Talk:Sport bike

message: Could I make a plea for interested editors to provide some proper sources for this article soon? We are about to hit the one year anniversary of the article being tagged as unreferenced. There is a lot of what appears to be original research in this article, alongside the good material. Without sources, this article could legitimately be reduced to a stub. Thanks, Gwernol 10:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Read up on the policy. The  tag for unsourced material has placed. Give it some time to find a source. It shouldn't be hard since it is true. Roguegeek (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to get into some edit war over this little thing. Honestly, half of the stuff in this article should be deleted due to no sources what so ever and it looked much worse a year ago. There are guidelines as to how to remove unsourced material and it's not being followed in this case what so ever, but I'm going to turn the other way on this one simply due to there being hundreds of other things wrong with this article. Roguegeek (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Personally, I think you may be confusing advertising hyperbole (ie, "The new 1098 is proof that Ducati owns the word 'Superbike'...") with fact.  But I am interested in seeing what Ducati provides you as support for the assertion that it has sole trademark on the term "Superbike" in connection with motorcycles, especially when a search of the term "Superbike" in most Trademark and IP databases turns up numerous examples held by entities other than Ducati (indeed, the EU's OAMI-Online service lists 10 Superbike trademarks, and Singapore's SurfIP multijurisdictional service lists 64, none of which are held by Ducati).12.31.192.209 (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with 12.31.192.209, the claim in the image looks to me like an advertising slogan. It certainly isn't an explicit claim that they own the trademark. If they hade the trademark they almost certainly would have put "TM" after the word "Superbike". Companies that own trademarks have to make that ownership explicit using the "TM" symbol, or they lose the trademark. I doubt Ducati don't know this. This claim really needs a better source, I'm afraid. Gwernol 14:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm good with removing it until a better source can be found then. The reason I jumped on the revet was due to an anonymous IP removing data with no explanation. The rationale Gwernol presents makes sense to me. Roguegeek (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article lacks sources 

message: Liter bike is, quite simply, the more popular term as per Google search. "Liter bike" holds 31,600 unique finds where as "litre bike" has only 8,690 finds. Also, American and British spellings are both considered correct as per English Wikipedia and, therefore, the argument of improper spelling can not be made. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liter bike 

message: The term "super sport" should not redirect here. It should redirect to Super Sport. 24.4.252.230 (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to discuss changes and gain consensus on this before making the change. roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Super Sport

message: I deleted the two paragraphs on "crotch rocket" because WP:NOTDICT and because it was nothing but folk etymology made up of whole cloth.  However, this is kind of interesting:
*
I have no idea why this one defines it as a dirt bike.  This is better .
Anyone interested in simply offering a definition of "crotch rocket," please note that it already exists at Wiktionary so just link to that, if you must.--Dbratland (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crotch rocket 

message: I am going to guess that these terms derive from relatively recent changes to racing classifications in the AMA, in which Supersport became a 600cc class and Superbike a 1000cc class.  Supersport was and continues to be a race class with limited modifications to bikes which can be bought out of a showroom.  Such modifications include new exhaust, re-valved stock suspension, foot pegs, body work, ignition mapping to stock ECU. Superbike refers to bikes which have more modifications allowed.  In the Washington Motorcycle Road Racing Rules on Superbike for instance, "Aftermarket and factory high-performance parts are allowed without limit."
http://www.amaproracing.com/rr/about/
http://www.wmrra.com/rules.html
http://www.wmrra.com/pdfs/2009WMRRARuleBook.pdf
I would guess the idea that 600cc is "Supersport" is because the AMA now supports only a 600cc supersport class and 1000cc Superbike class.  The change to the AMA rules came a few years back and reflected the Manufacturers marketing efforts for 600cc as being sport bikes and 1000cc being the ultimate road bikes.  I guess this suggest the marketing is working, and the author is young and doesn't race, so the view point is less than universal. 
Comments like "Short wheelbase and lightness means handling characteristics are often on par with that of the typical high-capacity sport bike" are pretty far out there.  My 750 is much better handling than either of my 1000s and I know plenty of 250s that will run circles around it. In fact, I can't consider why (except they read too many brochures) any one would think bigger bikes are better at handling. 
"Sportbike" is truly just a marketing term, although a case could be made that as a class of road bike, it is seperate from more touring type bikes.  A case could be made for "race replica" as a distinction, but mostly I think most of this needs to be chopped.  The rest of what seperates 600cc from 1000cc would be better left to the pub and cafe where it has been for so many long years. Wiredrabbit (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of things. I'm seeing at least 21 unique users have edited this article over the past three years, so assuming one author who "is young and doesn't race" is responsible for whatever this article has become is not just wrong, but is also assuming bad faith. I've read your comments and, since you are only talking about the super sport and super bike categories, I'm assuming these are the only ones you are disputing, yes? I'm reading over your argument and there is a lot of validity to it, but what I'm not seeing are solutions or recommendations as to what should be done. What are you wanting to do with these categories? roguegeek (talk·cont) 18:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

