Talk:Universal Japanese Motorcycle

November 2008

First impressions on the UJM article are that some of the bikes listed as examples of UJMs aren't UJMs at all I think. The Suzuki GT380 is a 2-stroke triple for one thing and the basis for a bike being a UJM is that it is an in-line 4 cylinder 4-stroke. I don't see twins as being UJMs either. OK well that's started the discussion going... lets see where it goes eh JSL595 (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

September 2009

The section on the explantion of the phenomenon takes away from this article. Whose innovation did the ujm's copy? can you link to it's wiki? if not maybe we should leave the qeustion of innovation alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.203.254 (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

Added {{rewrite}} tag. Needs to be written like a normal encyclopedia article, without the weirdly formatted quote boxes floating around inside the article and the margins. And needs to be encyclopedic, not a dictionary definition. --Dbratland (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for rewrite. The style of making articles out of blocs of quoted text floating around has mostly disappeared. You don't see many Featured Articles anymore that use {{quote}} or blockquotes. So I'd restructure it closer to a conventional article layout.

The main thing, as always, is more sources. There are a large number of sources from the 90s that mention the term in passing, and a few that go into depth. There was somewhat of a movement of writers at Cycle World and other US publications complaining that there weren't enough standards. You probably can't find enough agreement to provide a strong definition of UJM, and so the article should better reflect that the term was used loosely by a variety of sources. A bit of that story shows up in Miguel Angel Galluzzi. The site Hell For Leather has several long posts on the subject by their motorcycle design guy, and Motorcycle Consumer New's design guy Glynn Kerr did some pieces too.

I've never heard a source call the V-Strom or Versys a UJM, by the way. I don't remember seeing off-road capability as what they had in mind. More like the Monster or CB600F. But if there's a source who said that, it would be interesting.

Anyway, I think if the goal is a Good Article or even a FA some day, the solution is to create Standard motorcycle and merge UJM into it, and redirect Naked bike there as well. Possibly even Streetfighter. The UJM concept was kind of about Japanese bikes, but the scope expanded later, and in a sense it was non-Japanese companies like Ducati who responded to it. It's a complicated story with contradictions, but that's where the potential for a decent article lies. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I (calimar28) write stuff and it gets deleted. Bullshit. I didnt spend time on this shit for nothing. That stuff that was deleted is stuff that the author of this will never know. Who wrote this article, an Ape?

Dont be removing my shit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.87.243 (talk • contribs) 00:56 UTC, 1 November 2011‎

Anything you add to Wikipedia is bound to be mercilessly edited by others. It is not your shit. Once you edit page, it belongs to Wikipedia. You just made a donation. Anything that is not cited with a reliable source is likely to be deleted. You should try again, but try to find sources to support what you say, and then say where you got it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

"Admired for their simplicity, quality, versatility, and high power"

I agree that the term UJM was probably coined by "Cycle" magazine, in (I think) in a a road test of the Honda 500-4. I disagree that the adjectival clause " "admired for their simplicity, quality, versatility, and high power" is valid. Who are the admirers? How can a bike with four cylinders, four carburettors, overhead cams, five gears and disc brakes be considered "simple"? How can a heavy roadster like the CB750 or the Z1 be "versatile", when it performs a single function, albeit very well. I suggest this introductory sentence needs to be rewritten. Arrivisto (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Many Britons and Americans who hear the phase "Universal Japanese Motorcycle" for the first time think it's related to rice burner, a pejorative. So it needs to be clarified that in this case it is meant a a compliment. Here are just some of the sources for this:

