Talk:List of fastest production cars by acceleration/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Auto Esporte

I attempted to find the issue you cite but when I tried to sign up for an account on the publisher's site it asked me for a Brazilian taxpayer number (which I very much do not have), I am quite confident that no local library is going to be able to get it, I have no clue how I would get my hands on a copy. If you can take a photo of the relevant info please do, you can post a link to whatever image host you want to use. Toasted Meter (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I also don't have it. I'm saying because I personally have the magazine. And I just Hope you checked the links that I discribed. It's proves 2.6 sec is a tested time (because the same publisher says the official time is 2.8 sec). And I'll check a image but is that not available i can't do anything you need to personally find out the 2/2015 issue. Heated Hater (talk) 05:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you are saying, if you don't have it and never had it you should not use it as a cite, because you would not know what it says. If you think the links prove it just use those. Toasted Meter (talk) 07:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Also in the video it says "0 a 100 em 2.6 s" and under that "fonte: Nissan" you can see this at 04:44 in the video. Toasted Meter (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm saying I have the magazine. And on magazine it says "em nosso teste, o GT-R alcançou 0-100 km / h em 2,6 segundos" which means "in our test the GT-R achieved 0-100 km/h in 2.6 seconds" if you can buy the magazine then you can see this sentence. Heated Hater (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

So if you have it, you can take a photo of it right? I have no clue where I could buy one. Toasted Meter (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, how can send it? But immediately, the magazine is not mine, I have return it to the owner. So be soon. Heated Hater (talk) 09:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Post it on some image host (imgur or something) and put the link here. Toasted Meter (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

How? I don't know Heated Hater (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Toasted Meter: the source doesn't have to be easily available. Read WP:VER, particularly WP:SOURCEACCESS where it says: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." You could try, as that policy suggests, asking if anyone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request can access the source for you. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

As long as the claim isn't verified we shouldn't add it to avoid spreading false information. It's an exceptional claim and made in a dubious way. Heated Hater added this 2.6 seconds time with the online article as source. Looking at it reveals that it doesn't show what it should. Than he adds video version as other source. Toasted Meter later revealed that it's rather an indication for the opposite. Next Heated Hater lists the inaccessible magazine issue as source and deletes the accessible ones, demanding us to believe him. We cannot risk that a biased editor - who regularly misinterprets sources in favor of his cars - spreads false information just because he claims it to be in inaccessible sources.Drachentötbär (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why if Heated Hater has it on hand they can't take a photo? They are the only person I know of who has access to a copy and it seems odd to ignore that resource in the hope that someone else might have it.

@Heated Hater: take a photo with your phone then go to "https://imgur.com" and click new post select the photo and then click hidden, it will give you a URL, post that here. If you only have a standalone camera take the photo move it to your computer and follow the same steps. Toasted Meter (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I told you to don't be late. Now I can't do anything because I told it's not mine. I returned it to owner few hours ago. Only option is you need to personaly check the magazine now. Heated Hater (talk) 05:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Need to add a Efn-lr tag for times that claimed with 1-foot rollout in 0-60 mph list.

In 0-60 mph list was mixed with standing start ups and 1-foot rollout measures. So I have a idea to add Efn-lr tags that describing "time measured with 1-foot rollout". So it's can show that the time was measured with rollout and it's easy to find out. And readers also can easily find out the times. So I have to know what other editors say. Will you agree? Heated Hater (talk) 09:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be the standard for most publications that do 0-60 times, if anything we might want to add a note to times that do not include rollout. Toasted Meter (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

No I'm saying the note will only need to be add for rollout times. Not for standstill. Heated Hater (talk) 10:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Most of the times are from publications that use rollout, I only see about ten that I can't confirm use rollout, if you count Car and Drives's retrospective adjustments. It seems backwards to add a note to the majority of times. Toasted Meter (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok then let's add the note for it. Heated Hater (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Independent times vs manufacturer times

Should the summary/overall time use the fastest available, or only use manufacturer's times if no independent sources are available? Altanner1991 (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The independent time should be used. Claims are worthless, anyone can claim that their car does 0-60 mph in 0.5 seconds or put on slicks or relabel a dragster if no one independent is there for verifying.

We should remove the cars which don't have independent times good enough to qualify for the list.

Two-way average times would be perfect to cancel out winds and slopes, but I'd say we should accept one-way runs as long as the road doesn't go downhill more than the 1 percent the NHRA allows. Drachentötbär (talk) 02:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

If WP:RS (reliable sources) show manufacturer's time then it is 100% equally WP:DUE and would follow WP:NPOV. Altanner1991 (talk) 04:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

If the reliable sources only retell what the manufacturer says it's not enough, it has to be independently verified that the time was measured correctly, that the car wasn't modified and using standard tires.Drachentötbär (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

What about the Laferrari's times. It's claimed on a downhill and the car also given by Ferrari with there equipments. I think we need to remove this times and add an another independent time. Heated Hater (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The times by R&T, C&D, Motor Trend, Quattroruote were all tested downhill and don't qualify as neutral. The only independent times for the LaFerrari are shown at https://skiddmark.com/2016/01/judgement-day-holy-trinity-mclaren-p1-vs-porsche-918-spyder-vs-laferrari-wvideos/ which are too slow for this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drachentötbär (talk • contribs) 00:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

If the car is slow then remove the vehicle from the list. They were Don't need to the list. And need to remove the other downhill tested times too. Other cars have lot of independent times. I'm requesting a list of them of your next reply please. Heated Hater (talk) 05:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

For the LaFerrari we could take this time from the dragstrip: https://www.motor1.com/news/249069/porsche-918-ferrari-laferrari-race/

Do we all agree that we exclude 1-way downhill times and cars where only the manufacturer but no independent time qualifies ? Drachentötbär (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with that 1/4 mile time. You can add it to the list Heated Hater (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

For the Nissan GT-R the same rules apply so we cannot use the manufacturer time just because it is quicker. The independent time is 11.1 so the car has to be removed from this list. The Bugatti Veyron Super Sport time should be changed to 9.9@239 as tested by AMS and quoted at https://www.highmotor.com/auto-motor-und-sport-prueba-bugatti-veyron-super-sport.html

I added an independent time for Nissan GT-R. It's does 10.7 sec. And it's bone stock verified and published by carcoops magazine. Heated Hater (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Carscoops didn't say that the GT-R was "bone stock". In the article they called the Z06 C6 Corvette stock, so if the GT-R was stock they would have called it stock too. Both in the article and video comments they doubt that it's stock and the GT-R was popular among tuners.Drachentötbär (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

"Now, we’re looking at pretty much the same situation, though the GT-R has even more power than the C6 Z06 and can cover a quarter mile in the 10-second range.

