Talk:List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times/Archive 1

Production Car Lap Times Should list Stock Cars Only, No Modified or Concept Cars
This makes it a lot clearer.71.156.61.78 (talk)

Re-working of lap-time list
Seriously, this list just doesn't work. I would suggest a proper table:

We could do 2 Tables. One for road legal cars and one for race cars. Yes, i know we cannot provide information on every item (maybe we could use the "note" collumn for the "driver names"), but it's worse when we have lots of times/cars without any special information and you don't know if there is no information available or if it's not mentioned. --Overengineered 20:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Great idea! I think we should do it like this:

--Monkeymaker 19:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am unable to work on the references. The most quoted source (sportauto) has all laptimes online: http://www.sportauto-online.de/aktuell_U_sport/On-Line/hxcms_article_%20%20502725_14653.hbs Someone able to add this reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.106.16 (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe we should add some more information:

- "driven lenght" (20.6 km "Supertest or 20.8 km "normal distance") and flying lap: yes or no (or just add (+7) to the laptimes, to show the difference.)

- with /or without sport tyres (sport auto provides these informations for example)

Problem is, some laptimes are not available with these information. Leave it empty or put all these extra information under "notes" Overengineered 22:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC) (forgot to log in, hehe)

I say: put lap length and rolling start under the notes section. If there is no source/reference for the info, then it gets left blank and the reader can choose to beleive it or not or (hopefully) do some research and post a source or perhaps disprove it. I realize how hard it is to prove a negative (prove that you never read this book!) so this list may fill up with laps with no source but we can cross that bridge when we get to it. --Monkeymaker 16:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. -- Overengineered (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Got another great list. If somebody has too much time... ;) Overengineered (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed Nissan GT-R
Recently someone added in a Nissan GTR as having done a 7:30 around the Nordschleife. This is an unofficial time and probably incorrect as that is extremely fast and there is no video of this. Please remove any claim of a 7:30 being done by a stock Nissan GTR. It did not happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Number1schumacherfan (talk • contribs) 18:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

A watch of the third party and a strict measurement method are done by the time attack at 38 seconds of seven minutes according to the custom of the Nur time attack. Therefore, a vague measurement method of the motor magazine biased to Porsche is unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 04:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Daniel J. Leivick. Say grounds that 7:37 is unbelievable. The credibility of the data of other cars is far lower. The car that doesn't understand even the record date should blot everything out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 03:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What you have said here does not make sense. The source you wish to insert is a 'blog and is not admissable per WP:V. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Cannot the image of the scanning of the material of Nissan be trusted?

By the way, do not you doubt the credibility of the data of other cars? Is information in a German magazine correct? Will you think that the source is uncertain though Porsche GT2 is falsified at 7:31? Only GT-R raises the hurdle, and the standard of the credibility of other car data is too low. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 04:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In general a German car magazine has credibility because it has editorial oversight. A fan blog can post any material they want (fact or fiction) without repercusions.  Read WP:V and you will understand, this is official policy.  If the same graphs are posted in a reliable source we can use them, but if they are not we can't. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Pistonheads.com that insisted on cut slick corrected the insistence. Before "We used cut slick tyres". http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=17066 After "Both laps were recorded using original equipment Bridgestone RE070A tyres, in other words with the car containing no secret tweaks or tricks" http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/roadtests/doc.asp?c=47&i=17295 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 03:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

http://bp1.blogger.com/_8MPCKJQzPA8/R1iXoMo3RII/AAAAAAAAFiQ/BK30GH6U19o/s1600-h/2009nissangtrnurburgrinnz3.jpg 7:37:500 The best time is written. However, the Video was not recorded. And, there was no attendance of German's magazine editor. I think that the mark "Manufacturer claim" is suitable only in such a case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 08:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone. The reason why I was trying to ad "Mfr claim" next to 7:38 time is because the time was from the manufacturer not from an outside source. I wasn't referring to the semi-wet conditions and runflats that were used for I already knew about them.Gohardnal (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

In general, the "semi wet" is correct answer. Moreover, because it is the same specification as a car on the market, the mark that causes the misunderstanding of prototype is unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 03:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a photograph of Run flat tires used with Nur. http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fminkara.carview.co.jp%2Fuserid%2F149571%2Fcar%2F235570%2F705271%2Fphoto.aspx&langpair=ja%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

The meaning of the semi-wet indicates the state to which the road is not dry. And, there was partially a puddle. If the video and the photograph are seen, these are the understanding things. Manufacturer claim doesn't have the relation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 07:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

