Talk:Production car speed record/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Agera RS - claim speed record not official

The speed record is referenced in a number of publications as being aceeptable. On what grounds is it not official? NealeFamily (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

It is not official because no official body related to world records confirmed it to be so. U¹ _quattro TALK 11:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Argument against the top speed requirement

The relevant section related to this states that "Atleast since the 1990s" while the McLaren F1 performed a uni-directional run in 1997 at the Ehra Lessien test track. U¹ _quattro TALK 03:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

2-way runs have been a requirement for serious speed records since the 1950s. I'm happy to remove this anomaly and make 2-way runs mandatory for all except the Benz Velo.  Stepho  talk  10:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The origin of the 2 way run rule seems to stem from Guinness' first real set of "fastest production car" rules were created in 1993, when they brought in the two way run thing. in the discussion about the XJ220 in Archive 2 NealeFamily (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure then, the records that were not performed bi-directionally should be excluded from the list including the McLaren F1's records and the Koenigsegg CCR's record because they're both against the rules.U¹ _quattro TALK 03:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Supposedly both cars met the Guiness Book of Records requirements of the time. However, I note that Guiness is now silent on the subject of fastest production cars. I am speculating, but I think they faced the same difficulty we did in that there is no substantive definition of what a production car is - as was borne out by the Bugatti vs Hennessey dispute. And, no I am not prepared to head back down that rabbit hole. NealeFamily (talk) 06:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

No they didn't as the article itself states "since the 1990s" and the F1 set the record in 1997 with a single direction run. So did the CCR in 2005. I'm not bickering about production car requirements. I'm stressing on this so called bi-directional run requirement which McLaren and Koenigsegg didn't follow in the records I mentioned. Also, the McLaren which set the record was a pre production prototype.U¹ _quattro TALK 11:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

If the CCR run was only in one direction leaving it in the list makes the site incorrect so it has to be moved. The McLaren F1 run at Ehra-Lessien was 1998 and two-directional. At the moment we have different rules for this car than for the others which is a bad thing.Drachentötbär (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks like the McLaren needs to go as well - in its article it states On 31 March 1998, the XP5 prototype with a modified rev limiter set the Guinness World Record for the world's fastest production car, reaching 240.1 mph (386.4 km/h) - so we need a valid test result for the production version. NealeFamily (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The F1 needs to go as well. It didn't perform the record in the opposite direction, it just ran laps at the track in an attempt to reach the maximum speed possible. These questionable records are against the rules and shouldn't be here when the rules for inclusion are crystal clear.U¹ _quattro TALK 07:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

For records set on the Nardo ring, should an average speed for a lap count as a two way run? This does not seem to apply to the CCR as it was timed over 1km. Toasted Meter (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The rules don't state it to be so.U¹ _quattro TALK 17:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I would count a full lap as a bi-directional run. The point of a bi-directional run is to make any deviation due to wind or slope cancel out (ie any boost in one direction is cancelled by a reduction in the other direction). A full lap also does this. Partial laps of course don't count because they don't guarantee this cancellation. The rules can be adjusted by consensus as long as we keep them fair and unbiased.  Stepho  talk  22:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

If that is the case then the Chiron Super Sport 300+ also performed a full lap of the Ehra Leissen test track while setting the record. That wasn't counted as a bi-direcrional run and neither anyone has contested it to be so. To keep things fair, a full lap doesn't count as a bi-directional run I would say.U¹ _quattro TALK 05:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Was the 300+ speed the complete lap length divided by the complete lap time or was the speed a high mark from a portion of the lap (eg a convenient straight)? Only the complete lap would cancel out the advantages/disadvantages of slope and wind - albeit cornering would also hurt the time.  Stepho  talk  06:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Any speed records set on the track show the speed measured on a convenient straight section of the track. Same is that case with the 300+.U¹ _quattro TALK 11:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Partial laps are useless. Only a complete lap would count.  Stepho  talk  13:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

No manufacturer uses the formula you mentioned to calculate the top speed set on a track I'm afraid. We'd have to rule this exception out. Even the speed of the McLaren F1 was measured on the straight section of the Ehra Lessien test track and not by that formula.U¹ _quattro TALK 01:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Dubious claim