Plus, the Nissan’s AWD system helps it put its power down a lot more efficiently while accelerating." note, they saying there is a same situation. That means the GT-R also a stock vehicle. and they saying GT-R doing 10s too. It's right there was 10.8 sec for GT-R. And see they saying "the Nissan’s AWD system helps it put its power down a lot more efficiently while accelerating". If this was a tuned car then why they quoting as a stock vehicle review? And this car holds 545 hp. If it's tuned it's need to get over 128 mph on trap speed. 600hp GT-R and NISMO can do over 128 mph in a quarter mile. But this does just 126 mph just like a stock. And see in second run it's doing 11.2 sec. It's also a stock time. If it's tuned they need to another 10 sec. If this tuned why they need to show this GT-R? Theres lot more 6 sec GT-R too. And this GT-R don't have mods on exterior too. It's bone stock man try to understand. Heated Hater (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey see the Corvette's race too. Hellcat is also stock. They only showing stock vhicles. That's right because car magazines not publishing tuned vehicles performance. And 918 Spyder's article also not telling it's a stock. There is some mods available for 918 now. But we didn't say it's a tuned because 9.7 sec is possible for it. So this also just like that. 10.7 sec also possible for a stock GT-R. Heated Hater (talk) 06:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

When you see a video from a drag strip assuming that the cars are entirely unmodified seems foolish. Sources that don't say something can't be used to support the thing they don't say. Toasted Meter (talk) 06:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there is a rule that describing drag strips can be only use for modified vehicles? The cahrger is also a stock vehicle but they don't describe it as a stock vehicle in article. A stock charger car do 11.4 sec, and car and driver also did that. GT-R also can do 10s and it's described on the article. Yes, they didn't say it is a stock vehicle but see properly you can understand it's as a stock vehicle. It's bone stock that's why I'm telling add it. You thought I'm liying? Heated Hater (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The automatic assumption looking at a car going down a drag strip is not the same as a car mag testing a press car. You can't tell if it has a tune or nonstock tires, reliable sources don't say it's stock so we can't decide that it is.

Carcoops only publishing stock vehicles. They were not tuners. Heated Hater (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

How do you know this? Toasted Meter (talk) 10:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Some 0-60 times that we thought they are 0-60, probably not.

I saw an article of Car & Driver, they staying they do 60 mph times and they starting from 5 mph. Is they can belong on 0-60 mph times? Trusted RedZone (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is the link https:/www.caranddriver.com/features/amp32018270/how-we-test-cars/ Trusted RedZone (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

You're confusing 5-60 mph times (which are slower) with 0-60 times (with rollout). Drachentötbär (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Giving Priority for Decimal numbers.

Drachendötbar how could you say 2.99 is not quicker than 2.9. How could you know 2.9's exact time. Do you have any sources. Trusted RedZone (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

We can't actually say how the publishers fix there's performance numbers as 2.4, 2.5 and etc without and exact reliable source. So if there more decimal numbers available, we should give priority for performance figure like them. Trusted RedZone (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

We can actually say that the Ferrari 488 Pista's and F8 Tributo's times are in the 2.85-2.95 range since AMS and Quattroruote do the rounding properly. They wouldn't have published 2.9 if a slower If a slower time than 2.95 had been measured. Drachentötbär (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

How do you? do you have any sources? And what about others. Like Car & Driver, Motor Trend and etc. Trusted RedZone (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

When testing the 918 Spyder Quattroruote wrote that it did 2.56 seconds to 100 and 7.27 seconds to 200 while in number table they wrote 2.6 and 7.3 which shows they're rounding and not cutting of numbers. AutoBild Sportscars rounded .56 to .6 in an article, EVO rounded 3.45 to 3.5 and I've also seen rounding up in Sport Auto articles. I can't remember everything but I don't think I've ever seen a print article where decimals were cut off instead of rounded, only in attenting-seeking online sites. Drachentötbär (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Then how do you come for a decision. We can't guess them. If there some sources they do 2.45 to 2.5 I'll agree for your thoughts. If don't I cannot. they do a 10.8 quarter mile they say it's a 10 second car, so that's why there is a suspicion at these performance figures and that's why I'm asking is there any sources available. Trusted RedZone (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I've named many magazines, given you the Quattroruote source, another source is Motor Trend who rounded up Tesla's 2.28 to 2.3, Taycan's 10.47 to 10.5 and many other times. You're confusing the slang term "10 second car" (a car which needs between 10 and 11 seconds) with the term "car which needs 10 seconds". Drachentötbär (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Thought that gave are not sources and it's not reliable. I'm asking is there was any available websites or something etc as reliable sources for this condition? Trusted RedZone (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Note - see at List of Nurburgring Nordscheleife lap times. It's lists also sorted like I sorted. There is lot of lap times like 7:25.9 and etc. And they sorted top of the list tham the 7:25's because we cannot say they were probably near to 7:25 or to 7:26 that's why I'm saying let's give priority for times that available with Decimal numbers. And you also agreed for it in that page. Why you cannot do that on this? Trusted RedZone (talk) 07:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The change in sorting at List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times is still under discussion and if you look at it you get more examples of magazines rounding up. With your sorting there are definitely some slower cars in front of quicker cars while you can't proof any wrong order with the old sorting. Drachentötbär (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

How could you saying they are faster than that includes decimal number times. Anyone cannot tell that from guessing. All magazines don't do the same thing. If there was no sources how could you say there are faster than others. These lists also need to be like Nurburgring times. Because Nurburgring list seem to be correct. If you have sources I 100% agree with your sorting system. Trusted RedZone (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

And do not do revisions until you prove. Trusted RedZone (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Why we need to put suspicion to top of the list when we have perfectly measured decimal times? Trusted RedZone (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

[[1]] is an example of Motor Trend rounding up a 10.47 time [[2]] to 10.5. Since Motor Trend does rounding, the Taycan's 2.4 time is in the 2.35-2.45 range and definitely quicker than the Nissan's 2.48, as well as the 2.8 seconds tested by them is quicker than 2.86. Stop switching the list order into something definitely faulty. Drachentötbär (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I agreed only with Taycan's quarter mile time. But this time is not listed on the list. I asked sources to times that listed on this page. This doesn't belong here. And I'm asking again how do you know the actual times? How could you Taycan does 60 mph in 2.35-2.45 range and it's quicker than the 2.48? And how do you know 2.8 time is faster than 2.86? Stop adding false info for this page. If you don't have to references to prove don't do wrong sorting. Trusted RedZone (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a logical conclusion from how Motor Trend handles decimals, confirmed by many examples. Your assumption that two opposite methods are used for treating decimals in one and the same test is absurd.

2.4 seconds are less than 2.48 seconds which has been accepted on this site for years, it doesn't need further prove. Your claim that 2.48 seconds are quicker than 2.4 seconds is pure speculation, with evidence directing in the opposite way. You have to give proof to your theories and changes you make but there isn't any. Drachentötbär (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

In List of Nürburgring Nordscheleife lap times also had this wrong sorting for more than a decade. Now editors discussed and accepted this new sorting system. Because it's the correct one. We cannot realize that 2.4 is quicker than 2.48 without an reliable source. If a source doesn't available we have to give priority for others. Just like Nürburgring lap times lists. Don't make this page faulty. And I don't have to give proof because all editors accepted this sorting method. If you hope previous method is the correct one, reply to this with a source prove. If not don't waste editors time. Trusted RedZone (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

And note- do not be confused. This doesn't show 2.4 is slower than 2.48. Sorting 2.48 up to 2.4 is because of 2.48 is more reliable than the 2.4 time. Trusted RedZone (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty skeptical about the precision of any of these times that include hundredths. Without knowing what measurement equipment was was used for any particular test it's difficult to know if a time was rounded or if it was measured with an instrument only capable of 10Hz precision. There are relatively few 100Hz vehicle data acquisition systems, and the few that exist are so needlessly expensive that highly respected publications don't always use them. This list is merely a compilation of data obtained using less than scientific methods and a high degree of variability so any claims that one car is faster than the other by an amount less than 0.1s are spurious at best. For this reason, the list should be sorted in the manner is the easiest to understand to the casual reader, which is simply least to greatest with no regard for precision. Readers can infer whatever they want from the list as long as it's accurately transcribed from the source e.g. 2.4 and 2.40 are not the same (see: Significant figures). IPBilly (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

If a figure is given as only a single decimal digit (eg 2.9) then the 2nd decimal digit is unknown and can be anything from 0-9 (ie full figure could be 2.90 to 2.99). Unknown is unknown, we can't guess. It is common practice to sort such figures as if unknown digits were the least favourable - 9 in this case. Sometimes a car will be listed worse than its true figure but any other way has just as many problems. At least this way it will be more obvious that all the single digit figures are grouped together after the more accurate figures.

