Talk:Land speed record/Archive 1

missing records
See also for several disputed records that aren't even on our list. Rmhermen 15:23, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)
 * Doen't seems to list many more controversial records.The list is expanded with several famous record atttemps.
 * Ericd 18:16, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I see additional records in 1906,1910,1920,1923 and again in 1923. None of them are on our list. Rmhermen 18:34, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

My compliments on dating the records. --squadfifteen

Can anybody comment? I've seen (Timetables of History, I think) Barney Oldfield cred w a 1910 LSR. It was at Ormond Beach, & ToH creds it Daytona. ToH also creds Gil Anderson (of Stutz's White Sqn) w 1915 LSR of 102.6mph. Trekphiler 16:50 & Trekphiler 18:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

More stuff: 1928, Frank Lockhart piloted a 3.1 L streamliner to 225mph, smallest-engined LSR entry ever. Trekphiler 12:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Budweiser Rocket
The Budweiser Rocket entry is not an official land speed record. According to that page (which is poorly written and full of mispellings) the Budweiser Rocket team decided not to aim for a speed record, but instead to break the sound barrier. They claimed they did, yet onlookers heard no sonic boom. With absolutely no independent evidence and unreliable speed measurements it just ludicrous to include this one in the table. What if I claimed I did 1200mph last night ... should that one go in? Quirkie 16:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Table Too Big
I find editing the table difficult because of it's size. How about we split it up? What do people think - 100's of mph or decades ? PeterGrecian 14:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think decades would be good, put a heading before each subtable and we can also browse it more easily.Night Gyr 20:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Land Speed Record broken by Cavalier driver
I added this interesting bit of news in, and will follow up as soon as more is reported. Please edit or even delete if deemed necessary. --Digitaldebaser 01:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Specs?
Am I asking too much to want specifications of the powerplant? I mean, an engine maker's name & power output, at least. Trekphiler 20:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I believe your asking too much at least for power for early records. As their was no standardized means to measure the speed in early attemps I doubt the engineer or the driver now the real power of the engine. I know there is some modern measurement of the "Jamais Contente" engine power but what are they worth without original batteries ? However we could add some engine design information. Ericd 15:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not looking for anything of great scientific accuracy, just commonly accepted figures. The Jeantaud, for instance, is described as 36hp in Northey, World of Automobiles (Vol 10), & presumably Tom Northey (who wrote the article, too) got the figure from somewhere... Trekphiler 15:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Long count?
Can somebody with a reliable source do some checking? The article says Marriott's record was 121.57mph, 1906. The Marriott page says 127.7mph. I've got a source that says 127.6. And I've seen a date in the 1920s... Trekphiler 10:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I did some work on this article and related articles about a year ago. Here's some reliable sources, which all agree it was in 1906, and the speed was 127.659 mph (a few round to 127.7)  . I found no sources that say anything near 1920s or 121.57 mph. The last article also says "In 1985, Bob Barber reached 145.607mph in a steam car but only made one run – to qualify as a world record the average speed of two runs in opposite directions is taken." Other sources note that there was a fire that prevented him from doing another run. A year ago I found quite a bit about the Daytona Beach land speed records while looking through old photos at the Florida Photographic Collection. There are many great old photos that you can upload to Wikipedia. Contact me on my talk page if you need more help with either the FPC or researching land speed records. RoyalbroilT :  C 01:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome for the sources. The Florida Photographic Collection is now NOT a valid source for images, so do not use them. The exception is that ALL photographs from before 1923 are Public Domain the U.S. The Collection does have lots of photos from before 1923. I unfortunately had to agree with the reasoning in the deletion discussion. Royal broil  18:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of the term 'turboprop'
Campbell's car Bluebird (1964) used a Bristol-Siddeley Proteus gas-turbine engine which was originally designed for use in aviation for turboprop propulsion. The term turboprop implies the use of a propellor(s) driven by a gas-turbine. Bluebird drove through all four wheels (albeit with some jet component from the engine exhaust) so the term turboprop is misleading; one wouldn't describe a gas-turbine powered railway-locomotive, or a ship, as turboprop. Altered to gas-turbine. Archzog 12:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Turboshaft would be even better. The Proteus was designed as a turboprop, but many of them were used as either marine or power generation engines, purely for shaft-drive. Bluebird's Proteus was literally unique; it was double-ended with an output at each end. Although it was always hard to tell which end was which with a Proteus, the others only had a single-ended drive. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

unofficial records
I'd like to start an article about the unofficial pre FIA records. Sig Haugdahl Ralph DePalma Barney Oldfield et al. Any others ? PeterGrecian 14:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The proviso that rails should not be used for a land speed record seems artificial and should be explained. The first sentence excludes air and water. There would be a different list of records before 1904 on that basis. JMcC 15:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Rails are excluded because vehicles that ride on rails are considered trains. It's not artificial, it's the general standard. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely trains are land vehicles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.208.210 (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Wheel Driven Cars
I think that it's unfair to not include the topic of Wheel-Driven cars in this article. Jet cars are vessels being propelled by a rocket. Wheel-Driven cars are much more amazing because the wheels are driven directly by the drive shaft. The car does much more work. It's not just a vessel that is being pushed. It's more like a normal car that is being pushed to incredible speeds! For Example: Don Vesco. He holds the world land speed record for wheel-driven cars at 458.440 mph, with a top speed of 470.288 mph. His car, ""The Turbinator" is powered by a stock 3750 hp @ 16000 rpm internal combustion engine. The shaft (P.T.O.) drives the Turbinator's four-wheel drive system. The exhaust pressure is only 60 p.s.i. Lance Morris Engineering along with turbine expert, John Walters will modify the unit to produce a reliable 4400 hp @ 16500 rpm." (quote taken from www.teamvesco.com) Let's give some credit where credit is deserved! 63.226.95.162 (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Rhonnie Vesco63.226.95.162 (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

How to drive a new land speed record
There seems to be some misunderstanding as to how drivers drive during a record. The process is not (usually, for the successful teams) to "floor the throttle and see where you end up", it's more subtle than that.

Most LSR cars are potentially faster than the records they set. Some turn out to be exactly as fast as the top speed they fatally crash at. Bizarre though it sounds, record-breaking drivers do not simply drive at the fastest possible speed and hope.
 * No posthumuous records.
 * A record requires two runs. "To finish first, you must first finish applies". No point breaking the car on the first run.
 * Over-stressing the car will break it. Better to set a lower record and manage to do it, rather than to aim higher and fail altogether.
 * Your biggest problem is team budget. If you want to break multiple records on the same car, then don't use all of its potential on the first day out.
 * Inexperience. You've (by definition) never driven this car that fast before. Anything could happen. Some drivers (famously Donald Campbell) took an incremental approach to pushing speeds slightly higher on each run, others were more direct.
 * Prize money. If a sponsor pays a bonus each time the record is broken, slice the car's potential into thin-enough increments and pick the bonus up repeatedly. Again, look at Campbell's water speed record results and the Butlins money.

Why is this relevant here? Because it means that at anything more than the short-trousered schoolboy level of sophistication, the numbers on the record aren't the most important part. If several of these record breakers (or claimed non-breakers) had needed or wanted to go faster, they simply would have done so. They went at the speed they did because that's all they had decided their goal for that campaign needed to achieve. That's why there are so many records at 200.01, 300.01, 400.01 or very marginally over the "milestone" figures (and also why quoting them in km/h is so misleading). It's why there are so many dead drivers at 199 too.

