Talk:List of Top Gear test track Power Lap times/Archive 1

Archive 1

Copyright

This page is a blatant copyright vioaltion of the BBC-generated list. [1] has a copyright notice on it. I42 (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Surely as it is designed to list the same information, which could be claimed as being copied out from the shows directly instead of from the website, it will naturally look similar. That doesn't make it an infringement of copyright laws I thought. Tdp2612 (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous pilot

It says on the power lap board page the pilot was Lt. Nick Arkle, and its sourced, hows about updating this one. My edits (even the actual ones) always get thrown out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.153.0 (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

McLaren MP4-12C lap time

The 12C's 1:14 time is unofficial and shouldn't be listed (not until the car is given an official lap). Multiple sources seem to state that the 1:14 lap was done from a flying lap, not a Top Gear standard standing start. D3v4st4t0r (talk) 06:30, 16 May, 2011 (UTC)

Invalid times

Invalid times by jokes(i.e. not being able to pass a speed bump or not been able to buy the car) have been validated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.214.165.205 (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify your reasoning here. You're not making any sense, and an invalid time by not being able to pass a sleeping policeman, or being able to buy the car are still invalid. a_man_alone (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ultima GTR

Is it worth adding the Ultima GTR as an unnoficial time.Ultima GTR 1 min 12.8 secs done by the comapny because Top Gear refused to ?? http://www.ultimasports.co.uk/Content.aspx?f=record8 signed markd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.138.20 (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Power Lap List Format

It would be helpful to have a column indicating the episode number for each lap time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManteoMax (talk • contribs) 19:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. Arve (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and sins I have too much time on my hands I'll start on that, this could take a while.

On another note, what do you think of a column for msrp? Blake.80486 (talk) 06:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I would love a column for msrpTheThomas (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a way bad idea. It comes under the heading of trivia, and original research - not least of the difficulty in justifying the accuracy and format of such a list:

• What currency should be used? The list is currently in US dolalrs, which goes against the actual geographical location of the topic, being an English page. It should be in sterling, if anything.
• The prices are entirely arbitrary: The links provided show $xxx - $yyy prices, so that's completely vague to start. Even the ones that are a single price - the McLaren for example - specifically state in the article that the given price is a core price, and you can expect to add on a heap more for a fully specced example. We do not know what spec of vehicle was tested, so we don't know the price.
• To continue the above - prices vary depending on optional extras - Audi (for example) are notorious for adding on extras, such as ceramic brakes.
• Even the base prices listed are subject to doubt - dealership "A" will have a car stickered at price "A1", whereas you can almost guarantee that dealership "B" will have the same car stickered at price "A2".
• Stickered prices are only a part of the story - inflation and cost adjusted is just as important. A car costing £20,000 in 2002 is essentially a lot more expensive than a car costing £20,000 in 2012. How would you account for the continuing changes in relative cost?

I've removed all the msrp's until good enough arguments to the above can be provided. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You've essentially made one critique of adding the MSRP to the chart: 'the prices may not be accurate'. To counter this, I have changed MSRP to "price reported". If you like, add a disclaimer; *prices are for comparative purposes not consumer information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 18:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

If they're not accurate - as you admit yourself - there's no point in having them in at all. And you haven't answered the very first question either. Please continue discussion until a consensus is reached. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sterling or Dollars is fine. It doesn't matter where the show is based, the only important factor is consistency. Both would be easy as pie. You're completely wrong in saying that without pinpoint accuracy, the numbers have no value. That is like saying we don't know the age of the Earth because we only know it to a specificity of one billion years. We know the prices, but they are arguable. You are currently outnumbered here, two editors thought that MSRP was a good idea, you are going against the majority at this point. TheThomas (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this needs external influence. You don't seem to understand how wp:brd works, so I'll ask for a third opinion. I'll not revert you because I have no wish to hit 3RR. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Who wants a 3rd opinion ? I've understood ChaheelRiens's basic arguments. Would the other side explain their logic to me in encyclopedic terms in not more than 5 lines. also WP:NOT, WP:NOPRICES :-) RobertRosen (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Chaheel Riens makes valid points. I think the prices would be of limited usefulness due to the arguments presented. It's not about pinpoint accuracy, it's about grossly misleading numbers that would result in many cases. Gigs (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Damp vs Moist vs Wet vs Very Wet