'''NEWS: ''' As sportauto is the only magazine that is part of the industry pool, sportauto was invited by Nissan to join the prototype testing. Sportauto 12/07 reports that Horst von Saurma was able to do a 7:50min 20,6km lap (wich is still great). Horst von Saurma himself called the manufacturer claim of less than 7:40 "etwas kühn", that means "a little audacious". Still this is no "Supertest", because this was one of the pre-production cars. I will add the 7:50 to the list, because I think that this time is better comparable (because von Saurma has done most of the laptimes). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.106.16 (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.sportauto-online.de/test_U_technik/fahrberichte/hxcms_article_508540_14469.hbs 0-100 km/h (0-62mph) 4.8 sec. funny... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.16 (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed it because it is unverifiable able and far too unlikely, it is also from the PR department of Nissan and the car has not been released yet. I welcome comments on this.

--RyanKlein 21:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It has been removed again, still just rumor mill information. We need to wait for an actual, truly verifiable test before posting this up, the car isn't even really out yet.

The GT-Rs own chief engineer is estimating times between 7:55 and 7:58, possibly a sub-7:44 time according to a quote of him in Autoweek. "Mizuno suggested the GT-R could get anywhere from 7:44 on up, with most laps coming in between 7:55 and 7:58." - Autoweek

--Kosai03 09:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC) That was over a month ago that he said that. THIS is what he said yesterday:

"Much is being made of the car's lap time at the famous Nurburgring Nordschleife circuit in Germany. Mizuno claimed a time of 7minutes 38 seconds, compared with 7:43 for a Porsche 911 GT3 and 7:32 for a Carrera GT, but he was anxious to point out that there had been "two wet patches on the circuit." Indeed, he mentioned the "wet patches" so many times that you wondered why Nissan simply hadn't waited for a dry day.

Mizuno reckoned that a time of around 7:30 should have been possible in the dry, but that going much faster would have required hand-cut slicks, which isn't "real world." Bizarrely, Nissan admitted to having different test drivers for different lapping. While Chief Test Driver Toshio Suzuki operates in the 7:30-7:40 range, his right-hand man is a 7:40-7:50 man."

-- Autoweek was in Germany over a month ago with Nissan, it is very likely that at that time 7:44 was the fastest the GTR had achieved. Although the article was just published the information they got was from a month ago. Motor Trend claims that just 2 days ago the GTR ran a 7:35. Also if you read Edmunds article they claim that while they were in Germany the car pulled a 7:38 a few weeks ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.165.32 (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

-- The time of 7:35 is posted in an article on the Motor Trend website. And this is how we get most of our times, from articles on websites or in magazines. GT-R rocks the 'Ring: Nissan supercar in fast company. Leave it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.90.10 (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

-- We get the times from websites or magazines, IF, and only if, those times are verified by an impartial third party source. Motor Trend is neither, and has been known in the past to print sensational claims in order to generate website traffic. Judging by the link you just posted, it worked. I'm removing the time again.142.162.60.204 00:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have found the lap video on Youtube. It appears they are running an incomplete lap by cutting out a small straight between where they are starting/stopping timing. Other manufacturers videos demonstrate starting/stopping timing at the same location, so the GT-R time is probably off by a couple seconds from what it should be. --Kosai03 13:11, 24 October 2007

Thats normal, the last straight is not part of the time attack as its for entering/exiting the pit lane. See here: —Preceding unsigned comment added by XMerc (talk • contribs) 02:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Removed misleading map: as: Point B in this map is wrong! No part of the new GP-Track (Black in the map) is used for the Nordschleife laptimes. Point B has to be just a few Pixels right from point A.

I'm just mentioning that in the other manufacturer's test videos I have seen they seem to drive                                                                                           the same course, but start/stop their timing in the same spot unlike in the GT-R video. Ex: Manuel Reuter's Opel test videos Opel Astra OPCOpel Corsa OPC I would also think that with the manufacturers tests they would have a private run so they could go all out unlike the shortened magazine laps? --Kosai03 00:08, 25 October 2007

Well, they weren't running the stock runflat for that time I guess:

"'We used cut slick tyres' said Mizuno.

'I was not interested in full slick times as this bears no resemblance to a road tyre. 1.2G of force was being pulled in wet and over 2 in dry'." Tokyo 2007: The Sky's the Limit --Kosai03 11:53, 27 October 2007

Not true. Not only does both EVERY picture and the video show the car using the factory run flat tires but the chief engineer ALSO quoted saying they DID NOT use cut slicks:

"Mizuno reckoned that a time of around 7:30 should have been possible in the dry, but that going much faster would have required hand-cut slicks, which isn't "real world.""

