 2018. There have been no official laptimes released by Ford for this car what so ever.

P.S- Here is the same time declared as "unconfirmed" sources: [1]

Sorry, but it's a B.S time!  ;) BlueEyedSuicide (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC) BlueEyedSuicide (talk) 06:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.onallcylinders.com/2015/01/26/shelby-gt350r-makes-732-19-second-lap-legendary-nurburgring/
Not done:, and stop repeating the same edit request. I will bring this up at the reliable sources noticeboard. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Nürburgring lap times sources. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Done, per the above linked discussion. @BlueEyedSuicide: thanks for bringing this up, and for putting up with my stubbornness. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2015

The Camaro Z28 ran a 7:31.9 on dry pavement, go ahead and edit that 7:37.4.

[1] BlueEyedSuicide (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://gmauthority.com/blog/2013/10/did-the-2014-camaro-z28-run-a-731-9-at-the-nurburgring/
Not done: - from the source: "According to [Camaro Chief Design Engineer Al Oppenheiser], the Camaro did a time of 7:31.9 on a dry lap, but doesn’t consider it official because the cameras weren’t rolling."

But there weren't any cameras rolling, eye witness accounts or any confirmation of the GT350R's laptime, this was at least confirmed by the manufacturer that it happened. Ford has done no such thing with the GT350R, best practice would be to wait for an actual video confirmation, however nothing points to the time being legitimate so more than likely there will never be a video.BlueEyedSuicide (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC) ) 14:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2015

In the 2015 Lamborghini Aventador description it says "pirello" tires it should be "pirelli" 79.133.5.171 (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Good catch. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the Mustang GT500 laptime is real

The car seems to be and sounds 100% stock. There's even a video to confirm this. The Ford Mustang Shelby GT500's Nürburgring Lap Time: 7:39.28? http://oppositelock.kinja.com/the-ford-mustang-shelby-gt500s-nurburgring-lap-time-7-1455203202 --OhDoradarnit (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Why should anyone trust you when you've already been putting false information, AND tried to claim your account has been compromised?--Mr Fink (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2015

Change the Challenger Hellcat's lap time from 7:51.51 to 7:30.32. Stock using Pilot PZero tires https://plus.google.com/+JohnZelcs/posts/1vxH2f3RE2g 2607:FB90:42B:B2FA:0:4A:A7D0:6501 (talk) 02:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 10:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21.10.2015

Hi could someone with right rights update the Electric Raceabout lap time. They have driven couple times since 2011. Their current record is from May 2015. Time is 7:49,04. Driver is Markus Palttala. Drivetrain: pure electric drive, 4 wheel, all wheel drive with all wheel torque vectoring.

They claim it is the fastest road-legal electric vehicle time (note street legal only, not production since it is a one-off technology development prototype car). Somebody who knows the article policy on such claims and categories should probably decide where (if anywhere) it fits as a record. Supposedly the last fastest road legal EV was the Mercedes SLS AMG Electric Drive.

reference: http://www.raceabout.fi/era/node/76 onboard video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmAXEwoNq0U&ab_channel=ElectricRaceAbout

Alfa Romeo Giulia, unfounded details.

On the Alfa Romeo Giulia lap time someone has written that this car was 100 kg less and using racing tyres. There is no way to believe to this words. The related source http://www.motoring.com.au/alfa-delays-giulia-100327/ says: “It’s as hard as a rock and too nervous and the US guys, in particular, have given them a lot of pushback on it,” an engineering source explained. “Even when they posted their lap time on the Nürburgring, the car was very nervous and that was on cut racing slicks and more than 100kg lighter than the production version,”.

