Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Cycle World back issues on hand

I've been buying lots of Cycle World on ebay whenever I could find them cheap, and I'm keeping an index. Google Books doesn't give the exact month and year when you search there, but Gale Learning has a searchable article index online, accessible if your local public library uses the service.

So if you need to check a fact, or need me to email you a scan of an article every once in a while (which is legal if you don't redistribute, unless I'm mistaken), let me know.--Dbratland (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Very cool- thanks! tedder (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

A Motorcycle Ambulance page

I'm working on this page Motorcycle ambulance and could do with help linking and expanding it. I'm also trying to get two pages added eRanger a product page about the ambulances, clinics and education units manufactured by The Ranger Production Company. If anyone has any tips or help they can offer please let me know. I intend to create links to this motorcycle section (speciffically to eRangers but also solos) from pages that refer to their use or from pages of organisations that use them. Motorcycle ambulances are making a difference in reducing maternal mortality and we need to make people more aware of this. Thanks for your help ref http://www.eranger.com (Pete.sonderskov (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 13:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC).

Suggested improvement project, Super bikes: Honda Fireblade, Yamaha YZF-R1 and associated

I am looking to create an improvement project, after an unfortunate experience around the Yamaha YZF-R1. Having added to the article some time ago - like many motorcycle articles, they seem to end up at some point in fan dom - I was beaten down by some editors from trying to improve an article which doesn't presently put the bike in context: it is still heavily tagged. So, I went back and started looking through the references and associated articles of bikes in the history of the Super bike category. I created an article around Tadao Baba - designer of the Honda Fireblade, lovely quote from him in interview from a 2002 interview with the Telegraph about the problems of "sports" bikes of the time; and then created an article around the BMW K1 - a significant bike for BMW, but hardly as many would summarise the first Super bike as one editor suggested! Having looked through the history and documentation line of machines which could construed as Super bikes, it seems to me that this is a weak area at present in Wikipedia: we don't put the development of the line in context, or reference it well, or categorise it at all at present. For such a significant market sector of the modern bike era, it would seem a worth while improvement project. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I admire your efforts, I'm afraid that I have not been in the motorcycling project for a while. With respect to all the active editors I am sure that there is room for improving guidelines at project level, no two articles appear to have the same structure, are there any motorcycle type Featured Articles? Yamaha RD500LC is my paltry offering to the community, I based it roughly on the structure of a typical aircraft article. Might be worth looking around in Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation to see how things are done over there (not saying that I agree with all the guidelines and systems but it provides suggestions). Is an aircraft type much different from a particular motorcycle model? They are both pieces of engineering that have a story behind them and specification numbers. What is a 'Superbike', who defines it exactly? Do we have a category for 'Superbikes' and how do we decide which bikes are included? There was a 'Superbike' magazine in the UK, 'Tina Tailpipe' (I think) was the far better looking sister of Ogri!! We have problems with 'fancruft' and nationalism in the av project as well but they are kept mostly under control. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Concours Owners Group article

I just nominated Concours Owners Group - COG for deletion. It is a poorly written article about a single-model bike club which primarily operates in North America. Your comments for or against my nomination would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concours Owners Group - COG. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Erik Buell Racing

Some of you may have seen the announcement in October than Hardly-Ableson had canned the Buell motorcycle brand. The good news is that Erik Buell, with Harley-Davidson's blessing, has now launched a new independent enterprise Erik Buell Racing which will build race-only versions of the 1125R and provide parts and support to privateers. I would appreciate it if members of this project could add to / improve the stub article that I have created (and added to the scope of this project). --Biker Biker (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Harry Hurt reliable sources

In case anyone wants to write the article on Harry Hurt, here's a RS for him.

tedder (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Small change to infobox

I just made a small change to {{Infobox Motorcycle}} by adding bore/stroke. Many articles already quote this as part of the "engine" parameter and it gets messy / lost in all the detail. I for one find bore and stroke an interesting part of engine design. If you use it, then be aware that a single instance of the convert template can be used to do conversions on both measurements at the same time e.g. {{convert|45|x|90|mm|abbr=on}}, which would give 45 mm × 90 mm (1.8 in × 3.5 in). As I come across articles which use bore/stroke in the infobox I'll make the changes. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

New article Motorcycle testing and measurement

Since the extraneous explanation of testing variances and errors was removed from Suzuki Hayabusa, I couldn't keep putting off merging Motorcycle weight into a more general article on testing, measurement, and the confusion surrounding that stuff: Motorcycle testing and measurement. The article could use some help, particularly inline citations, better glosses for the list of parameters, and more depth in the discussion of horsepower testing, such as power loss due to different types of final drive. Also, in 2009 the big four Japanese manufacturers switched to advertising curb/wet weight instead of dry weight, but I don't know what prompted them to finally do that. --Dbratland (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Classic Motorworks

