This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Suzuki Hayabusa article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Suzuki Hayabusa was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
October 23, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the 1999
Suzuki Hayabusa (pictured) was named the fastest production
motorcycle of the 20th century? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The #s on 1/4 mile times and top speed thru the 1/4 mile wer 5 June 2006 (UTC)
First reference ( http://www.qsl.net/n5mya/testdata.html) does not work anymore. Please find a new article if you know where it has moved.
I'm removing the stub tag, since this does not seem the case anymore. nihil 21:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think having MSRP is relevant. Even if it is, I don't think this is the correct place. MSRP can change year to year and won't be accurate.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Budlight ( talk • contribs) 19 September 2006
I've kinda gotten tired of the bad information that has been consistently supplied in this article. I have changed the numbers to one that came from a much more updated and reliable source. The previous source was over 7 years old and the information listed wasn't even quoted right in the article. If you have a problem with this, bring a source that is both from a major publication and that was updated after October 2005. If they aren't, just don't even bother. What would be even better is if it was a comparision test between the Hayabusa and the ZX-14 since these are the two major players in the hyper sport market. Thoughts? Roguegeek ( talk) 02:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
While stating hp numbers, everybody please mind the difference between crank hp and rear wheel hp, as well as the difference between US hp and European hp. A regular US Hayabusa dyno run will bring up between 150 and 155 (rear wheel) hp for a 1999-2007 model. European performance sheets will state 175 (crank) hp for the same bike. Shark Abuser ( talk) 07:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I do NOT agree with ANY of the numbers in this article. New UPDATED numbers should NOT be used at ALL on the models between 1999-2000. I have complete and utter proof that a 1999 Hayabusa in England was LIDAR clocked at 200.2 MPH in DEAD STOCK form. I had purchased a BRAND NEW stock Hayabusa in 1999, the FIRST thing I did was take it to a Dyno shop in Knoxville Tennessee. This was a HARLEY dealership and they did NOT like my bike being there. However, they ran it on the dyno, the DAY AFTER I purchased the bike. I had NO TIME to mod it at ALL. It performed at 168RWHP. This can be documented by calling or posting the printout from the DYNO results from Harley of Knoxville.
It should also be noted that the speedometer on the 1999-2000 bikes read 220MPH while the late 2001 to current read 185MPH. The 1999-2000 Bike operated WAY differently then the later models.
The 1999-2000 had a 16 bit ECM(Electronic Control Module) made by Nippon Denso. The late 2001 to late 2007 versions have a 32 bit ECM. While the 2008 version has been completely changed in every way.
So honestly, they are 3 different bikes, with 3 different behaviors. I believe these things are worth mentioning on the main page.
If you apply your rationale on model year to every automotive article on Wikipedia, we'd have to append "model year" to all year related content to every article. Good thing the content of the article actually says:
Roguegeek ( talk) 19:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The BHP figures for both(for 1999-2007 and 2008) should be the same scale, either crank or rear wheel , at the moment the 1999-2007 section shows RWBHP(156.1) and the 2008 section shows CBHP(194) ,ty Dognosh ( talk) 16:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I fixed the Gen 1, 99-07 hp horsepower qualifications - removing the invalid "RWBHP" descriptor and changing it to "hp". It is still wrong though, as it's still not described as "djhp" (dynojet horsepower) horsepower [26]as compared to "true" or "effective" horsepower, but attempts to further qualify "horsepower" get reverted back.
On the Gen 2, 08-09, the "194hp" is still the "manufacturer's claim". It should be qualified as "claimed crankshaft bhp" and should probably be referenced to a Suzuki publication. Marc Salvisberg ( talk) 16:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Given the WP:TRIVIA guideline I would like to propose the deletion of the section Hayabusa in popular culture since there has been a failure to properly integrate that section into the text.
Also IMO the content of that section fails to meet the WP:REL guideline since the bollywood movie Dhoom has absolutelly nothing to do with the Hayabusa. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 05:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
changed the term "timing retard" to "timing lock" since it could have been offensive, who ever wrote that, your personal oppinion should stay out of a factual webpage, this is user edited, yes, but, your personal oppinion should stay out of this, get a live journal if you want to rant to the world.
( Racerboy ( talk) 02:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC))
Try looking up what a timing retard is before accusing me of ranting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignition_timing
http://www.hayabusacentral.co.uk/shop/product.asp?idproduct=31
http://www.mpsracing.com/products/Schnitz/ho01.asp
(
Micky750k (
talk) 09:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC))
haha. He didn't know what timing retard meant.
I think you guys have a bit of a typo for the 2008's top speed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.190.42 ( talk) 11:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to find bit more info on the gentleman's agreement between the big 4 japanese manufacturers in 99/00 to avoid regulation - there was fair bit about it back in the day in magazines, but google just seems to bring up ways of bypassing it.
Its mentioned here by no source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentlemen%E2%80%99s_agreement
-- Micky750k ( talk) 08:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
What exactly do you want to know about it? I pretty much have had the bike since it was launched and have been very much into the culture of it. There really isn't much more about the issue, as they just did it in order to stop government regulation and insurance black-balling. They were all pretty much fine with the idea and the process took place in less then a year. There really isn't much news about it, because they were all ok with doing it, as government regulation and insurance black-balling would have killed the business entirely for this class of motorcycle. It was a simple easy choice and they have all stuck to the agreement. I am just glad I had an original bike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.186.201 ( talk) 10:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The workpage on my revision of his article is almost ready to go live. Some notes:
|abbr=on
. The first use of units in the body text (ignoring infoboxes and tables) should Wikilink units with |lk=on
-- Dbratland ( talk) 15:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
is relatively short, and the longer full citations are collected together in one place. So anything under References that doesn't correspond to a footnote should be deleted -- there are some left over from the old version that I have to clean up.I had to get rid of the section on the East Yorkshire police Hayabusa. It leads back to a Youtube video that is probably violating copyright and doesn't have good information on what media outlet produced it. You can find it easily searching "police hayabusa" in Google video or Youtube. There's also pictures out there of a black and white police Hayabusa, not from OHP or the Yorkshire police; not sure if it is real. Hopefully this can be put back if better sources are found.-- Dbratland ( talk) 05:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I really fail to see the need to have any old image at the top of the article as long as it meets the Wikiproject Automobiles image convention. It's only a guideline used by a different project than motorcycling, which the motorcycling project falls back on when there's nothing else to go on.
But most of these bike articles cover several models, such as the two in this article. And the Hayabusa article also covers a number of other topics, including the production speed record, the gentleman's agreement, the Hayabusa's sales success, custom bikes, and other uses of the engine. The lead image needs to somehow try to cover the whole article, not just show you what a previous-generation 2007 model looks like. A modified bike at Bonneville Speedway conveys some of these things at once. I don't think a single image could hit every single topic, but this comes close.
The principle is that the lead image is part of the lead section and it should help to serve as "both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article."
Kawasaki Ninja 250R is an example of a similar approach. The individual generations each have a section, and as far as we can manage we have an image of that version that follows the image convention. But the lead image for the article tries to tell you something more, in this case a typical street scene of someone riding the bike. -- Dbratland ( talk) 17:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included at Talk:WikiProject Motorcycling.-- Dbratland ( talk) 17:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
What I see as the problem with point #5 of the convention is that it fails to take into account Wikipedia:Lead section, and instead mandates that the lead picture be a redundant imitation of the illustration that appear further down in the article for each version or generation. So yes, the detailed infoboxes should have rigidly conventional illustrations of what that one looks like, but the lead image should be less restrictive and try to summarize or represent the content of the whole article.
An alternative for this article might be the speed trials burnout, if the Bonneville picture is too cryptic. But the blandness and redundancy of showing the same thing several times does not work.
This image standard has done a lot of damage, if you ask me. Look at these Featured and Good Articles: Maserati MC12, Ford BA Falcon, Toyota Aurion, Toyota Matrix, etc. Every one of them shows the same view of the same car at least twice. Why? Because you win points for slavishly adhering to the convention, that's the only justification. Toyota Aurion even has a nearly identical shot of the same silver colored car; the only difference is that it's pointed left instead of right. It's kind of sad.-- Dbratland ( talk) 19:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
But I can see not having an infobox in the lead if that is the sticking point. It appears the Bonneville picture doesn't have much support but I'm hoping to get closer to a consensus on what a good motorcycle article looks like so we can make more like it. So perhaps without the infobox, and with an alternative image, we can have something in the lead that is more general and that doesn't duplicate the infobox pictures -- Dbratland ( talk) 01:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't this really belong in the engine power and torque section of Motorcycle testing and measurement? Since it covers all motorcycles, not just the Hayabusa? And Motorcycle testing and measurement really needs some love.
(And yes, that is another shot of our friend Bonneville Hayabusa Guy. This is the same bike. They're all from here) -- Dbratland ( talk) 19:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
In good humor -
I've written a fair amount of hp and testing stuff - and there's more uninformed junk written about motorcycles than I can believe. :-)
If we don't explain a reason as to why there's 175 , 155, 162 on the page, you get is people whining about how the "numbers aren't right". They aren't necessarily right - I gave the reason, with refs, as to why. I also addressed the "99's are the strongest impression in the post. Providing ref, gave a hp range and educated the reader as to what is expected in the real world, bike to bike. The mags grab ONE bike (supplied by Suzuki), on "some" dyno and report that hp number. Other people test lots and average the results.
I wouldn't disagree with you that other parts of wikipedia don't need help - but, what I wrote informed the specific Hayabusa inquirer as to HP numbers - as he's not going to look at the goofy numbers and then trudge through wikipedia to find out why.
So - I'm thinking that the post was appropriate -
Thanks - Marc Salvisberg ( talk) 20:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
And I would ask you, do you see anywhere on this talk page anyone whining that "the numbers aren't right?" This is the most popular article about a motorcycle, getting around 40,000 hits a month. They seem happy with that aspect, probably because the table specifically tells you where the number came from, and people realize YMMV. If we do start seeing readers complaining that the numbers make no sense, we can respond to that but so far it hasn't happened.
But it would be very helpful if you can find better sources and then help expand Motorcycle testing and measurement. I agree with the others that this is too biased; it isn't an independent source and they're touting their own testing over their competitors. Perhaps it's true, but it's also self-serving and that makes them no good as a source. You need a neutral source, such as a mechanical engineering journal, or reputable magazine, or textbook.-- Dbratland ( talk) 21:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
"* It's probably sub-optimal to stuff so many competing stats into bhp, torque and weight in the "infoboxes. Should choose one representative, or use a range like 159–162.6 bhp (119–121 kW). The "whole lot of them can be put into a table under the Performance section.
This is funny - YOU (chuckle) whined and suggested ranging HP numbers, did nothing and I did something , and explained it......
And I am whining.... 175? 155? 162? That's not realistic and makes me ignore anything technical in the article. It's not a source for professionals or even at a dealership level, yet.
I know the average Busa owner isn't the most tech savvy, so I'd not expect many "Talk", but you did get one or two, I see - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc Salvisberg ( talk • contribs) 22:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure this is correctly sourced as being from Koblenz, Jay (June 1999), "99 Suzuki GSX1300R Hayabusa; Bullet Train On Wheels (model evaluation)", Motorcycle Consumer News (Irvine, California: Aviation News Corp): 30-33, ISSN 1067-8697 1073-9408, 1067-8697 (except the link http://www.worldcat.org/issn/1073-9408, tells me "Sorry, we cannot identify the location you entered. Please re-enter your location." when I try to check) but mechanically and mathematically it doesn't make any sense:A distinctive feature of the Hayabusa engine was its abundance of low end torque. In comparison with the CBR1100XX and the ZX-11, the shape of the horsepower graphs is very similar for all three engines, but the Hayabusa's torque graph departs from the other two early in the RPM range and stays well above them from 3000 through 9000 rpm. This difference has little effect on the ultimate top speed of these motorcycles, but it makes the Hayabusa less demanding to ride by giving the rider a wider margin for error in choosing the right gear for a given speed. I can't tell what would be best to do with it. MalcolmMcDonald ( talk) 22:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I fixed that weird comparison of dyno charts that weren't referenced or cited. What they meant was that the cbr1100xx (what year?) was just a teeny bit faster than the zx11 (what year?) and the 99 Busa made much more power at every rpm. don't know what that 9000 rpm reference was. fwiw, Looking at my own cbr1100xx and zx11 dyno charts, they both went 170ish with stock gearing at redline. Looks like the Gen 1 Busa went about 10 mph faster at the tach redline. I don't know what the "official" top speeds were for all 3 bikes. Marc Salvisberg ( talk) 17:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I just bought a Hayabusa 2004 , imported from USA (with miles) and as I live in Europe I would like to have it in kilometers. I've heard that it's possible to convert it. Does anybody know how to convert miles into kilometers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.119.163.242 ( talk) 23:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
"171.1 bhp (128 kW)[27] Rear wheel 151.5–162.6 bhp (113–121 kW) bhp @ 9500–9750 rpm, See performance and measurements"
All power figures are useless as they are improperly scaled, unscaled and most are uncited. Marc Salvisberg ( talk) 20:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
With regard to Jay Koblenz's comparison of the horsepower graphs in his 1999 Motorcycle Consumer News article: Koblenz meets Wikipedia's criteria as a reliable source. That does not mean everything Koblenz says is the " truth", it means that his perspective passes the minimum standard required by Wikipedia for inclusion in an article. Other opinions, which also meet Wikipedia's standards, should also be included. If you can cite sources which disagree with Koblenz, please add them to the article -- other than your own company's web site, which, unfortunately, fails to meet the criteria in WP:RS. If Koblenz is really so wrong, you ought to have no trouble finding reliable sources which say so.
