Talk:List of vehicle speed records

manned spacecraft
is that during reentry or some other time in flight? If not during reentry, then a separate reentry entry should be made 70.55.200.211 (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The Apollo 10 manned speed record was reportedly set during the re-entry phase: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/performance/q0023.shtml Mark Rizo (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Record of Dieselmax
What's wrong with this source FIA-List of rekords. Search for dieselmax and you will see. -- 88.152.193.207 (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Spacecraft records
What is the frame of reference there? I mean, relative to the Sun, I've driven a 1994 Honda Accord over 65,000 mph. I don't feel like assigning speeds to things like the interplanetary probes has much meaning here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.146.234 (talk) 03:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"Local" spacecraft speeds are measured relative to a fixed point on the Earth, and are adjusted to compensate for things like the Earth's rotation and solar trajectory. So, a spacecraft's stated speed is equivalent to what a cop would read on a radar gun (if that were possible) as the craft flew down your street. http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/Navigation/2-how-tell-speed.html http://www.stumblerz.com/how-do-you-measure-the-acceleration-of-a-spacecraft/ The speeds of both unmanned and manned spacecraft are of crucial importance to mankind in terms of the growth of our civilization, and may someday determine whether we survive or not as a species. Space speed records will likely dominate the quest for human achievement over the next two centuries, and probably much longer. Mark Rizo (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Should we consider adding Tesla Roadster here? Neveripe (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Seriously? That was a payload not the vehicle itself. So no. Robynthehode (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree that the Tesla does not belong here, but let's maybe not lay it on so thick with the newbies. I'd like you to imagine getting that reply after your fourth edit ever, and then imagine if you'd still be here. — swpb T go beyond 19:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Underwater speed record
One guy managed to revert my edit. Indeed on this page K-162 it was clearly pointed that the speed of this submarine was 44.7 knots, also this submarine was made with titanium hull unlike USS Albacore (AGSS-569) so the fact that K-162 was actually the fastest submarine ever made isn't that excited at all. Even more this astonishing 44.7 knots record was set once during the trails and this cause a damage to the hull, while 33 knots was a normal operation speed for AGSS-569 without any damage to the submarine. Please in future be more polite and explain you edits. 85.140.17.237 (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your edit again, prior to reading your explanation here. I did so because it appeared that you had deleted sources without explanation. Further, other Wikipedia articles can not be used as sources. If there is reason to believe that the current information is in error, please change it, providing reliable alternative sources. I did find the following, which states that claims of speeds exceeding the official mark are not reliable, especially given the secrecy of military records:


 * Due to the fact that most high speed underwater travel is done by military submarines this is a somewhat difficult subject to research but in 1965 USS Albacore reported a speed of 33 knots but this was not an official record. In 1968 there was an incident when a Russian November class submarine tracked an American carrier group travelling at 31 knots, this led to the American Navy to develop the Los Angeles class submarines allegedly capable of 35 knots under the right conditions.


 * There are established reports, and manufacturer's claims, that would indicate two (or perhaps more) Russian submarines are capable of speeds exceding those set by US Navy vessels. The Akula-class submarine (russian word for Shark) class vessel is reportedly capable of travelling submerged at 35 knots, and its predecessor the Alfa class submarine, could reportedly attain short speed bursts of 44.7 knots while submerged. However, due to the rather secretive nature of these vessels, confirmations of these numbers is highly suspect and unlikely.


 * JNW (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Even your citation clearly pointed that this 33 knots of Albacore was not an official record! May be we should change the article and include all this submarine and mention that those speed arent really achieved under purely tested condition and all these info is just a claims of constructors and militarists? 91.76.235.209 (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have change the article in more neutral way, according to the page Underwater speed record the is only one record for 31 knots, because it was approved by both side, the US had actually report the speed of USSR submarine. The 33 knots of Albacore was never be reported by USSR. Also i mentioned all those crazy claims even for torpedoes like barracuda. 91.76.235.209 (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNER_A4_class_4468_Mallard 194.164.237.96 (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Article needs substantial citations
I am curious about the distinction for the fastest air breathing vehicle. According to the CIA and other source materials, even cited here, the A-12 Oxcart project created a faster vehicle though the information was classified until 1992. This indicates that the page is incorrect and needs to be amended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.198.34.97 (talk) 03:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

This article has some interesting comparative information, and may be a useful one to remain in Wikipedia. However, per WP:V we should not be sourcing assertions with other Wikipedia articles, nor should we have substantive assertions that are unsourced by reliable secondary sources with inline citations. I have tagged just a few of the assertions that need cited with a citation needed tag. If anyone has a good book with a lot of these records in one place, that would be cool. Otherwise, a lot of this material will need to be removed over time unless it is sourced. N2e (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If you're concerned then why don't you do it? Adding a pedantic "Citation Needed" to the very well-known SSC land speed record in particular is taking the piss somewhat. Paddyboot (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Simple answer really. 1) WP is a volunteer gig; so each editor works on the things they want to work on, within WP policy of course.  2) Per WP:BURDEN, the challenge is, and ought to be, on the editor who wants to add info, or to retain unsourced info, to source it.  In my view, the citation needed tags act as a courtesy to editors who might want to retain unsourced material that they should get it sourced.  Although I think it equally good to just remove a challenged bit and then add it back into the encyclopedia only when a source is found.  Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That is not only a classic piece of self-serving "logic", but a great example of playing this site's elephantine policy system to no one's advantage but your own. Basically it seems that you rove around, like a self-appointed chef de cuisine, dipping fingers into articles and taking a greasy, critical lick, then pass judgement and lean back with arms folded while others do the leg work. What a conscientious "volunteer" you are.


 * Anyway. A cursory look at the sources already given in the article footnote would reveal that your tagged "unsourced claims" are already confirmed - the tables on the FIA and FAI websites for example. Even basic common sense might tip one off...the huge picture of the JCB Dieselmax car at the top of the "Records" page on the FIA site is sort of a hint to use editorial discretion. More importantly though, WP policy does state that there is no need for superfluous - redundant, in this case - inline citations when sources are given in a footnote.


 * If you really are concerned about the quality of Wikipedia citations, why not try tagging some of the countless nationalistic, partisan and plain bogus claims, complete with inline cites, that use blogs, posts on internet forums, and Internet Archive backups of some shut-in's personal Geocities homepage from 1999 as "sources"? Frankly, the possibility that potentially bona fide information has been excised - and that kind of garbage left to stand - over proximity to a little blue number in superscript is a rather sad and telling example of the trivial punctiliousness that keeps Wikipedia on the credibility level of Weekly Word News, Rastafarianism, and the Universal Life Church. Paddyboot (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Where do these go?
Where does this go?

"Experimental Aircraft to Go From Zero to 13,000 in Hypersonic Test Launch" Published August 10, 2011
 * FoxNews.com

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/08/09/aircraft-set-to-shatter-speed-sound/?test=latestnews

And maybe this?

"Air Force 'Hypersonic' Jet Sets New Speed Records" Published May 27, 2010
 * Associated Press

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/27/air-force-hypersonic-jet-waverider-record/

Thanks!

Misty MH (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Steam Records and Electric
Steam powered car, train and airplane? What about Electric Cars, Trains and airplane.

Steam powered airplanes did exist but info can be hard to find. (CaptianNemo (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC))

What about Maritime Electric? Wigbold (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Speed records relative to the Sun
The Mars Science Laboratory is not a sun-escaping spacecraft. It is currently in solar orbit (on its way to Mars). 69.72.27.40 (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The Helios wiki entry claims a speed of 252 792 kph. This article claims 241 350 kph. Looking at the two references, there seems to be little justification to use this article's number. The two numbers may be consistent since the frame of reference is not given in either. This is another problem for THIS article as it clearly claims that the speed is relative to the Sun (which is NOT supported in any way from the little I can see.). The fastest space vehicle is the Helios-B (aka Helios-2) (the source does not specify which of the two Helios probes was fastest, but the orbits do show that the B will have a higher maximum speed) I recommend that the section "speed records relative to the Sun" be merged with the "speed records relative to the Earth" as the separation is just plain silly until the former section has more than one entry and the sources show that differences are clear. If no one can give a good argument against consolidation, I will combine them both in the near future under the more obvious heading "Spacecraft".173.189.79.210 (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * SUPPORT the proposal to combine with spacecraft, per rationale of the nom. N2e (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * SUPPORT the proposal to combine with spacecraft, per rationale of the nom. Also, the designations "relative to the Sun" and "relative to the Earth" are both nonsense, and should be removed. As I've shown previously, scientists calculate spacecraft speeds based on fixed points in space.  The motion or position of the Sun or the Earth have nothing to do with it.  If a spacecraft is moving at 35,000 mph, it will travel 35,000 miles in one hour.  Pretty simple. Mark Rizo (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, that is not correct. As Einstein demonstrated in 1905, there is no fixed or special frame of reference. Position and velocity are always relative to some frame of reference, and that frame must be specified if it is not obvious from context. How fast are you moving right now? Relative to the Earth, your speed is nearly zero, but relative to the sun, your speed is much faster, and relative to the galactic core, your speed  is faster still. One person, three different frames, three different speeds. What Einstein proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that none of these frames, and indeed no frame, can be considered more "correct" or "special" than any other. —Swpbtalk 16:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Except there is no such thing as a fixed point in space, unless you mean relative to the big bang (measured as cosmic background radiation) in which case I'm now speeding along at 2.1 million km/h — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.197.86.71 (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Except there is no such thing as a fixed point in space" Huh? What is then the distance to Sun or the distance to nearest star? They can't be measured if you're right.


 * As far as I know, speed = distance / time. The spacecraft's distance to Earth or something else should be known, if it is not it's rather pointless to calculate any speeds. By the way, how is it possible to know anything "relative to the Sun"? If that can be seen, why not the distance the ship travels also? 85.217.21.90 (talk) 07:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, you are not correct. Position and velocity are always relative quantities, and a frame of reference must be specified if it is not obvious from context. For Earth-bound vehicles, the frame of reference is obviously the Earth. For spacecraft, the frame of reference is not obvious, and must be specified. We've known since 1905 that there is no absolute or special frame of reference. Furthermore, speeds measured in different frames cannot be directly compared, which is why it would be inappropriate to merge the spacecraft subsections as has been suggested. —Swpbtalk 15:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Should there be a disclaimer about how the Helios probe wasn't actually going at 5/6 the speed of light? 72.224.172.14 (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Where are you getting that value? —Swpbtalk 15:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) Sure, 250,000/300,000 is 5/6, but it must be remembered that Helios' speed is in km/h and light speed in km/s. So, it is actually 5/(6*3600) = 5/21600 = 1/4320, roughly.


 * 2) Everything is relative to something. But, if Helios' speed is 252,792 km/h, does it not mean it travels 252,792 kilometres in one hour? Or is km/h also meaning something else while it's "relative to Sun"? 85.217.21.90 (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Internal-combustion LSR
If someone can figure out the current recordholder for land vehicles driven by internal combustion engine(s) that would be a good addition to the table. The Goldenrod (car) article looks like a starting point. Tim Zukas (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Helicopter record
Seems to have been bested twice since 1986, according to Wired and engadget. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Lunar land speed record
I thought this should be included, so I did. I wasn't sure if it should go under land speed records or spacecraft speed records. I put it under land speed because the Lunar Roving Vehicle is not a vehicle capable of any sort of powered flight. (Strictly land based)74.51.115.100 (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Fastest tracked vehicle
http://www.industrytap.com/13656/13656 Ripsaw can accelerate to 65 mph in about 3 seconds.