Who is this "engineering source"? It's the only web magazine that says something like this, and there is no way to prove the car had racing tyres and 100 kg less than the stock version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzastrinu (talk • contribs) 16:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

World Touring Car Championship now uses the 24-hour layout

There is a RS time for the 2015 FIA WTCC Race of Germany. Pole was 8:37.327, fastest racing lap 8:37.384, both in a Citroën C-Elysée. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.144.135 (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2016

Nismo GT-R itme is incorrect, the 7:08.68 time was for a car that was not stock/production.link (https://www.carthrottle.com/post/bad-news-the-gt-r-nismos-astonishing-nurburgring-time-was-a-massive-lie/)

NJ Casanova (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. What's the correct entry? Bazj (talk) 09:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add the 2013-14 GT500 Nürburgring Lap time

Please add the 2013-14 GT500 lap time? The video is located at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hiSgO7Jq3I C0bra99 (talk) 06:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. I'll add the time, seeing no objections. F-16 Viper (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

M3 CSL 7:22 video

  • Hey,guys,I found a video of M3 CSL doing 7:22 in youtube but I can't verify the modiications done to it.
  • Reference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL7T9BD_Q3k
  • Please help me determine if it is road legal or not.I will add this laptime accordingly.Abc12345 10:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVP1234 (talk • contribs)

The prior link attached is NOT a source, it is a collection of rumored lap times collected and displayed on a Fan made website. There is no credibility to this person if they cannot post the original source of their unverified lap times. If they however did in fact post a legitimate source as documented proof, the provided link on their page should be used the credible source of reference on this page. Coincidentally, not only is this source not verified, nor reliable, the information that is being acquired to post discredited lap times does not meet the page requirements, as seen here:

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

It would be as if some random Joe were to create and host a website with unverified times and we were to use those as true results, it does not make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueEyedSuicide (talk • contribs) 15:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC) It is the official site of nurburgring,by the way if you want another references,I have many for the aventador and other laptimes you deleted for verification.If you have any problem with that source you may put it at my talk page so that we can have peaceful solution rather than edit war. 15:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVP1234 (talk • contribs)

The official Nurburgring website would end with a .de (as in Deutschland) and be more than likely hosted by a German hosting company such as United Internet or folz. communication & networks GmbH. In this case, the official Nurburgring website is hosted by folz. communication & networks GmbH, here it is... http://www.nuerburgring.de/en/home.html

Domain: nuerburgring.de Nserver: auth01.de.folz.net Nserver: auth02.de.folz.net Status: connect Changed: 2015-10-13T09:16:30+02:00

[Tech-C] Type: ROLE Name: folz DNS Admin Organisation: f o l z . communication & networks GmbH Address: Pfeifertaelchen 19 PostalCode: 67659 City: Kaiserslautern CountryCode: DE Phone: +49-631-371480 Fax: +49-631-95397 Email: 54683c0518d381f3ba429031e60d2e7b Changed: 2010-12-10T10:33:48+01:00

[Zone-C] Type: ROLE Name: folz DNS Admin Organisation: f o l z . communication & networks GmbH Address: Pfeifertaelchen 19 PostalCode: 67659 City: Kaiserslautern CountryCode: DE Phone: +49-631-371480 Fax: +49-631-95397 Email: 54683c0518d381f3ba429031e60d2e7b Changed: 2010-12-10T10:33:48+01:00

This is not an edit war and I have nothing against you or what you have contributed to the page, it is about keeping sources honest, many of the edits over the course of the past month not only do not have any video, they merely do NOT meet the page requirements to be listed as stated here:

For new entries, this list requires an official manufacturer’s press release for manufacturer-conducted tests. If the test has been conducted by an independent publication, an article in that publication is required. New entries require an original, uncut on-board video, showing the lap and the timing from start to finish. A statement that OEM tires have been used is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueEyedSuicide (talk • contribs) 16:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Video quality upgrade (Michael Vergers, 9 August 2009)

There is a higher quality video for ref 17 (Michael Vergers' 6:48 lap) available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbmDKZ78MOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.135.31.11 (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Done Jacek tcz (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2016

It's missing all the mercedes black series (sls black series, clk63 black series, c63 black series)

Smeclawiki (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2016

"Chevrolet Camaro C6 ZL1 (2017)" does not have a real time and does not have a source.