I have just nominated Classic Motorworks for deletion. The article is about the US importer of Royal Enfield Motors motorcycles. That's all they do - import a single marque. Nothing else makes them notable. As such I don't think the article adds any value to Wikipedia. Of course, others may have differing opinions so I would welcome input from members of this project for or against the deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic Motorworks. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Motorcycle racing portal

Today I placed the Motorcycle racing portal in the category Portals needing attention because there has been virtually no content update since mid-2008. Someone who keeps up with such matters needs to take on the news and current standings sections for this to be of any use to casual readers. Any volunteers? I can help setting up random auto switching of the "selected article" if someone will make a suitable selection of say 10-15 articles (preferably illustrated ones). ww2censor (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

another type of 1% motorcycle club

The "Guggenheim Motorcycle Club" is a club spawned off the "Art of the Motorcycle" show for the rich, well-heeled and/or famous. It's mentioned in The Art of the Motorcycle#Legacy, and there's an article here. It'd be nice to counter WP:UNDUE of the other clubs with this. tedder (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Eeek. The cringing cult of celebrity. I can't think of anything worse to write about. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I actually prefer it over the Sons of Anarchyish 'gangs'. tedder (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, bikes are my life and anything on two wheels is good, but a bunch of bloated celebs hooning about on bikes saying "look how cool I am" just doesn't do it for me. That said, I love the Charlie/Ewan Long Way Round/Down stuff so there's a contradiction for you! --Biker Biker (talk) 08:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
It got pretty bad. BMW had loaned/bribed Thomas Krens a new motorcycle as part of the Guggenheim deal, and he was riding around on it with his Hollywood buddies at the opening of the Las Vegas Guggenheim. Then actress Lauren Hutton crashes her bike and got hurt,[1] and the Guggenheim board is flipping out because they can't figure out what the relationship is between the museum and this motorcycling club. Krens' main rival on the board, also the Guggenheim's top donor, Peter Louis, was afraid they were somehow liable for Hutton's injuries.

The other thing I never quite figured out was whether the Guggenheim Motorcycle Club was a direct descendant of Malcolm Forbes' Capitalist Tools MC. Which was somehow important enough to land Forbes a place in the Motorcycle Hall of Fame.

This celebrity business is yucky, and I don't really know how to cover it properly. But it seems to matter a lot to people.--Dbratland (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead images

Hi. Please participate in the discussion of lead images at Talk:Suzuki_Hayabusa#Lead_image, with regard to this edit vs. this one. --Dbratland (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

motorcycling vs motorcycle racing projects

I don't see much reason for most articles to have both the "motorcycling" and "motorcycle racing" projects. For instance, Valentino Rossi shouldn't be in the motorcycling project. The only exception I can think of is motorcycles- a race or race-replica bike (such as the RC51) should be in both. Thoughts? tedder (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've always kind of felt that almost every article belongs in either one project or the other, and only a handful should be in both. --Dbratland (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
In the same way that we don't usually put articles into parent categories as well as a sub-categories, putting articles in both projects does seem somewhat redundant, though in some instances it may appear to be the proper choice. However, the WikiProject Council's article tagging suggests that "placement of any relevant banner (my emphasis) should generally be accepted, as each project may have unique resources and be willing to improve and monitor the article" so that indicates both project templates can be considered appropriate. As an examples many article related to Northern Ireland are also tagged for Ireland too. ww2censor (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I can totally understand both sides of that. Though it does seem like 'we' are stretched thin already, so it might be wise to keep our scope a little bit on the narrow side. tedder (talk) 06:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that some articles should be tagged with both projects, but the list can get quite long. Examples of articles which belong in both: BMW S1000RR - a road and race bike; Erik Buell - a person responsible for both motorcycle manufacture and motorcycle racing; most motorcycle helmet & leather manufacturers produce both road and race PPE; most of the big motorcycle manufacturers who produce both road and race versions (especially where there is a section in the manufacturer's article about their racing activities. Tagging with both projects (in theory at least) ensures that both get the chance to monitor and improve the article, meaning when we are stretched thin that two heads can be better than one.--Biker Biker (talk) 07:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point, Biker Biker. I don't think Valentino needs to be in {{motorcycling}} though. Maybe I'll write a searchbot tomorrow to post the list of duplicated articles unless anyone knows an easy way to search for a union of this sort. tedder (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Recognized content page created

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling/Recognized content --Dbratland (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

engine sizes: comma or not?