• Honda Motorcycles Aaron Frank. MotorBooks International, 2003 ISBN 0760310777. "Honda had begun to define what would eventually become known as the "Universal Japanese Motorcycle" -- a machine with an efficient, reliable four-stroke engine, convenience features like electric start and full instrumentation, an upright riding position, and just the right mix of performance and versatility."
• 20 years in America American Motorcyclist Aug 1994. Roger T. Young. "In the eyes of motorcycle snobs, the KZ400 is a pretty forgettable machine. Like maany other Japanese middleweights produced in the era, it was easy to ride, reliable and cheap. It was, in fact, a perfect example of a 1970s UJM -- the Universal Japanese motorcycle. UJMs could be described as practical, affordable, and useful. But collectible? Never!"
• The Perfect Motorcycle: How to Choose, Find and Buy the Perfect New Or Used Bike By Kevin Domino. "Universal Japanese MOtorcycle (UJMs) -- was coined in the 1980s to refer to similar designs from Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki, and Kawasaki. This configuration earned a reputation for excellence. Standard motorcycles are some of the most reliable, capable, and inexpensive motorcycles available."
• Let's Ride: Sonny Barger's Guide to Motorcycling Sonny Barger, Darwin Holmstrom. Darwin Holmstrom. HarperCollins, 2010. ISBN 0061964263. "The engine design became so common that motorcycles with inline fours were called UJMs (univesal Japanese motorcycles). Its not hard to see why they became so popular."
• Carrithers, Tim. "Smart money: 2005-2006 Kawasaki Z750S." Motorcyclist Aug. 2010: 86. General OneFile. Web. 27 Dec. 2011. "Aside from bolt-on plastic panels masquerading as aluminum frame spars, there's nothing cheap about the look. And beneath that subtly chiseled exterior beats the straightforward heart of a Universal Japanese Motorcycle... Otherwise, the Z750S represents the sort of universal Japanese ideal whose time has come again. CHEERS Quick and comfortable, with first-class road manners at sensible speeds. JEERS Irksome vibration above 6000 rpm, short on legroom if you're tall. "
• Boehm, Mitch. "Wilbers Model 641 shock: a shocking improvement." Motorcyclist Apr. 2007: 139. General OneFile. Web. 27 Dec. 2011. "So, that several-year-old Universal Japanese Motorcycle you've been pounding on for tens of thousands of miles--Suzuki Bandit, Honda VFR800, Yamaha FZ 1, take your pick--is finally starting to feel loosey-goosey. Time for a suspension upgrade, eh?… "
• "BEST NAKED BIKE: Kawasaki ZRX1100." Motorcyclist Dec. 2000: 32. General OneFile. Web. 27 Dec. 2011. "Is it a naked bike? A retrobike? A musclebike? All of those, actually. Kawasaki unwittingly tapped into a huge well of sentiment for the universal Japanese motorcycle of the '70s and '80s with the ZRX1100. "
• KUHN, FRAN. "'69 Honda CB750." Motorcyclist Dec. 1999: 68. General OneFile. Web. 27 Dec. 2011. "IN 1969 YOU COULD RULE THE WORLD FOR $1495. All you had to do was deposit said cash with your neighborhood Honda dealer and take delivery of a C5750 KO in candy red, blue/green or gold. What you rolled away with was a starship in a sea of dinghies, the once-and-future paradigm for the soon-to-be ubiquitous Universal Japanese Motorcycle. And the birth of a new era. "
• "Suzuki GS1150E: the universal Japanese motorcycle is back, bigger and faster than ever." Cycle World Jan. 1985: 58+. General OneFile. Web. 27 Dec. 2011.
• "Research and Markets: New Global Motorcycle Report - Latest Technology Developments Examined and Profiles of 23 OEM's and 17 Suppliers." Business Wire 20 Jan. 2010. General OneFile. Web. 27 Dec. 2011. "…the basic, all purpose bike (also known as the UJM, or the universal Japanese motorcycle)"
• "Localised ER-6N gives better value." New Straits Times 7 Sept. 2008. General OneFile. Web. 27 Dec. 2011. "A modern rendition of a UJM (universal Japanese motorcycle), this is a bike that is designed to be ridden everyday around town. Low foot pegs and wide handlebars allow the rider to sit up straight, relieving them from a hefty chiropractor bill. "
• "Fangs for the Fazer." New Straits Times 10 Sept. 2006. General OneFile. Web. 27 Dec. 2011. "THE standard bike category usually refers to the naked bike category, which also used to be known as UJM (universal Japanese motorcycle). The machines in this class focus more on everyday practicality than high-speed performance or off-road ability. "
• Motorcycle handbook. Kevin M. G. Maher, Ben Greisler - 1998 - 500 pages. "Public outcries for simplified, all-purpose bikes have spawned the rebirth of the UJM (Universal Japanese Motorcycle) styled standard bike. A standard is usually a street bike, that is capable of..."
• The World of Motorcycling: The Motorcycle : From Myth-And-Legend. Roland Brown - 1997. "That decade saw Japanese aircooled fours take over the large and medium capacity market to such an extent that the term UJM — Universal Japanese Motorcycle — was coined to describe them. But there were more imaginative designs, …"
• Pictorial history of Japanese motorcycles Cornelis Vandenheuvel. MBI Publishing Company, 1997 ISBN 1870979974. "People were referring to fours as the 'UJM' -- the Universal Japanese Motorcycle. Fours were the cornerstone of the motorcycle world"
• The Complete Idiot's Guide to Motorcycles By The Editors of Motorcyclist Magazine, John L. Stein. "When the Japanese began producing large four-cylinder motorcycles, these became the new leaders in straight-line performance. The term Universal Japanese Motorcycle (UJM) was coined to describe them… While they were wicked fast, most UJMs of the 1970s didn't handle all that well, mostly because of inferior suspension components and flimsy frames. They outhandled Harleys (which tended to be about as nimble as a freight train), but the couldn't keep up with a properly functioning Norton Commando. The real breakthrough in the development of sportbikes from Japan was Hondas 750cc Interceptor…"
• Sport Bikes Edge Books. Hans Hetrick Capstone Press, 2010. ISBN 1429647515 "Throughout the 1970s, the Japanese companies experimented with different types of engines and frame designs. Their ideas soon came together in a rock-solid package. This design became known as the Universal Japanese Motorcycle, or UJM."