I will be restoring the bit about the horsepower graphs from the Motorcycle Consumer News article unless there is consensus against doing so. My opinion here is that giving the reader horsepower figures that disagree with each other helps the reader understand that experts disagree on the subject of horsepower measurement, and there is no one "true" horsepower figure for any bike. But we can verify that the source published a particular figure, even if that figure is an outlier in comparison with other published numbers. -- Dbratland ( talk) 19:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not clear on the concept..... you want me to find some print magazine that says the you need a brake dyno to do brake horsepower tests? You keep stubbornly editing listing inertia dyno tests as Brake HorsePower (BHP). Might be pretty hard to find a statement as elemental as that. Some times you just have to know that ice is cold and fire is hot.
Maybe you should cite "BHP". http://www.thefreedictionary.com/b.h.p.? <smile> Marc Salvisberg ( talk) 09:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
What I object to are your COI edits. Factory Pro claims their product is superior to Dynojet. Of course you would say that. Buy an advertisement somewhere touting your company's product. Please do not try to edit Wikipedia articles to make the articles take sides in your dispute with your competitor over whose dyno is better. If a third party reliable source publishes a horsepower figure, it should be cited, along with figures from other reliable sources. Which figure is "true"? Not our problem.
Some people might disagree with the way Jay Koblenz described the Hayabusa power curve, but his opinions meet Wikipedia's criteria and so can be cited. Other reliable sources have said similar things; they are widely held opinions.
Remember, Wikipedia is only an encyclopedia intended to give readers general information. It is not a buyer's guide for which bike has the most power, or whose dyono is the best. If the figures we give on horsepower are a little fuzzy or contradictory, there's nothing wrong with that. Professional racers or tuners know where to find more precise information, and Wikipedia is not it.
And once again, I invite you to use your expertise to make Motorcycle testing and measurement a better article. That article is the best place for you to explain inertia dyno tests and bhp. -- Dbratland ( talk) 19:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia, but I'm not new to the Hayabusa. There was some incorrect information regarding which model years were restricted and which model years were unrestricted. There is so much information readily available, frankly I was a little surprised. Anyway, I corrected it as best as possible.
FWIW:
1999 and 2000 models were not restricted.
2001 and later models were restricted.
M4 work ( talk) 22:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Of course, if what we're talking about is original research, then it needs to be published in some other media first, then it can be cited. I would assume that anybody who has been around Hayabusas for a long time must be able to easily lay their hands on quite a bit of good published material.
Any explanation for blanking the custom scene section? -- Dbratland ( talk) 00:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure how this Wikipedia thing works, but this particular article is full of wrong information. Do you even own a Hayabusa? I earned my expert road racing license on my 2000 Hayabusa. I can find references for this information, but it's kind of pointless, because the wrong information in the Wikipedia page is based on wrong information published elsewhere, or even mis-quoted, and I'm really not inclined to spend a bunch of time helping out if someone who's only experience with the Hayabusa is a google search, is just going to mess it all up again.
For example, no stock Hayabusa has ever been capable of the 200 mph (with just a pipe and an airbox) as claimed in the "Custom Scene" section of the article, and the article cited doesn't even say that. What the article cited actually says, is that a pipe and an airbox will allow the Hayabusa to APPROACH 200 mph, and even that isn't right. A modified airbox will actually LOWER the top speed of a Hayabusa, although it can help the acceleration a little bit at lower speeds, up to about 150 mph, like on a drag strip. Even with a fresh rear tire, a completely stock unrestricted 1999-2000 Hayabusa will hit the rev limiter at no more than 196-197 (actual) mph, although it takes EXCELLENT body position by the rider to do that. Most people don't, and that's why we saw tests of the same unrestricted bikes, with top speeds all over the map, from about 180 mph to about 194 mph. Even if you changed the stock 17/40 final drive for a 17/39 to get around the rev limiter issue, the bike is still about 20 horsepower short of the approximately 175 horsepower that it takes to reach 200 mph.
The 2001-2007 bikes use a different ECM, and are restricted to about 185 mph through the use of an internal ignition timing retard that is built into the ECM. It functions only in 6th gear, as the bike is incapable of going any faster than about 185 mph in 5th gear due to the rev limiter. The 2001-2007 bikes are easy to identify, as they have 185 mph speedometer faces, and steel rear subframes.
The 1999-2000 bikes have their own (unrestricted) ECM, aluminum subframes, and 220 mph speedometer faces.
Here are some references:
http://www.sportrider.com/bikes/146_0110_hayabusa_zx_12r_top_speed/index.html
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt1922b.shtml
http://www.dixonarchive.com/hayabusa/performance.htm
http://www.ivansperformanceproducts.com/tre.htm
http://store.58cycle.com/product_p/tre.htm
I do not know how to properly install them into the article.
M4 work ( talk) 15:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand you're new to Wikipedia. That's why Tedder and I offered you links to the articles on verifiability, reliable sources, and original research. You want to know how Wikipedia works? Read. Or start with WP:5 and go from there.
In a nutshell, you're complaining about something that is at the heart of how WP works. Co-founder Larry Sanger quit and started his own encyclopedia because he wanted experts to have more say over non-experts. I'm not saying Wikipedia is perfect. I'm saying Wikipedia is Wikipedia. If you really want to change how WP works, please go debate that on the policy pages, not here.
I appreciate the links you provided and I'll read the articles and add the information to the article. WP:Citing sources is an article that can help you do that too.
With regard to changing it from "hypersport" to "supersport" I think we need to go with what the most common usage is. Telling people the Hayabusa is a "supersport" is going to totally confuse everyone. Suzuki usually calls the Hayabusa "Ultimate Sport" but nobody else uses that; Suzuki made it up. Supersport usually means bikes similar to those that race in the middleweight class, like a Daytona 675 or GSX-R600. No journalists call the Hayabusa a "supersport", and "hypersport" is a term used in many publications. But I understand why people bicker over terminology like this. Honda is cheeky enough to claim on their web site that their VFR1200F is a sport bike, not a sport touring bike. Every article written about the VFR1200F ignores Honda's opinions and calls it a sport touring. -- Dbratland ( talk) 15:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what you're talking about as far as going inside other people's comments. I thought I just posted at the bottom. If I made a mistake, then I apologize. In any case, thank you for fixing it.
I'm no IT geek. I'm a rider. I appreciate all the help I can get with correcting this page. The Hayabusa is an amazingly competent and versatile motorcycle. I would like to keep it civil and polite and all, but with all due respects, it is unfortunate that such a wonderful motorcycle is represented in such an embarassingly bad way by it's Wikipedia page. It is painfully obvious that much of the input came from folks who have never actually ridden a Hayabusa to it's limits.
I do understand that by it's very nature, the accuracy of Wikipedia is subject to the same degree of accuracy that anything else on the internet is. Any goofball can post something on the internet, and if it's repeated often enough, it begins to become accepted as fact by those who simply don't know any better. I do know better.
Rather than get all wrapped around the axle about the esoterics of editing, we should strive to make this Wikipedia page as accurate as we can. We're not there yet.
If we can finally put the restricted vs. unrestricted issue to bed, I'd like to offer an amazingly simple resolution. A link for OEM Suzuki parts:
http://www.suzukipartshouse.net/pages/parts/viewbybrand/1/Suzuki.aspx
Please note that ECM part number 32920-24F21 is the correct (16 bit) ECM for the 1999 ("X" suffix vehicle model) AND 2000 ("Y" suffix vehicle model) Hayabusa. The 2001-2007 ("K1" through "K7" suffix vehicle model) 32 bit ECMs are all represented by completely different part numbers.
I know I'm new here and a little clumsy, but I'm right about all of this stuff. I just need a little technical help.
M4 work ( talk) 09:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I just did. I'm going to try to do a few edits correctly. Thanks.
M4 work ( talk) 09:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
To finally put this question aside: I suggest to read the references posted here near the top speed, because they tells that the restricted model starts FROM 2001 model ( see https://web.archive.org/web/20120511012556/http://www.sportrider.com/bikes/146_0110_hayabusa_zx_12r_top_speed/index.html, for me the phrase "Beginning with 2001 models, Japanese manufacturers agreed to limit their motorcycles to top speeds of 186 mph, under the threat of "if-you-don't-we-will" legislation from European governments." is pretty clear and it is even clear that 2001 > 2000). Moreover the other reference ( https://web.archive.org/web/20040313154344/http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt1922b.shtml ) is a review of 2000 model and it is clear even here that the 2000 model is not restricted ( "Launched hard off the line, the Hayabusa hit 60 in only 2.6 seconds! And smashed through the 1/4 mile in a mere 9.8 seconds at 145.8 miles-per-hour! Figures bested only by the incredible result of Cycle World's top speed test, 194 miles-per-hour! We were impressed!").
Also, note that the agreement impose that the speedometer MUST BE limited at 299 km/h (186 mph) and the 1999-2000 models have the speedometer with max speed of 350 km/h.
The final proof of these claim comes from the OFFICIAL suzuki site (and I think that this site have the priority over any other unofficial web page, like the two before); on the official site one can check that the 1999 ("X" model) and 2000 ("Y" model) have the same pieces, they are identical and so the very simple logical consequence is that both models are unrestricted. See http://www.suzukipartshouse.net/oemparts/a/suz/50d40e98f8700230d8b50861/electrical, the central unit (the restriction is put inside the ECM, it's an electronic limit) is the same for both models (check the part 32920-24F21).
IF anyone has a reliable source (like an OFFICIAL suzuki site or an official paper site) that state the 2000 model is restricted, please cite it, otherwise the official suzuki site has the priority (even if even the unofficial site like the two already used state that 2000 model is unrestricted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.12.40.153 ( talk) 08:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok, so can you esplain the following sentece? "In any event, some phone calls to those in the know, and we had in our hands a Timing Retard Eliminator (TRE) from Ivan's Rockland County Motorcycle. Turns out the Hayabusa limiter works off gear position and rpm, and Ivan's gizmo informs the ECU it's in fifth gear all the time." Seems that the hayabusa limiter is at the level of ECU, so if the ECUs are the same it follows that both bikes are unrestricted.
Also I don't know why you want to block me, I was no rude and I offended nobody, I just want to improve an information that I think it's wrong (compared to the informations that I have, of course); for sake of the truth, I check ALL the pieces from the official suzuki site and there is no differences, not a single bolt differs from the 2 models, so the logic consequences is that it's impossible that one is restricted and the other is not, they have the same exact pieces, from the engine to the last bolt. I edit the article because I think that a piece-by-piece comparison on the official suzuki web site is far better than a couple of foggy references (they don't test the 2000 models or they base the deduction on the restriction over an agreement that is not a federal law or something more than an handshake agreement with no duty between manufacturer).
As discussed
above and elsewhere, the use of
WP:CITESHORT and
parenthetical referencing, along with {{
harvtxt}} (
examples) is not popular.
WP:CITEHOW says either style of footnotes is allowed, and even though I prefer Harvard style notes, I can see now that this style is somewhat of a barrier to particpation by other editors. It's a pain to create and maintain this style of footnotes, and it would be easier for everyone if this article just used the normal footnote style, where you put <ref>{{citation|title= Blah |publisher= Blah Blah Blah |year= 1234 |url= http://www.foo-bar-baz.com }}</ref>
rather than the two-part system in place now. I also think this page loads way too slowly and all the harvtxt templates might be to blame.