A new editor added commas to the cc engine sizes at History of BMW motorcycles. Perhaps because engine sizes don't exceed 2000cc, it seems that using commas is very unusual. I pulled a couple of moto magazines sitting next to me and they list engine sizes without commas: "1200cc", "1203cc", things like that. MOSNUM says that commas aren't required with four digits, but may be used. I think it's worth getting a quick consensus here to see if I'm in the wrong on this issue or if we have agreement that it is wrong to use commas on motorcycle engine sizes. tedder (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

To me, the best strategy is to always use the {{convert}} template, on the assumption that it is widely used and whatever formatting it gives you must be a reflection of very broad consensus Wikipedia-wide. Whichever formatting gains favor, that will be presumably reflected in the template, and then all the pages that use it will automatically be in compliance. In theory, this template should be capable of switching to spaces or dots instead of commas for the reader's local convention by using their web browser's locale or user account info. I don't think it has this feature now, but if it gets it in the future, it will affect all the pages using {{convert}}.

It also dispenses with having to futz around inserting   between the number and the units.

In addition to the primary benefit of having the measurement converted to/from metric, which is of more practical value and greater importance than whether you do or don't use a comma. --Dbratland (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Using the conversion template has the upside of consistent formatting as noted above, but has the downside of introducing unwanted Imperial units in many cases. E.g. does anybody care how many cubic inches a random 350 cc motorcycle has? For cruisers where displacement is frequently given in cubic inches this makes sense, not so much for any other m/c category I can think of. -- Brianhe (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Youth-urban-hip hop culture and custom hyperbikes and superbikes

An important fact in the new article Black Bike Week (btw, want to hep edit and expand?) is that it recently had attendance of 400,000, which is equal to Sturgis in 2008. In Suzuki Hayabusa there is some mention of the association between custom Hayabusas and rappers and NBA stars. I've said before that I think the young/urban hooligan (and also well behaved) sportbiker scene deserves more attention, and these attendance numbers at the Myrtle Beach event underscore that point. We need to pay more attention to the youth culture and not so much to the Harley/chopper scene, which is bound to continue to get tons of media coverage. In addition to better coverage of motorcycling in China, India and Africa. It's also more interesting and surprising than the hairy biker world, which is kind of old hat if you ask me. --Dbratland (talk) 05:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Honda CB900F post moved from to do list

Honda CB900F -- this article misleadingly addresses the Honda Hornet/919 instead of the real CB900F. This page -- [2] -- is a proposed replacement page, to be titled 'Honda CB900F'. The page that is currently called 'Honda CB900F' should be renamed 'Honda Hornet/919'. User:Jon1234567 21:43, 2 February 2010

But the 919 Hornet was called the CB900F. Honda has done this many, many times over the years -- they feel no compunction to obey any rules of consistency whatsoever in their model codes, and are happy to reuse names and numbers as it suits them. It would be like picking a particular incarnation of the "Honda Dream" and saying that one bike is the only one that can be in an article called Honda Dream. That said, I think the names 919 (US) and Hornet 900 (UK) were more widely recognized than CB900F, so the current page Honda CB900F could be copied to merged into Honda Hornet (UK-centric) (which should not only cover the 600), or to Honda 919 (US-centric). As with US vs UK spelling, I have no preference.

I don't think a perfect solution is possible given the complicated and confusing history of Honda's many models and the different names they have gone by. --Dbratland (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

While motorcyclists and reviewers commonly refer to the 919/Hornet as a spiritual successor to the CB900F, I don't recall Honda ever officially calling it a 'CB900F'. It certainly wasn't marketed as such here in the US. In any case, the Wikipedia article called 'CB900F' should refer to the bike most universally associated with that name -- which is the older model. I do agree with merging the 919/Hornet article in with the Hornet 600 article, though I also wouldn't be opposed to giving the 919/Hornet it's own page. Given that the Honda_CB1100F has it's own page, the much more common CB900F certainly deserves to have one as well.User:Jon1234567 —Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC).
I don't think anybody objects, so you should be bold and do what you think is best.
This press release is an example of Honda referring to the 919 as the CB900F. But it's true they didn't use that name very much in their marketing and advertising. Even though the CB900F before 2000 and after 2000 were very different bikes, they did fill the same hole in Honda's lineup; that is, they were the 900cc four-cylinder naked/standard UJM bike.
Speaking more generally, it is bad that we have so many short articles about motorcycle models and variations. It is better to merge as much as we can, and doing so gives you better pages.

For example, the first generation Honda CBR600RR shares few parts in common with the latest model (except the turn signals of course, which Honda never updates...), but including every model on one page makes it easy for the reader to take in the whole story. I might even go so far as to merge Honda CBR600F4i with that page. I wouldn't want a new page for each major revision of the Suzuki GSX-R600, or the R6 or lots of other model series. When I get around to it, I'm going to merge several of the pages I created for early Ducati models.

