Talk:List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Lap time of CLK63 Black Series on Nordshleife.

The really time of CLK63 Black Series is 7:45:00 (159 km/h) by Berndt Schneider in 2008. But this information didn't paid into record table. And where is the time lap of Ferrari F40 (7:40:00) and E63 on 2010 (8:10:00) Please, fix it!!! Tsikhotskyi19 (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Could you provide onboard videos and press releases/magazine articles for these lap times? The only reference to a 7:45 I could find is "Below eight minutes for sure, with Mercedes officials suggesting as quick as 7:45" from a C&D article. -- Epistolarius (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Where is true: an Auto motor und sports article or C&D article? Tsikhotskyi19 (talk) 08:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, the Auto Motor und Sport (also published under Sport Auto) article is an independent test from a reputable source in Germany, aside from manufacturer record attempts most times on this Wikipedia list are from them since for the longest time they regularly did independent tests and there was no official governing body. Back in 2017 I was retroactively going through all entries on the list and all Sport Auto tests published online and added and corrected several entries. One of the entries I changed was the CLK 63 Black Series from 7:46 to a 8:05, because the 7:46 was the time for the 2011 C 63 AMG Coupe Black Series and 8:05 was the only CLK 63 Black Series time with source (from Sport Auto). Sadly no onboard video, but no surprise given how old the test is. As for C&D, the one article I linked only states a comment from AMG of a possible 7:45 lap time, while the one you linked doesn't mention a Nordschleife lap time at all? -- Epistolarius (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I was wrote a letter to Bernd Schneider, in which I'm asked him about that lap on CLK63 AMG. And I'm waiting for him answer now. Tsikhotskyi19 (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm think, that 7:45 is true time for CLK63 BS: https://fastestlaps.com/tracks/nordschleife

CLK63 BS and C63 BS have the same dynamic, more than that, CLK has more torque. 0-100 km/h +- same too: 3.9 by C63 and 4.2-4.1 by CLK: 1)https://youtube.com/OmzFrNmhJAk;

2)https://youtube.com/h4LmG5C0gTU. Tsikhotskyi19 (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Corvette C7 Lap times

Even though GM never officially posted Corvette C7 Lap Times, the attached article in Road and Track Magazine identifies the following times that are not disputed.

All driven by Jim Mero:

C7 Z51 September 2013 7:39.76 C7 Grand Sport April 2016 7:27.46 C7 Z06 May 2015 7:10.43 C7 ZR1 April 2018 7:04.2 (started on cold tires -1.2 seconds for chicane at start finish)

https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a28197754/chevrolet-corvette-c7-nurburgring-lap-time-jim-mero-interview/

Right, and I believe the cars are capable of the times. But GM never released videos and press releases about the record attempts, so it's not going to get added just on account of the driver. As unfortunate as it is, officially the cars never set records. -- Epistolarius (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, I'm not a fan of the fact that - as I just noticed - the C8 was added without any official source based on a hint in a video. I'll await official material surfacing soon, but the text above the table doesn't state that any additions of official records require onboard videos and press releases for no reason. Especially now that the Nürburgring claims authority over these record attempts. -- Epistolarius (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. The reason I asked about the C7 times was because the C8 time was listed on Wikipedia. The C7 times were never intended to be claimed track records. Arguably, the Z06 7:10 at that time might have been a production car record as the GT-R Nismo time included a $100,000 upgrade after the purchase of the car. If you had a chance to look at the Road and Track article it explains why GM never released the videos. Also, GM never disputed the lap times when the article was posted in the actual magazine as well as online. To me this implies they do not dispute the lap times. At the time of the article, GM had no interest in promoting the C7 when they were introducing the C8. Nonetheless, I believe there are many laps on the list without video support. The videos do exist, but it would cost GM $30,000 USD per video to post them.

The only other thing I can provide is the youtube video below. No need to watch it all, but if you go to the time 5:49 to 6:23 there are still photos of the finish off all the laps listed above. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk0WxB92Jv0 thank you for your time.

It has been over 6 months since the C8 time has been posted, no video. I know this is a legitimate time. The only source is a lap time photo shopped on the track that you would not notice unless you step through the video frame by frame. In contrast, the C7 times were posted in the Road and Track article with no dispute from GM, in my opinion a more credible source. Also in Jim Mero's Nurburgring highlight video all times are again posted with photos at the finish, again a more credible source. There are many laps on the list with no video support, I believe the C7's should get the credit they deserve. Thank you.

Viper ACR - not the fastest manual transmission car

Last time I checked Lauda's Ferrari was a manual, and he raced under 7 minutes. I suggest to change it to "by a production car with a manual transmission". Andersmy02 (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Defining "Street-Legal", once and for all.

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles#Requesting_Assistance_and_Opinions_re:_"Street-Legal" for a discussion on the various interpretations of the term street legal, as used here and more broadly to define a vehicle and its operation/sale/production. IPBilly (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

As you are going to run into the same problems as were experienced by the Production car speed record page my suggestion is rather than try to eliminate cars based on whether or not they are street legal or production or not modified etc, add an additional column to the list to capture what the status of the vehicle was that was tested. So for instance you could have a list that includes: prototype, pre-production, modified/tuner production, stock/production, FIA category, etc, etc. That way you can eliminate a lot of the debate and cater for reader preferences by using the sort button. NealeFamily (talk) 09:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Remove the Protection

Hey! I need to add some information for this page. I'm requesting to remove the vandalism protection. Trusted RedZone (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

You can explain what edits you want to make and I or another editor may apply them to the page. Toasted Meter (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I need to add a lap time for fastest passenger lap record, edit a lap time and readd a lap time for street-legal list. Trusted RedZone (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I can't apply that as an edit, you need to say what car and what time it actually is. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

And preferably with links to the appropriate sources as set forth in the article.

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 road legal OEM tyres have been used is required.

IPBilly (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Why my edit was not showing in this page? Is you guys can see my reply? Trusted RedZone (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Readd to the road-legal and passenger lap record for Nissan GT-R Nismo. Nissan Skyline GT-R R34 time need a minor edit because given source say it's 7:52.06 minutes. Trusted RedZone (talk) 02:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody else feels differently and will make these edits, but I am declining to for the following reasons: The GT-R Nismo is specifically discussed in the article as having been substantially modified when that lap time was set, and that falls outside the rules we've set forth for inclusion of manufacturer conducted tests. Regarding the R34 time, both of the sources that I see cited in the article claim a time of 7:52. As it stands, the time should be changed to remove the 00/100 sec precision, which is inaccurate based on the sources. Perhaps you're looking somewhere I am not or I did not see it, can you please clarify which source shows that, and where. I looked here and here. IPBilly (talk) 03:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with R34. But sorry to say, GT-R Nismo is exactly road-legal. There's no sources that say it was not road-legal. I have sources to prove it probably a road-legal production car. Sources say it was a performance package such as Porsche's Weissach Package, Dodge's Extreme Aero Package and etc. Just like them GT-R Nismo do not come with this N-Attack package because of if it available with the car it will cost over $200,000. So that's why they don't equip it. If we have money we can fix it to the car after owning the car. I have proof prove it's road-legal.

I don't know why, I can't add the links. They were not showing in this edit. Can you please tell how to do it. Trusted RedZone (talk) 04:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

External links work like this "[example.com]".

