Talk:Production car speed record/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Suggested updated production car and test specification definition/list rules

I suggest the list should define a production car according to the following rules:

1. Made by a production car vehicle manufacturer that is approved as such by the authorities handling production car regulations in the country the car is produced and possibly other countries.

2. The production car needs to have been offered in new condition for commercial sale to consumers, legal for personal use and in full compliance with regulations for road cars at the time of sale in the country the car is delivered in, directly from the car producer or its official dealer network, without any tampering needed with the car from the customer or end users side in order to make the car legal for road use.

3. The same car model needs to have been registered for road use and beeing street legal in at least two different countries with two physically separate cars, before this list considers it to be a true production car.

4. The production car needs to have reached the third party verified top speed in a state that it can be order in and produced by the production car vehicle manufacturer without outside/3rd party tampering. At the same time the exact specification that is tested needs to comply with point 2 and 3 above.

The above covers all the needed aspects to determine if a car is a true production car or not. No company is allowed to produce series production cars intended for road use, unless they have approval for such activities from the authorities of the country the company is in. If a company has this approval then the likelyhood they are actually producing production cars are great. Still with the other three points in the list - all doubt will be gone. Also the "homebuilt" or "hot rodded" cars are naturally excluded.

It is very easy to find out if a company is a "real" production car company from public documents in the public domian as long as they are produced in an industrialized country. Also it is very easy to see in public ledgers if a car model has been registered for road use in most countries. If we need harsher "series production" requirements, we could add a car or two and a country or two in point 3 - but more than that can never be motivated or needed to be 100% sure of what is a production car or not. For sure any serious series production cars producers will be able to forward these documents if they want to be on this list. So it should not be difficult at all to get the needed information. Sagenode (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Many countries waive safety (and other) homologation requirements for small numbers of cars produced, thereby legalizing things that are scarcely more than kit cars. I'm pleased, that means people can try exotic designs without crash testing 5 or 10 (or 40 as in one program I worked on) prototypes, but it means the barriers to entry are so low are as to be meaningless unless you add a minimum number made.Greglocock (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

This discussion about what is accepted for this list is being fragmented into many places. I suggested we keep it in one place.

We need to decide what we accept and what we reject a a production car. I'll sketch out some of the boundaries are we will see what emerges.

1. This is for production cars, from a registered manufacturer that appears on the registration papers of the car. This will gives us serious thought about whether to include the Hennessey Venom GT if they do a bidirectional run (the Venom GT is registered as a modified Lotus Exige in its home country of the US, making Hennessey a tuner company but the Venom GT is made in enough numbers to be more than a custom job).
2. The vehicle needs to be something that a customer could buy from the catalog - no special on-offs, no special tweaks.
3. The vehicle need to be street legal in a reasonable number of countries. No playing with countries that accept anything with 4 wheels and a large amount of cash as legal. However, it's ok if some countries reject it if it didn't go through a length and expense certification process for that particular country.
4. As laymen editors, we usually don't get to see the certification papers. We also don't get to see how the world record version of the car differs from its lessor siblings. Eg Is the Agera RS E85 engine mechanically different or just tuned differently (software parameters in the ECU). We need factors that we can verify from a layman's point of view.
5. Does the software and/or its parameters count as a difference? As a professional ECU software engineer, I have seen engines changed from low revving, smooth torquey engines into higher hp (but skittish) engines purely through software changes. We also changed petrol and diesel engines in CNG engines by changing the fuel supply and injectors and changing the ECU. The engine internals remained unchanged. It could be argued by some that this is the same engine (note: governments made us do new certifications of the vehicles because it affect emissions).
6. We want to specifically exclude tuner companies that make only a handful of customs. As noted above, Hennessey is bit of a corner case.
7. Production counts is a poor standard but does remove the tuner customs and manufacturer specials. I have seen it abused in racing (make a single special racing sedan version but claim it was sold in the thousands because it shares the same basic body as a taxi).
8. If we use counts at all then we need to specify what counts. Do we count all variations of the basic body (see above note for abuse)? Do we count only those that are mechanically identical? Minor variations allowed (colour obviously allowed but also diff ratio, suspension springs, spoilers) ?
9. WP is not contracted or obligated to any manufacturer or organisation to include or exclude a particular car or manufacturer. However, we will try our hardest to make a set of rules that represents the industry fairly.

I'd like very much to include the Agera RS. But we can't do this arbitrarily. We need to apply the same rules to all the vehicles on the list and the rules should not be made just to allow the RS on.  Stepho  talk  23:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It's logical to not do it arbitrarily, but when your rules dump a genuine car company that is homologated around the world, crash tested, emissions, tested, a company that builds its own engines, builds its own carbonfibre chassis, programs its own software, builds its own wheels (by hand!) and nearly every other component - when your rules dump that company in with a bunch of tuner companies... the rules are wrong. When every other automotive journal recognises something that you don't, the rules are wrong. And speaking for my colleagues at Koenigsegg, they're a slap in the face. GregLocock wrote above that "it's only Wikipedia" but it's actually a bigger thing than that. Right or wrong, there is a segment of content writers out there that will click the first link they see on Google when they're looking this stuff up. That link is often from this site. To weigh your criteria towards large manufacturers penalises genuine companies like ours and in some respects, robs us of genuine achievements. Don't make rules "just to allow the RS" on the list. Make the rules fair and the RS will qualify automatically. It already does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenWade (talk • contribs) 07:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I think Stepho is asking the correct questions above. How can we make it into check list for criterias? Perhaps it is a 8 point list and at least 6 or 7 out of 8 "boxes" needs to be checked in order for a car to comply?Sagenode (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

While I have some sympathy with the arguments presented, we face a basic dilemma. If you take a look at the Production vehicle page you will find that there is no single definition of a production car at present. There is a range of possible definitions. If we accept less than 25 vehicles, then how many less and on what basis? If we drop the current rules, then the current fastest production car under Utah Salt Flats Racing Association rules is a 297mph 2006 Pontiac Transam - this will meet WP:RS. NealeFamily (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Production vehicle seems to be looking at various definitions of "production vehicles", but the lede for this article clearly says that we are using the definition from List of automotive superlatives:

1. are constructed principally for retail sale to consumers, for their personal use, and to transport people on public roads (no commercial or industrial vehicles are eligible);

2. have had 25 or more instances made by the original vehicle manufacturer, and offered for commercial sale to the public in new condition (cars modified by either professional tuners or individuals are not eligible);

3. are street-legal in their intended markets, and capable of passing any official tests or inspections required to be granted this status. Meters (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the definition of "production". How many (or how few) need to be made to qualify? Because batches of 5 or so wouldn't meet my definition of "production", nor, I suspect, would it meet most people's. And what is "manufacturer"? Would Fiberfab, frex, qualify? Would Meyers Manx? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the quoted definition? It clearly answers your question about minimum numbers, and I believe it also answers your questions about Fiberfab and Meyers Manx. Those were kit cars, not made by the original vehicle manufacturer. Meters (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I would normally define manufacturer as what is on the VIN plate (or its equivalent). Which creates a problem for companies like Hennessey, who I haven't quite decided in my own mind if they are a manufacturer (making many substantially similar cars with crash tests, etc) or a tuner (making custom cars).