How can an inline four be considered simple? It's simple, and reliable, in comparison to the competition from the UK and Harley-Davidson. The sources overwhelmingly agree that standard Japanese transverse fours were simple, reliable, and versatile. Some say that the bikes of the 1970s had poor frames and suspensions, but by the 1980s, this had been addressed. But overall simple, reliable, and powerful is a good summary. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Also. The other thing that made UJMs of the 70s seem simple was that from the point of view of someone in the period 1984-1994 (the GPZ900/Interceptor until the Monster) was that more and more bikes had full fairings and were watercooled. So these journalists thought motorcycling seemed more fun when you didn't have to spend 20 minutes removing fairings just to check a spark plug, and of course air cooling is simpler than water cooling. That's what they were talking about when they were nostalgically looking back on a simpler time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• UJM redux? David Edwards. Cycle World. New York: Nov 1998. Vol. 37, Iss. 11; p. 10 (1 page) "The [ZRX1100] is just like my [1982] Seca [650], only with twice the horsepower and torque, a fully adjustable cartridge fork, six piston brakes, and a knockout, neon-green paintjob. The Mac Daddy of Universal Japanese Motorcycles in other words, which can trace its roots through the Eddie Lawson Replica of 1982 and the rest of the the KZ1000 inline-Fours all the way to the mighty 903cc Z-1 of 1973, itself an answer to that aboriginal UJM, Honda's 1969 CB750 Four." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in the very lengthy riposte (above) rebuts my earlier observations.

First, the term "UJM" is neither pejorative nor complimentary; it is a neutral descriptive term which acknowledges that Japanese manufacturers found it convenient to converge to a norm. (It is ironic that nobody coined an equivalent term "UBM", "Universal British Motorcycle", in respect of the UK industry's forty-year practice of producing pushrod parallel-twins with vertically-split crankcases).

Secondly, the statement "the sources overwhelmingly agree that standard Japanese transverse fours were simple, reliable, and versatile" does not survive analysis. Yes, they were reliable, precisely because they were sophisticated and NOT simple. L. J. K. Setright once observed that the UJM 's very complication led to smoothness and hence reliability. And UJMs are patently not versatile; they have a singular function, namely to be a competent road bike (aka roadster!). They are incompetent off road, nor suited even for production racing without modification. By contrast, some "adventure bikes" are equally at home on dirt roads as they are on tarmac (although one might hesitate to attempt to take a BMW GS around a scrambles track). Arrivisto (talk) 09:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

If you see me ignoring your comments in the future, it is because I don't want to keep repeating that you need to meet the requirements of verifiability. Your personal opinions extracted from vague sources don't contribute to improving articles. If you have a contribution which is directly based on a reliable source, then we can make progress. But otherwise it is pointless to keep repeating the same points. There are many editors at Wikipedia besides me who will revert edits which are not verifiable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Poor referencing alleging 1970s origins

I arrived at this article (having glanced at it previously) as I came across a 1986 mention in the house. I was therefore unsurprised but very disappointed to find the refs are very poor, mostly modern and keyword-search derived. Does anyone has access to a 1970s Cycle article which proves that Cook Neilson actually wrote it 'first', as alleged?--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

You know we don't put disclaimers in articles, or undermine our own sources by adding loaded words (see WP:CLAIM) or other weasel words. It's either in an article, or out. Consensus for several years has been to keep it in, so you should probably wait and see what the talk page discussion agrees to, and then maybe deleted it. If not, it stays with no disclaimers, no editorializing or equivocating. I agree Glucker isn't the best source, but that's fixable.