The problem with the N Attack Package is that the criteria require that the car is both production and street-legal, the N Attack Package can not be had fitted to a new GT-R from the factory therefore by fitting it the car is no longer in the same specification as the production car and is no different from one modified by some outside tuner. This is why the Porsche 911 GT2 RS MR is not on the main list, it's street legal, the GT2 RS is a production car and the test was done by Porsche, but the MR package is not available on a new car from the factory so it does not meet the criteria. Toasted Meter (talk) 06:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Porsche's Weissach and Dodge's Extreme Aero is also cannot be fitted for brand new cars. Then how they belong to the list? N Attack Package is fitting by Nissan & Nismo. So it's from manufacturer. Nissan & Nismo is not a tuner company just like the MR. And they made N Attack cars over 25 units. So it's supposed to be a production car. Isn't it? Car magazine's also added this time for there's street-legal production car list. Why Wikipedia cannot? Trusted RedZone (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a fine line, but the Weissach and ACR Extreme Aero packages were equipped to brand new cars from the factory and included with the original MSRP/listed on the window sticker. If memory serves correct, certain aero parts were not physically attached to the vehicle at delivery, but were included with no secondary purchase. IPBilly (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Is there's any source that say this package cannot be equiped for brand new cars. Sources only say it can be fitted for only cars less than 10,000 miles of run length. Ok fine. Then why adding this time to non road-leagl list. I think we need to make a new list or add this to street-legal production car list. Trusted RedZone (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

It is street-legal but it's not the same as the production car. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The full N-Attack package is not street-legal. Nissan themselves wrote about the dedicated carbon hood gurney component of the N-Attack package "can not be used on public roads", as well as about the six-point seatbelt.Drachentötbär (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with its non production. But the both packages are street-legal. I have official resources and independent resources to prove them. Trusted RedZone (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Great. We're eager to see them and reach an agreement about its status. Please check out Wikipedia:Verifiability as well as consider whats written here Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth then provide the sources that you are referring to so that we can all see them. IPBilly (talk) 11:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

To be street-legal, all parts must be street-legal. The CarThrottle reference says: "A six-point harness and a carbonfibre bonnet gurney are also optional on Kit A, but when fitted, the car is no longer road legal."Drachentötbär (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I think some latitude could be allowed, given that driving the car around Nürburgring Nordschleife at an insane speed would mean that a higher degree of safety equipment would and should be both included and expected. I doubt a three point safety harness would cut it in an impact at tbose speeds. NealeFamily (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that additional safety equipment like the six-point harness is acceptable. The not road-legal carbon fiber bonnet gurney which is mainly for aerodynamics and doesn't improve safety at all is a modification which shouldn't be ignored however.Drachentötbär (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Drachentötbär - reading through the debates on this page reminds me of the wars that were held on the production car speed record page. I think it would be wise to distinquish between production vehicles and those with modifications on this list. I suspect very few of the cars are in a configuration that you could buy straight off the shop floor.

Fix Taycan model in lap records

The Taycan used by Porsche was a Taycan Turbo which made 7:42.34, there are 4 variants at this time. https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a29088855/porsche-taycan-turbo-s-nurburgring-lap-time https://soymotor.com/coches/noticias/el-porsche-taycan-del-record-de-nurburgring-era-turbo-no-turbo-s-969719 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davicico (talk • contribs) 16:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Done IPBilly (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2020

This sentence under Controversies is very speculative: "Testing prototype cars on a circuit is nothing new, obviously: it's probably been going on since someone drove a horseless carriage onto a disused donkey derby track."

I suggest change the paragraph by removing the sentence above. Johanneshultquist (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: This is part of a quote form notable motoring journalist James May's criticism and should be preserved. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Lamborghini Aventador SVJ LP770-4

This car is described as a prototype - why is it on the list of production cars? NealeFamily (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me like it was camouflaged because it was shortly before the media launch, the press release does not say what stage of development or production the car was in. When it comes to prototypes/pre-production/pre-launch I think it should probably be included if reliable sources are saying production car and it's not meaningfully different from the car as delivered. Toasted Meter (talk) 07:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

All the motoring publications I have now found say production car except for the entry in Wikipedia, but they all use the term rather loosely and seem to be closer aligned to FIA's definition which allows modifications that may not be street-legal. The lap time was set in July and the official publicity launch was in August, but none were available for purchasers until 2019 so I conclude that the car was most likely a pre-production version. The car was running Pirelli P Zero Trofeo R track (not road) tires which is an option with standard tires being Pirelli P Zero Corsas, The question then becomes does the use of track tyres mean it was not in a street-legal configuration when the lap was done? NealeFamily (talk) 08:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Pirelli says they are road legal and are an option [1]. Toasted Meter (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Thanks Toasted Meter NealeFamily (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17th October 2020.

Requesting to revert the edit did by Darchentötbär which is adding a wrong sorting system. I need to revert it to the new sorting system that discussed and accepted by other editors. Trusted RedZone (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Order for times with or without hundredths of seconds

For instance, 8:01.12 versus 8:01

The former is fully specified to the hundredths of seconds. The latter is not fully specified (not even to the tenths of seconds).

The fully specified time should be given the benefit of the doubt. So 8:01.12 is placed before 8:01 on the list. Right?

Feelthhis (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. 8:01 can be anything in the 8:00.50 - 8:01.49 range if it was rounded correctly and 8:47.99 definitely isn't quicker than 8:47.Drachentötbär (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

This isn't about rounding, it's about precision. A stopwatch that doesn't read in tenths of a second doesn't round, it truncates. 8:01 is 8:01. The question is whether times recorded with more precise instruments (or reported with a greater number of significant figures) should be given higher priority on the list (i.e. placed higher). I don't think that is a practice that should be adopted. I appreciate the idea as many of the times here were probably not recorded with high precision GPS based or beam-break timing equipment it would set a weird precedent. If times start being reported to thousandths of a second, those shouldn't also be listed ahead of the times that were only recorded to hundredths of a second. It's a bit of a ridiculous example but with this system you could have a situation such as the following:

1. 7:59.991
2. 7:59.997
3. 7:59.10
4. 7:59.75
5. 7:59.1
6. 7:59

It would result in confusion for many, and be more difficult to readily understand. IPBilly (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@IPBilly: Thanks for the example, I think that will clear things up. Using your example, the sorting would be like this:

1. 7:59.10
2. 7:59.1
3. 7:59.75
4. 7:59.991
5. 7:59.997
6. 7:59

My proposal is to use the decimal places kinda of as a tie breaker criteria (the "benefit of the doubt" criteria). Well, I admit I'm having a hard time trying to put this into words, so I hope with the example it's clearer what I'm thinking. Feelthhis (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Reliable car magazines measured acceleration times of 2.56 seconds (mentioned in the text) and published 2.6 seconds in the acceleration tables. It's common practice among the reliable sources to measure the hundredths or even more numbers and round afterwards, if a source does differently that's a reason to doubt its quality.Drachentötbär (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

How would you rank the examples given by IPBilly? Feelthhis (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

In numerical order.

1. 7:59
2. 7:59.10
3. 7:59.1
4. 7:59.75
5. 7:59.991
6. 7:59.997

Drachentötbär (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

We should return to numerical order. Proper sources do proper rounding. A time of 7:34 was actually 7:33.67 [[2]] A time of 7:24 was actually 7:23.77 [[3]] Drachentötbär (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm still opposed to this, and other reliable sources disregard rounding and truncate. As far as drag racing is concerned, it's generally convention for pass that takes 11.99s to be an "11 second pass". To this end, both these "proper" sources seem to eschew rounding in favor of truncation. 7:59.74 "breaking the eight minute barrier" [4] and 6:59.73 being a "sub-seven minute car" [5].