Since I'm the one who created all these {{ harvtxt}} notes, I will go ahead and put them back into the common style, although first I will probably format the recently-added bare URL refs. I'm pretty sure consensus favors that, but speak up if you really would rather keep this in Harvard style. -- Dbratland ( talk) 20:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
did suzuki produce a limited hayabusa in 2005, if so what color and how many units were produced —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.201.12 ( talk) 04:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the right place to rant about this. This article shows a man riding his bike without a helmet. Maybe you could consider removing or changing the picture. I made a comment about it in the main page and was kindly removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.176.15.163 ( talk) 04:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The Hayabusa engine, well two Hayabusa engines, have been put together and slightly modified by Hartley and put in the back of the Ariel Atom 500. The Atom's 3.0 L engine puts out a total of 500 bhp. The car is also the fastest to go around the Top Gear track, with a time of 1:15.1. I'm still learning how to cite on here (even though I've been on here a while), but I figured I should provide the information :)
http://www.topspeed.com/cars/ariel/2012-ariel-atom-v8-500-ar100592.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gear_test_track#The_Power_Board http://www.topgear.com/uk/photos/ariel-atom-v8?imageNo=2 (Project Free TV link to Top Gear Episode, it's the first 15 minutes or so after the introduction) http://www.free-tv-video-online.me/player/zshare.php?id=856325151a64fa3c (Hayabusa Forum) http://www.hayabusa.org/forum/random-thoughts/143898-when-2-hayabusa-engines-mate-what-you-get.html
-- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 15:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
This page needs a good going over, rewording required in many places. There is one mistake that particularly niggles me, but I can't correct it because I have no idea what the author is trying to say: "rounded nose squeezed frontal area away from the headlight". I suggest that the author might like discover what frontal area is: http://www.buechenet.com/tech-ed/dragster/aero.html Yevad ( talk) 09:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
This is continued from a conversation further up the page, which stretches over seven years and is impossible to parse since it doesn't follow talk page guidelines.
There's a bit of an edit war, involving 72bikers and one editor who operates from a number of IPs; I've warned two of the IPs for edit warring. 72bikers, I don't have to warn you since you know the score, and at any rate it's the other party who is not following policy. Their last edit was this one, and I'll cite the summary so I can explain: "Ok the parts list are not a reliable source (I don't understand why since it's from official suzuki site, instead of other sites that are at the level of blogs) but other references tells that the 2000 model is unrestricted,so why continue to refuse this?" Note that this edit reinstates this hobbling and awkward text, "See http://www.suzukipartshouse.net/oemparts/a/suz/50d40e98f8700230d8b50861/electrical, the central unit (the restriction is put inside the ECM, it's an electronic limit) is the same for both models (check the part 32920-24F21)", which is editorial commentary placed in a footnote.
First of all, if the parts list is not a reliable source you can't cite it--period. "It's from official suzuki site" misses the point. No one doubts that an official parts list lists parts correctly. The conversation is not about whether some part is listed or not: the question is whether there is a limiter or not. Explaining that part #123456789 is a limiter (or not) is not the job of Wikipedia editors: look up Wikipedia:No original research. That is why we require secondary sources. If the model is unrestricted (or whatever, I don't care), and "other references tells us" that, CITE those other sources. So, a. don't cite primary sources; b. cite secondary sources; c. don't put editorial comments in the text or the notes; d. stop edit warring: you revert this one more time and I will endorse that you be blocked, both IPs, and that the article be locked down--it's time to stop playing around and to start following our policies. I have no doubt that a block request will be approved by an independent admin not because I know about Suzukis (I don't, and I don't care about them) but because the policy violations and the inappropriate behavior is really blatant enough. So, having gotten that threat out of the way, please start discussion, right here, what the proper answer is to the query and how that is to be represented in the article. Drmies ( talk) 14:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I was reading right now, I understand, however I have a couple of things to clarify
I deduced from the same ECU number parts and from the procedure of "unrestriction" explained in one references that the 2000 model is unrestricted and this is not acceptable, I understand this BUT
Following the Wikipedia rules, can someone show a reliable reference that state, explicitly, that the model 2000 model is restricted? Because, even in the references cited in the article, all the information that I found is like " the SportRider review clearly states they did not test a 2000 model year Busa or ZX-12R but that there sister pub did "While we didn't have a chance to sample a Y2K ZX-12R or Hayabusa, our sister pub Motorcyclist conducted the same tests with its 2000 test units a year ago. Oddly enough, while both bikes ran sub-185 mph in perfect desert conditions, no hint of a limiter was found in the dyno room." So, if you cite a reference that clearly state that they DO NOT test the 2000 model, how can you tell that the 2000 model is restricted? You deduced it, by the fact that the reference cite ANOTHER reference (that I don't even read) that state the 2000 model doesn't go over 185 mph (on which condition? in which environment? In the same environment how the 1999 model perform?). Sorry but this kind of references and deduction, in my opinion, seems to be unreliable.
72bikers also write: "As all other sources clearly state speeds all blow 187mph for 2000 year models. What they are referring to with the 2001 model year statement, it is known how the bikes were limited but that in 2000 year model Busa and ZX it was not known how they were limited and all review state this as well, because there are no reviews of any 2000 year bike going above 187mph. Verifiable by this statement in that same Sport Rider review "We know for a fact that the 2001 ZX has updated cams and a black box, so it's a safe bet that last year's bikes were more subtly restricted to avoid attracting attention."" Where are these "all other sources"? I see only 2 references near the top speed of 1999 and 2000 version and none of them tell explicitly that the 2000 model is restricted. For example, the Hoyer (2007) only tells that "Sure, top speed was electronically limited to 186 mph in 2000..." but they don't tell that the specific 2000 model is restricted, you deduce it, because it should be noted that:
1) they say that the speed is electronically limited (which is exactly what I said before, so you can easily deduce that if the ECM is the same then they are the same bike, but this is not a proof that follows the Wiki rules, so put this aside)
2) more interesting, let's note that the model sell in 2000 is presented and produced starting from 1999, and in 1999 the agreement wasn't signed yet, so the models affected were the models selling from 2001 (as stated in reference "Trevitt, Andrew (June 2010), "Big Dogs: Derestriction; Uncorking the top-speed potential of the Hayabusa and ZX-12R", Sport Rider, archived from the original on May 11, 2012" that states "Yes, they're restricted. Beginning with 2001 models, Japanese manufacturers agreed to limit their motorcycles to top speeds of 186 mph, under the threat of "if-you-don't-we-will" legislation from European governments."
As you can understand, finding a secondary sources is near impossible right now, since nobody test a 18 years old motorcycle, so If Suzuki answer is not acceptable, If some user's test on it's own motorcycle is not acceptable, how can you put the question aside? Because, as I stated before, even the references that "prove" that 2000 model is restricted are a little foggy about the argument (they clearly not state explicitly that the model is restricted).
So, in my opinion, if a specific test/review of 2000 model is missing, it's better to leave the 2000 model without the max speed, for lack of data.
I think there are a few more sources besides these that directly address this point, but this is a pretty good cross section:
Restricted from 2000 and later:
the 1999 Hayabusa remains the only production motorcycle to have surpassed the 300-kilometer-per-hour mark.
As a sop to the road safety lobby, Suzuki restricted the top speed of later versions to a mere 186mph (300kph), which obviously makes a huge difference in everyday riding. For this reason, the original 1999 model will eventually be a sought-after classic.
(source added 16:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC). The June 2000 Motorcyclist had 3 separate articles all arguing their conclusion that the 2000 GSX1300R was restricted, even though offcialy Suzuki said the 1999 X model and 2000 Y model are identical. )
(end addition. --
Dennis Bratland (
talk) 16:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC))
Restricted from 2001 and later:
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
Suzuki didn't change anything on the bike from 1999-2006, apart from fitting a 300km/h (186mph) speed limiter for 2001. This was part of a 'gentlemen's agreement' between the major manufacturers to pre-empt government intervention to limit motorcycle performance.
(source added 21:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC) )
(end addition.
Dennis Bratland (
talk) 21:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC) )
All of the above sources are reliable, with strong reputations for expertise and fact checking. Based on this, what should we write? Either say that sources disagree, some saying the 2000 bikes were limited to 186mph/300kph, while others say both the 1999 and 2000 models were unrestricted, and the first restricted Hayabusa was the 2001 model. Or don't say anything: the salient point is that the first Hayabsua went much faster 186 mph, and following that, there was a voluntary reaction that limited the Hayabusa, ZX-12R and others to 186mph/300kph. We don't have to identify the exact model year of this. A technical manual or shopping guide, or how-to guide might need to get this date exactly right, but it's not an encyclopedic concern, per WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMANUAL etc.
I actually have been working on a proposal for a while to explicitly say in WP:NOT that we don't settle these questions. Wikipedia's prime function isn't to settle bar bets or help judge trivia night.
The question of the part number of the ECU, besides being original research because it draws a conclusion from primary sources, is meaningless. Why would the hardware need a different part number when what they changed was the software. They could have reprogrammed the same ECU without giving it a new part number. --
Dennis Bratland (
talk) 19:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I'm happy to see that there is someone that is accurate and show sources rather than only criticize and insists on the only two (not very precise at all) resource. I was waiting for this problem that you rightly encountered (because I made my own research and I reach the same conclusions as yours): I agree with you about the fact that Wikipedia is not the final arbiter of truth BUT in my opinion this is different from giving inaccurate information, I will explain it better: in this article I see ONLY the resources that make you guess the 2000 models is restricted, so in my opinion it's better to use the resources that you proposed here, because they are better, but there is a more deep problem: all the resources posted by you are reliable but some state one thing and some state the exact opposite, so as you can easily understand only some of them state the right information, but which? I think that it's not, as you said, a function of Wikipedia to search an answer to this question and exactly for that (in my opinion) the article should indicate the 2000 model speed as unknown, for lack of evident proof because some resource say one thing and other say the exact opposite, and all of them are reliable. If you put the 2000 model as restricted, you implicitly take a position and say, implicitly, that some of the reliable resource are wrong, but we have no data and no further informations to decide about this.
I add just one little fact, be free to believe this or not: if you change the software, when someone order the piece, how can you know if you should load the software for 1999 model or for 2000 model? You cannot and so, you might say, you load the software for the 2000 version; but, if we assume that the 2000 model is unrestricted, the 1999 is not, you have changed the parameter of the motorcycle and, for example, you can be no compliant anymore with federal standards, because you change some parameter; this could lead to possible complaints to the manufacturer because I bought an original piece of the bike but it is not really original as it has been modified without any indication. Did you remember the Volkswagen scandal? They had to inform the customers that, after the ECU modification, the car lose some Cv (and therefore some performance), for the Hayabusa is the same. How did I know this? Because 5 months ago I broke the ECU of my 1999 Hayabusa and I order exactly the one on the Suzuki site, and the motorcycle is exactly as before, so I'm pretty sure that, in this case at least, this piece is exactly the same, hardware and software; but, as I said, I wrote this curiosity because you give this kind and complete reply and I wanted to be precise as maximum as I can, but feel free to believe it or not
our sister pub Motorcyclist conducted the same tests with its 2000 test units a year ago. Oddly enough, while both bikes ran sub-185 mph in perfect desert conditions, no hint of a limiter was found in the dyno room."What they are referring to with the 2001 model year statement, it was known how the bikes were limited in 2001, but that in 2000 year model Busa and ZX it was not known how they were limited. To dispute this widely accepted fact, simply provide a verifiable credible source that show they tested a stock 2000 year motorcycle and exceeded the 186-187 mph restriction. It is really that simple. Not a source saying this year or that year was restricted but that they actually go on the record and publish that they took a stock 2000 year motorcycle to a speed exceeding the restriction. Cheers - 72bikers ( talk) 03:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Dennis Bratland provide some resource that state the restriction starts from 2000 and from 2001 models, so now this is the main problem: that there are a conflicts between resource and so we/you cannot decide which one is the right one, since all of them are reliable source. Moreover you insist on the fact that "our sister pub Motorcyclist conducted the same tests with its 2000 test units a year ago. Oddly enough, while both bikes ran sub-185 mph in perfect desert conditions, no hint of a limiter was found in the dyno room." but this is only a phrase, where are the official report of this test? If I must provide a resource that tested explicitly the 2000 model to prove that it's unrestricted, then you must do the same to show that it is restricted, but a phrase like this is not enough, I want to see the final report from this "Motorcyclist" resource, can you provide it? Moreover they clearly said that "no hint of a limiter was found in the dyno room" so how can you be sure that, in those conditions, a 1999 model perform better than a 2000? Maybe even a 1999 run sub-185 mph in these conditions, we cannot know this before a precise tests.
I add only one thing: all the hayabusa restricted version as far as I know, till 2016 version, were limited electronically, with a check on gear + rev, what makes you think that only the 2000 model had a different type of limitation? It would be very strange, especially considering that the procedure to unlock the hayabusa limitation, as explained explicitly in one resource, is to fool the ECU about the right gear.
Sincerely I don't know what is the problem of writing that there is a resources conflict and so the exact speed data of 2000 model is not known, instead of putting the 2000 model into the restricted models for sure. If we leave the data non available then further research will be left to the readers that want to know more about this fact.
I found, for example, "
http://www.motorcycledaily.com/2000/01/holybusa/" where they states that "Although essentially unchanged from the 1999 model" but we are searching for a specific review of the 2000 models, so a good beginning point is this blog: "
http://hyp4r.com/motorblog/suzuki-hayabusa-gsx1300r-performance-statistics-1st-generation-1999-2007/". I know that this IS NOT a valid resource itself BUT if someone can find one of the article cited here (for example "PERFORMANCE BIKES [June 2000]" or "CYCLEWORLD [June 2000]" or "SPORTBIKE MAGAZINE [June 2000]" they review the 2000 model and so we will have a reliable resources. Note that it will be interesting to see even the resource that you have already use (" MOTORCYCLIST MAGAZINE [June 2000]") to confirm the fact (states in this blog) that the test was performed at an elevation 2400 feet above sea level, which is not quite a standard condition.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
188.12.40.153 (
talk) 07:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
As I said, I cited the blog to provide a list of some sources, and it could be great if we can find some of them, like Cycle World because the data of zx-12 is the same one as indicated in blog, so IF even the data states for hayabusa is right (191 mph) then this is the final proof that it is unrestricted BUT we need to see these references because, as you said, this is only a blog and is not a reliable source.