On the flip side, if we list 2.9 before 2.91 then the first figure is being treated as 2.90, which is supplying more accuracy than the raw data provides.  Stepho  talk  01:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

It reminds me of how Hong Kong computer shops advertise prices like $1xxx . They are hoping that the potential customer will see it as $1000 when it is almost always $1999 . Very dishonest.  Stepho  talk  01:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

2.9 can actually be 2.855 like used by the 288 GTO's 2.9L engine. If a scientist sees a 2.9 he assumes it's in the 2.85-2.95 range. Your hypothesis is also contradicted by the Motor Trend [[3]] test of the 2017 Tesla Model S where the test data sheet showed 0-30 in 0.9 and 0-60 in 2.3 seconds although it's revealed in the article that the numbers were 0.87 and 2.28. Car journalists are capable of rounding like they learned it at school and they obviously do it. Drachentötbär (talk) 03:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Drachentötbär this list doesn't shiw anything related to a engine capacity or a scientist assuming sorting system. The source you gave already added to the list with decimal numbers. So I can't prove others. How do you know car journalists actually rounding like this. We cannot do guessing in wikipages. The times we adding were need to probably proven reliable times. Trusted RedZone (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a question of significant figures: Apparently, different sources use different quantities of significant figures, which means that multiple figures from different sources cannot be put into the same list, at least not without using the least number of significant figures, which is usually two. Currently, there are some figures with two, and some with three significant figures – this is pretty much useless. I suggest using the least number of significant sources, which is two, so, for example, if a source has a 2.78 s figure, we write 2.8 s, 2.31 becomes 2.3, and so on, and so forth. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 12:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Disagreed. Because if we did like that readers think both cars are same fast or this car is slow. Some times the 2.78 can go down of the list than the 2.8 slower cars (because we sorted it to 2.8). But if we keep as 2.78 readers can easily find out which car is the fastest. A hundreth if a second is mostly valuable for this page. I you understand. Trusted RedZone (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Johannes, thanks for your input. I see the advantage of using only one decimal for all times since it would be better structured and more honest. Many published digits are not a sign of reliability but rather False precision, numbers like 2.78 or even 2.7786 feel dishonest since it could be 2.76 or 2.80 as well because measuring equipment isn't that accurate. But I prefer keeping at least two decimals nevertheless if the source delivers them. Drachentötbär (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes indeed, too many significant figures are an indicator of false precision. The problem however is that two figures with different significant figures cannot be compared against each other. If, for example, a measurement results in a 2.34 figure, but the precision is only two significant figures, then the figure becomes 2.3. Now, another measurement with three significant figures results in 2.32 – this is less than 2.34, but since the 2.34 figure only has two significant figures, it appears as 2.3, and is then treated as if 2.34 was less than 2.32. This is a bit paradoxal, but I hope it explains the problem we're dealing with here. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

If we change the order in favor of decimals visitors might get the impression that we can't sort numbers properly. On top of it we'd have provable errors in sorting as well. Motor Trend tested the Tesla in 2.28 seconds and put 2.3 seconds on the test sheet, so 2.48 seconds would be published as 2.5. So if they publish 2.4 seconds for a car it must be quicker than 2.48 seconds and should be above in this list. Imagine MT tests a new car in 2.2 seconds. It would be quicker than the Tesla on their test sheet (2.2 vs 2.3) but would be treated as slower here if we consider 2.28 quicker than 2.2. With numerical sorting we don't know for some pairs if the order is correct, decimal priority won't change this for any of them but changes previously correctly sorted pairs into wrongly sorted ones. Drachentötbär (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

We are not here to do roundings. If source say a time 2.36, we cannot write it as 2.4. We are here to add exact information of which sources given. if we wrote thw 2.32 and 2.34 as 2.3, some times 2.34 car can sorted above the 2.32. Then it's unfair to 2.32. So I think we don't need to do roundings on this page. We should keep the times which given by reliable sources. Without a reliable source we can not do guessing that 2.28 is quicker than 2.2. 2.2 can be anytime of 2.0-2.9. If MT did 2.28 to 2.3 for Tesla it's doesn't say all times were just like that. Trusted RedZone (talk) 04:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Drachentötbär can you say how could 2.9 is faster than the 2.93 without a reliable source say it is? Trusted RedZone (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

A question for Trusted RedZone and Stepho-wrs: If Motor Trend would test 0-60 mph in 2.2 seconds for a new car (no hundredths mentioned) and call it the quickest they ever tested, would you sort it behind the Tesla for which they put 2.3 seconds on its test sheet and 2.28 on the headline ? Drachentötbär (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

actually not, because the source saying it's the quickest, so according to sources it's quicker than 2.28. If it's the quickest one, why they don't give the hundredths? For current quickest (For tesla) they gave the time with the hundredths (which is 2.28). If they do a new 2.2, of course, they will show the exact time with hundredths because not to confuse with the tesla's 2.28. So times like this if source saying it's quicker than the 2.28, there's no doubts. That's why we are asking for reliable sources. Then we do not have to do guessing. If sources doesn't available, we should sort them behind the most reliable times (which is with hundredths). Don't be confused, this not a sorting system that say "slower cars sorted top of the list". We just sorting the most reliable times on top of the list. Can you say why you don't give answers for our questions? Trusted RedZone (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Your question was a rhetorical one which needs no answer. Drachentötbär (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

No it's not. You cannot answer for them because you don't have answers. Without a reliable source you cannot answer for it right? Trusted RedZone (talk) 06:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

You're asking questions which cannot be answered or you already know the answer for. That's rhetoric. Drachentötbär (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

No I don't. Please do not do edits before discussing. If you have to revert please make your thoughts and opinion reliable by proving. Can you? Trusted RedZone (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Read what you just wrote and act according to it. Drachentötbär (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you tell what are you talking about? Can you tell how you're correct at this situation before doing revisions? Remember we (editors) said your wrong at this discussion. So that's why I added a new sorting system. Editor accepted. So I don't think I'm not doing edits for my minority. If you think you are correct, prove it to us. Do not do edits for your minority. Otherwise you'll be blocked from editing. Hope you understand. Trusted RedZone (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

That's incorrect. You should read the discussion again. Who is we (editors) ? Who shares your opinion ? Drachentötbär (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Trusted RedZone, I really think you should copy edit what you wrote before you post it. Both of you, I think you're working on finding agreement; good. If you keep edit warring, I will be happy to it a site-wide block, so drop the sniping and work on solutions. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Drachentötbär can you remember in this page me and Sepho wrs supported my opinion, and in List of Nürburgring Nordscheleife lap times IPBilly and others did. But I can't see anyone supported for your opinion. Trusted RedZone (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not support your opinion here, and I did not support your opinion there. Please do not assume that I support your opinion anywhere. IPBilly (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

There was something wrong happend. I don't say you supported my opinion. But If you look at the talk page. That your thoughts are just similar for mine. In Nürburgring lap times talk page I saw you all doing discussion and only Drachentötbär against for other editors. Which is he doing on this. Is that correct? That being against for all editors and doing edits for himself even doing discussion? I don't think so. Trusted RedZone (talk) 06:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• Trusted RedZone, PLEASE proofread your posts and use proper English grammar and punctuation--any kind of English, it doesn't matter to me, but correctly please. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