It does appear that the list is mostly ordered as was originally suggested above however, and I'm more infavor of leaving it as is than re-sorting. IPBilly (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Both these "proper" sources don't truncate, they just use the mathematical order 7:59.74 < 8 and 6:59.73 < 7. Even at the List of fastest production cars by acceleration which includes dragstrip times numbers are sorted numerically. We should do the same here. Drachentötbär (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I guess I'm confused what rounding has to do with it then. IPBilly (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

If Sport Auto publishes a time of 8:47, the exact time must be in the 8:46.50 - 8:47.50 range (because they do proper rounding) and is definitely quicker than a 8:47.99 time. Drachentötbär (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Besides confusing readers who might think we cannot sort numbers properly the main problem is that the list has evidently many errors where slower laps put in front of quicker laps if we put x.xx before x, if we just sort normally there'll be no evidence of wrongly sorted numbers. An example is the VW Golf GTI TCR which lapped in 8:04.92. In the printed Supertest in 12/2019 its laptime is listed as 128th fastes with 8:05 and compared with similar cars like the Mercedes-Amg A45 on place 125, yet we would have to put the slower in front of the quicker car if we put 8:04.xx in front of 8:04. The BMW M5 (F90) was shown on 40th place on its test while the Ferrari 458 Italia as 35th, yet it's behind on our list. The change of sorting created many errors, alone from the fact that Sport Auto rounds and doesn't truncate we can find dozens definitely faster cars sorted behind slower ones in this list (at 7:25, at 7:28, at 7:33, at 7:35, at 7:38, ...) Seeing knowingly falsely sorted numbers hurts, we should return to numerical order (precision can still be a tie-breaker, like .00 is better than .0) so there won't be any known errors. Drachentötbär (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how long the order has been the way that it is, but I agree, it's not a great way to have the list display. Not to mention, it's formatted as a sortable table; it's almost non-sensical to have the default display be something other than shortest-to-longest. Sorry for getting into this whole rounding/truncating nonsense, I was not aware of the editorial practice of some sources to round times to the nearest tenth. I (wrongly) assumed that they would report times to the same level of precision as was measured. IPBilly (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The order change has been made by 29 September 2020 when this discussion thread was started, and we have been discussing since then, so the numerical order used since decades is the long time accepted one. On the official homepage [[6]] sport auto listed 18.Porsche 911 GT3 RS 7.33 min 19.Pagani Zonda F 7.33 min 20.Porsche 911 Carrera S 7.34 min and the sorting on this site should reflect it and not treat the Carrera S as quicker than the other two, so the long time established numerical order is the correct one. Drachentötbär (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

What? What are you trying to say? See, 7.33's are quicker than the 7.34 because these times has the 2nd decimal place numbers. If there's only 7.3 how could you find out GT3 RS and Zonda F were quicker than the Carrera S. And what are you trying to? How could you say old sortimg system is the correct one? Trusted RedZone (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Just take a look at the list after your edit. It shows "7:33.67 Porsche 911 Carrera S (991.2) in front of 7:33 Pagani Zonda F in front of 7:33 Porsche 911 GT3 RS" which contradicts Sport Auto's (who measured the time) "18.Porsche 911 GT3 RS 7.33 min 19.Pagani Zonda F 7.33 min 20.Porsche 911 Carrera S 7.34 min". After it was revealed that your sorting yields knowingly falsely sorted numbers you are the only one who opposed numerical order. Drachentötbär (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Giving only one for a only one time don't prove your sorting system is correct. And remember there is not only sport auto times.and I'm not the only one who accepted the correct sorting method Trusted RedZone (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

And see how wrong is there's sorting system. As Cerrera S, if another car did a lap time in about 7:33.67-7:34.00, then they sorting both times on 7:34. Then how could you know which is the fastest one. Sometimes the Cerrera S can sort behind of that. So that's we saying times with more decimal numbers is need to be sorted above the others and they are reliable than the others. Tell can you find out the real fastest time between them in a situation like this? Trusted RedZone (talk) 07:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I've proven that the sorting system change produces many errors where slower laps are above quicker ones. You didn't find a single error in the numerical sorting. IPBilly changed his mind to rejecting the sorting change after we found out how many errors it causes. You are the only one supporting it since then. Drachentötbär (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't think so, in List of fastest production cars by accerelation also editors recently accepted this sorting system. Can I ask you a question? For a example if 2 cars did 1 each lap times and publisher saying one did 7.52.13 and other one was 7.52, now can you find out which is the fastest? Trusted RedZone (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

And a another one,(imagine the publisher as sport auto) same 7:52.13 and another about 7.51.79, on the magazine they'll round it to 7.52, how could we find which is fastest if decimals doesn't available? Some times after rounding it to 7.52, 7:51.79 can go down than the 7:52.13. That's why I'm saying decimals are very important. (Note- According to Drachentötbär, only sport auto do this rounding system. There is not only sport auto times in the list. Also in List of fastest production cars by accerelation, there don't have any performance figure of sport auto's) Trusted RedZone (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

At the List of fastest production cars by acceleration your opinion is the minority opinion as well. Numerical sorting has some instances where we don't know if the sorting is correct, but changing the order leaves all this unknown while adding several cases where provably correct sorting is changed into incorrect sorting. Drachentötbär (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

How could you say it's correct? For an example according to old sorting system 2.3 us quicker than the 2.31, 2.3 can be anytime of 2.30 to 2.35. So it's unfair to the car that did 2.31. Can you tell what's wrong with new sorting system? Trusted RedZone (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Trusted RedZone: No answer for him because he, you, I or anyone else have absolutely no basis to affirm whether or not it is "correct". Comparing times from different sources (with different decimal places) is the root cause for all of this discussion and that is why we need a consistent methodology to compare times. If a source already did the job for us (comparing many cars), then that's our profit and we should just go with it. In all other situations where we need to make a decision, we'll have to rely on a criteria. I'm about to post a lengthy reply that's basically a draft of a proposed methodology, if possible please comment. Feelthhis (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed methodology (draft)

I posted a proposed methodology in the Talk:List of fastest production cars by acceleration that applies here too. Please comment if possible. Feelthhis (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2020

Add new Mercedes AMG GT Black Series time posted by mercedes today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWaz9HVgDeY

Time was 6.48.047, driver was Maro Engel. Mercedes claims car is fully stock, tire details unknown at this time. Cham423 (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021

20,600 m (67,600 ft) T.E.R.Sven (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

What about it? Toasted Meter (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2021 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for addition of the lap time for the Jaguar XE SV Project 8 into the "Production, street legal vehicles" list

'Request for addition of the lap time for the Jaguar XE SV Project 8 into the "Production, street legal vehicles" list'

Length 20,600m (67,600ft)

Time 7:18.361

Vehicle Jaguar XE SV Project 8

Driver Vincent Radermecker

Date 8 July 2019

Notes Jaguar SVO conducted lap record. Production-specification two-seat Track Pack version of Project 8. Msimpso4 (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Source https://media.jaguar.com/news/2019/07/jaguar-xe-sv-project-8-worlds-fastest-saloon-car-beats-its-own-nurburgring

|ans=no — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msimpso4 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The 7:18.361 and 7:23.164 times seem to be the same run, just on different lengths. The longer one is what the Nurburgring is currently going with as their "official" time since 2019 (see [7]). I think a split into two tables would be reasonable here; in fact, I'll work on it later. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I think a wider consensus is necessary here for a split.  On hold. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

New lap time of AMG GT 63s 4Matic+

Please, add new lap time for AMG GT 63s 4Matic +. 11 November 2020, Demian Schaffert, Michelin Pilot Sport Cup2. 20,803 m. Tsikhotskyi19 (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2021

37.47.198.243 (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

https://www.motor1.com/news/148037/scg-003c-nurburgring-qualifying-time/ SCG003 NOT ROAD LEGAL DURING N24 - NORDSCHLIEFIE WIL BE 6:33 ;)

Please provide the text you would like to remove, replace or add. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2021

almost 1 month ago Porsche 992 GT3 did lap (20,6 km) in 6:55.34 -> source. Please add it to the table, thanks 2A02:768:742F:4DFA:1A2:CF97:EEEC:A4A7 (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

the 20.8km time is already in the list, with sources to the manufacturer's press release and original video. IPBilly (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2021

Change "Bikes were tested by Dale Lomas and a character named only as The Baron" to "Bikes were tested by Dale Lomas and Brendan Keirle (then known only as "The Baron")"

Reference: https://www.bridgetogantry.com/today-we-lost-a-good-guy-at-the-ring-and-we-need-to-fix-that/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robatwilliams (talk • contribs)

 Done. Volteer1 (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2021

Please add time for the Toyota GR Yaris: 8 min 14.93 sec. Here is the soruce: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdeptmXnSfo Trapezius77 (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. YouTube is not a reliable source. Aasim (talk) 06:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Here's the source, [8]. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is this not updated? Source [9] seems fine?