Moreover, I read the resource that you provide ("
https://web.archive.org/web/20120407081128/http://www.cycleworld.com/2012/04/02/fifty-years-of-do-you-have-any-idea-how-fast-you-were-going/2//") and they don't explicitly say that the zx-12 was the fastest motorcycle in 2000, they only say "In 2000, Kawasaki returned fire with a new ZX-12R. A hush fell over the crowd. Will it do 200? No, it won’t. In fact, it wouldn’t even go 190—only a sluggish 187. It wanted to go faster, but it couldn’t, because it was electronically limited." but nowhere they mention that it is the fastest of 2000.
I just see right now that Dennis (many many thanks for your time and your contributions to the discussion) add the resource that we are talking about, the one from Cycle World, see his previous comment (link to resources:
http://www.cycleworld.com/kawasaki-ninja-zx-12r-sportbike-road-test-motorcycle-review#page-2), what do you think? Can we count it as a reliable resource/information? As you say before, Cycle World is a very reliable source.
P.S. I saw yesterday your last comment but I had no time to reply, to make it clear for all other users, the models code are:
X=1999
Y=2000
K1=2001, and so on (I think, but I'm not sure about this detail, that the code K stand for 2K and so 2K1=2001, 2K2=2002 and so on)
<br<
I've been patient until now but now you make me losing my patience because it's obvious that you're behaving so well to look for insulting talk. First of all, I admit and I thought that it is EVIDENT that I miss click over your section (while I was editing and I thought that I have fixed your comment, so I'm sorry about this issue) but please keep the blocking threats for yourself (because they are useless since, as you (I hope) know, the IP address is dynamic so you can block any IP that you want, I will have a new IP in a couple of minutes; this explanation is to prove that IF a person want to ruin the article or the discussion, it is not an IP block that can stop him, but it is evident that I'm not that person, since I spend here hours to discuss and provide resources and anything else.
About you claim, have you read the reference from Cycle world that Dennis add in his comment and that I repost in my reply? I answer for you: NO, because if you read this you can find that "The gun gave us the Ninja’s numbers: 187-mph top speed and 10.04 seconds in the quarter-mile. Pretty comprehensible, really. Not the fastest, not the quickest. Damn fast and damn quick, yes, but the Hayabusa forged just a little deeper in its maximum exertions, delivering 194 mph and 9.86 seconds" AND more important "If Kawasaki tamed its tour de force, did Suzuki do the same to the GSX1300R? Apparently not yet (at least on U.S. models), as the Y2K Suzuki managed 191 mph, just 3 mph slower than our 1999 ’Busa’s best.". So, because mathematics is no an opinion, 191 mph > 187 mph and so they CANNOT say explicitly that zx12 is the fastest motorcycle of 2000 (and they don't say it in fact).
So, because of all this resources, some of them are indicated even by you as the best of the best, i.e. Cycle World (that state the bike is not restricted, by the way) my proposal is:
1)Add, in the table of the performance, the data for the 2000 model from Cycle World (this seems to be the one that test explicitly a 2000 model); we can even indicate the review from "Burns, John (June 2000), "Kawasaki ZX-12R", Motorcyclist, p. 41-" but with the indication that the test was performed 2400 feet above sea level (since, as you know, with the altitude the performance decrese, so you can lose easily some mph with respect to the sea level.
2)Add all this refecences (or at least some of the most important, posted by Dennis) near to 2000 model into the characteristics box, removing the model from the restricted and leaving the 2000 years alone, with no indication of maximum speed, because of this references contrast.
I ask to you, Dennis, Drmies and 72bikers, what do you think about this solution? In my opinion, it's the best way to solve this indecision, without taking a position and leaving the references, so the readers can search for further information by theirself.
Have you read my comments above? Because if you read it, there are 2 cases: I'm not able to write in english or you cannot understand it, because I'm NOT state that no one can block me, where did you read this EXACT phrase in my post? I say that block a person that spend some hours in discussion to improve an article is useless since MAYBE this person is not here to cause trouble and to ruin the article and MAYBE everyone can make a mistake, and as you can read, I ADMIT that I make a mistake, so please don't misunderstand my world.
Also, seems that you the one that are here to just cause trouble, since, I copy your EXACT phrase:
" Cycle World is one of the most highly respected and most reliable source there is, they have been in the motorcycle business for over 50 years, they are the one that published the 1999 Hayabusa could achieve a top speed of 194mph. I believe they are the only source to do this and so highly respected that all others just refer to there findings. ". Dennis post and I re-post again the resource about the test of hayabusa 2000 model from this EXACT source, I copy here:
"Hoyer, Mark (June 2000), "ZX-12R; Kawasaki's Ultimate Weapon makes a politically correct debut", Cycle World, vol. 39 no. 6, pp. 37–43 alt url
p. 37 "The gun gave us the Ninja's Numbers: 187-mph top speed and 10.04 seconds in the quarter mile"
p. 38 "The bottom line, according to Kawasaki USA, is that the biggest Ninja has been slightly neutered, its engine-control unit altered (and possibly, said our source, final gearing) to reduce the bike's top speed to within proposed limits, which, practically speaking, it now is. This led us to wonder about the 2000 Hayabusa. If Kawasaki tamed its tour de force, did Suzuki do the same to the GSX1300R? Apparently not yet (at least on U.S. Models), as the Y2K Suzuki managed 191 mph, just 3 mph slower than our 1999 'Busa's best.""
THEN you reply with: "IP editor again I will inform you your blog information is useless. And you have not provided any proof to change the current article."
My question is: Are you kidding me?
I admit EXPLICITLY that the blog was ONLY to provide a POSSIBLE list of resources, Dennis understand it and kindly provide this resources, and now you have the courage to say that I/we have not provided any proof to change the current article. If you go back and read Dennis post, you can find TONS of resources, from both points of view (unrestricted after 2001 and unrestricted after 2000) so now and here you must explain to me/ to us WHY we should give more weight to the resources that state the 2000 is restricted instead of the other. I think that there is NOT a reason, a because of this contrast I propose the change write above.
IP edit (
talk) 22:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The consensus is for Option B. Jojhnjoy's suggestion summarizes the consensus: "The best option here would be adding a comment that says something like 'source abc says x and source xyz says y'."
Which of three positions about the first Suzuki Hayabusa (GSX1300R) to be speed restricted to approximately 298–301 km/h (185–187 mph) should be written in Wikipedia articles? That *only* the 1999 (code X) Hayabusa was not speed restricted, or that both the 1999 and 2000 (code Y) model years were unrestricted, or that we are not sure because sources don't agree? -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Top speed | 1999 303–312 km/h (188–194 mph) 2000–present 299 km/h (186 mph) |
---|
Top speed | 1999, 2000? 303–312 km/h (188–194 mph) 2000 or 2001 to present 299 km/h (186 mph) |
---|
Top speed | 1999–2000 303–312 km/h (188–194 mph) 2001–present 299 km/h (186 mph) |
---|
The bullet points above describe the general sense of what the article should say. Exact wording will be edited or style, to suit the context, etc. Whether we present these statements without comment, or go into fuller detail about what each source said is left to later editorial discretion. Opinions and suggestions are welcome but this RfC is to decide only if we should say the bike was unrestricted in "1999-only", "unrestricted 1999 AND 2000", or go with "unrestricted in 1999 for sure, and ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ maybe 2000 ". Sources all agree that 1999 was definitely unrestricted, and 2001 and later were definitely restricted, but recognized reliable sources (below) don't agree on about the 2000 model year.
This decision will affect the articles Suzuki Hayabusa, Fastest production motorcycle, and perhaps Kawasaki Ninja ZX-12R, Motorcycle testing and measurement, and other articles and lists. Suzuki Hayabusa has consistently been the most-viewed article about a model of motorcycle for several years. The question, What was the fastest motorcycle of 2000, the Hayabusa or the ZX-12R?, is not in the scope of this RfC, but use the discussion section as you wish.
Sources
|
---|
Copies of offline sources can be emailed upon request or via Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Other sources on this subject may exist, but these represent the typical published coverage surrounding this issue. Feel free to share other sources that are relevant.
|
Sorry Dennis if I post in the wrong section, I think that the best option is the B, in this cases the neutral point of view is, in my opinion, the best way to resolve issues. IP edit ( talk) 22:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
See WP:V. Voting on „which option is correct“ does not comply with the basic Wikipedia rules regarding sources. The best option here would be adding a comment that says something like "source abc says x and source xyz says y". -- Jojhnjoy ( talk) 22:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Top speed | 1999 303–312 km/h (188–194 mph) [Comment 1] |
---|
There are 2 related but distinct problems to deal with. 1) When did the change okay, accurate to the month or at least quarter year. 2) How to describe this so that Americans with their year-ahead model year system and non-Americans using calendar years don't get confused.
American sources tend to (but not always) use model years. For Americans, a 2000 bike was actually introduced sometime in mid 1999 calendar year. For the rest of the world a 2000 bike was introduced in mid calendar year 2000. Sometimes Americans sources will say 'in 2000' to mean the calendar year 2000 and 'for 2000' to mean the year-ahead model year (ie introduced in mid 1999 calendar year). The difference is subtle and not always adhered to such that even Americans don't always know which they are talking about. It gets worse when somebody is using multiple sources and uses the 'years' without due care (sometimes mixing them up without realising it). Some of the sources in the RFC say that the 2000 model year was restricted, so it's likely that the speed restrictions came in sometime in mid 1999 calendar year - the 6 week pause seems a likely time but I'm not interested in drilling through mountains of data myself.
Once you have found the change date, you will need to describe it in terms like (change the exact date to suit) 'The bike was unrestricted before Oct 1999 and restricted after that date'. Phrases like 'the 2000 model' will mean different things to different readers (Europeans will think the model introduced in mid 2000 calendar year, Americans will think the model introduced in mid 1999 calendar year). Avoid the word 'model' (eg 'the 2000 model') unless you make it blatantly clear with phrases like 'in 1999, for the 2000 model year, the speed was restricted'. Even this is easy to read wrong, so the month is a much, much clearer way to state it.
According to WP:MODELYEARS, vehicles sold in places besides America should not use model years, although you can add phrases like 'in 1999, for the 2000 model year,' to help Americans understand what's happening. Americans really do think only in their year-ahead model year scheme and get confused when presented with calendar years. But that's just one market compared to the rest of the world which gets really confused with American model years. And doubly unfortunate that both systems often looks exactly the same when written down but mean different things. That's why it's so much better to write months (even Americans know that August 1999 is part of the 1999 calendar year when talking abut vehicles) or to at least specify 'model year' or 'MY' when we mean model year. It's a quagmire but not impossible. Stepho talk 22:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Cook (June 2000) and others say the 2000 model year was restricted, while Hoyer (June 2000) and others say the 2000 MY was unrestricted. The three options (as I see it) are A: ignore the sources that say the 2000 was unrestricted, C: ignore the sources that say the 2000 was restricted, or B: take the middle ground between A and C, and say that we know 1999 was unrestricted, and we know 2001 was restricted, but for 2000 sources don't agree.
We all have unverifiable, original research theories to explain the contradictions, such as mechanical defects, or an undocumented mid-model year change, or even deeper subterfuge by Suzuki or the media for unexplained motives, but none of that is encyclopedic. All we have is what's in these sources, and we need to find a consensus on what to say about it in the article namespace. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
So we have a YouTube video from Motorcyclenews.com that shows us at 4:39 a shipping crate label that says GSX1300RRQM2 E02 2535. This is the only known use of "GSX-1300RR". But it actually says GSX1300RRQM2. We just choose to rationalize it to really mean GSX1300RR? Or GSX-1300RR? We don't know. If we're going to take this crate sticker literally, then we need to call it GSX1300RRQM2. Or GSX1300RRQM2 E02 2535? Seriously?
At Suzuki's global site we see GSX-R1000/R and GSX-750 and such, but only Hayabusa, not GSX-1300-anything. It's not mentioned in the press release. That's where we'd see a name change.
A packing crate label is just a packing crate label. If they have changed the model code, they will say so clearly. It shouldn't require sleuthing to figure out. Just leave it out for now. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I wonder if the journalists have picked up the extra R from the color code? I found this on the Suzuki.ca website today: GSX1300RRQ- Glass Sparkle Black/Candy Burnt Gold GSX1300RQZ- Metallic Mat Sword Silver/Candy Daring Red Deepmac ( talk) 03:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Suzuki Hayabusa article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Suzuki Hayabusa was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
October 23, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the 1999
Suzuki Hayabusa (pictured) was named the fastest production
motorcycle of the 20th century? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The #s on 1/4 mile times and top speed thru the 1/4 mile wer 5 June 2006 (UTC)
First reference ( http://www.qsl.net/n5mya/testdata.html) does not work anymore. Please find a new article if you know where it has moved.