Bluebird CN7 was a 500mph car. In 1964 it was used as a 400mph ploughing tractor, owing to the poor surface. The speed it reached on the day was just the figure Campbell chose to drive it at, because that's what he knew he needed to gain the record. Although anything more was certainly possible, it would have increased the risk of going home empty-handed and also reduced the potential for following records. His big battle that year was to get any record achieved in the gaps in the weather, so he drove accordingly. The FIA agreed and awarded him the absolute land speed record on that basis. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for defending CN7 for those of us you think are still in short pants.  Barry Allen   flash me  17:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You raise some interesting points. If you have reliable sources for them, they are worth adding to the Land speed racing article that Trekphiler is proposing.  I'm not sure how much relevance there is to this page. I guess the minimum-1%-increment rule is designed to forestall micro-thin increments. The current list doesn't seem to have many "milestone" marks.  If there are citable sources, a "maximum claimed design speed" column might be interesting alongside the actual record speed.  jnestorius(talk) 18:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to see an article that was all about "claimed design speed" and forgot to mention the thing never even ran(!), look at the Mercedes-Benz T80 as it was a week or two back. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there are lots of poor-quality articles in Wikipedia. My suggestion about "claimed design speed" was prompted by your assertion that "Bluebird CN7 was a 500mph car". To be honest, I'm not sure how much of what you are posting is an attempt to contribute to the improvement of this article, and how much is general chat on the subject of land speed records, interesting but distracting.  jnestorius(talk) 22:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

intro
The intro section needs some clarification whos keeping the record book, what organisation. There are other speeds records also referred as land speed record, but this list seems to be some organisation list --&mdash; Typ932 T  09:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As noted, it's an absolute LSR, as def by FIA. Other records are class records, also officiated by FIA, but not listed here.  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  13:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There is nothing about FIA and from http://www.speedrecordclub.com/outland.php it says "The records listed below are those recognised by the FIA, FIM and their predecessors"  so its quite unclear what this list really is  --&mdash;  Typ932 T  20:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

FIA and FIM 1964
Here you go:


 * From Paris yesterday came news that the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile and the Fédération Internationale Motocycliste have agreed that they should jointly recognize an official "land speed record". The new title will apply only to vehicles which depend on the ground for support during a record attempt.


 * The decision means that record breaking runs by all vehicles running on wheels—whether propelled by conventional piston engines, turbine engibes, jet or rocket motors—will be eligible for the title. Hitherto, each body had separately recognized record attempts in different classes, and there has been constant confusion as between vehicles like Donald Campbell's turbine-engined Bluebird, and the American jet-propelled three and four-wheelers.



jnestorius(talk) 23:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic
I deleted this:
 * "===World solar car speed record===

This page is for the absolute record, not all the variants. Start a "World solar car speed record" page, if you want, but don't put it here. Trekphiler (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I deleted this for similar reasons, from the 1983 to 2008 section...

This entry should be placed on a specific page for wheel driven land speed record bennydtown 3 May 2008


 * The page is on the absolute LSR. If you want a separate wheel-driven daughter page, you'd be repeating most of what's already here, 'cause the records until SOA/Green Monster were all wheel-driven. If you want a "last wheel-driven record" notice, put 1 in. Or start a page on Lakes racing. Or a separate "List of wheel-driven speed records" (which would cover all the Lakes racers & class records). I'd support that.  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  15:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not rail?
Opening sentence:
 * The land speed record is the fastest speed achieved by any wheeled vehicle on land, as opposed to one on water or in the air or on rails. (emphasis added)

Who says a "land speed record" can't be on rails, and why not? It seems that this page is really about the auto speed record, as certified by various auto organisations. Since 1906 the auto record has been faster than the rail record, but as things stand the earlier part of the table does not tally with the article title, and attempt to move the goalposts with a spurious defintion in the opening sentence doesn't really solve that. A better solution is to rename this page to something like world automobile speed record and fix the ridiculous opening sentence. A true progressive list of land speed records could be stitched from this page and bits of Land speed record for railed vehicles; probably any earlier horse-based records would be speculative or unverifiable. jnestorius(talk) 22:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you read none of the previous discussion on this issue? The LSR has never included rail vehicles. There's a separate record for rail vehicles. "attempt to move the goalposts with a spurious defintion"? Preposterous. It's not WP setting the boundaries, just accepting the common definition in play. Absolute LSR, by convention from 1898 on, has always been limited to one variety of automobile or another. And since the record is commonly called "Land speed record", your "solution" is absurd. Moreover, as noted, there is a record for "fastest rail", which (AFAIK) has never been considered an LSR. Not by Guinness, not by land speed racers. Get over it.  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  01:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, I've read both snippets of the previous discussion on this issue: the one that says "Before 1914 rule where unclear and some trains may have been faster" and the one that says "Rails are excluded because vehicles that ride on rails are considered trains." The answer to my question "Who says a land speed record can't be on rails" would appear to be "The FIA"; the answer to "why not" would appear to be "they are only interested in cars."  It makes sense today that the FIA is regarded as the arbiter of the absolute record, because since 1906 auto records have exceeded rail records — the Guinness book started in 1955.  But what evidence do you have that the 1898 record was called a "land speed record" at the time, as opposed to an "automobile speed record"?  Indeed, the entire article needs better sources than some anonymous external websites of uncertain reliability. Here is my suggestion for rewriting the intro:
 * The land speed record is the fastest speed achieved by any wheeled vehicle on land, as opposed to one on water or in the air. There is no single body for validation and regulation; what is used in practice is the higher of the absolute (or unlimited) records of the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA, for 4-wheeled vehicles) and the Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme (FIM, for 2- and 3-wheeled vehicles).  Only once has the FIM record has been higher than the FIA record — the tricycle Spirit of America in 1963.  The record is standardized as the speed over a course of fixed length, averaged over two runs in opposite directions within one hour (FIA ) or within two hours (FIM ).  A new FIA mark must exceed the previous record by one percent to be validated.  The current record holder is ThrustSSC, a twin turbofan jet-powered car which has achieved 763 mph (slightly under 1228 km/h) over one mile (1.6 km), breaking the sound barrier.
 * Prior to the FIA's establishment in 1904 [and perhaps for some time afterwards??], auto speed records were validated by national automobile associations, beginning with an 1898 mark certified by the French Automobile Club. Different clubs had different regulations and did not always recognise the same world records.  The unofficial rail speed record exceeded the auto speed record till 1906.  There are also records for specific classes of vehicle, validated by the FIA, the FIM, [and maybe other associations/enthusiasts ???].