But go what you think works, and don't try to fix too much all at once; it's easier to work incrementally. --Dbratland (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried previously to make the change to the Honda CB900F article, but my changes were reverted by other users. I thought one user was going to help me create a new page and get it published, but that didn't happen -- and I don't know how to create a new page for the Honda 919 information. I just tried renaming the CB900F page to 'Honda Hornet (919)', but I got a message saying a bot had automatically undone this change. Does anyone with more experience know the best way to do this? Jon1234567 (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Update - I figured out how to make appropriate changes I think. The CB900F page is now representative of the old CB900F, I copied content over from a sandbox page I made a few months ago. I also created a new page called Honda Hornet (919) to discuss the newer motorcycle. I also updated the page Honda 919 to redirect to the new Honda Hornet(919) page. Barring any unexpected bots or revisions, I think this may clear things up substantially. Jon1234567 (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I reverted the separation of the articles and merged the two nuggets of information back onto the original page before I saw this discussion. I followed it up with all of my reasoning on the talk page. Just letting editors know I've continued discussion there. Thanks! roguegeek (talk·cont) 22:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If it helps we use a disambiguation suffix in the aircraft project with types of the same name. I would suggest Honda CB900F (2000) for the later model if a split is warranted. The original was a corker at the time. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

unreferenced motorcycling BLPs

Hey folks, especially dbratland. Here's our list of unreferenced BLPs. I immediately recognize many of them, which means finding some basic cites shouldn't be hard. Others may be deletable, but we should get the list to zero. Maybe just indent the bullets you are going to work on so we don't double up on work, okay? tedder (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

MCN workpage

Started an article on Motorcycle Consumer News here: Talk:Motorcycle Consumer News/Workpage. Contributions are welcome! — Brianhe (talk) 04:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Probably a weird spot for it, though. I'd suggest doing it in your userspace instead. tedder (talk) 04:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I added a thing about their testing methodology. I'm looking for a solid citation that they get their test bikes from the manufactures. The Feb. 08 issue mentions that they went to the official press launch of the ZX-10R at Doha, Qatar, the same as everybody else [3][4], but I'm still looking for a plain statement that they test loaner bikes. I don't know who pays travel expenses for that stuff. I don't mean to make a big deal out of it, other than to point out that MCN is not like Consumer Reports, which is wholly independent and has nothing to lose if they offend anyone. --Dbratland (talk) 05:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks guys, I've moved this to articlespace: Motorcycle Consumer News. -- Brianhe (talk) 07:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOPRICES

I'd like to clarify how WP:NOPRICES applies to the motorcycle articles. It's very clear that street prices, especially when a specific vendor is named, are not appropriate. An MSRP is not a street price -- the actual price a dealer sells a particular vehicle for can be more or less than the MSRP. So I think MSRP might be OK in some (not all) cases.

You are are on much firmer ground including an MSRP if you have a source which has commented specifically on the price. Here I once restored MSRPs to MV Agusta F4 series on the grounds that these exotic bikes are notable for their high prices, but that is currently unsourced -- it needs citations from sources discussing the prices of the F4s to meet the guideline.

In my opinion, it's useful to use {{inflation}} to convert prices from older models to today's money, to help understand the the relative price point occupied by a certain model. Similarly, converting currencies not familiar to en.Wikipedia readers to US$ or GB£ is enlightening. The point is not to be a shopping guide, but to learn the economic niche of a model.

Approximate values of used and vintage bikes are also OK, IMHO, provided they are well-sourced and included as part of a meaningful discussion of the bike's history. Claims that a model is desirable by collectors, or that it fell into obscurity, and so on, should logically include mention of approximate resale values, when sourced. Charting the change in time of resale values of a model, perhaps as it transformed from a bland economy model to a sought-after classic in them minds of collectors, can also be interesting.

Does this seem reasonable? Anything to add? --Dbratland (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The only prices which seem to get added are US. Prices differ around the world - especially when you consider the way GST/Sales Tax/VAT etc is treated in different countries i.e. included in the listed price or excluded. Given that Wikipedia is not a US-only resource I see no value in adding any selling prices for new machines to an article. The only exception I could see is when a bike's price is considered to be out of the ordinary e.g. for the MV Agusta F4 specials, but even then it doesn't get around the worldwide differences - even in the English speaking world for en.wikipedia. So my take on this is no prices, which keeps it nice and simple. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Another example is the Honda 599/Hornet 600. I recall reading several articles saying that because it was made in Italy, unfavorable exchange rates made it too expensive to sell in the US, while in Europe it was popular as an economical bike. If you leave this out, then you have kind of a mystery as to why it was canceled after a year or two in the US while selling well for a decade in Europe, and if you don't reveal the actual sale prices, the whole discussion becomes overly vague. It's helpful to realize that they were asking US$ 600 more than an FZ6 or Speed 4, and $1200 more than an SV650,[5] a situation that didn't exist in Europe.