Seems Prosches are road-illegal.

There are some reliable source available that saying Porsche using illegal parts (such as six point harnesses) for the record attempts.

Source - https://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-news/industry-news/porsche/porsche-918-spyder-sets-nrburgring-lap-record/

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/porsche/911/99047/new-porsche-911-gt3-rs-thunders-into-geneva-with-513bhp Game for Game (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? Six-point harnesses aren't illegal in Germany. Your links don't appear to be explaining or clarifying the matter either. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Nissan GT-R Nismo - N Attack Package

Ok, now what gonna say? is the N Attack Package was street-leagl or not? Whatever, sources say it's street-legal. Trusted RedZone (talk) 10:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I haven't read the argument about whether or not the Nissan was street legal with the N attack package. The key thing if you use the definition under the Production car speed record would be to determine if the modified car is street-legal in its intended markets, having fulfilled the homologation tests or inspections required under either a) United States of America, b) European Union law, or (c) Japan to be granted this status. If it was then the category would probably end up as a modified production car. If the car wasn't street legal then it would be classified as a racing car or something similar. NealeFamily (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

But at this car all the references say it's street-legal. Trusted RedZone (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Trusted RedZone The question you need to answer is: Do the references you are citing meet Wikipedia's reliable source criteria? If so, then it is street legal and, if not, then it is not proven to be street legal. NealeFamily (talk) 07:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The sources that i'm saying is meets Wikipedia's reliable source criteria. That's why i'm saying it's street-legal. Trusted RedZone (talk) 09:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Great. We're eager to see them and reach an agreement about its status. Please check out Wikipedia:Verifiability as well as consider whats written here Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth then provide the sources that you are referring to so that we can all see them. IPBilly (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I added but it not showing after i published it. Why? How to do that? Trusted RedZone (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Trusted RedZone Not sure where you published it - can you post it here in this discussion so we can take a look at your references. That will assist IPBilly as well. Since you are using a mobile phone to edit can I suggest you type in the website or publication you are wishing to quote - not sure how good cut and paste works in your phone. NealeFamily (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to add to this discussion but I don't know why it's not showing after I published my edit. Trusted RedZone (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

What exactly are you trying to add? Is it a link or a file or something else? Your posts are coming through. NealeFamily (talk) 09:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

They were Links. Trusted RedZone (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Well you have never added one so you will need to tell us what link we should look at. Toasted Meter (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Go and search in google "is the n attack package was street-legal" then you can see some of the articles of authority.com, Nissan's official heritage website, carbuzz.com and etc. According to them, they saying both A and B packages were steet-legal. Trusted RedZone (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Toasted Meter these ones appear to be the references being relied on - [[10]] and [[11]]. I have no comment on its reliability as a source and leave that for you to comment. NealeFamily (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Having looked at these sources, this seems very much like an edge case and I cannot decide where it should fall. In the US, and it sounds like Europe, this absolutely falls into a non-production model because the packages were installed by non-OE tuning companies after delivery of the vehicle. They're still "street-legal", but not homologated. Based on this source [12] I have a harder time determining whether it's non-production or not in the Japanese market. Nissan Motorsports International definitely sounds like a separate legal entity than Nissan Motor Corporation, but whether its a subsidiary or subject to the same homologation requirements is unclear. It's also unclear whether or not the package was fitted pre- or post-delivery. Giving it the benefit of the doubt, we would have to decide whether being a production vehicle in Japan only, and not other markets, is sufficient for it to be considered a production model. IPBilly (talk) 02:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

[[13]] is Nissan's announcement what was developed for its time attack efforts with the Nissan GT-R NISMO on the Nordschleife, at [[14]] you can see that some of the parts cannot be used on public roads even in Japan. At [[15]] it's explained that the carbon fibre bonnet gurney is not fit for the road due to pedestrian safety legislation. You can see this sharp looking carbon fibre strip on the hood of the Nordschleife car at [[16]]. Drachentötbär (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Drachentötbär - looking at this information Trusted RedZone and aside from the debate around it being a modified production car, the conclusion is that the version used by Nissan to obtain the record included parts that meant it was configured for the race track and not in a street-legal configuration. NealeFamily (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for asking. Drachentötbär, is the given sources were 100% reliable? But I don't think so because all the manufacturer's and high amount of independent sources say it's street-legal. Only one source it's not. How can we come for decision from a one source that say it's not street-legal. In Japan they were street-legal with the carbon fiber bonnet gurney and the seat belt. But I don't have sources on internet to show them. Trusted RedZone (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

At the top of pg. 2 this PDF from Nismo international says "In addition, the car can also be equipped with the optional, competition exclusive parts of a dedicated carbon hood gurney and six-point seatbelt intended for use only in closed circuits", emphasis added. Again, I suggest reading over Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth to understand why everybody has come to the conclusion that we have. IPBilly (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, now only I just saw that Trusted RedZone (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

So for customers Nissan split the N-Attack package they used for the Nordschleife time into the A kit and into optional parts which are competition exclusive and intended for use only in closed circuits because they can not be used on public roads. This confirms that the car was not road legal. Drachentötbär (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I accidentally saw a video on YouTube which in UK a guy test driving a KIT-A installed GT-R Nismo N-Attack on city and highway. But that car has the carbon fiber bonnet gurney and the six point seat belts (which is not street legal in some countries). But he is not mentioned anything about that's not street-legal. I think this also like the Radicals. In some countries they legal. In others they are not.

In another video of same publisher. A US spec N-Attack car also has the street illegal parts. If anyone have thoughts about this please comment.

Sorry, my device has a problem with copying the link. So I can't add the link. But I'll add the link text. Then you can search and find it.

(2016 NISSAN NISMO N-ATTACK GT-R - FIRST DRIVE 最初駆動機構) Trusted RedZone (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

And also remember. The record attempt car has a street-legally registered number plate of Germany. Trusted RedZone (talk) 11:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Also in gtr-registry.com.I saw some N-Attack cars in japan which includes this parts and using on them at road too. I'm confused. What we do now for this? Trusted RedZone (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Is anyone didn't see my discussion? Trusted RedZone (talk) 11:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The record attempt car didn't have a normal number plate, it had a red number plate. Those car dealers' plates are not vehicle-specific and may be used on cars without approval for test driving but not for everyday use. Drachentötbär (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

All right then. We leave record attempt. But in some countries with road-illegal parts, some cars can go on road without any problems. So what about them? Trusted RedZone (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

According to given reliable sources this car is fully street-legal. It's seems a situation like Radical SR8 and SR8LM. Some sources say it's legal but some (only two) says it's not. According to this site if a car has road going numberplates it's street legal. (record car had red numbers, it means it's a test car, not a road illegal car), so it seems it's road legal. Do not do revisions without understanding. Game for Game (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Unlike the Radical SR8 the record attempt Nissan GT-R didn't have car specific number plates, red number plates can be switched from one car to another and even put on racing cars, no one controls on what you put them. The burden of proof that the car was fully road-legal is on you, some older Nissan marketing announcements and websites repeating them is not enough, especially with the newer carthrottle source and Nissan selling parts of the kit as not useable on public roads. Drachentötbär (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

As I and others have emphatically written multiple times before street legal is not the same as a homologated production vehicle. The addition of parts (even if supplied by the manufacturer) that cannot be equipped due to regulatory limitations (be it pedestrian impact, emissions, etc) makes the car ineligible for the "production/street legal" category of this unofficial list. Similarly, the UK's SVA approval does not make the car a homologated production vehicle. Just because the car was operated by some person, at some point, with a license plate on a public road does not mean that it was "street legal". Likewise, just because that person equipped their vehicle with the parts used to set the lap time, the car does not magically become "illegal" (speaking only to US laws); it is only prohibited for the manufacturer to sell the vehicle in that configuration.