I'm removing the stub tag, since this does not seem the case anymore. nihil 21:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think having MSRP is relevant. Even if it is, I don't think this is the correct place. MSRP can change year to year and won't be accurate.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Budlight ( talk • contribs) 19 September 2006
I've kinda gotten tired of the bad information that has been consistently supplied in this article. I have changed the numbers to one that came from a much more updated and reliable source. The previous source was over 7 years old and the information listed wasn't even quoted right in the article. If you have a problem with this, bring a source that is both from a major publication and that was updated after October 2005. If they aren't, just don't even bother. What would be even better is if it was a comparision test between the Hayabusa and the ZX-14 since these are the two major players in the hyper sport market. Thoughts? Roguegeek ( talk) 02:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
While stating hp numbers, everybody please mind the difference between crank hp and rear wheel hp, as well as the difference between US hp and European hp. A regular US Hayabusa dyno run will bring up between 150 and 155 (rear wheel) hp for a 1999-2007 model. European performance sheets will state 175 (crank) hp for the same bike. Shark Abuser ( talk) 07:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I do NOT agree with ANY of the numbers in this article. New UPDATED numbers should NOT be used at ALL on the models between 1999-2000. I have complete and utter proof that a 1999 Hayabusa in England was LIDAR clocked at 200.2 MPH in DEAD STOCK form. I had purchased a BRAND NEW stock Hayabusa in 1999, the FIRST thing I did was take it to a Dyno shop in Knoxville Tennessee. This was a HARLEY dealership and they did NOT like my bike being there. However, they ran it on the dyno, the DAY AFTER I purchased the bike. I had NO TIME to mod it at ALL. It performed at 168RWHP. This can be documented by calling or posting the printout from the DYNO results from Harley of Knoxville.
It should also be noted that the speedometer on the 1999-2000 bikes read 220MPH while the late 2001 to current read 185MPH. The 1999-2000 Bike operated WAY differently then the later models.
The 1999-2000 had a 16 bit ECM(Electronic Control Module) made by Nippon Denso. The late 2001 to late 2007 versions have a 32 bit ECM. While the 2008 version has been completely changed in every way.
So honestly, they are 3 different bikes, with 3 different behaviors. I believe these things are worth mentioning on the main page.
If you apply your rationale on model year to every automotive article on Wikipedia, we'd have to append "model year" to all year related content to every article. Good thing the content of the article actually says:
Roguegeek ( talk) 19:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The BHP figures for both(for 1999-2007 and 2008) should be the same scale, either crank or rear wheel , at the moment the 1999-2007 section shows RWBHP(156.1) and the 2008 section shows CBHP(194) ,ty Dognosh ( talk) 16:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I fixed the Gen 1, 99-07 hp horsepower qualifications - removing the invalid "RWBHP" descriptor and changing it to "hp". It is still wrong though, as it's still not described as "djhp" (dynojet horsepower) horsepower [26]as compared to "true" or "effective" horsepower, but attempts to further qualify "horsepower" get reverted back.
On the Gen 2, 08-09, the "194hp" is still the "manufacturer's claim". It should be qualified as "claimed crankshaft bhp" and should probably be referenced to a Suzuki publication. Marc Salvisberg ( talk) 16:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Given the WP:TRIVIA guideline I would like to propose the deletion of the section Hayabusa in popular culture since there has been a failure to properly integrate that section into the text.
Also IMO the content of that section fails to meet the WP:REL guideline since the bollywood movie Dhoom has absolutelly nothing to do with the Hayabusa. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 05:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
changed the term "timing retard" to "timing lock" since it could have been offensive, who ever wrote that, your personal oppinion should stay out of a factual webpage, this is user edited, yes, but, your personal oppinion should stay out of this, get a live journal if you want to rant to the world.
( Racerboy ( talk) 02:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC))
Try looking up what a timing retard is before accusing me of ranting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignition_timing
http://www.hayabusacentral.co.uk/shop/product.asp?idproduct=31
http://www.mpsracing.com/products/Schnitz/ho01.asp
(
Micky750k (
talk) 09:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC))
haha. He didn't know what timing retard meant.
I think you guys have a bit of a typo for the 2008's top speed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.190.42 ( talk) 11:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to find bit more info on the gentleman's agreement between the big 4 japanese manufacturers in 99/00 to avoid regulation - there was fair bit about it back in the day in magazines, but google just seems to bring up ways of bypassing it.
Its mentioned here by no source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentlemen%E2%80%99s_agreement
-- Micky750k ( talk) 08:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
What exactly do you want to know about it? I pretty much have had the bike since it was launched and have been very much into the culture of it. There really isn't much more about the issue, as they just did it in order to stop government regulation and insurance black-balling. They were all pretty much fine with the idea and the process took place in less then a year. There really isn't much news about it, because they were all ok with doing it, as government regulation and insurance black-balling would have killed the business entirely for this class of motorcycle. It was a simple easy choice and they have all stuck to the agreement. I am just glad I had an original bike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.186.201 ( talk) 10:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The workpage on my revision of his article is almost ready to go live. Some notes:
|abbr=on
. The first use of units in the body text (ignoring infoboxes and tables) should Wikilink units with |lk=on
-- Dbratland ( talk) 15:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
is relatively short, and the longer full citations are collected together in one place. So anything under References that doesn't correspond to a footnote should be deleted -- there are some left over from the old version that I have to clean up.I had to get rid of the section on the East Yorkshire police Hayabusa. It leads back to a Youtube video that is probably violating copyright and doesn't have good information on what media outlet produced it. You can find it easily searching "police hayabusa" in Google video or Youtube. There's also pictures out there of a black and white police Hayabusa, not from OHP or the Yorkshire police; not sure if it is real. Hopefully this can be put back if better sources are found.-- Dbratland ( talk) 05:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I really fail to see the need to have any old image at the top of the article as long as it meets the Wikiproject Automobiles image convention. It's only a guideline used by a different project than motorcycling, which the motorcycling project falls back on when there's nothing else to go on.
But most of these bike articles cover several models, such as the two in this article. And the Hayabusa article also covers a number of other topics, including the production speed record, the gentleman's agreement, the Hayabusa's sales success, custom bikes, and other uses of the engine. The lead image needs to somehow try to cover the whole article, not just show you what a previous-generation 2007 model looks like. A modified bike at Bonneville Speedway conveys some of these things at once. I don't think a single image could hit every single topic, but this comes close.
The principle is that the lead image is part of the lead section and it should help to serve as "both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article."
Kawasaki Ninja 250R is an example of a similar approach. The individual generations each have a section, and as far as we can manage we have an image of that version that follows the image convention. But the lead image for the article tries to tell you something more, in this case a typical street scene of someone riding the bike. -- Dbratland ( talk) 17:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included at Talk:WikiProject Motorcycling.-- Dbratland ( talk) 17:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
What I see as the problem with point #5 of the convention is that it fails to take into account Wikipedia:Lead section, and instead mandates that the lead picture be a redundant imitation of the illustration that appear further down in the article for each version or generation. So yes, the detailed infoboxes should have rigidly conventional illustrations of what that one looks like, but the lead image should be less restrictive and try to summarize or represent the content of the whole article.
An alternative for this article might be the speed trials burnout, if the Bonneville picture is too cryptic. But the blandness and redundancy of showing the same thing several times does not work.
This image standard has done a lot of damage, if you ask me. Look at these Featured and Good Articles: Maserati MC12, Ford BA Falcon, Toyota Aurion, Toyota Matrix, etc. Every one of them shows the same view of the same car at least twice. Why? Because you win points for slavishly adhering to the convention, that's the only justification. Toyota Aurion even has a nearly identical shot of the same silver colored car; the only difference is that it's pointed left instead of right. It's kind of sad.-- Dbratland ( talk) 19:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
But I can see not having an infobox in the lead if that is the sticking point. It appears the Bonneville picture doesn't have much support but I'm hoping to get closer to a consensus on what a good motorcycle article looks like so we can make more like it. So perhaps without the infobox, and with an alternative image, we can have something in the lead that is more general and that doesn't duplicate the infobox pictures -- Dbratland ( talk) 01:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't this really belong in the engine power and torque section of Motorcycle testing and measurement? Since it covers all motorcycles, not just the Hayabusa? And Motorcycle testing and measurement really needs some love.
(And yes, that is another shot of our friend Bonneville Hayabusa Guy. This is the same bike. They're all from here) -- Dbratland ( talk) 19:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
In good humor -
I've written a fair amount of hp and testing stuff - and there's more uninformed junk written about motorcycles than I can believe. :-)
If we don't explain a reason as to why there's 175 , 155, 162 on the page, you get is people whining about how the "numbers aren't right". They aren't necessarily right - I gave the reason, with refs, as to why. I also addressed the "99's are the strongest impression in the post. Providing ref, gave a hp range and educated the reader as to what is expected in the real world, bike to bike. The mags grab ONE bike (supplied by Suzuki), on "some" dyno and report that hp number. Other people test lots and average the results.
I wouldn't disagree with you that other parts of wikipedia don't need help - but, what I wrote informed the specific Hayabusa inquirer as to HP numbers - as he's not going to look at the goofy numbers and then trudge through wikipedia to find out why.
So - I'm thinking that the post was appropriate -
Thanks - Marc Salvisberg ( talk) 20:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
And I would ask you, do you see anywhere on this talk page anyone whining that "the numbers aren't right?" This is the most popular article about a motorcycle, getting around 40,000 hits a month. They seem happy with that aspect, probably because the table specifically tells you where the number came from, and people realize YMMV. If we do start seeing readers complaining that the numbers make no sense, we can respond to that but so far it hasn't happened.
But it would be very helpful if you can find better sources and then help expand Motorcycle testing and measurement. I agree with the others that this is too biased; it isn't an independent source and they're touting their own testing over their competitors. Perhaps it's true, but it's also self-serving and that makes them no good as a source. You need a neutral source, such as a mechanical engineering journal, or reputable magazine, or textbook.-- Dbratland ( talk) 21:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
"* It's probably sub-optimal to stuff so many competing stats into bhp, torque and weight in the "infoboxes. Should choose one representative, or use a range like 159–162.6 bhp (119–121 kW). The "whole lot of them can be put into a table under the Performance section.
This is funny - YOU (chuckle) whined and suggested ranging HP numbers, did nothing and I did something , and explained it......
And I am whining.... 175? 155? 162? That's not realistic and makes me ignore anything technical in the article. It's not a source for professionals or even at a dealership level, yet.
I know the average Busa owner isn't the most tech savvy, so I'd not expect many "Talk", but you did get one or two, I see - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc Salvisberg ( talk • contribs) 22:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure this is correctly sourced as being from Koblenz, Jay (June 1999), "99 Suzuki GSX1300R Hayabusa; Bullet Train On Wheels (model evaluation)", Motorcycle Consumer News (Irvine, California: Aviation News Corp): 30-33, ISSN 1067-8697 1073-9408, 1067-8697 (except the link http://www.worldcat.org/issn/1073-9408, tells me "Sorry, we cannot identify the location you entered. Please re-enter your location." when I try to check) but mechanically and mathematically it doesn't make any sense:A distinctive feature of the Hayabusa engine was its abundance of low end torque. In comparison with the CBR1100XX and the ZX-11, the shape of the horsepower graphs is very similar for all three engines, but the Hayabusa's torque graph departs from the other two early in the RPM range and stays well above them from 3000 through 9000 rpm. This difference has little effect on the ultimate top speed of these motorcycles, but it makes the Hayabusa less demanding to ride by giving the rider a wider margin for error in choosing the right gear for a given speed. I can't tell what would be best to do with it. MalcolmMcDonald ( talk) 22:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I fixed that weird comparison of dyno charts that weren't referenced or cited. What they meant was that the cbr1100xx (what year?) was just a teeny bit faster than the zx11 (what year?) and the 99 Busa made much more power at every rpm. don't know what that 9000 rpm reference was. fwiw, Looking at my own cbr1100xx and zx11 dyno charts, they both went 170ish with stock gearing at redline. Looks like the Gen 1 Busa went about 10 mph faster at the tach redline. I don't know what the "official" top speeds were for all 3 bikes. Marc Salvisberg ( talk) 17:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I just bought a Hayabusa 2004 , imported from USA (with miles) and as I live in Europe I would like to have it in kilometers. I've heard that it's possible to convert it. Does anybody know how to convert miles into kilometers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.119.163.242 ( talk) 23:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
"171.1 bhp (128 kW)[27] Rear wheel 151.5–162.6 bhp (113–121 kW) bhp @ 9500–9750 rpm, See performance and measurements"
All power figures are useless as they are improperly scaled, unscaled and most are uncited. Marc Salvisberg ( talk) 20:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
With regard to Jay Koblenz's comparison of the horsepower graphs in his 1999 Motorcycle Consumer News article: Koblenz meets Wikipedia's criteria as a reliable source. That does not mean everything Koblenz says is the " truth", it means that his perspective passes the minimum standard required by Wikipedia for inclusion in an article. Other opinions, which also meet Wikipedia's standards, should also be included. If you can cite sources which disagree with Koblenz, please add them to the article -- other than your own company's web site, which, unfortunately, fails to meet the criteria in WP:RS. If Koblenz is really so wrong, you ought to have no trouble finding reliable sources which say so.