It is stated in the list rules that the requirement for a two way top speed run is in place since the 1990s yet the cited sources don't agree with that claim. Seems fishy to me. U¹ _quattro TALK 07:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what you're trying to say here. The article says that the rules we set for the purpose of this article is that any claim since the 1990's required a 2-way run. We then have 2 references that say records currently require 2-way runs. Can you clarify which part has you worried?  Stepho  talk  13:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm worried about this Stepho-wrs To establish the top speed for cars at least since the 1990s the requirement is, in addition to the above, an independent road test with a two-way run. U¹ _quattro TALK 18:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's a little ambiguous. But I can still read that as for the purpose of the article. Since it is being added as an extra rule after of the our definition of a production car, that seems to be the natural intent. However, we can clarify it by explicitly adding "for the purpose of this article".  Stepho  talk  22:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm worried about the 1990s thing mentioned in the rules. Not the rules themselves. The rules were not made in that time period by Guinness or any other entity related to world records. I suggest we remove it altogether. U¹ _quattro TALK 09:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Bugatti EB110

The Bugatti EB110 and EB110 SS are excluded from the list on the grounds of "speed record already higher" yet I don't see any mention of that amongst the cars included in the list. U¹ _quattro TALK 05:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

What kind of mention do you want ? The readers can see on the main list that the speed record from 1987-1993 is 342 km/h which is higher than the 1991 EB110 GT's 338 km/h and from 1993-2005 it is 355 km/h which is higher than the 1993 EB110 SS's 351 km/h. Drachentötbär (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The EB110 is not included in the list yet the exclusion was on the basis that "Speed record already higher". What kind of reason is that? U¹ _quattro TALK 09:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

From the Bugatti EB110 article, the top speed of the EB110, EB110 GT or EB110 SS was:

• 342 km/h measured by the factory in May 1992. Not clear if single direction or 2. http://yo.spc.free.fr/Bugatti%20register/EB110_GT/GT_spec.jpg .

• 336 km/h measured by Auto, Motor und Sport in May 1993. No further details available to me.

• 351 km/h measured by Sport auto in March 1996. No further details available to me.
• 338 km/h measured by Sport auto in November 1996. No further details available to me.

In 1987 the record was 342 km/h. Broken in 1993 by the McLaren F1 at 355 km/h.

The EB110 did not go faster than the existing 1987 record of 342 km/h until March 1996 - by which time the McLaren had increased it 355 km/h. Hard to beat a record if you don't actually go faster than the record.  Stepho  talk  10:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but what reason is "Speed record already higher"? It doesn't seem to be that good of a reason for exclusion of a car Stepho-wrs. U¹ _quattro TALK 05:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Well then it's not a record, you would not put all the non record breaking long jumps on the "long jump record" page. Toasted Meter (talk) 06:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, if the EB110's fastest speed wasn't greater than the speed record of the time, then the EB110 did not set the record. Which is exactly the same thing as saying that the speed record was already higher than whatever speed the EB110 did.  Stepho  talk  11:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