 * What do you think? jnestorius(talk) 22:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you've captured it. I'd delete detail on FIM & post it to Motorcycle land speed record, where the same clarification may be apt. I think we can omit other assns, 'cause FIA/FIM get the final say, tho records may be policed by, say, AAA or SCTA; even after FIA was created, the actual on the ground work was by local/natl groups, under FIA regs (as it still is). We can also omit mention of classes; the absolute LSR is in question here, & class records properly belong on a broader Land speed racing page. Most of the coverage I've seen of LSR has presumed automobile at the exclusion of rail, & I don't recall there being a specific "auto" ref, while "rail" has always been dabbed as such.  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  23:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't propose adding details of class records to this article; the mention is more of a disambiguation note (i.e. "land speed record" means absolute LSR, not class LSR). Some mention of FIM needs to be made to cover Spirit of America.  Other details and citations I leave to those more knowledgeable than I. jnestorius(talk) 16:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I only meant omit from the lead as proposed. Mention FIM for SoA I got, but beyond that, nothing needed (so FIM regs for record don't pertain, & IIRC, SoA ran under FIA regs anyhow, just couldn't get it ratified), other assns ditto (as noted, they only come in play for class records, so no need). Hope I'm clear now.  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  01:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My point is that presumably FIM regulations did pertain for SOA's ratification, and might hypothetically do so again for some future rocket trike. Maybe (I'm speculating) FIM bent the rules in 1963 to accept the testimony of observers accredited by the FIA rather than the FIM, but I doubt FIM would ratify a record set under less stringent conditions than its own. jnestorius(talk) 02:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

<--I don't think it failed FIM regs, just wasn't set under them. (Don't know exactly what the conditions were, but AFAIK, the only diff to meet FIM v FIA was 3 wheels; if the regs cited above were in play in '63, it'd pass both.) And since most of the records here are FIA, the need to mention the FIM standard is small; a link to MLSR would do it, IMO, for SoA & any future similar entrant. (I suspect the chance is tiny.)  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  02:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "if the regs cited above were in play in '63, it'd pass both." -- not really, though the links I gave were inadequate. I've replaced the HTML link with a PDF link for the Appendix D ref, as some of the text has been omitted from the former; in particular, from Article 218.3:
 * Category C : Special vehicles complying with the definition given at Art. 13. These records may be subdivided according to the type of engine used (turbo-jet, rocket, etc.).
 * Here Article 13 is defined in Chapter 2:
 * 13. Land Vehicle, Automobile, Special Vehicle, Ground Effect Vehicle
 * Land Vehicle:Vehicle propelled by its own means in constant contact with the ground either directly by mechanical means or indirectly by ground effect, and the motive power and steering system of which are constantly and entirely controlled by a driver on board the vehicle.
 * Automobile :A land vehicle propelled by its own means, running on at least four wheels not aligned, which must always be in contact with the ground; the steering must be ensured by at least two of the wheels, and the propulsion by at least two of the wheels.
 * Special Vehicles :Vehicles on at least four wheels which are propelled otherwise than through their wheels.
 * Ground Effect Vehicle : Vehicle whose bearing on the ground is maintained by means of a pressurised air cushion.
 * In summary, the LSR is "Category C", meaning "Special Vehicles", requiring at least 4 wheels.
 * BTW it seems the FIA defines ground effect vehicles as "Land Vehicles" but does not keep speed records for them.
 * Here's a redraft:
 * The land speed record is the fastest speed achieved by any wheeled vehicle on land, as opposed to one on water or in the air. There is no single body for validation and regulation; what is used in practice is the Category C ("Special Vehicles") flying start international record certified by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile.  The record is standardized as the speed over a course of fixed length, averaged over two runs in opposite directions within one hour.  A new FIA mark must exceed the previous record by one percent to be validated.  The current record holder is ThrustSSC, a twin turbofan jet-powered car which has achieved 763 mph (slightly under 1228 km/h) over one mile (1.6 km), breaking the sound barrier.
 * Prior to the FIA's establishment in 1904 [and perhaps for some time afterwards??], auto speed records were validated by national automobile associations, beginning with an 1898 mark certified by the French Automobile Club. Different clubs had different regulations and did not always recognise the same world records.  The unofficial rail speed record exceeded the auto speed record till 1906.  In 1963, Spirit of America was recognised as the land speed record holder although its time was not certified by the FIA.  Since it had only three wheels, it was classed as motor tricycle and certified for the motorcycle land speed record by the Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme.


 * I had to rejig motorcycle land speed record to get the wikilink to make sense. I speculate that FIM just made up some adhoc rules for SoA; has there been any other jet/rocket bike/trike attempt at any record? jnestorius(talk) 07:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * NAFAIK. SoA caused such a huhu, nobody seemed willing to risk FIA refusing to recognize an attempt (with reason, cosidering how hi$ it's gotten...). As I understand it, there was a lot of disagreement about SoA being legal for any record, not being wheel-driven, & only when the public took it as title holder did FIA (& by extension FIM) accept wheel-driven wasn't going to be a necessity. I don't think FIM made extra-special allowances, tho. (And I'd be very wary of treating rules now as unchanged from '63.) IIRC, Bluebird was the last w-d attempt, let alone holder. For moto records, they've been all w-d, AFAIK, tho there've been exhibition jet (drag) bikes capable of 300mph, which'd be in LSR territory; i'd guess they can't pass FIM scrutineering, for some reason, but I don't claim to know enough to say why.  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  08:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To muddy the waters some, Automobile Club de France became involved after Vanderbilt 1902, proclaiming themselves arbiters of the record (& in perversely French fashion, trying to keep it). It was Association International des Automobile Clubs Reconnus (AIACR) who introduced the 2-way rule. 1924, AIACR set new specs: 2 passes averaged w max 30min between runs, average gradient =/<1%, timing gear accurate within 0.01sec, & cars must be wheel-driven. National auto clubs (such as AAA) had to be AIACR members to ensure records would be recognized. SoA failed on being 3w & not w-d, but Joe Average didn't care, so FiA intro spl w-d class.
 * So how's this:
 * The land speed record (or absolute land speed record) is the fastest speed achieved by any wheeled vehicle on land, as opposed to one on water or in the air. There is no single body for validation and regulation; what is used in practice is the Category C ("Special Vehicles") flying start regulations, officiated by regional or national organizations under the auspices of the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile. The record is standardized as the speed over a course of fixed length, averaged over two runs (commonly called "passes") in opposite directions within one hour. A new record mark must exceed the previous one by one percent to be validated. There are also numerous class records for cars, and motorcycles fall into their own class, also. The current absolute record holder is ThrustSSC, a twin turbofan-powered car which achieved 763 mph (slightly under 1228 km/h) for the mile (1.6 km), breaking the sound barrier.
 * The first regulators were the Automobile Club de France, who proclaimed themselves arbiters of the record around 1902. Different clubs had different standards and did not always recognise the same world records until 1924, when Association International des Automobile Clubs Reconnus (AIACR) introduced new regulations: 2 passes averaged with a maximum 30min (later more) between runs, average gradient of the racing surface not over 1%, timing gear accurate within 0.01sec, and cars must be wheel-driven. National or regional auto clubs (such as AAA and SCTA) had to be AIACR members to ensure records would be recognized. Controversy arose in 1963. Spirit of America failed on being a three-wheeler (leading Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme to certify the record when FIA refused) and not wheel-driven, but the general public did not care, so FiA introduced a special wheel-driven class. (No holder of the absoulte record since has been wheel-driven.)
 * Until 1906, the unofficial rail speed record exceeded the auto speed record.


