Talk:Honda CBR600RR

message: Anyone have any thoughts or feedback as to how I consolidated and formatted the specifications? Would like to see what everyone else thinks before I start to change other articles to the same format. I like the fact that they don't take up too much room, especially on bikes that existed over a number of years. Roguegeek (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me.  Having just looked at some of the older specs tables, I would say it is a big improvement!  On another note, I think we should take this opportunity to thank Honda's PR department for writing the "Racing Roots" paragraph.  I am in awe... JZH 00:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny. Yes, that whole section need a complete re-write. I'll throw an advert tag on it until it's been taken care of. Roguegeek (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specification formatting 

message: Isnt this page ALMOST exactly the same as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_CBR600RR page? Except for this line? "The new three-spoke cast aluminum wheels are also lighter than those on the '06 bike, which further contributes to definite stink coming off her pussy and the enhanced performance of the suspension."
Max 04:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this article is exactly the same as the article you listed because they do happen to be the same article. That wording you noted has been removed. Roguegeek (talk) 10:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reduntant Page? With Junk??? 

message: I think a user that searches for this bike, or any for this matter, will expect the newest model when the page loads. Since the pictures are already located on the page, I switched the location of them. I don't see this as taking away from the overall flow of the page layout. Does anyone have an issue with this?  Revisethis (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed on the project pages for both motorcycles and vehicles. Image quality has been determined to be more important than most current model. See minimum image standards.roguegeek (talk·cont) 22:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Newest model photos on top

message: I think the deaths of riders on a specific bike are not relevant to the article on the bike itself unless it was the result of something related to the bike, where there was a cited manufacturing defect (faulty production brakes lines, clutch, trans, etc...). Since he happend to crash on a Honda bike and it was not a manufacturing defect, I don't see why this paraghraph should be included in the article. It has already been added to his page on wiki Craig Jones (motorcycle racer). Any thoughts? Revisethis (talk) 07:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. roguegeek (talk·cont) 19:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Death of Craig Jones

message: See Motorcycle weight for further discussion on why motorcycle weight can be so controversial.  Please do not try to make up your own weight numbers by estimating what you think the oil, battery, etc. weigh.  That's WP:Original Research.  Just cite the best number you can find, and link to Motorcycle weight where appropriate to let the reader know to take it with a grain of salt.--Dbratland (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight 

message: What is so much more "encyclopedic" about the current lead image, a model four years and two major revisions out of date?  The 2010 model shows both the current design, and the relatively new direction Honda is taking in their graphics.  Yes, the carpet is appalling and it made every bike in their display look like vomit, but I guess that kind of tells you where Honda's head is at right now.  I admit, it is cluttered, but if you want up to date photos of new bikes, they're going to come from shows, and shows are cluttered. --Dbratland (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Dbratland. I've placed both images side by side on the right so all editors can see and compare. With this article being a part of the transportation wikiproject, we generally follow the same image conventions that are followed here. Having the latest model is not a requirement for these articles, but that's not really the reason why the image of the red bike is more encyclopedic. Unlike the image of the black bike, the red bike is lit well, has no harsh reflections, has no light specks, is on a simple background with no other subjects, has no people in the shot, and is composed and aligned straight. Basically, it's a cleaner and clearer image of the articles subject in ever possible way. This is why it is a more encyclopedic image. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 23:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with the current images, all things considered.  Although, as with our discussion on the Hayabusa, I'd prefer an attractive and broadly suggstive image for the lead, followed by more sober and conventional images for the model-revision sections.  --Dbratland (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: Seems to me the Competition section of this article is very incomplete and contains a lot of weasel wording with no valuable information.  The Awards section does a better job showing what the Competition section is attempting.  Also note reference 7 links to the main page of some motorcycle site which contains no information related to the text.  I think the entire Competition section should be deleted. Rike255 (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competition section 

message: Sources agree that the 2007 version was significantly lighter than 2006. A link to Honda (which has no mention of dry weight) is used to cite the claim that it went from 361 to 341, dry. However, Motorcycle USA says 381 lbs "empty tank" and Cycle World March 2008 says 384 lbs "Dry weight". Cycle World for July 2009 puts the dry weight for the slightly revised 2009 bike at 386 lbs. Possibly the Honda claimed figures exclude water and oil, and battery, or possibly they are pure fiction or a mistake. But at least the numbers form Cycle World and Motorcycle USA are verifiable.<P>Or, since we have wet weights from independent sources, it might be worth while to just delete all the dry weights. --Dbratland (talk) 07:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dry weight 

message: Current (2011) 102 hp?
I thought it was around 125?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Repsolh (talk • contribs) 10:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a difference between what the manufacturer claims is produced at the crank, and what a review or test measures at the back wheel. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Power

