Talk:Production car speed record/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Production car speed record. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

Proposed rule change

"At least 30 examples were /manufactured/ that were capable of reaching the claimed speed without any further modifications"

That pretty much empties the list, or at least reduces the claimed speeds a lot. To be honest even in the eighties the cars that the serious mags got were very carefully pre prepared, and their performance was checked before being handed over. Greglocock (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Greg - only the RUF doesn't meet the 30 car limit and true, most cars were tweeked to get the absolute optimum performance. I don't think the number change is worth doing, but I think adding without further modification is.

Do you know if the Veyron limiter change was a software or a hardware change to the car? The argument in the previous section for the Agera is based on the only change being a software change. My inclination is that given you need to take the car back to the factory to enable the change, it is a significant post production modification, meaning only 14 Agera's were made with the modification in production. The website for the Agera states that the engine management system car can adapt to various fuel octane ratings without factory modification so I assume there some complexity in the software change, maybe a complete program change. NealeFamily (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The Arguement made by me, was that the Agera RS with the 1MV option should be allowed as the car could be bought like that and because options are allowed by this list. That the 1MV option is only software related was just to strenghten the argument as the software modified Veyron SuperSport is allowed on this list, eventough it´s software change is not a factory option or available at all. Hence the Agera RS clearly belongs on this list as it complies with the option consensus and if that consensus would be ignored for some reason, it would still belong on the list as the Veyron SuperSport is allowed on much looser grounds. Hope it makes sense and you see where I am coming from.Sagenode (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The Veyron was almost certainly just a new table in eeprom, ie software, rather than a new chip. In my opinion the 267 speed quoted for the Veyron is the example that confuses the issue completely. As the article stands it looks as if the rule is "30 cars were sold which could be factory modified to reach the same speed as the tested vehicle". I have some sympathy for that view but if the agera fanboys keep nagging then that will evaporate. Greglocock (talk) 07:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I am inclined to view a change to software as a insignificant modification and therefore acceptable in this context, as opposed to changing parts, engine or gearbox for instance. Hopefully others will make some input to this discussion so we can reach a consensus. A rule to cover this would be something along the lines that for the purposes of this list software changes are not classified as a modification. NealeFamily (talk) 09:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course a software change cannot automatically be considered insignificant per se. It depends on what it is. A software change can mean many things, even non-compliance, especially if it is outside what is officially offered by the manufacturer to the customers. Bear in mind most tuned cars, not allowed on this list, are only software upgraded, so it can definitely not be taken too lightly. The Agera RS 1MV software option, for example makes a big difference and for sure is not "insignificant", but it is an original approved factory option, which makes it OK according to this list. The SuperSport raised rev limiter, on the other hand, smells more like tuning.Sagenode (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you think that there should be any conditions applied to that rule? Manufacturer only? Available to customers? Emissions compliant? As on any forced induction engine one can wind the boost up, sacrificing longevity for power, similar to how the Mclaren F1's rev limiter was moved up, eventually to 8300 rpm for the famous run at Ehra-Lessien (likely done in software) to get more speed, They apparently thought the road cars were fast enough. The durability of the bonded crankshaft damper over 8000 rpm over the long term was (according Mclaren) the limitation, but for a short run posed no problem.[1] Toasted Meter (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

If the Veyron SuperSport is allowed on the list with a temporarily raised, non-customer available speed limiter - why should the McLaren F1 be threated differently and not be allowed on the list?Sagenode (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

If you can make an adjustment rather than the changing of parts, I think it could be argued that the car was capable of the speed. A concern I have is that we are moving further into the area of becoming the arbiter for a particular speed record - something which is outside the brief for Wikipedia. Really these matters should fall within the gambit of FIA or a similar organisation to take away the need for us to make these judgments. NealeFamily (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I can see the want to defer to an authority on the subject, and considering how the power output of even homologation specials differ from their racing versions I can only conclude that the FIA are somewhat permissive of some non trivial changes to output and performance so I see why that position makes sense. Toasted Meter (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree about raising the limit from 25 to 30. Originally it was agreed upon 20 cars, then it was raised to 25 without consensus but since it didn't change anything no one cared, it will hurt credibility if we keep on changing the limit arbitrarily. There are no official Guinness rules, Top Gear once wrote that Hennessey said that Guinness said they require 30 cars but we know that that several cars which were built less than 15 times were certified by them as record holding production cars and car magazines and other Wikipedia sites have treated cars built in lower numbers as production cars too. Drachentötbär (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The 25 car threshold is based on the FIA definition of a production car. Toasted Meter (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Just for clarity the FIA rule is now obsolete, but was a minimum for production sports cars in the 1969 International Sporting Code for Category A (recognized production cars) sub category Group 4 sports cars was 25 cars within a 12 month period. Groups 1 to 3 qualifiers ranged from 500-5,000 cars produced. As the rule was closest authoritative source with a modest number of vehicles and, as User:Drachentötbär correctly pointed out, it did not change the list the change was made to give some reliable source, albeit slightly obtuse, to work from. There was no other external source of use. Guinness' reported 30 vehicle requirement was applied by them in such an inconsistent manner as to be unhelpful.

I hold the view that unless a better source than the old FIA rule be found, the number required should remain at 25. If you accept a lesser number then the list would simply be the fastest car and that means world land speed record holders in my eyes. A greater number than 25 would increasingly discriminate against smaller as manufacturers as User:Sagenode has argued. NealeFamily (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to change the number from 25. It's low enough now that we can already include low production run vehicles without getting completely ridiculous (20? why not argue for 12, or 10 , or even 5?). The intent is not to exclude low production run vehicles by small companies (or we would just require a production run in the hundreds). Meters (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

When you start to get up to the speed and price of these vehicles you almost inevitably have very small production runs by boutique companies, Koenigsegg for example. Setting a limit based on a reliable source is the major problem that is why the FIA rules are used. See WP:RS which states

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

NealeFamily (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. This is a list of production car speed records, not an article about what constitutes a production car. There are clearly reliable sources that discuss production car speed records, so the list is justifiable. Unfortunately the sources don't all use the same definition of "production" (or even define what "production" is). Are you suggesting that we should not have the list at all because the various sources don't use the same definition? Wikipedia uses a viable, compromise definition of production in its inclusion criteria. I don't see any need to change it. I personally don't consider tiny runs of ridiculously fast cars by boutique companies to be production cars, but I didn't write Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. I'll follow the existing criteria, but I won't support tweaking the criteria to allow even smaller, special case production runs. Meters (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)+

Hi User:Meters - I agree with you that there is no issue with the cars in the list. Rather the issue is around the rules for the list. If an article states something applies then it needs to be based on a source external to Wikipedia. Wikipedia and its authors should not be the origin of the rule. As there is no set definition for the term Production car, we have been left to find something that is externally sourced that can be used to define the term. In this instance the FIA rule seems to be the most reliable and provided a position which most of us seemed comfortable with. I also agree with you that calling a car of which only a handful have been made does not to my mind constitute a Production car. The term production car is a shortened form of mass produced car with the idea that models produced ran into the hundreds or thousands of the same type.

If we were to adopt FIA's Category A Group 1 then 5,000 would be needed to qualify, making it more in line with my thinking of what a mass produced car is. For the sake of peace and making some sense in relation to claims such as Guiness, a couple of years ago, we settled on Category A Group 4 which has a 25 car requirement and is the lowest number in the FIA list for production sports cars. NealeFamily (talk) 06:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Thousands is more in line with what I think of as a production car too, and more in line with "constructed principally for retail sale to consumers, for their personal use, and to transport people on public roads" but as I said, I work with whatever criteria we have decided to use. I'd likely support a proposal to change the limit upwards if such a proposal were made (particularly if based on an outside definition), but I won't push to change the current criteria.