From looking at the editors involved I get the impression of a 4:2 majority for keeping the numerical sorting. (IPBilly: "the list should be sorted ... least to greatest with no regard for precision", Johannes suggested treating 2.78 as 2.8 (not as 2.7), Toasted Meter reverted Trusted RedZone's changes twice). If you only count clear statements there's still a 2:1 majority for keeping the numerical sorting. Drachentötbär (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Do not be confused. Toasted Meter reverted them because we being in an edit war. He didn't say your opinion was correct. Johannes said we could do roundings to times that have two decimals to one decimal time. If we did that, It's more difficult to find which is fastest, also he didn't say your opinion was correct. Do not confuse other editors with saying false. Trusted RedZone (talk) 06:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I also agree with Drachentötbär. Toasted Meter (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I have made the mistake of taking a closer look at the ist (it was too close). And frankly speaking, I find to be "confusing" to the reader (treat this as a euphemism). Apparently, "One-foot rollout before the timer starts is industry standard in North America" – but what is the number of this "industry standard"? The list assumes that the reader already knows this. But what I actually find to be more interesting is the following sentence: "Tires, elevation above sea level, weight of the driver, testing equipment, weather conditions and surface of testing track all influence these times" – of course they do, which is why industry standards exist. Now what I'm getting from that sentence is that none of these figures were determined according to the "industry standard", but rather using some arbitrary testing methods. If that is the case, the list becomes pretty much useless: how would we know the exact testing conditions?

A car has to overcome four types of resistance: air drag, rolling resistance, ramp angle, and acceleration resistance. We can ignore the ramp angle, because we're assuming a ramp angle of 0° (a flat tarmac surface) (Well actually can we ignore the ramp angle? We don't know whether or not the testers tested the cars on a flat surface). The other types of resistance definitely have to be put into consideration, because they cannot be ignored in any test. Air drag is determined with the stagnation pressure model; thus, it depends upon air density, and air density is temperature-dependent. This means that the colder the air is, the more resistance is induced from the air, and the car becomes slower. How do we know the air temperature in all these tests? Rolling resistance and acceleration resistance both depend upon the vehicle mass: the lighter the car, the faster it can go, and the faster it can accelerate. The DIN 70030 standard for example defines how a car's mass has to be determined, but as I have mentioned earlier, I believe there was no standard used for this list. Now think of this: 70 dm³ of petrol have a mass of around 50 kg, a spare tyre is 25 kg, and the mass difference between myself and a heavy driver may be also 25 kg – this combined is 100 kg of mass that may or may not be vehicle mass in a test; 100 kg can already impact the acceleration and top speed. Because there is no standard, we don't know the exact vehicle masses in all cases.

What I'm saying is that we cannot compare the figures unless they were all determined according to the same standard (or at least testing methods). Another thing I noticed is that there are some huge discrepancies between "manufacturer claim" and "independent claim" in the list. This is because some manufacturer claims are "0–100 km/h from a standstill" times, and not the obviously faster "0–60 mi/h one-foot rollout" times. Anyways, I believe that the list is not particularly useful, because the individual figures cannot really be compared against each other, at least not with the amount of precision that they (and the entire list) imply, especially with three significant figures.

Maybe this is entire topic depends upon culture and beliefs; in my experience, in the United States, everything has to be honest and morally inoffensive – car manufacturers are neither, which is why their claims can never be taken for granted, and independent tests are required. I was raised in a "standardised environmet", where the system prevents dishonesty. Everyone knows that car manufacturers cheat, but everyone knows that they all cheat according to the same standard. For instance, a car doesn't have to be put on a dyno to determine its "real wheel horsepower", simply because a) power is always measured at the flywheel, and b) the standard explicitly defines that power must be given in SI-compliant units. Believe it or not, but some people really believe that it's a good idea to have "real wheel horsepower" figures such as "112.24 kW at 13,500/min". Obviously this doesn't make any sense because power is the product of M and ω, and changing ω just slightly already affects the power. This means that having 13,501/min instead of 13,500/min would change the power output to 112.25 kW. So a "112.24 kW at 13,500/min figure" gives the illusion of huge precision, but in reality it is just bullocks. I believe that this is very obvious to the average knowledgable person, yet you will find plenty of these figures in Wikipedia, because some people forget how knowledgable they are in their fight for true and honest figures. I reckon this list is no exception, it rather is an example for such practices. But that is just my opinion, and I know there will be editors who strongly disagree. Well. More significant figures may appear to increse precision, but what they actually do is reduce comparability. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 10:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Johannes, can you tell shortly, what are you saying? And how it's related to this discussion? Trusted RedZone (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

„What I'm saying is that we cannot compare the figures unless they were all determined according to the same standard (or at least testing methods).“ This means that the list makes no sense in its current state. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, now what is your suggestions for it? Trusted RedZone (talk) 07:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Not treating these as "precise figures", but as something a car magazine has measured. So instead of putting these incomparable figures into a single list, rather put them into the cars' articles; they are indicators that give an idea, but not comparable. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Glitch in table

When sorting, the Mclaren Senna's independent time of 2.9 sec comes between the 2 Porsche times of 2.2 and 2.1, which is obviously incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0w0 catt0s (talk • contribs) 03:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Drachentötbär (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed methodology (draft); for the Decimal numbers discussion

I had previously exposed my opinion in the Nürburgring page and I was reading the [rather heated] discussion here. After reading it and taking into consideration what has been discussed so far, I'll try to present my thoughts using examples. You can skip to TL;DR if you wish.

Let's say we have the following results to add to our list. And let's consider 3 scenarios.

Car	Seconds
Car A	2.4
Car B	2.46
Car C	2.5

Scenario 1 (reliable source)

A single reliable source tested many cars, including cars A, B, C. According to this source, car A is the fastest between the three cars, even though the source only provided its time up to the tenths of seconds (2.4).

How should we rank the cars? In my opinion, we should rank car A before the others and always include this source as a reference. I would also add a note: According to the source X, car A was the fastest between cars A, B, C.

1. Car A | 2.4
2. Car B | 2.46
3. Car C | 2.5

Scenario 2 (the benefit of the doubt)

We have independent reliable sources for each car. Unfortunately, we don't have a single source directly comparing the three cars against each other.

How should we rank the cars? In my opinion, we should give the benefit of the doubt to the more precise number (meaning: Car B is ranked above Car A).

1. Car B | 2.46
2. Car A | 2.4
3. Car C | 2.5

Scenario 3 (the more precise number)

We got the 2.5 seconds for car C from a source that has a table ranking many cars. But further down in the source article, in a paragraph dedicated to car C, this source states a more precise time of 2.45 seconds for car C. Unfortunately that source doesn't include car A, so we have to use the result of 2.4 seconds we already have from a different source.

How should we rank the cars? In my opinion, we should always use the most precise number provided by the reliable source (meaning: we use 2.45 instead of 2.5). Car A is ranked last among the three according to the "the benefit of the doubt" explained above.

1. Car C | 2.45
2. Car B | 2.46
3. Car A | 2.4

Incorporating to our existing table

Let's say our existing table looks like this.

Our existing table

Car	Seconds
Car X	2.40
Car Y	2.44
Car Z	2.49

The incorporation for each scenario would look as follows.

• Scenario 1

  Car	Seconds
  Car X	2.40
  Car Y	2.44
  Car A	2.4
  Car B	2.46
  Car Z	2.49
  Car C	2.5

• Scenario 2

  Car	Seconds
  Car X	2.40
  Car Y	2.44
  Car A	2.46
  Car Z	2.49
  Car B	2.4
  Car C	2.5

• Scenario 3

  Car	Seconds
  Car X	2.40
  Car Y	2.44
  Car C	2.45
  Car B	2.46
  Car Z	2.49
  Car A	2.4

In a nutshell

• Always provide reliable sources
• The benefit of the doubt goes to the more precise number
• Always use the most precise number (as provided by a reliable source)

Other thoughts

I don't think we should round the numbers by ourselves. If a reliable source provides a more precise number, use the more precise number. I also don't think we should make our own assumptions for the numbers (even if a particular reliable source supports it) and apply those assumptions to the numbers from all other sources, because that would be WP:OR. If (and only if) it's clearly specified by a reliable source that a specific rounding or truncation scheme is being done for a specific result or set of results, then in this specific case the "benefit of the doubt" could be overwritten (as shown in Scenario 1). But, again, if a more precise number is provided then just use it.

