Talk:McLaren F1/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on McLaren F1. 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/20160804180558/http://www.zeperfs.com/en/fiche520-mclaren-f1.htm to http://www.zeperfs.com/en/fiche520-mclaren-f1.htm

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) 02:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Have Added new acceleration

The times are from this magazine in the link. https://www.germancarforum.com/attachments/image-jpg.375962/ Review my edit.Abc12345 14:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Front Wheel Arch?

"Later in the year, the second prototype (XP2) was specially built for crashtesting and passed with the front wheel arch untouched." — I'm struggling to grasp the significance of the front wheel arch in this quote. Was there special mention of the front wheel arch of the F1 in an earlier edit of this page? Was everything except the wheel arch 'touched' in the test? Is there some importance to front wheel arches in motoring that I have up to now been oblivious to? NelC (talk) 07:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on McLaren F1. 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/20121109101728/http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/Drives/Search-Results/First-drives/McLaren-F1-drive-June-1994-Roger-Bell/ to http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/Drives/Search-Results/First-drives/McLaren-F1-drive-June-1994-Roger-Bell/

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) 16:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Not first production car with carbon-fibre monocoque

The article claims that “The F1 was the first production car to use a carbon-fibre monocoque chassis.[12]”

Design and implementation

However this is contradicted by List of carbon fiber monocoque cars, which has it only at number 4. WhileJim (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

List of carbon fiber monocoque cars needs work - for a start it uses "hypercar" and "supercar" as descriptive terms which goes against WP:CARCLASS. However, you may have a point - for example, the Jaguar XJR-15 lede states "The body of the XJR-15 was designed by Peter Stevens, who went on to co-design the McLaren F1", suggesting his experience was used later in the F1.

I've also made changes to your links so they're not mobile. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Price

A McLaren F1 was sold for $19.8 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:5B9A:E01:C3B:13C1:37D6:2518 (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The original list price in 1994 was about $800,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:5B9A:E01:7C5E:EC5D:809:FB5 (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Why should we care about the price in the first place? This is an informative article, not an evaluation of value. U¹ _quattro TALK 14:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

As of 2017, the F1 remains the fastest documented naturally aspirated production car

I feel somewhat uncomfortable about this since there are many things McLaren F1 without modified rev-limiter was never tested as fast as the Ferrari Enzo, on the other hand the Enzo wasn't measured two-way average and there might even be a third car tested two way average faster than the unmodified F1. The word "documented" looks unnecessary to me since since without documentation there wouldn't be a mentioning anyway and for some readers it might indirectly imply that there was a faster but undocumented car. Is it with the "As of 2017 restriction" still important enough for the lead section or is the performance section which says "as of October 2018" without reference (rework needed) more fitting ? Drachentötbär (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Your first sentence doesn't make any grammatical sense, what exactly are you trying to say?

"Documented" is necessary in this point because the context is that the F1's "fastest" claim was made in 2017. This was included to satisfy your point that "...a 3 year old source can't prove that something is still valid today", ergo the claim is qualified as being 3 years old - but as it was undeniably accurate prior to 2017 it's still a valid source and claim. Chaheel Riens (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Ignore my first sentence, from the prior article text it's clear that rev limiter modifications are allowed so we don't need to mention that other cars claims in case of they aren't. Drachentötbär (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Dauer 962

The Dauer 962 LM is not a production car by any means. But someone here likes to make attention grabbing headlines by automotive magazines as an excuse to include that in this article. The McLaren F1 and subsequently the Bugatti Veyron were declared as production cars by Guinness, an independent body related to world records. Even the Jaguar XJ220 was declared as a production car which set the speed record before Dauer did. There is no other source besides Evo magazine in English that verifies the 402 km/h top speed record. A simple Google Search reveals that the top speed is claimed. The Dauer wasn't recognised by any body related to world records as a production car so I see no reason to keep it in this article. Even the wiki article quotes only Evo for such a claim.U¹ _quattro TALK 14:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

We are not saying that it is a production car, just that some publications have described it as such. I don't see why we should discount those descriptions, EVO and Auto Bild are both very respected sources. Toasted Meter (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The verified top speed record of the Dauer 962 LM was 404.6 km/h, not 402 km/h (which is the manufacturer claim) and you can find several sources for it, as well as sources which consider it a production car.Drachentötbär (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Care to present those sources? Empty claims like you can find several sources for it, as well as sources which consider it a production car. won't work.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

We should discount those because the Bugatti Veyron, Koenigsegg CCR and the McLaren F1 were called production cars by a body related to world records Toasted Meter. If we are to consider about the labels the automotive press is giving to cars, then the Hennessy Venom is also a production car. U¹ _quattro TALK 04:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Also Drachentötbär all of the cars I mentioned had their top speed runs properly documented. There is video proof that these cars performed the top speed record. Where is the proof for Dauer? All I see are sources like this:

https://jalopnik.com/say-hello-to-the-dauer-962-le-mans-fastest-car-in-the-1825305180

https://www.motor1.com/news/76738/how-dauer-gave-the-porsche-962-new-life-at-le-mans/

https://classiccarweekly.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/dauer-962/

Which obviously shed no light over the verifiability of that speed record. Another source I found was from Evo, the source you hold so dear. Read for yourself:

https://www.evo.co.uk/lamborghini/gallardo/13311/a-z-supercars-dauer-porsche-962-lm

No mention of the speed record on this article.U¹ _quattro TALK 13:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Did you read the Autobild source? "Was die Fahrleistungen betrifft, erwarten uns auf jeden Fall knallharte Fakten. 404,6 km/h rennt das Auto von Jochen Dauer – ein hieb- und stichfester Wert. Gemessen auf dem VW-Testgelände Ehra-Lessien in Niedersachsen." ("The car from Jochen Dauer runs at 404.6 km/h – a cut and stab-proof value. Measured on the VW test site Ehra-Lessien in Lower Saxony.") I think that is more than adequate to say that it did reach that speed.

Anyway this argument is about WP:WEIGHT and with two prominent publications taking an opinion I don't think mentioning that opinion is giving it undue weigh. Toasted Meter (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC) - Being in another language doesn't make sources unreliable.

And yet 10 years later, there is no mention of that record on the Evo website Toasted Meter. Autobild is just mentioning what the manufacturer told them or maybe they are saying what Evo said. Who knows? There was no evidence of that record on either Autobild not Evo. This record is pure hearsay if anything. The sources I mentioned rack up enough weight against the Autobild and Evo. Evo backed out of that outrageous claim years later and you can see it for yourself.U¹ _quattro TALK 14:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

U1 Quattro, there are several things you should know:

- EVO and Auto Bild have far more expertise in regards to cars than Guinness.

- If Wikipedia content is referenced with one reliable source that's normal, not a a sign for incorrectness.

- If you don't know any sources in English that doesn't mean there are none.

Since you recently used newatlas as reference, here's a page from there which calls the Dauer 962 production car and the top speed independently measured. https://newatlas.com/worlds-fastest-production-car-history/46175/ Drachentötbär (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Who reviews a speed record attempt declares a car as the fastest production car? Guinness. So your claims that magazines have more expertise than Guinness doesn't count here. Further, like I said, read the source above. Evo clearly backs out of their claim in the citation I have put. I have asked you to show me the sources and yet you have shown me just one source which reiterates what Evo magazine claims. Here are the things you should know:

-In the XJ-220's record attempt, photographers from Top Gear and Car magazine along with journalists from Car magazine were present which verified the record attempt. The data was submitted to Guinness for review who declared it as the fastest production car in the world.

-In the McLaren F1 Nardo ring record attempt, journalists from automobile magazines were again present to verify that record as well and to document it. Again, the data was submitted to Guinness who declared the F1 the fastest production car in the world.

-In the McLaren F1 Ehra Leissen record attempt, that run was properly filmed and the data from measurement equipment was sent to Guinness for review and they gave their decision in favour of McLaren.

-In the CCR's Nardo ring record attempt, photographers and journalists were again present there to verify the record attempt. Guinness then certified the CCR as the world's fastest production car.

-In the Veyron's top speed record attempt, a journalist from Top Gear attempted it himself and then Bugatti test driver attempted the run. It was again verified by journalists from Top Gear.

Where does that leave Dauer? no pictorial evidence, no video evidence and no data from speed recording equipment is present either. This headline made by Evo was pure hearsay and they backed out of that claim years later.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Experts about cars are more competent to judge which is the fastest production car than experts about publishing records. One of many examples for their lack of competence https://newatlas.com/worlds-fastest-car-bugatti-veyron/27079/ , another one is that in their new 1980 edition they still named the highest independently road-tested speed for a production car 163 mph. The Jaguar XJ220 entry is another example: http://media.wix.com/ugd/98b542_6c3dd4c6112d4efd94bfdde470dc4df4.pdf . Neither was the speed independently measured nor controlled, Jaguar used their own devices and when they contradicted each other they just chose what's more beneficial for them. They modified the car for about 50 extra HP and removed the rev limiter. Guinness didn't care (or maybe just didn't research) , they published Jaguar's measurement as fastest speed for a standard production car. For the McLaren F1 they used different rules, the official speed was the two-way average, while for the Koenigsegg record they used the one-directional speed again, which was lower than the one-directional speed shown in the video footage of the McLaren run. There are no clear rules Guinness follows, also in terms of what qualifies as a production car.

A website not mentioning the speed record is not a reference for its nonexistence. You'll be able to find plenty of McLaren F1 articles which don't mention the Guinness run too, they are no proof it didn't happen either.

Summarized, you didn't give any source which says the run didn't happen (just websites not mentioning it), while several reliable sources confirming the 404.6 mph run were shown. You have gotten far more evidence than needed to verify an article according to Wikipedia rules, but still talk about fake and demand more. As additional sources I can name two books which called the Dauer 962 fastest production car before the Veyron "Die 20 teuersten Autos der Welt" by Noah Adomait and "Die neun schnellsten Autos der Automobilgeschichte" by A.D. Astinus.Drachentötbär (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

McLaren has video evidence of the record while Jaguar has pictorial evidence. Did you not read what I just wrote in my last reply? Gavin Green from Car magazine was at the spot when Jaguar attempted their top speed run. You're too blinded by Dauer's fanboyism that you fail to recognise what is being pointed out to you. You bicker about reliable sources yet have presented none of them. As for the books, I don't have access to a library right now to search for that. My point is, Evo made a claim, then backed out of it. Which was the whole point of this discussion. Yet you continue to say while several reliable sources confirming the 404.6 mph run were shown which is an empty claim up until this point. Either show those sources or back off. The main reason the F1 was declared the fastest car in the world was because Guinness said so.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Autobild saying so is perfectly adequate, do you have any reliable sources that say the test was fabricated/exaggerated? Stop with this nonsense angle and then we can get on with the actual policy that governs its inclusion, WP:WEIGHT. Toasted Meter (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any source that the test was valid? Or are you going to make empty claims too Toasted Meter? As far as WP:WEIGHT is concerned, 4 sources are considered majority against 3 in which 1 has copy/pasted material.U¹ _quattro TALK 09:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

We have enough sources which regard the Dauer 962 LM as production car to mention it in the article. There are also sources which neither consider the Dauer 962LM nor the Koenigsegg CCR as production cars and treat the Veyron as direct F1 record successor. It's better to start with "Depending on the definition of "production car"..." and mentioning all three points of view than writing "production car" is not well-defined and only mentioning one point of view.Drachentötbär (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Production car is pretty well defined as per consensus on this site. Your point and assumptions are not valid. I have presented 4 sources which state the opposite of what you're saying. The main reason the F1 was described the fastest production car in the world was due to Guinness saying so and not some automotive magazine. Also, I'm still waiting for those sources which you claimed are available in favour of Dauer.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

It is absolutely not well defined (the lead of the page you linked says this "This list uses a different definition to the List of automotive superlatives. The variation is because the term production car is otherwise undefined.". If it were so well defined reliable sources would not disagree, but they do, mentioning that definitions vary and that according to some the Dauer beat it before the CCR is entirely reasonable. Toasted Meter (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Please read the whole thing and not some parts of it. I have copied the definition from the page. For the purpose of defining the fastest production car in the world, the definition is:

1. constructed principally for retail sale to consumers, for their personal use, to transport people on public roads (no commercial or industrial vehicles are eligible) available for commercial sale to the public in the same specification as the vehicle used to achieve the record.

2. manufactured in the record-claiming specification by a manufacturer whose WMI number is shown on the VIN, including vehicles that are modified by either

3. professional tuners or others that result in a VIN with a WMI number in their name (for example, if a Porsche-based car is remanufactured by RUF and has RUF's WMI W09, it is eligible; but if it has Porsche's WMI, WP0, it is not eligible)

4. pre-1981 vehicles must be made by the original vehicle manufacturer and not modified by either professional tuners or individuals

5. 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

6. sold in more than one national market.