As for the current issue of the software upgrade of the Koenigsegg, I don't think it is appropriate to count units for which the software could be upgraded as part of the production run. For me this is the equivalent of arguing that we can count cars produced with a lower-powered engine as part of the production run of the same car with an optional higher-powered engine simply because they could have been produced that way, or could later be modified to be the same as if they had been originally produced that way. A case could be made for counting units which were later upgraded by the manufacturer to the higher-powered spec, but not for units which simply could be upgraded but were not. That's like arguing that the entire 2017 production run of, say, Ford Focus cars is painted Race Red because that was one of the factory colours and they all could have been produced in that colour, or could later be repainted in that colour. Meters (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed NealeFamily (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

You are both missing the point. The Record breaking Agera RS was not a MODIFIED or UPGRADED car when it broke the record - it came with the factory optional Agera RS 1MV option. It is A FACTORY OPTION to the Agera RS program and OPTIONS ARE ALLOWED ON THIS LIST!! Stop missintrepret and misslead readers on this point please!Sagenode (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I would say that it's more like if the entire Ford Focus production run was painted Race Red, and all other colors are just a vinyl wrap over the red, whilst all are capable of being red not all are, due to a easy to reverse change. Of Course User:StevenWade could always settle this by giving all the cars the 1MW package, call it a christmas gift. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toasted Meter (talk • contribs) 00:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

If it is a software change then it would be fairly inexpensive one would think, but it is post production and therefore a modification :) NealeFamily (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

VIN discussion

I like to think of the definition of production cars slightly differently. It's not so much about which we include but more about which we exclude. We want to exclude tuners, backyard tinkerers, factory one-offs that can't be registered on the road and similar. Sagenode mentioned something that is useful - true manufacturers will do crash testing and emissions compliance testing and tuners don't. True manufacturers will register the car on the road under their own company name - tuners don't.

The FAI has a slightly different purpose. They already know which companies are real manufacturers (by fact of the car having their company name on the build plate, not somebody else's). The number of cars produced is to stop them racing special one-offs that they have no intention to sell to the public. Hence homologation numbers of at least 25 (or 100 or 5000 or whatever depending on the class).

I'm perfectly happy if the company makes only one instance but that one instance is fully compliant, registerable on the road under their own company name and any customer can potentially order one just like it and actually register it on the road in a reasonable number of countries. Stepho talk 14:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

So just to be clear - User: Stepho-wrs are you suggesting vehicles with a VIN number would be eligible, but those without, not - rather than the number manufactured? NealeFamily (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Close but not quite. Tuner vehicles have a VIN and we don't want them in this list. It would have to have a VIN, the company claiming it as the fastest would have to be the same as the company on the VIN (eg for the Hennessey Venom, the claiming company, Hennessey, doesn't match the VIN, Lotus, so they are excluded), the car has to be as-is from the factory (further excluding tuners and Hennessey) and the car has to be legal in a reasonable number of developed countries (ie not a factory special that can't registered and not registered by a special dispensation in some out-of-the-way country). As long as any customer can potentially order one the same then the actual number made is irrelevant. Stepho talk 06:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

That would work for 1981 onwards - pre 1981 may need a modification to the rule. I take it only cars whose VIN's WMI number is matches the make. I note that RUF has WMI number WO9, but according to an article some RUF's are rebuilt Porsche's with a Porsche WMI - see [2]. Also for instance RUF is missing from the list of WMI's in the Vehicle Identification Number's article on Wiki - so we would need to be careful. NealeFamily (talk) 08:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Where I said VIN, for older cars we can replace it with some equivalent from the build plate that is taken by registration authorities as 'the manufacturer' of the original car. If a vehicle is registered as a RUF then it counts in this list. If it is registered as a Porsche but has been modified by RUF then it is a modified car and doesn't count for this list. Otherwise we would be treating RUF and Hennessey differently. But under my proposed rules, if RUF made a design based on Porsches and registered those cars under the RUF name plate (ie as a manufacturer) but happened to register some of them as Porsches (because they were made from a rebuilt chassis) then it would be valid because at least some of them were registered as RUF and numbers don't matter any more. Stepho talk 11:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

So the rules would look something along the lines:

being 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);
~~having had 25 or more instances made by the original vehicle manufacturer, and~~ offered for commercial sale to the public in the same condition as it was originally manufactured by the manufacturer whose WMI number is shown on the VIN;
cars modified by either professional tuners or others that result in a VIN with a WMI number in their name are eligible (for example if Porsche based car is remanufactured by RUF and has RUF's WMI W09, it is eligible, but if it has Porsche's WMI, WP0, it is not eligible);
being street-legal in their intended markets, and capable of passing any official tests or inspections required to be granted this status.

The logic being that the decision as to whether or not the car is made by a manufacturer rests with the WMI number (a WP:RS) and not a decision made by Wikipedians.

Looking at the list of potential pre-1981 vehicles. All would be recognised manufacturers, so I don't think there is an issue there. Does SSC North America have a WMI number? NealeFamily (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

We might have to nail down the cars that didn't use formalised VIN's and WMI's (it took awhile before it reached the entire globe) but yes, that expresses what I wanted to say. Sagenode, we would appreciate your comment on the proposed rules. I believe the proposed new rules will unambiguously allow the RS into the list and keep the tuners and factory special out. Stepho talk 15:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

There are several others who are active on this page whose comments should be sought - User:Drachentötbär, User:Dennis Bratland, User:Meters, User:Toasted Meter, and User:Greglocock. The change is a significant philosophical shift from a mimimum number of vehicles to WMI manufacturers only. NealeFamily (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Without a minimum number even a single car sold by a manufacturer would count as production car for this list which could be problematic. I don't need big numbers but No one-offs but cars that enthusiasts (who have the money) can buy. We should at least demand that more than one car was made.

For me a manufacturer VIN is not important, Guinness and other sources didn't care about it and important sources which call cars non-production because of the VIN have yet to be found. But it might be the best way to avoid unreliable companies and exclude cars which were specially made for record attempts and break down after a few hundred miles or are undriveable on the street. Drachentötbär (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of changing from a simple minimum number cutoff to a manufacture's VIN criterion. As Drachentötbär says, we don't have any reliable sources that use this criterion. We do have reliable sources that set a minimum production number. Why are we attempting to reinvent the wheel? The interesting cars that don't fit in this list should be listed elsewhere, rather than modifying our criteria to include special cases. And this is not a decision that can be made solely by editors on this page since it affects other pages also. We are currently using the definition as given on List of automotive superlatives. Is the suggestion to use a different definition on this page, or to change the definition on that page without having a general discussion?

For that matter, why do we have a section on cars which don't meet the inclusion criteria of this list? It seems to be a coatrack to mention cars which are not eligible for inclusion in the list. It's WP:UNDUE to have more material on individual cars which don't qualify for this list than for most of the cars that do qualify. Meters (talk) 05:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

We should put the table for excluded cars back to the main site, with the cars which obviously don't have a claim (even with another production car definition) removed and sorted by year. There never was a consensus for moving it, someone simply did it while the rest was too lazy to revert.Drachentötbär (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I've been quiet here due to being reported for conflict of interest by another editor. My understanding is that it's OK for me to contribute here on the talk page, however, and given that talk has turned to the question of what is a production car - a definition that is at the heart of what this page is about - I thought I might jump in again and offer an industry point of view. Again, I work for Koenigsegg so some of you will take my view as being biased. I'd ask you to consider the logic in what I'm saying rather than just write it off (which would be your own form of bias).

For the record, I'm in favour of what Stepho has proposed, above. i.e. the presence of a VIN being the key to identifying what is a production car. If a manufacturer takes steps to have the car certified for sale in sophisticated markets than you can pretty much rest assured that it's a vehicle that's in serial production (and by the way.... mass production has nothing to do with this. Mass production is to production as mass murder is to murder - you'd go about the 'mass' option in a completely different way but the end result per unit is the same).