Our ranking methodology should be clearly explained in the article's page. For example: When there is a tie between results (up to the tenths of seconds), the tie-breaker criteria adopted by this list will give priority to the results that are specified to the hundredths. Please refer to the notes for special situations.

TL;DR

The more precise number should be given the benefit of the doubt (or priority) over the more imprecise number, unless rounding/truncation is clearly specified by a reliable source (see incorporation table for Scenario 1). If exists a reliable source comparing the cars we're having trouble with, the job is already done for us and we don't need to apply this method (Scenario 1). In other cases (most of time) where we need to compare times from different sources (with different precision) and we need to make a decision, we should adhere to at least some methodology and I'm proposing this one.

Please comment. Feelthhis (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

***

I agreed for your thoughts and only for Scenario 2 and Scenario 3. Because at case of Scenario 1, we cannot find out the actual time of 2.4 without a reliable source. It can be anywhere of 2.40-49. So don't think the Scenario 1 would be the correct one. Trusted RedZone (talk) 05:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. For Scenario 1, notice that we have a reliable source that directly compared Car A against Car B and Car A came out on top. Feelthhis (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

***

A not far-fetched example:

Magazine A tests three cars: 2.4, 2.5 and 2.45 (puts 2.5 on the test sheet which implies that any car tested 2.4 by them is quicker)

Magazine B tests 2.4, 2.5 and 2.55 (puts 2.6 on the test sheet)

Other magazines (source C) test: 2.49, 2.50, 2.54, 2.55, 2.59

The proposed methodology would sort the times the following way:

Source	Seconds
A	2.4
A	2.45
C	2.49
B	2.4
C	2.50
C	2.54
B	2.5
B	2.55
C	2.59
A	2.5

2.4 seconds tested by A for any car would be treated as between 2.44 and 2.45.

2.5 seconds tested by A for any car would be treated as between 2.59 and 2.60.

2.4 seconds tested by B for any car would be treated as between 2.49 and 2.50.

2.5 seconds tested by B for any car would be treated as between 2.54 and 2.55.

That doesn't make sense. Drachentötbär (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

***

Thanks for your reply. This will help to better explain the methodology.

For simplicity, Scenario 1 (reliable source), Scenario 2 (the benefit of the doubt), Scenario 3 (the more precise number) will be called Rule 1, Rule 2, Rule 3 (respectively).

Considering that all magazines are reliable sources: for each magazine, if the results are provided from faster to slower (and this is clearly supported by the magazine), then the proposed methodology would rank the cars as follows (3rd column shows which rule was applied; for this discussion only):

Car	Seconds	Rule
Car A1	2.4	Rule 1
Car A2	2.5	Rule 1
Car A3	2.45	Rule 3
Car C1	2.49
Car B1	2.4	Rule 2
Car C2	2.50
Car C3	2.54
Car B2	2.5	Rule 1
Car B3	2.55	Rule 3
Car C4	2.55
Car C5	2.59

Hopefully that makes more sense.

~

It's a compromise

As for the implications of the methodology: we have to understand that every methodology has to make compromises. For instance, let's sort the following results using opposing methodologies: Methodology 1 (M1) gives priority to less precise numbers; Methodology 2 (M2) gives priority to more precise numbers.

Results to be sorted

Car A	2.51
Car B	2.5
Car C	2.59

The sorting for each Methodology would be as follows:

M1

Car B	2.5
Car A	2.51
Car C	2.59

2.5 is being treated as faster than 2.51. The less precise result is given the benefit of the doubt. That's the compromise.

M2

Car A	2.51
Car C	2.59
Car B	2.5

2.5 is being treated as slower than 2.59. The more precise results are given the benefit of the doubt. That's the compromise.

~

Now,

the question is: which compromise are we willing to make?

~

Feelthhis (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

M1 is clear and more likely to be correct than M2. M2 is confusing and less likely to be correct than M1.

What should we do if car times A3 and B3 disappear from the big table since another magazine tested the cars as quicker ? How should we handle times from magazines which rounds the results the standard way (round to the nearest number with one decimal) ? Drachentötbär (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Notes

Actually we cannot do roundings. As wiki editors our duty was only adding the exact info from reliable sources. So I disagree with doing roundings. I'm agreed with M2 method. Because we still don't know what's the 2.5 from 2.50-59 range. So M1 is not reliable. I don't have any confusion woth M2. It's cleary understandable. Trusted RedZone (talk) 05:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I thinking rounding is precisely what we should be doing. MOS:UNCERTAINTY says "The number of decimal places should be consistent within a list or context" but doesn't say much more besides grammar issues. Basic arithmetic on numbers is allowed. We also do rounding when using {{convert}}. All the schemes I can think of the order mixed precision values either give potential for misleading ordering (a car is mistakenly placed earlier or later in the list than it's true time because we often don't know if a time is truncated or rounded) or have confusing ordering (3.9, 4.01, 4.0) or are really, really hard to maintain (method 1 above). All our numbers have a precision of at least 0.1, so rounding to 0.1 is always possible. There is still some potential for wrong ordering (eg car A truly did 4.02 but is reported in the reference as 4.0 and car B truly did 4.01 but the reference only reports 4.0 might be listed here in order A, B) but it seems to have less problems than other schemes. We could put the most accurate figure known as a hidden comment in the wiki markup to help future editors keep track of the desired order. Or we could just say that all cars with the same listed time (eg 4.0) are listed in no particular order.  Stepho  talk  23:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Stepho, "We could put the most accurate figure" this is what I'm saying since some weeks. We could choose the M2 method. Trusted RedZone (talk) 02:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I think you missed the "as a hidden comment" part. I prefer to round to 0.1 seconds. Stepho  talk  04:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry, but if we round them to 0.1 seconds, for example 2.28 would be as 2.3, then readers think it's same fastest as 2.3 cars or slower than them. Then becomes unfair for 2.28 car. So I don't think doing roundings is suitable. Trusted RedZone (talk) 04:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Stepho-wrs and MOS:UNCERTAINTY, rounding to 0.1 seconds would be appropriate. The established magazines do so too. Drachentötbär (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Aspark Owl

Based on the autocar article this does not appear to be a time from an independent test, only a manufacturer claim (with a further claim of "under 1.7"), nor is the status of the tires known. I'll leave it for now because it's actually sourced and properly formatted. IPBilly (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I can't see how this is a production car, they don't seem to have delivered any cars and I don't see proof it's homologated. Toasted Meter (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that had me worried a bit too. I did some searching and only came up with a handful of magazine reviews that weren't much more than repeats of the company press releases. However, its awfully hard to find out how many are sold when they are sold in such small numbers. It's not like you can go to your local dealer and get one off the yard. But they did present it as production ready in Oct 2019 and are actively taking orders on their website. In the end I called it as good faith. The anon IP sure made a good attempt at screwing up the formatting though - multiple times :)  Stepho  talk  11:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The list rules apply to this car too.Times driven privately or by manufacturers need the presence of an independent, reliable source or at least some video footage to confirm the car and tire condition to qualify as independent. Drachentötbär (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Tyres for 1.72 0-100 km/h run were Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2road legal tyres. See https://www.electricmotornews.com/gb/eventi/aspark-owl-accelerazione/ , https://www.carscoops.com/2020/09/asparks-2012-ps-owl-ev-hypercar-ready-for-customer-deliveries/

Tyres for 1.92 0-100 km/h run were Hoosier slicks. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxNW9-5uOwc , https://www.carscoops.com/2018/02/japans-aspark-owl-ev-casually-hits-62-mph-1-9-seconds/ , https://www.motortrend.com/news/aspark-owl-electric-hypercar-does-0-60-mph-in-1-6-seconds/ (Motor Trend estimates that 1-foot rollout would reduce time from 1.92 to 1.6).