 * Does that cover it?  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  14:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks very good, except that Goldenrod (car) was wheel-driven in 1965. I would also wikilink "Wheel-driven".  Thanks for your work. jnestorius(talk) 00:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Goldenrod didn't break the absolute record, but she does hold the current w-d record (she hit 409mph, Arfons' Green Monster was already over 572), but amend to mention, or delete Goldenrod from the table? (I incline to delete & fn Bluebird & Goldenrod under Railton Spl.)  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  12:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that mixing wb and absolute in one table is bad (it confused me, at any rate...) but I don't think the footnote is helpful; it assumes the reader knows about Bluebird & Goldenrod already. Conceptually a separate Wheel-driven land speed record page would be better (and the links to here from Bluebird & Goldenrod should point there instead). However, since that separate list would be identical to this one till the last few, it might be more convenient to have it as a separate section of this page. jnestorius(talk) 13:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know if the fn is helpful, but it's the best I can come up with, 'cause otherwise, you get people not knowing why slower records are included... It also runs contrary to the express purpose of the page, covering the absolute record. Also, I think the links provide the answer for those who don't already understand the issue. I welcome a better option.
 * I've already suggested a separate land speed racing page, where the issue could be addressed; this page would lose only Bluebird CN7, Goldenrod, & would gain Spirit of '76 (from Goldenrod), because the distinction only arises after SoA. Plus, it'd be the place to address all the class records raised here, from solar to engine size, & moto too (likely), making this effectively a daughter page. I don't claim to have good sources broadly, but what do people think about starting with a history of LSR at Bonneville? (That, I can source.)  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  13:32 & 13:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This page is beyond hope. Like much of wikipedia, a narrowly focussed article works fine, anything with breadth is doomed. I hope you enjoy your page. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you've nothing constructive to say, why don't you just say nothing?  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  17:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As you've already twice deleted Bluebird in '64, you either don't understand the history of the rules, or you're just one of the (not uncommon) Americans who resent it being listed, simply because the first jetcars were American. In fairness to Americans generally, that's no worse than the British attitude in the'70s that clung to a wheel-driven rule (thus excluding Breedlove's second SoA in favour of Bluebird) without realising that the FIA had by then changed the rule. CN7 held the '64 record, according to the FIA's own rules at that time. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This entire thread is about the question of what exactly is being listed. Please assume good faith and give us the benefit of your knowledge to improve the article.  Your point seems to be that the list ought to be the progression of officially-recognised-FIA record-holders.  It's not obvious to me that that ought to be the case; nothing in the article explicitly states that it should; the inclusion of Spirit of America does not conform to that view.  It should be possible to present all the relevant vehicles in some manner which makes it obvious to the reader what their status was: were they official-FIA-undisputed; was there some controversy, if so, what.  There is plenty of room to expand the prose introduction that precedes the table; this would be an appropriate place to get into the murky details of rules disputes.  Whether all the cars should be listed in a single table is another question.  I don't understand why there is currently a break at 1947/63 and 1970/83; it might be better to have 1898-1947; 1963- [absolute: jet / rocket]; 1963- [wheel driven / FIA] or something. jnestorius(talk) 13:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This article fails to establish its basic premise, what a "land speed record" is. Why not rail, after all? Why exclude the specific diesel records, or even the 24/48 hour records of Speed of the Wind and the 5 mile records by the 1929 Blue Bird or Silver Bullet?  The only credible interpretation for this, broadly where the article was before, and where a well-known, common, accessible yet reasonably authoritative source (I suggest Holthusen, as many people seem to cite it) would draw the line is to take the superset of the FIA & FIM records, qualifying this when needed to explain why there appear to be two simultaneous holders (and I'd note that Campbell & Breedlove themselves never had the slightest disagreement with each others' achievements).
 * I stopped AGF when Trekphiler deleted CN7 entirely. Some stuff is reasonable differences of opinion, trying to write Campbell out of history is just trolling. Nor can it be accidental, for someone who pays this much attention to the topic, even if they admit themselves "I don't claim to have good sources" but they're still happy to remove a major player from the record. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