Smeclawiki (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done - unsourced entry removed - Arjayay (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2016

Smeclawiki (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Ferrari 458 Speciale nurburgring

Please take some time to review my edit.I added 458 speciale nurburgring time which is not by a pro driver.I want you guys to decide if it should be staying there or not

GT350R does not meet page specified criteria... stop posting it.

The Gt350R time does not meet the requirements to be posted. All sources include the words "according to..." and lead back to Evo Magazine who stated they would post the confirmation as soon as it was received. 18 months later, no confirmation has been posted. The Wiki page even states:

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

Which literally zero criteria has been met. This has been discussed on numerous occasions on the talk page as well as discrediting one of the sources used multiple times, which is a unofficial fan made website hosted by GoDaddy.

That is why I removed the listing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueEyedSuicide (talk • contribs) 00:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2017

After researching this entry " 7:40.6 Ford GT Markus Draper Octane Magazine[citation needed]"

I discovered that the magazine article actually estimated the 7:40 lap time and it was never an official run.

If you read the original posts on these forum entries from 2005 discussing the article, you can clearly see there was no official time and the 7:40 was actually just an estimate.

http://www.svtperformance.com/forums/threads/ford-gt-runs-the-ring.229776/

http://www.fordgtforum.com/forums/showthread.php/285-Octane-Magazine-No-29-nov-2005 Justinschmidt9 (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I have added the notation that time was only estimated.Let admins decide what to do.Abc12345 11:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVP1234 (talk • contribs)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add Bugatti EB110

In a video containing interviews with several employees of the Bugatti factory that produced the EB110 in the 1990s, former test driver Loris Bicocchi states that they were running a time of 7:44 on the Nurburgring using Michelin "XX3" tires. Video: MNQBDqUkb6o?t=13m18s Same interview in different video: 4BKnyIKRBnc?t=6m33s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.111.33.148 (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Other sources for the 7:44 lap: http://www.fuoritraiettoria.com/4-ruote/la-bugatti-italiana/ http://www.automobilemag.com/news/bugatti-journey/ Drachentötbär (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Grammatical Fixes

7.55 Mercedes E63 AMG S Matic Horst von Saurma 9/2013 Sport Auto 9/2013 [111][112] 7.55 BMW M5

7:55 not 7.55

Also I'm not sure that " http://fastestlaps.com/ " is a viable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparatan117 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Done Jacek tcz (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Radicals are not merely "street legal"

They are production models. They meet the criteria. Street legal is something for true "one offs" which the Radicals certainly aren't. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Pro-German bias is something I would claim to be responsible for this, if I wasn't so keen on assuming good faith. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
What's the issue? The Radicals are listed in both lists. "Street legal" means street legal, nothing to do with one-offs. -- Epistolarius (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Two problems: 1) As this track is located in Germany, do the Radical's meet the standard for being "street legal" in Germany. The classification should be defined as being street legal where the track is located, and NOT the legality of where the vehicle is built. 2) The list states "production car", and the standard for production car is as follows: "having had 25 or more instances made by the original vehicle manufacturer, and offered for commercial sale to the public in new condition" Try as I might, I cannot find any verification online for how many Radicals were made, how many were sold to the public, or if they were all built to the same specifications, which is also required for the standard of production car. Cliff notes: Is the car street legal in Germany, and were more than 25 of each model built AND offered for sale? If the answer is no to either, or the answers cannot be found, then the car should not be included. RTShadow (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I have received a response from Radical Sportscars via email:

Hi (name removed)

Not sure if anyone got back to you regarding your questions.

What has prompted your interest in our cars?

The SR8 is still in current production with over 250 produced to date. The SR8 LM however was a very limited run of less than 10 official vehicles.

Neither vehicle has been homologated for use on the public road.

I hope this helps and of course, if you have other questions, please do be back in touch.