The automotive industry has changed over the decades in how it defines a vehicle. That's why some of the criteria you might apply now won't necessarily apply to vehicles from the pre-1980's. Developments like VINs and WMIs have replaced the simple old serial number that manufacturers used to put on cars. There's a lot that goes into earning a VIN, however, which is why it should be the one key identifier of what is a production car. In order to certify a car for sale (i.e. earn the right to put a VIN on it and offer it to market), the car has to meet more than 60 different regulations in Europe and more than 40 regulations in the USA. Those regulations cover everything from crash tests to the size, height, placement and brightness of every single light on the car. There's even a detailed regulation about the horn (covering stuff like volume and even the strength of the body section the horn is mounted to). We have our cars abused at testing centres - hit with sledgehammers all over the body, chassis and every mounting point on the car. They're driven over surfaces you'd never go close to with your own car. They're emissions tested to kingdom-come and crash tested so many times it'd make you cry. After all of that time, and a LOT of money, you get a piece of paper saying your car meets standards required to be sold in certain markets.

This is not a process that one-off tuners or backyard shed builders go through. They can't afford it. This is a production car process. If a car goes through this process and gets certified, it's a production car. I'd suggest you forget about volumes. FIA had their reasons for that (racing and promises made to audiences/consumers that the deck wouldn't be stacked). Do those reasons apply here? Should they? I think not. If a manufacturer goes through the certification process and is able to sell their car through a dealer network to the market, what they're selling is a production car. StevenWade (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Uer:StevenWade - the WMI seems to have two different categories. Those who produce 500+ and those who produce less than 500 - the latter have WMI's that end in a 9 from what I have read. Can someone elaborate on whether that means the rules applied are different for the two categories and if so what they are. NealeFamily (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

In my digging around I came across a piece of United States legislation about low volume vehicles - H.R.2675 - Low Volume Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Act of 2015 with the term low volume manufacturer defined as a motor vehicle manufacturer, other than a person who is registered as an importer under section 30141 of this title, whose annual worldwide production is not more than 5,000 motor vehicles. The SEMA website states that the legislation is designed to allow turn key kit cars to be produced in the US. Given that, would it mean that these manufacturers could gain a WMI number and their own VIN numbers? If so, then where would Hennessey fit? NealeFamily (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

That legislation was created/amended to make life easier for replica manufacturers. The companies who make the Cobra replicas, the Porsche Speedster replicas, etc. Quote - "The term ‘exempted specially produced motor vehicle’ means a replica motor vehicle that is exempt from specified standards as defined in section 30114(b) of title 49, United States Code.”. Here's the Bill and to save you trying to wade through all that malarkey, here's a good summary explainer at Jalopnik.

The bill seems to be designed to allow replica manufacturers to use homologated engines from OEMs, thereby bypassing all of the emissions testing requirements that we (i.e. Koenigsegg) have to go through. FYI - as an OEM selling in the United States, we receive zero concessions for being a small manufacturer. We have to do every test and conform to all the same rules that Ford or Chevy do if they homologate their highest volume vehicles. Same number of crash tests, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenWade (talk • contribs) 06:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The concern I have is whether or not, by virtue of the US law change kit/replica cars pick up their own VIN/WMI numbers. For instance in NZ, where I live, there are several who manufacture their chassis,and use either new parts or mechanical parts from donor cars. Would the donor cars VIN/WMI transfer across could/would they end up with a new one? NealeFamily (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't answer that from the information given but perhaps you could do some research into it to satisfy the questions. Are these NZ small manufacturer cars road legal? How are they registered, and as what make (WMI)? Can they be registered anywhere outside NZ or do they get on the road there due to a NZ loophole/provision that other markets don't allow? And perhaps more critically, are any of these vehicles in a class that's likely to threaten this record?StevenWade (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

(←) I will call one of the manufacturers or the Low Volume Vehicle Technical Association (LVVTA) tomorrow and see if I can find out (for the Wiki purest, that means a breach of Wikipedia:No original research). Kit or replica cars for use on NZ roads they are assessed by the LVVTA and, if certified, may be used on NZ roads. Highly unlikely any would ever reach this list, but what I am curious about is if any kit or replica car makers would have their own VIN/WMI's. A bit hypothetical I know, but I am trying to determine the likely impact of the rule change for the sake of the ongoing discussion. I'll post the answer tomorrow if I get the chance. NealeFamily (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed rule change discussion continued

To return to Stepho's proposed rule change...... NealeFamily had a crack at putting that into words similar to WP's current rules definition. I'd like to take NealeFamily's definition and tweak it slightly into something that I think better reflects what Stepho was getting at.

being 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);
Is ~~offered~~ available for commercial sale to the public in the same specification as the vehicle used to achieve the record; (subsequent edit after initial posting)
The record claimant must be the manufacturer whose WMI number is shown on the VIN. Cars modified by either professional tuners or others that result in a VIN with a WMI number in their name are eligible (for example if Porsche based car is remanufactured by RUF and has RUF's WMI W09, it is eligible, but if it has Porsche's WMI, WP0, it is not eligible);
Being street-legal in their intended markets, and capable of passing any official tests or inspections required to be granted this status.

Criteria 1, 3 and 4 ensure that it's a production vehicle for sale. They examine different aspects of what is a production car. Does it have a VIN issued by the OEM, which is only available after passing tests imposed by recognised homologation criteria, and is it sold to the public for legal use on the road. That confines the list to OEMs and excludes the tuners. Criterion 2 ensures it's not a one-off special.

With regards to questions about how you might verify a car according to these criteria.... 1) If it's sold as a road legal car in a number of countries, then that's most of the battle already won. Companies can't sell a car for road use in a major market if it's not complied.

I would suggest using Europe as the yardstick for this as some small manufacturers don't always comply a car for the USA (Koenigsegg does, but hasn't always. A number of other reputable manufacturers don't either, including boutique manufacturers like Pagani (the Zonda) as well as some mass production companies like Renault, Citroen, etc). Pretty much everyone sells in Europe, though.

Back to how to verify.... 2) The company will tell you the specs of any record-attempting car. It's in their interests to. They want to sell them and to that, they want to talk about what they've built. Of course, you might be thinking they'll try to lie and run a wolf in sheep's clothing - read on.

3) if a company is making a 'record' car and that car's capable of speeds much higher than its regular models of that type (i.e. it's a production car on the automotive equivalent to undeclared and illegal steroids - the wolf in sheep's clothing) then you can bet it's going to be found out eventually. Journalists will find out when they test the car and it doesn't come close to claimed performance. It could even be an owner that finds out. Koenigsegg's record attempt in Nevada didn't come about because we organised it. It came about because *a customer* organised it. The customer got the highway closed, paid the police to control traffic, liaised with the local government, etc. We just built the car, shipped it and provided one of our factory drivers to do the run. Customers in this segment want to know that their car can do what's claimed. StevenWade (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenWade (talk • contribs) 20:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Number

Okay, I've got a reliable internet connection again. NealeFamily and Steven seems to have pretty much captured my thinking.

In a section above, NealeFamily wanted a reliable source to cover our replacing of FIA rules. Since a major point of my proposal is to exclude tuners by only allowing registered manufacturers, the requirement of an officially registered WMI is surely as reliable as we can get. FIA rules are mostly to exclude one-off race specials from companies that they already know are manufacturers. We cover the same need by insisting that cars mechanically identical (which includes software controlling the engine, drive train, suspension and aerodynamics) to the record car can be bought by customers and legally registered on the road in developed countries.