For the purposes of this list, road legal does not refer to an individual's ability to register and/or operate the vehicle on public roads, but to the ability of a manufacturer to sell the vehicle, in the particular configuration, directly to the public for use on public roads. See Production car speed record § Production car definition for a good definition. IPBilly (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Revisiting "Road Legal", particulartly re:The Radical SR8

There has been much debate about the Radical here and elsewhere with regards to its "Road Legal" status. The Radical is allowed on lap boards for road legal cars in many places on the site, including this page, and elsewhere by virtue of its ability to get single vehicle approval (SVA) in the UK. That said, per the classification set forth for this page:

"For the purpose of this list, a car is “street legal” if it is registered in at least one EU country for road use."

Given that the UK is no longer a part of the European Union the Radical SR8 and the Radical SR8 LM no longer meet the page's criteria for legality.

Obviously Radical could begin offering (or may already offer) an SVA Kit on SR8's that allows them to be registered in an EU member nation. I have not turned up evidence of any Radicals under such an arangement, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Barring that evidence however, I should think that the Radicals would no longer be eligible for inclusion on the "Road Car" lap boards.

SelEag (talk) 06:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I believe that "in the EU" is a bit general as there is a couple of cars that I believe were only sold in the US on this list (Camaro ZL1 1LE comes to mind). It makes more sense to amend the rule to "In the EU, UK, or US. The legality should be determined based on when it was manufactured and/or the lap time was set. A change in laws (e.g. Brexit) should not retroactively change the cars lap status. That would be the same as, if 20yrs from now ICE vehicles are outlawed, moving lap times for all non-EVs to the non-road legal section. IPBilly (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I think treating SVA approval the same as EU type approval is wrong, SVA approval has been applied to all kinds of odd things (see Edd China's sofa) and putting cars you can buy off the lot that have to comply with all the same regulations as any family car up against something that is assessed by regulators one at a time and does not need to meet the same standards seems wrong. Toasted Meter (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree, for much the same reason that any random 1000hp car isn't the same as a 1000hp Veyron. I don't know what a good standard for series production road car would be in this case, crash testing? On one hand I'm not opposed to moving the Radical, only the justification that "the UK is no longer part of the EU". If the question is whether SVA qualifies the Radical as a "road legal" production car, the answer is surely not. One needn't look further than the name "single vehicle" approval to reach that conclusion, as becoming a truly road-legal car would extend that status to all units produced, therefore making it a multi-vehicle approval. On the other hand, the issue regarding the radical has been beaten to death, and it's still listed as a road-car. And to what end, so that somebody can feel better that their car is 2 places nearer to the top? The more you have to qualify the "record" the less it starts to be a "record" (see: Panamera setting the record for executive car). IPBilly (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that "production car" and "single vehicle approval" don't match. The SR8, about which Road & Track wrote "calling it a production car is far from rational", didn't fit into the road-legal production car list even before the Brexit.Drachentötbär (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

They wouldn't match if they were all made for the road, but that is not the case. Radicals are made in pretty large numbers but only a few are licenced for the road. So they are certainly a production car by their volume, and the cars as tested were certainly road legal. WHich kind of does make them road legal production cars. As for retroactively trying to say a car that was road legal at the time of its test may or may not be road legal today that would open up a can of worms that could never be closed. Are we going to remove every car that doesn't meet the current ever changing legislation? Really? Then you'll only ever be able to list cars from the last couple of years. The Radicals were certainly road legal at the time of their tests and were driven to and from track to emphasize that point. The same cannot be said of many other cars on the list. And yes, there are German registered Radicals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4784:1B00:D005:A4AC:3358:891B (talk) 05:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

There are absolutely NOT german registered Atoms, you show one publication or source for that, instead of just talking nonsense. You can not register that car here. Go look at the original article, in fact, read the information in the above section where the company themselves responded by email admitting the car is not road legal. 2600:8804:80:2280:21AB:D9CB:C607:7575 (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

References

OEM?

OEM means "original equipment manufacturer" as in a vehicle came from the factory with the installation of said equipment.

The Manthey Performance Kit is NOT OEM. Stock = production. Production means "produced as is from factory". This is neither.

From the Porsche media portal North America:

"The Manthey Performance Kit by Porsche Tequipment is available to order now from Porsche Centres for customers in Europe. Other markets will follow in time. In addition, a Porsche Approved Warranty can now be purchased for every Porsche 911 GT2 RS with Manthey Performance Kit."

This kit does NOT come from Porsche, even if it is installed by a dealer with a dealer warranty, production car means a STOCK CAR, from the factory. Mopar stage kits are supplied directly from Mopar, but as soon as installed, the car is not considered stock. Are Roush mustangs now going to be considered stock? Lingenfelter corvettes? Hennessey SRT vehicles, camaros, etc? Heck, there's already been a huge fit about what Hennessey has been up to with respect to the "fastest production car ever".

It isn't like I want to beat a dead horse here but this ludicrous way that "production car" is being defined in the last several years is ruining what these records are even supposed to be about. Porsche and their fans are tip-toeing around reality here, dancing off the edge and being cute with the "oh no, this is a production car"... when the car quite obviously is NOT.2600:8804:80:2280:9B5:991E:B7BD:3285 (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Manthey Racing is a part of Porsche just like Porsche Teqipment (or like Nismo is a part of nissan), there are no outside companies involved. The other examples you mentioned are about companies modifying cars from a different company. Drachentötbär (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Manthey Racing is NOT like Nismo. Nismo is a version of the car built at the factory. If something is put on the car that was not available from the factory, it is NOT OEM, it is NOT stock. This isn't rocket science here. If you purchase aftermarket parts, it doesn't matter if they come directly from the same factory that the vehicle comes from, if you can't buy the car built that way, it's not "factory", that's the importance of the terminology here. Even if the parts were made in the exact same factory as the car, if the manufacturer doesn't sell it on the dealer lot pre-installed, it is NOT OEM, it is NOT production. "The other examples you mentioned are about companies modifying cars from a different company" Perhaps you need to read up on Mopar stage kits. I'd recommend it. 2600:8804:80:2280:643B:4154:DA84:3E98 (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the origin of a box of parts that can be fitted post manufacturing is the important part here. I don't see how you can take a production car leaving the factory with a set of parts fitted then obtain a box of parts that replace those of the production car and conclude based on the origin of the parts that it's in the same spec. Toasted Meter (talk) 08:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that there are no clear definitions of OEM (very confusing, maybe we should replace this phrase with something which is easier to understand where it is possible), aftermarket or production car. We didn't define production car for this site so we have to go with how the reliable sources see it. For the 911 GT2 RS the production car status was officially verified by the Nurburgring and the lap is listed as production car lap record on their website. Other qualified sources call it a production car lap too, even those reporting what the Manthey Performance Kit is. That's enough for me, especially since we have list cars with roll cages not available to customers, a car about which Road&Track wrote "calling it a production car is far from rational" and entries where the manufacturers just have said that they drove the time without any independent confirmation. Drachentötbär (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Roll cages don't make cars faster. To my mind a production car must have the components that it was given type approval with (in Europe). I would be quite sure that owners of these cars will need to provide TÜV certificates for the Manthey parts to register the cars in Germany, which is certainly a departure from a unmodified type approved car. Toasted Meter (talk) 08:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Roll cages do make cars faster, see https://www.speedsportlife.com/2008/10/01/avoidable-contact-17-cheating-nissan-bitter-porsche/ Drachentötbär (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Good article, the lap time changes from adding or further stiffening a cage is interesting, I don't know if/how much this has changed over the years with cars getting stiffer but it would certainly go on the pile of factors. Toasted Meter (talk) 06:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Tesla Model S Plaid - 2021-09-09

Just saw the post from Elon Musk about Model S Plaid doing a 7:30 run. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1436086743720251394 Does anyone know if there has been video released yet? He claims that it was shipped directly from the factory (so would assume OEM tires etc). Matt (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2021

1. Add Tesla Model S Plaid (7:35.579) to the Production Street Legal section - achieved on 9 September, Driver unknown Reference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ujp3q_aryRA

2. Create a new section for Road Legal Electric cars - using the following cars from the Production Street Legal section Tesla Model S Plaid 7:35.579 Porsche Taycan Turbo 7:42.34 Tesla Model S P85D 8:50 Tesla Model 3 Performance 9:00 gregmoseley (talk) 08:52, 10 September 2021 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 10:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2021

Jeremyclarksoff (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

To whom it may concern, Hi, I would like to add a lap time for 2015 c7 corvette done by Jim Mero, which is 7:10. And here is the reference: https://www.corvetteblogger.com/2019/04/09/pics-jim-mero-confirms-he-lapped-the-nurburgring-in-704-with-the-2019-corvette-zr1/

Thank you!