But nonetheless, by default, there should be no mention of MSRP, unless some reason exists to talk about it. --Dbratland (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I can see how that, as a properly cited example, would be a reason to mention prices in an article. It looks like we are agreed on the principle that prices aren't quoted unless there is exceptional reason to do so. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling/Archive 5/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling/Archive 5/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.
There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.
If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 23:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
thank you for signing up! Okip 04:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Fox Racing marketing blitz

The marketing department at Fox Racing seems to be hard at work with COI edits. Please help keep an eye on it. I will attempt to revise and clean up the article in the near future; I'm collecting reliable sources now. --Dbratland (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Both of those accounts should go to WP:UAA; I'd handle it but I'm .. uh, limited due to my main computer being out of commission for at least a few days. tedder (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Done --Dbratland (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see it there! ww2censor (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks like our robot overlords already pulled them from UAA. tedder (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Indeed you are correct though no notice has been left on the talk page for the two similar user acccounts. ww2censor (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I dropped a note past the blocking admin about that, actually. I would have blocked myself except I didn't want to find the right template tedder (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I just had a good crack at this article, removing lots of peacock stuff, and adding a few wikilinks. I have removed all the article tags except for the additional citations one. If anyone wants to take this further (especially w.r.t. citations) then have at it! --Biker Biker (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Black Rebel Code

Is anyone aware of a motorcycle subculture which follows some version of these rules:

  1. One You will own a motorcycle which is not less than 25 years old.
  2. Two Your motorcycle will be painted black.
  3. Three Your motorcycle will have cost less than £750.
  4. Four You will travel no less than 10,000 miles on your motorcycle each year.
  5. Five You will never pay anyone else to work on your motorcycle.

I want to do an article but cannot find any references. Does anyone know of any published articles on this?

Tip top daddy (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The fictional club in Brando's The Wild One was called the Black Rebels Motorcycle Club, and the rock band Black Rebel Motorcycle Club takes it's name from that, losing a letter S somehow. Are you sure you're not getting fed something based on fiction? Reading the book The Rebels: A brotherhoood of outlaw bikers, (ISBN 9780802073631) by Daniel R. Wolf might be relevant too, I don't know. If you can't find a large number of references, you should probably pick a different topic. --Dbratland (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Interesting code. Three of my current six bikes are black - if I had my way they would all be black (just like my leathers and my favourite helmet). Only one of them cost less than £750 though and is more than 25 years old. I frequently pay people to work on the newer ones. However I do travel over 10,000 miles each year in total. I have never heard of those rules before though, which sounds like the rules of a rat bike club - if such a thing existed. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Factory Pro horsepower discussion

Requesting third opinions about Factory Pro's allgations about "true" horsepower. See discussion at Talk:Yamaha_YZF-R1#Third_party_sources_on_Factory_Pro --Dbratland (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Now everything is a supersport

We need some kind of consensus before this goes further.

I scratched my head at the suggestion that the Hayabusa is a "supersport". Now the R1 is a supersport too? And the GSX-R750? And the GS500? And the Ninja 500? And the Ninja 250? And the GSX-R1000? There is no such thing as a superbike (or literbike). Or a hyper sport. The middlewweight (formerly supersport) category is gone, and there is no entry level category. Basically all modern sportbikes are either sport tourers or supersports? Is that really a reflection of the categories in common usage by reliable sources?

I completely get that these categories are arbitrary and inconsistent, and they are sorely lacking in solid references. I also get that these categories are woefully United States centric, and fail to take into account historical shifts, such as ever-larger sportbike displacements from the 1950s through 2010. Yesterday's CB750 superbike is, in the US market with the typically, uh, big boned American rider, a little bike. A mid-size bike for most humans, considering India and China, would probably be 125 cc. Even only looking at the graduated licensing systems in Japan and the UK, bikes over 750 cc start to look rather unusually large.

But tossing all of them together into one bag and calling them "supersports" does nothing to enlighten the general encyclopedia reader who is trying to get some basic understanding. It is absolutely of no help to go by the terminology you find on the manufacturers websites. Honda can fancy that their only "sport touring" bikes are the ST1300 and NT700V and pretend the VFR1200F belongs over in the "sport" category, but everyone knows the big VFR is a sport touring bike too. Every review calls it that and Wikipedia, in the end, goes with common sense and common names. There is clearly a difference between liter-class superbikes, the sport touring class, and the hyperbikes like the GSX-R1300 or ZX-14, and Wikipedia should, in accordance with widespread usages, follow the most widespread practices in recognizing these differences, rather than level the differences and push some kind of agenda that they're all the same type of bike.

I don't think there is a perfect solution. I don't think the old system was very good, but it kind of worked, as a jury-rigged temporary compromise. But something as crude as calling everything a "supersport" fails to give the reader all sorts of useful information. If reality is messy and confusing, Wikipedia cannot, by fiat, try to impose order. Wikipedia should instead inform the reader that reality is messy and confusing.

Anything that affects so many articles needs consensus before one editor goes to town changing the types of motorcycles across the board. Kudos for the ambition, though.