<--FYI, I removed CN7 for the simple reason its speed was less than the previous record, per the rest of the table (& I'd delete Goldenrod & So76 for the same reason). Since I don't expect most people to be familiar with the niceties of annual records, I'm adopting the same convention that gave the LSR to SoA as far as Joe Average is concerned. Neither am I American nor resentful of CN7's inclusion (tho you do sound like a Brit peeved at it not being the absolute record).
 * CN7 raised the record to a new figure. The "record" you talk about might be higher, but it wasn't the FIA record at the time, nor was it ever since. If it was run again today, maybe, but the rule change wasn't retrospective. That wasn't a record when it was set, and was only accepted as one _afterwards_ by the FIM alone. Is that sufficient to warrant inclusion? then as the superset of FIA/FIM ratified records, then yes. Your excuse that "the page is confusing, therefore I've personally chosen to delete Campbell" is pathetic. Just what do you have against Campbell and CN7, and why are you so adamant that his record was unworthy of record? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not diesel or 24/48 hr records? Read what I said: this is the absolute record (& AFAIK, the 5mi record was considered distinct from the LSR proper even when it was set). If you want a class records page, put it on my proposed Land speed racing page, which is, note, what "I don't claim to have good sources for" (if you'd bothered to read it, past being too PO'd over CN7).
 * If it's now time for the personal attacks, please go and learn enough about rhetoric to realise that I was never intending for a moment to suggest the non-absolutes should be included, merely pointing out the large scope for potential confusion over several aspects, not just the scope of "absolute". Andy Dingley (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not rail? On the convention most people looking for "land speed record" don't expect to find train records (just for instance).
 * So Opel's Rak 3 is now a "train" ? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The table breaks appear to be for management of the page; I think the break at Cobb, the last w-d, makes sense, & amalgamate Thrust SSC. TREKphiler  hit me ♠  19:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're the one so adamant about including CN7, & the one calling it vandalism. "personal attack"? Don't be absurd. And you were the one claiming "trolling".
 * If the page was written in 1963, you might have grounds for including CN7. It isn't. And arguing for it not being recognized in 1963, or in Britain, isn't persuasive. I doubt Jeantaud got FIA or FAC recognition in 1898, either, but the public accepted his record, & SoA.
 * I have no intention of "writing Campbell out of history" (I'm not Eric Blair; I'm not even British). As noted, the higher records are the ones accepted for all the previous years, & including CN7, & only CN7, at a lower record is both confusing & pro-Campbell POV. The other (numerous!) attempts, including Campbell's, which didn't exceed the past mark, or were subsequently exceeded, aren't in here, either, for clarity's sake.
 * Rak 3. If you can demonstrate, & source, it ever set an absolute LSR, put it in & quit complaining.  TREKphiler  <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> hit me ♠  20:18 & 01:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a suggested reworking:
 * Introduction, as per TREKphiler's last draft above
 * Records 1898-1947, as per current list
 * A brief summary of the 1963 controversies and the ensuing rules changes. There's no need to give too much detail here, as most of it ought to be put in the Spirit of America article, which can be a main link at the top of this section
 * Absolute records 1963-now, as per current list
 * Wheel-driven records 1963-now. It might be argued that, if the introduction defines the page title "Land speed record" as relating to the absolute record, it is a contradiction to include this section on this page. Nevertheless, I think it is most convenient in terms of the full exposition to include it here: given the 1963 controversy; given the fact that the wheel-driven record mostly overlaps with the absolute record; given that a fair number of readers familiar with Bluebird et al would be surprised not to find them on this page.  Perhaps my proposed "brief summary of the 1963 controversies" section could be incorporated into the introduction.
 * One might worry that people who are familiar with the subject matter will be dissatisfied with the article structure; or one might worry that people unfamiliar with the subject matter will be confused or misled by it. In my opinion, an article structure which runs the former risk is preferable to one which runs the latter. jnestorius(talk) 01:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I would disagree with including wheel-driven records after 1947 because a) they're beaten by previous records (Bluebird, Goldenrod; notice no anti-Brit/anti-Campbell bias) & b) they're insufficiently numerous or significant to the history of the record. And there's sure to be confusion for the uninitiated. Mention them in the setup, maybe, with links out (in the vein of, "Since Cobb 1947, there have been several wheel-driven contenders {Bluebird, Goldenrod, So76, Turbinator}; none have surpassed the existing record."), but not in the tables.
 * A subhead on rules is a good idea; it could also encapsulate the rule changes from the start, how the LSR was perceived, political issues (FAC's claims on "ownership", says Northey, tho some Brit bias might be in play, there), explain how SoA didn't, then did, get OKd & how FIA responded, including the pop perception of the record (sourced per Northey, until better comes along), & create a space for future changes as/if they happen. It could also act as a basis for expansion into LSRacing. (Are you tired of that suggestion yet? ;D)
 * Delete the break to the 1983 table as needless.  TREKphiler  <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> hit me ♠  01:46 & 01:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * To address your three points:
 * (a) beaten by previous records: if, as Andy Dingley claims, the FIA validated the 1960s wd marks as records at the time and only validated the non-wd marks retrospectively, then one can argue that the wd marks were indeed records. Including both sets presents both the contemporary-record POV and the retrospective-record POV.
 * (b) insufficiently numerous or significant: I think being FIA-validated is ipso facto significant. I don't think numerousness is relevant; whether there is one or fifty, they should be mentioned
 * (c) confusion for the uninitiated: there seems to be confusion at present.  I don't think a footnote can resolve that confusion.  The only way to deal with it is to have a prose explanation of the issues first, so that by the time a reader comes to the two different lists, they will understand why there are two of them.
 * Also, I think it's misleading to say "there have been several wheel-driven contenders; none have surpassed the existing record." The latter wd vehicles would have had no intention of trying to beat the non-wd record; the former ones might have regarded the non-wd mark as illegitimate, as per point (a) contemporary FIA rules. jnestorius(talk) 18:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "beaten" I'd agree, if the page was "FIA-sanctioned records". It's not. The bulk of them have nothing to do with FIA, so inclusion of a lower record, just because FIA accepted it & not another, is a bit strange, to me. The page's stated aim also invalidates whether FIA retroactively, or never, accepted the non-driven records, because it doesn't matter. (I'm taking the table as Joe Average's view of the record: who went fastest, & don't bother me with how many wheels or what engine the dang thing had. That kind of detail interests land speed racers or car guys, & argues {again...} for a LSRacing page.)
 * "validated" I'll accept FIA imprimatur gives them weight; I don't think it's enough to overweigh the other issues. I'll also agree discussion of the issue isn't out of bounds; I only oppose inclusion of the record(s), which (IMO) falls under POV-push or undue weight (or something...). How many people, outside car guys, have even heard of Bluebird or Goldenrod? How many do you expect to come here knowing the technicalities? I'd bet the number is vanishingly small. Which (I think) also goes back to the page's intent: the ALSR. Deal with it in the text, not the records tables.
 * "intention" Whether the w-d attempts meant to break the non-driven record is, IMO, irrelevant; as noted, the page is about the absolute LSR, & issues of legitimacy, intent, or "shaving" (addressed extensively below) are irrelevant to that. Not irrelevant to the attempts, but that discussion belongs on the page(s) of the record breakers, not here. I will agree an explanation of why records are sometimes so close is valid. (As Fangio put it, "win by driving as slowly as possible.")  TREKphiler  <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> hit me ♠  18:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"How many people, outside car guys, have even heard of Bluebird "
 * Your ignorance is simply staggering. Please, stop editing articles on topics you clearly have _no_ competent knowledge of, or at least go and learn something first. _YOU_ are what gives wikipedia such a bad name for inaccuracy. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My ignorance? Ask 10 people on the street in any country but Britain, I'll wager not one thinks LSR, rather than a bird, & not 1 in 100 can name Campbell in connection. Your blatant POV push is what is the problem, here. This isn't a British records page. And if replies here are any indication, you're in a minority.
 * What puzzles me is why you are so convinced I've a grudge against Campbell. As far as I'm concerned, he deserves to be a national hero & taught in school (& if I had my way, the LSR contests would be taught in most schools, 'cause it was a peaceful way to make a nationalist point, just like the Silver Arrows were). Besides that, I admire Campbell's sheer determination. However, he was beaten. Is it the fact it was an American that irritates you, or the fact he was beaten, or what?  TREKphiler  <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> hit me ♠  21:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, Association Internationale des Automobile Clubs Réconnus, predecessor to the FIA.  TREKphiler  <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> hit me ♠  20:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "What puzzles me is why you are so convinced I've a grudge against Campbell." That'll be the way you keep deleting his FIA-accredited LSR victory in 1964. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Beside accusations of trolling & vandalism, you appear to be the only one who sees it. As noted, comment on the Motorsports project page appears to agree with me. Have you read nothing I've said?  TREKphiler  <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> hit me ♠  09:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you see a Wikipedia project page as a more authoritative reference than the FIA itself, then there's little hope. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is here. WP's ruled by consensus, not by your preferences for including superseded records, FIA-approved or not.  TREKphiler  <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> hit me ♠  10:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "WP's ruled by consensus" "ruled by" might be true on the questions of internal policy, but I think you'll find WP:RS disagrees with your interpretation here.
 * "your preferences for including superseded records" If we exclude "superseded" records, then doesn't that remove everything before Thrust SSC? I don't dispute that CN7's record was beaten, but there was a period in 1964 when the FIA awarded it the FIA's absolute speed record. That is notable according to WP:N, WP:RS & WP:V and should be recorded as such.
 * "FIA-approved or not." This is the problem. You've set yourself up as the arbiter of all things, above the FIA. That is ridiculous. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "WP:RS". Not at issue.
 * "I don't dispute that CN7's record was beaten, " Really? Then why are you arguing for its inclusion? It was "beaten" before it was ever set, which is the issue. And the fact FIA recognized it in 1964, or any other time, doesn't bear on the issue.
 * "'above' the FIA"? Don't be absurd. The page, as I've already said a couple of times, isn't "FIA-sanctioned" records. It's "absolute land speed record", so FIA-approved or not does not bear on the issue, or all the records not set under FIA rules would be excluded. Do you advocate that?
 * Finally, you seem determined to make this about me & not the issue at hand. Would you care to explain how a beatenrecord, a record beaten before it was ever set, deserves inclusion except for a) being set by a Brit, b) being set by Campbell, c) being set in 1964, or d) being FIA approved? Do you mean to suggest every record attempt that wasn't faster than the one before it should be included? Or just the ones by Brits? Just the ones by Campbell? Do you mean to suggest only FIA records should be included? (This is, as noted, contrary to the main objective of the page.) Beyond defending this one record on the strength of FIA sanction and Campbell, do you have any arguments? Or just insults?  TREKphiler  <sup style="color:#1034A6;"> hit me ♠  20:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Why manned? Title is In my opinion incorrect
the absolute top speed on land is nearly 9 times faster then the thrust SSC, A 4-stage rocket train went 6,500 mph at holloman air force base. This would be the Absolute Land speed record would it not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.255.29 (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Verifiable sources and citations
User:JasonCW asked for a discussion on the talk page with his edit of 2009-08-26T18:59:37: "The need for some markings are very unclear, while others clearly are not needed. (Please discuss)"


