Talk:Power Laps

Does anyone know why the:

Westfield XTR2

was removed form the board?

70.239.204.126 14:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

I believe the lists for the lap times need to be removed due to a copyright violation. See the discussion for Talk:The_Cool_Wall#Copyright.

I've seen similar lists removed for FIFA 100 and Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. You can't reproduce a list from a copyrighted source without approval from its copyright holder. --Madchester 00:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is raw data not Intellectual property. It is the same as posting classified listing of a race result. So is not covered by copyright.--Lucy-marie 21:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Atom

In the article it sounds like the Ariel Atom should not be on this list. Actually, it is as much a road car as most of the other supercars on there, so the term "managed to squeak by onto the Power Lap board" is wrong in my humble opinion. Should be something like "is also featured". da_baitsnatcha 11:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not an outstanding issue anymore--81.241.180.45 23:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 lists?

I was looking at the episodes where they race the vehicles that can not appear on the normal list, but haven't seen or heard anything about having an extra list for those. The times are simply compared and then removed.. If there is actually a place/episode where they state there is a second list, can someone point me to it? Another option, instead of stating there is a second list, maybe the wording should be changed to "these vehicles have also been timed around the lap, but cannot appear on the board because of ..". As thus, there is no second *official* listing and ranking, but only a collection of vehicles tested but not applicable.--81.241.36.93 10:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly remember an episode where they showed a second list of vehicles that aren't road legal, possibly in the episode where they fly a Harrier around the track, though I can't be sure. (They refer to the Harrier as the new "fastest… thing ever to go round our track") - MTC 19:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove the Caparo T1 from the board

It's a road legal car. If you remove Caparo T1 from the board because TG removed it from theirs, you will have to remove the Radical SR3 for consistency as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.10.169 (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial times

What is the source for these unofficial times? Djcater 02:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second this query: where are the "unofficial times" coming from? Without a suitable explanation, they should be removed. ↔ Dennywuh 11:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the references given it's evident these cars did a lap of the Top Gear test track at periods when the programme was in hiatus, and the track was unused/closed/empty. These times have no business on this article for these reasons:

This page is about Top Gear power laps. Neither of these vehicles have appeared on the show.
Top Gear and the BBC back the veracity of their times with their credibility and reputation. No-one certifies the accuracy of the "unofficial" laps.
Product advertising by interested parties on Wikipedia is not allowed. See WP:Spam.

Therefore, I'm removing them. ↔ Dennywuh 14:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As these times were set by unnamed drivers under the auspices of Plans Motorsport (the operators of the Dunsfold circuit), they are essentially identical to the televised laps and as such should remain as interesting context information. If they don't live here then there should be a link from here to a page listing Dunsfold laptimes. Meio (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, this article is about cars featured in the BBC Top Gear programme. If you wish, you may create a page for the other cars, but I suspect you may have difficulty establishing notability. You seem to know a fair bit about the circuit itself, I humbly suggest you create an article on it and include whatever lap times you see fit. I refer you to Creating an article, Manual of Style and Product promotion. ↔ Dennywuh (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You sound like a member of the Top Gear production team desperate to protect your IP and brand. The notability of the 2 times I know of (Caterham CSR 260 and Ultima GTR720) is easy to prove. What is interesting about these times is that all independant commentary refers to them as being times for circuits of the Top Gear track, not as laps of the Dunsfold Park Aerodrome circuit. So having a link from the Dunsfold Park section of the Dunsfold village page with all available track times listed, for the entire purpose of displaying a couple of lap times which were not sponsored by the BBC and did not appear on the television programme is silly. The only reason that these times are interesting is that they can be compared against those times that have been televised. Also Dunsfold Park is not very interesting in its own right. The circuit seems to be used for driver training, testing race prepared sports cars and filming Top Gear. There is no reason why a tiny section of this page should not be given to listing 'unofficial' record attempts. Meio (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you I have nothing to do with the Top Gear programme, but I would be interested to know what you mean by "desperate to protect your IP"; could you clarify that for me? Thanks. On the issue that concerns us, I have to reiterate that this article is about cars that have appeared in the Top Gear programme. What you're suggesting is akin to adding to the 24 Hours of Le Mans or Indianapolis 500 pages the time it took an Ultima GTR to lap their circuit one Sunday afternoon. I don't know much about the Dunsfold Park track, but I'm sure you could collate enough information to take it out of the Dunsfold page and give it one of its own, if that was in your interest. But, of course, from your contributions it's clear that's not what you're after. When I mentioned above "Product advertising by interested parties on Wikipedia is not allowed" and "I refer you to ... Product promotion" I was politely attempting to let you know we're aware you're here to promote the products of Ultima Sports Ltd, and we wish to remind you that's not what Wikipedia is for. Can we drop the issue now? ↔ Dennywuh (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you accuse me of being an Ultima representative. Still, I suppose it shows that you have no conviction in your own reasoning.

