Talk:SSC Tuatara

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

	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)

release date

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)

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. 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)

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)

References

91 RON gasoline?

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)

6 foot 5 feet tall person

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

Disputed Top Speed

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)