If my proposed rules are not accepted then we will have to tighten up how to count to 25. From the above discussion of nearly 2 months, this may take considerable effort to get agreement. And if a recognised manufacture makes only 24 identical units next year, do we tweak the rules again and again until we eventually get down to 2? To my mind, choosing an arbitrary number will always find somebody unhappy on either side of the limit. Stepho talk 04:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Back from the surf sun and sand. My thought is that unless there is something better than the FIA rule, which is 25 cars per annum, then it should remain the benchmark. Although I personally would like the Agera on the on the list, it still looks like it falls short from all the debates above and below. We can determine if the car is a manufacturer, rather than a tuner - but that still doesn't determine the numbers or definition to make a car a production car. NealeFamily (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

For the sake of relevance of this list - the rules needs to be made so that a car like the Agera RS can fit, as it is - truly - from every perspective, a series produced world wide homologated car. This list does not reflect "reality" if it does not allow a car like this. Also it fools the public to believe an alternative truth, which cannot/should not be the purpose of this list - I am sure. The only other viable alternative I can think of is to rename this list so it actually states what it is - for example: "Fastest cars produced in exact identical technical specification in numbers larger than 25 units - irrelevant if they are road legal/homologated or not". This is what the list means today... Seem like strange list, with a long name... but we should call it for what it is - or change "the rules".... Please.Sagenode (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

If you take a look at Talk:Production car speed record#Cars excluded from the list together with basic reason you will find various cars by manufacturers with numbers less than 25 made. The question then, as User:Stepho-wrs points out is, where should the line be drawn and on what basis. As discussed earlier, the danger this list has is that it is very tenuously based on the FIA sports car rule. There is no alternative reliable source outside of the FIA rule that we have found that gives a lower number for determining what a production car is. The other reason for having a number is to avoid one-off's from manufacturers being counted. If you can find a reliable source that cites a lower number then please share it with us. NealeFamily (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I think we are to locked in on the idea of "numbers produced". It should totally be taken out of the equation as it muddles the discussion and logic. If a company goes through the hoopla of setting up a production line, makes the cars pass crash test, emission tests, conformity of production, homologate the company as a car producer and homologate the car model for the markets and then only end up producing two or three of them, because nobody wanted the car - it is still a production car! No company would spend 10´s of millions of dollars to do all the above for only a few cars on purpose - even if that is what can happen in the end. It is still a production car. What I am trying to say is that status, productionability, compliance homologation and even intent is much more relevant and important than sheer numbers of for example identical "kitcars" or whatever.

There are many good suggestions on this talk page how to judge if a car is what I just described or not. Why dont we focus on agreeing on such a solution instead, as it is much more relevant than 10, 25, 500 or 5000 cars regardless of status.

For example - this would be a straightforward simple solution to the dilemma - by answering these questions we know if it is a production car or not:

1. Producing company - registered as a car producer in its country - Yes/No/?
2. Car model registered for road use in one or several countries - Yes/No/?
3. Car model safety compliant in one or more countries - Yes/No/?
4. Car model emission compliant in one or more countries - Yes/No/?
5. At least one(2,3..?) car(s) have been sold by manufacturer to end user(directly or via authorized factory dealer) ready for road use with road car registration, without the need for any modification by end user or other third party - Yes/No/?

If all these boxes are ticked - it is a production car. Perhaps point 5 can be discussed if it really is needed, but if it is there and all the other boxes are ticked - then there is no question - what so ever - that this actually is a production car. If it is difficult to answer any of these questions - well then, most likely, this is not a production car - right? To avoid the numbers discussion I would actually prefer to keep point 5 to only one car, as it should be enough, given all the other points.Sagenode (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

In essence we all agree on points 1-4, albeit with slightly different wording:

* 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);

* offered available for commercial sale to the public in the same specification as the vehicle used to achieve the record; (subsequent edit after initial posting)

* record claimant must be the manufacturer whose WMI number is shown on the VIN. Cars modified by either professional tuners or others that result in a VIN with a WMI number in their name are eligible (for example if Porsche based car is remanufactured by RUF and has RUF's WMI W09, it is eligible, but if it has Porsche's WMI, WP0, it is not eligible)

* street-legal in their intended markets, and capable of passing any official tests or inspections required to be granted this status.

I think, if we were to exclude the number built, we will need to cover your point in some meaningful manner that if a company goes through the hoopla of setting up a production line, makes the cars pass crash test, emission tests, conformity of production, homologate the company as a car producer and homologate the car model for the markets and then only end up producing two or three of them, because nobody wanted the car - it is still a production car

What do others think?

NealeFamily (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC) I would support that change. if it were carried out the Dauer 962 would also be added which I think is good. Toasted Meter (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually the Dauer 962 (and cars like the Henessey Venom) would be kept out while the 2004 Koenigsegg CCR and the Agera RS would be added to the list. Drachentötbär (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

minimum of 20 cars to qualify is outdated.

There is no valid reason for cars by Koenigsegg and SSC not being on this list, apart from an outdated rule that doesn't take into account the current state of the automotive industry.

Of course one off cars should not be here, they should be legitimate roadcars, available for sale, manufactured by a recognized company. But 20? It serves no point to exclude some very well made and legitimate supercars from this list, just because someone who doesn't know what they are doing, thought that 20 is a nice number.

I suggest that this article is made to match the fastest cars by acceleration article and use the same criteria. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is it outdated? What event or development happened that made it outdated? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The origins of the 20 car limit is at Talk:List of fastest production cars/Archive 3#Page protected/20 car limit - new discussion. There you will find the reasoning behind the rule and the decision made:

Decision

The closest any reliable source comes to a number is the FIA and its rules date from 1968. Guinness seems to be inconsistant and as it doesn't publish its rules, we can't tell. All of us accept that the 20 number is arbitrary, but until someone posts a substantive argument to the contrary that we can agree on - the 20 car minimum rule remains. The reason for this decision is because there is no consensus to change the rule.

You will need to come up with significant reasons, citing reliable sources, for a change to a level that is lower than 20. There is in fact better reason to raise the limit - namely Guiness, with reliable sources citing 50 cars, or the 1968 FIA 25 car rules - for more detail see Production car.

As for the List of fastest production cars by acceleration - it has deteriorated into a fanboy article with a range of one-off or non-production cars being represented. NealeFamily (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The main reason is that I see Koenigsegg and similar manufacturers as highly reputable and it seems a shame not to have them on the list. With the current situation, the list is going to consist purely of VAG/Ferrari/Porsche, which doesn't seem to be very representative of the supercar industry. I do agree that one off cars should not be here, neither should modified cars or tuner cars - RUF belong in the list, Hennessy do not. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

If they were included then you are no longer dealing with Production car's. Also many of these cars like RUF and Koenigsegg, are so individually tailored as to make them one off's. Then your next problem is to find a valid road test. NealeFamily (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting to agree with you, it's going to end up with cars being included just because people like that car. I think Koenigsegg are awesome and Hennessey are a glorified tuning company, but that's purely my opinion and slipping into the territory of fanboys. The only other solution that I can think of is to have the "cars that didn't make it" list that is on this talk page, on the main article. I'm not sure if that is a good idea, or has been suggested before. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

We have an excellent list of cars that didn't make it, above. Personally I think koenigsegg gets short shrift from our rules, but given the agony of establishing rules, I'd actually prefer BIGNUM to smaller. I am despondent at the lack of cars between 1900 and 1950ish, they were fun and interesting. Que sera sera Greglocock (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the further we go into history, the more difficult it will be to get reliable sources for top speeds. I have serious doubts about the XK120's top speed, Jaguar were rather devious about specs on test cars, kinda like Ferrari nowadays. But there does seem to be something missing without a lot of the classics. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we should come to a consensus about the Hennessey before 20 examples are sold. Looking through the archives some people have mentioned that it is based on the Exige, raising the question about whether a production car can use a chassis designed for another car by another company. According to the dedicated Venom GT Wikipedia page, "For road use, the car is registered as a Lotus Exige (modified) and is not a series production car." Hennessey has never been registered as an automobile manufacturer, and the Venom GT has not passed any of the crash and environmental testing that new production cars are subject to. This is in contrast to Saab and Tesla which were mentioned as other car makers building on other companies' chassis. IMO a car can't be considered a production car if it is not recognized as such by any government, and it shouldn't be on the list even if they sell 20+ cars.

P.S. Maybe this should be a new talk thread, but I couldn't figure out how to do that. Feel free to start a new thread about the Venom GT and move this there.

P.P.S. For the record, I am in favor of changing the required production number to 10, in order to include the CCR and SSC UA TT. That is the number I use for my own list of fastest production cars (using estimated or plausible speeds rather than verified tests). Jvshenderson (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

This list should not even consider cars that are not 100% street legal, passing all safety, noise, and emissions rules. Mere hobbyists are capable of building really fast cars as long as they don't have to make them conform to any rules. The only media that pay much attention to these obscure cars are fanboy blogs and magazines. Mainstream media only take notice when someone builds a real production, street legal car that sets a new speed record. I'd raise the minimum to 1,000 units, at least.

That doesn't mean there is no place for low-volume, non-street legal records on Wikipedia. The articles Wheel-driven land speed record or Land-speed record can and should be expanded to include more FIA or SCTA categories/classes where Koenigsegg or SSC or whatever can be listed and given an appropriate amount of recognition. We don't have to limit ourselves to the top unlimited or "outright world record" class. We can included classes for vintage only, internal combustion only, and so forth. From what I've seen they have a class for just about everything you can imagine. The point is to compare apples to apples. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

There are several challenges with your suggestion. Countries have different rules when if comes to safety, noise, and emissions. There are moves through the United Nations to address these differences - see UNECE vehicle regulations. Also if you moved the minimum to 1,000 units then there would be very few cars that would qualify. Personally I would prefer an increase in the minimum numbers to at least the 1968 FIA sports car level of 25 cars. This is less than Guiness, but could be cited as a reliable source on which the minimum number is based. I realise that it is tough on Koenigsegg and the like, but I think counting them as production cars with such minimal numbers is pushing it.

Greg, I did take a look at trying to take the list back before 1945 and found that sorting out production cars from race cars (see the incomplete Bentley debate on this talk page) and one off's became almost insurmountable. There was also a lack of reliable test data. NealeFamily (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, if 1,000 is too high then 200. It should be a short list, not a everybody-gets-a-prize roll call. Making a street legal car in volume that can reach 250 mph or more is a huge accomplishment and it shouldn't be diluted with dinky outfits that cut corners. Cars that are only "street legal" [sic] in Yemen or Kazakhstan or something should be described as such; cars that are street legal in the US and EU should be given due credit for an amazing engineering feat.

And it bears repeating that there are ways to recognize cars and bikes that don't meet the criteria. There are lots of FIA and FIM classes that meet our verifiability and neutrality rules that allow us to include them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

What are/were the requirements when SSC held the Guinness record? They didn't keep it, of course - but it was awarded to them according to SSC's media section. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is the earler discussion about the SSC being in Guiness

Earlier, IP-93, you said: Yes, 25 seems realistic if they accept claimed total production number. However, I would accept claimed production number only until production run is over. If manufacturer fails to build sufficient number, then it must be disqualified and removed. If Guinness really uses this approach, they would probably disqualified Aero TT already since it is not being built any more and apparently way less than 25 were ever produced. BTW, the claimed production number of 25 Aeros may be an indirect proof of this version. They may have had to claim exactly this much to fulfill Guinness requirement. Anyway, since we know Guinness was reconsidering Veyron SS record lately, they could do the same with Aero, since now its actual production run is known. But they don't So, perhaps, their definition is a bit different. Or they don't care. Or Jerod paid enough. Or whatever... :-\ IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

My view is once Guinness had published the Aero TT as the fastest, it was superceded reasonably quickly by the Veyron. Guinness probably had no interest in correcting it. NealeFamily (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Since then we established Guiness are using a 50 car minimum -see Production car article for reliable source. NealeFamily (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion we shouldn't do the same as the Guinness Book of Records. Else we could simply copy the book entries year for year and our list would be worthless. Guinness often changes its rules and offers exceptions, just read Wikipedia article about "Production vehicle" where some say at least 50 and others at least 30. Looks a bit to me as if Guinness first decides which car they want and bends the rules accordingly. Important for the credibility of this site is setting clear rules and not changing them. The 20 car minimum rule is here since over 3 years (Personally I'd have chosen a lower number), changing this fundamental rule will cost credibility.Drachentötbär (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

My thought is to move the minimum number to 25, thereby matching the FIA rule for sports cars which coverted a significant portion of this list. There would be no change to the vehicles currently on the list as all exceeded that number (I will need to change the AC Cobra number, but that is only a minor edit). It would also give a plausible source to base the number on rather than just our own conjecture. NealeFamily (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. But then I would say that. `Greglocock (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The 20-25 minimum production volume has nothing to do with if a car fulfill the authorities requirements for a production car such as COC, OBD, crash worthiness, airbags etc. Nor that the producer of the car is recoginized as a producer of series production cars. In order to give the public and the readers a fair understanding of the real situation, this rule needs to be removed as it keeps proper real production cars away from the list in an unfair way. Sagenode (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2017

The minimum number, whether it be 15, 20, 30, 50, needs to be maintained. Many of you are arguing what a street legal car is defined as, and NOT what a production car is. The 20 car minimum was agreed upon on many pages because it reduced the number of edit wars. Drachentotbar, you are running around making changes without following through with discussions about your changes, you are simply going with your own opinion being "correct". We had this argument many times years ago, not sure if you were here or not, seems if you were you'd remember. The minimum numbers aren't set by wikipedia, they are set by verified sources. People's personal opinions about the matter simply do not bear the weight necessary to make all the changes you are making. "2 or 3 qualify as production" is absolutely incorrect, provide documentation, or revert your changes back. You cannot unequivocally make wholesale changes to what has been the commonly accepted definition of "production car" based on the opinions of very few people. You stated yourself that "changing this fundamental rule will cost credibility". That's exactly what you have done now. Guinness is far more capable of defining what a production car is in terms of records than anyone here, and even Road and Track have it defined by a specific number far higher than "2 or 3". If you can't provide other documented sources outside of "wikipedians agree" then you need to leave it be. Documented sources are the standard, not personal opinions of editors. RTShadow (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Before we get into another round of finger pointing, have a look at the #Request for Verdict re: proposed citeria changes section below. If this is agreed upon then there will be no need for an arbitrary number and the whole above discussion becomes moot. Stepho talk 10:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Jaguar XJ220 March 2018

Given that the XJ220's article states that the car was the world's fastest production car from 1992-93, and given that it is recorded in the Guinness book of world records as such, I guess we need to include a paragraph in this article with the reliably sourced reasons for not including it in the list here. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The XJ220 article itself states that the run was in a single direction only and that there were no independent judges. Either of these should rule out the record. Stepho talk 14:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Stepho-wrs: readers would expect to see the car mentioned here though, because many museum exhibits, car magazines, books, etc. carry the statement that it was the fastest production car of its day. We need to explain the technicalities and provide the reliable sources that the contents here rely on which excludes the XJ220. Currently it is very conspicuous by its absence. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Drachentötbär has added it now, thanks for that. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

And my thanks too. Stepho talk 22:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow. That was easy. Can I suggest that everything DeFacto cited re the XJ220 applies to the Agera RS, but the RS had dual-direction runs and more scrutiny than you can poke a stick at. (Goes back to slugging it out the hard way, above....)StevenWade (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if you picked it up User:StevenWade, but it is in the exclusions list still. NealeFamily (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I picked it up eventually, yes. But it was after I wrote my smartarsey post. My bad. StevenWade (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed new wording for consideration

I'd like to offer the following as proposed new wording for the definition of a production car for the purposes of this page.

The most contentious issue is the number of cars produced. This is a carryover from the FIA from days when they were devising racing series that they wanted to be both commercially viable and appealing to manufacturers. It was convenient, perhaps, but also not really suitable for a list of this type. In this modern age, there are a number of boutique manufacturers capable of building cars that could enter this list. I work for one of them - Koenigsegg Automotive - but there are a number of others as well. Those companies could all challenge this list in coming years and they shouldn't be penalised for being small. Small-scale manufacturing involves a hell of a lot more risk. Innovation is mandatory - you need a reason why someone should buy your product instead of a more historically evocative brand. Those manufacturers shouldn't be penalised for being small when they have to do all the same compliance tests as the big players, for whom the FIA definition is written.

Anyway, please consider the following and discuss. Instead of a production number, it concentrates on the qualitative elements that go into making a production car. These are all measurable, so maintaining the list into the future should not be a daunting challenge.

BEGINS

For the purposes of this list, a production car is defined as:

1) A vehicle that is constructed principally for retail sale to consumers, for their personal use, to transport people on public roads (no commercial or industrial vehicles are eligible);

2) A vehicle that is available for commercial sale to the public via an authorised dealer network in the same specification as the vehicle used to achieve the record;

3) i) A vehicle manufactured in the record-claiming specification by a manufacturer whose WMI number is shown on the VIN, or ii) A vehicle that is modified by either professional tuners or others that results in a VIN with a WMI number in that professional tuner’s name (for example, if a Porsche-based car is remanufactured by RUF and has RUF's WMI W09, it is eligible; but if it has Porsche's WMI, WP0, it is not eligible);

4) A vehicle that is street-legal in its intended markets, having fulfilled the homologation tests or inspections required under either a) United States of America, or b) European Union law, to be granted this status.

5) A vehicle that is sold in more than one national market, subject to the conditions noted elsewhere in this definition

ENDS

StevenWade (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

From the above, criterion (4) is the one most likely to be contentious. It's one that I need to do some more homework on, but I thought I'd post it anyway as a starting point for discussion. To my knowledge, the EU and USA regulations are the ones used by other countries as a base. i.e. if you pass in Europe you pass in most (if not all) of Asia, subject to a couple of extra local criteria in some countries. If you pass in the USA you pass in Canada.

I just need to confirm some details about this with our homologation manager. StevenWade (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Further information as per the paragraph immediately above.

The EU and USA homologation criteria are the most comprehensive in the world and manufacturers must meet those if they wish to sell in those lucrative markets. Satisfying those regions will indeed satisfy MOST requirements of other regional authorities. There are some markets such as GCC that have their own homologation rules. Satisfying the USA or EU *will* satisfy GCC rules in in nearly all respects, but GCC has special provisions regarding batteries, the age of tyres, etc that are not typically covered in other jurisdictions.

Bottom line - a company taking the time and expense to satisfy USA and/or EU homologation is the best indicator that a vehicle is a production car. StevenWade (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment (deadline for comment - 30 March 2018)

It's been nearly a month since I posted these proposed changes to the production car definition. These changes were formulated after considerable debate amongst editors and yet there has been no comment posted by anyone so far. I *could* take that to mean there's no concerns or disagreement but I know better than that :-)

So please, editors, voice your thoughts.StevenWade (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Support I do not really see this as likely to apply to any weird edge cases and it seems like we are excluding some legitimate production cars with the current rules. Toasted Meter (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Disagree Needlessly complicated definition with taylor-made rules contrary to public understanding. Drachentötbär (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

What part of it is complicated for you? Perhaps I can explain. None of the rules are tailor made. It's a reasoned definition that actually defines what a production car is (rather than relying on someone else's racing rules). It can apply to all and will let all genuine manufacturers of production cars be counted (which the current rules don't).StevenWade (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Support It removes arbitrary counting (that produce so many arguments about what counts and what doesn't and how many shoes we need to remove to help counting) and replaces it with the simple rule of cars that legally run on the road. Stepho talk 22:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Support It reflects reality, common understanding, intention of car producers(or not) clearly and is generally just more fair than present criterias of this list when educating the public of what is what.Sagenode (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Query How will we address pre-WMI vehicles. If you take a look at the list of exclusions, there are a number that will alter the list as it currently stands if the rule is implemented. NealeFamily (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I imagine some work will need to be done to assess them. It doesn't deligitimise the nature of the proposed changes, however. Having a quick scan of the exclusions list, it seems pretty clear as to which would be included or excluded.

Where a note states that there was no test, there's no inclusion. That takes care of most post-1980 vehicles. A manufacturer's claimed top speed doesn't count unless its tested (which rules the One:1 and Agera R our of that list as they've not been tested but the CCR would be included (covering the Koenigsegg end of things, which is my particular specialty. StevenWade (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Support as it removes the arbitrary count criterion and makes the definition of "production" objective. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Support as the change is logical - NealeFamily (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Disagree the change is not well thought out, will create controversy throughout the automotive sections of wikipedia, and let's face it, the person requesting the change is personally doing so because he/she works for a company who benefits from the change in terms of adding his/her company's vehicles to several pages. The definitions that are put in place are often times done so by the entities who define what the records are in the first place (Guinness for instance). The idea that "2 or 3 cars" constitutes production is ludicrous, no valid publication supports that, neither should Wikipedia. Also, there are people now making the changes without even waiting for the deadline for comments, much less a consensusRTShadow (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Question RTShadow you say no valid publication supports the idea that 2 or 3 cars constitute production. What valid publication (and I presume you mean a publication that meet WP:RS) supports a specific number of vehicles as constituting a production vehicle? No one has been able to come up with one to date and therefore the argument has settled on the view that if a car is made by a recognized manufacturer (that is one with a WMI number) then it constitutes a production car. NealeFamily (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Support It reflects the past and current state of the sports car market. There is no logical reason to prevent cars from companies like Pagani and Koenigsegg from being on articles like this, if a company is considered to be a manufacturer, then their cars should be eligible.

Question "A vehicle that is constructed principally for retail sale to consumers, for their personal use, to transport people on public roads" please confirm if this includes track day cars and road legal race cars. Anything from a 250GTO to a Porsche GT3 could be considered as primarily a race car or track day car - but they certainly belongs on this list.

If the track day car is made in series by a recognised manufacturer and is road legal, available for sale as per the suggested rules, then it would qualify. I don't think this would complicate the list as most track day specials such as a GT3 are designed for handling and this is a top speed list. It's a rare car that can reach the pinnacle of both, especially in this modern age, as the objectives are often considered mutually exclusive. StevenWade (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Question Options/safety equipment. How will the fitting of factory options that change the performance or legal status affect the eligibility of a car? Same question for safety equipment fitted for a test? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

If the option is available to all customers through normal sales channels and is road legal, the car would be eligible. Remeber, the focus is on production in series and road legal, which means the option would have to be homologated for the car to be eligible for sale in a given market.

With regard to safety equipment fitted for a test, such equipment is only going to add weight and won't make the car faster. One could argue in a handling test that a roll cage could maybe - maybe - make the chassis stiffer. Maybe. That would be an item for discussion on a relevant page. On a top speed test, you're not testing the handling of a vehicle, though. A roll cage is just extra weight and gives no benefit in terms of reaching Vmax.StevenWade (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment looks very complicated criterias. Where we can for example verify that car has passed European crash regulations? For example List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times says Radical SR8 is street legal, production car? but where we can find its passed all needed tests? Im quite sure it cant pass crash criterias in Europe . The definition should be easy to understand and easy to verify cars. Radical maybe street legal in some countries, who knows. Making 2 or 3 identical car should not be classified as prodction cars IMO. If we find good sources where we can find car has passed all regulations then we might change criteries, the problem is how we verify all those criterias -->Typ932 ^T·C 08:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

If a manufacturer releases a car with a VIN (which includes their own WMI) then we a pretty safe in assuming it is road legal. It is practically unheard of for a purely non-road car to have a VIN due to the expense of passing all the tests required for a VIN. The VIN is only there to satisfy government registration in the industrialised countries. If a car does not pass crash test regulations (must pass in at least one of the industrialised countries), then it doesn't get assigned a VIN. Therefore, any car with a VIN satisfies government regulations in at least one industrialised country, which means it is road legal for our purposes. That one rule is about as simple as you can get. Stepho talk 10:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

So has Radical VIN? Im almost sure its not road legal in here and I think if car is classified as road legal in one coutry isnt enough, If some small manufacturer claims it car is road legal for example in Uganda and nowhere else, I dont think we should classifed as road legal.-->Typ932 ^T·C 12:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Combined with point 4, if it has a VIN and is for sale in US or Europe then it has passed the tests. If it is only for sale only in Uganda then we don't count it. Stepho talk 13:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Disagree As i previously said, Wikipedia uses a viable, compromise definition of production in its inclusion criteria. I don't see any need to change it. I personally don't consider tiny runs of ridiculously fast cars by boutique companies to be production cars, but I didn't write Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. I'll follow the existing criteria, but I won't support tweaking the criteria to allow even smaller, special case production runs. I will, of course, abide by any new criteria that may be set, but I see this whole process as pandering to special interests. Meters (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment Problems with the suggestion:

The definition doesn't fit to the Production vehicle wikipage (and also to other instances like Guinness or FIA) where numbers built play the main role. We would have to rewrite a lot there. There are many sources which call a car non-production solely because of low numbers, yet with the suggestion even 2 cars built could be enough for production status while some road cars built more than 100,000 times are not production.