Why exactly are you disputing that this was coined in the 1970s in Cycle magazine? It's perfectly plausible. Who else but a motorcycling media writer would coin such a term? It's either a magazine or a manufacturer marketing department. And when other than the 1970s would the term be coined? Can you cite any sources which dispute this fact? I believe it is uncontroversial. The sky is blue.

You should accept this citation per WP:AGF. The WP:Reference desk or Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange can help you lay eyes on the actual Cycle article if you truly believe the words were never printed there.

It really matters that its origin coincided with the arrival of the CB750 and Kawasaki Triples and all those bikes. It doesn't matter that much if it was Cycle or Cycle World or Cycle Canada. If you want to the details out of the lead and put it lower down, that makes sense. The lead only needs to say it dates to the early 70s.

Did you scroll up and see the 17 additional sources I supplied in the previous talk thread? There is plenty of material to support this article. It's just waiting for someone to do it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it up a bit -- I've verified the 1976 Cycle quote, and made it only say (below the lead) that it has been credited as the first use of the term. The context makes it appear that Cycle didn't think its readers had heard UJM before, and so gives a long definition and explanation for why they use it. They use the whimsically capitalized term Great Moto-Japan Factory to refer to the "monolithic" (from a US consumer's point of view) Japanese automotive and motorcycle industry, suggesting it is an ongoing style of Cycle to make up such terms and, with faux gravitas, capitalize the words. But it would be nice to find a better source willing to stick their neck out and claim it wasn't used elsewhere before. Given that it's not easy to prove a negative, we probably won't find one. Perhaps someone will write "the earliest example I can find is..." I think it's assumed Cook Neilson wrote the unsigned review, but I don't see any verifiable sources for that. We know Neilson was the editor so if he didn't write it, he is still the only responsible party whose name we know.

It isn't that important. One broader goal might be to revive Standard motorcycle from a redirect to Types of motorcycles, and flesh out a full article on it. Universal Japanese Motorcycle could then merge into Standard motorcycle, considering that most of UJM's meaning depends on seeing the broader context of standards within a certain period of industrial history. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• Honda V4: The Complete Four-Stroke Story by Greg Pullen, Crowood Press, says unequivcally that the 1976 KZ650 review was the first use of the term, describing the article as a collaboration between Cook Neilson and Phil Schilling, specifically crediting Schilling with "stumbling upon a magical phrase that would pass into our vernacular". "Magical". Sheesh. Anyway, Crowood should count as a real publisher and a real source, unlike the Hooniverse website which one could argue is just some guy's personal site. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts, Dennis Bratland. This is just a preliminary acknowledgement at the kitchen table - I will have to digest the bulk much later.

Firstly I was not challenging anything, other than to query if the 1970s print article had been proven; I don't know why you would react so strongly to such a few words (or, rather, I do, but didn't want to assume). The 2014 Crowood piece is just that - 2000s research, not 1970s.

The 2010> WP way is to write it first as OR or OPINION, then hunt for a web-reference that merely (passing)mentions the term, sometimes ref-bombing to try to prove something more. One admin I saw somewhere mentioned (words to the effect of) regurgitated press release, which is how these modern websites operate - no archives or industry-standard employees, just plagiarism.

I was surprised to seen a (1980s) UK mention of UJM (then being a somewhat-parochial Americanism, in my experience), but didn't want to spend inordinate time on it. Much like sleeper or rice burner, none would be common parlance in my experience.

Another aspect I am obliged for is that neither the 1970s or 2014 writers know what transverse actually is in relation to motorcycles, which significantly pre-dated the Alec Issiginis Mini term, which has now supplanted the correct encyclopaedic usage. With allegedly-reliable sources contradicting history, WP and it's respective editors are in a very difficult position.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're trying to say, but it doesn't matter. Please proceed to make whatever improvements you like to this content, but try to stick to what reliable sources say and don't editorialize. I do not want to rehash a settled debate that is covered at V-twin engine#Orientations. Your opinion is merely your opinion but we have significant sourcing that makes clear what is and isn't a parochial point of view. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Is this mostly of historical interest?

The article suggests to me that the term is still very much in use. Searching "Universal Japanese Motorcycle" Google returns:

1. This WP article
2. A Silodrome webzine article that seems decent and should be ref'd here.
3. An article in Canada MotoGuide which refers back to this WP article in its second paragraph which could lead to circular reporting.
4. Jalopnik, a blog/zine, mentioned in a review.
5. Pinterest, (arguably a repository of links to other places)
6. Revolvy, another content aggregator, including content from this article.
7. gear patrol potentially decent original content.
8. Hooniverse, something like Jalopnik.
9. iMotorbike passing reference in a review of a "naked" Kawasaki.
10. Horizons Unlimited a travel forum.
11. Pinterest, again.
12. Pinterest, again.
13. An anonymous blog on Wordpress.com.