I added "wet" to the GT86's entry after watching the S19E03. Someone else changed it to "damp". Though there were some dry spots, there was quite a bit of standing water, and this track definitely was not just "Damp":

• Watch 32 minuted into S14E2 to see the Z1 and R8 go around a "damp" track.
• Watch 51 minutes into S04E01 to see a "moist" track.
• Watch 25 minutes into S10E07 or 31 minutes into S1604 to see a "wet" track.
• For comparison, screen caps of the GT86 run: Screencap 1, Screencap 2

The GT86 ran on a "wet" track.Deslock (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

What do Top Gear say the track was in each of these scenarios? We should go by their condition designation, not our own intepretation of it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 05:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point, but Top Gear is inconsistant with its labeling. Clarkson commented about how the track was wet when the Exige ran in S0401 (he even compared it to NSX and 911 wet times), yet he didn't mark anything on the Exige's time. Also note that the Focus RS500 (S1604) is marked wet while the DB9S (S10E07) isn't. Additionally, I wouldn't put it past Top Gear to show video from one lap and a time from another. Deslock (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Why the non-canon notes (i.e. with power pack, with hard top, etc.) next to car names?

Is there any reason for, or benefit to, the extra notes next to the car names? I'm talking about the non-canon trivia like "with hard top", "with performance pack", "sport mode", even "with full tank of fuel", and not the "wet", "damp", etc. The only purpose I can see is a poster showing off, or, possibly, for settling bets about obscure top gear trivia.

I would surmise (at first thought) that these details have been added because - in your examples - the hardtop added extra weight to the vehicle, and the performance pack added just that - and gave the tested model a performance advantage over the base model. I will concede that I'm not sure where these details come from - although in the case of the hardtop on the Spyder this can be confirmed by just watching the programme.

I'm pretty sure that I've read somewhere that all vehicles are tested with "sport" mode, or the equivalent set to "on" if available, but darned if I can remember where I read it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Improvements

Attaching the year of the cars to the make and model would improve this article. The 2013 Nissan wouldn't make the same score as the 2014. It would also provide an extra layer of depth to the article.

Adding prices to these cars would set up an important comparison between time and speed which was often elaborated by the hosts of Top Gear. Adding the price in any currency is fine per wiki policy, as is adding a generally agreed upon price. MSRP for example is an unarguable price which was likely publicly listed for each of these cars. Any currency inflation would be accounted for by adding the date (my first sentence).

This page previously had many of the prices listed under MSRP.

Extra-long time slip in Season 18?

Can anyone tell me what the super-long time slip that hangs out like six inches on either side of the board says? I can't make it out on-screen. I'm assuming it's a joke picking on some car with a super-long name, but none of the ones on this list are obviously much worse than the others. It's either that, or giving some important detail about the conditions the lap was made under. Or something. It's clearly several times the length of the other slips, and there must be some reason for it. That makes me curious. It's #7 on the list in Season 18, Ep. 3. AnnaGoFast (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

This dates back to series 2, episode 7, when the Koenigsegg CC8S appeared on the programme. "Koenigsegg" was viewed as a confusing name so it was listed as "Koenegsegggggsegggegggegigioabbaviking". This became a running joke so, when the Koenigsegg CCX appeared in series 8, episode 1, it was listed with a similarly long name. That time was removed in series 8, episode 4, when the Koenigsegg CCX returned, with the rear wing recommended in the earlier episode. It was listed as "Koeniggggsenisseggsegnignigsegigisegccx2 with the Top Gear wing" and is what you saw in series 18, episode 3. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Top Gear test track Power Lap Times. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090601075912/http://www.topgear.com/us/assets/tracktimes.html to http://www.topgear.com/us/assets/tracktimes.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080131232117/http://www.skyboard.co.uk/Skyboard/Profile.html to http://www.skyboard.co.uk/Skyboard/Profile.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Unofficial lap times

Where are all these unofficial times coming from?? According to their introduction, they are independently reported but only two of them are supported with such a citation. Where are all the others coming from? Are they verified, or just invented. If they can't be supported with a reliable source they should be removed.Tvx1 18:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

VXR8 Vs VX220

Idontknowwhyimdoingthistobehonest, regarding this and previous edit - why do you feel the later-recorded VXR8 should go above the VX220 as per the current status quo layout?

Rather than simply trying to push the change, can you discuss why here? Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)