Talk:Yamaha YZF600R

message: No mention of the 94-96 YZF600??  I think it needs to be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
I think the 94 to 96 wasnt a thundercat. It was a Genesis. I have never seen one yzf600 or fzr600R with Thundercat printed on it.  If there you manage to find a picture, then it can be added. Angelmonera (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I undid the 2007-02-22 change regarding shifting issues as the edit was anonymous and there were no citations listed for the claim that the issues are caused by inexperienced riders. --Baggend 08:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What reference? Please cite it, assuming it is a reliable source. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

text: None of the sources you linked to performs dyno tests on motorcycles. They're just parroting a number somebody handed them, or that they found on some anonymous site using Google. The fanciful numbers of 100 or 105 hp those sites quote are probably just what Yamaha's press releases claim for crank hp, or else they're just made up out of thin air. Motorcycle Consumer News gives numbers of 85 rwhp for '97 and 82 rwhp for '06, from actual dyno tests. As to how one does a dyno test on an engine as you're riding the bike down the road at 140mph, I do not know. --Dbratland (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

text: What proof is that? --Dbratland (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

text: That is not proof. Some editor, no better than you or me, named Don Hartmann just put that there without a proper footnote or source. That's why open wikis are not reliable sources -- see WP:SPS. You can't cite Wikipedia itself; you can only follow the sources, if any. --Dbratland (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated the specs based on this source.  It is direct from Yamaha themselves, not from a road test or magazine article.  It is a current, live source (as of 22 June 2020). Weasley one (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Why can't we cite Yamaha's official website?  They publish the specification that the bike was sold with.  If we're looking for an 'official' source there is none more so.  Dyno runs are notoriously variable and dependent on numerous factors; OEM-published specifications are a metric to which the manufacturer is held.  If we don't believe the power and torque values, are we to also ignore published weights, dimensions and capacities and seek an independent source of those? Weasley one (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Known Issues Edits 

message: I thought Thundercat was a Sports Touring bike. Netrat_msk (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a super sport bike that was eventually replaced by the R6 super sport. Roguegeek (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It was meant as a supersport. But as bikes with more aggressive and track focused bikes came into the market is is now regarded as a  Sports Tourer by some commenters. It's a debatable point depending on what your definition of a sports tourer is.--Attig (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that important. That's why we don't see serious experts spending a lot of their time worrying about questions like this. It's like debating if a movie is an action thriller or a spy thriller or an action/spy adventure thriller. Fun, if obsessing on that kind of thing is fun for you, but not important. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports VS Sports Touring