Kind regards,

Dominic

Dominic (last name removed)

Regional Sales Manager (UK)

Radical Sportscars


As noted previously, nothing has been sourced to show that the SR8 is street legal (as stated here "homologated"), nor any sourcing to indicate that the SR8 has been sold in numbers that would justify the car being labeled as a "production car". Generally, 1st person research is discouraged, but in the instance where there are no sources that support part of an article, this type of finding can be used to remove that portion of the article. As such, and due to the lack of response here, I will be removing the vehicle from the production car lap times list. RTShadow (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

No, removal requires consensus, which is your burden to obtain. The content has been restored. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Removal does not require consensus when the burden for removal is met by an editor, you need to read the rules. Epistolarius provided you the "burden" comment because you simply added the vehicles back without going to the talk page and discussing why the vehicles should be added back. Neither Radical vehicle meets either standard needed to be included in the "production lap times", those being "production", nor "street legal". For you to add the vehicles back, you must show that they are in fact:
A) Street legal (Radical's own sales manager confirms they are not)
B) A production car (Radical's own sales manager again confirms they are not)
The burden of consensus requires that, upon asking the questions I asked above, a user may in fact provide documentation that the vehicle in question meets the necessary standards to be included within the production lap times section of the article. Due to the lack of documentation, and lack of any valid argument, and the given information I provided, this easily meets the standards for removal. When information on ANY article within Wikipedia should not have been added in the first place, an editor may provide a reasonable explanation for why, and remove the questionable content. You seem to be of the belief that an editor must run around and get a bunch of people to agree with him/her. That is not the case. The Radical vehicles continue to be listed in the non-street legal area below, where they belong. Please follow Wikipedia standards towards editing, and do not add the vehicles back in without proper documentation. Thank you for your understanding in this matter. RTShadow (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
1. A copy and paste text of an alleged email from someone in Radical is not a reliable source.
2. There are numerous sources stating that the SR8 and SR8LM are road legal production cars.
3. The SR8LM that broke the record is UK registered with UK plates, so road legal throughout Europe and there are numerous photographs of it going round the ring with UK plates.
4. The SR8 and SR8LM are both registered under the SVA system (as per the Radical Sportscars website) so by definition are road legal.

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Several of the "sources" used are from Radical's website themselves, not exactly valid sources as they are not impartial. Many of the sources stating that the cars are "road legal" are using Wikipedia's page as their reasoning. The SR8LM that broke the record was NOT registered with UK plates, the company used manufacturer plates on the vehicle, there is a major difference between "registered" and using manufacturer plates. Find a different publication that supports that other than the "Radical Sportscar website". And finally, the car is NOT a production vehicle by the numbers produced. Find anywhere that states they produced the number of cars that are required to meet "production vehicle". I will wait to make changes to give you time for this sourcingRTShadow (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
"Several of the "sources" used are from Radical's website themselves, not exactly valid sources as they are not impartial." that's strange logic. You copy and pasted a supposed email from Radical and expected people to accept it as a neutral source, but content from the company's website is not acceptable? Make up your mind, either content directly from Radical acceptable or not - or is it only acceptable when it supports your point of view?
"The SR8LM that broke the record was NOT registered with UK plates, the company used manufacturer plates on the vehicle, there is a major difference between "registered" and using manufacturer plates." manufacturer plates? Do you mean trade plates? This is a British car and in Britain they use what is known as trade plates, and no they weren't trade plates - the plate used on that specific SR8LM is a normal plate used for normally registered cars, that much is obvious.
"And finally, the car is NOT a production vehicle by the numbers produced." Over 25 were produced. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Camaro ZL1 7:29 was actually Drew Cattell

7:29.60 Aaron Link October 24, 2016

7:29.60 Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 (2017) Aaron Link October 24, 2016

This lap was actually put down by Drew Cattell. [1]

Done Stickee (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [1] Drew

Lamborghini Performante

6:52 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ULSUcERlQQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.64.236 (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


Alfa Romeo Giula Quadrifoglio onboard

Please change link to Alfa Rome Giula Quadrifoglio onboard from CorsaItalia Magazine to official Alfa Romeo

