Talk:History of BMW motorcycles/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


BMW not based on the Douglas flat-twin

I'm pretty sure that the BMW flat-twins owe nothing to the Douglas (UK) motorcycle of the same layout. It's a long time since I've had a chance to compare them, but they didn't look a bit the same eg [1] - the Douglas is chain-driven! Or [2] TomRawlinson 21:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The M2B15 engine was a fore and aft flat twin based on the Douglas design. It powered chain drive motorcyles including the BMW "Helios" 1921-22. The engine has BMW cast into the crankcase and the fuel tank had BMW "roundel" logos on either side. - See Tragatsch for a detailed photograph. M-72 04:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I've modified the article based on what you've said, hope that is OK. Can we add a reference to "Illustrated History of Motorcycles - Erwin Tragatsch" [3] (assuming that's what you're talking about) in the article, along with page numbers?
I'm puzzled by several references in the article eg "Unit Construction" engines (difficult to imagine an integral gearbox as part of a tunnel crankcase!) and alloy cylinders, though I'd not change these entries. Is it helpful or encyclopaedic to mention that ABC used an across-the-frame design before BMW? TomRawlinson 06:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Even in the BMW Museum the sample R23 has Steel/Iron barrels (maybe steel is an iron alloy). Don't expect facts from the blue and white crowd. They far prefer myths to facts! M-72 15:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry it was R32, hard to keep track amongst the B&W BS!M-72 15:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem with technical accuracy and good writing in this article. Bolted-up sections are not "Unit Construction", quite the reverse. Maybe the very first BMWs did copy the Douglas flat-twin, and (perhaps) it's worth mentioning in the article. But a damaging claim of plagiarism requires a proper reference. The allusion to ABC building earlier flat twins almost certainly doesn't belong in the article (even if it was referenced, which it is not). TomRawlinson 16:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Read BMW's own version of its history as even they admit they copied the Douglas. Be aware that the "official" history is sanitised and neatly omits the war-crimes that nearly led to BMW's dismantling in 1945. It also states that BMWs manufactured in Eisennach were badged EMWs in 1947 when this did not occur until 1950.
As to "bolt-up unit construction", the expression has a long history and neatly denotes the difference between a seperate engine and gearbox where the primary chain is adjusted by gearbox movement and a true unit construction. Unfortunately motorcycle part descriptions are often totally inadequate and misleading, just refer to forks and swingarms as examples.
The reference to the earlier ABC should stay as it is often falsely claimed that BMW was the first to use this layout. Setright rightly points out that BMW was probably influenced by ABC in this matter. M-72 05:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I added the comment about ABC as I was told that "my father saw ABC engines being exported to Germany"..check out the similarity between photos of the two engines Dave Roberts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.210.202 (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry86.135.210.202, not good enough. Sopwith appears to have closed in 1921. Gnome et Rhone is a different matter. BMW has a long histoery of copying, dating back to its origins. If BMW copied anything it was the improved 493 cc G-R engine. M-72 (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
This is an encyclopaedia. We put good, verifiable information into articles. We seem to be short of this in regards to many of the claims made. The phrase "Bolt-up unit construction" may have a long history, and there may be places where it has a useful application, but this is not one of them. Japanese motorcycles are "unit-construction", the boxer BMW is not. You may confirm this for yourself by considering the 1955 Mini, which is unit-construction, quite unlike what cars had been up until that date.
Furthermore, we are not here to knock the subject of articles with nationalist slurs against their country of origin, nor to accuse them of lying about their achievements.
Nor are we here to knock the people who love this marque. If there are false claims in circulation from partisan supporters of BMW, then we put them into a different section headed "Controversy". TomRawlinson 15:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

PerhapsTomRawlinson would like to visit the article unit construction, correct it and then discuss the matter here. He might also do a simple google search on BMW slave labor/labour. M-72 23:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Spaces in model names