 * Happy to do so Jason. Wikipedia has a core policy that all information should be verifiable and also that such information be cited with a reliable secondary source.  Original research and article synthesis by Wikipedia editors is explicitly not allowed.  If you click through and read these five links, I think you'll know everything I know about the community consensus on the matter.
 * With respect to this specific article, this would imply that, over time, many assertions need to be cited with a verifiable source. In previous discussions, the community understands this takes some time and therefore most editors do not remove uncited material without first tagging it as needing a citation.  But it is the obligation of the editor who wants information to remain in an article to cite it (per WP:V).  If you happen to have a book, or online source, that is a source for many of the claims in this article, I will be glad to show you how to put in the first few citations and then others who are land-speed-record aficionados could flesh out more over time.  If interested, just flag me on my talk page.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

E. A. D. Eldridge
Ernest Eldridge is listed as the Land Record Holder in 1924 in a number of sources (although speeds differ), the record being set at Arpajon, France, on July 12, 1924. See:

F.I.A.T. Advertisement, The Observer, July 20, 1924, Page 3: "Fiat creates New World's record. Eldridge on 300 h.p. Fiat broke World's record for flying kilometre, Paris, July 12, 1924. Average speed 234.980 kilometres per hour."

Brooklands Gazette, August 1924, Page 96.

The Story of "Mephistopheles" by Capt. J. F. Duff, The Brooklands Gazette, April 1925, Pages 384-385.

Motor Sport, November 1935, Page 36, death notice.

"ONCE HELD WORLD SPEED RECORD", The Manchester Guardian, October 30, 1935, Page 19.

Richard Noble, Thrust, Bantam Books, 1999, Page 401.

Ernest Eldridge also has a page - this is the same person as E. A. D. Eldridge - these two pages need amalgamating?

Fiat Mefistofele refers to Fiat Mephistopheles - strange spelling?

Rupertlt (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

inconsintency

 * table for "1963 - present(jet and rocket propulsion)" ** does not represent fairly how these records were held. The table reads that on September 5th 1963 Craig Breedlove held the record for 408.312mph. However, The presentation of the table does not do justice to Donald Campbell. Campbell set the speed of 403.10mph on July 27th 1964, he then held the record as FIA and FIM rules excluded Breedloves vehicle. It was not until December 11th 1964 when the rules were changed so that Breedlove was belatedly granted the record. BUT the table does not represent history accurately. As of July 1964 Donald Campbell held the record and the table should be ammended to show that. Yes, there is text above to reflect what I have said and even in the comments column, this issue is highlighted. However, most wikipedia users browse information casually and the table should reflect what happenned in the 1960's to reflect Campbells achievement.


 * I totally agree that the table does not accurately reflect history regarding the Donald Campbell 1964 record. He DID hold the record and it should be placed in the table together with a note explaining subsequent rule changes. --621PWC (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The line "April 28, 1926 Pendine Sands, Wales J.G. Parry-Thomas Higham-Thomas Special Babs IC 171.01 273.60 170.62 274.59 Killed at end of run" is inconsistent with J.G. Parry-Thomas (death). -- User:Ggonnell 19:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There's another: the table says the Benz ran twice, both under 140; in Tom Northey, The World of Automobiles (London: Orbis Publishing, 1974), Volume 11, p.1307, L.J.K. Setright says 141.42mph in 1911, which stood until 1924. Trekphiler 06:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There are several records missing which were very much official, perhaps the most glaring omission being Henry Segrave's record set on the Golden Arrow in 1929. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.34.246 (talk) 10:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have sources for the "missing" records, add them in; on Wikipedia, everyone is an editor. Just be sure you do so only if you have verifiable, reliable secondary source citations for any claims you add to the article.  N2e (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Gas turbines are IC engines
using IC for piston engines and not gas turbines is deceptive, they're all internal combustion. Also using IC as the sole description for the (presumably) piston engined cars is ambiguous. How can the reader tell they're not turbines, rotary engines, or some other less common form of IC?Romanianlies (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Records?
What happened to the complete listings that used to be here? Trekphiler 09:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeedy. Whither John Cobb and George Eyston, to name but two?Mr Larrington (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

What was Campbell knighted for?
The LSR article says about Campbell's 1929 Verneukpan visit: “First 250 mph (400 km/h) pass. Campbell was knighted for this effort”. The Malcolm Campbell article states: “In 1931 on his return from Daytona where he set a land speed record of 245.736 mph (395.474 km/h), he was given a civic welcome and a Mansion House banquet in London, and was knighted by King George V.” It looks like the version in the LSR article is wrong. 130.83.12.163 (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1931 of course. The 1929 campaign was pretty much abandoned after Segrave's runs, when Campbell realised he couldn't hope to beat them. It would be rather strange if Campbell was knighted for this. There's a photo in Villa's Life with the Speed King of the Southern Railway's "Bluebird Special" welcome home train. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Citations and sources are needed
Please be sure that all additions to the Land speed record are  verifiable. Any new claims added to the article should have inline citations for each claim made.

I have removed two unsourced claims that had been previously tagged citation needed for over a year now. If you have a source, please feel free to add the material back in, along with the citation. Otherwise, per WP:BURDEN, it should stay out of the article space until a source to support the claim is found. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And as said, over & over, it was the speed, not the fact of the record, that needed citation. Moreover, the fact it's fact-tagged is inviting citation, not removal, unless it's liable to be challenged, & AFAIK, nobody challenges Breedlove setting the record. Otherwise, the Cobb record should also have been removed entirely. I notice you didn't touch it. <small style="font-family:cursive;color:#3F00FF;">TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  06:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you are talking about. You say above "over and over" -- I don't know that we've ever talked about it previously.


 * I certainly am not challenging the "fact of the record" as you seem to assert. I am, quite simply, challenging the publication of a particular number (a fact claim about the speed of a particular "record" land speed that was achieved) in Wikipedia when that claim has no source to support it.  Moreover, the numerical claim has been fact-tagged for over a year.  I simply think the claim ought to be removed until such time as a source can be found for it.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "I certainly am not challenging the 'fact of the record'" You removed the entire record, rather than simply the dubious (tagged) speed, while ignoring a similarly tagged speed for Cobb. How else should I take it? And this same record has been repeatedly removed, & restored, for the same reasons, so, yes, "repeatedly" (if not by you). <small style="font-family:cursive;color:#3F00FF;">TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  19:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it is good that we are discussing it here on the Talkpage. I thought I removed a couple of things:  one was a specific single speed that was unsourced, while other parts of that table line were sourced, although a source had been asked for for many many months; the other was an entire line in the table, with many claims, fact-tagged for a long time, and none of which I saw sourced, so it would seem to be appropriate to remove the entire set of unsourced claims in that line of the table.  If other parts of it actually do have a source, then I suggest those parts that are supported be sourced with an inline citation.
 * I don't know who Cobb is, and generally find it unhelpful to remove too many unsourced assertions in a single article all at one time; if the "Cobb" claims are similarly unsourced, and have similarly been fact-tagged for over six weeks, I would be happy to remove them as well—just point them out to me. I am certainly making no prejudicial distinction between two cars, or two drivers.  I just simply removed some unsourced claims, that had been long-term fact-tagged.  I make no claim about my thoroughness in removing ALL unsourced claims that have been fact-tagged in a single article.  That sort of mechanical thoroughness is something automated bots do quite well at; but I think the community has determined that bots ought not to remove unsourced but long-time fact-tagged material from the English Wikipedia.
 * As to your question "How else should I take it?" I would suggest this way.  N2e (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I find removing unsourced claims a bit problematic, unless there's reason to believe the statements are false. (I don't think they are, so I have no problem leaving them in; the cited record is close enough they're probably right.) I only raise Cobb because speeds were fact-tagged, & removed, but not the entire entry, while Breedlove's was. (Neither entry should've been, which was the issue, as this has come up a few times already.) The "entire line" on Breedlove as fact-tagged I do question; if I mean it to be only that speed, where else would I put the tag? Which comes back to this having arisen before... As for AGF, I did in the main. It was the specific leaving me wondering why one, & not the other. <small style="font-family:cursive;color:#3F00FF;">TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  02:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