These changes should be reverted and there should be a discussion either here or at Talk:Types of motorcycles as to how to proceed.--Dbratland (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

HELP- HOW DO I TAB THIS DOWN AWAY FROM DBRATLAND'S COMMENTS?
Legitimate questions all. I don't have enough time right now to respond to all of this, but as a courtesy, I'll give you what I have time for right now.
I never said that all motorcycles fit into only two classes. I just removed some of the unreferenced fiction, to reduce confusion. I have no problem with us adding additional legitimate classes to the page.
There never was any reference to support "hyperbike".
Yamaha clearly lists the YZF-R1 on their web site as a Supersport, and I cited a reference to same.
Kawasaki clearly lists the ZX-10R on their web site as a Supersport, and I cited a reference to same.
There were no references supporting the use of the word "Superbike" for the YZF-R1, the ZX-10R, the GSX-R1000, or the CBR1000RR.
Suzuki's web site does not list the GSX-R1000 as a "Superbike", and no reference was cited.
Honda's web site does not list the CBR1000RR as a "Superbike", and no reference was cited.
I think where people tend to get a little lost is what exactly makes a Supersport. It has nothing to do with the engine's displacement, but since the various sanctioning organizations specify a particular engine displacement for each racing class, one might think that the engine's displacement is the sole criteria for the terms "Supersport" and "Superbike", if they didn't look any further than cable TV.
If we actually look at the rules from various sanctioning organizations, we find that there are 450 Superbikes, 650 Twin Superbikes, 600 Superbikes, 750 Superbikes, as well as open class (>750cc) Superbikes. We also have 250 Supersports like the EX250, and open class (>750cc) Supersports like the YZF-R1, the GSX-R1000, the CBR1000RR, and the ZX-10R.
A Supersport is a production class racing motorcycle, homologated for street use. Supersports race in the Supersport classes, with very limited modifications (stock frame, swingarm, triples, forks, tank, wheels, engine, windscreen shape, etc.) and run with DOT-approved street-legal (racing) tires.
A Superbike is a Supersport that has been modified beyond Supersport racing rules. Modifications that can cause a Supersport to have to race in the Superbike class are things like a taller "Double Bubble" type windscreen, aftermarket 16.5" magnesium racing wheels, slicks, reinforced swingarms, billet triple clamps, front fork swaps, aluminum gas tanks, aftermarket internal engine components, etc. M4 work (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a great example of why Wikipedia shies away from using primary sources. An example of a primary source, in this case, would be Kawasaki. It's much better to rely on a magazine or books that describe these bikes. A manufacturer might come out with a 659cc bike they think competes well with 600cc bikes, so they position it to compete against those bikes, rather than with the 750cc bikes.
In other words, it's significantly more important to see how others refer to the bike, rather than how the marketing department is trying to position the bike. tedder (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
My take remains that while the way it was before was poorly sourced and sometimes wrong, the idea that all these different sportbikes "supersports" is much worse, and is extremely confusing.

I can assemble more sources, but here is one from Cycle World:

Cycle World Masterbike 08[1]
Category Examples
Supersport Honda CBR600RR, Kawasaki ZX-6R, Suzuki GSX-R600, Triumph Daytona 675, Yamaha YZF-R6
Superbike Honda CBR1000RR, Kawasaki ZX-10R, MV Agusta F4 312 R, Suzuki GSX-R1000, Yamaha YZF-R1
Supertwin Aprilia RSV1000R Factory, BMW HP2 Sport, KTM RC8
The collapsed table below is from the Motorcycle Consumer News Performance Index. They group most of the sportbikes under the "Open Sportbike" class, which is too generic, but is not as misleading as grouping all of them under "superport" would be. They put bikes like the EX250 and SV650 in the light and medium standard categories, rather than lumping them in with the 'Busa and Honda XX. I could accept that, except that readers would probably like to know what the real classes the ZX-6R and ZX-14 belong in, what with them being just slightly different from one another. They use "Middleweight Sportbike" in place of "Supersport", which probably reduces confusion since many of these medium sized sportbikes aren't homologated racers.
I'll add more of these tables, as time allows. They generally point the same direction. Again, the big problem here is not how you classify bikes in the US. It's the rest of the world that invalidates these categories, but I think we can just say "In the US and some other markets..." to describe these categories.
  1. ^ Cernicky, Mark (September 2008), "Master Bike XI", Cycle World, vol. 47, no. 8, Newport Beach, California: Hachette Filipacchi Media U.S., ISSN 0011-4286
  2. ^ "Performance Index '10" (PDF), Motorcycle Consumer News, Bowtie Magazines, 2010, retrieved 2010-01-03
(Don't mean to sound like I was disagreeing with Tedder; I was just replying below his comment. I agree that the manufacturers claims, while they can be noted, should be overruled by what the wider media say about them.)
--Dbratland (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Due to having a family, a job, and a life, I don't have as much time to sort this out as I'd like, but the very first reference that that I checked (September 2008 Cycle World "Masterbike 2008"), didn't pan out. Cycle World was reporting categories that a Spanish motorcycle magazine (Motociclismo) had arbitrarily selected. It was not the work of Cycle World, and there is no Motociclismo reference. And it sends up a red flag if we have to refer to something as obscure as a Spanish motorcycle magazine in an attempt to support something.
in fact, if we look at the cover of the September 2008 Cycle World, the Masterbike test is clearly identified as a "14 bike SUPERSPORT shootout".
M4 work (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the relevance of word definitions from different language. While we want to account for the rest of the world, this is still English Wikipedia.