The Dauer 962 has Porsche VIN according to point number 4. Further, if we are to use what the "automotive experts" say, then why don't we use terms like "supercar" and "hypercar" used by these "experts"? Even Wikipedia's own list doesn't include Dauer.

U¹ _quattro TALK 14:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

A local consensus about how a production car should be defined does not prevent the mention of a car that does not meet those rules on a different page, we aren't even saying that it's a production car, just that depending on definitions some reliable sources have describe it as such. Toasted Meter (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I just saw U1Quattro got blocked for a month, revert to stable? Or would that be a bit unsporting? The mention of the Dauer had been on the page for 4 years, not sure the right way to go about this. Toasted Meter (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Somewhat late to the party, but I've reverted a couple of changes as they're either inaccurate, or just bad phrasing. Nothing against them per se, but they need more thought before being inserted. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion, can you please elaborate what you considered inaccurate or bad phrasing and add your thoughts ? Drachentötbär (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The clarification of what you mean by comparing modified with unmodified, as this is not elaborated in the target source. The increase of the rev counter does not count as modification, as per Guinness who ruled that the Veyron was not modified when the rev limiter was removed for their record-breaking run. The term "like" should be "such as", because we're specifically referring to the Daur, not cars similar to the Daur. Also, it's confusing and unnecessary to state that there were quicker cars and list some of them, then in the next sentence say exactly the same thing but list yet another car. It makes it seem as though the sentence is only there to serve as an excuse to bring up the Daur. If you want to make a point about low production numbers, it can be done using the already-present CCX, of which only 13 were made. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The CCX was built more than a decade afterwards while the Dauer was a car from the time of the McLaren. That the increase of the rev counter does not count as modification is the opinion of Guinness while there were others (and even Guinness for some time) which thought differently. It's ok if we talk about the Guinness World Record for fastest production car but when reading fastest naturally aspirated production car I didn't think of a Guinness title.Drachentötbär (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, if it comes down to your opinion over modified versus that of Guinness I'm pretty sure that Guinness' will take precedence. Age and peer group of vehicles is irrelevant, the CCX is still a better example of limited production in that there were less produced than the Daur. My previous comment still stands - at the moment the only purpose served by the tagged on sentence is to introduce the Daur to the article. In other respects it just duplicates info already present in the preceding sentence, and as such serves no purpose. Chaheel Riens (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to your explanation I understand now how the "Only low production volume cars like the 1993 Dauer 962 Le Mans which attained 251.4 mph (404.6 km/h) in 1998 were faster." appeared to many readers and why it shouldn't be there in this form. The reason I added it is that I read some articles (there are still quite some in the web) which omitted the "production" and called the F1 the fastest car which I believed back in the time. Then thanks to the WWW I found out that I was fooled, there were several faster road legal cars back in the time, the reason of the edit was that I wanted the readers to be better informed than I was back in the days but without the time context this failed. Drachentötbär (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Removal of paragraph

I have removed the last paragraph because there was pretty long and hard discussion about the Dauer 962 LM which is not a production car and was advertised as one by an automotive magazine. I think the mention on the lead about who surpassed the F1 is enough. There has been enough fanboyism about Dauer on the page which is unrelated to it. Just like the Bugatti Veyron page which doesn't have the mention of the car which surpassed it, this mention is not necessary.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the section is due, so does Drachentötbär, you do not get to dictate the content of articles unilaterally. If you want to continue discussing things that's fine, reverting to your version despite no change in anyone's opinion is not. Toasted Meter (talk) 04:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

And you think he isn't dictating changes? That's pretty biased from your side. In the last discussion, he made very little sense in his reason to add the material and then took advantage of my block to restore disputed content.. If you don't think that's not dictating changes, I don't know what else is. This topic is better discussed with another uninvolved user.U¹ _quattro TALK 08:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

And most importantly fighting about something that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter of the article is out of context. U¹ _quattro TALK 08:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you going to self revert? Or will someone else have to do it? Your practice of only discussing things after reverting to your version raises questions about how much you actually care about discussion and consensus. You might also note that while two editors is a small consensus, one editor is not a consensus. Toasted Meter (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Toasted Meter. It has become clear in the discussion above that your opinion is not shared by others, so it's not ok force-editing your way. If you have new good new arguments share them in the discussion and try to convince us. Drachentötbär (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Lets hear your side of the story. Why do you think such things are needed? This is the article about the F1, not about who surpassed it. I don't think anything will ever convince you about how a Porsche 962 rebuilt by Dauer is not a production car. You do have a history of being biased with certain brands and all I see is history repeating itself. Toasted Meter if you think I'm forcing the changes then there are others who do that as well. U¹ _quattro TALK 17:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I haven't reverted anything. Just removed the thing that caused controversy. The section of record claims should only contain records set by the F1 and not what surpassed it. That topic is better suited on the List of fastest production cars. I don't see any concensus being reached in the previous discussion either with a third uninvolved editor.U¹ _quattro TALK 17:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Until when the F1 has been considered the fastest production car is relevant enough to be mentioned in the sentence we have now, and the record claims section fits well for it, I agree that we don't need it in the introduction. We have less relevant stuff in the article, like the random listing of faster cars in the performance section. It's not important what we personally consider as production cars, important is what the reliable sources do. There are three viewpoints supported by reliable sources. You want two of them to be hidden and only the one which fits your personal definition to be mentioned, violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Drachentötbär (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I only see a case of citogenesis here because the Autobild review was done after Evo. Evo has backed out of their claim as shown in the previous discussion. In reality, you are also violating the same policy by being biased with Dauer. I'm still waiting for you to show me those "several" sources which you claimed confirm that the Dauer 962 is a production car and has actually performed the run. The way you took advantage of my block shows that you're not interested in a discussion at all. U¹ _quattro TALK 02:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Citogenesis refers to something being taken from Wikipedia and published in a reliable source, I think you mean circular reporting, and I see no reason to believe that, two publications saying the same thing is not evidence especially when it's not falsifiable. I don't see reverting to stable after your were blocked reflecting on others amenability to discussion, just because you did something that prevented you from discussing things for a month does not mean all other editors have to stop doing things you might not like. Autobild saying the run happened is perfectly adequate, you have no proof it's false, Autobild and EVO are both respected publications and they said what we are using them to cite. Toasted Meter (talk) 03:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Them being respected publications doesn't mean that they cannot report false information. I have a fact to prove that it's false. There is no pictorial or video evidence of the run. Just a company claiming out of the blue that they beat the F1, that's all and a reporter of a "respected" publication going on to agree with them. That's enough to prove its falsifiable. U¹ _quattro TALK 03:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd wait for other editors to comment on this. I'm done wasting my time with two individuals who are biased with certain brands and names of automobile publications believing everything they say to be true. What makes the Dauer's run suspicious is about when it was performed one source says it was performed in 1994 while the other says it was performed in 1998. If I were to go to your route that anything which the reliable names in the automotive journalism say is true, I will also believe this fact published by a reliable source saying that the McLaren F1 was beat by the Veyron. U¹ _quattro TALK 03:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

What seems funny to me is that the Dauer doesn't meet the criteria to be included in the List of fastest production cars of Wikipedia due to it not meeting the list rules yet you both argue upon how reliable sources merit its inclusion in an article about a car which meets that list's rules. U¹ _quattro TALK 07:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Autozine is not an RS, it's a one man blog that frequently published untrue things and I have no clue how reliable newatlas is, not being able to find a video does not cast anywhere near enough doubt to ignore one of Germany's premiere car magazines saying it happened. The entire point of the section is that reliable sources disagree, and it's no surprise "production car" is very ill defined. Toasted Meter (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

NewAtlas has been cited in the List of fastest production cars. It is not an unreliable source like what you like to think. This site is not based on your thinking. If someone challenges the reliability of NewAtlas over here and it is agreed that it is an unreliable source, only then it will be an unreliable source. Since you're so biased with Autobild then FYI, Road and Track is also a premiere American car magazine and it says that the Veyron broke the F1's record which if one goes by your third class logic would believe as a "premiere" source said it. I'm not talking about only a video, but photos as well. Almost every "production car" speed record is well document in the form of either pictorial or video evidence however your beloved Dauer doesn't have those. There are only two journalists saying that it happened which have no proof of it either. They are only saying what the company told them while your "premiere" source used the wording "production car" from Evo magazine. U¹ _quattro TALK 10:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

