Talk:Yamaha YZF-R1

message: Examples:
* Starting with the FZR1000 in 1988, Yamaha introduced several motorcycle engineering firsts including the boxed aluminum "DeltaBox" frame, -  This is not the case, as in 1987 the FZR400 had a deltabox! 
* When it was first introduced it was considered a groundbreaking design - WP:NPOV problem
* It was on par with the power output ratings of its competition but it was unique with its unprecedented agility. - WP:NPOV and WP:RS problem
* The key in the R1's success - WP:NPOV and WP:RS problem
* which in turn led to the exceptional handling - WP:NPOV problem
* The R1 was dominant for three years before the competition could catch up to its level - WP:NPOV and WP:RS problem
*  but it was only in 2001 that the R1 was truly beaten, by the Suzuki GSX-R 1000, which weighed about the same but produced much more horsepower and torque. - WP:NPOV and WP:RS problem
* An ingenious fuel injection system was introduced for the 2002 year - WP:NPOV problem
* The 2004 R1 produces 172 hp at the crankshaft - WP:RS problem
* giving it a theoretical 1:1 power-to-weight ratio - WP:RS problem
* In 2006 the Yamaha R1 expanded its output to 175 hp - WP:RS problem
* The 2006 model year for the R1 is groundbreaking - WP:NPOV problem
* The 1985 FZ750 is an earlier example of Yamaha's the 5 valve engine design
There are WP:NPOV and WP:RS issues all over this article. It sounds more like a press release than actual encyclopedic info. Facts need to be backed up by a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia and power words like "groundbreaking", "exceptional", "truly", etc.. need to be avoided all together. Opinions simply shouldn't exist here. The "performance" section needs a reliable, unbiased source. The entire article really just needs a complete rewrite in order to exist here. I'll start on this soon if no one else does first. :) --Roguegeek 00:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally disputed 

message: "The 2004 R1 produces a stated 172 hp at the crankshaft (excluding RamAir) and also weighs 172 kilograms, giving it a theoretical 1:1 power-to-weight ratio."
I have numerous issues with this article, most of them stated above by Roguegeek, but this one stands out above the rest for some reason to me.  While it is uncomfirmed data, it is also opinionated, creates a convoluted fact and are inncorrectly paired units of measure.  I'll explain:
During the developement of the "horsepower" unit of measure, the pound (lb) was used in its determination.  By saying the power to weigh ratio is 1:1 (172hp and 172 kg) is not an untrue statement, but it is misleading since the majority (all I have ever seen) of power-to-weight ratios where horsepower is used at the measure of power are "pounds-per-horsepower."  A 1-to-1 power to weight ratio sounds good at face value, but when you consider that 172 kilograms is about 385 pounds, the ratio becomes less impressive with the "appropriate" mass unit in place.
Regardless, Roguegeek, made all the good points.  I'd be willing to help clean this up if he hasn't begun already.209.114.201.30 20:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific Unit Confusion 

message: There is no performance information other than power output and torque. Contrast this with super cars on Wikipedia which have statistics for max. speed, 0-100km/h, standing quarter mile etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.124.186 (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent Specification 

message: * So far I've found only one third party article that discusses Factory Pro's claims about "true" horsepower:<P><P>I don't see any special reason here to treat Factory Pro's claims as fact.  Dynojet says one thing, Factory Pro says something else.  We should stick with standard WP practice and cite independent third party sources, such as the usual bike magazines.<P>Factory Pro's allegations can be discussed over on Horsepower or on Motorcycle testing and measurement or Dynamometer, but until a third party weighs in, Factory Pro's numbers should not be given an special preference over other sources.  I would prefer to keep them off the articles completely since they are so controversial.  Manufacturers claims belong in articles, but should be framed as claims only.<P>FWIW, a WP user of the same name, , has previously tried to change the horsepower figures to Factory Pro's "true" values on the articles for the Hayabusa and some other bikes.<P>My personal opinion is that it is very suspicious that nobody else has publicly taken Factory Pro's side here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.<P>Also, WP is an encyclopedia, and for purposes of an encyclopedia read by the general public, the horsepower differences are not that significant, but the controversy is an unnecessary distraction, and so we should stick with mainstream publications. --Dbratland (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really hard to ignore the apparent conflict of interest, Marc, and I suspect that's what is clouding things. Please read WP:PSTS, which helps explain why we trust secondary sources (magazines and books) over primary sources (manufacturers and dyno makers/promoters). tedder (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the bottom line here is that zero independent sources support Factory Pro's assertions.  Zero. Marc even claims to have worked with Dave Searle on his MCN editorial, yet Searle chose not to publish Factory Pro's claims, even though MCN is advertising free and has the least allegiance to any vendor.  This is a case of using WP to right great wrongs, perhaps advocating a fringe theory, and it should stop.  These refs to factorypro.com should be removed until 3rd party sources back them up. --Dbratland (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree with you on this. The factory pro refs should be removed. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thirded. tedder (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