What is the real world? A heavier car with less downforce and less grip tyres is faster in curves? (GTR vs. Porsche turbo or GT2) Is that the real world? Fact is: we have contradictory statements, we have an older estimated time of 7:55 (seems realistic to me) and we have this 7:38 that does not fit into the "real world". Although I think this laptime gives Nissan more credit than it should, we should just leave weight/horsepower and tyres as "manufacturer claim". I will wait for the sportauto test to have a credible result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.55.96.36 (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

it may be a good car but it isn't magical. 7.29 is a ridiculus time for a car with less grip, less downforce, more weight, less power and 4wd eating away power compared to porsche's 7.32

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.93.63 (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I will take pictures,videos, and a quote from the chief engineer found on a more reputable source then www.pistonheads.com over what you posted. No matter what people will continue to try and discredit the GTR.....NO one has cared so much in the past to discredit any of the other cars track times...I can assure you Nissans is probably more legit then over 90% of the "official" lap times. How many other automobile companys have provided FULL LENGTH video of the car on the track? 0. Only magazines which never achieve what the said manufacturer has done. Except Nissan....providing countless pictures and video proving a point. The GTR is serious.

"There's been some confusion over the tires used on the GT-R during its 7:38 lap of the Nurburgring. Various sources have reported that cut slicks were used. This is incorrect, and stems from a language barrier at a press conference during the GT-R's debut at the Tokyo Motor Show.

Senior GT-R development engineering staff on hand at the 'ring trip I attended confirmed that production-specification (including the tread compound) Bridestone RE070 tires were used on the 7:38 lap.

The three pre-production cars Nissan had on hand during the final Nurburgring trip were production-intent configuration. The strongest car of the three (within production variation) was selected to run the lap, with no "hotting up" done to fudge the result." 2009 Nissan GT-R First Look Comments

"How many other automobile companys have provided FULL LENGTH video of the car on the track?" Opel does, just in case you didn't see those.

--Kosai03 15:22, 31 October 2007

The youtube lap might be impressive, but as we can see the topspeed on the main straight is much slower than the Porsche GT2 or turbo. Because traction is not the limiting factor for the porsche turbo or gt2 the lap seems to be very implausible. Its very doubtful, that weight and horsepower of the gtr is what nissan claims. Using an equivalent tyre, the heavier nissan can not be faster in the curves - its not faster on the straigt, so what? Shell we believe in miracles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.106.16 (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Nissan claims, that the GTR can do the laptime of a Porsche 997GT2 in dry. All facts that we know until now let us ask: How can that be possible? Some facts: The GTR is slower on the straigts than the 997GT2. Carlos Ghosn says that the GTR breakes form 100km/h to 0 in 37 meters. (in interview with Volker Koerdt) The 997 GT2 has done every brake test that has been published so far in less than 33m (100 - 0km/h) The curve speed is determined by the centrifugal force and the friction. The centrifugal force is determined by the weight of the car and the friction is determined by the tyres used. The Porsche 997 GT2 has street legal Michelin Pilot Sport Cup tyres. Nissan says the GTR has equivalent street legal tyres. Subsumption: The Porsche is faster on the sraight, has better brakes, is due to physics-laws faster in the curves, but the Nissan does the same lap time. Someone thinking what I think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.106.16 (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * All of which is original research. Wikipedia is only interested in sourced material, and to this date all of the current sourced material points to the Nissan GT-R doing the lap time in 7.38 in full production specification (including tyres). Although I'm neither saying whether that is true or untrue, all of the current SOURCES say that that's what has happened.
 * Also, keep in mind that the GT-R reportedly does 0-60 in 3.5 seconds, slightly faster than the 3.6 of the 997 GT2. Although the GT-R is heavier and less powerful (edit: more powerful) than the GT2, it has a faster gearbox which may explain how it is faster. Also, it is AWD whereas the GT2 is RWD, which may assist it. There hasn't been any information released regarding brake times for the GT-R, so I cannot compare them there. The AWD of the GTR may or may not assist in its cornering. This is without taking into account other important factors such as suspension.
 * I'm not saying that this proves that one if faster than the other - not at all. All I'm saying is that your analysis is insufficient proof that the GT-R is slower than the GT2.
 * Finally, the GT-R has video proof, which helps.
 * In conclusion, however, the Wiki article should reflect what the sources say, not what our suspicions are about which car should be faster. Hugzz (talk) 04:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

But all sources say also that this has been three pre-production cars, and this one was the fastest. Whatever that may mean... Last weeks first GTR test in german car magazine "Auto Zeitung" November 2007: 0-100km/h (0-62miles) 4.7 sec. However, I fell funny about the whole GTR thing - but I will just leave it alone. And - this article can never be perfect. Different drivers do different laptimes. Horst von Saurma is fast, but most pro-drivers are a bit faster. So all laptimes can not be fully comparable. Maybe only the supertest ones (same driver, same tracklength) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.16 (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

-- To whoever is naive enough to place the GT-R VSPEC on the list at 7:25, please, do us all a favor and grow up. Even the source you listed says the time is far from credible. And let's take a second to review what a 7:25 is implying: a car that weighs 800 pounds more than a Zonda F Clubsport and has 100 less HP beat the Zonda by 3 seconds. That is physically impossible, and the list is there to report verifiable lap times...not inaccurate garbage reported by fanboy observers on the ground with stopwatches. Save yourself some time and stop posting garbage on the list...it is only going to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.139.80 (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

^^^Owned, Nissan GT-R 7:29 lap video^^^
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUM4fM-85ZM&feature=related75.3.248.182 (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

'''YOU SONSOFBITCHES KEEP ARGUING AND ARGUING ABOUT THE GT-R LIKE IT HAS RAPED YOUR MOTHERS. TOP GEAR JUST TESTED A GT-R ON ITS OWN TRACK. THE RESULT? DO I EVEN NEED TO SAY IT? OK, EXTREMELY IMPRESSIVE! IT BEAT ALMOST ALL OF THE EXOTICS ON THEIR LIST. TOP GEAR COULDN'T BE ANY MORE IMPRESSED BY IT. STOP ARGUING AND FIGHTING, YOU BUNCH OF RACIST DOMESTIC FANBOIS!!!'''

Accurate data
The list should contain only times that are referred by a reputable source. Most of these times are from reputable sources and there should be URL/links available.

Also the list should contain only road-legal cars with road-legal tires. Cars that were trailered there and tricked out should not be listed. Also the starting procedure should be mentioned. Some had a rolling start, some even a fast rolling start! Standing start only! We should delete from the list the entries not observing these rules.
 * Very few will have had a standing start. Most lap times are from rolling starts. I agree that any car which are not road-legal should either be labeled as such, or left off the list. Since the Nordschleife is in Germany, the car should be road-legal there. Also, any cars which are modified should be labeled and that applies to the chosen tyres too. Unfortunately, often the tyres used are not mentioned in the references. Nasty 22:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this list is the most updated, but it was the latest I found. --Kensai 16:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have some sources for these times? Mostly they look pretty reasonable but that Ferrari F355 Challenge at second place seem very fishy. The F355 Challenge is just a slightly souped up race version of Ferrari's cheapest car, so it's highly unlikely that its 20 sec/lap faster than a $400,000 Porsche Carrera GT, and a whopping 1 min/lap faster than the regular F355! Tren001 04:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The Jaguar diesel was driven in the time shown by Jeremy Clarkson, but in the same show (Top Gear) the car was taken round much quicker by a second driver (Sabine). Neither claimed it was the fastest lap for this car, so i'm not sure it should even be listed with Sabines time (which I do not know exactly)

Removed the three TopGear Times, as these were not for a complete lap. They were so called BTG (Bridge To Gantry) times. In Tourist traffic you can't do complete flying laps but have to enter and exit the track on the Döttinger Höhe straight. To get an idea how fast they're going, people then measure the time from the bridge at Antoniusbuche to a trestle over the track at the beginning of Döttinger Höhe. Therefore these times are missing the whole very long straight and, depending on the car, are about half a minute or more quicker than those of a complete lap.

So how detailed a citation is needed for each entry to be used in this list? A URL is certainly not always possible since about half the times are from magazines. There's a lot more Sport Auto times available out there complete with track length, lap time, and average speed which I'd be happy to add, but they're usually referenced by year rather than month/year of specific issue. It's a shame to lose all that data just because it doesn't meet some arbitrary criteria here. 24.8.221.1 02:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
continuing vandalism on Porsche 997 GT2 by Wikiarrangementeditor! Obviously a Nissan GTR fan! Is it possible to protect certain parts from vandalism? It really sux, when kids manipulate every day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.16 (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism by has been reverted to the version last saved by 85.210.163.195. This article may require some cleaning up. Orsini 02:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am a fan of GT-R. However, an unfair thing is not done to Porsche. Detailed information on the tire and the condition is necessary. you of the Porsche fan that wants to conceal it are unfair.--Wikiarrangementeditor (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Other sources in the timetable are far less credible than Roehrl. Please stop your vandalism on the GT2 time. The 997 GT2 is even faster. As reported by autobild (scroll down for link), 7:32 was done for a full lap. That is 6-7 sec. longer than the GTR distance. As we have no tracklength for every laptime, the comparison 7:32 to 7:38 is unfair anyway! It`s more like 7:25 for the 20,6 km lap for the GT2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.139.213.62 (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No.Autobild simply misunderstand 20.6km lap as 20.8km lap.see http://www.autobild.de/artikel/Themen-News-Hoellen-Meister_442921.html  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APbrjvadVA0  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.150.174.106 (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please conform to the screening criterion of Daniel J. Leivick. Because you are the German if 7:31 are true, it must be easy to collect material. And, what is the reason to want to conceal information on the tire and the condition? Please point it out if I am putting wrong information. The concealment of information is not admitted.--Wikiarrangementeditor (talk) 10:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikiarrangementeditor, stop your vandalism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.16 (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikiarrangementeditor, obviously you do not speak english. Roehrl says clearly "normal tires" in the linked videointerview. You delete it every time and add slick tires to the porsche. Is that the only way to make your Nissan look better? Very, very poor!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.16 (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You do not know Pilot sport cup? Or, Was a different tire used? Please brand name and the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 18:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment in main article moved: Bugatti Veyron time
I was unable to find a reference to the lap time of the bugatti veyron anywhere on the site of wheels magazine. http://www.wheelsmag.com.au/ Since this was the source listed, I would like to see validation of the claim. (User:194.74.176.98 made this comment at the bottom of the main article, I moved it here.)Howboutpete 17:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Porsche GT2 / Nissan GTR tires
since the Nissan GTR video is on youtube there is a lot of confusion about the tires used.

Nissan claims to have used Bridgestone RE 070 RFT. (...)

Nissan fans even add slick-tires to the Porsches. Sportauto has tested the Porsche 997 GT2 in Supertest 11/2007. Walter Roehrls 7:32 is confirmed by AutoBild. Both tests were done with factory setup including Michelin Pilot Sport Cup tires. These are street legal sport tires with profile, also called semi-slicks - but not slicks!

Nissan will not offer the GTR in Germany before 2009. So - no independent sportauto supertest before 2009... What a pity!

slick tires Source(Not Sportscup semi-Slick.) The NISSAN GT-R developer testified. "GT-R Time 7:38 is road condition of semi wet and normal tire.New PorscheGT2 Time 7:32 is road condition of Dry and Slick tire(no ditch)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 20:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Not true! Porsche GT2 was on Michelin Pilot Sport Source: autobild, sport auto 11/07, look for Walter Roehrl 997GT2 nordschleife video on youtube. (Not onboard) Walter Roehrl confirms the full factory setup with tires (speaks german).

Europe journalist has not been trusted. The cause of the false rumor of GT-R cut slick is UK journalist. testimony Nissan is given to priority. Please 7:32 Nur run a normal tire Video URL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 14:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The 997 GT2 is in production and in sale in germany! Supertest 11/07.

Roehrl statements : production car, full factory setup: Videointerview

Changed the Laptime for 08 GT2 to 7:31 because of the Motor Authority Article. Please discuss before undo ;-) Overengineered (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"Roerl had to overtake eleven cars on this lap." Is this a comment at 31 seconds of seven minutes? or 32 seconds of seven minutes? If is a 32 seconds,deletes it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarrangementeditor (talk • contribs) 07:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"Well, doubt no more. Our friends over at Auto Motor & Sport Sweden recently interviewed Porsche test driver and rally god Walter Röhrl, who discusses his experience with the new supercar. He claims he has done the Nordschleife in an incredible 7:31m, even faster than the factory figure we provided." Motor Authority Videointerview. He definatly says 7:31... and if Walter says it... ;-) But could be a mistake, anybody knows? Overengineered (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That is three different laptimes: Sporauto supertest (20,6km) 11/07: 7:33 Driver Horst von Saurma (slower than Roehrl). Roehrls 7:31 - and: the Autobild 7:32,18 (source: http://www.autobild.de/artikel/Themen-Testberichte-Duell-am-Ring_422642.html) This was a Car-motorcycle test. Motorcycles are not allowed in industry testing sessions (20,6km), so autobild had the Nordschleife exclusive for this test. That means 7:32 for the full 20,8km!

No.Autobild simply misunderstand 20.6km lap as 20.8km lap http://www.autobild.de/artikel/Themen-News-Hoellen-Meister_442921.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APbrjvadVA0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.150.174.106 (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What? This Pagani wrong tracklength on autobild.de does not disprove the full lap for the GT2 and the motorcycle. The Pagani laptime was originally reported by autozeitung (including the wrong tracklength). Autobild quotes here (http://www.autobild.de/artikel/Themen-News-Hoellen-Meister_442921.html) the wrong autozeitung article. Other than the pagani manufacturer test the car/motorcycle test was an original autibild (magazine, later online) article! If you do not have better arguments, please stop deleting the "full lap". And since when do we add "dry conditions" to normal laptimes? Never seen that for any other car! And what is the source for the road conditions? ...Nissan fans pushing their prototype... I am p1ssed!

Show me the video like zonda's one.

Sure. Every lap is videotaped... By me! And since the nissan "prototype" "test" only video counts. Only way to find out: ask autobild.

I wrote zonda's one.because the article and test itself can be different.and it has safety issue to clock on the 20.8km lap.

You do not understand the original sources, because you do not speak or understand english or german. Nevertheless you constantly edit the Porsche laptimes. Nippon kid, you make wikipedia worse...

You do not know rules in the Ring well.if you understand german,ask them(Autobuild) about it

Ring rules? I am often at the ring, are you? The 20,6km tracklenth is the standart for industry testing sessions. There are no motorcycles in industry testing sessions. The autobild test was a car motorcycle test. Why should they do the industry pool lap then? But I guess you know the "ring rules" best. Thank you for teaching me! %$&`"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.16 (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't know why auto mfrs took that strange way to clock the time. if there were no problems to clock the time on whole 20.8km length,auto mfrs wouldnt take it.

Maybe we should add another column (driven length) and add a note (+3 secs) (-2 secs) or whatever, to show the result. Overengineered (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Different track lenghts
Folks, you mix up several different track lengths, from the pre-1983 22,8 km to the post-1982 20,8km to the sport auto 20,6km to BTG which is well under 20km. -- Matthead DisOuß   05:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy Clarkson
While a notable event (if only to viewers of his TV show), this article is called "Nordschleife fastest lap times", so I don't believe Clarkson's attempt in the Jaguar S-Type qualifies. Perhaps it should just be a footnote in Sabine Schmitz's entry instead? 203.132.83.9 (talk) 09:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

NISSAN GTR
The time of 7:38 will remain as the current time of the Nissan GTR. Until there is visual evidence (A Youtube video or similar) of the said 7:29 lap, I suggest this time remains. I find it extremely difficult to believe that a Nissan can go around the Nurburgring faster than a Porsche Carerra GT in Porsche's backyard. Manufacturer's claims and unofficial times do not hold up on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Number1schumacherfan (talk • contribs) 00:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, there is. See Best MotoRing:

http://www.motorworld.net/tracker/details.php?id=1371 CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 19:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Road car lap times caveat
I wanted to clarify my position on the matter as it appears there is an IP who disagrees. Comparison like this are not permited by policy. WP:SYN does not allow for the combining of multiple sources to advance a position not advanced by any of the sources. Taking lap times from an array of sources and combining them to produce a compartive table from which a reader gets the impression that one car can lap faster than another is exactly what WP:SYN prohibits and this is why a caveat is needed, to inform the reader that direct comparisons is not the intention of the list. Please do not remove the caveat sentence again. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 09:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * All drivers are professionals, lap length and conditions are specified.75.8.98.44 (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This does not address the fact that the list violates WP:SYN. In any case, most of the sources do not mention track length at all even though they vary. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This is what the list is modeled after therefore it doesn't violateWP:SYN. http://www.fastestlaps.com/track2.html
 * Main purpose for www.fastestlaps.com is to collect lap times from different tracks for different cars. All lap times seen in this portal are collected from various trusted sources - mainly automotive TV shows and car magazines. All hot laps are performed by professional racing drivers and cars are pushed to the limits.

My source is from the above so it doesn't violate WP:SYN. 75.3.241.188(talk) 23:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That source definitely works. However in order to avoid synthesis, the lap times listed must only come from fastestlaps.com.  We can't use their comparative list and mix it with other sources.  I will edit the list so that it matches the list from fastestlaps in the next couple of days. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Carrera GT laptime
Someone needs to get his car information straight. In the July 04 version of Autobild, the Carrera GT broke its own record of 7:32 with another record, this time with Porsche test driver Walther Rorhl behind the wheel. It did it in a 7:28. Now get over it. X49 (talk) 08:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh and also, I think the Nissan GT-R Vspec lap should be removed. It's unofficial, and even the sources say so. X49 (talk) 08:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"7:28 is doubtful source." --> It's Porsche's official time, posted by a well known magazine. Every single motoring entity/website/you name it acknowledges the time. You must have problems if you think that's a doubtful source.

Seriously, Wikiarrangementeditor, get over it. There's a difference between what you think and what really happened. X49 (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

On request, did a quick two minute google search, here's "internet proof" if you doubt the magazine.

http://www.topgear.com/content/news/stories/2354/ The carbon-fibre-clad supercar lapped the 'Ring in 7:27.82, shaving two-tenths of a second off the previous record, held by the Porsche Carrera GT.

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/04/08/nissan-gt-r-v-spec-lap-times-stun-observers/ For comparison, Walter Röhrl lapped the Ring in 7:28 while driving a Porsche Carrera GT in 2004.

http://jalopnik.com/cars/supercars/ring-of-fire-pagani-zonda-f-clubsport-takes-the-nurburgring-fastest-lap-312766.php The Pagani Zonda F Clubsport recently made it around Germany's Nürburgring faster then the previous production-car record holder, the Porsche Carrera GT. The lightweight, super hi-po Zonda did the Green Hell's 14.2 miles in 7:27:82, edging out the Porsche's 7:28. X49 (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Journalists on car web site have the possibility of quoting information on this Nordschleife fastest lap times. It is necessary to examine sentences of evidence or Autobild 07/04 that is Public Record of Porsche closely.--Wikiarrangementeditor (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, in all seriousness do you know what you're typing? If you don't believe all the websites quoting Porsche and Autobild, it's your problem not everyone else's. You're essentially struggling to hold onto something you've got no basis for.

Seeing from your ban record, I might assume you're in desperate need to make the GT-R seem faster than everything Porsche ever made. Either way, I don't care. I'll revert the article one last time and if you still insist on your mindless, baseless analogy, I won't stop you. X49 (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I only want more certain information. The mental abuse to me of you is disregarded. I give priority to your information if you produce the evidence of Public Record.--Wikiarrangementeditor (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A bunch of deletions?
I've seen a bunch of deletions lately, and I don't believe they're substantiated. 

I'm not sure what the reasons were, but this seems like some mistake. I'll undo these edits unless there's some reasoning given as to why the quite notable cars were deleted. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No reason in a day. The edit should be fixed: . Unfortunately undo doesn't work due to it being too old.

CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 18:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It does not matter wether a car is notable (or "is cool", or "RULEZ!") - the lap time needs to be verifiable and notable. If time permits, I'll delete entries with "Unofficial time measured by bystanders at the track", and also lame pissing contests like "~552 PS" vs. "~551 PS". -- Matthead Discuß   10:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with Wheels Magazine Australia, for instance?   Is it not a source? CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 12:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Article cleanup
This article lists all kind of lap times, not only fastest, thus I've just moved to "Nordschleife lap times". Also, the messy "Production car lap times" needs to be fixed, with the verifiable and comparable sportauto times getting a table of their own. Most other claims are dubious, as track length and conditions are often not stated. -- Matthead Discuß   10:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ariel Atom 500?
Is the Ariel Atom 500 laptime of 6:53(!!!) verified? Seems way too fast, 2 seconds faster than the Radical?


 * Look at the power to weight ratio. JCDenton2052 (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1 hp/kg is of course exceptionally high, but is the lap time verified? The table tells nothing about driver, track length, or anything else. 193.183.253.33 (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course it doesn't prove the time, but it demonstrates that it's not impossible. Has anyone tried asking on the talk page of the user who posted the time? JCDenton2052 (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

sportauto - Supertest non-serious lap times
the sportauto - Supertest lap times handle with care!

the track lenght may diffrent from 20,000 meters to 20,832 and the precise lenght is never written in their reports. some times are only calculated for an ideal run, and else times was driven with prepared cars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.211.61.141 (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

ZR1 Lap Time Dispute
It looks like there's a controversy over whether the ZR1 time should be listed as 7:26.4 or 7:27.4. I have edited to 7:26.4 a couple of times, because that is the manufacturer's claim, but the edit has been reversed. Manufacturers' claims are listed for whatever they are worth throughout the lap-time chart, and when there is some reason to question the time, it is noted in the notes section. The manufacturer's claim for the ZR1 is clearly 7:26.4. The official announcement states that the time of 7:26.4 was measured by electronic timing and confirmed by two stopwatches. If someone still disagrees with GM's time based on their own timing -- using whatever device and start/end points they might be using looking at the video-- that may be something to put in the notes section, but the manufacturer's claim is what it is. As far as I know, there is no reason to believe that GM has changed its claim to 7:27.4. Therefore, the number listed on the chart should be 7:26.4 -- the actual claim from the run -- with an asterisk noting that it is only the manufacturer's claim.

An editor revising the time up to 7:27.4 cited http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ-CNFpPCnk. That is a video with a separate timer by an upstart car-guy website, and there is no reasonable way to verify that the third timer is the accurate one. It does not mesh precisely with either the GTR timer or the ZR1 timer, and the differences could easily be the result of imprecision in playback speed. That video is a very poor replacement, I think, for the in-car electronic timing, plus the two confirming stopwatches that GM says it used during the run. There has been only one official Nurburgring test run, and one claimed time. So far, no one but GM has gone for a timed Nurburgring run. So it seems, for now, that Wiki should list the manufacturer's claimed time -- with an asterisk if necessary due to the cited video (though I don't think the cited video is any basis to question the time).

Thoughts?

Shielse123 (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

sry. but the complete run is very strange 1. the points were non-official 2. the count measurement were uncertain 3. only gm drove like this high result (just wait for the sport auto - supertest time with this car!) 4. no other witnesses can the time certify (very unusual) thats are 4 points for delete the complete ZR1 entry from the list. and your argument with the video compression or imprecision playback cannot be accepts, because you can see i directly compare between both times and both cars on course of the road. it's only a gimmick from GM without significance. yours sincerely (217.237.149.144 (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC))

I understand your concerns with the time. Looking at GM's video, I myself find it odd that the run does not seem to start and stop in the same place. On the other hand, the same thing was apparently done with the GTR test, and possibly others, and there could be a valid reason (though I don't know what it is). Many of the claimed manufacturer times are dubious for various reasons, but I think it is important -- if a manufacturer test is going to be included here -- to give the actual time claimed, even if it is dubious. Later, when SportAuto does their test (as they no doubt will), the time may very well be higher. The SportAuto result will, of course, show up here, and people can then make their own decisions about which time is more believable.

Shielse123 (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

the time from the skyline became corrected too.

217.237.149.207 (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the source listed in the table is "Manufacturer's claim," with two links showing the claimed time of 7:26.4. Whether or not this time is accurate and stands up to further testing, that IS The Manufacturer's Claim, and if the time listed in the table is not going to be The Manufacturer's Claim, then the source should be changed to something that accurately reflects the source of the time, like "third-party analysis of YouTube video," or "incredulity."

Clearly, this table does NOT consist solely of consistently-measured, official lap times. The convention for dubious claims is to mark them with an asterisk, note the source of the claim, and any special conditions that may call the validity into question. If at some point in the future more hard information (i.e. third-party testing, official scoring) becomes available to confirm or invalidate the claim, the table can be changed to reflect updated knowledge. As it stands right now, the data in the table is false. The manufacturer's claim is NOT 7:27.4. Almitydave (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I originally put the ZR1 on this list after watching a you tube video. Its clearly 7:24.6. No doubt about it. The car started at a weird position (near start of F1 circuit), however it ended at same position, thus its still a full lap.

ZR1 Horsepower Dispute
It is 638 HP according to official general motors chevrolet website. www.chevrolet.com Someone put 647... that's wrong. It's 638, so just leave it. Also what is PS? I had put HP before, I'm not familiar with PS. Again someone changed it to 647.. where are u getting this number? The official chevrolet website lists it at 638 HP. So where's this 647 coming from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.87.178 (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Road-legality Radical SR8
According to Radical, the 6.55 time was in 'road legal trim', yet the table states "non-road legal". 84.217.8.0 (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

ZR1 Disappearance
The entry for the ZR1 seems to have entirely disappeared. Explanation?

Shielse123 (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Japanese cars' laptimes
Some asswipe keeps deleting the fastest Japanese cars on that list, such as the GT-R, GT-R Spec V, Lexus LF-A, etc. They should be at the top of the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.59.105 (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

GT-R is there, Lexus LF is a concept so doesn't count, & GTR Spec-V isn't out yet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.87.178 (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)