Good enough sourcing? Hcobb (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd like to establish a rule of thumb that unofficial records should generally only be listed for classes of vehicles for which there is no official record. Some unofficial records are currently footnoted for helicopters, but for those, there is at least a precise speed and a date on which the event took place. The source you give just makes a general statement about the Ripsaw's acceleration (not even about its top speed), with no reference to a particular trial event, so I would say it doesn't merit inclusion at this point. If and when a more official record is reported by a reliable source like Guinness, we can change the entry. —Swpbtalk 14:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on List of vehicle speed records. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://records.fai.org/general_aviation/current.asp?id1=21&id2=3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Juno
NASA claims Juno was, at one point prior to its orbital insertion at Jupiter, the fastest spacecraft ever at about 74 km/s (which is 266,000 kph). The Wikipedia article on Juno contains a video animation of the orbit in which it appears (to my eye) that it is fastest immediately after its gravity assist (at Earth). NASA also claims that Jupiter's gravity accelerated Juno as it approached, but I'd guess that as Juno left the Sun, its speed decreased (as would be expected) and so it was at its fastest on its Earth flyby. Anyway, it should be clear that there are three or four relevant speeds for a spacecraft, maybe 5...1) relative to its origin - the surface speed at launch point 2) relative to the center of the Earth 3)relative to the Earth's surface directly between spacecraft and Earth's barycenter, 4) Relative to the Solar System's barycenter (or perhaps the Earth-Sun barycenter, or perhaps the center of the Sun, all of which I assume are similar) 5) Relative to its target planet's barycenter.(And of course, you could add to this both measures relative to target's surface (ie landing point and point intersecting craft to center line at surface).71.29.172.222 (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Speeds of spacecraft are always (that I've seen) quoted in reference to an astronomical body, ignoring rotation, rather than a multi-body barycenter or a point on the surface of a rotating body. At any rate, the difference in masses of the bodies in question is so huge that the barycenters barely move with respect to the larger body. (For example, the sun-Earth barycenter moves at about 0.3 kph relative to the sun itself.)


 * As for Juno, it's speed relative to the earth, or to the sun, may not have been greatest in the inner solar system—Jupiter can provide a significant boost in velocity, as seen in the Voyager velocity profiles. — swpb T 13:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Speeds of spacecraft: always relative to something
Great work Swpb on all the edits you made to the article to address the Juno spacecraft speed issue that I identified in my edits of yesterday. More importantly, mega-THANKS for all the work getting speacecraft speeds handled better more generally!

Just today, I ran into this reliable source article in Astronomy magazine: [http://www.astronomy.com/news/2016/07/juno-may-not-have-been-the-fastest-spacecraft-ever Was Juno the fastest spacecraft ever? Only kind of.] I read it, found it very helpful, but did not check every aspect of its statements against what the WP article says now. Nevertheless, thought I should point it out as it would make an excellent source. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks! That's a great source; I've cited it in the intro text of the spacecraft section, and in the Juno entry. Amid a flurry of poorly-informed media reports, I think we're now finally describing the matter accurately. — swpb T 17:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of vehicle speed records. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160510092701/http://www.fai.org/record-powered-aeroplanes to http://www.fai.org/record-powered-aeroplanes
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150316232118/http://www.fai.org/record-gliding to http://www.fai.org/record-gliding
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160510092701/http://www.fai.org/record-powered-aeroplanes to http://www.fai.org/record-powered-aeroplanes
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160810105156/http://uim.sportcentric.net/db15/uim_front/records.php?view=uim to http://uim.sportcentric.net/db15/uim_front/records.php?view=uim

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of vehicle speed records. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141223171851/http://www.fai.org/fai-record-file/?recordId=389 to http://www.fai.org/fai-record-file/?recordId=389

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Record of Turbinator II
The person who deleted Don Vesco's record wrote: "new wheel-driven record. not sure it should replace 2001 record as it is only one-way." Yes, it was only one-way and so it is in fact no record. Why fit it in here?130.83.197.103 (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The new record is certified by the SCTA, which is the relevant body for the category. As the lead indicates, this is a summary list that does not make distinctions based on variations of test conditions; it simply lists the greatest speed officially recorded in each vehicle class. There are more specific articles, in this case Land_speed_racing, where it is appropriate to discuss those distinctions. — swpb T go beyond 12:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Editing needed on spreadsheet data
The data (speed in km/h and mi/h) in the spreadsheet is wrong. After reviewing the source code, I concluded that it wasn’t an error related to comma misplacement. It is likely a problem with incorrect code, although someone with more knowledge on this subject should verify. NClibertarian1987 (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Can you be more specific? — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 18:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I also noticed the issue.

Specifically, some conversion results have the comma misplaced. Ciplionej (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Just figured out what's wrong. In the table, the values which have more than 4 significant figures are wrapped. Normally wrapping happens at the end of the line. In this table, the wrapping happens before the decimal point. The result is that the last digit before the point is wrapped to the second line. This is only visible on mobile devices. Ciplionej (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)