More detailed opinion about the suggestion:

2) "via an authorised dealer network" is unnecessary and unclear, it's no exact definition and it would be difficult to find out what kind of dealer network existed in the past.

3 ii) and 3 iii) are totally unnecessary, simply requiring a VIN or just requiring that the car wasn't made by modifying a previously road legal car by another company would be enough to rule out tuners like Hennessey if you desire.

4) The world is more than just US and EU (and inside the EU there were also big differences, very easy to get SVA in the UK). Ignoring the rest of the world would be unfair. With this logic the Tata Nano would not be production car in spite of more than 250,000 units built.

5) Unnecessary and possibly harmful. With this logic the Tata Nano wouldn't have been a production car before export started, in spite of 100,000 units built before.

All in all the suggested definition looks like an enumeration about what the big global player Koenigsegg has to offer so their cars qualify while excluding cars by smaller companies.

The current rules requiring a minimum number of cars capable to reach that speed are less complicated and fit far better to what other sources consider to be a production car. For getting the Koenigsegg CCR and Agera RS in, simply reducing the minimum number to 5-11 would be the better choice. Drachentötbär (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments and a question for all Hi User:Drachentötbär Production vehicle states that there is no globally accepted definition, which is the problem we are grappling with to provide a meaningful list of fastest production cars. There are some general principles stated and it was from that basis that the rules have been derived. I note that there is interest from Koenigsegg and probably others in the outcome. So going down the list these are my comments relating to yours

Rule 1 - we agree

Rule 2 - I am inclined to agree, but note that some companies direct sell to a pre-selected group of buyers and therefore it could be debated if they meet the criteria. I am happy to agree with your proposed change, but we'll need the others to comment.

Rule 3 - includes that additional comments ensure clarity about what is intended therefore I disagree with you

Rule 4 - I don't know enough about the implications of VINs beyond borders to be able to comment

Rule 5 - I disagree with you as a car wanting to qualify for worlds fastest production car status shoud be available in more than just the country of origin.

What do others think? NealeFamily (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Rule 1 - I think is unnecessary and leaves the debate open regarding if an obviously track biased car is eligible.

Rule 2 - Also unnecessary. As per NealeFamily's comment above.

Rule 3 - I agree that if a vehicle VIN has a WMI number corresponding with the manufacturer claiming the top speed, then it should be considered to be a production car. This helps us differentiate between manufacturers such as RUF that deserve to be on here, and tuners that don't.

Rule 4 - I disagree that a vehicle has to be homologated for the US/Europe, in order to be considered a production car. If China/Japan/wherever makes a local market only vehicle, there is no logical reason to not consider it to be a production model. The R32/33/34 Skyline GT-R springs to mind. Also a vehicle might be street legal in some markets and a track only vehicle in others.

Rule 5 - I agree sold/legal in one country only should be enough. (but I really don't consider this to be important)

However, having said this - I think the proposed changes are still a huge improvement. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420 can you clarify for for rule 3 - are you agreeing with the original rule 3 that was proposed or User:Drachentötbär's proposed change? Same for the disagree in rule 4. Thanks. NealeFamily (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear, I will edit my comments so it's clearer what I'm agreeing and disagreeing with. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying NealeFamily (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

To address people's concerns about the five criteria....

It's interesting that some people see criteria 1 as unnecessary. It's copied directly from the existing rules. It's intended to reflect the fact that this list is for production cars, and the essence of production cars is that they're made for use on public roads. This list, as far as I know, is supposed to reflect the question - what's the fastest car made that can be used on public roads? Criteria 1 means we're looking at the right pool of vehicles.

The majority view seems to support Criteria 1 NealeFamily (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Criteria 2 was put in for two reasons. First, it helps to establish a company's bona fides if they have a dealer network that sells their vehicles. If it's only available from a backyard shed then it's fair to question whether the company is legit. Second, and more importantly, it establishes that the vehicle can be purchased in the same specification as the vehicle that made the record run. See the discussion re Options as to why that might be important.

If a company has a WMI number and the car a VIN number then I would suggest that there would be no backyard shed operations in that category either in the past or the future. Whether cars are sold ex-factory or through a dealer network seems an unnecessary restriction. The balance of the clause should remain ie: A vehicle that is available for commercial sale to the public in the same specification as the vehicle used to achieve the record NealeFamily (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there's much contention over Criteria 3. A VIN from a manufacturer with a recognised WMI is the essence of what constitues a production vehicle today. No company is going to do the work required to get a VIN (crashtests, emissions, meeting standards, etc) if they're not a serious company. This gives all legitimate manufacturers, small or large, the same playing field without having to resort to production numbers, which skew everything in favour of large companies.

Criteria 4 mentions EU and US laws because those are the two primary rule-making jurisdictions. If you pass homologation requirements in those two markets, you can sell in most markets around the world with minimal country-specific testing. I can understand arguments for adding an Asian jurisdiction there and maybe that's something that should be looked into (i.e. the correlation between Japanese homologation and EU homologation). I can look into that and provide more feedback.

Criteria 5 is, again, a safety to establish bona fides. With all due respect to the Tata Nano, I don't think it's a vehicle we have to worry about for this list. One of the purposes of this list is to confine awardees to those vehicles that are genuine production cars made by actual car companies, not backyard jobs or tuner specials. Selling across borders is another measure that sorts the wheat from the chaff. It may be a criterion too far, but as editors on this list proved themselves to be somewhat finicky in earlier discussions, this was offered as a way to hone the definition. StevenWade (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks StevenWade for your comments. I have added some comments to 1 and 2. I am interested in what you find out about 4 Asian jurisdictions. I am inclined to agree with 5, as I would expect a production car at this level to be available in multiple countries. NealeFamily (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

SSC Ultimate Aero TT

Does SSC North America have its own WMI or SAE number in the VIN for these cars? There are none where I live so I can't check it out. NealeFamily (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Here's a SSC VIN "1S9SA28440W944011", here is where I found it [3] the same guy also has more info about SSC VINs [4]. Toasted Meter (talk) 10:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - 1S9 is therefore their WMI/SAE number but it must be combined with the 12-14 digits on the VIN of 944 so they qualify for the list. Saleen uses 1S9 with 000 for the 14th and 15th digits. See http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/gtboard-com-general-sportscars/164938-decoding-ssc-vins.html#post1915115, retrieved 14 April 2017. NealeFamily (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The source which has mph/kph conversion errors isn't very good. If someone finds a better one please replace it in the article.Drachentötbär (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Done NealeFamily (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, but there is still something wrong in the new article. 256.18 is not the average of 257.41 and 254.88. I suspect the original measurement was made in kph and wrongly converted mph numbers were distributed.Drachentötbär (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll see if I can find anything. NealeFamily (talk) 05:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The best I have found is The first pass was recorded at 257.41mph (414.31kmh) and the second pass was recorded at 254.88mph (410.24kmh) in testing on a temporarily-closed two lane stretch of public highway in the company’s home state of Washington for an average top speed of 256.15mph (256.145 rounded up to 256.15) at https://newatlas.com/go/8072/ (not very WP:RS but I suspect the site is quoting from somewhere else like a newspaper or magazine) NealeFamily (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Better would be quoting Guinness directly. The issue I have simply states 412 km/h, maybe another one has the more precise number.Drachentötbär (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Request for Verdict re: proposed citeria changes

After much discussion, it was recognised by many here that there was a case for altering the rules under which cars were admitted to this list. Guinness was/is not reliable and the FIA rules are discriminatory and formed on a basis that's not necessarily applicable to the purpose of this list.

