Talk:Mulsanne Straight

Motorsport Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorsport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MotorsportWikipedia:WikiProject MotorsportTemplate:WikiProject Motorsportmotorsport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sports Car Racing

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports Car Racing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sports Car Racing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sports Car RacingWikipedia:WikiProject Sports Car RacingTemplate:WikiProject Sports Car RacingSports Car Racing articles

Highest speed[edit]

The highest recorded speed on the Mulsanne straight, as measured by the ACO who run the event and operate the speed trap, is 405 km/h. There is a rumour, apparently relating to a marketing campaign for the Peugeot 407, that the car did 407 km/h. This has never been verified and so the figure has been changed to reflect a verifiable figure. This was a small flaw in what is otherwise an admirably restrained article. Flanker235 (talk) 09:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has altered this figure 407 km/h, which is not in line with the reference material. I have reverted to back to 405. Wikipedia does not exist for the purpose of perpetuating unsubstantiated rumours. Flanker235 (talk) 07:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this has been altered, even in spite of the supplied references. I have changed it back to the correct and supportable figure of 405. Flanker235 (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mulsanne Straight. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120906070814/http://www.racetours.co.uk/Le%20Mans%20eating_drinking.htm to http://www.racetours.co.uk/Le%20Mans%20eating_drinking.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nissan R90CK power figure[edit]

The claim that this car produced more than 1,000hp is entirely speculative. Even the article cited says the exact power figure is unknown. Furthermore, the Nissan was a twin turbo V8, meaning there was a turbo for each bank. Unless both wastegates stuck, the stuck wastegate, which has been cited, would therefore affect only one bank. So any claim that it produced more than 1,000hp is dubious and probably not appropriate to this article. The performance figures for the Nissan can be found in the specific Wiki article. Flanker235 (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, I have changed the claim of 1,000hp for the R90CK's regular output to 800 to reflect the Wikipedia source on the Nissan VRH35Z engine. Flanker235 (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that this has been reverted. The article quoted as a reference simply does not cite a power figure for the case of the "stuck waste gate", so any claims are speculative. More importantly, the article posted to support this quote no sources and quotes no expert witnesses. The author uses lap times to support this claim of "over 1,000 hp", which is conjecture so the article is insufficient for encyclopedic referencing. If anyone wishes to discuss this, the Talk page is the appropriate forum and simply reverting without explanation or discussion is not the best way to make the page reflect the best available version of the truth. Wikipedia does not exist to promote people's personal prejudices or hobby horses. Power figures and top speeds in motorsport articles are always contentious but since they are figures, they need to referenced and not the product of inductive reasoning, flawed logic or poor quality reference articles. Flanker235 (talk) 04:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

This page is currently under attack from editors who are are claiming unreferenced figures or using poor quality resources. For example, despite the publication of the maximum speed reached by the WM-88 as being 405 km/h - referenced with figures published by the ACO no less, people keep changing it t0 407 km/h, based on poor quality sources, speculation or unreferenced rumour. The 405 km/h figure comes from the ACO speed trap. There is a rumour that the car reached 407 km/h and Peugeot changed the figure to reflect a new model they were marketing. This is not reference grade material and conflicts with an authoritative source - the ACO, who have run the speed trap since 1961. The second problem is the claim that the Nissan produced "well over 1,000 hp" in 1991 as a result of a stuck waste gate. Wikipedia itself cites references showing that the Nissan produced about 800 hp yet when I referenced this, it was reverted, citing a reference that provides nothing more than laptimes and a lot of conjecture. It cites no exact figures or expert witness comments. It is therefor not encyclopedic quality. Wikipedia does not exist to promote rumours or confirm personal prejudices.

So far, despite my posts in the talk page, none of these people has made any attempt to discuss this. Flanker235 (talk) 04:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this has been altered in spite of the references provided. Again, I have changed it back. Flanker235 (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]