I seriously doubt if that Pontiac was straight off the production line in a form that could be ordered by customers and it's probably not road legal (eg, emissions compliant).

Another boundary condition I should have mentioned is that the run must be done in opposite directions to counter the possible effects of downhill with a tail wind (Hennessey fails in this). Otherwise we can include the stock VW Beetle that did the quarter mile in less than 4 seconds with a top speed of 201 km/h - by being dropped from a helicopter.

Meters, point 2 is not perfect and is currently under discussion for something better. I would not automatically rule out kit-car manufacturers if they are producing complete, certified cars to a stock design that is registered with them as the manufacturer. Of course, any kit-car that is further modified by the owner (eg, owner supplies the engine) would be ruled out as a custom car. Luckily, kit cars are rarely fast enough for this list.  Stepho  talk  01:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The American Le Mans Series GT class regulations In 2001 stated that cars must be for sale on two continents. This seems like a good compromise if we are to remove production volume based rules, this should prevent all one offs and require compliance with more than one set of design rules and testing schemes. And like Stepho noted preventing quirks and loopholes in one country's rules from messing up the value of street Legality as a factor is essential, and I think this serves that goal elegantly. Toasted Meter (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with idea of a two-continent rule to establish credibility for a company as a production manufacturer. It does seem like a very elegant solution. Koenigsegg's contention with a minimum of 30, 25, or even 20, is that it favours large manufacturers and rules out the little guys. There is no doubt in anyone's mind, looking objectively, that Koenigsegg manufactures production cars. We have a manufacturer code on our VIN plate and we have to do all crash tests and emissions tests before we can sell cars in a given market via official dealer channels. We are no different from Bugatti, Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini or any other recognised manufacturer EXCEPT for the number of cars we produce. That we can do it and sell them around the world indicates that these are serious production vehicles that should be recognised. A requirement such as selling on more than one continent is indeed indicative that the car is properly complied by authorities and sold through an established dealer network. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenWade (talk • contribs) 01:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Whether a car is sold in only one country or many continents doesn't affect the production car status. Why should a car sold 10,000 times in the US be less production than a car sold once in Saudi-Arabia and once in Egypt for example ? Drachentötbär (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The scenario you picture is purely hypothetical and extremely unlikely to effect anything to do with this list. The proposal for cars being compliant and eligible for sale in more than one continent is an indication that they're actually being made by a valid OEM, i.e. they are actually production cars. If you keep it to one country/continent then you open the list up to cars that, for example, can only be sold in the UK, where you can get a motorised office desk registered for the road if it's got headlamps in the right place (not theoretical - fact). — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenWade (talk • contribs) 20:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Stepho, with respect..... you seem to be very Hennessey-conscious in your deliberations. Hennessey is an amazing engine builder and vehicle customiser but they don't do what a full-service car company does. Not at the moment, at least. They don't design their own chassis and design/build their own cars from the ground-up. They don't do crash tests or other forms of vehicle compliance etc. When they do, they'll get a manufacturer VIN and all discussion can be silenced. Until that happens, or at least until they actually do a record attempt that meets with basic criteria (two-way, verifiable), they shouldn't be occupying too much attention here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenWade (talk • contribs) 20:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I am deliberately Hennessey-conscious. As I mentioned above, they are not quite a manufacturer (for the reasons you gave) but they are also more than a tuner, having produced a series of cars to the same spec. I would like to clarify the rules to specify that the car must be as it was delivered from the factory. Which would effectively rule out Hennessey but at least things would be clear. They don't seem keen to do bi-direction runs, so it may not be a problem anyway.  Stepho  talk  12:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Sagenode, in spite of your claim, consensus has not been reached. Therefore the article cannot be changed to included the Agera yet. I was sympathetic to the Agera's claim but your insistence is pushing me in the other direction.  Stepho  talk  12:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Are Options allowed or not?!

The only arguement I can find that potentially has any bearing on not allowing the Agera RS on this list - would be if this list requries all 25 cars produced to be completely identically specced. This would of course delete several cars from the list. None the less, from what I can gather this list naturally accept Options. Please give your input here so we can settle this once and for all -Does this list accept options on a production vehicle and still let it count as a part of the production run of that specific model -Yes or NO? Lets settle this!Sagenode (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

If my proposal is accepted then the question of how to count cars is irrelevant. If my proposal is rejected then we can open this question again. If we try to keep too many questions open at the same time then we just wear ourselves out.  Stepho  talk  13:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Understand. Still why the Agera RS cannot be allowed in the meantime, beats me - and no one has cared to answer why it is not allowed! Which "rule" does it not comply with with? My guess is "options" as this is the only one I can think of that could be up for debate and that standpoint is already clear - rigth!? Anyway, I agree that the 25 car rule is silly, and I agree that it is better to use rules to corrulate with production car regulations, instead of made up arbitrary rules. Still to keep the Agera RS "hostage" in the process does not make sense to me at all and truly feels like the Agera RS is beeing discriminated. Until someone explains to me why it is not allowed, even according to present list understandings, I will keep on beeing "annoying" about this and fight! I will not sit complacent, I will fight for it - as it is correct. The Agera RS is the fastest production car in the world at this present point in time and not to allow it, while it really is that, before it might get beaten by Bugatti again, is really depriving it of rightful, perhaps shortlived glory. Unfortunatly, in this case, Wikipedia is seen "as the truth" by pundits and journalist and is taken as reference. As things stand now, with Veyron Super Sport at the helm of the list - a car that should not even be on there according to any consensus and then not allowing the Agera RS until new rules are settled, eventhough it already "complies" - Excuse me - is disgraceful and just nonsense.Sagenode (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

We are not trying to keep the Agera hostage - the reason for its exclusion has been elaborated on quite clearly from the beginning of the discussion. If we can reach a consensus on an appropriate rule change that allows the Agera RS in then we will put it in. As an interim measure there is a paragraph in the article about the Agera's top speed, which I am sure anyone reading it will make up their own minds on. In the mean time we are focused on deciding whether a change to rules is warranted. At the moment there is some divergence in opinion. Please feel free to contribute to the debate. Also just to be clear, Wikipedia aims to have a neutral point of view, which in the case of this list is difficult. As I have said before, this is because production car is an undefined term with a wide range of uses. Trying to pin down a definition that keeps some sense to the list, given that even Guiness is completely inconsistent in its application, is challenging. NealeFamily (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

NealeFamily Please show me where on this talk page it shows: - "the reason for its exclusion has been elaborated on quite clearly from the beginning of the discussion" No it is not clear. Just answer the question - Which present rule does the Agera RS break? It cant be that hard to answer - can it?Sagenode (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

user:Sagenode, coming back from an edit warring block over this article with a statement that you will continue to fight and be annoying is not a good idea. Meters (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Quoting NealeFamily, above.. "As an interim measure there is a paragraph in the article about the Agera's top speed, which I am sure anyone reading it will make up their own minds on."