Current video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwIFT3tLhfA

Should be: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gEdJmIVqLY (better quality, and official Alfa Romeo channel)

Done Jacek tcz (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Dodge Viper ACR (2009) track length

Please change link track length

from 20,832 m (68,346 ft)

to 20,600 m (67,600 ft)

Start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2mFEC2H0cY?t=53

Finish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2mFEC2H0cY?t=496

Done Jacek tcz (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Lamborghini Performante legit lap time or not?

http://jalopnik.com/did-lamborghini-fake-its-record-breaking-nurburgring-la-1792933570

How should this affect the inclusion of this car on the list? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

NIO EP9 not "production", but McLaren F1 XP5 prototype is?

McLaren F1 XP5 was a 5-unit car which is even called a prototype, whereas the EP9 is 6-units with 10 more planned. Assuming the production run goes to full length, it should qualify at least as much as the F1 does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.133.156 (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Now matter what, that EP9 deserves some respect. It set probably the fastest lap time since "real racing" was discontinued after 1983, and it is all electric, without any pistons pumping and such. All at once two watershed moments in Ring history, if not sportscar history. -- Matthead  Discuß   02:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Nordschleife lap time classification at the Wiki, subverted by special interests

... the Chinese did what we couldn't. Read them and weep, it's a 6'45.9", more than 10 seconds faster than Niki Lauda's qualifying time for the 1975 Grand Prix of Germany:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcepG9Twa_8

A decade analysts fought like dogs over the English having, in a propaganda effort reinforcing British engineering prowess, subverted and dominated the Nordschliefe page at the Wikipedia, hovering over it like a helicopter mom, showing their track car, the Radical SR8, always atop the production car classification. Analysts having admonished those behind the scenes controlling the Nordschleife page, over their peculiar intransigence, refusing to face facts, refusing accept the SR8 Radical is a not a passenger, but a purpose built track car, were summarily dismissed.

And, for the better part of a decade the Radical SR8 sat atop the Nordschliefe classification for production vehicles. Anybody changed it, faster than you could bat an eyelash, it was promptly reverted.

Terminal end of the evolution of the internal combustion engine, now that an electric vehicle, the NIO EP9 - made in China no less (horrors!) - swiped the lap record for production vehicles on the Nordschliefe, did those behind the scenes just knee-jerk, cooking the books on a brand new recipe for Nordschleife vehicle classification, declassifying their Radical SR8 from the production vehicle classification.

Working behind the scenes in an effort to isolate electrics, preserve illusion of gasoline internal combustion vehicle sovereignty, presto-chango, those behind the scenes in control of Nordschleife vehicle classification arbitrarily promoted the Lamborghini, atop their production vehicle classification - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.136.138.4 (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Where should be Prototype Lap times added.

I have noticed that only Mclaren prototypes were moved into Non Series category. If you want to move the Prototype times there. You should also move XJ220,Civic Type R,HuracanLP640(not sure,but it was also a proto IIRC). P1 LM is understandable. But please try to keep the entries homogeneous. Thanks.Abc12345 09:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVP1234 (talk • contribs)

All of those cars you listed were produced in mass to consumers even the Performante. The XP5 was a 1-off car and was not sold to the public. XP cars were only used for testing and carried subtle differences over the production cars. https://www.f1roadcar.com/heritage/ SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

XP5 Prototype hoax.

None of the citations for the XP5 nurburgring time are adequate sources. All five of them just list the time as well as other times that are on this list. The times listed in the citations were most likely simply copied off Wikipedia. None of the sources provide any information about the run itself. In addition if you do an internet search you wont find any information about the nurburgring run in question, only repeated times copied from Wikipedia onto other websites. The time was first added on 05:45, 8 July 2007 with no source at all and simply said Mclaren F1, it was later changed to Mclaren XP1 and then changed again to be called Mclaren F1 LM which are different cars. It was removed in Jan 2008 for lack of proper source, and wasn't re-added until September 23, 2015 with the unreliable sources in question.

