Talk:Nissan GT-R/Archive 3

Laptimes section
Nissan stock GT-R: 1.02.055 @ Tsukuba Best Motoring. Driven by Keiichi Tsuchiya. Best Motoring 03|2008 issue.

Nissan stock GT-R: 7.38.54 @ Nurburgring - Inside Line: A Lap of the Nurburgring in the 2009 Nissan GT-R and photo from Tokyo Motorshow 2007. Also, this time is confirmed on Wiki's Nordschleife laptimes list.

Mine's stock GT-R: 1.54.688 @ Fuji Speedway - Translated Post From Mine's Official Newsblog This time was improved by "Tarzan" Yamada during HKS 35 Anninversay Festival, but now there is no confirmations from HKS or Mine's.

Sunline Racing stock GT-R: 2.22.280 @ Suzuka - photo with clearly visible 2.22.280

I'll search for more laptimes and confirmations. I think these laptimes should be added to Nissan GT-R article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PathfinderRM (talk • contribs) 12:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've already left you a message on your talk page. Blogs, YouTube videos and etc. are not reliable sources per policy. That's not debatable. If you have "official" sources, let's have it.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 14:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Tsukuba laptime and Nordscleife laptime aren't taken from blogs or YouTube. They are confirmed by Best Motoring, Edmunds.com and Nissan. What other confirmations do you need? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PathfinderRM (talk • contribs) 14:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you reproduce that above? Because all you have shown us in this discussion are blogs, images and one Edmunds article -- which has more information on the automobile itself than of lap times. Lap times are inherently non-notable on an encyclopaedic article.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 14:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * For this car, laptimes are very important, especially Nordscleife(by the way, Nordschleife and Laguna Seca laptimes weren't my edits, I've just moved them to Laptimes section, so you deleted approved information :D) and Tsukuba ones. Because beating the 997 Turbo Nordscleife time was one of the main points during development of Nissan GT-R. Tsukuba laptime is significant for all Japanese sport and super cars, because all Best Motoring tested cars are driven by Keiichi Tsuchiya => you can compare perfomance of cars directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PathfinderRM (talk • contribs) 14:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Roguegeek: I would be inclined to remove the recent press coverage of Porsche throwing doubt over the GTR's 'ring lap time as it is not coming directly from Porsche & is part of a newspaper report. The times have not been part of a Porsche press release, nor do the times correspond with other timed laps on the Nuerburgring and are thus more speculation rather than an official statement in contrast to a full video + press release from Nissan which is easily verifiable. I can expand but rather keep it brief for now. --O-star1 (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Porsche's independent attempts at verifing Nissan's claims have been covered in several reliable sources. It isn't a matter of who has the best press release or video, all that matters is that this controversy has been discussed in reliable sources and needs to be mentioned. --Leivick (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Leivick: you are mixing up a story being repeated by a number of websites with the claim being credible! German magazine 'sportauto' clocked the GTR with wet sections at 7:50 mins around the 'ring, on OEM street (NOT Race compound) tires, let me repeat, part of the track were wet:

http://www.sportauto-online.de/test_U_technik/fahrberichte/hxcms_article_508540_14469.hbs

I should add that one of the most experienced & respected Nuerburgring testers (actually the chief editor of 'sport-auto') Horst von Saurma (he has performed more than 129 tests on most manufacturers -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_von_Saurma) states that he did not really push the car as the key sections on the Nuerburgring were wet and still clocked 7:50 mins, something that Porsche claim they were incapable of. This is very odd. Indeed, the same magazine only managed 7:54 mins for the 911 Turbo on Race compound tires in the dry (where Porsche claim a 7:38 mins):

http://www.sportauto-online.de/test_U_technik/supertest/hxcms_article_503676_14550.hbs

In contrast to Porsche, they supplied a video + section times of their lap, proper proof that a vehicle has performed as stated. The Press story is just a set of random laptimes aimed to discredit the vehicle in question.--O-star1 (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * O-star1, no one is claiming it to be a credible claim. The references don't claim it and the article doesn't claim it. It is a claim, however, and a highly publicized one at that. It's notable enough to put into this article in my opinion and should be stated that it is a claim made my Porsche. The article complies with this.  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 22:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

roguegeek: it should be made clearer in the wording that Porsche's 'counter-claim' is just that. At present it reads like a fact: "Porsche conducted their own test of the GT-R using no modifications and stock tires and achieved a best time of 7:54." It should read: "Porsche claims to have conducted their own test of the GT-R using no modifications and stock tires and achieved a best time of 7:54, though other independent tests have recorded 7:50 mins in wet conditions.(citing above http://www.sportauto-online.de/test_U_technik/fahrberichte/hxcms_article_508540_14469.hbs as a source)" This would make it clearer, that this is just a counter-claim and thus maintains neutrality whilst recording the controversy.--O-star1 (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * O-star1, it is a fact they are claiming Nissan is cheating and it's a notable story.  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 09:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * O-star1, I translated and read through the article you listed as a source. Where does it say anything about wet conditions or stock tires? I don't see that anywhere. I'm removing this info from the article until you can provide a better reference.  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 09:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

roguegeek: I speak German and therefore don't need to rely on a translator. Wet conditions reference is contained in the very sentence where Horst von Saurma reveals the time: "so weist die vom Autor trotz einer noch feuchten [= wet] Passage in einer der Schlüsselkurven des Kesselchens gefahrenen Zeit von 7.50 Minuten doch eines aus: Der GT-R ist ein Renner" fully translated it reads: "as a result the time clocked by the author of 7:50 minutes despite a still wet passage in one of the key sections of the Kesselchens [-> section of the Nuerburgring] documents that: the GT-R is a racer". —Preceding unsigned comment added by O-star1 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

rouguegeek: While it is a fact that Porsche is questioning Nissan's time on the Nuerburgring, we don't know whether their test of the GTR ever took place & under what conditions, that part is a claim and has now been marked as such. Indeed, one sentence by Horst von Saurma provides more information on the track conditions (not just a wet key section but also where that key section was located) than any of Porsche's claimed times. --O-star1 (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahh, I see where this is. My mistake. It say the track was damp in only one corner of the track. I will rewrite to explain this.  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 16:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

SportAuto's test cannot be added to the article as earlier policy as established by rougegeek removed all magazine laptimes. If that section is added then all other laptimes conducted by independent magazines must be added again, however rougegeek already removed this portion. The fact that sportauto's time only now makes it into the article even though the test was conducted many months ago proves adding it only now isn't coherent with the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.229.151 (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

69.65.229.151: If no magazine times can be added, it is also inconsistent to keep the unverified claims by, well, another magazine that Porsche claims to have recorded, it is thus speculation. There has been NO official Press Statement by Porsche on this matter and I doubt there ever will be. Therefore removing this claim too.--O-star1 (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

rouguegeek: I would suggest the following compromise, as I believe that your main point was to acknowledge that another manufacturer has disputed Nissan's Nuerburgring's laptime, but rather than repeating Porsche's unverified claim of their laptime, I will add a short sentence along the lines of "another manufacturer has disputed Nissan's Nuerburgring's laptime" & quote the source (as there was only one Australian newspaper reported all this & other websites then just referred to it thereafter). --O-star1 (talk) 12:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I would disagree that having a second independent test time is a bad thing. Wikipedia does not have to be comprehensive and, therefore, a single test time from a magazine isn't going to hurt anything. I would also disagree with not naming Porsche directly. The entire reason the claim is notable is because of where the claim comes from. This greatly adds to the claim's notability.  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 14:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Reading the 'Performance section', I feel that main reason why this vehicle is significant remains unmentioned, though the final paragraph alludes to it, but does not exlicitly state it. I feel therefore that an additional paragraph is required to furnish this background. While this paragraph will refer to independent track tests, it will not mention the indiviual track times but will comment on the culmunative effect this has had with 6 references to the track tests (some notably conducted in wet or damp conditions)--O-star1 (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel the paragraph as a whole is fine at this point and expanding any more on this subject is going to take away from performance points in the whole section. It will overwhelm a currently balanced section. We need thoughts from other editors before any other edits are to be made. Honestly, I think you're making a big deal out of nothing.  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 17:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be curious as to what O-star specifically would like to add. I am not sure what it is that is not explicitly stated. --Leivick (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