Actually, there isn't a paragraph there anymore. There was one under Difficulties with Claims section in the early stages but someone removed it. I think it would be fair to put it there again. Koenigsegg has a legitimate claim that's the subject of genuine discussion. The least that the page could do (other than putting it on the actual record table) is to note the claim in the Difficulties section.StevenWade (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:Drachentötbär for reinstating the paragraph. And sorry User:StevenWade, I should have checked before commenting - it was there the previous time I looked. NealeFamily (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

No worries. It was removed at least 4 weeks ago but with all this discussion going on here, nobody paid much mind. Good to see it back.StevenWade (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see what User:Drachentötbär added was about the Dauer 962 Le Mans not the Agera. Toasted Meter (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

(←) Took another look - you are right, it was probably User:Sagenode. The main thing is that it is back. NealeFamily (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I can not see any mention of the Agera whatsoever in the article, the only Koenigsegg mentioned is the CCR. Are you sure you are looking at the current page? Toasted Meter (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Agera RS should be included until list rules are (re)defined

Again, in the interests of full disclosure, I will mention once again that I work for Koenigsegg Automotive. Regardless of that, however, I am going to use logic to make a point that the Agera RS should be included in this list until such time as the new list rules being discussed above are finalised and it is either confirmed for good (as it should be) or removed (which would be a travesty).

My point, in a nutshell: The Agera RS meets all conditions of the definition on the article page as it currently stands. It has been withheld from its rightful place by concerns over an option, the 1MW engine, but the definition doesn't say anything about options. Any talk of options is being held here and is not included in the current definition. Its exclusion is presumptuous.

The definition of a production car, as it stands right now, is as follows:

→being constructed principally for retail sale to consumers, for their personal use, and to transport people on public roads (no commercial or industrial vehicles are eligible);

The Agera RS meets this condition. It is for sale worldwide and is registrable to be driven on public roads in all markets in which it is sold.

→having had 25 or more instances made by the original vehicle manufacturer, and offered for commercial sale to the public in new condition (cars modified by either professional tuners or individuals are not eligible);

The Agera RS meets this condition. There are 25 customer examples of the car, plus 3 'Final edition' Agera RS's, plus two factory cars.

→being street-legal in their intended markets, and capable of passing any official tests or inspections required to be granted this status.

The Agera RS meets this condition. It is fully homologated, has been crash tested and emissions tested and is registrable for the road in all markets in which it is sold.

As you can see, the RS meets all conditions. Given that the RS meets the current definition as listed on the page itself, there is no logical reason for it not to be there. Its exclusion presumes that the RS fails on a matter being considered for inclusion in the definition (options), which it doesn't fail according to the consensus opinion evident here anyway.

This page obviously needs to update its definition to consider the topic of options, as well as other aspects of what makes a production car (VIN, homologation, availability in diverse markets, etc). The position I'm offering to you here, just using logic and fairness, is that the Agera RS should be listed on the table until that discussion is finalised, and not withheld until that definition is finalised.

I understand that you, as laymen and independent, do not want to put something here simply because a manufacturer suggests it. But I would also ask you to consider whether you're (wrongly) deliberately withholding its inclusion as some sort of proof to yourselves of that independence. The case I've made here is very fair. On logic alone, the RS deserves its place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenWade (talk • contribs) 21:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

An IP removed the record claim with the invalid summary "Not in Guinness World Records". We don't decide what is included in Wikipedia based on what some other company chooses to include in their list. Having said that, there was no independent reliable source for the record claim so I have not restored it (and I have removed the remaining mention of the car). Even if we do decide that the car meets the production car criteria then we will need an independent reliable source before we can include the record in this article. A company posting by a Koenigsegg Automotive Communications and Copywriter employee (named Steven Wade) is not an independent reliable source. Meters (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

References

It seems that my word is not trusted here. It also seems that you want some sources other than the Koenigsegg story on this. OK.

Jonathon Klein is a journalist from Automobile Magazine in the USA. He was present for the entire campaign and he wrote several stories about it. The most relevant story is this one - http://www.automobilemag.com/news/koenigsegg-came-nevada-beat-records/

A guy named Julian Thomas posted video of the run - even before we did (which is why his video has 3.5 million views and ours has relatively few). The video is taken directly from the Vbox data logger. Julian Thomas is the technical director for Racelogic USA (Racelogic is the brand that makes Vbox data loggers). Of course, you will want to contact Racelogic to verify that info. The video is available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xj4gar5dKAU

Jim Lau was the guy from Racelogic who was present on the day. He fitted the Vbox to the Agera RS and he also retrieved and verfied the data recorded on the system. Jim Lau wrote an article about the campaign for Autoweek. You can read it here: http://autoweek.com/article/supercars/behind-scenes-koenigsegg-top-speed-run

We had representatives from Michelin present at the event to verify that the tyres were the ones used on our regular cars, and to monitor the condition of the tyres to make sure they were safe after each run. Eric Schmeddling, the guy from Michelin, has been interviewed and quoted in many articles since the run was made. One such article is this one, from Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-17/exactly-how-did-koenigsegg-break-the-land-speed-record-with-its-agera-rs

Hopefully this satisfies any doubt and saves you some legwork looking for external references.--StevenWade (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Re-instating the Agera RS on the list, for the sake of sanity, thruth and fairness...Sagenode (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