MacLaren F1

Should this car remain on the list? The comments section states Speed at the rev limiter estimated by Car and Driver. Without the rev-limiter, it was able to reach an average top-speed of 386.7 km/h (240.3 mph).No tested top speed faster than 340 km/h (211 mph) found for an unmodified car. It is currently listed as 221mph. NealeFamily (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Guinness World Records seems to have accepted it, I don't see a good reason to treat this differently from the Veyron Super Sport limiter. If anything we should get rid of the estimated speed and use the record speed. Toasted Meter (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bugatti Veyron 16.4 Super Sport likewise had the speed limiter disabled and it was judged that this was not a modification that increased speed, so it was allowed. The McLaren F1 reached 386.7 km/h with the speed limiter disabled, so it's fair to say that the car was physically able to reach the claimed 355 km/h. But in case somebody disagrees, it is mentioned in the comment section so that the reader can judge for themselves.  Stepho  talk  13:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Removal of rev limiters or speed limiters should be allowed. Drachentötbär (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Here in lies a problem. From the Wiki article on the MacLaren F1 record car - on 31 March 1998, the XP5 prototype set the record for the world's fastest production car, reaching 240.1 mph (386.4 km/h) with the rev limiter removed surpassing the 231 mph (372 km/h) reached with the XP3 prototype. So we do not have a speed record set by the MacLaren F1 production model but by its prototype. We also state that there is no road test of production model exceeding 211mph (340kmh) NealeFamily (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how this applies to the McLaren F1, but in general I don't think that the removal of the rev (i.e. engine speed) limiter should qualify, factory or otherwise. Combustion engine power is a function of RPM, therefore simply removing the rev limiter is substantially similar to altering the ECU to produce more power, which isn't allowed under the rules. We wouldn't allow this if it were done by an aftermarket tuner, so giving it a pass because the manufacturer may have done it shouldn't be allowed. Perhaps an argument could be made to allow certain cars having a gear-ratio limited top speed, as is probably the case on the F1, but a rev limiter is generally there for a reason. If the car was "capable" of revving higher, why didn't the OEM sell it in that configuration, and why bother limiting it as such? Contrast this with speed limiters, which are frequently imposed due to the speed ratings of the tires and safety considerations. In this case, the car as a whole is capable of the top speed, but is artificially limited due to the impracticality of managing the wear and condition of the tires. While I support allowing speed limiters to be disabled, I'd entertain the idea that removed speed limiters shouldn't be allowed either using the same logic as above that the OEM should "make better tires" and that the special top speed tires used for the record aren't as originally equipped. IPBilly (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with the rev limiter removal, but I do have problem with the car holding the record being a prototype and not the production car. Also, there appears to be no test showing a production version was capable of more than 211 mph NealeFamily (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

If Guinness included it I don't think we are in much of a position to dispute it. As to it being a prototype, from what I have read it does not seem all that different from the production cars, I would want to see a reliable source talking about meaningful differences before I excluded it for that reason. Toasted Meter (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

User:IPBilly, with any modern EFI system, the rev limiter is just a single line of code that says if the rpm gets above a threshold then no longer inject fuel into the cylinders. Disabling it consists simply of changing that one threshold value to something unobtainable (say, 50,000 rpm). It is by no means similar to tuners changing parts, software or tuning maps. Note: I was part of a team that designed EFI software for a different company. The engine must still be capable of reaching above that threshold and therefore driving the car to the record speed. The reason manufacturers put the rpm threshold in is because the car (and engine) have a warrantee that the company must honour. The engine is quite capable of reaching those rpm but sustained running at those high rpm will damage the engine - which the company would then have to pay for.

As long as the prototype is substantially the same as the cars being sold then all is okay. There is some grey area around 'substantially'. The bodywork (especially aerodynamic shape), tyres, engine, transmission and total weight would have to be the same but perhaps minor things like the colours, the stereo and the seat fabric might be different. Somebody would have to point out any substantial differences. I raised the same flag for the Tuatara in earlier discussions.  Stepho  talk  21:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your perspective however, I respectfully disagree. I too will note that I was a part of a team that designed and tested engine hardware. 1) While the rev limiter may be a single line of code in the final calibration, there are a lot of factors that contribute to how that number is chosen. As I mentioned above, power is a function of rpm, Horsepower#Calculating_power and by spinning the engine faster it's possible to increase the peak power produced. While modifying that single line of code can be distinguished from a tuner changing parts, and to a lesser degree the fuel-map, it's the exact type of software change that tuners make all the time (although usually in combination with other things). If the engine makes more power by increasing the rev limiter it's no longer in the same configuration as the production car. 2) Setting the record while operating at the higher than designed rpm clearly shows that the engine is capable of reaching above the seemingly arbitrary threshold set by the rev limiter, the tradeoffs that are made in order to avoid damage by limiting the rpm to that arbitrary threshold are what collectively define the engine's capability in the record setting specification. Said differently, the OEM is free to change any of the variables that factor into the rev limiter and top speed just the same as they are that single line of code. They could just as easily decrease the length of the warranty to account for the higher rpm, or they could charge more for the car to offset the increased cost of repairs. Alternatively, if the OEM wanted, the ratio of whichever gear was used to set that speed could have been changed without changing the rev limit. An issue that I personally encountered, specifically when it came to choosing the rev limiter, was that certain parts in the valvetrain became unstable and would fail at the very end of the predefined durability test. This could have been remedied by simply shortening the test's duration, redesigning a stronger part, or by using a stiffer and more expensive valve spring, but the launch timing and price tradeoffs were balanced alongside all the other variables and the lower rev limiter was chosen. Dismissing a variable that was within the OEM's control is letting them have their cake and eat it too.

