Talk:Hennessey Venom GT

Source?
Noticed this article—perhaps it could be used as a source? Can't wait till this car is thrown around the Top Gear track. HWV258 . 06:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Production figure
"As of October 21, 2011, 4 Venom GTs have been manufactured." Can we go ahead and update this figure? I mean Steven Tyler's convertible would be in addition to the four cars, right? --71.38.149.137 (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * updated to 11 as at February 2014, but are they all the same model or various models - I note that there is a selection of three different engine outputs for slightly insane to OMG. NealeFamily (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Modified?
There is a statement that the Venom is not a production car but registered as a modified Lotus. By registered is that a US legal definition or what is it? The article referenced makes no mention of registration. NealeFamily (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to say 'so what', is a tesla just a modified lotus? No.Greglocock (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My thought is that the radical degree of modification to a number of units to the same specification takes it away from being simply a modified car and closer to a production car. NealeFamily (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't have confirmation of this there are reports that those who buy the Hennessey Venom in the US are required to register it with their state motor-vehicle department as a Lotus Exige in order to drive it on public roads. When you add the fact that it is built to order (rather than produced to sell through dealerships to whoever walks through the door) and less than a dozen have been built to date, Hennessey's claim that it is a "production car" is increasingly questionable.  Regarding the comparison to the Tesla Roadster, the Tesla is based on the Elise chassis but it is still registered in the US as a Tesla.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.41.238 (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The guy above largely nails it. A production car in this case would display the Hennessey name as the manufacturer of record, would then be sold and titled as a Hennessey product, and would be insured as such. With this car this is not the case and as such these are not 'production cars'. Rather, these are a really, really wildly modified tuner Lotus that will be sold as a Lotus, titled as a Lotus (in localities where they don't make you title it as a homebuilt which could happen)and insured as a Lotud . There is a standard for what a production car is or is not, and these cars do not meet that standard, at least not in the United States. If Hennessey did want these to be production cars then he would have to pay for the emissions, CAFE, and safety certs just like every other manufacturer does, they don't do so for a very good reason (it's expensive)66.181.95.108 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Fastest production car (accelerating): dead link
If I felt like wading into the WP edit morass, I'd remove it. It *is* a dead link, and maybe always was. For one, if the requirements for "fastest production car" is "at least 30 units built", and that wasn't given in 2014, how can it be the fastest accelerating care in 2013? Wouldn't Guiness also set that 30 unit limit there? Which makes this dead link *highly* suspect. --jae (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you know what you are talking about but I can't see what you are on about. Greglocock (talk) 06:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

"World record"
I'm wondering if the use of the term "World record" is justified, given the significant usage of it throughout the article.

It's generally accepted that the term "World Record" is synonymous with Guinness, (out own article agrees with this,) but none of the records claimed in the article have been verified by Guinness - the source for the open top record not only discounts Guinness' involvement, but states that they are "the semi-official keepers of such records" which seems a bit like claiming in a roundabout way that they don't count if you don't want them to count. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Most of the claims seem to be backed up by a Guinness reference. Which one is bothering you? The February 14, 2014 run has already been discounted because it was in one direction only (need opposite direction just in case you got a boost from a particularity strong tail wind, were driving downhill, etc).  Stepho  talk 23:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * "On March 25, 2016 the Hennessey Venom GT Spyder posted a top speed of 265.57 mph (427.4 km/h) at California's Naval Air Station Lemoore, establishing a new speed world record for open top street legal road vehicles, celebrating Hennessey's 25th anniversary" using the following ref:  Chaheel Riens (talk)


 * Maybe they could paint it pink and then set a world record for pink cars. Greglocock (talk) 08:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Quoting from the given reference, "Unfortunately, Hennessey was only allowed to make one run that day, so the speed wasn’t made official. The folks at Guinness, the semi-official keepers of such records, require two runs in the space of an hour, one in either direction." So, not a record. We can modify the article to say that it didn't count as a world record.  Stepho  talk 12:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I've made a couple of changes. Feel free to modify.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Let's see what the flag wavers have to say :)  Stepho  talk 14:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)