I used info from Stepho and Neale Family to propose wording for a new criteria list on the 15th January. Nearly a month later, as there was no further input on that list, I called for opinions.

It's been 5 weeks since I called for opinions and there has been no substantive, reasoned objection.

I'd like to suggest that we call for a verdict on this proposed change and put a timeline for an outcome - say, the end of March 2018. Thoughts? StevenWade (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree- at the very least we can get those that would have objections to speak up when it comes time to make a verdict. At the moment the only disagreement, from Drachentötbär, isn't very specific and to be honest doesn't make sense (how is the definition 'contrary to public understanding'). Let's stop dragging this issue out over months of indifference and inaction. Aab254 (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Stephen's proposed timeline for remaining comments and have added it to the discussion. NealeFamily (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

"It's been 5 weeks since I called for opinions and there has been no substantive, reasoned objection." - that's probably because it was a well thought out and reasonable proposal. Good work. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually there was already substantive, reasoned objection even before the opinion call but repeating prior posts is discouraged in the talk page guidelines while people don't care reading what has been discussed above. Drachentötbär (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Final version of the rules

BEGINS

For the purposes of this list, a production car is defined as a vehicle that is:

1) constructed principally for retail sale to consumers, for their personal use, to transport people on public roads (no commercial or industrial vehicles are eligible);

2) available for commercial sale to the public ~~via an authorised dealer network~~ in the same specification as the vehicle used to achieve the record;

3) manufactured in the record-claiming specification by a manufacturer whose WMI number is shown on the VIN, including vehicles that are modified by either professional tuners or others that result in a VIN with a WMI number in their name (for example, if a Porsche-based car is remanufactured by RUF and has RUF's WMI W09, it is eligible; but if it has Porsche's WMI, WP0, it is not eligible);

4) street-legal in its intended markets, having fulfilled the homologation tests or inspections required under either a) United States of America, b) European Union law, (suggested addition or Japan) to be granted this status.

5) sold in more than one national market~~, subject to the conditions noted elsewhere in this definition~~

ENDS

There is a question outstanding around item 4. Is there a standard for Asian markets that can be cited? NealeFamily (talk) 04:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest fulfilling the requirements for the Japanese market would do. That would deal with any vehicle that is sold in Japan only.

Question: are these rules going to be applied throughout Wikipedia? For example, will they apply on the Nordschleife lap times and acceleration articles? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I have made an amendment to clause 4 pending anything better.

Good question Spacecowboy420 - My thoughts are that the Nordschleife article seems to have any sort of vehicle with all sorts of modifications so it I would suggest not, and the acceleration article has tended to follow the same rules as this article, but any proposal to change should go through its talk page for confirmation. NealeFamily (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

This is all good to read, for once Wikipedia seems to be acting based on common sense. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It has been years in the making, but I think it is as close as we can get. Even if we don't always agree, I have appreciated the thoughtful robust input from everyone involved. I will move the rules to the article in a couple of days time to allow for any final comments/alterations. NealeFamily (talk) 08:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I think what we should all remember is that despite the differences of opinion, I imagine most people editing this article (and other similar articles) do so due to a love of cars and speed, so we should all on well with each other most of the time. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

You are going to have major problems with allowing this to be so ambiguous. I maintain my disagreement. Before, by having a definitive number that was agreed upon, it was far easier to maintain continuity to keep "one-sy two-sy" made cars off of the list. Now, well, you'll see pandora's box of so called "fastest production cars" and "fastest nurburgring cars" popping up. Best of luck to you in trying to police what is going to happen.RTShadow (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The above rules are about the car. Don't forget a two-direction test is required to determine top speed, which would be interesting on Nurburgring. That is likely to allay your fears, but time will tell. NealeFamily (talk) 09:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately there never was a number that we could agree on. Either it was too small and disallowed somebody's favourite car or it was too big and allowed a car we didn't want. Often the same number did both.

I agree that the 2 direction criteria is vitally important. Luckily it is already mentioned at Production car speed record#Measurement of top speed. Running at Nurburgring has the same problem as any other single direction measurement - it can get a boost from wind when measured over sections. Not sure if there are down hill sections for a further boost. And measuring entire lap is also inaccurate because it lowers the value due to slowing down for corners. Either way is inaccurate. Stepho talk 10:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Bentley 8 litre

The addition of the 8 litre 1930 Bentley was removed from the list as the car does not fall within the lists parameters and it is coach built rather than a production car. NealeFamily (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it is time to revisit whether or not a list of pre 1945 production cars should be added, given the revised rules. I could look at a trial run on this talk page. NealeFamily (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

My gut feeling is this will be a can of worms. Early record breakers were mostly one-off specials, even when down by a manufacturer (eg the two-off Ford 999). Stepho talk 11:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Below is the sort of thing I was thinking about. Comments welcome. NealeFamily (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Pre 1945 fastest coach built or production cars

Prior to 1945 most of the fastest cars were coach built - that is having specially or individually built bodywork rather than production cars.^[1]

For the purposes of this list, pre 1945 coach built or production cars which qualify are those which were:

constructed principally for retail sale to consumers, for their personal use, to transport people on public roads (no commercial, racing specials, or industrial vehicles are eligible)
available for commercial sale to the public in the same specification as the vehicle used to achieve the record
pre-1945 vehicles must be made by the original vehicle manufacturer and not modified by either professional tuners or individuals
street-legal in its intended markets

The origin of the top speed is specified and may include the manufacturers claimed top speed where no alternative is available.

Year	Make and model	Build Type (coach or production)	Top Speed	Origin of recorded speed	Comments
1901	Mercedes 35 hp	Coach	47 mph (76 km/h)^[2]	No yet found	Developed from the racing version which had a 53mph top speed
1902	Mercedes Simplex	Coach	111.8 km/h (69 mph)
1906	Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost	Coach	78.2 mph (126 km/h)^[3]	Claim on website
1919	Hispano-Suiza H6B	Coach	85 mph (137 km/h)
1921	Bentley 3 Litre Speed Model	Coach	90 mph (145 km/h)
1924	Hispano-Suiza H6C	Coach	110 mph (177 km/h)
1926	Bentley Speed Six	Coach	125 mph (201 km/h)^[4]
1929	Blower Bentley	Coach	130 mph (209 km/h)^[5]

It will need a definition for "coach" vs "production". I assume you mean "coach" to be a third party body (ie by a coach maker) rather than a factory body. Stepho talk 22:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Thinking about it some more, I am wondering if there should be three types - production cars (those made on a production line), coach built cars (those whose bodies were made by third parties), and individually assembled cars (I am struggling to find a term for cars that are not built on a production line - maybe someone has an idea) NealeFamily (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

References

^ https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/coach-built Coach built], Oxford dictionary definition, retrieved 17 October 2018
^ http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1901-mercedes-35-hp2.htm
^ http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/z15207/Rolls-Royce-Silver-Ghost.aspx
^ http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/default.aspx?carID=14009&i=2
^ http://www.supercars.net/cars/130.html

Original Research

Looking through all the arguing on the talkpages and the 'List rules' on the page itself: this entire page just reeks of original research where the editors just argue about what to include or not rather than relying on secondary sources. Useless article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.26.162 (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately they are no reliable secondary sources that we can take this from. Nobody agrees on what a production car is - not even governments (or at least not between different countries). Do we include pickup trucks? Include 3 wheelers? Include race only cars? Include one-off custom tuner cars? Include one-off factory specials that you can't buy? Who records it. Guinness has been known to ignore or drop records if fees aren't paid, so we can't just copy them. Do we allow records done downhill, with the wind? Do we allow unverified manufacturer claims? So this is the best we can do. At least we publish our rules for all to see and reference each claim. Stepho talk 00:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, if you don't like it then don't read it or ponder around here, simple as that. There are other places on the web which will have your dream list of cars. IP comments are useless anyway since most of them are involved in vandalism these days.U¹ _quattro TALK 05:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)