As it pertains to the McLaren F1, I find car and driver's estimation of top speed at the rev limiter to be an acceptable compromise. IPBilly (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The are two things here - the first being the record car was a prototype, which is not disputed. That alone makes it ineligible, regardless of Guinness, unless you want to re-debate the eligibility rules. The second point is no one knows, apart from McLaren, what the mechanical differences between the prototype and the production car were. All we do know is that the rev limiter was disabled, which has been agreed is not an issue. And a side comment to IPBilly - an estimated top speed based on the rev counter does not cut it for the purposes of this list. The car needs to be proven to actually do the speed claimed. NealeFamily (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Ignoring the issue of it being a prototype, I'm not sure I follow the logic whereby the speed set by disabling the rev limiter is allowed, but reducing the record speed by the amount that is above the standard rev limiter is not allowed. Based on my experience with "prototype" or "production" vehicles, McLaren themselves might not even know the differences. IPBilly (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Noted IPBilly. If the differences are insignificant there is probably no problem. The problem lies in that we don't know that and at this stage the only people who do are McLaren, which leaves us with no credible third party source to verify the difference between the prototype and the production car. My suggestion is a note in the comments section that the record car was a prototype and not the production version, thus leaving it to the reader to decide how they view this. NealeFamily (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I think a note would be reasonable. Toasted Meter (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I have amended a sentence in the comments box - this ties back to the description of the speed test in the F1 article. Feel free to play with my amendment. NealeFamily (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Bugatti Veyron 16.4 Super Sport

The Bugatti Veyron 16.4 Super Sport World Record Edition did 267 MPH, but only five World Record Editions were made. The regular Bugatti Veyron 16.4 Super Sport did 257 MPH and 30 were made. DrowsySpider200(talk) 5 April 2021

Not sure what the problem is - the article clearly makes the same point in the comment about the 2010 Veyron. Except it's 5 out of a total of 30 - ie 25 non world record Super Sports.

Please sign your comments with 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end.  Stepho  talk  16:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

SSC Tuatara

I am not sure it's actually homologated in the US yet, I have not seen any proof of crash testing which is definitely necessary. If you have a look at what Koenigsegg has to do [1], I think SSC probably has some more work ahead of them. Toasted Meter (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

In the EU you are allowed to have cameras as wing mirrors but not in the US. Seemingly there are no side screens inside the Tuatara for any wing cameras (at least not seen in the recorded video run) and there are definitely no wing cameras on the car, which means it is faster than otherwise. No wing mirrors and no wing cameras means not street legal anywhere. On top of that Nelson Race Engines (www.nelsonracingengines.com) has developed and built the Tuatara engine. NRE has never created a homologated emission tested engine and they focus on aftermarket race engines. NRE uses www.electromotive.com ECU´s that are not OBD or emission compliant. Electromotive ECUs are only allowed for off road use in all markets. This in turn mean that the engine is not emission compliant. Furhtermore there is no info on www.sscnorthamerica.com/tuatara when it comes to market compliance or info on fundemental production car features, such as: Airbags, OBD, ABS, Fuel consumption etc. Only two running Tuataras have ever been seen and therefore probably been built - not 100 that is the plan. One Tuatara is white (wrapped orange at the record run) and one is black "the record car". None of them seem to have been registered for road use, as they are either seen without licence plate or with the SSC factory MFG plate, which can be put on anything with wheels on it, for testing purposes - production or not. Finally on the SSC webpage SSC define what a production car is: "In order to claim a world record, the Tuatara had to be a production vehicle; it must be identical to the same vehicle a customer might purchase." That is for sure not the common definition of a production car nor does this definition match the criteras for the wikipedia definition here as it mention nothing about for example "road legal" or "conformity of compliance" or anything of that nature. The SSC description would mean that any race car that is produced in any numbers (more than one) is a "production car" - which cannot be correct by anyones reasoning. Sagenode (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Tuatara is road-legal, though, as it was made to be a road car. As for production: 100 units will be made. Redstoneprime (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

What I think he means is that while the Tuatara is aimed to be street legal, they aren't quite there yet and are still showing prototype cars, not production cars. Perhaps in another year or 2.  Stepho  talk  16:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

So, what is the current fastest production car? Since we can't include the Chiron 300+ or Tuatara, that means the is no definitive "fast production car" currently. I have kept it as the Tuatara until further confirmation. Redstoneprime (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Naturally it is the Agera RS as it was a Homologated production car that was used for its record. No controversy and full transparency. That is whats required for acknowledgement on Wikipedia etc. Sagenode (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Wasn't the Agera RS record in 2017, though? The top speed is less that 300 mph, meaning it's not the fastest production car anymore. Also, SSC themselves, and several motoring websites (such as Top Gear) recognise the Tuatara as being a production car. If that's not the case, shouldn't the classification on the Tuataras page be changed from "Sports Car" to "Concept Car"? Redstoneprime (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying that we can buy a Tuatara today? It's only a production car if we can buy it and put it on the road.  Stepho  talk  11:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Production will be sometime between 2020-2022 (per the SSC Tuatara page on Wikipedia). Also, the same Wikipedia article mentions that it's currently the worlds fastest car. And, in regards to the Agera RS, I haven't found any record of it surpassing 300mph (everything I've read said the top speed is approx. 278 mph), meaning it's no longer the fastest production car. Redstoneprime (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, so it is not yet a production car. Which means that when it does become a production car and if that future production car is essentially the same as the record car, then we can consider it for this list. Since the Tuatara is not a production car and the Chiron record car is also not a production car (it was a one-off special, followed by a look-alike production car that can't do the same speed), then the Agera RS at 447.19 km/h (277.87 mph) remains king of the hill. This all hinges on the record car being the same as the car that an ordinary customer can buy. If an ordinary customer can't buy a car that could do the same speed then they don't have a claim to the production car record - in spite of what their marketing department says.  Stepho  talk  20:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

So, as soon as it enters production, then we can include it? Redstoneprime (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes. As long as the cars bought by customers are essentially the same as the record car (which may be a whole discussion in itself, depending on what changes).  Stepho  talk  23:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello everybody, apparently the record by SSC has been faked. Here is the original video by Shmee that "exposed" them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3daTG4_JS_4 - I think it's pretty obvious that it's fake, unfortunately. I will mark the data in the corresponding line as disputed for now. Please do share your thoughts on this. Andibrema (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I think we should probably hold off for now, they seem to be sticking by it and they might release the telemetry. Toasted Meter (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Toasted Meter, I think we should wait maybe like 24 hours to see if they issue a formal statement and to allow time for the story to update among major outlets. TKOIII (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

They have a statement saying that the telemetry provider confirmed it but no one outside of SSC and the telemetry firm seems to have been given access. Toasted Meter (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

They're deleting call-outs on their social media channels now... Not to offend anyone, but you cannot bend the laws of physics. This car did not go 500 km/h, and all the people visiting this article right now will only take away from it that SSC are now the fast bois and probably never find out about the fraud. We have to mark it as fake, delete it or at least note that it is disputed. It is unfair the way it is right now, and it makes actions like these more attractive if us Wikipedia editors don't react immediately. Andibrema (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

WP only reports facts. Therefore, if the record is being disputed then we mark it as being disputed. If it is resolved one way or another by an authoritative source outside of WP, then WP will follow the source.  Stepho  talk  21:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Fair. However, there is currently no way to tell from the article that the record is not verified. What it does say is, that the SSC Tuatara went 508.73 km/h. That information does not yet have the status of a fact, yet that's what the article says. It also does not say that it is disputed, as of now, even though it clearly is. That is just deficient and misleading. Andibrema (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Yep, so let's mark it in the article as disputed and then wait for results.  Stepho  talk  22:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

They seem to have acknowledged the videos did not line up with the claims, they have explained it as a mixup in what videos were released and say they are planning to put out the video of the actual run. [2] Toasted Meter (talk) 07:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused as to whether or not the record is real. I'm not really sure what to believe right now so I was hoping someone who knows what the accurate sources are would point me in the right direction so I don't get mislead. Blaze Wolf &#124 Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

At this point we have a video that is inconsistent with the claims (SSC has admitted that) and a lack of independent confirmation. This situation could change, a video consistent with the claims could be revealed or an independent party could be given access to GPS data consistent with the claims, I don't think it should be written off yet but but more proof must be provided for anyone to take this as the truth. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Why is the SSC Tuatara "record" still allowed to stand? The run was not proven valid, so I am surprised. It should be removed unless the run can be proven valid, and obviously, it cannot. There has also been a very unsuccessful rerun. Time to remove. If there is a real record-breaking run, then that data can easily be inserted here. I think it is deceptive the way that run, by many seen as a deliberate attempt to deceive, is allowed to stand on the page, giving it quasi legitimacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.113.169 (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The SSC Tuatara "record" is not listed as standing. It is in the list of excluded records and clearly marked as disputed. This is what we do for prominent claims that are not borne out. If we remove all mention of them then some helpful soul feels compelled to add back in the obvious omission - and we then begin another round of repeated removal and reinsertion for a few more days with much groaning and gnashing of teeth. Instead, we put it in the bad boy box with clearly stated reasons why it is not in the good list.  Stepho  talk  20:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

How is the SSC Tuatara a PRODUCTION car? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.150.216.43 (talk • contribs)

According to https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a35327947/ssc-tuatara-speed-record/ , "We've sold more cars since the last run," he says. "Probably not as many as we would have. But, yes." So it seems like they have sold some. And this time they did better recording and had other people/companies double check it.  Stepho  talk  21:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles based on comments not facts does not constitute a good reference for accuracy of an actual state or situation. There is no way of registering a "factory" built production car in the US without wing mirrors, closed crank case ventilation or airbags. Given this the Tuatara cannot - in its present form -constitute a production car. The car used for the record has only been seen with mfg plates (manufacturer) which can be used on any vehicle for testing - production car or not and the plate does not belong to the vehichle. There are three other ways of registering "new" cars in the US: 1. Home built kit cars. Requires an emission proven engine installation from another production car and the car is not allowed to be built in a car production factory on a car production line. Lots of simplifications are allowed from a safety perspective. 2. Register the car under the new Replica low volume regulation that is soon coming into effect. This regulation also requires a carry over - homologated - engine from a standard production car and that the car is approved to replicate a "classic" car model which is approved as a "classic" by the regulators. 3. Show or Display exemption - A car that is road legal in another country and that is exempted by NHTSA according to their approval list for eligible cars. The model also has to be out of production to be approved and proven to met the US emission regulations of the year of production. Those are all other options other than normal homologation and clearly none of these options suit the Tuatara - at all. Until there is a customer Tuatara that wears a license plate that is issued to the actual car itself - and that is not a mfg or dealer plate - there is simply no indication that the Tuatara is even close to be a "production car". It is as simple as that. Furthermore if simply a "registered road car" constitutes "a production car", then for example Johnny Boemers road registered (super tuned) 2005 Ford GT that ran much faster than the Tuatara, on the same stretch of tarmac, as the Tuatara used for its record, would be the "fastest production car in the world". Well that would be silly, as it does not any way anymore comply with road regulations, emission wise with its race cams, race injectors, aftermarket ecu, race exhaust and open crank case ventilation, actually all the same deviations to the regulations as the Tuatara show. Given the above the Tuatara needs to go back to the "non-approved" list of records - naturally. Sagenode (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

From the SSC Tuatara article, "The car uses a camera system instead of traditional side-view mirrors." So, no wing mirrors is not an issue.

Can you point to some proof that the record attempt car did not have closed-crank ventilation or airbags? Given the heightened awareness of the problems of the past run, they had many outsiders checking things over who were willing to report on issues like that.

Having manufacturer plates (or no plates) proves nothing either way. Small scale manufacturers usually don't report on numbers sold (especially when selling to the rich), so we have no information on how many cars were sold for many of the cars in this list.  Stepho  talk  01:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Physical wing mirrors are mandatory in the US - https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/nhtsa-side-mirror-camera-technology/ - So a car in the US caanot be registered without it unless it is an approved - out of production - show or display car with emission approval, like the McLaren Speedtail, for example. The ECU that Nelson Race engines use for its engine builds - Electromotive - does not support mandatory obdII, crank case ventilation control and their systems are only designed for "off-road" use. There is no mention in the Specifications of the Huayra on SSCs info page that it has airbags, something that naturally is stated by all manufacturers without exemption - if they have airbags. Secondly it is mandatory to mark out airbags with airbag texts on the airbag lids to inform and warn the users so they for example dont place child seats in harms way etc. So with certainty there is no crank case ventilation control (closed circuit) and no airbags in the tested or marketed car and for sure there are no wing mirrors. Sagenode (talk) 07:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Granted, side cameras are not yet legal in the US. Why does that make it illegal in other countries?

You have assumed that just because they are using Nelson for their engine, that they are using Nelson's favourite ECU for off-road racing. Nelson has plenty of ECU experience in general, so it would not be hard to see them using another, road-legal ECU. Even if they use an Electromotive ECU, it's not that hard to add OBD-II - it took me about 3 man months to add OBD-II for a CNG engine for Tata. ECU control of crankcase ventilation is practically trivial.

Looking at the SSC website, I find no mention of airbags. I also find no mention of air vents inside the cabin. But interior pictures show air vents and also show a nice bulge in the centre of the steering wheel where an air bag would be. To give an anecdotal example, US manufacturers in the 1950s didn't like to put seat belts in cars because it made the buyers think about crashes. Likewise, SSC might not want to point out features that come into play during a crash. Not advertising a feature is not the same thing as not having a feature.  Stepho  talk  11:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The burden of proof rests with the one making the claim, obviously. It is not up to others to prove it is not a production car, it is up to them to show that it actually is a production car, and they can't. The SSC Tuatara is NOT a production car today. Aspirations and intentions alone do not make it so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.150.211.200 (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Would it be possible to discuss the SSC Tuatara instead of this incessant edit war?  DGrundler  talk  19:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Irrespective of the above discussion, I (as well as User:Toasted Meter) reverted the edits in question because the cited references do not support the claim that the Tuatara has been homologated via self-certification. The references include several news articles regarding the speed record and a website, which does not appear to meet WP:RS, merely mentioning the existence of the self-certification process. There is nothing in these references (nor others that I could readily find myself) that supports the Tuatara having been homologated yet, by self-certification or otherwise. IPBilly (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I agree with your assessment and was leaning that way myself. Just trying to engage more folks in talk because this keeps going in circles.  DGrundler  talk  20:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record - EVO UK news stated in a 29 January 2021 article

the Tuatara attempting these speeds is said to be production-spec, and identical to the product delivered to customers. It is also wearing road-legal Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 and running on an E85 fuel blend, which is often used by other high-performance hypercar manufacturers, such as Koenigsegg, to increase engine performance.

which leaves open the question as to whether it was a proto-type or a production model. The article also says a number have been delivered to customers, but who knows what the specs were.

Bugatti SS 300+

The production version of the record setting car has the same horsepower, raised redline, taller 7th gear, aero & suspension. It should be shown as the record holder.

It should also be noted it was done at near sea level, with premium gasoline, not E85 unlike the Koenigsegg and SSC. Bugatti states the testing location advantage due to thinner air would have resulted in a 15mph faster run. 104.220.24.111 (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

If Bugatti has an independantly verified two way run in the production version maybe, otherwise it isn't the same version of the car and who knows what else they may have changed NealeWellington (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

1987 Buick Grand National/GNX

This was the fastest production car in 87 not the RUF CTR. The RUF isn't even a production car. RUF's are hand built highly customized Porsches NOT production vehicles. Please change this immediately. 2603:7080:C33A:3901:9132:A27D:F7C7:6016 (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? Also, RUF's are considered production vehicles. "The company manufactures vehicles using unmarked Porsche chassis, specifically known as bodies in white. These vehicles are built from the ground up as completely new cars, using bare chassis, and assembled using Ruf-made parts and materials (e.g. BTR, CTR2, RT12), instead of badge engineering or disassembly of existing cars. This means the brand is officially recognized as a manufacturer by the German government. As such, all Ruf models have certified Ruf VIN and serial numbers, and are recognized as production models, rather than modified Porsches." taken from the page for Ruf Automobile with emphasis added. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The GNX only goes to 200 km/h (124 mph), which is far, far short of the RUF CT2 342 km/h (213 mph). Even my worn out old 1975 Ford Falcon 5.0 V8 hardtop (very similar to a 1973 Mustang) could get to 200 km/h while leaving twin contrails of self defensive smoke cover. Admittedly, the GNX had a speed limiter and a lack of suitable tyres - but that's its listed top speed. See https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/road-tests/a25623/first-look-flashback-1987-buick-gnx/  Stepho  talk  08:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I like the self-defensive contrails - must get them for ancient Mitsi Lancer NealeWellington (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Chiron SS 300+

"Bugatti Chiron Super Sport 300+ (pre-production prototype) 490.48 km/h (304.77 mph)"

So how fast does the production version go? Esteban Outeiral Dias (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

A good question - no road test to date.NealeWellington (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Independent measurement?

In the section "top speed measurement" it's written that "the measurement must be done independently". And in fact it is just the opposite. An independent measurement is carried out by the manufacturer itself, such as the Dauer 962 LM in 1998, carried out by the VW group, which helped to develop the car, and therefore, it is not endowed with reliability. 177.91.76.194 (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

"Independent" means not the manufacturer, nor any entity that is related to the manufacturer. Therefore, it is impossible for a manufacturer or the parent company to do an independent test.  Stepho  talk  00:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

But on this same page it says that the Dauer 962 LM reached 404.6 kph, measured independently in Ehra-Lessien, which suggests that the measurement was carried out by the VW group itself (as Porsche helped to develop the car), and for this reason it is unreliable. So we see that "independent measurement" can have two divergent meanings. The most correct, then, would be to say that "the measurement must be carried out by one or more independent companies", so as not to leave room for double interpretations. Eduardo César Schmidt (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

True, the Dauer company is too closely related to VW for that to be an independent measurement. However, there is also a reference to EVO magazine. I don't have that issue and can't find an online copy but there are some hints on the web that EVO made it's own measurements. I can't verify that myself - hopefully somebody else has the EVO September 2003 No. 59 issue. As a counterpoint to my own argument. https://dempseymotorsports.com/1993-dauer-962-le-mans-prototype-road-car/ hints that the EVO article is only repeating Dauer's own claim about the VW measurement.  Stepho  talk  01:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Porsche was not a member of the VW group at the time, Dauer and VW were not related.Drachentötbär (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Legally Porsche and VW were separate entities at that time. But they collaborated on so many things that Porsche was practically the sports division of VW in almost every other sense from the very beginning. See Porsche#Relationship_with_Volkswagen.  Stepho  talk  00:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

No, they were not that close. Porsche was not "practically the sports division of VW" in 1998 when the top speed was measured, else the Audi R8 (LMP) wouldn't have happened. I don't know of any collaboration in racing. EVO wrote that the car had been "independently measured at 404.6kph" as fact, not as quote: https://porschecarshistory.com/wp-content/old/962/03/DAUER2096220LM2003.jpgDrachentötbär (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Dauer 962 LM has VIN and WMI by Dauer.

We have confirmed VINs TP99620133, TP99620141, TP99620151, TP99620172, TP99620175.

The VINs with WMI TP9 are not not from Porsche so they must be from Dauer. Drachentötbär (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

TP numbers are from the Czech Republic - this article 1993 DAUER 962 LE MANS PROTOTYPE ROAD CAR points to these cars being prototypes so if that is the case then they are ineligible. Nice cars though. NealeWellington (talk) 03:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The cars using those VINs were sold to Brunei, they weren't prototypes. Dauer was located in Nuremberg, which is quite close to Czechia, which might explain the Czech VIN. Both the TP and the 9 for small manufacturers don't fit to Porsche. Drachentötbär (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The article is quite clear in stating that the car setting the speed record was a prototype which automatically excludes it from this list unfortunately.NealeWellington (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The article states "it is believed that this prototype car was the one that was used for the speed record ... but we are still chasing down photos and details of this speed record attempt to confirm these details."

Tests of prototypes with the same specification as the production car are allowed on this list (the McLaren F1 entry is based on the XP5 prototype), so if there are no significant changes which affect top speed it should qualify. Drachentötbär (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the Dauer's had no consistent specification, as the article notes differences in bodies and transmissions. What we need to try to establish is whether on matched the prototype. I'll keep searching but the information looks pretty scarce. NealeWellington (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

It's sufficient if the same specs were available for buying. The body differences found in article don't affect aerodynamics significantly and it wouldn't make sense for Dauer not to offer the record car gearing to customers. Drachentötbär (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Transparency

If a car company played a major role in the creation of the rules we should be honest and mention it. Drachentötbär (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

That was covered when they made some suggestions and is noted at the top of the talk page - their edits were independently checked and agreed at the time. NealeWellington (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)