text: My reaction is that we have failed to fully explain Wikipedia.  Can you verify for me whether you have or have not read Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research?  You seem obsessed with WP:Truth, and that's great. Who doesn't like truth?  Truth is a wonderful thing. But Wikipedia is not the place for you to set the record straight. You need to find other venues to publicize your cause, and then if that is successful, Wikipeida can then cite those sources.  WP: GREATWRONGS speaks to this issue too. --Dbratland (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

text: And another thing:  The How Stuff Works article was written by Marshall Brain, founder of howstuffworks.com. He has degrees in electrical engineering and computer science, and job experience teaching computer science and running a software company.  Maybe he is an expert on horsepower, but we don't have evidence of that expertise.  More to the point, nowhere in his article does he use the phrase true horsepower, nor does he criticize Dnyojet, nor does he say Factory Pro is better or "true".<P>Regarding Dave Searle's article:  since MCN does not accept advertising, there is no reason why he couldn't have said that Factory Pro is "true" and criticized Dynojet the way you would have liked him to. But he chose not to.  As far as I can tell, Searle said what he meant and meant what he said.  The Jeff Hartman article agrees with Searle's article as far as how Dynojet machines have error introduce in them and what it means.  Where does it say "true" horsepower? Where does it mention Factory Pro?<P>If you want MCN or any publication to say explicitly that FP's products are "true" and your competitor's products are faulty, contact them and ask them to say that.  If they decline to do so, your problem is with them and not with Wikipedia.  --Dbratland (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Third party sources on Factory Pro

message: The LE and SP versions of the 2006 model share the same hardware but are painted differently.  The LE has the 50TH anniv. yellow and black colors while the SP has a somewhat black paint job.  The LE was offered in the North America market while the SP was available in Europe.  500 of both the LE and SP were produced resulting in 1000 of the Ohlins suspended bikes world wide, not 500 as stated in the article.167.191.42.7 (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reliable source indicating the total numbers? tedder (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  # of LE/SP produced is incorrect 

message: What is open class, it is up there in the lead but I am pretty sure most reading this article will not know what that is. If possible we need a link to what open class means. --Inayity (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sport bike#Classes. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The term is very vague and does not exist on other similar bike pages (see CBR1000rr). Even on the page discussing it, it is poorly referenced and not qualified.--Inayity (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't just say "open class". It says "open class or superbike", so if the one doesn't ring any bells for you, it suggests the other. If you're complaining that motorcycle "classes" are confusing and poorly defined, that's reality. Wikipedia can't make up our own cleverly designed classes to sort out the facts to our liking.<P>If you were talking about racing, like Superbike World Championship, then you'd be given a clear definition and the bike would either be a member of the class or it wouldn't. But street bikes are only roughly analogous to racing motorcycles. Many 1,000 cc "superbikes" don't race in Superbike World Championship. So they're called that, or they're called "open class" or whatever. Literbikes sometimes. There's many names, and they are vague.<P>What we do at the top of an article is tell readers what term our sources mostly use to describe a bike. If the term the sources use is vague, so it goes. Be glad we're not classing plays as tragedies or comedies or tragicomedies or dramadies. That would be a real headache.<P>If you can show that most sources use a different term for the R1 than open or superbike, then please change the article and cite it. Honda CBR1000RR would be a better article if we were to use the commonly used terms "superbike", "open class" or "liter bike", as the sources do, rather than the vague "sport bike" that we have now. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is open class?