I will be restoring the bit about the horsepower graphs from the Motorcycle Consumer News article unless there is consensus against doing so. My opinion here is that giving the reader horsepower figures that disagree with each other helps the reader understand that experts disagree on the subject of horsepower measurement, and there is no one "true" horsepower figure for any bike. But we can verify that the source published a particular figure, even if that figure is an outlier in comparison with other published numbers. -- Dbratland ( talk) 19:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not clear on the concept..... you want me to find some print magazine that says the you need a brake dyno to do brake horsepower tests? You keep stubbornly editing listing inertia dyno tests as Brake HorsePower (BHP). Might be pretty hard to find a statement as elemental as that. Some times you just have to know that ice is cold and fire is hot.
Maybe you should cite "BHP". http://www.thefreedictionary.com/b.h.p.? <smile> Marc Salvisberg ( talk) 09:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
What I object to are your COI edits. Factory Pro claims their product is superior to Dynojet. Of course you would say that. Buy an advertisement somewhere touting your company's product. Please do not try to edit Wikipedia articles to make the articles take sides in your dispute with your competitor over whose dyno is better. If a third party reliable source publishes a horsepower figure, it should be cited, along with figures from other reliable sources. Which figure is "true"? Not our problem.
Some people might disagree with the way Jay Koblenz described the Hayabusa power curve, but his opinions meet Wikipedia's criteria and so can be cited. Other reliable sources have said similar things; they are widely held opinions.
Remember, Wikipedia is only an encyclopedia intended to give readers general information. It is not a buyer's guide for which bike has the most power, or whose dyono is the best. If the figures we give on horsepower are a little fuzzy or contradictory, there's nothing wrong with that. Professional racers or tuners know where to find more precise information, and Wikipedia is not it.
And once again, I invite you to use your expertise to make Motorcycle testing and measurement a better article. That article is the best place for you to explain inertia dyno tests and bhp. -- Dbratland ( talk) 19:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia, but I'm not new to the Hayabusa. There was some incorrect information regarding which model years were restricted and which model years were unrestricted. There is so much information readily available, frankly I was a little surprised. Anyway, I corrected it as best as possible.
FWIW:
1999 and 2000 models were not restricted.
2001 and later models were restricted.
M4 work ( talk) 22:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Of course, if what we're talking about is original research, then it needs to be published in some other media first, then it can be cited. I would assume that anybody who has been around Hayabusas for a long time must be able to easily lay their hands on quite a bit of good published material.
Any explanation for blanking the custom scene section? -- Dbratland ( talk) 00:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure how this Wikipedia thing works, but this particular article is full of wrong information. Do you even own a Hayabusa? I earned my expert road racing license on my 2000 Hayabusa. I can find references for this information, but it's kind of pointless, because the wrong information in the Wikipedia page is based on wrong information published elsewhere, or even mis-quoted, and I'm really not inclined to spend a bunch of time helping out if someone who's only experience with the Hayabusa is a google search, is just going to mess it all up again.
For example, no stock Hayabusa has ever been capable of the 200 mph (with just a pipe and an airbox) as claimed in the "Custom Scene" section of the article, and the article cited doesn't even say that. What the article cited actually says, is that a pipe and an airbox will allow the Hayabusa to APPROACH 200 mph, and even that isn't right. A modified airbox will actually LOWER the top speed of a Hayabusa, although it can help the acceleration a little bit at lower speeds, up to about 150 mph, like on a drag strip. Even with a fresh rear tire, a completely stock unrestricted 1999-2000 Hayabusa will hit the rev limiter at no more than 196-197 (actual) mph, although it takes EXCELLENT body position by the rider to do that. Most people don't, and that's why we saw tests of the same unrestricted bikes, with top speeds all over the map, from about 180 mph to about 194 mph. Even if you changed the stock 17/40 final drive for a 17/39 to get around the rev limiter issue, the bike is still about 20 horsepower short of the approximately 175 horsepower that it takes to reach 200 mph.
The 2001-2007 bikes use a different ECM, and are restricted to about 185 mph through the use of an internal ignition timing retard that is built into the ECM. It functions only in 6th gear, as the bike is incapable of going any faster than about 185 mph in 5th gear due to the rev limiter. The 2001-2007 bikes are easy to identify, as they have 185 mph speedometer faces, and steel rear subframes.
The 1999-2000 bikes have their own (unrestricted) ECM, aluminum subframes, and 220 mph speedometer faces.
Here are some references:
http://www.sportrider.com/bikes/146_0110_hayabusa_zx_12r_top_speed/index.html
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt1922b.shtml
http://www.dixonarchive.com/hayabusa/performance.htm
http://www.ivansperformanceproducts.com/tre.htm
http://store.58cycle.com/product_p/tre.htm
I do not know how to properly install them into the article.
M4 work ( talk) 15:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand you're new to Wikipedia. That's why Tedder and I offered you links to the articles on verifiability, reliable sources, and original research. You want to know how Wikipedia works? Read. Or start with WP:5 and go from there.
In a nutshell, you're complaining about something that is at the heart of how WP works. Co-founder Larry Sanger quit and started his own encyclopedia because he wanted experts to have more say over non-experts. I'm not saying Wikipedia is perfect. I'm saying Wikipedia is Wikipedia. If you really want to change how WP works, please go debate that on the policy pages, not here.
I appreciate the links you provided and I'll read the articles and add the information to the article. WP:Citing sources is an article that can help you do that too.
With regard to changing it from "hypersport" to "supersport" I think we need to go with what the most common usage is. Telling people the Hayabusa is a "supersport" is going to totally confuse everyone. Suzuki usually calls the Hayabusa "Ultimate Sport" but nobody else uses that; Suzuki made it up. Supersport usually means bikes similar to those that race in the middleweight class, like a Daytona 675 or GSX-R600. No journalists call the Hayabusa a "supersport", and "hypersport" is a term used in many publications. But I understand why people bicker over terminology like this. Honda is cheeky enough to claim on their web site that their VFR1200F is a sport bike, not a sport touring bike. Every article written about the VFR1200F ignores Honda's opinions and calls it a sport touring. -- Dbratland ( talk) 15:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what you're talking about as far as going inside other people's comments. I thought I just posted at the bottom. If I made a mistake, then I apologize. In any case, thank you for fixing it.
I'm no IT geek. I'm a rider. I appreciate all the help I can get with correcting this page. The Hayabusa is an amazingly competent and versatile motorcycle. I would like to keep it civil and polite and all, but with all due respects, it is unfortunate that such a wonderful motorcycle is represented in such an embarassingly bad way by it's Wikipedia page. It is painfully obvious that much of the input came from folks who have never actually ridden a Hayabusa to it's limits.
I do understand that by it's very nature, the accuracy of Wikipedia is subject to the same degree of accuracy that anything else on the internet is. Any goofball can post something on the internet, and if it's repeated often enough, it begins to become accepted as fact by those who simply don't know any better. I do know better.
Rather than get all wrapped around the axle about the esoterics of editing, we should strive to make this Wikipedia page as accurate as we can. We're not there yet.
If we can finally put the restricted vs. unrestricted issue to bed, I'd like to offer an amazingly simple resolution. A link for OEM Suzuki parts:
http://www.suzukipartshouse.net/pages/parts/viewbybrand/1/Suzuki.aspx
Please note that ECM part number 32920-24F21 is the correct (16 bit) ECM for the 1999 ("X" suffix vehicle model) AND 2000 ("Y" suffix vehicle model) Hayabusa. The 2001-2007 ("K1" through "K7" suffix vehicle model) 32 bit ECMs are all represented by completely different part numbers.
I know I'm new here and a little clumsy, but I'm right about all of this stuff. I just need a little technical help.
M4 work ( talk) 09:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I just did. I'm going to try to do a few edits correctly. Thanks.
M4 work ( talk) 09:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
To finally put this question aside: I suggest to read the references posted here near the top speed, because they tells that the restricted model starts FROM 2001 model ( see https://web.archive.org/web/20120511012556/http://www.sportrider.com/bikes/146_0110_hayabusa_zx_12r_top_speed/index.html, for me the phrase "Beginning with 2001 models, Japanese manufacturers agreed to limit their motorcycles to top speeds of 186 mph, under the threat of "if-you-don't-we-will" legislation from European governments." is pretty clear and it is even clear that 2001 > 2000). Moreover the other reference ( https://web.archive.org/web/20040313154344/http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt1922b.shtml ) is a review of 2000 model and it is clear even here that the 2000 model is not restricted ( "Launched hard off the line, the Hayabusa hit 60 in only 2.6 seconds! And smashed through the 1/4 mile in a mere 9.8 seconds at 145.8 miles-per-hour! Figures bested only by the incredible result of Cycle World's top speed test, 194 miles-per-hour! We were impressed!").
Also, note that the agreement impose that the speedometer MUST BE limited at 299 km/h (186 mph) and the 1999-2000 models have the speedometer with max speed of 350 km/h.
The final proof of these claim comes from the OFFICIAL suzuki site (and I think that this site have the priority over any other unofficial web page, like the two before); on the official site one can check that the 1999 ("X" model) and 2000 ("Y" model) have the same pieces, they are identical and so the very simple logical consequence is that both models are unrestricted. See http://www.suzukipartshouse.net/oemparts/a/suz/50d40e98f8700230d8b50861/electrical, the central unit (the restriction is put inside the ECM, it's an electronic limit) is the same for both models (check the part 32920-24F21).
IF anyone has a reliable source (like an OFFICIAL suzuki site or an official paper site) that state the 2000 model is restricted, please cite it, otherwise the official suzuki site has the priority (even if even the unofficial site like the two already used state that 2000 model is unrestricted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.12.40.153 ( talk) 08:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok, so can you esplain the following sentece? "In any event, some phone calls to those in the know, and we had in our hands a Timing Retard Eliminator (TRE) from Ivan's Rockland County Motorcycle. Turns out the Hayabusa limiter works off gear position and rpm, and Ivan's gizmo informs the ECU it's in fifth gear all the time." Seems that the hayabusa limiter is at the level of ECU, so if the ECUs are the same it follows that both bikes are unrestricted.
Also I don't know why you want to block me, I was no rude and I offended nobody, I just want to improve an information that I think it's wrong (compared to the informations that I have, of course); for sake of the truth, I check ALL the pieces from the official suzuki site and there is no differences, not a single bolt differs from the 2 models, so the logic consequences is that it's impossible that one is restricted and the other is not, they have the same exact pieces, from the engine to the last bolt. I edit the article because I think that a piece-by-piece comparison on the official suzuki web site is far better than a couple of foggy references (they don't test the 2000 models or they base the deduction on the restriction over an agreement that is not a federal law or something more than an handshake agreement with no duty between manufacturer).
As discussed
above and elsewhere, the use of
WP:CITESHORT and
parenthetical referencing, along with {{
harvtxt}} (
examples) is not popular.
WP:CITEHOW says either style of footnotes is allowed, and even though I prefer Harvard style notes, I can see now that this style is somewhat of a barrier to particpation by other editors. It's a pain to create and maintain this style of footnotes, and it would be easier for everyone if this article just used the normal footnote style, where you put <ref>{{citation|title= Blah |publisher= Blah Blah Blah |year= 1234 |url= http://www.foo-bar-baz.com }}</ref>
rather than the two-part system in place now. I also think this page loads way too slowly and all the harvtxt templates might be to blame.