 Not done: This seems to be a self-published source, and thus may not be reliable. Please reach consensus for inclusion, per WP:ER. Thank you. — LauritzT (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Can this, BMW M5 CS | HOT LAP Nordschleife 7.29,57 min | sport auto Supertest, be added to the lap times list?

The link to the video is this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d_UfIhV85I

Any news on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.125.236.56 (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

992 Turbo S lap time was in the rain

The 7:17.3 time listed for the 992 Turbo S should say that it was a wet time done in the rain in the 'Notes' section on the right side of the screen / table that cites tires used. Rain / wet lap is of such importance that it is literally the first word in the title of the source article.

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/test/porsche-911-turbo-s-nordschleife-supertest/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by RRRMMM12 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2022

7:17.3 Porsche 911 Turbo S (992) was a wet lap conducted in the rain. It should be in the notes next to Aerokit. It is such an important note that it is the first word in the title of the reference source. RRRMMM12 (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2022

The lap times for the BMW M2 and BMW M2 Competition show "F22" as the factory code. This is incorrect. The factory code for all existing BMW M2 models is "F87." Otemanu (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2022

The time for the BMW M3 Touring is for the longer 20 832 Meter / 12.9 mile layout, not the 20 600 meter layout. I'd suggest adding it to the "Length" column next to the time. Otherwise, 7 minutes 30.300 seconds is the actual time for the 20 600 meter layout most commonly used for comparison purposes! Here is the source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6F5cp79e6Y&ab_channel=BMWM (video description).EliasBerg (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2022

please change (GT2 RS) to (GT2RS MR)

Hamzanajdawi-thePorschefanboy (talk) 03:27, 23 July 2022 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Which (GT2 RS)(s)? Aaron Liu (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2022 (2)

THE BMW M2 code name is F82 even on the m2 page on Wikipedia ([[17]]) it says its f82 the F22 is the normal 2 series ([[18]]) please change F22 to F82 for 1. (7:52.36 BMW M2 Competition (F22) Christian Gebhardt 12 September 2018 Sport Auto[271][272]) 2. (7:58 BMW M2 (F22) December 2015 Car Magazine (12/2015)[286])

Hamzanajdawi-thePorschefanboy (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: It says F87. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Couple of edits to be made

Under Lap times for production/street legal automobiles.

Edit the note under Renault Mégane R.S. Trophy-R (time of 7:40.100) to include that it holds the FWD car record.

Edit the note under Honda Civic Type R (FK8) (time of 7:43.8) to include that it held the FWD car record before the Renault Mégane R.S. Trophy-R Llevene (talk) 03:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

911 GT3 RS (992)

The new Porsche 911 GT3 RS has completed the 20.8-kilometre Nordschleife of the Nürburgring in 6:49.328 minutes - 10.6 seconds faster than the current 911 GT3. Behind the wheel was Porsche brand ambassador @bergmeister, who was intensely involved in the development of the new flagship of the 911 series. An official was present to witness the lap time. 2001:9E8:36DC:4200:A902:9EA0:BA60:EAB2 (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Please put the short lap time in the table (6:44,848). All time around this car are the times from the 20.6km lap, so this is confusing Meiliv (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2022

The lap record made by the Mercedes AMG One is actually 6:35.183 minutes

See several news outlets and the track website itself for proof: https://nuerburgring.de/news/neue-rekordzeit-auf-der-nordschleife-mercedes-amg-one-ist-schnellstes-serienfahrzeug Iantracy (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for your request :) Actualcpscm (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2022

For completeness, it could be added after the table row

8:26 Nissan 350Z Horst von Saurma Sport Auto (10/2003)

the entry

8:28 Ford Fiesta ST Christian Gebhardt 2020 Sport Auto (03/2020)**

before the entry

8:28 Mini John Cooper Works Pro (F56) Christian Gebhardt 2017 Sport Auto (04/2017), Pirelli P Zero.[361][362]

**article Supertest at pag. 16 93.34.90.163 (talk) 10:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

see also at the end of the page: Nürburgring nordschleife 8'28"00 146.0 km/h — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.34.90.163 (talk) 11:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2023

Change the Porsche 911 GT3 RS Nordschleife lap time to 6:49:328 by Kevin Estre, as you can also see from this YT video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpEjrjLaTxE Gecko 247 (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

honda civic type r 2017 nurburgring nordschleife

Lap time of 7:43.8. Not listed at all. 123.208.42.228 (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2023

Change the typo from `Porche Taycan Turbo S ` to `Porsche Taycan Turbo S` Chiendat (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Ferrari f2004

Michael Schumacher drove Ferrari f2004 with time of 4:35.452 Maybe you could put that in non road legal section 95.168.120.29 (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2023

Change "BMW M2 (F82)" to "BMW M2 (F87)" The F82 is an M4, the F87 is the correct designation for the M2. Drnez0205 (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Its literally listed in the Wikipedia article that its linked to:

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/BMW_M2

"The M2 used the F8x chassis from the M3/M4, code name F87 and featured a more powerful and responsive..." Drnez0205 (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

As that article mentions, there are variants such as the M2 Competition that use modified parts of the F82 M4. It would be relatively sensible to designate such a variant as "M2 (F82)", as in "M2 with an F82 variant engine". In this case, the relevant question is which variant of the car was used. Reliable sourcing for that is needed. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

BMW shares parts for many of its models. It does not change the chassis code. The F87 is the designation used for the 2016-2018 M2, 2019-2021 M2 Competition, and the 2020 M2 CS.

In the case that you're quoting, the S55 engine used in the M2 Competition is the same engine found in the M3 and M4, but it's been detuned. This is how it comes from the factor, is not an aftermarket modification. The same can be said for the N55 engine used in the original M2. The same engine can be found in a variety of BMW vehicles.

The original M2 shares the suspension and various other parts from the M4 as well, but it doesn't change the chassis designation.

The official chassis code list is widely published on a variety of places:

https://bimmerlife.com/2021/04/03/bmw-chassis-codes-explained/

http://store.uucmotorwerks.com/articles/FAQ-BMW-CHASSIS-CODES.htm

https://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-news/industry-news/bmw/all-the-bmw-e-and-f-codenames-explained/ Drnez0205 (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

A source is not needed to make this change because the burden of proof is not on the requestor here. I cannot find evidence the BMW M2 F82 exists, and the cited source makes no mention of the chassis codename of the car, so it is a reasonable assumption that this was a typo and it was in the fact the BMW M2 F87 that did this race.  Done. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for getting this updated. I wanted to also point out that another car listed here, The M2 competition, is also listed as "F82" where it should be "F87" as well.

"BMW M2 Competition (F82)" Drnez0205 (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

BMW E85 Z4 M Roadster lap time

Can you find the time of the Nordschleife in the magazine "Sport Auto" 6/2006, or "Auto Motor und Sport" 2006? I know the pass time is 8:15, but I don't know which of the two logs has that information. There should also be information about the type of tires, etc. Tsikhotskyi19 (talk) 07:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Honda Civic Type R lap time

New Honda Civic Type R lap record was made not on a stock car (but still road-legal). Turbo boost pressure was increased from 1.5 bar up to 1.8 bar, also 6th gear ratio also was changed. It was confirmed by Misha Charoudin and a lot of other trustable experts (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuCOZryZg-s&ab_channel=MishaCharoudin), who literally live on the Nurburgring. Please add mention, that Civic Type R was modified by increasing turbo pressure for 22% and changing 6th gear ratio. TrBy (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

So we must delete this time from the general table and add to the modified) Tsikhotskyi19 (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2023

There is a formatting mistake under the "lap times" section. The track length "20,832m" is placed over both the Mercedes-AMG GT63s 4MATIC+ and the Jaguar XE SV Project 8. However, only the Jaguar XE SV Project 8 lap time was recorded in the 20,832m track length. The 7:23 lap time displayed for the Mercedes-AMG GT63S 4MATIC+ is the lap for the 20,600m version of the lap. The "20,832m" track length needs to be corrected so that it is only placed over the Jaguar XE SV Project 8, and not the Mercedes-AMG GT63S 4MATIC+. Weluvpancake (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2023 (2)

Change name of Tesla Model S Plaid driver name from 'unknown' to the actual driver name 'Tom Schwister' (proof can be found on the Nurburgring YouTube channel, the most recent Plaid lap time.) 2A00:23C7:698E:6701:D16C:95A0:5453:9582 (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2023

The M4 CSL time (lapped by the Sport Auto journalist) is out of date. BMW factory driver posted a 2 seconds faster lap time. 2600:4041:5304:5400:FC22:5E7B:3027:FCF5 (talk) 05:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Tesla plaid track package not road legal in EU

TESLA Model S plaid track pack should be moved from road-legal to non-road-legal list because the Goodyear Supercar 3R tyres are not road legal in Europe/EU. 80.203.41.13 (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there any need for more information regarding this edit request? 91.186.71.4 (talk) 11:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

TESLA Model S plaid track pack comes with non-road-legal (in EU/Europe) Goodyear Supercar 3R tyres.

"The TESLA Model S plaid track pack" lap record of 2023-06-02, is currently listed under records for road-legal cars. Tesla lists the tyres used as "Goodyear Supercar 3R" (Model S Plaid Track Package (tesla.com)).

Goodyear.eu does not list the tires as an option for the Tesla Plaid, and as stated by InsideEVs (See Tesla Model S Plaid With Track Package Go Around F1 Circuit In Video Review (insideevs.com)); "considering the tires offered by Tesla – Goodyear Supercar 3R – aren’t street legal in the European Union because of their similarity to slicks, is this expensive Track Package worth it?"

Several websites states this, and some even states that Tesla has told Europeans that "with ample storagespace in the model S, you can drive on normal tyres to the track, and have the Goodyear Supercar 3R in the back of the car. The you can switch between road legal and non-road legal tyres.

Because of this, the record should be moved to the non-road legal list.

HGTTG1974 (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2023

False information and wrong title category.

Line that needs to be removed:

Heavily modified non street legal time attack car, according to Rimac 12 will be build, and according to Misha Charoudin, former Rimac employee, German police stopped them on the road and said if they see the car again on the street, it will be confiscated

Explanation:

Rimac Nevera is a street legal production car. The one that broke the record on track is also registered. It is registered in Zagreb, Croatia (Headquarters of company) with licence plate ZG-PP 1010. It is shown on this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iJUSlGQpU4&ab_channel=MishaCharoudin

There was also an attempt few months back with the one with licence plate ZG-PP 1012. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v78Ix7S7Uso&ab_channel=AutomotiveMike

Police officer saying it is not street legal and some article where there is no quote of saying it will be street illegal is not adequate to put this car in illegal category.

EU rules of vehicle registration applies across all countries. Rimac Nevera Time Attack is a special edition car that has interior and exterior detailing (paint, stiching, alloy wheels , etc...) it is still road legal version of Nevera.

Please do move this car into Street legal list, all other informations are correct. Oggy385 (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Rimac Nevera is a street legal car.

Special Rimac Nevera Time Attack car is different version of the Nevera.

Croatian PP plates are used for test vehicles, etc., Rimac used PP plates on Concept One and Concept Two, later renamed to Nevera before they homologated the car (before the car was street legal).

Also, according to Wikipedia production/street-legal definition, 12 special Rimac Nevera Time Attack cars puts that vehicle to the modified list:

"A production vehicle is defined as "one that is put into mass production, as a model produced in large numbers and offered for sale to the public." VCA, the United Kingdom's national approval authority for new road vehicles defines a production vehicle as "a vehicle of a make, model and type mass produced by the vehicle manufacturer." Guinness World Records was reported to require a minimum of 30 and other lists within Wikipedia require at least 25 road legal cars built. 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 is registered in at least one EU country for road use." Markkonen (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The Time Attack car is technically identical to the standard Nevera, see https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/elektroauto/rimac-nevera-time-attack-limitiertes-sondermodell/

The production car status was verified by TÜV and the Nürburgring GmbH made it the new official electric production car record holder.

The German police officer didn't like "seats with ears" but it's enough if it's road legal in one EU country and safety modifications like racing seats are allowed on this list, especially since the "ears" don't make the car faster. Drachentötbär (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Special Rimac Nevera Time Attack car is different version of the Nevera.

According to Wikipedia production/street-legal definition, 12 special Rimac Nevera Time Attack cars puts that vehicle to the modified list. Markkonen (talk) 01:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, if it's technically identical (again no fact check), why is Time Attack Nevera faster in acceleration, you choose, 0-60, quarter mile, exit speed, acceleration to top speed... Markkonen (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The Nevera Time Attack is a colour & trim option to celebrate braking of records and only differs in colour and interior details from other Nevera. There is no technical differentiation. Link Therefore this claim is not valid. Sittinginsanfrancisco2 (talk) 09:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Translated quote from the Auto Motor und Sport article linked above:

Incidentally, on the technical side there are no differences between the standard Nevera and the Time Attack version. The layout with the carbon monocoque and the four-motor electric all-wheel drive train, which delivers up to 1,914 hp and a maximum of 2,360 Newton meters, remains the same. Both the special and the standard model also have the sophisticated torque vectoring, chassis and aerodynamics with active design and the 120 kilowatt hour battery with 800 volt architecture.

The Car & Driver article about the Nevera Time Attack uses the standard Nevera acceleration numbers since the cars are technically identical. Drachentötbär (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

You are missing the point. As several sites explain; the 12 Special edition cars are made as a limited series to selebrate all the new record set (by a normal Nevera). They are all delivered to customers. They are painted to look like the black/green record setting (normal) Nevera. The Time Attack edition could be fitted with a flux capacitor and an afterburner, without it affecting the records, as they were set by a normal green/black Nevera before the first of the 12 Special edition cars were delivered to customer. HGTTG1974 (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

 Note: Closing this edit request as it appears that one way or another the line that was asked to be removed has disappeared from the article. – Recoil16 (talk) 10:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2023

"The TESLA Model S plaid track pack" lap record of 2023-06-02, is currently listed under records for road-legal cars. Tesla lists the tyres used as "Goodyear Supercar 3R" (Model S Plaid Track Package (https://shop.tesla.com/product/model-s-plaid-track-package)).

Goodyear.eu does not list the tires as an option for the Tesla Plaid, and as stated by InsideEVs (https://insideevs.com/news/665990/tesla-model-s-plaid-track-package-video-review/); "considering the tires offered by Tesla – Goodyear Supercar 3R – aren’t street legal in the European Union because of their similarity to slicks, is this expensive Track Package worth it?"

Several websites states this, and some even states that Tesla has told Europeans that "with ample storagespace in the model S, you can drive on normal tyres to the track, and have the Goodyear Supercar 3R in the back of the car. The you can switch between road legal and non-road legal tyres.

The subject has been posted in talks, with no contrary comments.