And of course refactoring the entire classification system used on all of the motorcycling articles is a big task. You shouldn't do it if you are short on time and are going to leave it in a worse state than when you found it, and you should try to have consensus before you begin such a wide-ranging change.

So if we put it back the way it was, are you going to revert? I don't see how you can object if you don't have time to do the necessary work to sort it out. It's probably better to work on a workpage out of the article namespace, get some consensus, and then roll it out when it's done. --Dbratland (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

To "put it back to the way it was" would be to remove correct information, supported by legitimate citations, to revert to completely arbitrary and unreferenced material.

If you want me to correct the entire classification system used on all of the motorcycling articles, make me a list. What I have a hard time finding time for is a lot of discussion on removing incorrect and unreferenced information, and the installation of correct information with references cited.

And I have no idea what you're talking about regarding the relevence of word definitions from different languages. I think that you and I are in agreement that the English Wikipedia pages should be based on English.

FWIW:

The November 2008 issue of Roadracing World, on page 6, states "Yamaha is breaking new ground with the all-new 2009 YZF-R1, as the Supersport machine is the first production four-cylinder motorcycle to come with a cross-plane crankshaft...".

And...

http://www.amadragbike.com/rules/Section_4.htm#4.3.3

The above cited AMA SUPERSPORT Dragbike rules stipulate "...1000cc and larger OEM production motorcycles...".

M4 work (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not whether or not you can dig up a reference to somebody somewhere calling every kind of sport bike a supersport. Wikipedia's policy on naming and terminology is found in WP:Naming conventions. See also Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade. I'm saying using supersport that way is obscure. The more common practice is to use a specific category. This means to group sportbikes as middlewights aka supersports and as liter aka superbikes, with the tail ends, small and large, being called beginner or lightweights, and hyper sport or sport touring. In other words, the old categories were in accordance with standard WP practice. You could have helped by adding citations rather than gutting the page.

I don't think you should to "correct" anything else in this manner. Kawasaki Ninja 250R has not one but two citations saying it is an "entry level sportbike." You changed that to "super sport" and cited nothing. You cited nothing for most of the edits you did to the various bikes you changed to supersport. How is that a "correction"?

As Tedder has tried to explain, you're relying on primary sources if you're getting this from the manufacturers, and that doesn't fly. I also think you're relying on your own bias and opinions, as in the case of the Ninja 250. You should let what you find used most commonly in print guide you. This is one reason why it's better to edit pages for bikes you don't ride and let others edit the pages of bikes you have strong personal opinions about.

I just don't want to go to the work of reverting all these pages and then having you edit war with me. Hence the need for consensus. --Dbratland (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The terminology is common. I've listed multiple primary and secondary sources.

I think we may have a paradigm issue that we're both trying to overcome. It's as if an expert-licensed open class superbike racer was talking to a much smarter and very opinionated guy who once did a track day on an EX250.

But in the interest of goodwill, I'm wondering if there is some reasonable middle ground that we can reach.

For example, I would agree to leaving the first-tier road legal production Supersport 600s, the Daytona 675, the Gixxer 750, and all the open class Supersports up to 1200cc, labeled specifically as supersports. I would be willing to compromise on the EX250, EX500, Ninja 650R, GS500F, SV650SF, the Hayabusa, and the ZX-14, using the more general "Sport bike" classification.

If you wish to discuss using different identification for the naked versions of the faired and fully faired versions above (like the naked GS500E vs. the fully faired GS500F, the naked SV650 vs. the fully faired SV650SF, etc.), I would be willing to have that discussion with you.

The hopelessly vague and over-used term "Middleweight" simply isn't going to cut it. I have references that use the term "middleweight" to refer to everything from the Ninja 650R and FZR400, all the way up to first-tier 600 Supersport bikes, and even some cruisers.

Likewise, not only is "Superbike" an incorrect and completely unacceptable term to use in reference to anything but an actual Superbike, I have found that magazines have carelessly used the term "Superbike" to refer to everything from the Gixxer 750 and the KTM RC8, all the way up to open-class sporting motorcycles. Those same magazines also alternately use differing terminology on the same models.

A motorcycle is a tool, and to refer to a screwdriver as anything other than a "screwdriver", is confusing at best.

M4 work (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

With all due respects, we've got bigger fish to fry around here.

