Talk:Mercedes-Benz C11

Racing car template
I've had a stab at a template for racing cars (see template:Racing car) to summarise the usual data. I've used the F1 templates as a starting point and applied it to the Brabham BT46 article. If anyone's got an interest in this, please have a look at the template and modify or suggest changes as appropriate. After a few people have had a go at it and we have something we're happy with we could start to use it more widely. Note that it's not meant to be specific to F1, by the way. Cheers. 4u1e 10:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Specifications
The current power figure quoted (950bhp) seems quite high and there are no references for where this figure came from. I found this site that has the 950bhp figure, but then this site and this site say it has between 730-750bhp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edvvc (talk • contribs) 15:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree totally! This really needs to be changed. Extrapolating on the data we have, 950 hp is not feasible.
 * This is not a realistic figure - it is simply the absolute maximum beyond which the engine will not go with those specs. The only way to change it is to increase the RPM or increase the torque. So 950 hp is impossible with those figures. I will give it the customary two weeks for anyone to come up with a reason why this should not be changed. After that, out they go! Flanker235 (talk) 09:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not a realistic figure - it is simply the absolute maximum beyond which the engine will not go with those specs. The only way to change it is to increase the RPM or increase the torque. So 950 hp is impossible with those figures. I will give it the customary two weeks for anyone to come up with a reason why this should not be changed. After that, out they go! Flanker235 (talk) 09:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Figure has been changed to reflect references. Flanker235 (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Also changed dimensions from imperial, since the car is European and would have been built in metric. The conversions remain. Flanker235 (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have also changed the transmission from 5-speed sequential to 5-speed manual. Videos show that it was a conventional H-pattern and not sequential. Flanker235 (talk) 03:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

German Pronuciation
The article claims that "10" and "C" are pronounced very similarly in German. I'm not a native speaker but I'm will to bet imaginary money that's not true. Are there any sources for that? --Sabre ball t c 19:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, it would be pronounced "ZEH-TSEN". An article published in the April 1990 edition of MotorSport magazine said that the number C10 was skipped for that reason. I guess you can make of that what you will. The writer doesn't source the claim but it's in the article so I assume that's where it came from. Flanker235 (talk) 09:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Top speed
The top speed quoted here of "<407 km/h" is totally speculative and should be removed. There can be almost no case made for it. The first reason is that we don't actually know what it was capable of because few figures exist in relation to Cx, Cd and L/D ratio and secondly, it is not possible to simply extrapolate from a previous car with the same engine. In any event, the highest speed ever attained by the C9 is verified at 400 km/h and not 407. To clarify further, this car was never raced at Le Mans on the old 5.8 km Mulsanne Straight, which was the only place these cars ever went that fast. As far as can be determined from the few references which exist, there was never a low drag configuration like there was for the C9.

Despite the fact that the claim does not say the car actually did 407 km/h, the inference is unmistakably there. Even if the highest speed it ever recorded was say, 330 km/h (feasible at a track like Monza) it would be hard to argue that the claim should be included simply because it is demonstrably less than 407.

Unless someone can give a credible reference for this claim, it should be removed. I will give it the customary two weeks. Flanker235 (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This claim has now been removed for reasons of speculation and lack of reference. Flanker235 (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Development and History sections
I have added a development section and will expand the History section in due course. I think a lot of the specification stuff is redundant and that whole section could be eliminated with any extra material transferred to the data block. It seems to have been added somewhat casually and could do with a tidy up. Flanker235 (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the History section and included some opinions from the engineers and drivers. Flanker235 (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)