It seems to me that you are desperate to defend the intellectual property of the idea that laps of 'the Top Gear' track as performed by 'The Stig' and officially timed by 'Top Gear' are in some way unique from other laps of the Dunsfold track as performed by a driving consultant and officially timed by the circuit operators other than simple product promotion of the Top Gear brand.

I feel that I should point out certain things to you

This is not the Top Gear page, but a page relating to Power Lap times.
A quick web search will show that 'Top Gear lap' is becoming the Generic name for any lap of the Dunsfold circuit.
The 'Power Lap' has become an informal performance indicator in many discussions.
This is an encyclopedia not a product catalogue. Information should be presented where it makes most sense and where it would be expected to be placed by the reader, even if the owner of the associated brand might not wish such associations to be made apparent.
I'm fairly sure (though I don't have the resources to watch the early series to confirm this) a televised challenge was made by Top Gear, for cars to beat the time set by the Zonda F.

With these points in mind I see no reason why a small footnote detailing the Caterham CSR 260 time of 1:17.4, the Ultima GTR720 time of 1:12.8, and any other notable attempts at this benchmark should not be included.Meio (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I partly agree; put the times back if you can provide a decent source for those times. Djcater (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Thanks, Meio, for clarifying your meaning of IP. I'm sure you understand how one, after reviewing your contributions, would accuse you of having Ultima Sports Ltd's interests at heart. Nevertheless, I believe your assertion and apologise for my comment, if indeed you have no connection to that firm.

Regarding your points: the first line of this article, Power Laps, reads "Power Laps is a segment of the BBC Two motoring programme Top Gear, in which the Stig completes a lap around the Top Gear test track to gauge the performance of various cars." I'm afraid that kind of puts paid to your whole argument. If the car didn't appear on Top Gear, it has no business in this article.

Finally, I confess to having tired of this debate and am hereby initiating a Request for comment (see below). ↔ Dennywuh (talk) 12:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first line of this article is not entirely accurate. It should read "The Power Lap is a segment of the BBC Television motoring programme Top Gear, in which in each episode The Stig completes a lap around the Dunsfold Park test track to gauge the performance of a featured car". To refer to the track as The Top Gear track is misleading, as this suggests that it does not exist independently of the television programme, which it does. Top Gear are entitled to call the track 'the Top Gear track', just as they refer to their various driving consultants as 'The Stig' and Dunsfold Park as 'Top Gear HQ'. Even if it remains as 'The Top Gear Track' that still does not negate the points I have made above. Whatever you call the section of the programme, and the circuit it runs on, laps of Dunsfold are still know by the generic term of 'Top Gear laps'; Top Gear still invited independant challengers; we are still talking about an encylopedia article which should include notable context information where necessary and sensible; and if the Power Laps board is taken as a performance benchmark then a transparent explication of what that benchmark represents certainly belongs here, and hence so do other laps which have been performed under identical conditions. This final point in relationship to the other points I have raised is the key point for an encylopedia article. We are not trying to produce an in universe article here, but rather an explanation of a performance benchmarking phenomenon, of Top Gears' own making, but which has influence beyond their 'laps of the Top Gear track by The Stig' fiction.87.113.31.203 (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Power Laps not conducted by the Top Gear programme

The article is about a segment of the BBC Top Gear programme, in which cars are driven around the same test track by the same driver to compare their performance. Some cars, that have not appeared on Top Gear, have done laps of the track with different drivers during periods when the programme was in hiatus. Do these times deserve to be included in the article?

The Stig is not 'the same driver' he is a fictional character to disguise the fact that many different driving consultants, owners, or manufacturer supplied specialists might be used to set times around the same circuit.87.113.31.203 (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside comment

First of all, the primary people in this discussion are apparently not assuming good faith or being civil. Please do so in future discussions. Second, when I address an issue like this, I do not read the article and attempt to go on general principles; application of these principles is still left to the editors of this article after a consensus or compromise is reached (and by 'consensus', I mean a clear majority, not just one person over 50%).

As to the discussion at hand, I recommend both parties stepping back and refraining from from discussing further. Your points have clearly been made. From what is given here, and without reading the page, Power Laps is a segment on Top Gear, correct? If so, the article should focus on the segment of the show. If there is controversy, such as, "There is considerable controversy on the power laps segment as many cars do not appear to maximize their full potential. Though Car A made the lap time in 1:21:14 on Top Gear, a representative from the manufacturer performed the same circuit in 1:12:35. etc.", then it would be best to include it in a separate "Controversy" section. This allows for a basic description of the segment while still showing there are significant outside opinions that differ.

Well, there's my . — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Track Conditions

Should we note the track conditions on the list (wet, etc)? It seems relevant. mattbuck (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do, look closely. If there are any missing, please go ahead and add them yourself. ↔ Dennywuh (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, my bad. mattbuck (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]