It was listed on Wikipedia long enough that several websites simply copied the time listed from Wikipedia, and that's what the "sources" are currently. I'm going to remove the time until a legitimate source is provided (one that doesn't simply list a time copied from Wikipedia). SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 06:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

7:11.11 was the time provided by Evo though. https://www.evomagazine.com.au/ring-kings-fastest-nurburgring-lap-times/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVP1234 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

They wrote the article themselves but got the time FROM the information provided on Wikipedia.
Why on all the articles about the F1 XP5 specifically or any articles that cover the specifics of the Mclaren F1's development, NONE say anything about a nurburgring time. There should be some actual proof of the actual lap being performed.
How about ANY source of information on the matter published BEFORE 2007 when the original post was made to Wikipedia. The XP5 prototype was tested in the mid '90s SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Also it was tested at ring for development. Stated in this book. https://issuu.com/themagazineshop/docs/mclaren_f1 Well, Automotorsport and spsautomotive are the only sources I could find from 2007. First one is the magazine source. About Evo source,there was an article on original evo site. And if evo simply copy pasted laptimes from here, they wouldn't have specified the time as 7:11.11 rather than 7:11. And they are credible sources and I am sure that they would verify the times before claiming it. Just let me make it clear. If the time was fake, Evo would have removed the article,because it will cause them their reputation. If they referred to Wiki,then they would have specified it in the article or just added the time simply as 7:11 which was the entry before. And the original article was written on Feb 5 before that time was added. https://web.archive.org/web/20170211195429/http://www.evo.co.uk/features/18801/ring-kings-the-fastest-nurburgring-lap-times 

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVP1234 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
An auto magazine's reputation isn't on the line for everything they write, especially on the internet. They could have easily assumed that Wikipedia could have used a reliable source. And even if EVO later found out they were wrong, it wouldn't hurt their reputation, they would simply make a correction, that happens all the time. Why did they write 7:11.11? Could have simply been a mistake of repeating the 11. Notice it says 7:11:11 and not 7:11.59 or something...
Look here though I will CONTACT EVO via email, and see where they got their information from.SouthernResidentOrca (talk)

Okay. That sounds good. But also show their reply here. But if it was simoky mistake of repeating 11 then they would have corrected it later. That scan was to show that XP5 had been tested at Nurburgring. But I think time should be in the other list as long as Evo doesn't retract their time. As for the sources it is a credible source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AVP1234 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

They haven't replied to my email yet. They wouldn't have changed it if they didn't even realize it was an error, also magazines don't sift through all their old articles to check for accuracy, these guys release around 500 articles per month. I will post there response when and if they reply to my email. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a hoax. There was no reason to test the car long after the production, especially not for getting a sensational, almost unbelievable record time and keeping it secret. But neither the driver nor the company said something about it, there was no reliable source that this event ever happened, not even a claim by company or driver, no magazines mentioned it for comparison when testing cars or when other cars claimed records. We can leave it here for now but the status should be made clear.Drachentötbär (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC) That sounds reasonable. I agree to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVP1234 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there anything other than speculation that the sources took their times from Wikipedia? These are reliable sources and unless there is proof that the source is incorrect, we should be treating them as correct. It's not up to us to say "oh well, I kinda don't trust this source today, so I'm gonna consider it unreliable" Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

See WP:EXCEPTIONAL . Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, not just some mentioning on webpages without further details after it was put on Wikipedia. Drachentötbär (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

What's exceptional about the fastest car in the world getting a fast lap? Besides, it's only exceptional due to your original research. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Why do you think Mclaren would do this and get an amazing time (A that time the fastest for anything with plates) and then not tell anyone? And the first time it appears on the internet is 15 years later. Toasted Meter (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
See above comments about original research. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
WP:EXCEPTIONAL states "Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources" this is exactly that. Sources do make errors and fail to verify things all the time, to describe this as "apparently important" is not original research. Toasted Meter (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
How does that have anything to do with a major publication like Evo? It's a respected publication. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I am not saying that EVO is not reliable source, just that this claim is not covered by multiple mainstream sources, and considering that the time had been propagated on wikipedia before any reliable sources we can find were published, it is possible that the writer of the EVO article just took it from this page and passed it on as fact. Toasted Meter (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The May 2017 version of the "Ring Kings" evo.co.uk online article update for the February 2017 online article doesn't include the F1 any more (just check wayback), the Swedish source seems to contradict itself and the others aren't reliable at all. Not even the guys at fastestlaps.com believe this time to be real.