Since I'm the one who created all these {{ harvtxt}} notes, I will go ahead and put them back into the common style, although first I will probably format the recently-added bare URL refs. I'm pretty sure consensus favors that, but speak up if you really would rather keep this in Harvard style. -- Dbratland ( talk) 20:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
did suzuki produce a limited hayabusa in 2005, if so what color and how many units were produced —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.201.12 ( talk) 04:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the right place to rant about this. This article shows a man riding his bike without a helmet. Maybe you could consider removing or changing the picture. I made a comment about it in the main page and was kindly removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.176.15.163 ( talk) 04:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The Hayabusa engine, well two Hayabusa engines, have been put together and slightly modified by Hartley and put in the back of the Ariel Atom 500. The Atom's 3.0 L engine puts out a total of 500 bhp. The car is also the fastest to go around the Top Gear track, with a time of 1:15.1. I'm still learning how to cite on here (even though I've been on here a while), but I figured I should provide the information :)
http://www.topspeed.com/cars/ariel/2012-ariel-atom-v8-500-ar100592.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gear_test_track#The_Power_Board http://www.topgear.com/uk/photos/ariel-atom-v8?imageNo=2 (Project Free TV link to Top Gear Episode, it's the first 15 minutes or so after the introduction) http://www.free-tv-video-online.me/player/zshare.php?id=856325151a64fa3c (Hayabusa Forum) http://www.hayabusa.org/forum/random-thoughts/143898-when-2-hayabusa-engines-mate-what-you-get.html
-- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 15:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
This page needs a good going over, rewording required in many places. There is one mistake that particularly niggles me, but I can't correct it because I have no idea what the author is trying to say: "rounded nose squeezed frontal area away from the headlight". I suggest that the author might like discover what frontal area is: http://www.buechenet.com/tech-ed/dragster/aero.html Yevad ( talk) 09:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
This is continued from a conversation further up the page, which stretches over seven years and is impossible to parse since it doesn't follow talk page guidelines.
There's a bit of an edit war, involving 72bikers and one editor who operates from a number of IPs; I've warned two of the IPs for edit warring. 72bikers, I don't have to warn you since you know the score, and at any rate it's the other party who is not following policy. Their last edit was this one, and I'll cite the summary so I can explain: "Ok the parts list are not a reliable source (I don't understand why since it's from official suzuki site, instead of other sites that are at the level of blogs) but other references tells that the 2000 model is unrestricted,so why continue to refuse this?" Note that this edit reinstates this hobbling and awkward text, "See http://www.suzukipartshouse.net/oemparts/a/suz/50d40e98f8700230d8b50861/electrical, the central unit (the restriction is put inside the ECM, it's an electronic limit) is the same for both models (check the part 32920-24F21)", which is editorial commentary placed in a footnote.
First of all, if the parts list is not a reliable source you can't cite it--period. "It's from official suzuki site" misses the point. No one doubts that an official parts list lists parts correctly. The conversation is not about whether some part is listed or not: the question is whether there is a limiter or not. Explaining that part #123456789 is a limiter (or not) is not the job of Wikipedia editors: look up Wikipedia:No original research. That is why we require secondary sources. If the model is unrestricted (or whatever, I don't care), and "other references tells us" that, CITE those other sources. So, a. don't cite primary sources; b. cite secondary sources; c. don't put editorial comments in the text or the notes; d. stop edit warring: you revert this one more time and I will endorse that you be blocked, both IPs, and that the article be locked down--it's time to stop playing around and to start following our policies. I have no doubt that a block request will be approved by an independent admin not because I know about Suzukis (I don't, and I don't care about them) but because the policy violations and the inappropriate behavior is really blatant enough. So, having gotten that threat out of the way, please start discussion, right here, what the proper answer is to the query and how that is to be represented in the article. Drmies ( talk) 14:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I was reading right now, I understand, however I have a couple of things to clarify
I deduced from the same ECU number parts and from the procedure of "unrestriction" explained in one references that the 2000 model is unrestricted and this is not acceptable, I understand this BUT
Following the Wikipedia rules, can someone show a reliable reference that state, explicitly, that the model 2000 model is restricted? Because, even in the references cited in the article, all the information that I found is like " the SportRider review clearly states they did not test a 2000 model year Busa or ZX-12R but that there sister pub did "While we didn't have a chance to sample a Y2K ZX-12R or Hayabusa, our sister pub Motorcyclist conducted the same tests with its 2000 test units a year ago. Oddly enough, while both bikes ran sub-185 mph in perfect desert conditions, no hint of a limiter was found in the dyno room." So, if you cite a reference that clearly state that they DO NOT test the 2000 model, how can you tell that the 2000 model is restricted? You deduced it, by the fact that the reference cite ANOTHER reference (that I don't even read) that state the 2000 model doesn't go over 185 mph (on which condition? in which environment? In the same environment how the 1999 model perform?). Sorry but this kind of references and deduction, in my opinion, seems to be unreliable.
72bikers also write: "As all other sources clearly state speeds all blow 187mph for 2000 year models. What they are referring to with the 2001 model year statement, it is known how the bikes were limited but that in 2000 year model Busa and ZX it was not known how they were limited and all review state this as well, because there are no reviews of any 2000 year bike going above 187mph. Verifiable by this statement in that same Sport Rider review "We know for a fact that the 2001 ZX has updated cams and a black box, so it's a safe bet that last year's bikes were more subtly restricted to avoid attracting attention."" Where are these "all other sources"? I see only 2 references near the top speed of 1999 and 2000 version and none of them tell explicitly that the 2000 model is restricted. For example, the Hoyer (2007) only tells that "Sure, top speed was electronically limited to 186 mph in 2000..." but they don't tell that the specific 2000 model is restricted, you deduce it, because it should be noted that:
1) they say that the speed is electronically limited (which is exactly what I said before, so you can easily deduce that if the ECM is the same then they are the same bike, but this is not a proof that follows the Wiki rules, so put this aside)
2) more interesting, let's note that the model sell in 2000 is presented and produced starting from 1999, and in 1999 the agreement wasn't signed yet, so the models affected were the models selling from 2001 (as stated in reference "Trevitt, Andrew (June 2010), "Big Dogs: Derestriction; Uncorking the top-speed potential of the Hayabusa and ZX-12R", Sport Rider, archived from the original on May 11, 2012" that states "Yes, they're restricted. Beginning with 2001 models, Japanese manufacturers agreed to limit their motorcycles to top speeds of 186 mph, under the threat of "if-you-don't-we-will" legislation from European governments."
As you can understand, finding a secondary sources is near impossible right now, since nobody test a 18 years old motorcycle, so If Suzuki answer is not acceptable, If some user's test on it's own motorcycle is not acceptable, how can you put the question aside? Because, as I stated before, even the references that "prove" that 2000 model is restricted are a little foggy about the argument (they clearly not state explicitly that the model is restricted).
So, in my opinion, if a specific test/review of 2000 model is missing, it's better to leave the 2000 model without the max speed, for lack of data.
I think there are a few more sources besides these that directly address this point, but this is a pretty good cross section:
Restricted from 2000 and later:
the 1999 Hayabusa remains the only production motorcycle to have surpassed the 300-kilometer-per-hour mark.
As a sop to the road safety lobby, Suzuki restricted the top speed of later versions to a mere 186mph (300kph), which obviously makes a huge difference in everyday riding. For this reason, the original 1999 model will eventually be a sought-after classic.
(source added 16:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC). The June 2000 Motorcyclist had 3 separate articles all arguing their conclusion that the 2000 GSX1300R was restricted, even though offcialy Suzuki said the 1999 X model and 2000 Y model are identical. )
(end addition. --
Dennis Bratland (
talk) 16:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC))
Restricted from 2001 and later:
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
Suzuki didn't change anything on the bike from 1999-2006, apart from fitting a 300km/h (186mph) speed limiter for 2001. This was part of a 'gentlemen's agreement' between the major manufacturers to pre-empt government intervention to limit motorcycle performance.
(source added 21:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC) )
(end addition.
Dennis Bratland (
talk) 21:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC) )
All of the above sources are reliable, with strong reputations for expertise and fact checking. Based on this, what should we write? Either say that sources disagree, some saying the 2000 bikes were limited to 186mph/300kph, while others say both the 1999 and 2000 models were unrestricted, and the first restricted Hayabusa was the 2001 model. Or don't say anything: the salient point is that the first Hayabsua went much faster 186 mph, and following that, there was a voluntary reaction that limited the Hayabusa, ZX-12R and others to 186mph/300kph. We don't have to identify the exact model year of this. A technical manual or shopping guide, or how-to guide might need to get this date exactly right, but it's not an encyclopedic concern, per WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMANUAL etc.
I actually have been working on a proposal for a while to explicitly say in WP:NOT that we don't settle these questions. Wikipedia's prime function isn't to settle bar bets or help judge trivia night.
The question of the part number of the ECU, besides being original research because it draws a conclusion from primary sources, is meaningless. Why would the hardware need a different part number when what they changed was the software. They could have reprogrammed the same ECU without giving it a new part number. --
Dennis Bratland (
talk) 19:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I'm happy to see that there is someone that is accurate and show sources rather than only criticize and insists on the only two (not very precise at all) resource. I was waiting for this problem that you rightly encountered (because I made my own research and I reach the same conclusions as yours): I agree with you about the fact that Wikipedia is not the final arbiter of truth BUT in my opinion this is different from giving inaccurate information, I will explain it better: in this article I see ONLY the resources that make you guess the 2000 models is restricted, so in my opinion it's better to use the resources that you proposed here, because they are better, but there is a more deep problem: all the resources posted by you are reliable but some state one thing and some state the exact opposite, so as you can easily understand only some of them state the right information, but which? I think that it's not, as you said, a function of Wikipedia to search an answer to this question and exactly for that (in my opinion) the article should indicate the 2000 model speed as unknown, for lack of evident proof because some resource say one thing and other say the exact opposite, and all of them are reliable. If you put the 2000 model as restricted, you implicitly take a position and say, implicitly, that some of the reliable resource are wrong, but we have no data and no further informations to decide about this.
I add just one little fact, be free to believe this or not: if you change the software, when someone order the piece, how can you know if you should load the software for 1999 model or for 2000 model? You cannot and so, you might say, you load the software for the 2000 version; but, if we assume that the 2000 model is unrestricted, the 1999 is not, you have changed the parameter of the motorcycle and, for example, you can be no compliant anymore with federal standards, because you change some parameter; this could lead to possible complaints to the manufacturer because I bought an original piece of the bike but it is not really original as it has been modified without any indication. Did you remember the Volkswagen scandal? They had to inform the customers that, after the ECU modification, the car lose some Cv (and therefore some performance), for the Hayabusa is the same. How did I know this? Because 5 months ago I broke the ECU of my 1999 Hayabusa and I order exactly the one on the Suzuki site, and the motorcycle is exactly as before, so I'm pretty sure that, in this case at least, this piece is exactly the same, hardware and software; but, as I said, I wrote this curiosity because you give this kind and complete reply and I wanted to be precise as maximum as I can, but feel free to believe it or not
our sister pub Motorcyclist conducted the same tests with its 2000 test units a year ago. Oddly enough, while both bikes ran sub-185 mph in perfect desert conditions, no hint of a limiter was found in the dyno room."What they are referring to with the 2001 model year statement, it was known how the bikes were limited in 2001, but that in 2000 year model Busa and ZX it was not known how they were limited. To dispute this widely accepted fact, simply provide a verifiable credible source that show they tested a stock 2000 year motorcycle and exceeded the 186-187 mph restriction. It is really that simple. Not a source saying this year or that year was restricted but that they actually go on the record and publish that they took a stock 2000 year motorcycle to a speed exceeding the restriction. Cheers - 72bikers ( talk) 03:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Dennis Bratland provide some resource that state the restriction starts from 2000 and from 2001 models, so now this is the main problem: that there are a conflicts between resource and so we/you cannot decide which one is the right one, since all of them are reliable source. Moreover you insist on the fact that "our sister pub Motorcyclist conducted the same tests with its 2000 test units a year ago. Oddly enough, while both bikes ran sub-185 mph in perfect desert conditions, no hint of a limiter was found in the dyno room." but this is only a phrase, where are the official report of this test? If I must provide a resource that tested explicitly the 2000 model to prove that it's unrestricted, then you must do the same to show that it is restricted, but a phrase like this is not enough, I want to see the final report from this "Motorcyclist" resource, can you provide it? Moreover they clearly said that "no hint of a limiter was found in the dyno room" so how can you be sure that, in those conditions, a 1999 model perform better than a 2000? Maybe even a 1999 run sub-185 mph in these conditions, we cannot know this before a precise tests.
I add only one thing: all the hayabusa restricted version as far as I know, till 2016 version, were limited electronically, with a check on gear + rev, what makes you think that only the 2000 model had a different type of limitation? It would be very strange, especially considering that the procedure to unlock the hayabusa limitation, as explained explicitly in one resource, is to fool the ECU about the right gear.
Sincerely I don't know what is the problem of writing that there is a resources conflict and so the exact speed data of 2000 model is not known, instead of putting the 2000 model into the restricted models for sure. If we leave the data non available then further research will be left to the readers that want to know more about this fact.
I found, for example, "
http://www.motorcycledaily.com/2000/01/holybusa/" where they states that "Although essentially unchanged from the 1999 model" but we are searching for a specific review of the 2000 models, so a good beginning point is this blog: "
http://hyp4r.com/motorblog/suzuki-hayabusa-gsx1300r-performance-statistics-1st-generation-1999-2007/". I know that this IS NOT a valid resource itself BUT if someone can find one of the article cited here (for example "PERFORMANCE BIKES [June 2000]" or "CYCLEWORLD [June 2000]" or "SPORTBIKE MAGAZINE [June 2000]" they review the 2000 model and so we will have a reliable resources. Note that it will be interesting to see even the resource that you have already use (" MOTORCYCLIST MAGAZINE [June 2000]") to confirm the fact (states in this blog) that the test was performed at an elevation 2400 feet above sea level, which is not quite a standard condition.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
188.12.40.153 (
talk) 07:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
As I said, I cited the blog to provide a list of some sources, and it could be great if we can find some of them, like Cycle World because the data of zx-12 is the same one as indicated in blog, so IF even the data states for hayabusa is right (191 mph) then this is the final proof that it is unrestricted BUT we need to see these references because, as you said, this is only a blog and is not a reliable source.