And removed again. As I said, the source is not a reliable one. There are now reliable sources available (see above), but even with those sources the material is contested and should remain out until there is consensus that the car meets Wikipedia's criteria as a production car. Meters (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Reliable Sources are not the problem, since 8 November 2017 they were available and the top speed run was standing here as fact. The problem is "having had 25 or more instances made", cars with different HP output are not the same cars. It was handled this way on this site before the Agera RS appeared and it's only fair towards the other contestants to treat a newcomer according to the existing rules instead of changing the rules just to benefit him. 181 extra HP are a big difference, if we allow this we have to allow almost everything else. Drachentötbär (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. If the car does not meet the current inclusion criteria it should not be included. If and when the inclusion criteria are changed then the car's inclusion can be re-evaluated. Meters (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The car DOES meet the current inclusion criteria, which was the whole point of this new section. According to your own words in the definition, the car meets the criteria. The three points in the definition are listed above, as are the ways the RS meets them. The only way it doesn't is if you reinterpret the words in the definition to suit your own personal point of view.--StevenWade (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a continous mix of apples and oranges here in argumentation and frankly many of them does not makes any sense. This is were we are at: 1. Options are considered OK. 2. The Agera RS has a production run way over 25 cars. Still the 25 car rule is completely arbitrary and has no real bearing on the fact if a car is production car or not. 3. The Agera RS record is probably the best documented in history with several 3rd party, fully trustworthy sources for speed measurement, plus around 150 individuals and journalist on site recording the event and listening in on every word that was said in the team around the car. 5. The Agera RS is a homologated, crash tested, emission tested, OBDII capable, smart airbag equipped, SERIES PRODUCTION CAR(!!!) street legal in Europe, the US, the Middle East, Asia etc. There can be no question whatsoever if the Agera RS is production car or not! This discussion is a waste of time... 6. Given the hard time the Agera RS has to become accepted here, it blows my mind as to why the Veyron Super Sport is accepted, as it clearly was modified from standard, in a way that is not available in the production cars at all. I have now raised the Speed limiter question around 4 or 5 times on this talk page and absolutley no one cares to answer why this is considered OK while the Agera RS fully customer available Power option is not! - Even tough reasonably the power option should be treated much more favourably than the removed speed limiter, both increasing top speed with the help of software. So - given the above - until someone cares to answer this highly relevant question, I will re-instate the Agera RS and if it is removed again, without any proper reasons, there is no way the Veyron Super Sport can stay on the list, if we use any common sense or logic. Therefore, please, before taking any other action, please respond to the Super Sport "issue". Thank you.Sagenode (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Wow, with the discussion trying to shoot off in so many directions it's no wonder we haven't been able to address every point raised!

Steven, as an employee of Koenigsegg you naturally interpret the rules to the advantage of Koenigsegg. I can't really blame you for this. The 25 count rule is not clearly on your side because editors have already asked if we count all vehicles with the 'Agera RS' name (under which the RS is allowed and of course favoured by you) or if we count only vehicles that could actually reach that speed (under which the RS would not be allowed). That is the single point which started this discussion and has not been decided yet. Have patience, the odds do look to be in your favour.

All records need an independent witness. Thank you Steven for supplying references for us to check with.

As said above, if Guinness says an event happened then it can be taken as having happened. However, it looks like they also ignore other events where $$$ didn't come their way and hence they are untrustworthy in terms of who is currently the fastest. I will follow Steven's links and poke around Guinness's website.

Note that if we change the rules to allow the RS in then we also have to examine the affect on the other cars in the list. We want production cars included and one-off tuner cars excluded. Most companies are pretty simple to classify as manufactures of production cars or as tuners. But Hennessey is a blurred case. They are not legally a manufacturer - the car is registered as a modified Lotus Exige and I'm not sure of whether it has been crash tested or not. Yet they make enough cars that are substantially the same. If they did a proper bi-direction run with independent witnesses then I would be 50/50 whether to include them or not. But perhaps we can simply dodge this question because they don't seem to like bi-directional runs and thus exclude themselves.

Sagenode, the Veyron issue has been ignored probably because it has been thrashed out before and because newer issues are overtaking it. With so many issues under discussion at once it is the mostly likely to be ignored. The consensus agreed upon at the time was that the vehicle is truly capable of reaching that speed except that an artificial limit was place on it. With the limiter removed the vehicle would still pass certification and otherwise perform in every function that it was supposed to. But the question has been asked whether allowing a change in software for the Veyron is the same allowing a change in software for the RS (which I presume is done by using a different A2L-file). I am more familiar in this because I designed ECU software for 5 years. The base engine and even the software can be identical but the calibration via the A2L-file can radically change the torque characteristics, emissions (the bane of most of those 5 years trying to pass certifications) and of course top end power (which affects the top speed of the car). To tune the engine for E85 would require quite a different cal that will give a different top speed (although some racer friends got better race times after converting to E85). Anyway, changing the cal is a significant change. Removing an artificial limit but keeping the same maps in the cal is an allowable change. And it may be a moot point if we don't use counting as a way to avoid one-off vehicles.

To make it more concrete, one possibility for a set of the rules is that the record must be by the same company that appears on the rego papers (ruling out tuners and Hennessey), it is possible for a customer to buy a car the same as the record car in every respect just by ticking boxes on the order form (possible exception allowed for the removal of artificial limiters) and the resulting car is 100% legal in a reasonable number of countries. Still need to define reasonable number of countries but I could see a car being sold only in Europe and not expensively certified for the US (read up on the trouble Bill Gates had registering his Porsche 959), making the 2 continents rule a bit problematic.  Stepho  talk  14:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Stepho-wrs - apriciate your efforts to shed more light on the topic. To adress your concern that the Agera RS 1MW option might cause hawok on the Agera RS emissions, drivability etc, you could ask the customers/owners already using the Agera RS with this option, that it does not. If that is difficult to do, as they are few and far apart, perhaps it is easier, if I state what I know - and that is that the 1MW option does not affect any of the aspects of your concern. What the the 1MW option does is that it activates the Flexfuel sensor fitted to all Agera RS cars in order to sense the % of alcohol in the fuel and adapt fueling amount, timing, boost etc to compensate for the alcohol content in the fuel - nothing else. This is a feature Koenigsegg has pioneered since the CCXR model in 2007, which was the world first homologated enviromentally consious sportscar, as it was out before the Tesla Roadsters. As alcohol has higher octane, includes water and burns cooler, than petrol, the alcohol compensation also allows for more boost and timing at high rpms and thus enables the engine to generate more power - up to 1MW if the alcohol level is 85%. The tuning and behaviour of the engine stays exactly the same, apart from adjusting to the alcohol and what it enables. If the Agera RS is filled with normal petrol, there is no difference to the Agera RS not having the 1MV upgrade, as there is then no alcohol in the fuel. Getting back to the argument of the Veyron Super Sport, removing the speed limiter means that engine is revving higher in top gear(7th) than in any production Veyron. This means that the car is also running in "engine calibrations maps" that the normal car never does, as this high engine rpm can never be reached in 7th gear in the production car. So purely from an "engine mapping" perspective, it is impossible to judge if the boost, ignition timing, fueling etc, was different or not compared to the road cars rpms range, as they are never run "there". I am just putting this in context of how similar these changes should be viewed, apart from that one is sold to customers and bought by customers and one solution for speed is not. There is a big difference for sure.Sagenode (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

A question: According to Koenigsegg, they have only factory produced 11 versions of the RS which can reach the speed stated. The remainder could be modified if the owners added the MW1 upgrade. If that is the case then, aren't the cars modified or are we accepting that potential modifications completed post-production may be counted? The reason I ask is that if we allow the Agera RS then the speed of modified versions of the Bugatti Veyron and, if you go back to the first car, the Jaguar XK120, on the list should be accepted. Reason: an owner of any one of those cars could potentially make the same changes to their cars. That also brings the Studebaker Avanti R3 into contention as an RS2 owner could bring their car up to the RS3 spec.

