Talk:List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times/Archive 2

EVO magazine lap times
Will anyone be adding the times set down by Marc Basseng for EVO magazine?

They ran the Maserati MC12, Pagani Zonda F Clubsport, Koenigsegg CCX, Porsche Carrera GT and Ferrari Enzo with help from Black Falcon.

The times for the cars were:


 * MC12 - 7:24.29
 * Zonda - 7:24.65
 * Enzo - 7:25.21
 * CGT - 7:28.71
 * CCX - 7:33.55 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homers Oddity (talk • contribs) 09:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

wrong track lengths
the list is mostly wrong.... Nearly all laps are only 20.600km, the Porsche GT2 laptime was driven by Walter Röhrl for Autobild Sportscars and they used the 20.833km lap in a compare vs a bike! 20.600km is the "sportauto" lap. This famous print car magazine use this 20.600km layout since many years and today most car manufactors use this 20,600km lap as reference...

The record sheet miss the Donkervoort D8 RS who set the lap record for production cars in 2004 (taking it from the Carrera GT) with 7:14.89min driven by Michael Düchting. The next car the record sheet miss is the Radical SR3 Turbo, the car drove in street legal trim with licens plate a 7:19 with Phill Bennett behind the steering wheel. Like the SR8 the SR3 Turbo is a street legal production car! Radical produce more cars than most of the exotics like Pagani... The Radical SR8 is the OFFICLE lap record with 7:56.1s, sportauto claimed in the last edition that Ultimate Ltd. from the UK prepare a Ultimate GTR 720 to break the OFFICLE 2005 Radical SR8 production car laprecord later this year..their goal is a 6:55.0 min lap..the booked driver is Tom Coronell  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagmashot (talk • contribs) 06:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The correct record sheet is here..

http://www.fastestlaps.com/track2.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagmashot (talk • contribs) 06:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Viper ACR
Adjusting a factory adjustable shock setting does not constitute suspension alteration ... the car was run in factory form

"manufacturer claimed, Hardcore Package option, suspension alterations, video confirmed" should be changed to "manufacturer claimed, Hardcore Package option, wet track in two spots, video confirmed" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.118.206 (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think "suspension alterations" is the wrong term, makes the car seem modified when it comes stock with adjustable shock valving rates and front and rear wings.  Mwmorph  ( TALK · CoONTRIB ) August 28, 2008 21:07:39(UTC)


 * I agree with Mwmorph. The wording should be: "Car was set to 'track mode' for lap test." This would be more accurate.  Also, this is not a manufacturer claim.  Motor Trend had journalists on site for the test and was the original source for the lap record.  Source should be changed to Motor Trend.  --Sauron22 (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I chose to use that wording because that's how the article described it. Trying to keep the wording as close to what the source says for accuracy. Thoughts?  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 20:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Adjusting a factory adjustable shock setting does not constitute suspension alteration ... the car was run in factory form = —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.118.206 (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe Chrysler has issued a statement or a press release on this. Here is the MotorTrend source: http://www.motortrend.com/features/performance/112_0808_2009_dodge_viper_acr_nurburgring_record/index.html --Sauron22 (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Chrysler wouldn't need to issue a statement as long as a secondary source is provided. Secondary sources are more important than primary sources because secondary sources report on primary sources and the cited source clearly states it was a test done by a manufacturer and reported by an unrelated automotive media outlet. Motor Trend (the secondary source) is reporting on Chrysler (the primary source) in this case. Check out WP:PSTS to see what I mean. Thoughts?  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 20:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The term 'manufacturer claim' is appropriate for the ZR-1, GTR and Zonda times because there were no 3rd party journalists present during those events. Motor Trend staff was on site at the Nurburgring during the ACR event. The fact that MT was on site means that they could validate the test: timing method, production tires, production equipment, etc. Motor Trend was the original source reporting on the test, therefore shouldn't the source be Motor Trend rather than 'manufacturer claim'. This is similar to the Z06 Nurburgring test which also has MT as the source. --Sauron22 (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That makes sense to me as well. The "manufacturer claimed" could probably be removed for something like "Motor Trend verified", but Motor Trend still shouldn't be the source because they didn't conduct the test. They just reported on the test. The Z06 line should be changed as well with the source saying "General Motors" and the notes field stating "Motor Trend verified" as well. Thoughts?  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 22:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The more I think about it, the more I feel the "source" field should just be removed all together (sources should just be stated with ref) with the "notes" field being more utilized for details. Things like "manufacturer claimed" and "verified by such and such". Condensing the list in general would be helpful.  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 22:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on the written policy of this site, Motor Trend was indeed a primary source since they were an eye witness to the event. I think with Nurburgring lap times, it's an important distinction that a third party media source was on site. It takes more a lot more courage for a manufacturer to allow a 3rd party to look over their shoulder during a test like this. Also, Motor Trend mentioned that the track was damp in two areas. Should this also be in the notes? --Sauron22 (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * MT did not conduct the test. They reported on an event. That is a secondary source as per policy.  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 18:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The policy states that secondary sources are "one step removed". Motor Trend was at the event similar to the "eye witness to a traffic accident" as stated in the primary source. Both Chrysler and Motor Trend were primary sources based on the policy. This is probably pointless to argue. The main distinction is that this event was witnessed first hand by Motor Trend (a 3rd party verifier) whereas many of the other events were not. It would be accurate to change it to your suggested wording with "Chrysler" as the source and "Motor Trend verified" in the notes.

To be consistent, this would also would require a change with the Z06 listing because Motor Trend was not present for that test. They only reported on it.

It's probably a good idea to get a consistent format for this chart because more and more manufacturers have been testing at the Nurburgring. --Sauron22 (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Consistency is something I'd very much like to bring to this article.  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 03:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This is in response to this edit. "confirmed" sounds like proper wording, no? Also, the cited source mentions nothing about a "track configuration," but it does specifically say "suspension alterations". Am I missing something? Wording should agree with the cited source unless another reliable source can be found.  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 23:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Properly cited references
We need to start seeing some properly cited sources here for this information as well as keeping the original research out. Keep in mind secondary sources are always preferred over primary sources as per WP:PRIMARY. Also need to focus on removing POV unless properly cited sources can be found to back up claims.  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 21:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, YouTube is not a reliable source. Blanket links to videos with absolutely no proper citation is subject to deletion. The same goes for weasel wording such as "dubious" which is a direct violation of Avoid weasel words.  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 23:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * NOT Youtube Source!!!!!!The source that I am presenting is an official video of GMnext and NISSAN and BM DVD.This rebuttal was said many times.I deleted URL of Youtube. --Wikiarrangementeditor (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

ZR1
Wikiarrangementeditor, you are not able to go in there and claim information is dubious or strange or anything else you want to write simply because you think it is. It's considered original research and claims such as this will continue to be deleted by, what looks like a couple different editors (including myself). Let's follow some of these policies set forth.  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 18:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Dubious" not I that chose this word. It is a word being written from originally to the note of ZR1 and GT-R. Please change it into a more suitable expression if this word is improper. However, the thing with wrong choice of the word doesn't become a reason to conceal all objective information.--Wikiarrangementeditor (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you provide reliable sources that considers the time "dubious"?  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 21:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikiarrangementeditor, please discuss here to avoid the whole edit war thing. Discussion solves all.  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 18:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The GT-R used the same lapping system as the ZR1 so why is the is it being called "Strange start point" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.155.23 (talk • contribs)


 * Good point.  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 20:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikiarrangementeditor, the source you keep mentioning in your edit comments clearly states 7:26.4. I'm not really sure what the problem is here, but can you try and avoid an edit war by actually discussing?  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 01:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Matthead's changes
It looks as if matthead made some pretty massive changes to the format and content of this article. I'm all up for change, but considering the current activity of this article, it think grand changes like this need to be discussed before implementation. There is more than just one editor of this article. Thoughts?  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 21:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've had recently warned about the dubious content of this articles, and had announced the changes it made recently. It was you and others who did not respond to it. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOTBLOG, WP:NOTFORUM and it certainly is not a platform for childish claims about horsepower and lap times of certain beloved cars, nor a platform for re-broadcasting of manufacturer claims. No original research, Notability and Verifiability have to be respected. This page should only list significant and documented lap times from competitions, and the sport auto Supertest times which were done under comparable conditions for over 10 years. All else is highly doubtful stuff, and times done in public sessions are absolutely NO NO. I had started this article, and if people continue to abuse it, I'll get it deleted. There are enough web pages dedicated to Nürburgring lap times.-- Matthead  Discuß   10:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A couple of things. First, I just started recently editing this article, so you assuming everyone who is currently editing has seen your "warning" shows a complete lack of good faith. Second, even if I did see it, it just doesn't matter. You need to work with other editors and any admin (which I have no problem pulling into this issue) would agree your hostility is absolutely not helping anything. With all of the editors on this article right now, it's either you work with us or just don't work at all because you aren't helping. Any massive edits to the article without discussion here are just going to get reverted, so why not just start to discuss? As for the sportauto tests, that's great info there. A good resource no doubt. Unfortunately, this article isn't about sportauto's tests. It's about all Nordschleife lap times and, therefore, it's a comprehensive list of a great number of lap times from a great number of resources. It should not be separated by source info. Everyone needs to also just deal with the fact that there's not one definitive source of info here. Thoughts from all editors?  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 16:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * After re-reading your comments, I have a couple more myself. You're absolutely right about many things. No original research, Notability and Verifiability must be respected, and that's for any article on Wikipedia. This page absolutely should only list significant and documented lap times, but not just documented lap times through competition. Considering how much manufacturers and the automotive media are pushing these lap times as a sort of standard, they need to be documented as well here. If you do want only competition lap times, I suggest a new article is created such as Nürburgring lap times in competition or Nürburgring competition lap times. Something to that effect. Thoughts from editors?  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 16:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

fastest bikes...
One of the bikes is dated at going round the 'ring in Oct 2008.... which hasn't occurred yet... Anyone have a copy of Performance Bikes that can fix this date? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.176.13 (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Carrera GT
Why is the old lap time for the Carrera GT being used? The fastest time was done by Walther Röhrl with a time of 7:28. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.11.34 (talk) 10:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for this? I can't see why it wouldn't be included if a proper secondary source is provided.  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 18:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It was in the July 04 issue of Autobild. I haven't the time to find a source from the WWW, but a google search for "carrera GT autobild nurburgring" should fix that. X49 (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll resurrect this from a little argument I had with some chap here a few months ago. Here are some indirect sources.

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) 05:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

These are excellent secondary sources, what Wikipedia should be built on. I'll throw them in there since they didn't show up on the last edit. Good job!  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 07:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-series/road-legal vehicles
Why is the Radical SR8 inculded in this section not the main section? It is a road legal car as can easily be seen from the pictures of the record breaking car... it has a number plate. It is produced in far greater numbers than some of the cars in the main list (for instance Radical make more cars in 4 months than Pagini had made in their first 13 years) and is a standard model for the firm which can be purchased at any time. Therefore it neither fits "non-series" nor "non-road-legal" by definition. Furthermore, several independant publications (for instance Motorsport news and Track & Race Car Magazine) recognise it as the record holder for production vehicles. --LiamE (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

X6 and Cayenne
also Autobild Sportscars mag uses the Nordschleife - here's the times for the BMW X6 & Porsche Cayenne GTS: http://www.rennteam.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=466710&page=0&vc=1#Post466710 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.20.215.202 (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This note is inaccurate. The Viper ACR is produced (stock from the Conner Avenue Assembly Plant) with adjustable shock absorbers. Those shocks were adjusted before the 3rd run which resulted in the record time. There were absolutely NO SUSPENSION ALTERATIONS.