Talk:List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Others: Archive_2009 · Archive_2010  —  Archive_2012 · Archive_2013

This /Archive_2011 was created in March 2014, collecting topics
from the main talk-page, but some discussions might have
been overlooked. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Lexus LFA removed

I have removed the LFA as it was fitted with a roll cage when it set the lap time, and the production car will not be outfitted with a rollcage. Not a legal time. Any problems with this can be discussed on my talk page or here. Thank you.(Hostile Rain (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC))

The roll cage was fitted as a safety measure as did several others cars on the list. Blhsing (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. It's not a production option. If the car is unsafe, it should not be on the track or worse yet, public roads.(Hostile Rain (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC))

It is only responsible and a common sense to equip cars with roll cage when brought to the track. All GT race regulations mandate the use of roll cage for good reasons. The LFA Nurburgring Package is designed to be fitted with a roll cage with sun visors removed from the standard trim. Your suggestion that a roll cage being fitted to a car when brought to the track implies the car is unsafe otherwise is obviously laughable. Of course, if fitting a roll cage or roll bar makes a car non-production, I am going to move all such cars on the list to the non-production section. By the way, moving the content is the right action, not removing it. Blhsing (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Porsche GT2 Official (more)

As all of the top manufacturers have video proof of the laps, until a video of the lap time is produced, the Porsche lap time should reflect the fact that NO VIDEO PROOF of the lap exists. Too much to ask?.(Hostile Rain (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC))

A claim is a claim. Almost all the lap times published by magazines are claims too and don't come with video evidence either so I don't see the need to single out the GT2 RS's lap time by specifically adding a note that says "NO VIDEO PROOF". Furthermore, there's no need to use bold font or all-capital letters just because YOU think it's more important than all the other texts. Blhsing (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I see. You don't have a problem with Porsche's claim, BUT you did have a problem with the Dodge Viper ACR's claim. Luckily, Dodge provided proof. Unlike Porsche.(Hostile Rain (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC))

You don't seem to get it and you're twisting my words. What I had problem with was not "the Dodge Viper ACR's claim", but a claim from the Viper Club of America, a Viper owner/fan club little known by those outside of the club itself. I don't have a problem with the claim from Porsche because it is the words of Porsche, the manufacturer of the car itself. I don't have a problem with "claims" from Sport Auto or Evo magazines either because they are well reputed 3rd parties. Again, please refer to Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiablity and reliable sources if you still have a problem. Blhsing (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Mini Cooper time

The 8:52 lap time of a Mini Cooper S links to the original Mini, I can't find anything on Google about this lap time but as a Classic Mini owner I strongly believe it would have been the new Mini Cooper S that set this time as the old Cooper S had a top speed of approx. 120mph. Avergae speed of around 90mph seems unlikely unless significant work was done on the Mini which surely means it is no longer a production vehicle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.29.16 (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Lexus LFA Nordschleife Package

I removed the part that the length of the circuit is unclear. Both the article in Thetruthaboutcars (which was written with input from the Deputy Chief Engineer of the LFA) and the press release of Toyota (added) mention the 20.6 km track length. BsBsBs (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, after careful checking of the sources: There is no "Nürburgring Edition." That could be a separate car. Its was an LFA with a "Nürburgring Package" - i.e. an LFA with an optional extra (to the tune of $70,000 ....) BsBsBs (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Viper ACR lap time Validation Required

I intend to remove it because there is no credible sources for this rumour, not even information about the specifications of the cars that were used. Also as a side issue am wondering doesn't production vehicle imply that the vehicle is at factory default i,e the issue of tires used during the test, shouldn't they be the factory fitted specification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.194.174 (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I am always inclined to leave these up for a few days unverified, because actual verification takes a while. However, I could find no further proof, and challenges remained unanswered. Contacts at the Ring told me that Coronel was there last week, and went home. They had nothing on that listed Viper record. I guess we remove it until proof becomes available. BsBsBs (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: please sign your comments. Thank you. BsBsBs (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Stop removing the time posted by the 2010 Dodge Viper ACR. It is a manufacturers time as set by SRT. The video will be posted soon. The Porsche GT2 RS time is up and has NEVER been proven with a video. The tires used by the ACR are well known and are OEM Michelin Sport Cups. Same street legal tires used by the Porsche. It looks to me like the Lexus fanboi's are determined to keep removing the time.(Hostile Rain (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC))