I might add that I have considerable sympathy for car makers such as Koenigsegg - the problem always comes back to no WP:RS definition of a production car NealeFamily (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The Agera RS cannot be modified to 1MV output. It can only be software upgraded by the factory to this level if the owner so chooses and pays for it. This is the same method most car companies use when fitting factory options after delivery. The option then becomes originial equipment of the car, as it could have left the production line exactly that way - like many of the Agera RS did. I dont see any contradiction or issue with this.Sagenode (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Please don't add it until consensus is reached in this discussion. And if consensus is to add it then reference it with some of the independent reliable sources, not the company blog. Meters (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Meter. There is consensus, right now only you are questioning it, for un-founded reasons. There are several other sources linked and to this topic at this list already - still I will link some more here, please pay attention to the weight of the publishers -. and the list goes on and one if you care to google.Sagenode (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

References

I'm not disputing that the car went that fast. I said that some of the reliable sources would have to be added to the article, and that it should not be included until we have a consensus as to whether this car meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. You added reliable sources, but still included the non-WP:RS source written by the company employee, and several people have questioned whether this is a production car by our standards, not just me. Meters (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the information Sagenode. However that does not change the fact that only 11 cars were made in production with the 1MV output. Which then brings the question back to how many cars are required to be made before a car becomes a production car. While all 30 Agrera's could have been manufactured with the 1MV output, they were not. Based on the current limit of 25 cars the Agrera fails to meet the lists criteria.

There has, over the years, been considerable debate around this number limit with some wanting more and some, I presume including yourself, wanting less. The compromise that was reached after considerable debate was a slightly arbitrary 25 based on earlier FIA rules for sports cars. Until something more in line with WP:RS can be found to establish a better number, or there is an overwhelming desire by editors to change, then I think it would be best to leave the list as is. I appreciate for the people at Koenigsegg who make incredible cars, this may not be very satisfying. NealeFamily (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

NealeFamily - It seems you are missunderstanding the situation. The Agera RS had a total production run of 30 cars. So the arbitrary 25 car limit is of no consequence to the Agera RS.Sagenode (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so, because what was said earlier was, while there were 30 Agera RS's made, only 14 were the 1MV type or are you saying all 30 were the 1MV? NealeFamily (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes from what I have gathered there were 11 Agera RS's with the 1 MW option and then 3 more were made as the "final edition" all 3 having the 1 MW. Toasted Meter (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

What the question at hand is, has to do with if the option makes the 1 MW cars too different than the cars without the option. I would usually say yes, but if the claims that the ECU software is the only change are true I fail to see a large enough difference from the Bugatti Veyron Super Sport's speed limiter. Toasted Meter (talk) 07:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

If it makes a difference or not - the 1 MW upgrade is a software option, that can be bought as new from the factory or as a factory upgrade to an already existing car. As consensus on this list is that options are allowed, this option should be allowed. Still this is different to the non-available software modification of the Veyron. Perhaps the focus of the discussion should be there instead, as there is no consensus on this list to allow modified cars that differ in specification to what the public can actually buy.Sagenode (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The Agera RS keeps on beeing deleted from the list by a few individuals without basis or explanation. As we have consensus of options allowed, production volumes there is no reason not to allow the Agera RS - Hence I am putting it back on this list.Sagenode (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

As I said yesterday in the section above, there is not consensus about whether it obeys our rules or not. The 25 vehicle requirement is unclear about whether it is 25 instances of any vehicle with the same name (which the Agera RS has) or whether it is 25 vehicles with the same options (which the RS does not have) or whether the E85 option counts (undecided). You know this. This is the main point of most of the above discussion. The discussion has not completed and there is no consensus yet. We would certainly be more favourable towards including the RS if you'd stop trying to bully your way in.  Stepho  talk  00:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

There is consensus that factory options are allowed within the 25 car volume - which makes the Agera RS eligble for the list. So I am not bullying my way in. The Agera RS is on the list because it matches the requirements. -Or are you saying that option now are not the consensus? -Any one else?Sagenode (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus yet as to whether we should include this car as meeting our inclusion criteria. Its inclusion has been challenged. It stays out until (and if) we reach a consensus that it should go in. Meters (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

My last comment outlined the differences under discussion. A read of the last month's entries on this page also shows there was no consensus. At best, we have editors such as myself who say the RS probably should be in this list but that it currently loses out due to poorly chosen rules. Saying there is a consensus does not make it so. Editing the article under the obviously false pretense of consensus just annoys the other editors.

I have other commitments to family, job and other WP articles. Only a limited amount of my time goes into this article. If you insist on wasting our time on railroading your choice then the final resolution (which would probably have been the one you want) will either be massively delayed or we get annoyed enough to simply block you at every move until you give up. Personally I would rather spend the time discussing the merits of the arguments and choosing fairer rules instead of playing games.  Stepho  talk  23:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

There are 3 main things to consider about the Agera RS:

1) The tires of the record vehicle were only guaranteed up to 300 km/h.

2) "Each Agera RS can be fully customized by its owner. Some customized versions of the Agera RS include: Agera RS Draken, Agera XS, Agera RS Gryphon, Agera RSR, Agera RS Naraya, Agera RS1, Agera RS ML and One of One." Using a web search for the different versions yielded articles using words like "exclusive", "unique" and "limited" a lot, so I got the impression that the Agera RS differ even more from each other than the Bugatti Veyron Super Sport World Record Editions from the standard 2005 Bugatti Veyrons.

3) Can cars with different HP output be considered to be the same cars ?

1) is no problem for me, the list is about the cars, not the tires and we can't verify it for the other cars.

2) we could change our rules to something like "chassis variations by the manufacturer don't matter as long as the tested car wasn't specifically modified significantly for the high speed test"

3) this causes me trouble no matter how the extra hp are gained. Cars with the same cc and more hp than the tested vehicle should be counted towards the 25 cars requirement but not weaker ones. Drachentötbär (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Drachentötbär If I may, please allow me to clarify those points you made. I'm not trying to be pedantic here but two of those three points are completely wrong and need to be corrected. Those misperceptions are important to clear up. The third one is an open question that we're trying to answer with the discussion of options.

With regard to point 1 - Do you have a source for that assertion about 300km/h? Because it's absolutely false. The standard tyre on the RS is a Michelin PilotSport Cup2 rated to 420km/h. We had Michelin do additional testing on the tyre before the event in Nevada to ensure that it was safe to run at the speeds we anticipated. They did the testing and gave us the go-ahead. AND we have a Michelin rep on site. He inspected the tyres after each run and they were in such good condition that we only used one set of tyres for the whole event.

With regard to point 2 - our customers like to give their cars individual names, a request that we're happy to accommodate. Agera XS is a play on words (i.e. excess). Naraya is the name of the customer's company. ML is the initials of the owner. Gryphon and Draken are homages to Swedish aircraft. All of the cars you list are Agera RSs.