EVO didn't back out, this was just your claim based on concluding wrongly from it not being mentioned in another article. Contrary to your statement the NewAtlas website doesn't say when the top speed run was performed (the year in the heading doesn't imply the year of the run as you can see looking at the older cars), and therefore doesn't contradict the year 1998, it's a source supporting the independently measured 404.6 km/h. The current article state fits to what your Road & Track link says, your version contradicts it. Drachentötbär (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

They didn't mention it in later articles which means they backed out. The article I mentioned was about the Dauer and they didn't restate their blatant claim from 10 years earlier. What you're saying about the NewAtlas article is completely wrong. Yes the year in the run technically implies to that. I did not state the article to match my version but to remove your stupid belief that the respected names in journalism are always true. U¹ _quattro TALK 16:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not it is a production car is not a fact you can be right or wrong about, the "what if the run never happened" thing makes no sense, Autobild is a reliable source and you have no proof they just made it up. Toasted Meter (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

This whole dispute is about the Dauer being the production car and a false claim made by a magazine from years earlier with the other magazine referencing it in its later article. There is no proof of the Dauer being a production car either which does not merit its inclusion in this article. I wouldn't count blatant, unproven claims that it was a production car as a sole reason for the inclusion in this article which is not about the Dauer. About the run, there is no proof that it happened. These journalists were not present at the venue where the run happened. They just stated the claims the company is making, like the claims Koenigsegg makes with its models about their top speed.U¹ _quattro TALK 17:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The very reason the Dauer stopped racing at LeMans was the fact that it couldn't meet the production car criteria to make it eligible for racing. I would put this reason against your belief that its a production car. If you consider the Dauer a production car then other examples of the street legal 962s should also be considered production cars.U¹ _quattro TALK 17:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Production car is not objective fact, the entire point is that depending on definitions it can and has been called a production car. Autobild called it a cut and stab proof value, you have absolutely nothing to refute that. Toasted Meter (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Also you violated 3RR, which seems like a bad move two days after a block expires. Toasted Meter (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Autobild engaged in circular reporting about the term production car. I have emailed the editor of Evo about this so this dispute can come to a conclusion. U¹ _quattro TALK 18:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you think the editor of Evo is going to say Autobild did circular reporting? Toasted Meter (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

No. He is going to atleast provide some insight on why the Dauer was called a production car by their publication so you'd shut your mouth about it. U¹ _quattro TALK 01:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Also when did I violate 3RR on this page? I have not reverted the disputed content four times ever, let alone in 24 hours, I think you might want to reach for the strike through function. Toasted Meter (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I have read it, two is less than four. Toasted Meter (talk) 04:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I am asking you to strike the thing where you claim I did something I did not, if you want to argue that two is more than four I guess we can do that on your talk page. Toasted Meter (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Here are both the times I reverted you about this [1] and [2] the one on the 14th of March was me copying from a old revision, it messed a bunch of things up and was self reverted in 1 minute. Toasted Meter (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I got a response back from Evo from their editor Stuart Gallagher. Turns out that the staff who wrote the article and made the claim, is not even there anymore. I think that should be enough to disqualify the Dauer as a production car.

Hi,

Thanks for your email.

In answer to your question I don’t know. I only returned to evo at the end of 2014 having left at the beginning of 2000 and am therefore not privy to reasoning behind the decisions made 17 years ago in my absence.

However, to declare a race car converted to a road car in very small numbers (I believe Dauer made in the region of a dozen road cars) a production car would be stretching the term in my opinion. And having been fortunate to have driven one on the road even the term road car is a very loose one.

Best regards,

Stuart

U¹ _quattro TALK 09:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Drachentötbär and Toasted Meter, see the above response from Evo.U¹ _quattro TALK 14:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Further comment by the same person, representing EVO magazine as a whole:

I don’t even know who wrote the story. I would have imagined that at the time they considered it a production car because more than one was made and it was road legal. Feel free to let Wikipedia know we’re happy for it to not be called a production car.

I think this should end this dispute now.U¹ _quattro TALK 14:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Please post the whole conversation (replace personal data with XXXXX when needed). Drachentötbär (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I will post links to screenshots of the conversation:

https://app.photobucket.com/u/GTG_344/p/a568878e-136e-49ae-8be0-54af8988487e

https://app.photobucket.com/u/GTG_344/p/71950de6-2e85-4681-aa3c-3b62bae59ca6

U1 quattro TALK 16:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why some guy not being at the same magazine 17 years on would prohibit us from using their work, also I don't know why I have to keep saying this but I am not saying and I do not want the article to say that the Dauer is a production car, it needs to note that over the years publications have called it that. The current editor of EVO disagrees and that's fine, if everyone agreed on a hard and fast definition of "production car" this would be very simple, but they don't, individual people have differing opinions on this, many probably change over time. The part you seem so determined to ignore "Depending on the definition of "production car"" is why we don't need to care what EVO thinks today, they published it and their definition at the time was such that the Dauer fit. "Depending on the definition" is much less definitive then you seem to have read it as, if your definition is that of LeMans at the time (road car and one exists) then it's a production car, if your definition is more than I can count on my hands and road car then it's a production car, if your definition is individually assigned WMI then it's not, there are plenty of definitions by which it could be called a production car and there are plenty by which it could be called not a production car, the point is that some reliable sources called it one and that definitions varied wildly. Toasted Meter (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you own the EVO magazine? You don't. So stop doubting what the guy has said on behalf of his publication. My point was to prove that Evo has backed out of the claim and I have proven that. With this disclaimer, your thoughts about the Dauer being included in this article does not matter anymore. The publication backed out of the claim they made years ago, end of the story. This source was the bone of contention and now it is out of the way.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

You did want the article to say that the Dauer is a production car that surpassed the F1 and thats why you added back the Dauer multiple times. Now with this disclaimer, this dispute should be over. The Dauer was not a production car and it will never be one. I proved with this disclaimer that Evo used the term as a superlative for promoting the car. As far as this is concerned "the point is that some reliable sources called it one and that definitions varied wildly", there were only two sources who proclaimed that. You can count one less now. I also have emailed AutoBild about this and will be getting a response soon.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

You are using the straw man fallacy. The statement you have to refute is "The published reliable sources calling the Dauer 962 a production car are significant enough for a short mention among the other viewpoints." Instead you set up and fight a "The Dauer 962 is a production car" straw man. Drachentötbär (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no strawman. Just you dragging the fact that there are "serveral sources on the internet that call Dauer a production car" when there are only two out of which one who published this statement has backed out of it and evidence has been shown to you. You have no reason to add the Dauer to the record section as it was never a production car and called as such by these sources as such for promotional reasons. Yet you still keep on edit warring. I would have to warn you to stop your disruptive editing when proof has been given to you that a reliable source has given a disclaimer that what they have said was wrong and they are happy to back out of their claim.U¹ _quattro TALK 01:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

What I'm arguing against is this statement of yours "The verified top speed record of the Dauer 962 LM was 404.6 km/h, not 402 km/h (which is the manufacturer claim) and you can find several sources for it, as well as sources which consider it a production car.'" I told you many times to present this and yet you didn't present any of those sources. Instead you chose to argue how Evo and Autobild have "far more expertise" that Guinness. Now one of these sources with "far more expertise" backed out of their claim. That should be enough.U¹ _quattro TALK 01:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Besides the EVO and AutoBild article I've also named two books and we had [3] and "Since the production car had a trunk ..." in the discussion. Drachentötbär (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Then mention those books in the article. You didn't consider New Atlas a reliable source and removed it from the article. Also, did you read the title of the New Atlas source "The fastest cars in history: 1946 to now"? Absolutely not. It doesn't mention the word "production" in any way. Its you who is persistent on restoring his version of the edits when you're running out of options to prove yourself. U¹ _quattro TALK 03:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

You have failed to realise how Motor1 used the term production car. They were referring to the LeMans racing rules for 1994 which were changed for the 1995 season and that was the very reason Dauer stopped racing. That's mentioned later in the article. I suggest you read the whole article and stop taking out chunks which don't mean anything. If you want to follow that definition, then the Dauer is not a production car.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Back up your claim about me not considering New Atlas a reliable source and deleting it from the article. Both the links were considered reliable enough by you to post them. Both articles call the Dauer a production car, they're obviously using other definitions than you, just like other sources you want to ignore. In the New Atlas source it is called production car several times, did you read more than the title ?