On that point—whether unsupported/unsourced claims that have been long-term fact-tagged ought to be left in the encyclopedia, or not—that is apparently where you and I would appear to have opinions that are different. I support all the considerable grace that is extended in the WP:BURDEN policy; but when a claim has no source for a long time, and it has been fact-tagged for a long time, then I will quite often challenge it personally, in the interest of making the encyclopedia better.

And as the WP:BURDEN policy makes clear—and WP:BURDEN is, after all, just a subset of the Wikipedia core policy on verifiability—if an unsourced assertion of that type is challenged, then "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". So I think it is best for the unsourced claim to simply be removed from the article space of the encyclopedia until such time as a source is found that supports it, by whatever interested editor wants to do the work to find such a source. Else, the challenged material may be (temporarily, perhaps) removed. Cheers, N2e (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think we're actually too far apart. On other pages, I'll fact tag what I find dubious, & remove what looks really questionable, but if it looks like it's probably right, I'll leave it in. Here, the records were close enough to cited ones, they really only needed confirming, & so I was happy to leave them alone. Same applies here: the source says one thing, but the pix suggest the source is wrong. IDK which, so it's been tagged since the page was resurrected (by me, I'm extremely pleased to say :D ), & I haven't been able to confirm either way. :( <small style="font-family:cursive;color:#3F00FF;">TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  00:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * At the end of the day, it does not matter if the number claimed is "close enough to cited ones" -- it is not sourced, and Wikipedia policy is quite clear about verifiability and challenges to claims. I want the encyclopedia to get better, over time; it does not get better by having unsourced information, claims that have been added out of the head of some editor but cannot be verified, even after a long time of noting the claim explicitly as needing a source citation. N2e (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

@Trekphiler: Your comment, "find a reference"? I see two of mine, & none of yours, & this is, what, twice you've deleted cites & cited numbers for your uncited ones," was unnecessary. I have nothing to do with the dispute, and I don't care about it. But if you're going to add things in, don't conveniently remove other content in the process. I have not deleted any citations; if I did, that's only cause it was part of the revision that I reverted without manually moving things. If you have any other problems, feel free to address them here for others to comment on, but I won't be answering as I don't care about this issue, so don't bother explaining why. - M0rphzone (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And if you don't care, why did you wait a month, & why are you making a fuss over it? As for rv, it was twice by my count, & no intervening edits, so who else? Nor did I "conveniently remove other content". What got changed was the uncited, in favor of the cited. You deleted the cited, in favor of the uncited. <small style="font-family:cursive;color:#9400D3;">TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  22:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that: 1) I don't care about your cited content or the unsourced content and 2) I didn't like the fact that you were edit-warring with N2e and removing content (even if temporarily unsourced) - is why I just clicked the "undo" link to revert the whole thing back to the original content in my first edit revision, instead of selectively reverting whatever you were doing to the page (I never bothered to check what you were changing btw). And the reason I replied after a month was because I never checked my watchlist back a few months until today, in which I went over all the things I've edited since I started. If you found citations for the content you are replacing with, that's fine. But I don't know why you are removing that other piece of info. Anyways, idc now. Just continue editing. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit: My bad. I forgot to mention that I don't like to be proven wrong or undermined and I like to have the last word in, so I counter-replied before I remembered I said I wasn't going to. If I were you, I'd forget about it and not reply. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Railton Mobil Special mph v kph
The measured mile speed is greater than the measured kilometer in mph [394.196 v 394.16], but less in kph [633.9 v 634.39] - so the miles to km conversion factor is obviously different. I see that there is a specific reference given for the measured km mph number. Are the other data taken from a difference reference? Have they been converted at different times, or maybe in different directions in the past. At least some of these numbers must be wrong - whoever has definitive references should check and fix.2.29.92.17 (talk) 06:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like a simple transcription error. Fixed. <small style="font-family:cursive;color:#9400D3;">TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  19:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Precisely what constitutes a "land" vehicle?
I've searched here and elsewhere in vain for an explanation of whether a taxiing aircraft (or, say, an aircraft coming in to land, shooting along the runway for a mile, and then taking off) would be eligible for the land speed record. And if not, precisely what definition excludes this? Seems a tricky definition to me... 86.150.102.78 (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be eligible. But no plane is designed to taxi at the Speed of Sound. Ericd (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And probably some firearm bullet hiting the ground but is it a vehicle ? Ericd (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Mickey Thompson 1959 breaking of the 400mph in Challenger 1
Folks,

Except on his page, I see no listing of Mickey Thompson breaking the 400mph barrier driving Challenger 1. Here is a link about the vehicle "The Hottest Hot Rodder in the World." Popular Science, December 1959, pp. 95-98/218.

Jack E. Hammond
 * Maybe because Cobb had done it in 1947 with a 403.135 pass, to set the LSR...? <small style="font-family:cursive;color:#3F00FF;">TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  08:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Cobb's was a one-way run and rejected. Mickey Thompson did a two way run and beat Cobb's by about 3mph.  It was officially the first land speed record to break 400mph. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Kettlewell says just the opposite: Thompson turned a 406.6, then Challenger I broke a driveshaft & never ran again, while Cobb's 403.135 was in service of a 394.2 average. Northey makes no mention of Challenger I. <small style="font-family:cursive;color:#3F00FF;">TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  06:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no way of knowing either way. So I guess Thompson stays in limbo. Thanks for the info. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad to be of service. :) I've heard the claim before, but it appears to be misapprenending the 1-way 406 pass as an official record. All the other records in the PopSci piece are in the Kettlewell article. <small style="font-family:cursive;color:#3F00FF;">TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  20:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Trekphiler, I know this vehicle did not break the record, but I am just amazed at how many vehicles were built to try in the ten years after WW2 ended. I wonder how many died trying. I thought you would find it of interest "Speedsters on the Salt Flats" Popular Mechanics, August 1953, p. 72-73. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 06:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm always interested in good sources, so thx. :D AFAIK, nobody killed attempting the LSR after the war (but my knowledge of it is far from exhaustive). The "golden age" of attempts was over, & it appears, the hazards were down, too. It seems the War made LSRacing more professional, just as it did in drag racing: higher quality cars, both design & construction, thanx to guys who knew about precision machining & assembly as a result of being a/c mechanics & the like. <small style="font-family:cursive;color:#3F00FF;">TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  07:11 & 07:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC) (Post scriptum: no "dear" necessary. ;p Post post scriptum: And after looking at the page: cover article about GUPPY boats! Even better. :D)