text: *Some of this was invented by an editor, but there are reliable sources who use some of these categories.  In particular, the ~600/supersport and liter/superbike classes are in common usage in many contexts beyond their racing origins.  They serve as the basic benchmarks to divide up types of sportbikes; they are most often used in magazine comparisons, and bike magazines serve as the source material for a large part of WP's motorcycle articles.  Wikipedia needs to follow sources, even if they are wrong.   Yes, a lot of it is based on marketing, but so what?  The differences between the bikes are real, even if the categories bleed into one another.  Sport touring is a meaningful category; there are lots of bikes that clearly don't fit well elsewhere, and again, reliable sources use the term.  Hypersport... not so much.  It's pretty new and not entirely helpful, although bikes in this category are heavier not so nimble as the liter class.  "Small capacity" and "entry-level" are made up categories, but you do need to have someplace to put the ones below the supersport range.  Some of the bikes mentioned in this range are not sportbikes; they're standards.I would definitely want to have more disclaimers when talking about any motorcycle classifications, whether its types of sportbikes, or cafe racers or bobbers or any motorcycle article.  These categories are arbitrary, and largely in the eye of the beholder.  Some of them come from racing rules, and some come from tiered licensing systems, or import taxes based on displacement.  They exist but they need to be taken with a grain of salt.The main thing is whatever it says, it needs to come from reliable secondary sources, not original research.  That's what got this article in this state in the first place.--Dbratland (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Super Sport, Super Bike

message: This is a problem on many articles, but this sport bike article has not one, not two but SIX "such as..." lists, or "Examples of..." lists.  Trying to have a few examples of anything,  without a gatekeeper definition to protect it, is an invitation to cruft.  Everybody who sees the list wants to add their favorite to it.  
* The easiest solution is to delete all six lists of, for ease of maintenance.
* Another possibility is to use only images to serve as examples.  It's harder to cruft-up an article if you have to come up with an image to go with it.
* More difficultly, the list can have a definition that prevents adding whatever you want to it, such as "The three top-selling 600-class sport bikes are..." with citations to back it up.  Then the top 3 can be checked factually.  Or you can cite the first-ever, or ones that have been chosen by some authority, like "The 3 best 1000 cc sport bikes are... , according to [world-renowned expert authority]"  
* Another alternative is to create an actual Category, and then link to it -- "examples can be found in :Category:Example."  If cruft-mongers want to insert more and more items into the category, doing so doesn't do any harm as long as they qualify for the category.--Dbratland (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example lists are cruft magnets 

message: The first reference I am aware of for the term "Superbike" was in a magazine description of the Norton Commando.  The Honda 750, though more technically advanced was not as fast nor did it handle as well as the Commando.  This article seems totally oriented toward technical advances as opposed to actual performance. The following quote makes this clear...
"Norton's mighty Commando. . . . Not only street quarter-mile champ, able to make a dude on a Honda 750 wonder if he'd forgot to turn on the ignition, but also a superb handler . . ." Motorcyclist July, 1980  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.216.32.12 (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The OED  gives this quote: "1970 Cycle World Oct. 34 Suzuki's entry in the ‘*Superbike’ field just happens to be an excellent touring bike."  Over at  google books the term pops up all over the place after between 69 and 71.  Here  and here are examples of sources saying the era of the superbike began with the CB750 four.  It would be nice to find out exactly which magazine first use the term applied to a motorcycle; it seems to have been commonplace by 1970.<P>The Kawasaki Mach III was introduced a month earlier than the CB750, and could have (but wasn't, apparently, for whatever reason) called "the first superbike."  The Triumph Trident and BSA Rocket III also went on sale before the CB750.  Yet the British machines, for all their performance and good sales, are seen now as the last gasp of a dying industry, seeming to be a 1937-era Triumph twin with another cylinder grafted on, while the Honda was at the vanguard of a new era that has remained with us to this day.<P>It wasn't that the CB750 was the fastest ever, or the first four, or even the first transverse four, but that it was practical, reliable, cheap and could be delivered to the public on a massive scale.  The disc brakes were a production bike first. (See Classic Japanese Motorcycle Guide pages 76-79).  --Dbratland (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Superbike