The only "source" for the Dodge Viper ACR's lap time so far is a forum post on Viper Club of America[1]. The Porsche GT2 RS's lap time, though not video-confirmed or witnessed/validated by any 3rd-party, at least comes from Porsche's official PR on its official website[2]. There's a clear difference between the sources of the two. If official confirmation for the Viper ACR's lap time is coming "soon" like you said, it will get posted on SRT or Dodge's official websites in due time. Until then, please refrain from adding lap times not posted by manufacturer officials or reputable 3rd-parties. Blhsing (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, when it comes to Viper, the VCA is more more "official" then you think. If you think that the President of the Viper Club of America would release a statement that is not based on fact and open Dodge to the ridicule an incorrect time claim would incite, you are not using your head. BTG and other site's are privy to the times. You and the rest of the Lexus fanboi's keep your head in the sand when it comes to this, and I'll expect an apology when the video is posted. (Hostile Rain (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC))

You are not doing your cause a favor by calling other people "fanboi's" (sic). Although I personally don't see a reason to doubt the truthfulness of the lap time posted by whom appears to be the president of the Viper Club of America, it is simply per Wikipedia's guidelines to verifiability that self-serving forum postings are generally not acceptable sources. When the onboard video footage and/or official PR are published as promised by that forum post, you can rest assured that the Viper ACR's lap time will be included on this page with a source worthy of Wikipedia's standards. Blhsing (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I also find it funny that despite the lap time quoted in the president of the Viper Club of America's original post being "7:12 and change", it later became "7:12.13" all by itself. When I tried to track down the original source of this "7:12.13" figure, all references to this figure eventually point their source to an article on Torque News[3], which in turn quotes its source in the footnote: "Note: Many sources are stating that the Viper ran a 7:12 and "some change", while Wikipedia's page on the Nürburgring is reporting that time to be a 7:12.13." So guess what, Wikipedia just became a source of itself! Bravo! Blhsing (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Folks, please try to observe Wikipedia policies and standards. Contributions must be verifiable and referenced to a reliable source. Forum postings, personal messages, tweets etc expressly do not qualify. BsBsBs (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a FYI. The Video and "official" announcement of the 2010 Dodge Viper ACR's laptime of 7:12:13 will be made tomorrow or the next day. Someone who is better at editing in the proper format please post it. Thanks.(Hostile Rain (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC))

I don't see any source mentioning what tires were used for the Viper ACR's time attack. If you find one, please add it along with your update to the note of what tires were used. Blhsing (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If you took the time to read the Official anouncemnet, you would see that it says "Showroom stock 2010 Dodge Viper ACR". The ACR comes stock with Michelin Pilot Sport Cup's. JUST like the Porsche that has no video proof of it's lap time. Look up the 2008-2010 ACR on wiki. It says Michelin Pilot sport cup.(Hostile Rain (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC))

The press release stated that that stock car comes with the Michelin Pilot Sport Cup tires, but it did not state that the Viper ACR that was used during the Nordschleife lap used the tires. I contacted Chrysler, and Chrysler spokesperson Daniel Reid wrote back: "The team used the factory stock Michelin Pilot Sport Cup tires for all the runs in the Viper ACR." I am not using this in an edit, because it could be called Original Research. I have the email if someone wants it. That settles the issue for me. BsBsBs (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I just moved the lap time of the Viper ACR to the non-road-legal section after noticing in the official video that the Viper ACR used for the record run was equipped with the track extension to the front splitter that is not legal for road use according to the Viper ACR's official owner's manual[4]. The detachable track extension is what allows the car to be aerodynamically balanced with such an unusually large rear wing but at the same time violates the federal bumper law as it extends beyond the front bumper.[5] Feel free to discuss if anyone sees an issue with the move. Blhsing (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely bogus claim by Blhsing. The manual states "The track extension should only be used during closed circuit track events. The track extension can cause premature damage to your vehicle if used on public roads". Nowhere does it say NOT street legal. Nice try though. As a matter of fact it is a "consumable item" and is meant to be replaced when worn. Nice try, your bias is showing through. I am reporting you due to your inability to be an impartial editor. and also for trying to start an "edit war".(Hostile Rain (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC))

Added reference to the research from compositesworld.com above for your information. Read it before you disagree. Blhsing (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere in that article does it say the car is NOT street legal when running the track extension. This was actually an argument used when the 2009 ACR ran the 7:22:1 and was debunked then. The car is street legal even with the track extension on. Again, you have been reported and I hope you enjoyed showing your bias against other cars and editors. (Hostile Rain (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC))

I have researched as many site's as possible and still cannot find anything stating the Dodge Viper ACR with track extension fitted is not street legal. As a matter of fact, if you look on the page below this section, it says, " A car that is legal anywhere in the EU is automatically legal in Germany. Since 2009, the certificate ( European Community Whole Vehicle Type Approval) is issued on an European basis anyway. As long as the car can be legally driven on a public road to the Ring (and not on a trailer), it qualifies. A Dodge Viper by the way already has the certificate". 1st it was the tires, then it was the splitter extension. Whats next?. Perhaps another editor could look at this page, and put the cars back where they belong. Thanks (Hostile Rain (talk) 05:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC))

See my comments below. It looks like we all agree that the car needs to be road legal according to applicable (i.e. German or EU) law. U.S. bumper law does not apply here, but many other EU laws do. Having a road legal certificate is one thing, conforming to the certificate is another. Technically, under German and EU law, a car is in violation if the band-aid in the first aid kit has expired. (Don't laugh, people do get cited for this). However, this cannot be determined from sitting in front of a computer. Please set the matter aside, it cannot be solved this way. BsBsBs (talk) 11:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Road legality

Should have an astericks on vehicles that are not WORLD, "street legal" or have a seperate list. If your going to be that vague, The Ultima GTR would probably crush even the Radical, A KIT CAR assembled at the plant is STILL IS A PRODUCTION CAR. I have amended the heading "Production vehicles" to "Production / road-legal vehicles" to put it in sync with the follow-on list that has "Non-series/non-road-legal vehicles".

Which brings us to the topic of what is "road legal." The Ring is considered a public road (except when closed for racing) and German/EU rules apply. Under German/EU law, a "production car" is one that has achieved European type approval and is legal to be driven on the open roads. A car that is "road legal" in another part of the world may not be legal in Europe. I assume that cars listed under this heading should be legal to drive to the Ring under their own power and should survive a routine traffic stop. Please discuss. BsBsBs (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Long overdue indeed. Might I add that that the slash symbol ("/") means "or", and in this case we really need the list to be of both production AND road-legal vehicles. But if we change the heading to "Production and road-legal vehicles", the "and" in this case could also have the meaning of "union", possibly making the heading confused as "production vehicles and road-legal vehicles" (a union of two separate lists), effectively having the same semantics as "production / road-legal vehicles". This is the pitfall of a natural language, of course. A more precise heading would be "Vehicles that are both production and road-legal", but that sounds kind of wordy. Any better suggestions? Blhsing (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be solved with a complicated heading. A sentence that the car must be street legal according to applicable law suffices. Under German and now European law, the manufacturer of a production vehicle obtains a certificate, and all cars adhering to this certificate are legal. Single cars imported from abroad can be made legal with little fuss. A car that is legal anywhere in the EU is automatically legal in Germany. Since 2009, the certificate ( European Community Whole Vehicle Type Approval) is issued on an European basis anyway. As long as the car can be legally driven on a public road to the Ring (and not on a trailer), it qualifies. A Dodge Viper by the way already has the certificate. Sure, a one-off car can be made street-legal. To make it a "production" car, a certain production number is usually needed for homologation. 200? 500? Someone pick a number. BsBsBs (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not a page to define what a production car is so we simply take what can be sourced as such, anything else is OR. If it isn't a one off, is for sale to the public and a reliable source says its a production car then it is a production car. --LiamE (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Lists don't work that way. List usually define as precisely as possible what they include and exclude. This would become a very short list if every entry would need the word "production car" in a source. In the future, anyone could get on the list, simnply by writing "production car" in a press release. A lot of the race cars listed could be on the list. Sure, anyone can buy them, and they are being produced. Establishing criteria for list inclusion or exclusion is no OR. Standing next to the Ring with your own stopwatch is. Sorry, this needs a little more work. BsBsBs (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I have done a little more digging. When looking for a definition of "production vehicle," one finds a lot of mentions of what isn't a "production vehicle," but very little of what is. Autoweek even claims that "there is no specific 'production vehicle' definition." With A LOT of digging I found this official definition in the UK:"Production Vehicle: A vehicle of a make, model and type mass produced by the vehicle manufacturer." BsBsBs (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. As there is no clear definition we can only go on what can be sourced as such. This list enforcing any arbitrary restrictions can only be OR. If a reputable third party says it is a production car for our purposes it is. --LiamE (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, I have to beg to differ. When it comes to the list definition, we cannot just rely on third parties alone

• The criteria of a list are up to the list editors. There is a list title and the definition of the list. If someone would decide to compile a "List of red-haired triplets", then it would be ok to say "For the purpose of this list 'triplet' means identical triplet, and 'red-haired' means natural color, undyed hair." This has nothing to do with OR.
• This exact definition is especially important if the title of the list is vague, as seems to be the case here
• In any case, there appears to be a definition of "Production vehicle" from a reliable (government) source, see above. I also wikilinked the title to the entry for Production vehicle
• If a reputable third party says that it is a production vehicle, even better. BsBsBs (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to OR. Wikipedia relies ENTIRELY on what can be sourced. Nothing else. --LiamE (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that articles in WP must be reliably sourced. This list is a prime example. On the production list, I count more than 40 entries without a single reference. Spot checking just a few casts doubts on the reliability of many cited sources. The very first reference for instance, which supposedly backs up the top record holder, does not even mention the Nürburgring, or any record on it.

While everything that goes on a list needs a reliable source, the scope of a list demands even more careful attention. The scope of the list is usually given in the first paragraph of a list. A list on Wikipedia lives and dies by that definition. By its very nature, that definition is created by the authors of the article. It would be desirable that the definition of a list is backed-up by a reliable source, but this is not the rule, neither in theory nor in practice. Reliable sources rarely write definitions for Wikipedia lists.

Let's look at the beginnings of some real live lists, picked in haste and at random (except for the last two):

• World's largest cities "ranks the world's largest cities, in population and/or land area, using a variety of ranking methods." It is a meta list of list entries.
• List of the oldest buildings in the United States "attempts to list the oldest extant freestanding buildings constructed in the United States of America by Europeans (English, Spanish, Dutch, French, Swedish, Germans), Africans, Native Americans and other immigrants and native born people." (This must have taken some work ...)
• List of sovereign states gives "an overview of states around the world with information on the status and recognition of their sovereignty." It does so in two columns, one for UN membership, one for sovereignty disputes.
• Wheel-driven land speed record "differs from the absolute land speed record in requiring that the vehicle be wheel-driven; thus, vehicles that use thrust from a jet engine or rocket are ineligible (although the use of such engines is permitted if they drive the wheels)."
• List of fastest production cars supplies "a progressive history of the world's fastest street-legal production car over the years (as opposed to concept cars or modified cars)." It also acknowledges that "comparing claimed speeds of the "fastest car(s) in the world", especially in historical cases, is difficult due to there being no standardized method for determining the top speed, nor a central authority to verify any such claims."
• A List of discontinued Volkswagen Group petrol engines should not need more explanation. Apparently, it does: "The spark-ignition petrol engines listed below were formerly used by various marques of automobiles and commercial vehicles of the German automotive concern, Volkswagen Group, and also in Volkswagen Industrial Motor applications, but are now discontinued. All listed engines operate on the four-stroke cycle, and unless stated otherwise, use a wet sump lubrication system, and are water cooled." (Inevitably, the first entry is an aircooled engine.)

The Wikipedia Manual of Style/Lists requires that "the contents of an article that is a stand-alone list should be clear. If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list." It also says that "the precise inclusion criterion of the list should be spelled out in the lead section." Both the main list/article itself and the embedded lists currently lack the required precise inclusion criteria.

I agree 100% on the necessity of reliable sources for every entry. Unsourced entries need to be removed. The validity of new entries must be checked with great vigilance. There also is a need to precisely define what goes where on these lists, which lightens the chore of policing the lists, and which hopefully will reduce the frequency of edit wars. This discussion is bringing us closer to that goal. BsBsBs (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

So you found a broken link on the first entry? Repair or remove the reference. If you feel others need more sourcing add a citation needed tag. Some could certainly do with it. But don't be too hasty with deletion, particularly with those that are supported by magazine articles. There is a great deal of scrutiny of entries that appear towards the top of the list, less so in the lower end of the list but then again down there there is far less incentive for exaggeration.

As for the question at hand regarding what is a production car there are clearly any number of definitions and this page is simply not the place to arbitrarily pick one over all others. For instance the link you provided that supposedly defined what a production car was did nothing of the sort and only mentioned what is considered a mass production vehicle for one purpose. If we were to place a limit based of number built where do you think we would be able to get those figures from? And when would a car be eligible for the list? When the required number has been made? Been sold? The intention to make x number announced? If you feel Wikipedia would benefit from such a list and you think such issues are surmountable feel free to start yet another Nurburgring lap time page. As it stands the definition that has been used on this page for a production road legal vehicle is what can be cited as such and has been for 5 or 6 years. I don't see that changing. --LiamE (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We can't pound the table insisting on reliable sources and then have a cavalier attitude towards completely unsourced material. We can't say "a production vehicle is whatever a reliable source says" and then attack a source if it says so. (Careful, that British source can take your car off the streets.)

As for the definition, the glaring problem is that there is none. Never has been. Wikipedia expressly demands definition. Precise definition. Going through the discussions, many editors had demanded that definition again and again. It's hard, and it was not done. It must be done. A list with no definition makes for a low quality list that quickly sinks into irrelevance. Precise definitions are even more important when it comes to any records, and record keeping. As practiced in Wikipedia, as required by the rules, a list is the place for a definition, and the place is right in the first sentence of the list.

Regarding the invitation to create a new list, no thanks. There already are List of Nordschleife lap times (racing) and List of Nordschleife lap times (sport auto). These splits were caused due to a lack of clear definition, and it would not be helpful to create yet a new one. Even after the splits, the calls for definition continued. With clear definitions, these senseless schisms could quite possibly be ended. Right now, we need a disambiguation page just for the different lists of Nordschleife lap times. BsBsBs (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as the "definition that has been used on this page for a production road legal vehicle is what can be cited as such and has been for 5 or 6 years" goes:

• The (undefined) category "Production vehicles" exists since 30 Jul 2008, when Editor Roguegeek thankfully made the effort of bringing some long needed order to the list.

• The (undefined) category "Production / road-legal vehicles" ( later renamed to "Production, street legal vehicles" after discussion) exists since 28 September 2011, when I brought it in congruence with the (likewise undefined) "Non-series/non-road-legal vehicles" category.

The idea of Wikipedia is that it evolves and gets better over time. The quest for continuous improvement is a traditional enemy of "it always has been that way." At some point, there comes a time for a house cleaning, and there always will be people who are comfortable in the current mess. BsBsBs (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be the only person that thinks the list is undefined. The previous split of the Racing data was so that could go into detail and the split of SportAuto data was to produce a list with more directly comparable times. This list is an inclusive list that includes cars SportAuto have not tested and those that would be excluded by them for any number of reasons. You can continue to argue the toss as long as you like but this list will remain for cars that can be reliably sourced as road legal production cars. Furthermore you have suggested no workable alternative. --LiamE (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm the only person? This discussion is from top top bottom chockablock full with demands for definition. I see one person that keeps saying we don't need one. This list already created two forks because there was no definition, to be exact because the "article is mixing oranges, apples and bananas." Wikipedia demands a definition. Logic demands a definition. If there is agreement to constructively work on one, then we'll do it. I'm ready. I complete agree that this list should remain for cars that can be reliably sourced as road legal production cars. The fundamental premise for this is that the list defines what a road legal production car is - a far as this list goes. BsBsBs (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No. We are not here to decide what is road legal or what is a production car. This list exists simply to collate times for cars that have been defined as such by other parties. Now, what alternative do you propose? --LiamE (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

With a little will for constructive, responsible cooperation, matters should be quite evident, especially to longterm and seasoned editors who should know better. Once someone quotes WP:OR, then we can assume familiarity with the rest of the rules. I cite again the pertinent parts of The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists:

• "The precise inclusion criterion of the list should be spelled out in the lead section, not the title"
• "The list title should not be misleading"
• "The contents of an article that is a stand-alone list should be clear."
• "Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list."
• "However short or schematic a list description, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view applies "
• "Wikipedia:Featured list criteria recommends that [a list] has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list."

The guidance essay Lists in Wikipedia says:

• "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. "
• "Beware of those cases in which the definitions themselves are disputed. "
• "Many lists on Wikipedia have been created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or whom should be included only from the name of the list. Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit. "
• "To avoid problems with lists, the criteria for inclusion must comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. That is, if someone is listed as an X, that person must have been identified as an X by a reliable published source."
• "Also be aware of original research when selecting the criteria for inclusion: use a criterion that is widely agreed upon rather than inventing new criteria that cannot be verified as notable or that is not widely accepted."

In short, a list an Wikipedia must have clear, precise inclusion criteria. The criteria must observe WP:NPOV, must be widely agreed upon and notable.

Disregarding these rules and simply collating what has been said elsewhere can be a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

As long as these rules are disregarded, and as long as it is being argued that a definition is not necessary, spending the work on a (certainly nontrivial) definition is a waste of time. If list editors are not able to comply with the rules, then they implicitly admit that the list is not encyclopaedic. If editors declare that they are unable to bring the list in compliance, the honorable thing to do would be to nominate the list for deletion. BsBsBs (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

And still you suggest no workable alternative. --LiamE (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I hear the sound of a broken record. I have addressed this issue in the preceding paragraph and in other contributions. See below for some rough ideas. Are you willing to abide by WP rules or not? BsBsBs (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, to be frank I must have missed it in the rambling and quoting of policy. Try and be to the point. --LiamE (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The expected answer is: "Of course I will abide by the rules and policies of Wikipedia. I will constructively take part in the consensus-finding process in regards to the required inclusion criteria."

The walls of text would not have been necessary if mentions of rules would not constantly be followed by pouting, foot-stomping, and mono-syllabic "no!". The excerpts are here as a courtesy to readers who don't want to look up the rules themselves. A mere mention of the rules should suffice, but sadly, in this case it does not seem to. BsBsBs (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Your posting prompted me to have a look at your posting history. This isn't the first time you've tried to make a drama where none existed, is it? I think you are just looking for another article to troll for drama. Now you can write another essay, you can quote more rules without even suggesting how the article does or does not follow them, or you could actually write what you want to do or suggest how the article could be improved. I'm easy whatever you decide to do. --LiamE (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are you sidestepping the issue? Your statement that I "can quote more rules without even suggesting how the article does or does not follow them," is perplexing. The rules demand a definition. The article does not deliver a definition. The article does not follow the rules. Easy to understand. And while on the topic of edit history, there is one editor who has been steadfastly opposing a definition. If that editor abandons this untenable position, then we can get to work. If he does not, then the atmosphere will not be conducive to productive work. BsBsBs (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please keep the discussion civil and don't revert to edit warring, otherwise the users will be blocked, and the article will be protected to be edited by administrators only. These issues can simply be resolved by providing references to reliable sources. Unsourced material can be removed as it has no place in the article and will not be replaced until adequately sourced, so please avoid making false claims of vandalism. Thank you for your comprehension. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Make articles, not war

Gentlepersons, please STOP THE EDIT WARRING IMMEDIATELY. A lot of good content is getting killed by the fallout. The war seriously disrupts the utility of this list. It is getting increasingly impossible to come to a sensible conclusion. If the warring continues, then I have no other choice than to request semi-protection, and to report ALL parties involved in the war. I have reinstated the most recent version that appears to make some sense.

There is no doubt that the Viper was fast around the ring. It is a true production car. So is the LFA.

What we need is a definition for road-legal and production vehicle. Unless this definition is found and agreed upon, please refrain from further changes. Note: U.S. bumper rules do not apply in Germany. Europe has very strict and clear rules about what is a road legal vehicle. Once it is certified as such, it is quite simple to determine whether it still complies with these rules. However, this determination cannot be made from an armchair in front of a computer and by reading factory brochures. So please set discussions about a front splitter aside for the moment. Someone who works for Germany's TÜV could make this determination in a few minutes and for a nominal charge. We cannot do this remotely.

So please, drop your guns, and hold your horses. Thank you. BsBsBs (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Wordless, anonymous edits

• Please do not remove entries from this list without giving a reason.
• Please add entries to this list only with references to reliable sources, preferably citing an official statement, a video, and a mention of tires used.
• Please take part in the consensus-finding process of what is a "production, road-legal vehicle".

A list lives and dies by its definition.

Also, I have removed the Viper ACR from the Non-series/non-road-legal vehicles. Reasons: No reference, no source. The Chrysler press release covering the Viper ACR in the production class does not mention it. It talks about a start of testing on Sept 12 and an end of testing on Sept 14. A record on Sept 13 was not mentioned. This was most likely a duplicate entry. If I'm wrong, please re-insert with proper references.

Thank you! BsBsBs (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 7 October 2011

The first 2 records on this list show no evidence of the times claimed. Please remove

199.75.180.199 (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Done by User:LiamE. — Bility (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 7 October 2011

Some idiot has added 2 vehicles at the top as a joke. They just need to be deleted from the fastest 2 spots. 24.249.99.67 (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Done --LiamE (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Production, street-legal vehicles

Following the intensive discussions (see above), I have provided an attempt on the "unambiguous statements of membership criteria" for "Production, street-legal vehicles." These criteria are required as per Lists in Wikipedia, and were missing. The criteria are based on discussions with volume manufacturers, conducted over several months. The criteria condense the ideas set forth in "Front splitter etc." (see above), which remained unopposed for an extended time. (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It makes me sad that an honest, good faith attempt to abide by the rules is being attacked twice. It had been established in the discussions above that a list MUST have inclusion and exclusion criteria. The rules are cited above. There was one editor that had opposed compliance with the rules before. It is the same editor who did two reverts. This editor had later conceded that criteria are needed, only to complain that none are forthcoming. Now that a good faith attempt for criteria has been made, that editor goes on a revert rampage. The way it works here is that matters are being discussed, and/or cooperatively solved. It is quite unproductive to come up with solutions only to see them deleted in an arrogant way. Reverts with snippy remarks do not agree with the spirit of WP. The matter is complicated and needs a solution. I am very open to a collaborative solution, but I am opposed to edit wars. I had been concerned that this would happen after this editor would not commit to abiding by the rules before. My concerns appear to be justified. Please note that another revert will collide with 3RR. I am asking editors to join this discussion and to solve this in a collaborative way. I do not buy into "no support" if there is only one editor who runs roughshod over this list and attempts to impose anarchy rule on it. BsBsBs (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Get consensus or drop it. You are trying to impose your arbitrary rules on an existing list edited by 100 plus other editors without issue. You have a history edit warring, disruptive editing and drama. Please don't bring it here. Feel free to ask for a vote between the existing rules (Unmodifed, road legal, not a prototype) vs your arbitrary rule set. Until then the status quo ante should remain. --LiamE (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The only consensus that does not exist is with one editor who wants a list without definition. This violates the rules of Wikipedia. It also has driven away many editors, spawned forks, and puts the list in danger of losing its relevancy. Again, editors are invited to cooperate on the creation of inclusion and exclusion criteria. A list without such criteria simply is not allowed. And please, refrain from ordering me around. It will not work. The criteria proposed are everything but arbitrary. They are based on the input of production car manufacturers who have the cars on the ring. They all support this carefully chosen minimum rule set. It may be a bit technical, and it requires an understanding of the matters involved, but that is the nature of the beast BsBsBs (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The current list has a definition. I have told you what it is on multiple occasions. Feel free to use that one in the article rather than the unworkable rubbish you are trying to impose. Oh and if you wish to continue to force your views onto the article at least use English punctuation. --LiamE (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

A.) The list has a definition? Could I please be enlightened where in the void between "Production, street-legal vehicles" and the list that definition can be found - now that it has been removed AGAIN?

B.) "Unworkable rubbish" is highly uncivilized.

C.) Your reverts and arguments are highly uncooperative and disruptive. I don't see any attempt to come to a workable solution.

D.) Once we come to a cooperative solution, I will welcome your input on the proper English punctuation. Complaining about punctuation in a deleted paragraph is not very productive. It becomes humorous in a sentence that reads "Get concesus. And when you get concensus use english punctuation please."

As long as there are only invectives, I see no other solution than to reinstate the original edit. Another revert would break 3RR. As you had announced your disregard of WP policies on numerous occasions, you should either state that you will abide by the rules, or remove yourself from the discussion. BsBsBs (talk) 13:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

A) The working definition for the list is unmodified cars that can be cited as road legal production cars. Feel free to add that definition while a consensus is reached. Changing that definition unilaterally and trying to enforce that change without support is very unhelpful and is clearly leading to article disruption. Please get consensus for such a major change. Until such consensus is found the status quo ante should be left in place.

B) You may see it as uncivilised. However it is accurate. Exactly who is going to be checking the certification, what about cars from outside Europe and where exactly are we getting the production figures from and why should road legal tyres that are not factory fit discount a time are a few question that spring to mind.

C) You dont see me wanting to find a workable solution because you don't want to. It has become clear to me all you want is drama. I do not want drama I wish you to seek consensus but you wont.

D) " Both „production“ and „street legal“ " is not English punctuation. That you find that being pointed out humourous is frankly baffling. I do not disregard WP, in fact I follow it very carefully. It is clear to me that you have come here looking for drama and I think I am being used as a pawn in that. On that basis I will refrain from all future direct discussion with you as it can no longer be productive. If you are unwilling to start a vote calling for consensus on this point I will start that one week from now. In the mean time, as mentioned before the status quo ante should remain in place until consensus for such a major change is reached. Adding the currently used definition while discussion is taking place would improve the article without controversy.

You can stop "warning" me about 3RR while repeatedly reverting the article. It does nothing to distract from your article disruption. Now I don't for one second think you will self revert while consensus is sought but I will not be party to the article disruption you seem to be going out of your way to seek. On that basis I will not edit the article again in the next week other than in the case of blatant vandalism. --LiamE (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

A.) Maybe I am blind, but there is no definition. I can't find "This is a list of Nordschleife lap times of unmodified cars that can be cited as road legal production cars." (Which would be a quite silly definition anyway. Once a blogger who is paid $25 for an article writes that a Pagani Zonda is a "road legal production car", by that imagined definition, the Zonda would land on the list.)

B.) "Unworkable rubbish" is uncivil.

C.) I want a workable solution. There seems to be one editor who is opposing it, and who has done so for quite some while.

D.) There is no interpunction in „production“ and „street legal“. Interpunction is the insertion of points (or full stops for you), commas etc. What I find humorous is that someone complains about interpunction while spelling consensus as "concensus" and who writes "English" as "english." This is all besides the point, but you brought interpunction up.

Vote calling? Consensus? Do you see any others taking part in this alleged consensus building? There had been animated discussions about all this years ago, and editors after editors did throw up their hands in disgust and went elsewhere.

The warning about 3RR is required in case action needs to be taken.

As to your points: Exactly who is going to be checking the certification? The manufacturers state that they have the required certification. We are not in the checking business, we are in the citing business. What about cars from outside Europe? Both the Viper and the Corvette are already compliant. If you want to sell the car in Europe, you need that paperwork. Where exactly are we getting the production figures from? Did I mention production numbers? Why should road legal tyres that are not factory fit discount a time? They don't. In Europe, a tire must be type approved according to ECE R-30. Any type approved tire is "street legal." A racing slick without profile and without a type approval is not street legal. Taking the certification route also solves the problem of possibly illegal modifications. In Europe (and we are on a public road in Europe) what may or may not be modified, and with what is carefully regulated. BsBsBs (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring my article holiday for a moment I will leave you with a few points. Punctuation specifically Quotation mark, use English ones. As for B) Suck it up and deal with it. Your interminable windbaggery here and elsewhere has repeatedly caused otherwise civil editors to be uncivil to you. Have a good think about your own posting style. And no a warning is not required for 3RR action. Did you mention production numbers? Yes. "200? 500? Someone pick a number" ring any bells? As for the Zonda, its been in the list for years, along with Konigseggs, Rufs and many other extremely limited production cars. You seem to want to change the list from a list of production cars to list of mass production cars and don't seem to think consensus is required for such a huge change. It is. The list you want to change this list into would only be a subset of this list for no benefit other than you own perverse gratification of battering others into submission with verbosity, which would the lead to a more inclusive list being recreated so as to include cars excluded by your arbitrarily imposed rule set. For the record the Guinness book of records recognises the Veyron Super Sport as the fastest production of which exactly five can reach the record speed. Perhaps you should write them a nice long letter about why they have got it all wrong and why they need to to choose an arbitrary production figure which is impossible to check for their records. And while you are at it you better write to Sport Auto and every other motoring publication I have ever read as they all seem to think production does not equal mass production. Odd that. Different terms meaning different things, isn't it? --LiamE (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

GT-R October attempt

I removed the October GT-R attempt. Reasons:

• Based on an anonymous video only.
• Nissan had distanced itself from the video, and the video itself is being put in question.
• There are no other sources. A Youtube video alone is no reliable source.
• There is no official confirmation.

BsBsBs (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)