Talk:Saleen S7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Saleen S7 article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

Contents

[edit] Fastest Production Car in the World

"The Saleen S7 is the fastest production car in the world"

Fastest production car in the world? I believe this is wrong, the bugatti veyron has a proven top speed of 253mph (electronically limited). Should this be changed?

--

I can't find solid answers for two questions regarding this car and was hoping someone else would know.

  • 1. When was the car actually put into production. As far as I can tell, it was sold to the public starting in 2002 (and this is what the article reflects), but others say the car was unveiled in 2000. Any idea on a solid timeframe here for the sake of clarity?
  • 2. On the Saleen website, it only lists one Saleen S7 being sold to the public, and this is the Twin Turbo version, however, some people still refer to the "regular" S7 and the "turbo" S7. As far as I know, Saleen is only currently producing the turbo version as far as retail sales go. Again, and solid info about this?

- JogCon 06:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

http://www.rmlmallock.co.uk/RMLTimeline.htm The official timeline for the S7 can be found in that link.

On RML's website, they clamed full credit for the development of S7. - Baboo

RML provided most of the engineering team as Saleen did not have a sufficiently large engineering staff to design the entire vehicle at the time.

[edit] non-turbo model info / history needed.

There should be some distinction made of the current turbo model and the first Saleen S7. A little history on the car would be great.

Unshortness 14:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 0-60 Time

The article seems to give 2 different times - 3.3 and 2.8, elsewhere I have seen 2.7 claimed for this car. Have any of these been independently tested and the time verified? To be honest I think the sub 3 second claims are highly dubious as there are several cars around with similar power, weight and grip, none of which manage sub 3 second 0-60 sprints. We need to find an independent test with digital equipment and then aim to remove the inconsistencies. --LiamE 04:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

2.8 is the manufacturer's claimed time for the twin-turbo.

yeah, the 0-60 time is wrong as are all the rest. It differs with the year of the model, but from what I have seen it goes 0-60 in 2.8. There is proof here http://www.rsportscars.com/eng/cars/saleen_s7.asp and here http://www.supercars.net/cars/3090.html and here http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/frame.php?file=car.php&carnum=967

A section needs to be added that differentiates the performance statistics for each of the different versions of the vehicle.

  • None of the links above are proof of a genuine 0-60 time of 2.8 seconds, merely reitterations of the manufacturers claim. The only independant timing from and actual test seems to be the Car & Driver test of 3.4 seconds for the S7 twin Turbo. C & D do point out a lack of traction on the test surface and the writer believed it could go faster. Unless we can source any other independant tests I propose the stat box is changed so that 2.8 seconds is noted as a manufacturers claim. --LiamE 00:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. 2.8 seconds is a pretty dubious claim for a RWD car, considering this translates to a mean acceleration of 0.98g. Basically you would need 100% of the car's weight over the driven wheels and picture perfect clutch modulation from start to finish to make that happen. So unless the S7 nearly does wheel-stands on street tires, this figure is not plausible. Without sticky tires and/or glue on the road surface a RWD car won't do that. Bal00 14:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
someone added additioanl numbers for the turbo that are just Saleen's claimed numbers (supercars.net does not write their own reviews and in fact the bootom of the pagre reads: "Story by Saleen Inc, edited by Supercars.net". As well the numbers listed for the non-turbo version are listed as "estimates" when these were actual numbers C&D observed during their testing. Macutty (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Downforce

The S7 supposedally has enough downforce that it can drive on the ceiling of a windtunnel. Would this be (if it is true) worthy of trivia? TVRJomar 23:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It is an official claim by the manufacturer but it hasn't been proven analytically as of yet. Perhaps we could note that the manufacturer claims it has enough downforce to drive upside down in the trivia section? webwookie

Most supercars (& every F1 car) can generate enough downforce to drive on the ceiling of a windtunnel at high velocities, this factoid is often used in marketing or pop-science puff pieces. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article in need of a rewrite

I think this article desperately needs to be rewritten to meet Wikipedia's standards. I am currently gathering information for a possible rewrite; I currently have specifications and a nearly completed infobox (for both the S7 and S7 TT.)

Any opinions, contributions, or comments?

Mr Grim Reaper 22:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have started a subpage on my user page to show my development.
Mr Grim Reaper 02:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have inserted the re-written article. It is not fully completed, but is a good start to further this article. —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 19:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poor page design

The wide spacing should be corrected, as it makes the page difficult to read. Dragon 280 12:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am currently rewriting the article, which should eliminate any empty space or poor design.
—Mr Grim Reaper (Talk | contribs), 00:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I've shortened the techical data in the info boxes that caused the white space, and removed the second info box. There's no need to list all these numbers and their references. -- Matthead discuß!     O       16:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split up the article

Should the this article be split into separate articles for the S7 Twin-Turbo and the S7R? —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 00:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

I will remove the trivia section, once more. Please do not add it back, as non of the information is of any significance, while other information is already included in the main articles. If someone insists on adding a trivia section, please write it as a proper article and not as a list. —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 18:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


Removed piece:

Also, this is a part of numberous articles, why are you going against the grain and why should we listen to you again? Klichka 20:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In regards to WP:TRIV, trivia lists should be avoided. I have integrated the fact of being able to drive up side down into the main article. Other information is isolated and really isn't worth including into the article. That information may in integrated into more appropriate articles. It's common sense. If you can give a good reason to keep this trivia section, please tell us. —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 22:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia lists are common on wikipedia, and most of those are somewhat relevant to the car. 76.25.115.99 05:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Limited production

Can the Saleen S7 be considered as a limited production car? —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 19:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)