Because of this, the record should be moved to the non-road legal list. HGTTG1974 (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The official track records webpage lists the lap under "Electric (production) cars". Presumably that means road-legal tyres were used, as that is a track requirement to qualify for a record lap in that category. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 16:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

As stated, several sites confirm the tyres, here are two examples:

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/the-game-is-on-tesla-s-nurburgring-record-may-have-already-been-shattered-216136.html

https://jalopnik.com/tesla-model-s-track-pack-nurburgring-ev-lap-record-1850505910

The Wikipedia article states that: "New entries require an original, uncut on-board video, showing the lap and the timing from start to finish. A statement that road legal OEM tyres have been used is required." The record does not state that road legal tyres were used. The link to the video (which points to Teslas own youtube post) leads to a video with two links in the description; one link to a video where a Telsa employe describes the Track Pack used, and here he points to the Goodyear tires. Link number two points to Teslas own text description of the Track pack used, and here the Goodyear tyres are the only option.

Links:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7j3NP8dWMY&ab_channel=Tesla

and

https://shop.tesla.com/product/model-s-plaid-track-package

Before race, the car is checked with compliance to series production, but this doesn't neccesary mean it's road legal in Europe. A mistake may have been made.

Nowhere in Teslas or https://nuerburgring.de/ s description is a declaration of other, road legal, tyres mentioned, and this clearly violates the Wikipedia articles own rules that "a statement that road legal OEM tyres have been used is required". HGTTG1974 (talk) 09:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

And regarding your argument that the record is listed as an official record on https://nuerburgring.de/info/nuerburgring/records; the "Elektro (Serie)"-category that the Tesla record is listed under, does not demand that the vehicle has ECE-approval (road legal in the EU), only that it is a series production, electric only vehicle:

"Elektro (Serie) | Serienfahrzeuge mit reinem Elektroantrieb" eg. pure electric series production car.

This is different from the "Oberklasse" or "Sportswagen" category, whitch states that the car must be;

"PKW-Segment des KBA - Nur Serienfahrzeuge mit ECE-Zulassung ohne Umbauten" e.g "only EU approved production vehicles without alterations".

Hence, the listing in it self doesn't mean the car was on road legal tyres. HGTTG1974 (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done The official press release from the track confirms the tyres were Goodyear Supercar 3R. (Simply noting what Tesla says is included in the pack wasn't sufficient for me.) In my edit, I included the citation that those tyres are not road-legal in Europe. My confusion here was due to misunderstanding that this article has the specific requirement for road-legal tyres, whereas the track apparently does not.

Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 23:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2023

The information under 'Controversies' regarding that the 2015 Nissan GT-R Nismo was not street legal is incorrect. The lap time of 7.08.679 completed by the 2015 Nissan GT-R Nismo was accomplished with the 'N-Attack' package, which was an additional, street legal, upgrade package offered to consumers through various outlets, including Nismo Omori Factory in Japan, RJN Motorsport in England, Stillen in the United States of America and several others. The package consisted of a set of upgrades, notably more aggressive differentials, a raised rear wing, 3-way Adjustable Ohlins suspension and a more aerodynamic front fender design. The 'N-Attack' package is no different than the Manthey Racing packages for the Porsche GT2 RS MR and Porsche GT3 RS MR and hence the Nissan GT-R has the same right to be on the list as the two Porsches.

Thank you. 147.161.161.93 (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Sources from the article and the discussion archive show that the car used parts which are sold as "competition exclusive (can not be used on public roads)" according to Nismo and other sources. Drachentötbär (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

"Controversies"

Scrap that whole b/s. A Mr. May, nicknamed "captain slow", is hardly a serious voice, and stating "laptimes... aren´t helping you and me" is obviously bollocks. OF COURSE laptimes are an indicator for performance or efficiency, so scrap that b/s. There´s simply NO "controversy" here. 2003:DC:F716:6F00:58B1:E7B1:22DB:138F (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2023

6:28.910 Widman27 (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2023 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RudolfRed (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2024

Add the Porsche Taycan Turbo GT times : 7:07:55 Driver : Lars Kern (I'm not sure about that, will have to check) ClemZealot (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them)^talk 02:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2024

On the entry for the 911 GT2 RS MR on 14/6/2021 by Lars Kern, all of the sources listed say that the lap time was 6:43.300, not 6:38.835. This should be corrected to 6:43.300, or sourced with sources supporting the graph's data. It also should be changed to Manthey Performance Kit instead of MR for clarity, as the Nurburgring website also lists a modded "Porsche GT2 RS MR" driven by Lars Kern in 2018, this is distinguished on that page by using "Manthey Performance Kit" on the stock model which achieved a 6:43.300 lap time. AcedemicWeapon (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done: Hi @AcedemicWeapon, I understand the confusion, but if you click the small [a] note on the length header you will see that the times used are from the the older, shorter variant of the track. The longer standard was only brought in recently, so for consistency the older length is used (though I agree this could be better explained: perhaps the new times and old ones could be split into two tables?).

I've done your other change. Feel free to ping me with any other requests. – Isochrone (T) 12:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2024

Jaguar XE SV Project 8 Ring time 7min 18.361sec (24 July 2019)

https://media.jaguar.com/en-gb/news/2019/07/jaguar-xe-sv-project-8-worlds-fastest-saloon-car-beats-its-own-nurburgring JAYDuCGh (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

notes? Martin^talk(sign) 02:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: You don't specify what notes should be put. TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Please stop doing this

A large number of these items are sourced to YouTube (which fails WP:RS) and press releases (which are not independent so also fail RS). Any genuinely significant record can be referenced to at least one reliable independent published source, surely? Guy (help! - typo?) 21:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2024

edit: I ended up making these changes myself and published this as per below. Please feel free to double-check/proofread and delete this topic.

I think we should change the Tesla Model 3 Performance lap time to the lap performed by L'argus (video) as it is more accurate and from a more reliable source. This would change the lap time from a ~9:00 which is what is currently listed (private driver) to an ~8:12 (L'argus).

For the Tesla Model 3 Performance, the current article lists a 9:00 Bridge-to-Gantry (BTG) time citing a YouTube video under a private driver uploaded by "Jay in Shanghai." L'argus—a French magazine specializing in automobile services and journalism—has an ~8:12 BTG time with a stock vehicle under a YouTube video which is also featured in an article. In the description of the YouTube video they claim the car they're testing is "100% stock."

I would think the L'argus source is not only more reliable considering it was done by media (versus the listed 9:00 private individual/driver time), but may be more indicative of a stock M3P's actual Nürburgring BTG times considering that a modified M3P time under slightly wet conditions is 7:44 in this video by Unplugged Performance (modification details in video description).

That said, I have no idea how the original 9:00 timing written in the Wiki article came about, whether it came from a timing box or was just timed through the video since I didn't see anything about a 9:00 time in the video's description. I suspect the time was from analyzing the video, as the 9:00 time does seem equivalent if timed through the video. If that is the case, then some frame-by-frame times from the L'argus video in total elapsed seconds is

519.76 (Gantry) - 28.04 (Bridge) = 491.72 seconds

491.72 seconds = 8 minutes 11.72 seconds ≈ 8:12

These times were derived by looking at times of the frame within the video, where the frame depicts the white line signifying Bridge/Gantry boundary to be under either the front bumper or front wheels for more conservative timings. Dakilaledesma (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOR. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Nissan GTR 7:08 time

As Nissan did sell the N-Attack package of the 2014+ NISMO GTR, and there are many of these cars circulating the world in various markets, why is the time removed? Based on the timeline, the developments of the package happened in November, 2013 prior to sale, but the N-Attack package went on sale Jan 10th, 2014, just shortly after. Keen eyes can clearly spot the package contents on the car extensively documented on Nissan's youtube channel. How is this any different from the Weissach package for Porsche, for instance? The GT2 RS time reflects those changes...

Everyone is quick to exalt and praise the Mercedes project one time, but I would bet my life, they had engineers there tuning dampers and trying different wing settings as such to extract as much time as possible out of the package. Gabednconfused (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2024

Add Xiaomi SU7 Ultra 6:46.87 THG918 (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2024 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)