With regard to point 3 - that's what the option discussion is all about, and the debate about production numbers. All RS's have the same engine with the same block, capacity, etc.StevenWade (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

1)http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5054365/Koenigsegg-Agera-RS-world-s-fastest-car.html "they are only guaranteed by Michelin up to 186mph"

2) A little web search yielded 3 articles about Agera RS with one-off in the title and the others tell of exclusivity too: http://www.carscoops.com/2017/03/new-one-off-koenigsegg-agera-rs-gryphon.html http://www.carscoops.com/2017/01/one-off-koenigsegg-agera-rs-naraya-is.html https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1109885_koenigseggs-one-off1360-hp-agera-rs1-invades-new-york-to-define-exclusivity http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/interviews/a30905/koenigsegg-agera-xs-kris-singh-interview/ https://www.koenigsegg.com/koenigsegg-agera-rsr-debuts-in-japan/ Drachentötbär (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

As to point one, the Daily Mail getting something wrong would not shock me, this may also have stemmed from tire speed rating systems having a maximum of Y, with Y being (300 kilometres per hour (186.4 mph)) but (Y) meaning 300 kilometres per hour (186.4 mph) and up. In the datasheet for the tire Michelin notes that it is rated (Y) and states "For speeds above 186 mph (300 kph), consult your vehicle manufacturer and tire dealer." [1] Toasted Meter (talk)

Also direct from R&T "The name had been changed at the request of the buyer, but for all intents and purposes, it would be the first Agera RS in the U.S." Toasted Meter (talk)

Toasty has it right. The Daily Mail is not a source you want to be relying on for specifics. The web is full of people wanting to be experts on something, who aren't. You can generally trust recognised motoring titles (Evo, Top Gear, etc) because they're experienced and know where to look for the right technical info. The Daily Mail? Not so much. I've outlined the rating we had on the tyres from Michelin and what we did to verify higher speed integrity, so I won't go through that again.

Our customers pay a LOT for a car. They feel a lot better about that when it's a "one-off" and "exclusive". The RS is already pretty exclusive at just 25 cars (+3 'Final' editions + 2 test cars) but if they can make it more exclusive by choosing a name, bespoke paint schemes, etc, then we're absolutely OK with accommodating them. Mechanically, they're all RSs. StevenWade (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

My view is that the Agera fails to meet the 25 car requirement as the MW1 option has only been fitted (or programmed into less than 20 cars during production. The logic is the same as was applied to the Veyron because all could potentially achieve the higher top speed than list states. User:Stepho-wrs suggests that the rules are unfair, but any change will require us to find a better WP:RS than FIA rule currently used - see discussion in the section below. NealeFamily (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

It is very frustrating that one or two edititors of this list keeps on removing the Agera RS from the list based on "lack of consensus". At the same time these editors leaves no reference to which part of the consensus it is not following.... Furhtermore these editors leave the highly questionable Veyron Super Sport on the list even though it goes against consensus "to not allow "tuned" cars" on the list. Meddling with the rev limiter is tuning the car! In this context it makes it even more unreasonable and "unfair" to not allow the Agera RS on the list, as it ticks all the boxes of a production car according to consensus - especially since OPTIONS ARE ALLOWED ACCORDING TO THE CONSESUS OF THIS LIST!..... If options are not allowed, well then we would be back discussing the arbitrary 25 car rule - but we dont have to go there as OPTIONS are allowed! Given the above, until there is consensus why the Agera RS should not be allowed on this list and why the Veyron Super Sport still is, I will steadfast make sure the Agera RS is on the list, as otherwise this list does not give the readers of Wikipedia a fair picture of what is going on in this area of the automotive industry. Finally it seems to be one or two persons frantically removing the Agera RS from the list and vaguely or not at all arguing why it should not be there. Remember this person do not create consenus by himself, especially without foundation. So please think about this and contribute.Sagenode (talk) 12:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I see one editor saying consensus has been reached. I also count 4 reverting editors, each saying consensus has not been reached and each having given reasons on this talk page. Where there is disagreement there is not consensus - by definition.

Have you also noticed that in the section below most of us have said that we feel the RS should be in the list but that the current rules are open to interpretation to its eligibility and that we are actively refining the rules so that it is included? We are already moving towards the solution you want. We can follow the standard engineering practice of working the problem (ie redefining the rules) or we can take shortcuts that just put band-aids on the problems (ie ignoring any inconvenient rules and just throwing the RS into the list). Which would the fine engineers at Koenigsegg do? Speaking for myself, I find it hard to find the time and energy to fix the rules and to also fight a lone wolf trying to change the page according to his own interpretation (that has already been noted to be ambiguous).This is why the guideline WP:BRD suggests that we leave the article in the earlier state and concentrate our energy on a discussion. Have you also noticed that my proposal in the section below is based around some of your own points? Please choose if you wish for us to proceed along a path is already heading strongly towards the answer you want or if you wish for us to proceed along a path where we are fighting your edits, thus delaying the answer you want.  Stepho  talk  15:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with User:Stepho-wrs. There are multiple editors saying that the car in question does not meet the current criteria for inclusion as a production car, and we are already discussing whether the criteria can be or should be changed. As the criteria currently stand it's irrelevant whether the software is an option since there were not enough cars built with that option. It's question of whether we can count cars that were not built with that software option but could conceivably be upgraded with it. It appears that most editors (including me) don't think we should that. If the inclusion criteria are changed then we will look at whether the car meets the new criteria. WP:IDHT behaviour and claiming a non-existent consensus to include the material is not appropriate. I'm reporting the edit warring to the edit warring board. Meters (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This discussion has now been going on for months and my impression is that a majority - a fairly silent one - agrees that the Agera RS should be on the list. Clearly 100% consensus will not happen. Finding a majority, however must be possible. So why dont we have have vote? or should we let the list stay in limbo for several more months portraying "alternative truths"? this topic is fairly easy to settle. Finally as Meters says, this list is based on "The List of Automotive Superlatives". A list naturally already accepting the Agera RS as the fastest production car in the world. What does Meter have to say about that? Furhtermore, I would like to bring back the discussion to - are options allowed or not? Given this - the new headline below.Sagenode (talk) 08:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

1 month and 14 days to be exact. But half of that was fighting your brutish methods of forcing the article to your opinion. Also, WP rarely uses voting because it means the losing side is unhappy and keep stirring up trouble. Or new editors want things changed. Whereas a proper discussion tends to bring out the important points to find a decent compromise. As I said before, let's work the problem like good engineers instead of jumping around with band-aid efforts.