According to Wikipedia guidelines you have to provide multiple high-quality sources for this suspected hoax time to be included. Drachentötbär (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

"The May 2017 version of the "Ring Kings" evo.co.uk online article update for the February 2017 online article doesn't include the F1 any more" - you're right, it doesn't. However, it isn't a case of Evo removing a time they found to be incorrect - they updated the lap-times with new laps and the F1 is no longer in the top ten, so the lack of the F1 doesn't really mean anything in regards to how accurate Evo consider that time to be.

I'm not about to say that the time is correct, I'm not here to give opinions. An easy solution would be if you could find some reliable and verifiable sources that state the 7:11.11 time is not accurate. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be removed for now, and if a statement by Mclaren, a video of the lap or some other strong proof comes out it should be re added. One article 15 years after the fact and nothing else is just not plausible. Toasted Meter (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Well after thinking about it this long. I think now that the time should be removed.Abc12345 13:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVP1234 (talk • contribs)

I think removing the time is a far better option than have a silly disclaimer next to the time. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

GTI - no longer front wheel drive record holder.

The entry for the VW GTI indicates it is the record holder for front wheel drive. This is no longer true as it has been surpassed by the Civic R. The entry should reflect the GTI as a previous record holder or remove the note all together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3610:850:3041:25A1:28EB:96C8 (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Longer Track for ZL1 1LE ?

Why is the track 232 meters longer for the ZL1 1LE entry? Can this be updated as to why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toneron2 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, the press release mentions the full length track "lapping the Nürburgring’s 12.9-mile (20.8 km) Nordschleife (“north loop”) in only 7:16.04" - so that's what I put in here. Watched the published onboard video again and they definitely timed the shortened track. I'll change it. Epistolarius (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2017

the new fastest street legal vehicle is the NextEV Nio EP9 with a 6:45.90 [1] 73.15.97.179 (talk) 03:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: Nurburgringlaptimes.org is not likely to be a reliable source and they appear to take their timings from Youtube videos, which is certainly not a reliable source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://nurburgringlaptimes.com/lap-times-top-100/

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

WRX sti Prodrive driver

there is a wiki page of the driver https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Richie_Stanaway

: Done. -- Epistolarius (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

ambiguous text

"For the purpose of this list, a car is “street legal” if it comes with a manufacturer-provided certificate of conformity that allows the car to be registered in any country of the EU for road use."

Does this mean a) in all EU countries or b) in at least one EU country  ? Drachentötbär (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2017

In the "Lap times" table for production vehicles, there is a new line of information to add for a new car: Length: 20,600m Time: 7:45.19 Vehicle: Mercedes AMG E63 S wagon (2018) Driver: Christian Gebhardt Date: November 9, 2017 Notes: Sport Auto, stock car, Michelin Pilot Sport Amgwagon (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

2 new lap record

Mercedes-AMG E63 S Wagon(test by sport auto)--7:45.19:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTPaQHghgxw
Jaguar XE SV Project 8--7:21.23(fastest four door):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iePeZxpvpTI detail:http://media.jaguar.com/news/2017/11/jaguar-xe-sv-project-8-worlds-fastest-saloon-car-record-nurburgring-nordschleife-lap

