Talk:Yamaha YZF600R

Untitled

No mention of the 94-96 YZF600?? I think it needs to be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I think the 94 to 96 wasnt a thundercat. It was a Genesis. I have never seen one yzf600 or fzr600R with Thundercat printed on it. If there you manage to find a picture, then it can be added. Angelmonera (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Known Issues Edits

I undid the 2007-02-22 change regarding shifting issues as the edit was anonymous and there were no citations listed for the claim that the issues are caused by inexperienced riders. --Baggend 08:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There is indeed a common problem with the second gear slipping out, and it is partly due to poor shifting technique and the relative great distance between first and second. It's maybe something that is worth mentionning IMO and is talked at length on many forums (yzf600r.com). How do we go about referencing that? --Attig (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it should be worth mentioning as issues or defects.Angelmonera (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I have reference from Yamaha Japan that the maximum claimed hp for the 1996 model is 105hp not 90hp as shown in this article, even on wiki Germany it at least states 100 hp, so mistakes all round. The bike also uses a ram air system that is not shown on this article and was removed after a wrote about it. Looks like the writer is not a fan or doesnt know much about this bike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.77.142 (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What reference? Please cite it, assuming it is a reliable source. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

http://bikesales.mobi/reviews/2007/road/yamaha/yzf600r/yamaha-yzf600r-14233 http://www.totalmotorcycle.com/motorcyclespecshandbook/yamaha/2004-yamaha-YZF600RThunderCat.htm http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/model/yamaha/yamaha_yzf600r%2005.htm http://www.yamaha-motor.nl/designcafe/en/archive/tech_specs/?Component=tcm:71-263317&PageTitle=Technical%20Specifications%201996-YZF600R —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.70.190 (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC) I do not know where you got 90hp (even at the rear wheel on the dyno it gets 91-92hp) The total hp at the motor is 100hp with an extra 5hp due to ram air induction on the road. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.70.190 (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem of the 90Hp come from recognizing the FZR600R (European model) or the Yzf600 (non R: American model) as thundercat. These motorbikes from 94-96 were the base of the thundercat project, but in 96 they change carburetors and probably valves and added ram-air system which increases the power to 100hp. The knowledge is there, but somehow we should agree if the 94-96 is thundercat or not, for me is NOT a thundercat, is Genesis (at least this is what they had written in the back in European models) Angelmonera (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

None of the sources you linked to performs dyno tests on motorcycles. They're just parroting a number somebody handed them, or that they found on some anonymous site using Google. The fanciful numbers of 100 or 105 hp those sites quote are probably just what Yamaha's press releases claim for crank hp, or else they're just made up out of thin air. Motorcycle Consumer News gives numbers of 85 rwhp for '97 and 82 rwhp for '06, from actual dyno tests. As to how one does a dyno test on an engine as you're riding the bike down the road at 140mph, I do not know. --Dbratland (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

this guy got 91hp http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-83RvZ_paE&feature=related

Rear Wheel Horsepower looses about 15 to 17 percent vs Flywheel hp, most always specifications show claimed HP (KW) not rear wheel HP on a dyno. RAM air systems are proven to increase peak HP at speed. In the real world we would like to know the true HP at the rear wheel but in the real world we ride on an open road not a dyno machine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.94.22 (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

What proof is that? --Dbratland (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

wikipedia Germany has 72kw or about 100hp for the YZF600R Thundercat http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_YZF600R_Thundercat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.94.22 (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That is not proof. Some editor, no better than you or me, named Don Hartmann just put that there without a proper footnote or source. That's why open wikis are not reliable sources -- see WP:SPS. You can't cite Wikipedia itself; you can only follow the sources, if any. --Dbratland (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the specs based on this source. It is direct from Yamaha themselves, not from a road test or magazine article. It is a current, live source (as of 22 June 2020). Weasley one (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

We can't cite yamaha.com for specs or data as they are the manufacturer and want to "lead" your thoughts about it, and we can't mention the journalist as they are not totally objective, who can we cite here? I am really confused with Wikipedia... :( Angelmonera (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Why can't we cite Yamaha's official website? They publish the specification that the bike was sold with. If we're looking for an 'official' source there is none more so. Dyno runs are notoriously variable and dependent on numerous factors; OEM-published specifications are a metric to which the manufacturer is held. If we don't believe the power and torque values, are we to also ignore published weights, dimensions and capacities and seek an independent source of those? Weasley one (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the contradictory, how do we not want to have contradiction if we are citing magazines review? this is totaly personal, any bike will be praised by some, and hated by others, and not only that, today may be a master piece, tomorrow will be a piece of junk. I dont know what to put in the real article that doesnt contradict.

What i have clear is that Yamaha thundercat, has a lot of misleading data in many journals and fan pages... all the time claiming that it was a derived, detuned, post R6 bike, when is totally wrong. Yamaha thundercat is coming from Fzr600 (engine base and frame), evolved into fzr600r (same engine and same frame, this is 90% thundercat, but still not thundercat) then thundercat with new fairing, carburetors, (sorry for repeating myself)... then.. yamaha decide that it was time to re-write 600 and started from "scratch" with R6. the only thing there is in common in between are the brake caliper manufacturer and color, but even those are NOT the same, I can tell you that I have both bikes. very similar, same piston, but the caliper is slightly different. Angelmonera (talk) 02:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Sports VS Sports Touring

I thought Thundercat was a Sports Touring bike. Netrat_msk (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a super sport bike that was eventually replaced by the R6 super sport. Roguegeek (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It was meant as a supersport. But as bikes with more aggressive and track focused bikes came into the market is is now regarded as a Sports Tourer by some commenters. It's a debatable point depending on what your definition of a sports tourer is.--Attig (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not that important. That's why we don't see serious experts spending a lot of their time worrying about questions like this. It's like debating if a movie is an action thriller or a spy thriller or an action/spy adventure thriller. Fun, if obsessing on that kind of thing is fun for you, but not important. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)