Finding respectable mags reporting on the manufacturer tests isn't too hard but nobody has done a truly independent test yet. Motor Trend verified the recorded data for the 1.92 run but weren't present at the run itself. Video footage shows it to blindingly quick but is more promo quality rather than something I could use in a court of law. Very frustrating.  Stepho  talk  23:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have an excluded list, like at Production car speed record#Cars excluded from the list, for disputed or unverified claims.  Stepho  talk  23:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Tesla Model S Plaid Version

@Drachentötbär and Trusted RedZone: Is there going to be an addition for this car as it was announced and it is going to go into production as it is touted to be less than 2.0 seconds 0-60. SP013 (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Not until it is actually available for sale and/or has been tested by a 3rd party. IPBilly (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, first it's need to be go into production, they were need go for sale and after that it's need to get a 0-60 time which is measured by a Independent test. Then we can add it to the list. Trusted RedZone (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree with the others. It needs to be in production and an independent test. Drachentötbär (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Should we add Model s plaid data now? Mooselodge12 (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Claims need to be verified by an independent test first. Drachentötbär (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Ford Thunderbolt

Should this car not be in the 1/4 Mile list?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Fairlane_Thunderbolt

"At the 1967 NHRA Winternationals, a factory Thunderbolt ran a 1⁄4 mile (402 m) of 10.365 seconds at 132.65 mph (213 km/h),[16] making it among the fastest–accelerating production cars over the quarter mile." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.33.106 (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The article says the car must be "constructed principally for retail sale to consumers for their personal use, and to transport people on public roads (no commercial or industrial vehicles are eligible)". The Thunderbolt was never meant to be a normal road-going vehicle.  Stepho  talk  03:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

if that is the case, the ariel atom should be removed then; and potentially the caterham 7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.33.106 (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Both of those were designed as road-legal cars. Not exactly practical everyday cars but being road-legal was definitely part of their design spec. Whereas the Thunderbolt was only designed for drag racing and all of its modifications had absolutely zero thought for being road-legal.  Stepho  talk  22:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

you've just moved the goalposts from "normal road-going vehicle" to "road-legal". the Ford Thunderbolt was road legal.

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/ford/95516/1964-ford-fairlane-thunderbolt-best-muscle-cars therefore, it should be added to the list. (or other less roadworthy vehicles without roofs should be removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.33.106 (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The Thunderbolt was derived from a passenger car but it's intended purpose is quite clearly as a drag car, not a road car.

The Thunderbolt had no heater (and hence no windscreen demister), missing high-beam headlights and fibreglass bumpers. Any one of these makes it unroadworthy in first world countries. They also come supplied with "special drag race wheels and tires", which would also raise question marks from examiners (lack of grip in wet weather).

The other 2 cars obey stringent laws. While not practical as everyday transport, they are quite clearly intended to be used as road-legal weekend fun cars on twisty country roads.  Stepho  talk  03:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Is there any evidence the 10.365 second time was done on road-legal tires or in a road-legal configuration? At any rate, the car was purpose-built for racing/competition. To me, that puts in the same league as the COPO Camaro, Mustang Cobra Jet, and other OEM drag-racing variants. --Vossanova ^o< 14:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Porsche 918 Spyder

It seems the Porsche 918 Spyder does 0-60 mph in 2.2 seconds.

www.caranddriver.com/features/a15111035/the-2015-porsche-918-spyder-is-the-quickest-road-car-in-the-world-feature/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrowsySpider200 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

We list the quickest independently tested time with up to 1 foot rollout which is 2.1 seconds as verified by two sources. (In the article you linked less than 1 foot rollout was used and therefore the time was 2.2 instead of 2.1 seconds.)Drachentötbär (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

765 LT new fastest car?

Stock McLaren 765 LT with stock tires did the quarter mile in 9.37 seconds at 152 MPH and 0-60 in 2.156 and 0-100 kph in 2.242 seconds. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIT4gMy-DIw 2A01:799:B1E:6300:CCCC:F685:2349:1414 (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. See WP:RS Drachentötbär (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

What about these?

2A01:799:B1E:6300:1E8:1DD:120D:2D99 (talk) 09:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The last of those references suggests that the run was done by the car's owner, which per Talk:List_of_fastest_production_cars_by_acceleration/Archive_1#YouTube_videos_uploaded_by_customers is not allowed here. There's also a section above that disputes the validity of DragTimes as a source, but there are a few references to it on the list, so I think that should be settled and clarified on the main page. Also, for what it's worth, while the first run uses optional tires offered by the manufacturer, the quickest run was not on OEM tires, so street-legal or not, it wouldn't count. --Vossanova ^o< 23:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I guess that settles it then. If only some serious car magazines like MotorTrend could do some runs with that car... 2A01:799:B1E:6300:9EF:A5F9:4808:C978 (talk) 09:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

So the 765LT is on video, with a timeslip from the offical drag strip running 9.37 on the original OEM tires the car came with, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIT4gMy-DIw , but isn't valid? Where car and driver for the Chiron just lists a number with no video, no slip, no data, and that is valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FikseGTS (talk • contribs) 17:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Brook's from DragTimes YouTube channel's validity/reliablity is disputed? Then why is DragTimes Youtube Channel sourced 5 times on this wikipage for other cars? What kind of standardization is this? This is ridiculous gatekeeping. If Dragtimes Youtube is valid for 5 other cars, it's valid for the 765LT. Now.... On the other hand Dragtimes.com as a source for user submitted times is what's disputed to be allowed, which makes sense. BUt the current "Dispute" is not about Brooks, but the user content from his site. Two very different things. 174.127.246.137 (talk) 06:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

IMO it's best to just remove all references to DragTimes. Either the source is always reliable, or it's not. And it's better to use sources that are "peer-reviewed" (e.g. magazines) than those that are one person, no matter their level of expertise. Also, to reiterate what I said before, the 765LT is reportedly owned by its tester (Brooks), so the source isn't exactly unbiased either. --Vossanova ^o< 16:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

So your response is to remove the 765LT, but still leave the other DragTimes sourced cars up? First you site Dragtimes.com as a nonvalid source, when clearly Brooks Youtube Channel and the website are two different sources. Then you claim "he used non-OEM tire for his fastest time", which is true but the OEM tires were also used earlier in the video and still posted 9.37. I don't know why you even brought that point up at all. Finally, Yes, Brooks is the owner. But he's not some "random Youtuber". The owner/youtuber claim is valid when it directly applies to random Joe Nobody with 10 subs posting suspect times on a backroad on their iphone GPS 1/4 mile app. Brooks is a well resepected member within both the drag racing community and the car community with multi-decades of history with the sport. Respected Automotive Journalist's literally post Brook's video 1/4 mile times as fact. In this link you can see R&T said "Brooks made it clear the car was completely unmodified, right down to the OEM P Zero tires." (he's also the owner of that 720s) https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/a13026928/mclaren-720s-quarter-mile-video/ So you're telling me R&T doesn't take issue with him, but wiki should? He's reliable. His website is not. You are being unreasonable. 174.127.246.137 (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

IP, you need to take this up at WP:RSN. Drmies (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@174.127.246.137 No, I said "remove all references to DragTimes". That means, if the other cars using that site have no other sources, then they must be removed from the list. Again, I believe sources should be peer-reviewed and not owners of, sponsors of, or connected to the company making the car - all of which remove neutrality and pose a conflict of interest. As said above, you should ask about DragTimes (the Youtube part run by Brooks, not the user-generated part) on WP:RSN. --Vossanova ^o< 23:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:EXCEPTIONAL also applies here. We have an outstanding time but only the owner's word about the car condition. The outstanding 2.29 seconds 0-100 km/h time for the Porsche 911 Turbo S measured at https://www.carvia.de/porsche-911-turbo-s-992-das-beste-auto-der-welt/ wasn't added to the list either. Drachentötbär (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Page protection?