By the way, I might not have a working internet connection during the next week. I may be here sporadically or not at all for the week.  Stepho  talk  14:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is the Veyron Super Sport allowed eventhough it is modifed

As we all know Guinness even removed it from their list for a while. This list has its own rules and they clearly state that the cars should not be modified compared to how they are sold. No one can buy a Super Sport with removed Rev limiter and no one outside Bugatti knows if this has detrimental implications on the engines longevity or otherwise. Regardless why is this car on the list and why is it not questions harder by anyone else but me - seemingly?Sagenode (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts on software mods is that they count the same as bolt-on mods. Eg, changing the fuel map is equivalent to changing injectors or cams. However, rev limiters can be implemented in both software (anything with EFI) and hardware (the old carby days). Cars circa 1970 usually had mechanical rev limiters mostly for warranty reasons (companies didn't like paying for your "over enthusiasm"). Racing bodies in Australia typically allowed them to be removed even when nothing else was allowed to be changed because it was obvious that the rev limiter did not make the car go faster, it only removed an artificial limit - the engine, aerodynamics, etc still had to do the real job. Guinness seem to have the same opinion. Or put it another way, what I have a car that can do 500 km/h but a man in the passenger seat tells me he will shoot me if I go over 400 km/h. If I incapacitate that man then I can faster. Have I changed the car? A rev limiter is doing the same as that man.

As for longevity, how long will it last if the owner runs it at the speed allowed by the rev limiter? Surely not as long as running it at half those revs. The longevity question is irrelevant. It only has to do that speed long enough to record a top speed.

By the way, the Super Sport was seriously questioned many months ago - which is why we are not keen to open it again and again and again.  Stepho  talk  14:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed that someone has changed the Veyron back to version with the limiter disabled. That is not available for sale to the public, regardless of the name being on 5 models sold. All 5 have the limiter in place. So User:Sagenode is correct in pointing out the inconsistency. We should correct it once the rule change has been determined, as under either rule, it would be a modification. The Agera RS on the other hand was available for sale ex factory in its high speed configuration and would be eligible if the rule change is accepted. NealeFamily (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

User:NealeFamily Glad you picked this up. Just one clarification from my side - The Agera RS should be eligible on the list even without a rule change - right? if not - then why not? Thanks!Sagenode (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Please stop asking this. Asking the same thing in multiple threads or trying to make the same point over and over is WP:BLUDGEONING. We've already explained the issue. It does not meet the current criterion as a production car. Meters (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Meters Where have you already explained the issue - meaning which rule does the Agera RS not follow? I am not trying to be difficult - but I really dont see how or where it has been answered - hence I am asking this very legit question - that apparently seems "stupid" to you. So prove my "stupidity" by showing me how and where! Before you answer - remember - consensus here agree that options are allowed....Sagenode (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course options are allowed, but 25 cars with the required option to allow them to reach the reported speed have not been made. We're not going to count cars which were not made with that option. I'm sure you can find the discussion where we said that yourself since you've already replied to them. You might want to read WP:IDHT. Meters (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to say that we also don't have 25 cars with the option even counting those which have had the option installed after manufacturing (even if we do decide to allow that). Meters (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Meters Here I am sure you are wrong. Not all 25 cars in a series need to have the same options to qualify on the list. On the contrary this would delete ALL cars from the list! This is not consensus here....Please anyone chime in?!Sagenode (talk) 12:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

When we talk about options we do mean those that affect performance, not what color it is or what stereo it has. Anything that changes power, gear ratios, adds or removes significant weight, or makes large changes to aero (eg deletion of a spoiler), matter for the purposes of this page, all other options are irrelevant. Toasted Meter (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

User:MetersSo you are now saying that options that affect performance are not allowed but options that does not affect performance are allowed. Hmm this is incorrect - Excerpt From topic above :

[redacted unneeded quotes including sigs]

So you can see you are wrong - there is consensus is that options that affect performance are allowed within the 25.

Furthermore, User:Meters, how do you feel about the removed speed limiter on the Bugatti Super Sport? Of course it is not even an option - just curious why you let it stay on the list.Sagenode (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't copy editor's signature and their comments. It makes it appear as if they had responded to this thread when they didn't. There is no need to copy their responses from this page. We can see what they wrote. If you want us to read it again then just link to the to the thread or to the individual diffs. And for that matter, there's no reason to even point us to the comments since I did not say that options that affect power are not allowed. The point I was making, and which others have also made, and which you have previously replied to, is that the company has never made 25 cars with the software option which is required to allow the car to reach the claimed speed. The cars capable of reaching that speed simply don't exist. There are cars which could be upgraded to that option but which have not been. If those cars are later upgraded (after manufacture) with that option then maybe we will count them towards the minimum production number (I don't think we have reached a consensus on that), but we're not going to count cars which are not capable of reaching the claimed speed (and never have been) as part of the production run of cars capable of going that speed. Meters (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

As for the Bugatti Super Sport issue, I am not letting it stay on the list. I'm simply not involved in the issue. I have never commented on it, I don't believe I have ever edited it, and I am happy to let other editors reach consensus on that issue. Meters (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

You should also note that Meters and Toasted Meter (me) are not the same person and have differing opinions. What I was trying to do was note which opinions might be relevant to this descuson, not pronounce that they are or are not allowed. Toasted Meter (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Sagenode keeps using this word "consensus". To quote from The Princess Bride, "I do not think it means what he thinks it means". So far, the major views presented are:

• The RS doesn't have 25 identical clones, so it doesn't belong. End of discussion.

• The RS name has 25 units, so it belongs. End of discussion.
• We like the RS, so just ignore the rules and add it anyway. End of discussion.
• Guinness doesn't list it (because of outrageous fees), so it doesn't count. End of discussion.
• Let's change the required 25 units down to whatever number our current favourite has. Rinse and repeat next year until it includes somebody we don't like.
• Let's clarify the rule to specify identical cars required. Life sucks for Koenigsegg.
• Let's clarify the rule to specify only the same name as the record car is required. Koenigsegg rejoices.
• Ooh, ooh, sir, sir, the Veyron is cheating! The Veyron is cheating! Let's delete it and replace it with my favourite without further discussion.
• New proposed rules (registered on road with manufacture's WMI and mechanically identical (including software controlling mechanical bits) car is available to customer for road use. No need to remove our socks to count.
• And one lone voice saying we already have consensus, why do you keep reverting my changes?