Moreover, I read the resource that you provide ("
https://web.archive.org/web/20120407081128/http://www.cycleworld.com/2012/04/02/fifty-years-of-do-you-have-any-idea-how-fast-you-were-going/2//") and they don't explicitly say that the zx-12 was the fastest motorcycle in 2000, they only say "In 2000, Kawasaki returned fire with a new ZX-12R. A hush fell over the crowd. Will it do 200? No, it won’t. In fact, it wouldn’t even go 190—only a sluggish 187. It wanted to go faster, but it couldn’t, because it was electronically limited." but nowhere they mention that it is the fastest of 2000.
I just see right now that Dennis (many many thanks for your time and your contributions to the discussion) add the resource that we are talking about, the one from Cycle World, see his previous comment (link to resources:
http://www.cycleworld.com/kawasaki-ninja-zx-12r-sportbike-road-test-motorcycle-review#page-2), what do you think? Can we count it as a reliable resource/information? As you say before, Cycle World is a very reliable source.
P.S. I saw yesterday your last comment but I had no time to reply, to make it clear for all other users, the models code are:
X=1999
Y=2000
K1=2001, and so on (I think, but I'm not sure about this detail, that the code K stand for 2K and so 2K1=2001, 2K2=2002 and so on)
<br<
I've been patient until now but now you make me losing my patience because it's obvious that you're behaving so well to look for insulting talk. First of all, I admit and I thought that it is EVIDENT that I miss click over your section (while I was editing and I thought that I have fixed your comment, so I'm sorry about this issue) but please keep the blocking threats for yourself (because they are useless since, as you (I hope) know, the IP address is dynamic so you can block any IP that you want, I will have a new IP in a couple of minutes; this explanation is to prove that IF a person want to ruin the article or the discussion, it is not an IP block that can stop him, but it is evident that I'm not that person, since I spend here hours to discuss and provide resources and anything else.
About you claim, have you read the reference from Cycle world that Dennis add in his comment and that I repost in my reply? I answer for you: NO, because if you read this you can find that "The gun gave us the Ninja’s numbers: 187-mph top speed and 10.04 seconds in the quarter-mile. Pretty comprehensible, really. Not the fastest, not the quickest. Damn fast and damn quick, yes, but the Hayabusa forged just a little deeper in its maximum exertions, delivering 194 mph and 9.86 seconds" AND more important "If Kawasaki tamed its tour de force, did Suzuki do the same to the GSX1300R? Apparently not yet (at least on U.S. models), as the Y2K Suzuki managed 191 mph, just 3 mph slower than our 1999 ’Busa’s best.". So, because mathematics is no an opinion, 191 mph > 187 mph and so they CANNOT say explicitly that zx12 is the fastest motorcycle of 2000 (and they don't say it in fact).
So, because of all this resources, some of them are indicated even by you as the best of the best, i.e. Cycle World (that state the bike is not restricted, by the way) my proposal is:
1)Add, in the table of the performance, the data for the 2000 model from Cycle World (this seems to be the one that test explicitly a 2000 model); we can even indicate the review from "Burns, John (June 2000), "Kawasaki ZX-12R", Motorcyclist, p. 41-" but with the indication that the test was performed 2400 feet above sea level (since, as you know, with the altitude the performance decrese, so you can lose easily some mph with respect to the sea level.
2)Add all this refecences (or at least some of the most important, posted by Dennis) near to 2000 model into the characteristics box, removing the model from the restricted and leaving the 2000 years alone, with no indication of maximum speed, because of this references contrast.
I ask to you, Dennis, Drmies and 72bikers, what do you think about this solution? In my opinion, it's the best way to solve this indecision, without taking a position and leaving the references, so the readers can search for further information by theirself.
Have you read my comments above? Because if you read it, there are 2 cases: I'm not able to write in english or you cannot understand it, because I'm NOT state that no one can block me, where did you read this EXACT phrase in my post? I say that block a person that spend some hours in discussion to improve an article is useless since MAYBE this person is not here to cause trouble and to ruin the article and MAYBE everyone can make a mistake, and as you can read, I ADMIT that I make a mistake, so please don't misunderstand my world.
Also, seems that you the one that are here to just cause trouble, since, I copy your EXACT phrase:
" Cycle World is one of the most highly respected and most reliable source there is, they have been in the motorcycle business for over 50 years, they are the one that published the 1999 Hayabusa could achieve a top speed of 194mph. I believe they are the only source to do this and so highly respected that all others just refer to there findings. ". Dennis post and I re-post again the resource about the test of hayabusa 2000 model from this EXACT source, I copy here:
"Hoyer, Mark (June 2000), "ZX-12R; Kawasaki's Ultimate Weapon makes a politically correct debut", Cycle World, vol. 39 no. 6, pp. 37–43 alt url
p. 37 "The gun gave us the Ninja's Numbers: 187-mph top speed and 10.04 seconds in the quarter mile"
p. 38 "The bottom line, according to Kawasaki USA, is that the biggest Ninja has been slightly neutered, its engine-control unit altered (and possibly, said our source, final gearing) to reduce the bike's top speed to within proposed limits, which, practically speaking, it now is. This led us to wonder about the 2000 Hayabusa. If Kawasaki tamed its tour de force, did Suzuki do the same to the GSX1300R? Apparently not yet (at least on U.S. Models), as the Y2K Suzuki managed 191 mph, just 3 mph slower than our 1999 'Busa's best.""
THEN you reply with: "IP editor again I will inform you your blog information is useless. And you have not provided any proof to change the current article."
My question is: Are you kidding me?
I admit EXPLICITLY that the blog was ONLY to provide a POSSIBLE list of resources, Dennis understand it and kindly provide this resources, and now you have the courage to say that I/we have not provided any proof to change the current article. If you go back and read Dennis post, you can find TONS of resources, from both points of view (unrestricted after 2001 and unrestricted after 2000) so now and here you must explain to me/ to us WHY we should give more weight to the resources that state the 2000 is restricted instead of the other. I think that there is NOT a reason, a because of this contrast I propose the change write above.
IP edit (
talk) 22:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The consensus is for Option B. Jojhnjoy's suggestion summarizes the consensus: "The best option here would be adding a comment that says something like 'source abc says x and source xyz says y'."
Which of three positions about the first Suzuki Hayabusa (GSX1300R) to be speed restricted to approximately 298–301 km/h (185–187 mph) should be written in Wikipedia articles? That *only* the 1999 (code X) Hayabusa was not speed restricted, or that both the 1999 and 2000 (code Y) model years were unrestricted, or that we are not sure because sources don't agree? -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Top speed | 1999 303–312 km/h (188–194 mph) 2000–present 299 km/h (186 mph) |
---|
Top speed | 1999, 2000? 303–312 km/h (188–194 mph) 2000 or 2001 to present 299 km/h (186 mph) |
---|
Top speed | 1999–2000 303–312 km/h (188–194 mph) 2001–present 299 km/h (186 mph) |
---|
The bullet points above describe the general sense of what the article should say. Exact wording will be edited or style, to suit the context, etc. Whether we present these statements without comment, or go into fuller detail about what each source said is left to later editorial discretion. Opinions and suggestions are welcome but this RfC is to decide only if we should say the bike was unrestricted in "1999-only", "unrestricted 1999 AND 2000", or go with "unrestricted in 1999 for sure, and ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ maybe 2000 ". Sources all agree that 1999 was definitely unrestricted, and 2001 and later were definitely restricted, but recognized reliable sources (below) don't agree on about the 2000 model year.
This decision will affect the articles Suzuki Hayabusa, Fastest production motorcycle, and perhaps Kawasaki Ninja ZX-12R, Motorcycle testing and measurement, and other articles and lists. Suzuki Hayabusa has consistently been the most-viewed article about a model of motorcycle for several years. The question, What was the fastest motorcycle of 2000, the Hayabusa or the ZX-12R?, is not in the scope of this RfC, but use the discussion section as you wish.
Sources
|
---|
Copies of offline sources can be emailed upon request or via Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Other sources on this subject may exist, but these represent the typical published coverage surrounding this issue. Feel free to share other sources that are relevant.
|
Sorry Dennis if I post in the wrong section, I think that the best option is the B, in this cases the neutral point of view is, in my opinion, the best way to resolve issues. IP edit ( talk) 22:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
See WP:V. Voting on „which option is correct“ does not comply with the basic Wikipedia rules regarding sources. The best option here would be adding a comment that says something like "source abc says x and source xyz says y". -- Jojhnjoy ( talk) 22:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Top speed | 1999 303–312 km/h (188–194 mph) [Comment 1] |
---|
There are 2 related but distinct problems to deal with. 1) When did the change okay, accurate to the month or at least quarter year. 2) How to describe this so that Americans with their year-ahead model year system and non-Americans using calendar years don't get confused.
American sources tend to (but not always) use model years. For Americans, a 2000 bike was actually introduced sometime in mid 1999 calendar year. For the rest of the world a 2000 bike was introduced in mid calendar year 2000. Sometimes Americans sources will say 'in 2000' to mean the calendar year 2000 and 'for 2000' to mean the year-ahead model year (ie introduced in mid 1999 calendar year). The difference is subtle and not always adhered to such that even Americans don't always know which they are talking about. It gets worse when somebody is using multiple sources and uses the 'years' without due care (sometimes mixing them up without realising it). Some of the sources in the RFC say that the 2000 model year was restricted, so it's likely that the speed restrictions came in sometime in mid 1999 calendar year - the 6 week pause seems a likely time but I'm not interested in drilling through mountains of data myself.
Once you have found the change date, you will need to describe it in terms like (change the exact date to suit) 'The bike was unrestricted before Oct 1999 and restricted after that date'. Phrases like 'the 2000 model' will mean different things to different readers (Europeans will think the model introduced in mid 2000 calendar year, Americans will think the model introduced in mid 1999 calendar year). Avoid the word 'model' (eg 'the 2000 model') unless you make it blatantly clear with phrases like 'in 1999, for the 2000 model year, the speed was restricted'. Even this is easy to read wrong, so the month is a much, much clearer way to state it.
According to WP:MODELYEARS, vehicles sold in places besides America should not use model years, although you can add phrases like 'in 1999, for the 2000 model year,' to help Americans understand what's happening. Americans really do think only in their year-ahead model year scheme and get confused when presented with calendar years. But that's just one market compared to the rest of the world which gets really confused with American model years. And doubly unfortunate that both systems often looks exactly the same when written down but mean different things. That's why it's so much better to write months (even Americans know that August 1999 is part of the 1999 calendar year when talking abut vehicles) or to at least specify 'model year' or 'MY' when we mean model year. It's a quagmire but not impossible. Stepho talk 22:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Cook (June 2000) and others say the 2000 model year was restricted, while Hoyer (June 2000) and others say the 2000 MY was unrestricted. The three options (as I see it) are A: ignore the sources that say the 2000 was unrestricted, C: ignore the sources that say the 2000 was restricted, or B: take the middle ground between A and C, and say that we know 1999 was unrestricted, and we know 2001 was restricted, but for 2000 sources don't agree.
We all have unverifiable, original research theories to explain the contradictions, such as mechanical defects, or an undocumented mid-model year change, or even deeper subterfuge by Suzuki or the media for unexplained motives, but none of that is encyclopedic. All we have is what's in these sources, and we need to find a consensus on what to say about it in the article namespace. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
So we have a YouTube video from Motorcyclenews.com that shows us at 4:39 a shipping crate label that says GSX1300RRQM2 E02 2535. This is the only known use of "GSX-1300RR". But it actually says GSX1300RRQM2. We just choose to rationalize it to really mean GSX1300RR? Or GSX-1300RR? We don't know. If we're going to take this crate sticker literally, then we need to call it GSX1300RRQM2. Or GSX1300RRQM2 E02 2535? Seriously?
At Suzuki's global site we see GSX-R1000/R and GSX-750 and such, but only Hayabusa, not GSX-1300-anything. It's not mentioned in the press release. That's where we'd see a name change.
A packing crate label is just a packing crate label. If they have changed the model code, they will say so clearly. It shouldn't require sleuthing to figure out. Just leave it out for now. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I wonder if the journalists have picked up the extra R from the color code? I found this on the Suzuki.ca website today: GSX1300RRQ- Glass Sparkle Black/Candy Burnt Gold GSX1300RQZ- Metallic Mat Sword Silver/Candy Daring Red Deepmac ( talk) 03:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)