Very little in the way of original content. Obviously this is somewhat anecdotal evidence, but I wonder whether the article should present the term more as being of historical interest than a current thing. --Cornellier (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, google sucks.

Many major public libraries will give cardholders free access to paywalled databases, such as Gale, or NewspaperArchive.org. You also want to take advantage of Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, which used to offer sweet access to Questia and Highbeam, but even without them now, is still has good resources. If you use better search tools you find numerous recent examples:

• Gentleman's express sportbikes: powerful, plush, panache, Mitch Boehm. Motorcyclist. (July-August 2017) p98+ slightly different web version
• You Meet the Nicest Sportbikes in the 250cc Neighborhood. Ford, Dexter. New York Times, Late Edition (East Coast); New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]29 May 2011: AU.7.
• Red tide: Kawasaki's firecracker-red GPz550 changed the course of middleweights in America. Motorcyclist. (February-March 2016) p38+.

Even Google can be helpful, if you click on the Books tab:

• How to Rebuild and Restore Classic Japanese Motorcycles. Sid Young. Motorbooks, Aug 1, 2015
• Honda Motorcycles. Aaron P. Frank. p 23.

If we are going to say "UJM was the term for certain Japanese bikes of the 70s-90s", it raises the question: If UJM was what we called those bikes, what do we call them now? We no longer call the 1969 Honda CB750 or 1977 Kawasaki KZ650 a UJMs? If the term is obsolete, what replaced it? If you mean UJMs are no longer sold, and nobody uses that term for new bikes, well so what? They're still writing about it, and still comparing new bikes to UJMs. Andy anway, they do still make UJMs today and they are being called UJMs.[23][24][25][26].

"Very little in the way of original content"? Incorrect. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The point I wish to raise is not whether "Google sucks". Yes, it's not the only source of research. Via my municipal library, I access paywalled publications. The statement "little in the way of original content" refers to the list immediately above it, not the world. I apologize if that was not clear. The Google results were presented in attempt to start a discussion about the extent to which UJM is a current mainstream term vs. jargon. The Google results indicate the latter. This is an important nuance because the article is not about motorcycles. It appears to be about a term used by some people to talk retrospectively about some motorcycles. --Cornellier (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your deliberations, Cornellier - I realised your message was not to be pored-over in minutiae. Regarding trendy-jargon, I am reminded that when I worked in a Chrysler/GM dealership during 1970s, we used the terms (not condescendingly) blacktop (from Two-Lane Blacktop) and VW micro bus (from C W McCall's Convoy (song)). The combined dealership (highly-unusual, with two competing marques literally under one roof) had the service contract for local hospital transport (non-ambulance) which used VWs. The 1960s UK term for personnel-carrier was minibus, the equivalent recent Americansim might be minivan.

A 1970s Americanism I encountered a few year ago was Digger redlink diff from 2007. The target from the dab page now is simply to chopper (motorcycle), whereas it was piped to section, which appears to be entirely OR/opinion, as yet un-investigated edit-history, but as you will realise, in the back of my mind. Every single page needs background investigation and should not be taken too seriously.

I am also reminded of one of my all-time favourite lines from Moscow on the Hudson: Q. Do you read Hemmingway? A. Every f*****g day! (where two would-be Russian defectors to US are practicing their language skills, including vernacular mild-obsceneties). Similary a Star Trek film: 1. Out if the way, dumb-ass! 2. A double dumb-ass on you!! Perhaps backatya might be a recent Americanism equivalent.

In England, we don't use the terms digger, bagger, (dab page instigated in 2012 - I won't go into bagger, but I could), caffay racerrrrrr, UJM, etc., in general conversation, but Google or WP might lead a reader to suppose so. An English term from circa 2000 was youth disaffection - rapidly became stale; perhaps a modern equivalent would be radicalised or marginalised.

To respond to your original query of whether UJM is/was historical and will endure - probably yes, by virtue of easy communication and keyword-searching, inadvertent-SEO. Should we over-blow the importance? Probably not, as it's subjectively-important, IMO. I'm trying not to be partisan, be it would be easy to conclude it's more important to Americans. So, what's left? A few writers, now waxing-lyrical about the bygones and the legacy, similarly echoed by the bloggers; reminds of another article, although I now find the evocative word paradigm has been replaced. WP:WTW? Paradigm written by Dr Mies in 2012 - curiosity got the better of me whilst brushing my teeth....--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)