For convenience (I'm guessing) BMW model names here are written without spaces e.g. R1150GS. However, all BMW's websites, literature and owners manuals refer to the model names with spaces included e.g. R 1150 GS. It may be a little pedantic but it is the official name for the BMW models and therefore I think we should follow that convention on this page. --Cheesy Mike 09:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As an encyclopaedia I think Wikipedia should be factually correct, rather than bow to de facto usage. --Cheesy Mike 17:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, you're entirely correct to say that what appears in the brochure is correct, and editors should follow the exact same practise. I've never left a space, but if you're going to go round and fix everything, then I'll mind your back. TomRawlinson 19:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
So Truth=Anal Retentiveness? --87.189.126.6
Great argument! This side of the pond, the US president is called "fucking loony" pretty universally. Care to renamed his article? (Sorry, that was unecessary) There is also an often met misconception that England equals UK, but it doesn't follow that England should be only a redirection. --87.189.126.6

I am a little disappointed that a perfectly reasonable suggestion on my part has resulted in such pointless responses by both Jeff Dean and whoever 87.189.126.6 is. I will restate that as an encyclopaedia I think Wikipedia should be accurate, but in this case I'm not going to go and make wholesale changes if there isn't widespread support (despite WP:Bold). I would be interested to see what others think. --Cheesy Mike 21:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As usual it's a bit more complicated than people suggest. BMW did not use a space pre-war from all advertising material I've seen. It seems to be a fairly recent introduction, but it may have been country specific at first. Some time after the introduction of the oilheads I think it was universal. I would suggest that no space be used until the date of changeover can be sourced and all models after that date use the space. M-72 23:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I made no suggestions about models other than the ones I changed. In fact, I would be hesitant to change G/S models or anything older without evidence, since the naming style obviously changed then. I think it's safe though to assume spaces for models contemporary to the ones on bmw-motorrad.com, like the R 1200 C. --87.189.116.19

Could someone please rename the articles? As an IP, I can't do it. Thanks. --87.189.116.19

Despite many requests to bar IP editors, the encyclopaedia still permits them (perhaps partly because many/most people's first edits are done anonymously). However, failing to register a name causes problems to other users, and will lead some people to discount or completely ignore your contributions. It also causes you problems, since you'll not have been notified of this addition. TomRawlinson 07:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand that there are problems, that is partly the reason why I do it; I want to learn about the problems. I used to login, but login has it's own problems, and I want to fly anonymous to get a new perspective. --87.189.80.209
Model names without spaces are easier to read. Rodendahl 05:44 17 Jun 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an online Encyclopedia, and I strongly believe it should use the same model names as the maker of the bikes - with the spaces. --84.48.52.216 17:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Revisited - the article didn't have any consistent use of model names which was confusing to the reader. I have gone through and removed spaces from model names so that the article is now 100% consistent. If the consensus is to use spaces the please someone else go through and change every single model name in the article - right back to the R32. --Cheesy Mike (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that great example of Wikiality! WP:SOURCES clearly demand the spaces, yet since the poll says otherwise, the article is left with errors. --87.189.62.202 (talk)
There is little point in changing just one section of the article. It has a negative effect on the article's readability. So fix all or fix none. --TimTay (talk) 10:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
You now know that large parts of the article are wrong. Fix them, not the one that aren't. --87.189.62.202 (talk)
I think you are doing the right thing looking for consensus on the all the BMW motorcycle articles. If consensus can be reached on the use of spaces, and my stance will be to oppose, then all article names and references to models within those articles (and this one) should be changed. Until then I think it is best not to make any changes. I have requested discussion at the Motorcycles wikiproject as it may attract others to contribute an opinion. --TimTay (talk) 10:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Why would consensus be necessary if primary sources are more than clear? WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY --87.189.62.202 (talk)
We had a similar discussion in the aircraft project here [4] recently. The wiki search engine can find 'DH 82' as the top hit (the convention that the aircraft project uses for de Havilland aircraft) but does not find 'DH82' directly, if I was seaching for a BMW bike I would type it in without the spaces. Out of interest, I just looked through four motorcycle encyclopedias (from different publishers) and none of them used spaces. Then again looking at photos of an R 100 RT this is how the name appears on the sidepanels. So, accurate yes but probably not convenient. Nimbus227 (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should include falsehoods only because Mediawiki's search engine is lacking. I'm also sure that something can be found that would solve this problem, either a hack like redirects (which we should have anyway) or a more fundamental solution. Again, we should not forfeit accuracy for convenience.
I know that the wrong way is widely used, but the primary source is unambigious. Also, the better news services use spaces: [5] [6] [7] --87.189.62.202 (talk)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

BMW (motorcycles) → BMW Motorrad — The name of the BMW subsidiary is BMW Motorrad, I believe the subject matter of this article is the motorcycle manufacturer, not the motorcycles and the title should reflect that —Chris Ssk talk 10:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your arbitary change to the name because it is an article about BMW motorcycles. Refer to the earliest edit. If you want an article about the company, write one, but don't hijack this article for the purpose. While you're at it write an article about the twin BMW companies of 1945-50. M-72 (talk) 03:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.
  •  Oppose - Article should stay at BMW (Mototorcycles), see discussion below. Andrewa (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Article should stay at BMW (Mototorcycles), see discussion below. M-72 (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support - Article is clearly about a company, it's products, and it's history. Roguegeek (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 Comment - In process of gathering additional editors to chime in. This survey should last at least a week. Roguegeek (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh Yes! Let's have an edit war! You bloody wanker! How many editors do you have? I'll raise you five! Go and write a new article and stop hijacking existing articles. BMW Motorrad is an AfD. Stop stealing the real article - BMW (motorcycles). And that is from the anti-B&W crowd. M-72 (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a policy on personal attacks which you definitely need to read. You've been warned on your talk page and the next warning will more than likely lead to banning for a specific time. Roguegeek (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia also has a policy that states that discussion should take a few days, which last time I looked was less than a week. This is a contraversial request that involves more than two editors and should go to arbitration. M-72 (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia certainly has no policy that states that discussion should take a few days if by that you mean we need to go to arbitration just because no consensus is reached in that time. So I'm relisting it, in accordance with the moving guidelines for administrators. If you wish, you can of course invoke dispute resolution at any time, but IMO if we jump straight to arbitration we'll just be told to go through the earlier steps first. Andrewa (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose
  1. English site, english title
  2. I think the original name refers to bikes, and not the company as a whole. Perhaps I'll write a BMW Motorrad article while we're waiting for the final decision
  3. BMW Rocks!
EllanMcmurph (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


Discussion

Any additional comments:

Disagree that the article is about the company, although that's what the current lead would indicate. It's primarily about the motorcycles, and we do need an article about the motorcycles. The organisation is after all mainly notable because of the bikes! Andrewa (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the article started out about the motorcycles it should stay about the motorcycles. A new article can be created for the current company and it's several incantations by someone interested in that. They can then write histories of every other motorcycle company if they so want. Indian would be most interesting. Anyway, wouldn't a BMW Motorrad section be more appropriate under the main BMW article. M-72 (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that's completely ridiculous to think an article can't grow into something larger. Roguegeek (talk) 10:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Nobody is suggesting that. The question is whether the topic of this particular article should be changed, not whether an article in general can grow. The existing topic (the bikes) is encyclopedic, and that should be the end of it; If you think we want an article on the proposed new topic (the organisation), then there's nothing stopping you writing it. But this particular case is even plainer, as the existing topic is what gives the proposed new topic most of its relevance. If it weren't for the bikes, most of us would neither have heard of nor be interested in for the organisation, if it even existed which is doubtful. So if this new article were to be created, there's every risk it would be AfDd and the result would likely be to merge it either to the bikes article or to the parent company article, or a bit of both.
In summary, the organisation is of marginal interest except as a manufacturer of motorcycles, while these bikes are one of the most notable marques. In view of that, what's the problem with the name and topic both staying as they are? Andrewa (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually only the title needs to be changed the article already is about the manufacturer even if you guys don't see it. reading the article is obvious. It talks about BMW's history starting as an aircraft engine manufacturer then moving to making motorcycles, loosing its facilities in WWII and having to start over and the models and innovations the manufacturer introduced over the years, financial difficulties etc. Chris Ssk talk 12:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I just double checked, but I disagree that the current article is mainly about the company. It's mainly about the bikes... as it should be, since that's the article title, and looks likely to remain so. What's the problem with creating a new article on BMW Motorrad AG if you feel so strongly that one is needed? Andrewa (talk) 10:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone actually tell me when the company BMW Motorrad AG came into existence? And can anyone tell me about the TWO BMW firms operating in the late 1940's? BMW has been an aircraft, motorcycle and automobile manufacturer. BMW Motorrad is a fairly modern concern. You can change the name to BMW Motorrad, but everything prior to the commencement of BMW Motorrad AG will need to be removed as it is not relevant to the new company. The article started out and is still about BMW motorcycles no matter which BMW made them. There might be a need for a BMW Motorrad AG article, but that article will not be entitled to talk about the prior works of BMW as opposed to BMW Motorrad AG. M-72 (talk) 02:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont think BMW Motorrad is an AG its a BMW AG subsidiary. As for a date. Accorting to the official website BMW Motorrad came into existence in 1923[8] Chris Ssk talk 15:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
So, let's get this right. By your statements it would seem that you are proposing to change the name of the article to that of a non-existant company that doesn't manufacture motorcycles instead of the name of the company that does manufacture motorcycles followed by the qualifier (motorcycles) to distinguish this article from the more general BMW article that is primarily about cars. Is that correct? If there is no company BMW Motorrad that manufactures motorcycles, then why change the name of the article in the English language wikipedia to BMW Motorrad which is merely the German language equivalent? I think there are a few WP points on that. M-72 (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
No actually you got that completely wrong. BMW Motorrad is a company that manufactures the BMW Motorcycles. BMW Motorrad however is not an AG(Public company) but a subsidiary. A subsidiary is a company that is controled by a parent company. As for BMW Motorrad merely being the German language equivalent of BMW motorcycles. No, its not. BMW Motorrad is the manufacturers name and it is used like that in English speaking countries. The motorcycles are sold by BMW Motorrad USA in the USA[9] and BMW Motorrad UK in the UK [10] Chris Ssk talk 03:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's try this. What is the brandname of the motorcycles manufactured by Bayerische Motoren Werke AG? Last time I looked they were branded BMW. Just had a look in the garage and the roundel says BMW not BMW Motorrad. (And yes I do know that BMW owns Husqvarna and that it treats it as a separate entity.) When people look for information on BMW motorcycles they don't go looking up BMW Motorrad motorcycles. The article started and still remains about BMW motorcycles, not cars and not the BMW corporate structure. M-72 (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The motorcycle manufacturer is called BMW Motorrad that makes BMW brand motorcycles. Its common practice products of two companies that belong (or used to belong) in the same group to make products under the same Brand name. Yamaha Corporation makes all sorts of musical instruments and electronics branded Yamaha and Yamaha Motor Company makes Yamaha branded motorcycles. Both use the same tuning fork logo, Husqvarna motorcycles srl makes Husqvarna branded motorcycles and Husqvarna AB makes Husqvarna branded chainsaws, Both use the same Husqvarna logo as do many other Husqvarna companies. Mitsubishi Group companies make all sorts of products under the brand name Mitsubishi and use the three-diamond Mitsubishi mark.
Where do you base your claim that people don't look for BMW Motorrad? and even if they dont, isn't this article's purpose as an encyclopedic article to inform them that BMW motorcycles are made by BMW Motorrad, a BMW AG subsidiary Chris Ssk talk 22:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Caution

Although the usual link to Wikipedia:naming conventions has been removed, there seems no reason they shouldn't be considered relevant to this discussion.

I'm also a bit wary of the suggestion above that others are being lobbied. This is not the normal way to build consensus. Andrewa (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No Alloy heads or barrels

The photos of the R32 clearly shows iron heads and barrels. Unless someone can find a photo verifying alloy heads and barrels or some other verifiable reference I will modify the section to agree with the photo.M-72 (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Have modified the section M-72 (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

BMW Motorrad article

So since the editors who edit this article regularly think this article is about the history of BMW motorcycles, I'm going to take their advice and spin off an article that's specific to the company. This being the case, I'm going to start removing company info from this article and into the BMW Motorrad article. I wanted to get feedback before any of this started just to know if I'm stepping on anyone's toes. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The page is 42 kilobytes long so its within the limits for a split, I think turning this into "History of BMW motorcycles" and take models, engines, technologies, etc. to a new BMW Motorrad article is a good idea. Chris Ssk talk 01:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:BMW Logo.svg

The image Image:BMW Logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

BMW Motorrad instead of BMW (motorcycles)

Isn't it more specific to put this article as BMW Motorrad instead of BMW (motorcycles)? The designation "Motorrad" is BMW's official name for their motorcycle division; why don't we do it here? Luigi6138 (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I proposed the change about a month ago, see the archived discussion above. Chris Ssk talk 01:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This is true. Editors (not including myself) already agreed that this article would be an article on BMW motorcycle history only and that a separate article about the company specifically would be created. That article will be the title of the company, BMW Motorrad, and, since no one has really responded to my topic discussion above, I'm probably going to get started on it sometime this weekend. Roguegeek (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The entire set of BMW articles is a schemozzle - a mess! It needs consolidation and correction and most of you wankers do NOTHING! This comment is deliberately offensive because I repeatedly see those that will and do not! Be BOLD! Go forth and do SOMETHING! But cease to harangue us! Start by looking at every "BMW" article including History of BMW and do better. You will be corrected - and isn't that for the good! M-72 (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Chris Ssk talk didn't like what I said, so I'll translate it into an English that most can understand. "If you want a bloody BMW Motorrad article, write the damned thing and leave the rest of us Luddites] alone. M-72 (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This isnt your article, others have every right to edit it. See WP:OWN. Having 2 articles on basically the same subject so you can have your own article makes no sense. If you want a BMW article only you can edit go make your own web page or something. If you dont want it edited, don't submit it to wikipedia. Chris Ssk talk 15:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It isn't nice to be sore about it either, and attack others. See WP:NPA. Luigi6138 (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
And it's even less nice to imply intent that may not be apparent. As a matter of interest, who made you God? M-72 (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

EMW vs BMW

I see there is a bit of an edit war going on about EMW. It would be much better if that warring were to stop and instead agree that whatever text ends up in that section should be supported by appropriate citations. Facts are a great way to stop arguments.

This book states that the Eisenach facility began post-war motorcycle production in 1946, two years before BMW restarted. Page 146 of this book states that BMW's lawsuit against the Soviet Avtovelo took place in 1950. Slightly contradicted by this book which states that the BMW name was first used by the East German plant but they stopped doing so in 1952. This book confirms that the plant used the BMW name initially and only later changed to EMW, as does this book. This book again confirms the initial use of the BMW name by the Eisenach facility and the subsequent change to EMW after being sued.

So what does all this mean? Well the statement "EMW existed between 1945 and 1955" is clearly wrong. EMW only existed as a name once the people running the Eisenach facility were sued by BMW (in 1952 according to the majority of the books above). Prior to that, from 1946 to 1952 the bikes were badged BMW and had the BMW blue roundel. Clearly the Eisenach bikes, whatever badge they were produced with were not BMWs, but neither were they EMWs either until later.

Suggestions on a way forward? I'm certainly happy to have a crack at that section of the article. --TimTay (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Bit of illogic in your argument here. BMW produced motorcycles in Eisenach from 1930-on. BMW produced R35 motorcycles in Esienach from 1937-on. The BMW plant in Munich CEASED producing motorcycles in 1942 and transferred ALL motorcycle production to Eisenach, so how do Eisenach produced BMWs suddenly cease to be BMWs. The Soviet Occupying Power recommenced R35 (and very limited R75) production in 1945 on the original production line in the original factory for reparations and continued until 1952 when control was handed to the East German Government (thus allowing BMW in Munich to take legal action).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.154.79 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 2008 December 12
Tim: thanks for bringing it to the discussion page. I should have done that right away.
I think the solution can be somewhere. Clearly there is just one true, original BMW. It built motorcycles in Munich from 1923 until 1969. The early postwar "BMW" built in East Germany was not the authentic BMW, but an East German BMW copy. Yes, it took the real BMW a while to get EMW to stop calling its bikes BMWs. To call the bike in the photo a BMW is misleading to the casual reader. To call it a postwar "East German BMW" is closer to reality, but is still misleading. So long as the text and photo caption can make all this clear, that's fine. It should be completely clear that bikes produced after the war in East Germany are not authentic Munich-built BMWs. However you can do that skillfully in the text and caption would be great. Otherwise, casual readers could be confused. Motorrad-67 (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The only post-war copies were bikes built in West Germany as the only BMW motorcycle factory from 1942-on was Eisenach. To be accurate the only true BMWs built between 1942 and 1952 were built in Eisenach and those built between 1948 and 1952 in Munich should be labled as West German BMWs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.154.79 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 2008 December 12
Agree fully. Calling it a BMW when it is a copy is not acceptable, whatever the prefix might be, because it wasn't built by BMW it was built by Avtovelo (later under the EMW name) using BMW designs and tooling. In the meantime I'll try to find some other links. Do you want to take a crack at putting one or more references into the text so that it is clear and can't be disputed in the way that the anonymous editor (wrongly) did? --TimTay (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
How can it be a copy when it was built on the original production line in the original factory? And it was not built by Avtovelo (an East German concern) but by a Soviet concern (an important legal point). I think you need to do a bit of research here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.154.79 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 2008 December 12
I gave it a shot. See what you think. Motorrad-67 (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Nice one. --TimTay (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Tim: I see the anonymous M-72 has now resurfaced down in Australia, this time as "124.171.154.79." While M-72 appears to be very knowledgeable, he never cites sources for his alleged facts and simply states them as incontrovertible facts, as witness his statements above. In effect, he assumes he is the god of all motorcycle knowledge and that others should simply accept him as that. I can assure you from past experience, it is hopeless to argue with him as it will result in endless and unpleasant arguments with an extremely arrogant fellow. Motorrad-67 (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Observer - reluctant as I am to side with an IP with a potentially bad history of disruption, I'd be pretty confident that every motorcycle built with the blue and white roundels is a BMW. Many vehicles have been built in two or more jurisdictions, usually under a properly drawn up license. That's not what happened in this case, but it doesn't stop the Eastern built BMWs being, well, "an Eastern-built BMW". Only if Eisenach designed and built a new/different machine between 1948 and 1952 could you call it a faux-BMW and that didn't happen.

Later - do the books say that Eisenach-built BMWs were forgeries? No, it seems not. In fact they appear to say that it's the Munich-built bikes are copies. From the (limited) information available to me at the moment, it looks as if Munich mysteriously over-turned the status quo (by which Eisenbach were the makers of BMWs) in 1952. The only serious puzzle is "Why are we hammering this out at Wikipedia, has it really not been beaten to death in a specialist Forum?" TomRawlinson (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Because that is what M-72 ("124.171.154.xx") likes to do. I think the Eisenach stuff is way overlong for a BMW history page. Motorrad-67 (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
We're hammering it out because Jeff Dean Motorrad-67 has stated (EMW went OUT of existence in 1952. Started in 1945 at the end of the war.) and (Anything postwar from Eisenach (East Germany) is NOT genuine BMW from Munich. It is EMW.) and has retracted neither statement. Even BMW in its official History pdfs admit links to Eisenach. If Jeff would stop his vandalism the issue would go away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.241.44 (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
M-72, cited for repeated vandalism in the past, is now 203.206.241.44 because he does not want to risk using his M-72 i.d., in spite of its anonymity. His IPs are very slippery, but his style is unforgettable. He accuses other of unsubstantiated statements, but never substantiates his own allegations, just declaring them anonymously as immutable fact. What an Aussie!
M-72 is emblematic of one of the problems of Wikipedia's tolerance of anonymity. I will have no further comments to offer on M-72, regardless of whatever he does -- or does not -- call himself or whatever nonsense he chooses to write about me. Motorrad-67 (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Jeff, since you were originally banned for your behaviour, and since you have not reformed, should anyone follow your claims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.224.90 (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The Eisenach facility was not. It was dismantled by the Soviets as reparations and sent back to the Soviet Union where it was reassembled in Irbit to make IMZ-Ural motorcycles as is commonly alleged. The IMZ plant was supplied to the Soviets by BMW under license prior to the commencement of the Great Patriotic War.

Enlighten me please how can it be, considering that the Irbit factory was already producing M-72 motorcycles (BMW R71 near-clone) during the War, and continued producing them after. 95.79.4.246 (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Nonsensical sentence?

... but the most striking detail, both visually, and on paper, is its 55 degree forward tilt and 43 cm (17 in) width, ...[20]

What does that mean? The engine seems to have the same orientation as in prior K models, and I can't make out a forward tilt of the engine in the photograph of the motorcycle.--213.56.233.1 (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In most photos of the K1200GT all you can see are the fairings and the engine is hidden. In Commons Category:BMW K1200R you can see the engine better, for example File:BMW K1200R model 2005.jpg. I would hunt around in Commons Category:BMW_K1200, or at Flickr, and try to pick a photo that better illustrates what the text is saying. --Dbratland (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I can now see what is meant, both the transverse and the tilted. I might add here that I don't consider the tilt "striking", but that was not the main point.--213.56.233.1 (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The engine orientation and incline of the BMW K series is unique, both in longitudinal and transverse variants. Do any other brand's motorcycles share this configuration? --Dbratland (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the origin of the BMW roundel relevant to the history of BMW motorcycles?

Unless I am mistaken, the BMW roundel was in use from the creation of the Bavarian Motor Works in 1917, six years before the R23 began production. Since the origin of the roundel has nothing to do with the history of the motorcycles, is it relevant to this article, or should it be left to the article on the history of the company? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Generally, I'm not opposed to a little repetition of content in related articles, but in this case BMW has it covered. --Dbratland (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Why not have a quick overview with a link to the BMW section? This seems like the perfect use of {{main}}. tedder (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Let's just get rid of another bit of Jeff Dean legacy. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Or History of BMW#BMW logo could be the main section that covers the topic, and BMW and History of BMW motorcycles can briefly summarize and refer to the main section. --Dbratland (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


'WikiProject: BMW Motorcycle' Proposal

I am currently proposing this new WikiProject would have the primary aim of creating and developing a page for each model (both old and new) of BMW motorcycle produced in the company's history. This would enable a highly valuable resource to be for both enthusiasts and restorers such as myself to be created, where extensive information about specifcations, development, modifications and the history behind could be found. Not only this, but it would encourage motorcycle enthusiasts, who would not normally have used Wikipedia, to both use its resources and to contribute to the project's pages, becoming part of the motorcycle fraternity which would be the driving force behind this community. Once this task has been completed of English Wikipedia, I, with help of other editors and members of the project, would like to then translate the pages into other languages (particularly German, in order to make the resources available in Germany, where many BMW enthusiasts and restorers are concentrated), and so contribute to the wider Wikipedia group. The WikiProject, would also contribute large numbers of pictures to Wikimedia, as part of its galleries.

In order to promote the group and encourage the growth of the articles in our scope, the WikiProject is not only being promoted to present editors who are currently active editing articles on BMW itself and motorcycles in general, but also notify groups such as the Vintage Motor Cycle Club and the BMW Club in the U.K., which would encourage members (20,000+) to contribute some of the extensive knowledge of the topic which is demonstrated by members of these clubs. Members of the WikiProject who are active in clubs outside of the U.K., would also be encouraged to promote the Project to their respective society, making the WikiProject multinational. Current, more experienced editors, would then help the 'new boys' to use Wikipedia and share their knowledge, which has often been built up during the course of a lifetime of passion for BMW motorcycles. This would enable us, together, to produce a resource which will help generations long into the future and help preserve and catalogue BMW's legacy in the motorcycle industry.

Currently, there are no such WikiProjects which would be dedicated solely to the BMW motorcycles (not even BMW itself) and the development of pages on each individual model, in opposed to the current situation where some models are briefly referred on a BMW related page. This WikiProject would allow this community of people who are highly knowledgeable about this specific topic to develop articles in extreme depth, something not possible with larger groups, which could then be published on the world wide web, available gratis, as with all Wikipedia articles, to the public.

If successful, the idea could serve as a blueprint and be replicated for other motorcycle manufacturers.

Please visit the project proposal page, in order to see more details of the project and to join. Any questions or queries can be posted either on the proposal page, or I can be contacted directly on my talk page.

Many thanks and any help from fellow enthusiasts on this project would be greatly appreciated.

DAFMM (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Move to History of BMW Motorrad

See discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling/BMW Motorcycles#'History of BMW motorcycles'. Any objection to moving History of BMW motorcycles to History of BMW Motorrad? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I can find no evidence that the name "BMW Motorrad" was used by the company before the 2000s, even in its native Germany, but I don't object on principle to the move as it is the current name the company uses across every market globally. That said, I don't see a compelling reason to change the current name. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty lukewarm myself on this. I prefer using Kawasaki motorcycles for the invariant subject of the motorcycles and Kawasaki Heavy Industries Motorcycle & Engine for the corporate entity that changes its name every few years. But I don't see great harm and if others like it, then okay. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal: Airhead (motorcycle) into History of BMW motorcycles

The article Airhead (motorcycle) is about a nickname for air-cooled BMW bikes and, apparently, their riders and/or owners. No references are given, and the existing stub doesn't look like it has much scope for expansion. I hereby propose that the article be merged into History of BMW motorcycles or, alternatively, be proposed for deletion as a neologism. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Is restoration of BMW motorcycles relevant to the history of BMW motorcycles?

What does the restoration of BMW motorcycles have to do with the history of BMW motorcycles? Does the presence or absence of restorers have anything to do with the motorcycles made by BMW or the decisions made by BMW to create new BMW motorcycles? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 05:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Too many photos of prewar BMWs?

The first illustration of a postwar BMW is near the bottom of the 1970-1982 text section. I suggest deleting several prewar photos and placing photos of postwar period BMWs next to appropriately relevant text. I would be happy to undertake this task. Jeffrey M Dean (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I took the liberty of enacting an alternative, wherein the images are partially staggered left and right, so that they would appear close to the text relevant to the images. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to move or delete "Restoration" section

While restoration of BMW motorcycles will preserve individual examples of historic BMW motorcycles, it plays no part in the actual history of BMW motorcycles. The existence and procedures of restorers will not change the failure of the R39, the success of the R2, the introduction of hydraulically-damped telescopics in the '30s, or the abandonment of them in favour of Earles forks in the '50s.

As such, it is proposed that the "Restoration" section be moved somewhere where it would be relevant, possibly into Vehicle restoration (where Motorcycle restoration currently redirects) or BMW Motorrad (where BMW motorcycles currently redirects), or split off into its own article.

An alternative, given that the section is completely unsourced and written in fairly causal language, would be to just delete the section, and have any extension of Vehicle restoration specifically for motorcycles be started from scratch.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete section for reasons given above. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete Much of the content is about auction prices and collecting anyway, not restoration. But its all unsourced woolgathering. Quality sources do exist on the subject of restroing BMWs, so a section in BMW Motorrad is not out of the question. A new article with a title like Motorcycle collecting, Motorcycle restoration (now a redirect), Vintage motorcycles, or something, covering collecting, auctions, and restoration and replicas is a good possibility. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Section deleted. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

R75 not a KS750 copy

The article says:

"The R75, a copy of a Zündapp KS750, performed particularly well in the harsh operating environment of the North African Campaign."

However, according to Peter Gantriis in The Art of BMW: 90 Years of Motorcycle Excellence, p. 80, at Google Books:

"The military's selection committee, the GBK, preferred the Zündapp KS750 over the BMW R75... there were two key reasons for this. First, the R75's front suspension... was collapsing under heavy loads. Second, the BMW was expensive to manufacture. BMW was offered a choice by the military committee; it could graft the Zündapp front suspension onto its R75, or it could license production of the Zündapp motorcycle. ...In the end, BMW was able to ignore the Wehrmacht's request to use a competitor's design, and the company forged ahead and continued to build its R75 with the telescopic front fork."

This indicates that the R75 was not a copy of the KS750. Since the statement that the R75 is a KS750 copy is not cited, and a source has been found that refutes it, I will delete it.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_BMW_motorcycles/Archive_2&oldid=1136355739"