How about a Wikipedia page for a second-tier 600 class sporting motorcycle with a torque peak of less than 45 ft.lbs. at almost 10,000 rpms, with an unreferenced claim that its "relatively torquey motor make it a favorite for sport touring applications":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_YZF600R

Or the fact that the most successful racing motorcycle of all time (the XR-750) isn't even mentioned on the Harley-Davidson Wikipedia page.

M4 work (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The changes you made to Sport bike affected 622 pages that link there. Types of motorcycles has 552 pages linking to it. If you want to go work on single pages like Yamaha YZF600R or whatever, that's one thing. But when you change something like the categorization scheme that is used by so many other pages, you should expect to hear about it. See how that works? Yes, you can be bold and just do it. But also expect that after being bold, you can see a revert and a discussion. It's like, yes, my bike might suck, but don't send it to the crusher while I'm still riding it.

And yes, List of motorcycles in the Smithsonian Institution and List of motorcycles in The Art of the Motorcycle exhibition would be great places to find articles that need to be created. See also requested articles. --Dbratland (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I went to get started on those 622 articles you listed, but the very first one I took a look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_NX250

...is for an air-cooled Dual-sport, and I see no link to "sport bike".

And nobody said anything about your bike sucking. I let the sarcasm of "Now everything is a supersport" slide, but the "Jewish mother" bit is going to be an impediment to effective communication if you're going to insist upon keeping it up.

Let's just work together to get this sorted out, okay?

M4 work (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here's what needs to happen before anyone goes through and makes major changes. First, come up with some reliable sources that actually agree on a decent categorization scheme. Second, don't make POINTy changes or changes that get rid of terms you personally dislike.
Finally, I'd suggest not using race standards to describe street bikes. Leave that to motorcycle racing. tedder (talk) 04:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The whole reason that we're discussing this is because someone used the racing term "Superbike" (with no references) to describe a bunch of street bikes, and I corrected it (with a bunch of references).

BTW, Suzuki will pay you a bunch of money to win Supersport races on the naked SV650, the fully faired SV650SF, the GSX-R600, the GSX-R750, and the GSX-R1000: http://ww.suzukicycles.com/en/Racing/Road%20Racing/Contingency.aspx

M4 work (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for helping change things, M4. I certainly agree that sport bike is a better term than super bike, since we aren't talking about racing with most bikes. You are, however, changing some bikes to super sport (examples: [6], [7], [8]). These are definitely bikes that should be considered "lightweight sports bikes" or something similar- the "supersport" category is for racing and manufacturers. Dbratland's cites above show that reliable sources like MCN don't call them supersport. (there's very little "super" in the Ninja 250- maybe it should be considered a minisport?) tedder (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Oddly, the Ninja250 page is being changed to a Sport Touring bike by a new IP (logged-out user?) right now. Perhaps I should blame dbratland for logging out so he can use it as a straw man . In other words, by no means is the Ninja250 a sport touring bike, even if it's been used as such. References will prove the ultimate source of categorization, but to me a sport-touring bike is a sportbike that comes with stock luggage (FJR, ST1300). tedder (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Nope, I'm not in the Ukraine. Looks like run of the mill vandalism. Which I would never sink to thank you very much!  :)

I can accept taking everything from the (roughly) 400-600 cc class up to the 1400+ cc sporty bikes and just grouping them broadly as "sport bikes" -- for now. Later on, if we can agree on something, we can break it down further, to try to show there are lines between the GSX-R600, R1, and ZX-14. It is informal and subjective, but I would say it is the fallacy of the beard ( <-- please read article!) to put the Ninjette and 'Busa in the same pigeonhole. Note that there are trucks and there are SUVs, and some in between, but that doesn't mean truck and SUV are meaningless terms, it just means that language is inexact. The whole English language is inexact. That's how it is.

Just now I edited the Ninja 250 page to make the class match what the cited sources say. If an overwhelming number of independent sources call it a "supersport", fine, but I would submit the majority call it a "beginner/entry level-sport bike", as per the cites.

I apologize if I've given M4 work too hard a time, and I honestly do appreciate their contributions. But I think we can all agree this needs to be done via consensus. --Dbratland (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Motorcycle oil needs sorting

Motorcycle oil is a terrible article that reflects badly on this project. Anyone fancy collaborating to get it sorted out? --Biker Biker (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Requesting comment on sport bike workpage

Please comment at Talk:Sport bike on this revsion. Thanks! --Dbratland (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akrapovič

Notable? Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed: Category:Supersport motorcycles rename to Category:Sport bikes

--Dbratland (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Motorcycle airbags!

Did anyone notice this article in Sunday's New York Times? Is it significant enough to deserve a mention in any of our articles? ww2censor (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's written about in Motorcycle safety#Airbag devices and Airbag#On motorcycles. Both are poorly cited and years out of date. --Dbratland (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Motorcycling/Archive_5&oldid=1077609201"