Does that sum up our "consensus" so far?  Stepho  talk  05:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

A very nice summary of the consensus - thanks NealeFamily (talk) 10:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

stepho-wrs - If it makes you feel better - you can make fun of me - no problem. Yes, I am new to contributing to Wikipedia and learning as I go along, which makes it easy for "veterans" like you and Meters to ignore my input and opinion and focus on my "incorrect" wikipedia manor. The reason why I keep on mentioning consesus - comes from this source - WP:CON - Maybe I´m reading it wrong, but it clearly states that Wikipedia articles should be based on consensus, hence I naively refer to it. At the same time it says that consensus on Wikipedia does not mean what consesus normally means - meaning that everyone agree. Apparently here it means something closer to the list you just posted above - which of course is really confusing. As I understand it - If enough persons agree - and the rest is more or less silent - then we have consensus here. Not really elegant or the true meaning of consensus - but that is how I understand it. If someone is fighting against and posting changes and gets someone more up on the same wagon - then there is no consensus. What I struggle to understand - based on consensus or "something else" - is when is the wiki info "allowed" to be changed and by whom? In my mind I was allowed to change it, when I could see there was "consensus" according to blurry explanation above and I feel I have common sense, the automotive press and the silent mass backing up my opinion. Apparently this was a rookie misstake according to most of you active here. Still I would like to understand then - when, if at all, anyone is allowed to change the info - since I seem to have gotten it all wrong. Thank you.Sagenode (talk) 11:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

We are not ignoring your input. On the contrary, we have responded to your input over and over again. Not agreeing with you is not the same as ignoring you. There is a certain amount of frustration starting to show up. It's unfortunate, but I understand where it's coming from. There is clearly no consensus as yet to change the existing inclusion criteria so as to include the Agera RS. Your repeated attempts to claim that there is such a consensus, to insert your desired material, and to repeatedly bring the issue up here (sometimes simultaneously in multiple threads) is WP:TENDENTIOUS. Again, please read WP:IDHT and WP:BLUDGEON (in case you missed the links elsewhere on this page and on your edit warring board case).

user:Stepho-wrs's 'Does that sum up our "consensus" so far?' with the scare quotes around "consensus" was probably meant as irony to show that these positions or opinions are not consensus.

Consensus does not have to be unanimous. You are attempting to add material that has repeatedly been removed by multiple editors, and multiple editors have supported that removal on this talk page. Support for the material is generally coming from WP:SPAs (and in one case a WP:COI) and such support may be given less consideration. Multiple editors are now discussing possible changes to the inclusion criteria and you have been told to wait until the discussion concludes. You have the option of following WP:DR if you think it is appropriate. The recent WP:COIN and WP:ANEW reports associated with this article were part of that dispute resolution process. Meters (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Your right that I shouldn't tease the rookie. Yet I feel that I'm feeding a troll by continually explaining things to you. WP:CON says consensus doesn't have to be unanimous. But it does need to be at least a clear majority and it needs to address the points raised. Your interpretation seems to be that if at least one other person agrees with at least one of your points then you have consensus. Or put it this way, if 3 experienced editors keep reverting your edits then you have don't have consensus. Multiple times I have very clearly laid out in front of you different opinions expressed so far, many of which differ from your own. My own proposal hasn't reached consensus yet either. The way forward is to make a coherent argument in support of the positions you like (try not to firehose the discussion by responding to nearly everything) or a polite counter argument of positions you don't support (my poking fun of you was about 3% on the WP rudeness meter, nobody has compared you to Hitler or called you an arsehole, yet like many other discussion devolve to).  Stepho  talk  01:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

How many Agera RS were produced?

Yesterday I corrected the info on how many Agera RS that were produced - which is 30. My edit immediately got reverted back to 11+19 and I got slapped by User:Meters who sent me a message that I will get blocked if I edit the information again....

So all you wise people here - how many Agera RS were produced? For sure it was not 11+19 - or at least it is a very wierd way of describing the number 30 and I should not get blocked for wanting to describe the number "in the normal way"

This place really is the twilight zone...Sagenode (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I need to back Sagenode up on this. Meters is a skilled Wikipedia policeman but my guess is that there are car people on this site and there are non-car people, and Meters is one of the latter. i.e. More interested in procedure than facts. There are 30 Agera RS's in existence - 25 regular series, 3 'Final' editions and two factory vehicles. The notes column is there to make any distinctions for the purposes of the page, IF required. To post a lesser amount and only apply an 'option' criteria to Koenigsegg when calculating volume - without applying it to others (which I'm sure is something Meters doesn't want to create time to do himself) - is unfair.StevenWade (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It';s not appropriate for any editor to add comments into the article about what editors are saying on the talkpage, and it's not appropriate for any editor to change the number of cars produced of a particular model when it is clear that from the talk page that other editrors do not agree that 30 cars of that particular version have veen produced. The article was clear as to why we distinguished between the the variants in the count. Not all of the cars produced were capable of reaching the claimed speed. Talk page discussion says that this variant of the car tdoes not have the minimum number of cars required to qualify as a production car for the purpose of inclusion in this list. That's why it is appropriate to distinguish between the numbers of hte different versions of the car. Removing this distinction and changing the number to 30 appears to be preparation for yet another attempt to include this car as a production car over the talk page consensus.

No suprise that a COI company employee backs that change. It's not appropriate for any editor to keep belabouring this issue, or to make comments about my interests or actions. That does not belong on the article talk page. If anyone thinks there is something inappropriate about my actions then either discuss it on my talk page or take me to the appropriate board. The article talkpage is not the place. Meters (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

That is absolute rubbish. The table in question has a volume column to note how many cars of that model were produced. There were 30 RS's produced. Any splintering into option types should be noted in the Notes section. Have you applied the same methodology for other models in that table? Have you used that methodology for other models in the main table? The inclusion of a car in a table such as that should be the same for every manufacturer but you have changed it for Koenigsegg because it suits your argumentative purposes. You are applying Wikipedia custom and tradition to the letter of the law in this discussion yet changing customary appearance in that table (volume in whole units and notes as explainers) because you prefer it that way. Apples and oranges.

You call me a COI employee again as if it's a revelation, a gotcha moment. I'm self-identified. But any discussion I've had here has been on merit, factual and honest. I can't say the same for you. There were 30 RS's built. Fact. Yet you don't want that to show, presumably because - to quote what you wrote to me on my discussion page when you reported me "It doesn't matter if it's true." StevenWade (talk) 07:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Steven here, 30 were produced and the text next to it should explain that not all of them had the same output as the car that reached the speed, I think that should provide enough information that readers can figure out why it's not on the main list. Toasted Meter (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Sagenode. 11+19 is meaningless without the text in the comment. And the comment makes it clear how the breakdown is. So leaving it at a simple 30 is fine by me.  Stepho  talk  13:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems we have "consensus":-) any one else care to change the article from 11+19 to 30 - so I dont get into trouble again?...Sagenode (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

If there's consensus to keep it as 30 that's fine with me. I just restored if to the original value that was in the article before Sagenode's change, as part of my undo of his inappropriate addition of commentary on the talk page discussion. It appears I should have left the number change. Sorry. Meters (talk) 22:41, s8 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't sweat it. My last change was a big screw up too :)  Stepho  talk  13:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Bugatti Chiron

I note that the Bugatti Chiron is currently listed as the top speed holder on the page. The Chiron has not been produced in the quantity claimed (200) as yet (not anywhere near it) and there's been no public record of it going over 400 km/h. There is no attribution to the claim on the table, either.

Ethics dictate that I cannot alter the table. However, I'd ask the moderators of this page to apply the same scrutiny and militancy to such claims as they've proven well capable of applying so far to Koenigsegg. The Bugatti claim should be removed until such time as they do a verified run according to the page's criteria.StevenWade (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I removed it, until we see a test it has no place on this list. Toasted Meter (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Cheers.StevenWade (talk) 06:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)