 * "nobody killed attempting the LSR after the war"
 * At Salt Lake? There's at least Athol Graham and City of Salt Lake (generally regarded as what happens when backyard engineers who didn't have the experience of the 1930s crews can get their hands of cheap post-war aero-engines - same thing happened after WWI). There are also some motorcycle deaths for the two-wheel record. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "There's at least Athol Graham" I didn't know about that. Thx. Nor am I terribly surprised, actually. <small style="font-family:cursive;color:#3F00FF;">TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  18:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Athol Graham. Craigh Breedlove and Art Arfons had God on their side or just and abnormal amount of luck. 04:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Should there be any article for highest speed crash during a land speed record attempt where the person survived?
According to http://www.thrustssc.com/thrustssc/Press_Pack/castrl9.html and the Art Arfons article, he survived a 610mph crash in ones of his Green Monster land speed cars. --80.41.8.68 16:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

a couple of comments:


 * 1) no need for the article title to be capitalized.
 * 2) More importantly, the mph / km/h ratios are wrong (a mile is approximately 1.606 kilometres).  I presume the mph figures are correct?


 * A mile is exactly 1609.344 m see Imperial unit PeterGrecian 12:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

mph / km/h ratio are innapropriate. The average speed on the measured mile is not the same as the average speed on the measured kilometer in the same run. 04:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Records 1898–1965 table information inconsistencies
There appears to be information incostistencies in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd row in the first table and other pages on the wiki - namely Camille Jenatzy page (the "Record setting" section) and Gaston de Chasseloup-Laubat page. From those pages it looks to me that it all happened differently than this page (table) expresses it.

Because I'm not good at editing wiki (well, I can write, but can't do tables, images, ...) and because I wanted to find information actually, not to create it, I would like to ask some editor to look at this and possibly edit those rows at the first table.

Pavouk106 (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Looks like a simple mistake in ordering. Fixed.  TREK philer  <sup style="font-family:cursive;color:#008000;">any time you're ready, Uhura  23:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal
A pretty pointless extra list of class records. I propose that any relevant info be merged to this article.Petebutt (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Support merge Although achieving it, given this article's past history, is quite another matter. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Class records belong on a parent page, Land speed racing. <small style="font-family:cursive;color:#9400D3;">TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  00:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support (since the intent is to bring back the wheel-driven absolute record...). The wheel-driven record was broken out (in part) to avoid continued wrangling over whether the Bluebird mark should be included after it had been superseded. I foresee that returning, which is not good for this page. I also continue to believe an over-arching parent page, Land speed racing, is a good idea. <small style="font-family:cursive;color:#9400D3;">TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  01:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Support The motive power is really irrelevant and if it has 4 wheels then it should be in the same article. The term 'Land Speed Racing" is somewhat oxymoronic sounding to me as it implies multiple vehicles competeing, when land speed vehicles perform in standalone situations. It's not even a drag race (i.e. a race between 2 cars). It's a singular vehicle trying to attain a goal and therefore I contend that an over arching parent page, Land Speed Racing is a bad idea Irongron (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Land speed racing is the term of art, however odd it may sound to the uninitiated... It does take some getting used to. And it would allow a greater breadth of coverage than a page, like this one, dedicated solely to the absolute record. It would, frex, act as "mother" page to this as well as motorcycle land speed record. It would also allow mention of meritorious class records.  TREK philer  <sup style="font-family:cursive;color:#008000;">any time you're ready, Uhura  01:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I see where you are comin' from. Almanacs like the famous book named after stout has all the land speed attempts in one chapter, although I'm not sure how other encyclopedias actually classify such topics. Yes, it will take some getting used to, but other "wiki Nazis" may have a hard time abstracting racing away from what it really means. How about 'Land Speed Achievements' as the over-arching page title ? ;) Irongron (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Every source out there refers to the Land Speed Record. Not "Achievements", not "Racing". Don't invent WP:NEOlogisms. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but it seems that it would automatically exclude attempts such as Stan Barrett's universally discredited Budweiser Rocket which is still worth accurately researching and documenting to enable including it in the land speed record lexicon. ☭ irongron ☭ (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Budweiser Rocket is a perfectly valid LSR attempt, same as many others. It just happened not to set any records. No different to Thrust1 or René Stapp's car, they're all part of the history. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Don't invent neologisms"? Every rodding or car mag ref I've ever seen calls it land speed racing, & that's going back at least 15yr. I'd credit Hot Rod over The New York Times on this one...  TREK philer  <sup style="font-family:cursive;color:#008000;">any time you're ready, Uhura  18:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Then maybe it's a US term with which I'm unfamiliar. If it's so commonly used, then it will be easy to cite. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You might be right as it could be a localized term, I'm from Australia and I don't recall LS being suffixed with racing, although I stopped buying car magazines around 15 years ago. I think I embarrassed myself by talking too much and not just stopping at the first post of support. Magazines can be rather dubious sometimes with the quality of research, for instance when looking for more references for the Gary Gabelich page I came across a sports illustrated article about him that had some incorrect data, just sloppy journalism, even tough sports illustrated is rather a reputable publication. ☭ irongron ☭ (talk) 11:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Remove women's land speed record
Why pander to a specific demographic? If you have a women's land speed record, then you should also, by that logic, have a black's land speed record, or a handicapped land speed record. No. There should be one absolute land speed record; that's it. JDiala (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, the counter argument would go something along the lines of "Every sport on planet earth is categorized into men's and women's events. The Olympics, Tennis, Soccer, the list is endless." Secondly, are we 'pandering' to demographics or feminist propaganda ? ☭ irongron ☭ (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There isn't a Wikipedia Land Speed Record, and WP works by WP:N of WP:RS. Whilst RS bodies like the FIA support a women's record, then WP sees this as notable and may report it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Since the page is about the absolute record, not class or other records, this actually makes sense. It does seem to require a land speed racing page, fist, however....  TREK philer  <sup style="font-family:cursive;color:#008000;">any time you're ready, Uhura  00:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The LSR page is no more about one specific form of the LSR than it is about a wheel-driven record to the exclusion of other forms. Your entirely unrelated wish to rename it is still waiting for sourcing, contrary to the vast corpus that uses LS Record instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * ♠Pay attention. I have no desire, nor have I at any time expressed any, to rename this page. Nor do I think it should be renamed. Neither am I obliged to provide sourcing for the fact of the use of land speed racing as a term of art on a talk page, contrary to what you evidently believe.
 * ♠As for whether this page is "about one specific form", it clearly is, because all the tabulated records are absolute records. The past nonsense about including superseded wheel-driven records was what was contrary to that established standard, & to the publicly-accepted ("commonname"?) standard of what the land speed record is. I see no reason whatever to change from that.
 * ♠So long as the subject of the page is the absolute record, anything else is off-topic. Which is why, clearly, a new, separate page (which is what I've been suggesting all along, had you bothered to pay attention) is a good idea.  TREK philer  <sup style="font-family:cursive;color:#008000;">any time you're ready, Uhura  05:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ♠FYI, the use of "land speed racing"? Hot Rod, January 2014, p.80. It goes back at least a decade, but I don't have the history issue in front of me.  TREK philer  <sup style="font-family:cursive;color:#008000;">any time you're ready, Uhura  21:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)