Talk:Suzuki Hayabusa

message: I'm removing the stub tag, since this does not seem the case anymore. nihil 21:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub 

message: 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)
replies: text: I could not quite figure out who contributed the street performance numbers for the new model, but since they were unreferenced and obviously uncorrect I removed them. Sorry for deleting, I know it takes an effort to contribute. A 2008 Hayabusa will give you 0-60 under 3 seconds and an electronically limited topspeed of 186 mph in 5th and 6th gear. Shark Abuser (talk) 07:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: 151hp for the 99 hayabusa according to http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/articles/2010JanIndex.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.242.114 (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance 

message: 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)
thread_title:  BHP 

message: 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)
thread_title: Proposed deletion of Pop-culture section per [[WP:TRIVIA]] guideline

message: 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)
thread_title:  changed controversy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  369 MPH? That's amazing! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Big 4 Top speed gentleman's agreement 

message: 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)
thread_title:  UK police Hayabusas 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sorry, but the Bonneville image is awful. I'd like to see a firm convention that every infobox image (not necessarily the same as a lead image if the infobox is not at the start of an article) should be a picture of the bike, ideally from a specific angle such as front 3/4 view - similar to the convention adopted by the automobiles wikiproject. Whilst we bikers are nowhere near as anally retentive as those automobile, aviation or train geeks, it would nevertheless be good to have some sort of standardisation for infobox images. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, Biker Biker. I worked on the automobile image standardization and am excited at the thought of working with the motorcycle editors to come up with a standard for the motorcycle project as well. roguegeek (talk·cont) 18:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose sooner or later we have to either officially adopt the Automobile project's convention, or draft our own.  I think there are more pressing issues, but if everyone wants to work on it now we might as well.<P>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.<P>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.<P>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)
replies: text: Duplication, yes, but the top image is for people who choose WP:TLDR and/or don't care at all to read and know the difference. Duplication or near-duplication isn't a bad thing for a comprehensive article. tedder (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But consider Kawasaki Ninja 250R.  The lead is better than the Bonnieville picture because you can see the whole bike, but the rest of the article gives you a range of different kinds of images.  I'm actually arguring for a dual role for , one for the lead and another for the full specs of each model.--Dbratland (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm throwing the image in questions up on the right here so all editors can see it. The article covers many topics, but the main subject of the article is the bike. This being the case, the lead image and all infoboxes need to clearly show the bike as the main subject. Now looking at this image (and I really do love this image as it stands alone), we know what kind of motorcycle it is because we are motorcyclists. Can the common reader tell what kind of bike this is from the image? Absolutely not. This is why it can't be considered for a lead image or infobox image. Now, it can be used next to text content in the article that is connected to this image, but that's about it. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 18:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The salt flats image is good for the section on racing, but it really doesn't identify the bike very well. tedder (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I would counter by asking what is the point of having two nearly identical images of first generation Hayabusas in the article.  First a white 2007, and then a black 1999.  It's redundant, and it wastes space.  All it tells us is that the bike once came in black and in white, which we know from the table at the bottom of the article (where it belongs since colors are so trivial).  But would you delete the second image?  Or violate the convention in the second image?  Again, WP:Lead section has a better solution:  try to summarize the whole article.  --Dbratland (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You wouldn't delete any of the images or violate the convention. The article is about the Hayabusa. The lead image should be a Hayabusa that generally follows the automotive image standards. The infoboxes on the page are for a first and second generation Hayabusa. The images in the infobox should be for a first and second generation Hayabusa. roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is WP:MOTO truly a subproject of WP:CAR and beholden to those standards? tedder (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not! They have some good ideas which we could re-use, but they are car drivers. Four wheels will always be inferior to two. Maybe I should clarify what I said earlier. I'm all for standardisation of infobox pictures. If there isn't an infobox in the lead of an article then I'm happy for it to be something that captures the spirit of the bike in question - a burnout, a closeup of the engine, whatever makes the bike distinctive. In an article that contains multiple generations of a bike I'd be very happy for there not to be an infobox at the start. I think the automobile and automobile generation infoboxes are are a terrible idea. That's effectively what is being emulated in this article and I'd argue that the leading infobox should be removed because it isn't about a specific model, it is trying to capture all the generations. --Biker Biker (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do wings count as two wheels or four? (hint) I do tend to think we don't need a lot of standards around this, especially as a fledgling group. My proposal: the bike should be close to stock, background uncluttered, from whatever angle and zoom shows the bike best. That's it. tedder (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Wait.  This is because there is an infobox in the lead?  I agree that the fully-filled in infoboxes lower down in the article that detail each version's specs should have an image that follows the car convention.  But the reason there is an infobox in the lead is for quick summary of the entire model range; most fields are blank except for a few that apply to all models, and the top speed field that could be stretched to cover them all.  So essentially I'm using  for a different purpose than it's main function.  Which was, once again, already done a long time ago on the Ninja 250 article.<P>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)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: 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)
replies: text: We just need to put in:    If somebody doesn't like what they see, they can click on it and learn more.  And the same could be put in any motorcycle article; most of them have a horsepower field, or they should have one.<P>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 .  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.<P>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)

text: I don't really follow what you're trying to say.  But regardless of what you do, the chances of having somebody revert your edits are much lower the better your sources.--Dbratland (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horsepower, bhp, hp, etc. 

message: 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)
replies: text: What is your question?  Which part?  --Dbratland (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Jay Koblenz's Motorcycle Consumer News article is very easy to understand.  Other MCN editors agree with his opinions about the shape of the torque curve, as do writers at other publications.  As time allows I will return to this and try to write a more clear explanation of what Koblenz said. --Dbratland (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Doesnt make sense

message: 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)
thread_title: Off topic

message: "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)
replies: text: Thank you for your help in improving the horsepower figures in this article.<P>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.<P>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)

text: I'm insisting on no such thing.  In fact, I thanked you for fixing the errors in bhp and hp.  Good work!  Thank you again!<P>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.<P>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.<P>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.<P>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)
thread_title:  Horsepower 

message: As discussed above  and elsewhere, the use of WP:CITESHORT and parenthetical referencing, along with  (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  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  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)
thread_title: Footnote style

message: 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)
replies: text: This isn't a forum to discuss questions about the bike. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.  You might want to try looking up a Hayabusa forum and asking there. I recommend deleting this section from the talk page.  --Dbratland (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Why? Helmets are not mandatory worldwide. --Biker Biker (talk) 04:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

text: And there's this. Obviously not here to make a constructive contribution. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Off topic

message: 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
:Interesting. You definitely need to read WP:RS, WP:ELNO and WP:ELNEVER. The first is about reliable sources, which would cover the topspeed.com link as it isn't a reliable source. The second covers the Hayabusa forum - we don't do forums and fanclubs as external links, and rarely or never as references. The last would apply to the pirated TV programme on free-tv-vido-online.me  Do you have any other sources that state it is a Hayabusa engine, because it would make a reasonable addition to that section of the article. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Ariel Atom 500 and the Hayabusa Engine

message: * http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/15/us-maine-crash-idUSBRE96E01S20130715
* http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-bill-warner-20130716,0,7912694.story
* http://bangordailynews.com/2013/07/15/news/aroostook/officials-say-loring-land-speed-event-organizers-motorcyclist-bill-warner-were-vigilant-about-safety/
* http://www.tampabay.com/news/obituaries/epilogue-hedy-goes-here-and-here/2131649
* http://www.cycleworld.com/2011/08/10/warner-goes-311-mph-racing/
--Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill Warner crash 

message: 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)
replies: text: Can you phrase your objection in the form of a question? What is it you don't understand? And the link you provide carefully defines the term "projected frontal area", something not mentioned in the article. The article simply mentions "frontal area", in reference to the nose of the bike. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  No sense 

message: 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)
thread_title: Survey