Does anybody else agree that semi-protection would be appropriate for this page? Most of the edits aren't exactly vandalism, but there are a lot of good faith edits that don't follow the sourcing rules. It seems to help a lot on List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times. Not to mention plenty that manage to break the formatting at the same time. IPBilly (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Dodge Challenger Demon.

The demon is much faster than that. They have official documents from the National Drag organization (idk what their name is) that bans the Demon from entering official drag competitions because the stock version is too fast. Viper360 (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes and no. The Demon can do the quarter mile in 9.62 seconds. The NHRA requires an approved roll cage once you (the individual in your particualr car, not all Demons) have got below 10.0 seconds. Which then makes it a non-stock car. See https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-shows/new-york-auto-show/news/a33207/how-you-can-drag-race-the-demon-despite-the-nhra-ban/

I would also question whether the Demon is road legal because that time was done without rear seats and without a passenger seat (to save weight). That's how it came from the factory but I'm not sure if it remains street legal. See https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-shows/new-york-auto-show/news/a33201/2018-dodge-challenger-srt-demon-specs-info-photos-performance/ See above at #Ford Thunderbolt for my comments on "production" drag cars being street legal or not.  Stepho  talk  23:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Tesla Model S Plaid

Before I invoke an edit war with Tesla fanboys worldwide, I want to get consensus here. We should not list the independent 0-60 time for the Model S Plaid as 1.98s, because that comes with a big asterisk. The test was arranged by Tesla and done on a specially treated drag strip. Tesla does not get to set their own rules for "independent" times compared with other car companies. The time Motor Trend set running the drag strip in reverse, without the treated surface, was 2.07s. That number is more comparable to other cars on the list, and so it should be the listed time. We can definitely include a footnote mentioning the 1.98s result, but also need to adhere to standards for comparative lists. ---Vossanova ^o< 15:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me. There is, however, no rule that prohibits entries on prepped surfaces. Maybe we should establish that as a rule at some point. Andibrema (talk) 02:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Remove the manufacturer column from the 60 mph acceleration table

In this column we're comapring apples with oranges, 0-100 km/h standing start times with 60 mph rollout times which can differ by half a second or even more. It's confusing, unscientific and not needed. Drachentötbär (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Toasted Meter (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Listing rollout times before better but higher non-rollout times

It's okay that times with rollout are accepted, but I don't think that they should be listed ahead of cars that achieved the same time without rollout. For example, the Tesla Model S P100D, with 2.53 seconds without rollout, belongs behind cars that reach 2.5 seconds, and not ahead of the 2.3-second Huracán Performante. Andibrema (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

After checking some more sources, it seems like most cars on the list include the 1-foot-rollout, but only the Teslas have a footnote pointing that out. So, the Teslas are, as it seems, in the right spot on the list; but then, the problem would be the inconsistent labelling. Andibrema (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

One possible solution is to have 3 separate, sortable columns for:

• time with 1-foot rollout, if known
• time without 1-foot rollout, if known
• time if not known if it has 1-foot rollout or not

A little kludgy but at least we're not comparing times with rollout against times without rollout.  Stepho  talk  22:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe something like this:

Car	Time
	Independent
Car tested including the first foot of acceleration	2.10
Car tested without compensating for rollout advantage	2.00
Car tested including the first foot of acceleration	2.30

Times that exclude the first foot of acceleration (assumed at 0.25 seconds)

(I actually only meant to colour the time in grey, not the car, but I couldn't figure out how to do that.)

The rollout time is assumed to be 0.25 too low, so it's placed in the spot where a 2.25-second car would have been. This is important, in my opinion, because people who just casually stop by to see which one's the quickest car right now will look at the first one with the lowest time and just assume it's the top contender. Andibrema (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with highlighting/recoloring the rows with rollout (entire row is fine), but the row order should remain sorted by the displayed numbers. We cannot make assumptions on how much slower a car would be without rollout. It could be 0.2 seconds, it could be 0.3... and that tenth of a second could change where it places.

Or, we can add the published times without rollout (even if they're estimates, as long as they're from a reliable source), like this:

Car	Time
	Independent (without rollout)
Car tested with and without rollout (or estimated w/o)	2.0s (2.3s)
Car tested without rollout	2.2s

Or, put the without rollout times first:

Car	Time
	Independent (with rollout)
Car tested without rollout	2.2s
Car tested with and without rollout (or estimated w/o)	2.3s (2.0s)

That would seem more fair when ranking strict 0-60 times, but the without rollout times are often harder for the reader to find in the source, as they're usually only listed once in a table.

Anyway, I would argue that 1-ft rollout is not a "North American industry standard for 0-60 times", but rather a North American industry standard for 1/4-mile drag strip times, and a Car & Driver standard for 0-60 times, to get better results than their competitors. But that's a separate rant. --Vossanova ^o< 15:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking more like this:

Car	Time			other stuff
	with rollout	without rollout	unknown rollout
car1	5.7	5.9	-	some comment
car2	5.4	-	-	some comment
car3	-	4.6	-	some comment
car4	-	-	4.8	some comment

We only fill in the with/without columns that are known and fill in the unknown column if the source isn't clear.  Stepho  talk  23:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

This is okay too, if more people prefer this. It might be easier to maintain. I was just looking for a way to keep the column count low, thus the suggestions to either color-code the rows or use bold/italic on the different criteria. --Vossanova ^o< 21:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Then how about this:

Car	Time	1-foot rollout	other stuff
car1	5.7	yes	some comment
car2	5.4	yes	some comment
car3	4.6	no	some comment
car4	4.8	unknown	some comment

Coloured coding is fine as long as colour blind people can also read it.

Takes up less space than my previous proposal but can't handle cars where we know the time both with and without rollout.  Stepho  talk  23:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth adding an extra column. There are barely any 0-60 times without rollout subtracted. I suggest putting the table with the real standing start acceleration times to the front and the table with those artificially downcalculated numbers to the back of the article. Drachentötbär (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I suspect that is more a case of "unknown" rather than rollout subtracted. It's been claimed that US magazines always subtract it. Which way do British, European and Australian drag organisations and magazines do it?  Stepho  talk  00:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

As an alternative to an extra column, we could have 3 footnotes for the table (a→1-foot rollout, b→no-1 foot rollout and c→unknown) and each time would have one of those footnotes attached.  Stepho  talk  00:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Rimac Nevera

Rimac Nevera is not a production car! Anyone who is claiming that needs to prove it with Nevera homologation from https://www.nhtsa.gov/

For example, Concept One never had homologation, they are using Show or Display licence plates https://icsw.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/Eligible%20Show%20or%20Display%20Vehicles%20Feb212017.xlsx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.188.142.7 (talk • contribs)

It is. The Nevera is the production version of the Concept Two or C_Two Whatamidoingwithmylife30 (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

It will be, when they finish homologation. Maybe next year.

"This is a pre-production car, of course, but I’d still take analogue clonkiness over the pervading touchscreen tyranny any day."

https://www.topgear.com/car-reviews/rimac/nevera/interior

93.137.79.93 (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

New rules needed

Since Tesla and Rimac seem to want to play by their own rules for 0-60 and 1/4-mile times, we need to add some rules to the main page.

1. No drag strips with surface treatments such as PJ1 TrackBite (VHT). As I've mentioned above, Motor Trend has done some 0-60 times on a drag strip, but in reverse without the prepped surface.
2. No YouTube videos as a cited source. I know it's the go-to place for speed fans these days, but most such as DragTimes are mostly the effort of one person, with no peer review or verification. See 765 LT discussion above and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Again, we can and probably should take this to WP:RSN.
3. No pre-production models, or pre-homologation/certification models.
4. No times posted before the minimum number of 25 have been produced (this is somewhat implied by "Having had 25 or more articles made" but could be made more clear).

Having these rules on the main page is important since new, often anonymous users love to come here and make this their first edit. It's of course open to debate and I don't expect all the points above will be agreed upon by everyone. But given the low number of responses here (thanks to those who did), I have to assume that most people are fine with the new "standards" set by DragTimes and other YouTube superstars. --Vossanova ^o< 22:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

In broad terms, I agree with the new rules proposal. Might quibble about some wording later. Might allow YouTube videos but only if they are very clear about no mods, no deletions, no additions, use tyres from production model, use consumer grade fuel, clearly show the times, etc - which most videos fail. For #1, is it more common for magazines to test on drag strips (typically with some surface preparation), open roads (potentially unsafe) or some other place (eg reverse drag strips, private/closed roads)? I was under the impression that most magazine times are done on drag strips in the normal direction.  Stepho  talk  22:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I also agree wit the rules. Youtube videos, and internet or magazine headlines and texts doesn't mean something is true.

For example, Aspark Owl is quicker than Nevera

https://www.motortrend.com/news/aspark-owl-electric-hypercar-does-0-60-mph-in-1-6-seconds/

And headlines are saying it's most powerful PRODUCTION car

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/dubai-motor-show/2012bhp-aspark-owl-most-powerful-production-hypercar

Both Nevera and Owl are not production cars, even if they have Show or Display plates (like Concept One), that doesn't mean they are production cars.

https://icsw.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/Eligible%20Show%20or%20Display%20Vehicles%20Feb212017.xlsx

If the car is on the list here

https://vpic.nhtsa.dot.gov/

We can talk if it's a production car.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a37348131/rimac-nevera-vs-tesla-model-s-plaid-drag-race/ Nevera wins

Whatamidoingwithmylife30 (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Youtube videos, and internet or magazine headlines and texts doesn't mean something is true.

Or we can put Aspark Owl on the list, magazines are saying it's production car, just like Nevera (both are not production cars). 93.137.79.93 (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Dodge Challenger SRT Demon

Someone has moved this car up the 60 mph list, with a link to a JD Power article which cites only a manufacturer claim of 2.3 seconds.

It should be moved back down the list with the Road & track tested time of 2.6 seconds.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/first-drives/a10324196/2018-dodge-challenger-srt-demon-first-drive/

173.212.64.25 (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Seats?

Do we really need the Seats column? The lists aren't there to compare specs of all the included cars. If a car has fewer seats than come from the factory, it shouldn't be on the list. If a car has the option of rear-seat delete, or add, then it can be noted in the "Noted specifications" column.

Also, I'd still like to update the Tesla Plaid figure to 2.07s with 1.98s footnote, per Talk:List of fastest production cars by acceleration/Archive 3#Tesla Model S Plaid, and add a rule about prepped surfaces. Any objections, speak up. --Vossanova ^o< 23:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

How about Rimc Nevera and other Rimac cars

I was just wondering why haven't you included Rimac Nevera. It has a claimed speed of 1.85 for 0-60 mph. I don't know if these results have been independently verified or what is the criteria for including them in this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.53.53.217 (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The criteria are listed explicitly at List_of_fastest_production_cars_by_acceleration#Eligible_cars. The Rimac Nevera doesn't seem to have actually started production yet and therefore cannot be in a list of fastest production cars by acceleration. Hopefully it will start production soon and we can add it in then.

Please remember to sign your comments by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end.  Stepho  talk  20:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I've just re-read the Rimac Nevera article and it says that it is now a production car. Not sure how true this is. It says that the test car given to various publications is a production vehicle - but it might really mean that it was built as though it was a production vehicle but only one was made. Unclear if any more have been made. Our self-imposed rules state that we need at least 25 examples - otherwise it is just a set of custom cars. The Nevera article is unclear on exactly how many have been made for sale. I suspect only 1 has been made and that it is not for sale.  Stepho  talk  00:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Nobody felt like participating in this discussion. But people have felt like adding, deleting, re-adding and re-deleting the Nevera to the article itself.  Stepho  talk  09:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Rimac Nevera has already passed USA and EU homologation tests and is due to be delivered to customers throughout the world within the next couple of months. https://www.rimac-automobili.com/media/press-releases/nevera-completes-final-winter-testing-ahead-of-the-first-customer-deliveries/ Drachentötbär (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

3.0 seconds or less

Does 3.0 seconds in the section titles mean 3.0000 seconds or less? Or does it mean the time rounded to 1/10 of a second or less - ie 3.0999 or less ? There are multiple cars listed as 3.0 seconds and it does seem unlikely that these are all exactly 3.0000 seconds.  Stepho  talk  10:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

3.09 is not 3.0 and definitiely not less, readers would be confused and assume an error if they read this. We could change the conditions to "less than 3 seconds" and "less than 11 seconds" and remove a few cars since the tables are getting too big. Drachentötbär (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, the 2nd option should have been 3.04999 rounding down to 3.0 for 1/10 precision.

There are 8 examples (not including the Nissan GT-R) listed with exactly 3.0 seconds. Of course, these are not the exact times but the sources list them to 0.1 precision. The real values are likely to be rounded. Do they round down, round up or to the nearest 0.1? Ie would 3.044 and 2.96 be rounded to:

• 3.0, 2.9 rounding down
• 3.1, 3.0 rounding up
• 3.0, 3.0 rounding to nearest

Depending on which rounding method was used, the Ariel Atom may well have done 3.02 (to pull a number from the air), which would also exclude it from the under 3.0 section.

I'd hate to see the GT-R punished simply because they provided more precision than their competitors. I don't believe that 8 separate cars did exactly 3.000 seconds. I'm not sure if a car that did, say, 2.994 would be listed as 3.0 but would more likely be trumpeted as "sub-3.0" seconds. I do believe that a car that did, say, 3.02 seconds would be listed as 3.0 seconds.  Stepho  talk  00:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The rule of "3.0 seconds or less" assumes that the auto industry in general rounds acceleration times to the nearest tenth. It could really have been 2.96, or 3.04, and we'd have no way of knowing. 3.09 is out as this assumes rounding and not truncating. If and when we do stumble upon a reliable source stating a figure like "3.03 seconds", I think it would only be fair to include it in the list. If the list were for, say, less than 3 seconds, then there would at least be no confusion. --Vossanova ^o< 12:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

3.03 under a headline "3.0 or less" still looks incorrect. Changing the headline to "Less than 3.05" won't remove all problems since some lower quality sources shorten 3.0999 to 3.0 to boast how quick they are.

I suggest changing the headline to "Less than 3 seconds", this way there will be no "false" entries in the table and no correct ones cut off. Drachentötbär (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, "Less than 3 seconds" solves the problem nicely. The 8 existing 3.0 second examples and the GT-R would all be moved to the next table.  Stepho  talk  20:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)