This is an archive of past discussions about Sports motorcycle. 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.
This is just my opinion... but...
i think that the picture of the "sport touring" bike doesnt accuratly represent a sport-touring bike.
The average sport touring bike has storage compartments on the sides and is larger and has many compartments.
69.215.131.11704:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC) ska
You're right. Please upload a picture of a VFR with hardbags and put it in the article.
I'm not being snide. (Oh, wait, yes I am.) Okay, I'm being snide, but honest. A VFR with hardbags would be a much better example of a sport-bike of the sport-touring flavor. There doesn't appear to be any photos of one available, however. If you get a chance to snap a pic of one, please do, upload it, and replace the current photo. Indeed, take pics of all kinds of motorcycles and upload them. There is a real derth of motorcycle photos on Wikipedia. See WP_Moto:So few photographs!. (And also note: Image copyright guideline.)--Pi383219:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
If we are going to show a comparison between power from the 70s and power currently, it might be a better idea to at least use bikes that are all in a similar class. An example I can think of would be the original 1987 CBR600F vs the current 2007 CBR600RR. Both bikes of the same type and class with the same engine sizes. Drastically different power outputs. This, to me, would make a lot more sense than comparing a 1970 CB350 vs a 1999 GSX1300R. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
That's not always possible, what 1970 bike is in a similar class with 2006 Kawasaki ZX-10R? Do you want to have separate curves for 650cc, 900cc, 1000cc etc. bikes?
I'd revise the graph and the table and only show bikes with "highest ever" P/W:
I think the point is being missed. In fact, you hit on a perfect example as to why this table is in no way encyclopedic. There is no 70s bike that compares to a ZX-10R. This bike should be thrown out all together in this case because it's suppose to be a comparison. Get similar bikes. Honda's CB series has continued since then, so this would be a perfect example for a comparison. Beyond this, I'm actually against having this table up at all simply because all vehicles of every type have exploded in performance over the last 30-40 years. What makes sport bikes so unique in this case. I'm going to remove the graph until we can find a compromise. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
This table is not supposed to be a comparison between bikes that are somehow similar in each other. It demonstrates progress in maximum performance of sport bikes since 1970.
Sport bikes are rather unique in this sense. Look at high performance cars. Today the fastest car on the market (excluding exotics) is Chevrolet Corvette Z06, 505 hp, 3132 lbs. Compare with 1971 Chevrolet Corvette LS5, 365 hp, 3202 lbs. Over 5000 were sold with that engine.
There was some progress in Formula 1 technology, but it was mostly snuffed by tightening regulations. Cars went from 36-37 hp/100 lb in 1970 to 56 hp/100 lb in 2006.
Overall, there was no explosion in performance outside sport bike scene, and especially among high-performance cars and other classes of motorcycles.
Besides, the table demonstrates progress in sport bike development by linking to its important milestones. Since we don't have a section on history of sport bikes, and Motorcycle history barely touches the subject, at the very least we need a list of notable sport bike models.
I see your point. I agree with a lot of it. There isn't as much progression in other forms of transportation as there is in sport bikes. Still, I think the progression is the same across the entire motorcycle board and isn't simply isolated with sport bikes. I mean current touring bikes are far more performance oriented today compared to touring in the 70s. You mention important milestone bikes on this list and that's something that does make a lot of sense to me. Before, it sounded like a more random and arbitrary list, but including only notable bikes that we can all agree on (something that we can actually define as notable) sounds a lot more encyclopedic to me. Roguegeek (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
That's because many current touring bikes are sport bike spinoffs. I don't think you'll find any performance growth if you compare modern Harleys or other cruisers with 1960's models. --Itinerant101:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, whatever we decide on, that table needs to be wikified at the very least. Keeping the HTML out of anything is always a good thing. Roguegeek (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Howdy, I put that table in the article. I'm just going to make some random comments:
I never meant to imply that the increase in P/W was unique to sportbikes. Merely to document it in a referenced, verifiable way that it is happening, and it is a large increase. Perhaps a comparison to other vehicles would demostrate why the increase is notable.
It's inevitable that'll you'll end up comparing apparently unrelated bike like the CB350 and the Hayabusa, because the motorcycle market didn't segment into "sport-bikes v. cruiser v. standard" until the '80s. The CB350, however, was apparently noted for it's P/W.
No one's noticed it, but I left two-strokes out of the list. The two-strokes of the '70s stomped the four-strokes in P/W. But they pretty much died off after that. So, looking at them as part of the trend seemed needlessly confusing.
What bikes you compare after a certain point in the mid-'80s really doesn't matter. Any given leap in P/W was typically matched by competing firms within a couple of years. I tried to jump around between makes and models to avoid appearing to be promoting a given bike. Yes, you could easily demostrate the trend using, e.g., the GSXR series, but I think inevitably someone will make the accusation that only using data from GSXRs implies that they are superior motorcycles.
To be honest, I only put the table and graph together to be a reference for a bit in the Stunters article. And I find it a lot easier to make a table in html than wikicode. I couldn't find anything in the help files that said using html for tables was a problem (indeed, ISTR someplace that implicitly recommended it, but I could be making that up), so, anyway, that's what I did.
Is there any reason at this point not to put it back, with a comment not to add or remove bikes until concensus has been reached on what bikes to use? I've got a meaningless, mis-directed link over at Stunters right now.--Pi383214:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