Your changes contradict reliable sources like the AutoBild article, an article state which doesn't contradict reliable sources is preferable. Drachentötbär (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not sources, but a source. Evo backed out in front of you, but you won't believe it. Motor 1 clearly used the LeMans definition and stated it later in the article. You have a history of removing reliable sources as seen here. You wanted proof that you removed New Atlas as a source? here it is to refresh your memory. U¹ _quattro TALK 01:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Here is an excerpt from New Atlas:

The Dauer 962 Le Mans was a limited-production sports car built from 1993 to 1997 and based on the Porsche 962 racing car, that just like the Ferrari 250 GTO, was built to circumnavigate racing regulations. Built by German Jochen Dauer's Dauer Racing, a racing version of this car went on to win the 1994 24 Hours of Le Mans with the support of Porsche. The bodywork of the road car was replaced with slightly revised carbon fibre and kevlar panels, the under tray was replaced with a flat version for better stability at high speeds, a second seat was installed in the cramped cockpit, and a modified version of Porsche's water-cooled Type-935 2994 cc twin-turbocharged flat-6 produced 730 hp (544 kW) - more power than the regs allowed the real car upon which it was modelled. The first production car debuted at the 1993 Frankfurt Auto Show and after the Le Mans win the following year, at least twelve more examples were built. The car's top speed of 404.6 km/h (251.4 mph) was independently measured, causing Evo magazine to proclaim it the 'fastest street-legal production car in the world.' That's the Le Mans winner pictured above in the Porsche Museum, where its claimed top speed on the placard shows as 365 km/h. Go figure!

Evo magazine has backed out officially. New Atlas mentions their 2003 issue in here. "Limited-production" means in the words of Collins dictionary:

A limited production item is a work of art, such as a book which is only produced in very small numbers, so that each one will be valuable in the future.U¹ _quattro TALK 01:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

And excuse me? I never presented an opinion as fact. It is a fact. The editor of Evo gave a disclaimer, I gave evidence of this but you go on to mention false accusations about me. About me being not able to read articles, when you make foolish mistakes like these, such as calling a classic CTR at the 2017 Geneva Motor Show a CTR 2017, I would question your comprehension skills.U¹ _quattro TALK 01:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

There are three different opinions supported by reliable sources about which car succeeded the F1. You write down one of them as fact, I mention all three of them. No need to contradict reliable sources. Drachentötbär (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

So? That doesn't mean you list everyone of them. You make little sense in your intent and your words. But then again, you're not a man of many words. I'd wait until the discussion notice board comes up with a result. Because I'm done wasting my time with someone getting twisted meaning of words from websites. I get that English is not your native language but please, try to understand what is written.U¹ _quattro TALK 16:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Is the Gordon Murray Automotive T.50 the spiritual successor to the McLaren F1?

A few editors have noted that Gordon Murray, creator of the McLaren F1, called the Gordon Murray Automotive T.50 the F1's "spiritual successor". However, a couple other editors have likewise reverted the edits because it is not made by McLaren. I am curious if anyone has any opinions on the issue. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it's valid, so I'll include with other mentioned successors (unless people raise an objection, of course). Altanner1991 (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The Speedtail is the official successor, so that's definetly included. However, it doesn't have anything to do with the old F1, expect maybe, a high top speed. Otherwise, it's a completely different car; essentially a Bugatti competitor. The T50 is what most nerds would call the "real" successor. It is also called the logical/spiritual successor to the "Murray-devised" F1 by Murray himself, and since the dude literally made the car, I think that counts at least as much. So I agree, it should definitely be listed in this article. Andibrema (talk) 00:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

About the McLaren F1’s successor!

Why can’t anyone understand that the McLaren P1 is the real successor to the McLaren F1? Big Drake 305 (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The Speedtail is the official successor, so that's definetly included. However, it doesn't have anything to do with the old F1, expect maybe, a high top speed. But otherwise, it's a completely different car; essentially a Bugatti competitor. The T50 is what most the nerds would call the "real" successor. It is also called the logical/spiritual successor to the "Murray-devised" F1 by Murray himself, and since the dude literally made the car, I think that counts at least as much. Lastly, the P1 is somewhere in between. It's spiritually more related to the F1 than the Speedtail, and it is made by McLaren. It was also considered the spiritual successor for a relatively long time. However, that's just a little bit specific, so I don't think it makes sense to include it. Andibrema (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that given enough WP:RS, with an appropriate inline citation we could include the McLaren P1 with the other successors to the McLaren F1. Altanner1991 (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)