Made an entry for the Jaguar. The relevant article of the Sport Auto Mercedes test isn't available on their website yet. -- Epistolarius (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Small problem is that Jaguar is prototype , its production hasnt started yet " ‘fastest ever time by a four door sedan in production-intent specification’" as EVO mag says, so that record should be in Non-series/non-road-legal vehicles category? -->Typ932 T·C 07:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
See, that's where we run into problems with a lot of these lap time records, many of them are made with "production" cars before the actual "mass" production has begun, people having to trust the manufacturer that the record car really has no differences from the production car. I suppose it's best like it is now, with a mention in the Notes section. --Epistolarius (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2018

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

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

edit request - new lap record

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

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

Removal of pre-production manufacturer records y/n

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2018

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

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

Radical SR8 information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2018

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2018

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

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

Production Car Defined

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

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

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

new lap record - NIO EP9

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2019

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

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

Regulatory Capture

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2019

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

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello, i looked for some sources:
Lap Onboard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ror87RYTqE
German Press:
https://www.welt.de/motor/news/article183186868/Rundenrekord-vom-Haustuner-Porsche-GT2-RS-MR.html
https://www.auto.de/magazin/porsche-911-gt2-rs-rast-640-minuten-ueber-die-nordschleife/
https://www.automobil-industrie.vogel.de/porsche-911-gt2-rs-neuer-rundenrekord-auf-der-nordschleife-a-772195/
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/sportwagen/rekorde-nuerburgring-nordschleife/
Offical from Porsche:
https://newsroom.porsche.com/de/produkte/porsche-911-gt2-rs-mr-manthey-racing-rekordfahrt-nuerburgring-nordschleife-sportwagen-lars-kern-16356.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.90.9.62 (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
It's already on the page, in the Non-series/non-road-legal vehicles section. The reason it's not on the production car list is due to the fact it did not do the run in a factory condition, it had a "performance kit from Manthey-Racing" added which replaces the front splitter, rear diffuser and modifies the rear wing and adds lighter wheels. Toasted Meter (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

"Street legal"

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

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

Timing entities

As of 2019 the track itself is now recording official times

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

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

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

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

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

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


No idea why is this protected

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2019

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

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

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

Porsche Gt2rs MR

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

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

New lap time!

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

Well, it's not a new time. And nothing stops you from adding it. Unless it was removed I suppose I never added it because they never released the Sport Auto magazine article on the Auto Motor und Sport website and I didn't buy the magazine - but I guess I might as well now since we pretty much accepted Sport Auto on-board videos with reference to the respective print issue as sufficient proof. -- Epistolarius (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Done - Added it. -- Epistolarius (talk) 04:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Honda NSX lap time founded

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

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

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

Looks good. Toasted Meter (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Fine! Muffyogsan (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Typo in Sport Auto 997 GT2 7min33

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

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

Lynk & Co 03

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

Reference: [6]

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

References

  1. ^ https://www.evo.co.uk/videos/8029/radical-sr8-smashes-n-rburgring-lap-record
  2. ^ https://www.evo.co.uk/news/10488/radical-ring-record
  3. ^ https://www.pistonheads.com/news/general-pistonheads/radical-smashes-nordschleife-record/20475
  4. ^ https://www.caradvice.com.au/84869/radical-sports-cars/
  5. ^ https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/top-10-ultimate-road-legal-race-cars/ss-AA2xxZy#image=20
  6. ^ https://www.cyanracing.com/news/2019/08/23/cyan-racing-breaks-two-nurburgring-records-with-lynk-co
Done Corrected and expanded the entry. -- Epistolarius (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

I am not sure it would be prohibited, as long as you have reliable sources and put them in a separate table, to me that would seem fine. Toasted Meter (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
No intended discrimination from my side, just not familar with cycling lap time attempts on the Nordschleife: My focus has been solely on maintaining the messy production/modified automobile lap time chart. In my eyes nothing speaks against adding a section for bicycles. Not sure where to start looking, though? -- Epistolarius (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2020

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

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

Lap time of BMW M5 Competition (F90)

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

Done - Added it. -- Epistolarius (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Nürburgring_Nordschleife_lap_times/Archive_8&oldid=1079500920"