message: As previously discussed at Talk:Motorcycling Project, the consensus (or at least majority opinion) is that this page is probably better if it mentions the existence of other types of sportbikes besides supersport and sport touring, however flawed the definitions.  After all, if biologists can tolerate debatable terms like species or astronomers can disagree on whether Pluto is a planet, we ought to be able to say that there is some common ground on what is a "superbike" or "middleweight" even if the definitions are a little weak.<P>I have a new version nearly ready at Talk:Sport bike/Workpage.  The Design elements section is unsourced and needs an overhaul and expansion, and maybe a new name.  Other than that section the rest of workpage is about finished. Once Design elements is done, I'll want to go live with this. It is about 5 times larger than the current version so I think it qualifies for DYK.<P>Please comment or edit as you wish. Thanks! --Dbratland (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it with a couple of reservations. I don't like the use of "open" as a class. That's not something I have ever seen used outside of the USA - and then not in all the magazines I have read over there. It seems to be inventing a class for the sake of it - why does a sportbike that is not a lightweight, middleweight or superbike have to be in a class? Isn't it enough to just call it a sport bike? Secondly, I don't think sport tourers need be included in the list of sport bike classes. Sport tourer is a completely different category of bike. Finally, I don't think the S1000RR should be the lead photograph (although I own one!) as there are other more notable sport bikes that have been established far longer. What about a Jap bike, or a Ducati, or a MV Agusta F4 Senna instead? --Biker Biker (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved sport touring down to the variations section and added mention that it's not necessarily a type of sport bike. I also de-emphasized the open/hyper class, while adding several citations for the usage of the terms.<P>For the lead image I wasn't trying to find the archetypal sportbike to represent them  all; I think that is impossible to agree on.  Rather, I just looked for an attractive image that helped to convey the spirit of what sport bikes are about. Any other nice looking picture of a sport bike would do just as well, especially if it is dynamic, and it would be nice to change the image every month or two, so as not to seem like one single bike were being emphasized. --Dbratland (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

text: On the question "Isn't it enough to just call it a sport bike?" I think many authorities agree. I was trying to make the point that sources frequently do use a single term like sportbike, superbike, or supersport to mean all types of fast motorcycles, without making class distinctions. But Wikipedia should not judge that they alone are correct; there are many other sources who do divide sportbikes up into different classes, and there is some consensus as to what those classes are. I think many readers will read the article and decide that these sub-classes are hopelessly muddled and useless -- and they might be right! But for me the bottom line is that the definitions of almost every word in the English language is hopelessly muddled, and so you have to just roll with it. --Dbratland (talk) 17:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision workpage at Talk:Sport bike/Workpage 

message: I oppose adding lists of examples to this type of article because they become cruft magnets. If the article lists one editor's opinion of the 3-4 most "popular" entry level bikes, who is to say that another editor's opinion is not just as good? :Category:Sport bikes is a handy resource for any reader who wants to see lists of sport bikes.<P>It would be different if a reliable source could be found listing types of bikes based on objective criteria. Such as "the 3 top-selling by volume 600cc class bikes in the world" or the "top 4 superbikes". Not something vague; something with hard numbers. If you don't have solid data, please don't make up a list of bikes out of thin air. --Dbratland (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully agree. Bad thing --Biker Biker (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of examples 

message: The BSA Rocket 3/Triumph Trident did appear 3 months before the Honda CB750 and so by all rights it should have been the "original superbike", or at least it ought to have stolen the CB750's thunder. Unfortunately, history was unfair to the Rocket 3/Trident. Or maybe it was the Honda's lower price that was unfair. Or just a general lack of public interest. And the Honda's triple disc brakes. Whatever the reason, the outcome can be verified in the sources cited and in others not yet cited. I'll do so when I'm able to check the sources again myself. So while we should mention the Rocket 3/Trident and explain what happened, we still have to be guided by the sources who overwhelmingly agree that it was too little too late to reverse the course of events, and that the CB750 was the first "superbike" even if it was 3 months tardy. The Honda was the first of a new era, the Rocket 3/Trident was a footnote.<P>Sorry for promising sources and not delivering, but there are already over a half dozen which verify the first superbike claim for the CB750. If you want more, you'll have to wait. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  BSA Rocket 3/Triumph Trident 

message: Edit summary :"High-performance is not supported by the sources or the text below. sources give examples of many low performance entry level sport bikes)".  
"High performance" does not merely cover speed or power; it is a broad term that also covers handling, braking and cornering.  Arrivisto (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The section "Design Elements" has this sentence: "Sport bikes have comparatively high-performance engines resting inside a lightweight frame."  Arrivisto (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

text: The Honda_Super_Cub#Sports_Cub is one obvious counterexample. There are lots of underbones that are sport bikes, yet, in absolute terms, are not high performance. The quote from the design elements section says "comparatively"; that means in context. In comparison to others in the same class. Saying "high performance" in the lead without context is a distortion. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "High performance"

message: Once again, yet another BMW has been put in as the lead photo of another motorcycle article. The low proportion of sale volume alone is enough reason that putting BMWs on every article is a complete distortion. BMWs are important, but we can't put them on every article. Treating the S1000RR as particularly special is typical WP:RECENTISM<P>As to whether the lead should be a static side view or a dynamic photo, I would argue that the definition of a sport bike includes not just the looks, but the capabilities. A photo which doesn't show a bike doing the things a sport bike is specially designed to do is quite limiting. Not to mention boring. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  BMW lead photo again 

message: If super sport redirects here then it needs to be mentioned in the lead with the other terms and prehaps have a note that clarifies the issues with its application to just liter bikes or both 600 and 1000 cc bikes. It cannot redirect and then not be mentioned at all in the lead.--Inayity (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is the basic guideline, but this article has 22 incoming redirects:
*Crotch rocket
*Crotchrocket
*Race Replica
*Rocket bike
*Sport motorcycle
*Sportbike
*Sportbikes
*Sports bike
*Sportsbike
*Super Bike
* Hyper sport
*Hyper sport
*Hyperbike
*Hypersport
*Race replica
*Race replica
*Super bike 
*Litre bike
*Super bike
*Super sport
*Bullet bike
*Super sport (motorcycle)
*Superbike
*Liter bike
*Literbike
*Litrebikes
*Superbike
They can't all be in the lead, let alone in bold. Per MOS:BOLDTITLE, this rule is followed only when it makes sense. In cases where even the article title doesn't fit well in the lead, you leave it out. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supersport redirect 

message: There is a lot wrong with this article, namely; the introduction is too long and too meandering; some of the examples (CB750, R1100RS) are not sport bikes; there is talk of sport bikes in India where there is virtually no "sport bike culture".  There is an obsession with classes; "The Triumph Daytona 675 triple is usually classed as a middleweight or supersport."; "the Honda CB750 .... would (today) be classed in the middle range."  There are lots of references (good); but lots of irrelevant crap (not good!). Some of the sentences are quite absurd.  A serious prune is needed; one should stand back and ask, "does this article tell me what I want to know about sport bikes"?  The answer at the moment would seem to be, "Up to a point, Lord Copper!"  Arrivisto (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree about the pruning shears.<P>You seem to be arguing that we can't mention india unless we can demonstrate what you call "sport bike culture". KTM, Honda, Suzuki and others are making sport bikes in India for the Indian market. What's the basis for claiming otherwise?<P>What is the basis for saying the intro is too long? I don't know of any MOS guidelines that would support that.<P>The CB750 and R1100S are mentioned for specific reasons, which are supported by copious citations. I'd read more carefully before you start deleting anything, because it sounds like a case of one editor's opinions which don't happen to match what the sources say. If you can cite sources that dispute the place of the CB750 in sport bike history, or dispute that the RS1100S was the the first, or one of the first, sport-touring bikes, citing those sources would be a great addition.<P>The current length of the article is about 1/5 what is approximately considered large enough to begin splitting. Even if it were five times larger, we would not simply delete cited facts, we'd spawn sub-articles.<P>You are more than welcome to expand the article with cited facts, but please give specific reasons -- with sources -- for why any cited content should be deleted. Keep in mind that if the article is expanded significantly, that in of itself might lead to a revised into. So I'd expand first and worry about the intro later. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  As Pascal (and, variously, G.B. Shaw, or Mark Twain) said: "I’m sorry this letter is so long, I didn’t have time to make it shorter". Any Wikipedia article should be verifiable, concise and to the point.  I don't think this article meets all those criteria.  The intro should be a short summary of what is to follow, as  a lengthy paragraph is so often counter-productive.  And what's the point of "copious citations" if the point they are confirming is irrelevant?  There is a skill in keeping things simple, and editors should not be afraid of pruning when articles start to "run to seed". Arrivisto (talk) 12:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: See Recentism and Systemic bias for lengthy explanations for why we must give due regard to the varying definitions of a sport bike across different cultures and different times. No Wikipedia article is supposed to only be about the present day, nor just the US or UK or whatever country the editor happens to think is important to themselves.<P>My mind is open to any additions or changes or deletions you would like if you would please simply point to sources which justify them. Can you supply evidence for why India is irrelevant? Or for any of your other assertions? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "My mind is open.."   Excellent! I suggest that, after a shorter intro, there should be a history section covering the following points: cars and bikes began at about the same time.  Cars were (arguably) more sophisticated and certainly dearer than bikes, which is why during the two post-war depressions, bikes (in Europe at least) were cheap transport rather than sports machines.  However, with their higher power:weight ratio, bikes have always been more manoeuvrable, more fun and faster accelerating than cars, so it didn't take long for bike sport to begin.  (IoM TT started in 1904!).  Yet, in the boom times (in the West) of the mid-20s, mid-30s and mid-50s onward, sports bikes (Vincent, Triumph, Brough Superior) began to emerge.  Citations can be provided for all of this stuff.  "History" would include the existing quotes from Soichiro Honda & Kelvin Cameron.  After the history section, the renewed article can then take shape. Arrivisto (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for the pruning shears! 