message: As of writing this, the 2013 redesign has been put on sale here in the USA, and official specifications been made public...Would someone be so kind as to update the page to reflect this, including, if nothing else, the specifications of the new model, and maybe a small note on the key differences that accompany this new version? Thank you!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.193.87 (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest model (2013) needs to be added 

message: At my talk page there's some question about the figure of 101.53 bhp for the 2006 model, cite at Cycle World July 2006. I'm adding what other figures I can find. Right now it looks a little suspicious compared with the tested hp CW published in March 2005; only 1 hp difference, which looks even worse compared with the 118 bhp (claimed) for 2007 vs 99.61 rwhp from Motorcycle Consumer News. However, MCN is known for giving lower (and more trustworthy) numbers than other publications. Sport Rider tends to be the most exaggerated, and Cycle World and Motorcyclist are somewhere in between. But we should try to find a better source for the 2005-2006 bhp to clarify.<P>Of course, ALL these numbers must be taken with a grain of salt at all times. There's just too many variables in test conditions to expect these magazines to agree with each others, or to even be totally consistent from one year to the next. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  BHP for 2006 and other years 

message: Dennis has updated the layout to a more easier-to-understand manner. He has also updated the specifications data. However there is an issue here. Until 2008, the US variants of the CBR600RR had similar emissions regulations to EU and Australia, except Californian models.
2009+ models were subject to emissions regulations, the ignition timing was retarded to meet those regulations, as a result peak horsepower and peak torque figures were lower than in previous years unless buyers circumvented these by installing a Power Commander or Bazzaz fuel control units.
This link here:
http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/technical/2013JanPerfIndx.pdf
Is cited as the power figure for 2007 - 2008, this is wrong. It clearly states it was tested in issue 7/09, and it also states it's the C-ABS model. The 2007 - 2008 models did NOT have C-ABS. Therefore I propose we discuss which country's/region's power figure we use. An EU or Australian model will have a higher power output, however due to the sheer volume of bikes and motorcycle magazines in the USA, it's much easier to come across US specifications than any other variant.
Regards,
Veritas Blue (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but you just wrote a 1,500 word essay on an issue that was resolved before you started writing. I removed the data in question but you still want to discuss it more? Why? I can't understand what you are asking me to do. The part about the 7/09 date for the C-ABS model makes sense, so I moved it. I can't really respond to your other comments because I can't understand what you're trying to say. Maybe someone else can help. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  A review of the recent updates to layout and new power and torque citations 

message: The image entitled "2009 Honda CBR600RR ABS sensor" is actually an image of someone pointing to the ABS tone ring, not the sensor. This should be edited for clarification or the image removed altogether.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neoave (talk • contribs) 14:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Have not heard the terminology "tone ring" before but it is well known as a reluctor ring. It may be close enough to call it part of the ABS sensor apparatus for general readership. I'm going to change it back for now pending further discussion.  - Brianhe (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The term tone ring is (usually) used for a toothed ring gear found on cars that serves the same purpose as the ring (usually) called a pulser or pulse generator on a motorcycle wheel. In either case, it signals the speed sensor. So it's probably better to clarify that the ring is not the sensor, but it's a slightly different term. I added a cite. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Dennis, with respect I don't think your edit summary "the source of the magnetic field" was correct. The ring is not magnetized; the sensor detects a change in reluctance (in rough terms the inverse of better known magnetic permeability) when the ferrous metal passes by. Variable reluctance sensor has some details but doesn't mention ABS. I still am unaware of the term "tone ring" but don't claim to know all about auto tech.  ETA: this source  says "The toothed ring can also be called the reluctor, tone ring, or gear pulser." I'm fine leaving the edit as-is now. Maybe we want to add the terminology at Anti-lock braking system for motorcycles. Brianhe (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added the picture because of the large confusion of people online, not knowing whether or not their CBR had ABS. When purchasing one of these bikes, almost 50% of the bikes that say ABS in fact don't, because I don't think most people actually know how to tell if their own bike has ABS or not (scary). Even the dealerships sell the bike with a default description that says the models have ABS, so when you search CBR600RR with abs, it shows it all of the non-abs models. I'm hoping it helps future CBR600RR people to understand their bikes better. kazisdaman  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.42.77 (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABS Tone Ring Image 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Honda CBR600RR. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060918175809/http://powersports.honda.com/preview/ to http://powersports.honda.com/preview
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071128123700/http://www.hondanews.com/categories/97/releases/3709 to http://www.hondanews.com/categories/97/releases/3709
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081023154714/http://www.sportrider.com/features/146_0807_middleweight_cbr600rr_zx6r_gsxr600_triumph_675_yzfr6_600cc/index.html to http://www.sportrider.com/features/146_0807_middleweight_cbr600rr_zx6r_gsxr600_triumph_675_yzfr6_600cc/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified