Jump to content

Talk:SSC Tuatara

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:SSC Tuatara Back View.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:SSC Tuatara Back View.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

release date

[edit]

does anyone know when or even if this will be released? it has been presented 2011, set for 2012, then for 2013, now it is 2014 already.... TheFIST (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is 2022 and what it seems to be the ONLY ever produced Tuatara set to break the street-legal car speed record had an accident during its transportation[1]. One of the requirements to break the spped record is to build certain amount of cars and they all should have the same capabilities as the record-breaking model. As they are waiting until the damaged car is repaired, it is reasonable to assume they, so far, have only built one. Besides, it might not be homologated for road use yet and is therefore at present not street legal. Is it following the way of the Devel Sixteen? George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 05:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At Production car speed record it is listed in the Cars excluded from the list section for exactly that reason. Although it says the number built is "100 (production to commence)" but we can still hope.  Stepho  talk  08:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.thedrive.com/news/40486/top-speed-record-holding-ssc-tuatara-wrecked-in-car-carrier-crash

91 RON gasoline?

[edit]

I find that pretty unlikely. I don't know about the USA, but that's a pretty crummy blend that isn't even sold in my country and pretty much all new cars would probably have problems using it. I suppose this could refer to the American octane number, making this RON 95, but that's also a low quality blend. Why would the engineers go through all the trouble of making this car run at listed top speed at RON 95 when they can use more sensitive parts and get more power if they require RON 98 or 100 for example? Daß Wölf (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

6 foot 5 feet tall person

[edit]

Spot the error — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.16.149 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed Top Speed

[edit]

Edited the article because someone added a set of self-referencing citations about the top speed being disputed, and neither are of sufficient credibility. There were two, specifically an article and a Youtube video.

The article has more information but directly cites the Youtube video, which is not by an expert analyst, so I left the link that contained more information and de-emphasized the dispute slightly. 50.24.29.29 (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If a random person said "that speed record was faked" and I had no more information then I would probably not believe him. If an expert said it then I would probably believe him. I think we agree on that. But it the analysis is laid out, regardless of the credentials or the person, then I would follow the analysis and ignore the credentials of the person. That YouTube video gives a detail analysis. Also, SSC claimed it could do an averaged 316 mph in the disputed video. But when they did further runs with outside witnesses they did runs of around 280-295 mph. Given extraordinary claims done with no proof vs more realistic claims done when people are watching, most people would think that the extraordinary claim wasn't right. Schmee's video is an important lesson in not believing everything that is said by manufacturers. And as you said, other reliable sources referenced his video - if it's good enough for them then why not for us?  Stepho  talk  00:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The broader concern was not the source so much as the use of two citations that ultimately stemmed from the same video. That's manufactured consensus. 50.24.45.237 (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. Schmee150 (aka Tim Burton) did his initial analysis and released his findings as a YouTube video. Which Car took this video, studied the claims in the video and then affirmed them. This is standard practice in many fields of science and engineering - for a second team to do a review of the first team to look for any errors in analysis. In my own work I've double checked the work of other's and had others double check my work - standard practice to find and fix mistakes. So, not fully independent but not manufactured consensus either.
On the flip side, has anybody found fault in his analysis? Has anybody shown that the initial test run video did confirm the company's claim of 316 mph without doubt?  Stepho  talk  22:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's getting increasingly tenuous, because it's important to note that the objections are not independent - they're stemming from the same location, which was ultimately someone who didn't have a particular reason to be familiar with the analysis methods he was trying to use. I don't want to get into whether or not he did a good job because that feels like "independent research" and I'm just trying to point out the pitfalls of citing the source in the way it was cited.
The original wording - "multiple analysts" - doesn't reflect that situation very well. It suggests formalism and independent review that ultimately didn't exist - the objections at least originated from the same place and were done in conjunction with each other by folks who didn't have credentials in that specific area. Closer to "rumors" than "independent analysis" because of the nature of who was doing the analysis and what data they had access to.
While the credentials aren't necessary, again "analysts" suggests formalism. 50.24.45.237 (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Has that YouTube bro been acclaimed as an expert? For example, in SAE International journals? Were his tests done under proper test conditions that influence performance? We don't post some dude's finding citing their self-published YouTube regardless of what it is about. Such requirements is a part of our five pillars. You noted in edit summary His analysis triggered the world not accepting the record claim and was eventually accepted (grudgingly) by SSC. He was a very important link in the record claim not being accepted.. Where's the reliable source for this claim? Graywalls (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth re-reading my comments from last year because it appears that you have either not read them or have dismissed them with a wave of the hand.
If Schmee150's video just said it was faked and gave no details then I would totally agree with you. He has no authority and is not a recognised expert, so we don't take his word for it.
However, we are not taking his word for it. He identified specific locations in the video that could be measured from satellite imagery. Then compared these locations to the points at which they occurred in the video. From these locations and timestamps in the video it is possible to calculate a close approximation of the speed using high school mathematics. At no point do we take his word for it. He lays out all the steps required to show that the SSC video is internally inconsistent. Since the SSC video was the only proof offered of the claimed record and Schmee150's video was able to point out that that the SSC video was internally inconsistent (and therefore untrustworthy), then the entire record claim fell apart.
Then we have various well-known, professional and trusted car magazines (who have knowledgeable engineering staff and lawyers wary of being sued) who checked Schmee150's analysis and agreed with him:
SSC initially denied any wrong doing but in the end they had to admit that they had no valid proof of the record claim.
So, we are not taking Schmee's word for it (it is laid out in simple terms as a scientific proof). Rejecting Schmee's video on the basis of him being a nobody is an ad hominem attack rather than a true evaluation of his points. And multiple respected magazines checked his work and agreed with him. I can't find any that said he was wrong (apart from SSC and even they eventually gave in).
By removing that reference you removed a substantial part of the story behind the dismally of the record attempt. Without that reference there is nothing to say why the record was dismissed. Also, since that debacle, every record attempt now tries very hard to be fully transparent in their record attempts - all due to SSC's shoddy "proof" and Schmee's fact checking.
For the record Einstein was a nobody when he published his paper on relativity. Being a nobody doesn't make you wrong, it just means you have to back up what you say - which Schmee did.  Stepho  talk  00:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another way it can be done is to summarize the reporting of secondary, reliable sources without linking to YouTube videos at all or mention Shmee150 and simply say speed has been disputed and SSC acknowledged the error. Simply wording what the reliable sources say in your own words without editorial commentary. Graywalls (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting WP:SECONDARY, "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." The SSC video is quite definitely a primary source. Schmee's analysis of that primary source agrees with the quote from WP:SECONDARY. Note that Schmee introduces no new material himself - he merely points out details of the primary source (using publicly available and easily verified resources) and shows that the primary source is inconsistent.
I have given you multiple references of respected and knowledgeable car magazines supporting Schmee. Some of them reported SSC's original claim and then changed to Schmee's. When a major magazine admits that it didn't do basic fact checking and then publishes the corrected version, you can bet your bottom dollar that they triple checked everything before publishing the second time. I can't find any major magazines that publicly rejected Schmee's analysis.
Schmee's video was central in SSC losing its record claim. From the various magazine references it is possible to find links to Schmee's video but it takes a bit of hunting. Anybody chasing this story down will eventually want to watch Schmee's video. Why on Earth would you want to make it harder for them to find the basic facts?
Even SSC eventually agreed that the SSC video was inconsistent. They even thought him important enough to invite to later record attempts. He may have been a nobody before the video but SSC thought him a lot more important afterwards.
We already have multiple primary references from SSC in the article (although not on the record attempt). We also have multiple YouTube references. But it is this single one that you object to. Why this one and not the others?
Other YouTube sourced contents too should be removed. Although, if there are multiple citations, you'd have to be able to see the other source to be able to isolate YouTube derived contents. Graywalls (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you have not answered any of my points (except blanket delete YouTube references).
  • Schmee could be considered a secondary source (analysis of the SSC video).
  • Major, respected magazines publicly agree with Schmee.
  • No major magazines publicly disagree with Schmee.
  • Record claim was disallowed due to Schmee.
  • Even SSC eventually agreed with Schmee.
  • Why make it hard to find such a pivotal source?  Stepho  talk  08:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Secondary doesn't mean it's good. If you made a video somewhere and I wrote an analysis of it and posted my analysis on BLOGSPOT, that's a secondary source, but it doesn't make it usable. Car and Driver doesn't specifically attribute to Shmee. Whichcar says SC has answered calls from the media and fans alike to explain the inconsistencies in its Tuatara production car speed record video and while it says Shmee said something, it doesn't credit Shmee for it. Dailymotion/YouTube.. same thing WP:SPS. Also business insider isn't particularly a good source. the article can easily be written without explicit reference to Shmee150. Graywalls (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using your example: if you wrote an analysis of a video using basic facts and basic maths and many major magazines agreed with it and none disagreed, then yes, I would use that source. I would only question it if you made claims without backing them up by basic facts and basic maths.
The Business Insider link shows that it is not just the car enthusiast magazines reporting the same story - they all agree and no major magazine disagrees.
The bulk of the links above specifically mention Schmee and his video, so obviously they think he is a good source.
The Car Throttle link says about the next planned attempt "This will happen “in the very near future,” and Shelby has pledged to use multiple GPS systems, and have staff present from each supplier. He’s also extended an invitation to Tim Burton (Shmee150), Misha Charoudin and Robert Mitchell." Why would SSC invite nobodies? Obviously SSC think Schmee and the others are important to their word record reputation.
So I ask the same question that you keep avoiding: why make it hard to find such a pivotal source that everybody agrees with?  Stepho  talk  07:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Stepho-wrs:, It is not pivotal to link directly to YouTube when secondary source can be linked and if the reader decides they want to access the videos, then can visit it from the source without having to be directly linked here. Linking to YouTube is WP:UNDUE. Graywalls (talk) 08:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SSC_Tuatara&oldid=1255257774"