message: Does Motor Cycle News 15 August 1979 actually say that the term race replica was never used before that date? Or is that the earliest date that a Wikipedia editor could find use of the term? That would be original research. Because it's obviously extremely difficult to search every known publication and verify nobody else had ever said or printed it. It's fine where it says hyberbike was "used as early as 1979"; we can verify that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No. ThanQ for pointing out my error; "first used" should read 'firstly used several years before the 1983 Suzuki Gamma....' (the page as-was I knew to be obviously wrong) but the prose can get cluttered trying to incorporate existing text and concepts. The difference is that these Race Replicas were created by a few dealers by way of add-ons, whereas the factories started later with OE styling. I think it goes back to around the time of Stevie Baker's red and white scheme - I'll add it to my list.. It was the same with Motorcycle News contradicting themselves, asserting 20 years of Hyperbike from 1990 to 2010. This would be the result of the vagaries of no continuity of writers and/or historical knowledge. Someone I am involved with in the US is of the opinion they can write anything later, it doesn't mean it happened that way. QED. What would you suggest as appropriate to rectify this sentence? "Race Replica was first used as early as the late 1970s...." to 'Race Replica was first used as early as the late 1970s...'?--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would just say, "The term race replica was used in 1979". I willing to believe that 1979 was almost certainly the first use; the evidence is strong. NGrams agrees. But we're not allowed to say so. Just say it was used in 1979 and if later some published authority wants to give the opinion that 1979 was the actual first use, we can say "X says it was first used in 1979". It's also fine to say it appeared about 4 years before the 1983 Gamma. We just can't say the word "first" ourselves without a third party.<P>This is all relatively trivial on my part; thanks for expanding the article to cover this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, will do. Wish they were all that easy to resolve.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Race replica "first used" in 1979? 

message: What i do in participant in reca Koli Hitesh (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion about article topics. The purpose here is only do discuss how to improve the article Sport bike. See WP:NOTFORUM, WP:Wikipedia is not a forum and WP:Talk. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reca participants 

message: That BMW race-prepared special (:File:2001 BMW R 1100 S Boxer Cup - Flickr - KlausNahr (cropped).jpg) is not representative - for the general readership it's misleading, especially with slicks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it is representative of something. The question is, what?  The answer to that question should be found in the article's content, supported by sources. Similarly, :File:Speed obtained.png is interesting and all. But what are when seeing? When? How? Why? I'm not against having this kind of content but it's backwards. First add a clear explanation in the article of what this is, how it is a kind of sport bike, and cite it with good sources that say directly what we are saying without a lot of guesswork or over-interpretation. Then after that, add an image that illustrates it.<P>But for now, until there is cite content in the article about it, the images have to wait. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Editors are ill-advised to throw the baby out with the bathwater, indulging in blanket reversions that ignore the value of sensible updates and amendments. Arrivisto (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading image