Talk:Honda CB-1

Images

Photos are not the greatest. The CB-1 didn't have the windshield standard -- that's after-market. Torpesco (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I found one on Commons without the windscreen. --Dbratland (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Performance

Specs are obviously wrong. CB-1 produces not 44 hp, but 44 *kW*! http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/model/Honda/honda_cb1%20400%2089.htm

That website is not considered to be a reliable source. Give us a review from the time the bike was around, or a book, and we can put the figure back in. Until then the easiest thing to do is remove the figure altogether. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Dude, it's a Bike Magazine 1989 article scan. Don't believe it? - Remove the figure. Here are some links for you: http://www.hondacb1.org/reviews-grey97.shtml http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/motorcycle/honda-cb-1/421395/ And, most importantly, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_CB-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.177.75 (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not a scan. A better source is still called for. None of links are authoritative. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure it's not a scan - it's a recognized, then copy-pasted scan :D Glad you removed an equally-unsubstantiated figure anyway. One philosophical question remains: what's the authoritative source for other specs? If none, then why not remove them altogether? ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.124.226.224 (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Any uncited fact may be challenged and deleted. But in most cases, uncontroversial statistics like tire size or wheelbase are left without footnotes. Controversial statistics like top speed, acceleration, horsepower, torque, weight, and fuel economy should always have inline citations, and if not they should either be tagged {{Citation needed}} or deleted. I found some refs from old Cycle Worlds and added them.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Honda Motor Company 1989 CB-1 spec sheet: http://www.honda.co.jp/news/1989/2890306.html GoogleTranslated page looks like this: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ja&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.honda.co.jp%2Fnews%2F1989%2F2890306.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.209.42 (talk) 10:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

If you read horsepower it will help explain the differences between bhp (brake horsepower) and PS (Pferdestärke or metric horsepower), while the article torque covers things like ft-lb and kgm. Anyway, here is why you're so confused:

• 57 metric horsepower (42 kW)
• 55.2 brake horsepower (41.2 kW)
• 4.0 kilogram metres (39 N⋅m; 29 lbf⋅ft)
• 29 pound-feet (39 N⋅m)

These are all exactly the same figures, expressed in different units, with small rounding errors. It's really silly to be having fits and making embarrassing personal attacks over such a small thing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

He took it so close because he used to own one of those, and he knows for certain that not a single naked roadbike with 44 horses, be they brake or not brake horses (as it was mentioned in this article initially), would go as fast as 190 kph. Sure the difference between 58 and 55.2 after all the water and oil pumps, generator, etc. is negligible, yet the article initially mentioned just 44 hp. Hp, not kW. And that was bloody outrageous %)

Okay okay. Guys, I'm starting to bother to deal with your ignorance. All day long it took to fix the engine power, which was why some 44 horsepower. Moreover, the author considers a reliable source of old magazine, while the manufacturer's specifications with the official site are ignored. Where did the peak power at 10,000 rpm, if it occurs at 11 500? It is not a CB400SF, two different bikes. You read about it in a magazine, writing by amateurs, we go on these bikes. We have a club owner CB-1 (CB-1.ru), which are scanned service manual and user manual. You again change production years. Motorcycles produsced in 89, 90 and 91 years. Type 1, a transition model and type 2. There were differences in the amount of the fuel tank, air filter and clip-on's. My friend ten years repair used japan bikes in service and has his own cb-1. I only want a justice. Sorry, for machine translate and so many emotions in previous post. Greetings from homeworld of vodka, balalayka etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.210.230.100 (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

An enthusiast club is a group of amateurs. The writers of Cycle World are professionals. Moreover, a major magazine meets Wikipedia's criteria and a club member's opinions do not. All I can suggest is maybe having someone with more advanced English help clarify what "amateur" and "professional" mean, and try to get across the meaning of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Keep in mind also that anyone who is deeply worried about a difference of 1 Pferdestärke on a 22 year old motorcycle can use Google do find and read the opinions of any number of CB-1 clubs. Wikipedia is but one source of knowledge, and it is not the last word.

Also, the figure of 44.8 hp clearly comes from http://www.hondacb1.org/reviews-cycle1090.shtml or http://www.cb-1.com/. I've verified that Cycle World didn't publish it in spite of what they say, but very likely a member of that club ran a dyno test of their own and came up with 44.8 hp. Note that hp means rear wheel horsepower, which is the only thing they could test. While bhp is something normally only Honda would know, and nobody can know for certain if they are exaggerating. But it's entirely plausible that the bike made 55 bhp at the crank and 44 at the rear wheel. Citing cb-1.com or hondacb1.org does not meet WP:RS, but it's hardly outrageous -- it's a totally reasonable figure. And of course there's no reason to trust cb-1.ru more or less than cb-1.com or hondacb1.org. They're all amateur clubs, and none of them are considered good Wikipedia sources.

Again, I suggest reading horsepower to clarify the difference between crank (bhp) and rear wheel (hp) power. Power losses of about 20% are typical of chain drive motorcycles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, 44 hp at rear wheel looks real, but usually means power on crankshaft. Just change "at 10000" to "at 11500", because it's official information from honda.com.jp, i posted link up there. If you dont believe about producing this model in 1991, you can look at japan's auction named BDS. Japan junk is very porular in Russia, because it cheeper, than buy new from dealer. We ride them. For example - new yamaha xj6n diversion costs over 12 thousands of dollars, because more 70% of bikes in Russia from 90's, good condition CB-1 costs about 2500-3200 dollars, it is price of new yamaha ybr 125. CB-1 '91 (type II) has 13 litres fuel tank, and high clip-on's. After 1992(?) Japan goverment set up limit 400cc bikes to 53 bhp and top speed 180 km/h. I try to drag CB400SF first series and VTEC - they loose to CB-1 so much. If you want, i bring you photos of all types cb-1 and specs. Also, we can write e-mail to manufacturer, for raquest technical information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.210.230.100 (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but hp does not usually mean crank horsepower. That's what bhp means. I've already pointed you to sources that explain it all. Perhaps the language barrier is causing you too much frustration? I don't understand the need to make it so difficult on yourself by trying to split hairs over very fine points in a language that you don't fully understand. To me it makes much more sense to pick nits in one's native language so as to avoid all this confusion and bickering over nothing.

All of those ideas for verifiying the final year of production are original research. Wikipedia doesn't publish original research. A good place to publish original research is your club's web site. The public is smart enough to look for original research on sites like cb-1.ru or cb-1.com and so forth. Wikipedia readers are smart enough to realize that encyclopedias publish summaries of information from independent, secondary sources, rather than original research.

You should try to find a source that meets the criteria in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources to cite the year. If you can't find a published, verifiable source, then don't waste your time collecting photos and sending email. Whatever you come up with won't be verifiable, it will be original research. How much difference does it make anyway?. As I said before, if somebody is that worried about the precise claimed power or the final year of production, they are just as capable as you of doing further research. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)