roguegeek/Leivick: only two brief sentences.--O-star1 (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Does one of the 5 sources you added specifically call the vehicle a benchmark? I also am not all the bit about outperforming numerous other vehicle in comparison tests.  The problem with saying this is that it is cherry picking test where it has won.  There are also numerous tests where it is out performed, although usually by a more expensive vehicle, but not always. --Leivick (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Leivick: I can source the 'benchmark' remark (I think J Clarkson has stated it recently), though I'll admit it is not contained within the source material, but I was looking for an appropriate term that best describes the relevance of the vehicle. It is not nessarily the outright win that I was wanting to demonstrate but if it was outpaced, it was either by, as you have stated, a considerably more expensive vehicle, or purpose build track car. What the tests selected highlight though, underlined by quotes of the respective testers (racing drivers in 2x cases) is the track prowess the vehicle has demonstrated, which links the preceding paragraph about outright straighline speed & Nuerburgring track times with the subsequent paragraph with comments from journalists.--O-star1 (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You can't source any of it. That was absolutely filled with WP:POV and WP:OR. Revert.  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 18:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Gotta agree with Roguegeek here. Unless you can provide a good source for the benchmark claim it has to go.  Clarkson isn't a good source for anything other than his own opinions, but I wouldn't be too strongly opposed to saying something like "Clarkson has called GT-R a new benchmark."  I don't think the addition adds much except for personal opinion. --Leivick (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Leivick/roguegeek: You are hard task-masters ;-) though I can see your concern, though I don't quite accept that I can't source any of it. I am not too hung up over the 'benchmark' term, I felt it summarized the verdicts of the GTR quite well and believe that I was not too far off the mark in paraphrasing what was stated in the sources cited. Let me illustrate this with two sections from two of the sources that may make my 'benchmark vehicle in terms of performance & handling' wording seem restrained: "The GT-R's handling was in a league by itself. (...) The Nissan's handling balance is so spectacular that it (...) romped through the slalom (...) about 3 mph faster than the others (and faster than the Ferrari Enzo). (...) Simply put, the GT-R is the most potent automobile to ever come from Japan, and will surely have manufacturers in America and Europe rethinking their ways." (http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=6591) or "On the track, which is faster still, it was untouched in virtually every corner. And it closes the gap between corners in less time than anything else sold today. (...) But in the end, the quickest car on the track was also the quickest car on the street. Nissan's GT-R again proves itself to be today's most impressive performance car." (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=126453).--O-star1 (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As much as I'd agree with those statements, they're still considered WP:POV and we need to be careful on separating this and facts.  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 21:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Try to keep in mind that the kind of superlative used by automotive journalists can't be used in an encyclopedia. We already discuss its incredible performance several times, both in the Nurburgring times, the supercar statement in the intro and the Bugatti comparison.  I'm not really sure anything else needs to be said. --Leivick (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Leivick/roguegeek: I would concur that the Bugatti comparison covers what I had stated. My main point (in this discussion) was one of principle in that my paragraph was NOT expressing my point of view WP:POV but paraphrasing what a number journalists had said, and as can be seen, their comments were even 'stronger' worded than the 'benchmark' wording, thus it was an attempt to capture the 'tenor of journalistic verdicts', though the Bugatti section does this too.--O-star1 (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The SportAuto article is also in German. Wikipedia is based in English and its readers cannot be expected to understand German. Because a moderator can speak German is irrelevant. Wikipedia was never intended to serve as a moderator's website. O-star1 how does one bring in another moderator to decide whether the current one is making edits that are not biased? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.229.151 (talk • contribs)


 * Umm, actually, sites in other languages are absolutely fine for sources. The citation should state the ref is in German, but it's not like it's an invalid link or anything.  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 16:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree with roguegeek on this. sportauto is used as a reference on other topics ('http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordschleife_lap_times#Production_vehicles')--O-star1 (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

roguegeek: May I suggest that the statement "Nissan was quick to dismiss Porsche's claim" be changed to something along the lines of "Nissan has strongly refuted Porsche's claim in an official statement" (http://www.autoblog.com/2008/10/09/nissan-to-porsche-put-the-gt-r-down-before-you-hurt-yourself/) in the light of today's statement?--O-star1 (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I would probably leave the word "strongly" out since it borders on POV.  roguegeek  ( talk · cont ) 17:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)