Talk:BMW F series single-cylinder

Merge proposal
There are three separate pages for the various single-cylinder BMW F650 bikes: BMW F650, BMW F 650 GS, and BMW F650CS. I believe these should be merged due to the overlap between them. Comments? tedder (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * F650 is about the Funduro/Strada. F650GS is about the later version of the F650 bike, produced from 2000-2007. F650CS is a different bike again, with a false fuel tank and belt drive. I don't think merger is a good idea as the three articles stand alone with little overlap. However, I can see that F650 and F650GS could be easily merged. --TimTay (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's your opinion, but I don't totally agree- the F650CS is the same bike with some mostly external changes (same engine, transmission, mostly the same frame). It's best understood as part of the F650 family. But that's my opinion, and I'm not trying to convince you that I'm right. tedder (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I can see that F650 and F650GS could be merged as the latter is an evolution of the former. I support those two being merged. However, the single sided swingarm, different size/construction alloy wheels, toothed belt drive, tank, steering rake angle, forks etc. all make me think this one is a standalone article. b.t.w. The frames are different too. --TimTay (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

History(?) &mdash; Variants(?)
I would like to see the history of the F650 series added to this article. When was it introduced? How has it evolved over time?

What are the differences between the GS model and other F650s? Why not cover all F650 variants? 67.142.130.49 18:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Should be renamed to "BMW F 650 GS"
Source: http://www.bmwmotorcycles.com/bikes/bike.jsp?b=f650gs —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.189.121.161 (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
 * I don't believe that it should. Other BMW model specific pages on Wikipedia don't use spaces between the series, engine size and model e.g. BMW R1200RT, BMW R90S and BMW R1200C. --Cheesy Mike 05:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So other pages are wrong, too. See the link for an authentic source, here is another in case you think BMW USA plays their own name game: http://www.bmw-motorrad.com/com/en/bikes/enduro/f650gs/f650gs_main.html --87.189.90.181
 * Yes, I am coming around to your way of thinking. All the BMW models on any BMW official website in any country are listed with spaces, as is all the official documentation relating to my personal BMW bike (R1150GS) such as service record and owners manual. As this is a pretty wide-reaching change to a lot of BMW related pages I'll let you kick it off(!!), but be warned you are likely to have your edits reverted by others if you are making changes from an IP address. It would help your edits be accepted by others if you registered an account on Wikipedia. --Cheesy Mike 08:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can only change the text, not the article's name because I'm an IP (and intend to stay that way for now).
 * Anyway, I will pick another article, change the text and see what will happen. --193.254.155.48
 * That went relatively well, I've seen much worse. You should try editing as an IP once in a while, quite illuminative I think. --87.189.116.19

I do not support the move to F 650 GS. --TimTay (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So you don not support to move to the version unambigiously demanded by primary sources. Why? --87.189.62.202 (talk)
 * Because blanks make the article content difficult to read. --TimTay (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So your point is that we should introduce falsehoods into the articles to make them more convenient? --87.189.62.202 (talk)

So, The result of our little discussion seems to be that the move is unambigiously demanded by primary sources, supported by secondary sources and that the only reason not to do them is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --87.189.71.248 (talk)


 * Oppose the move. Most BMW bike article names use the format with only one blank, as do most external websites, eg http://micapeak.com/bmw/gs/gs_1150.htm which describes the BMW R1150GS. Andrewa (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So most are wrong. Primary sources are very clear on the issue, and I also named some secondary sources (obviously the more careful ones) here.  --217.230.34.115 (talk)

New Structure Proposal
I think the article could use a different structure. This is what we have now:


 * [Intro]
 * Distinctive Features
 * See also
 * External links

I thought about something along these lines:


 * [Intro]
 * History
 * Frame, engine etc.
 * Dakar
 * 2008 Update
 * See also
 * External links

What do you think? --Yooden &#9774;

2008 Model
I think the 2008 Model should be covered on BMW F 800 GS, apart from a paragraph or so here. Any thoughts? --Yooden &#9774;
 * Personally I'd like to see this article renamed to F650GS single cylinder and start a new F650GS twin cylinder article. I think that the two models are significantly differnet enough to warrant a new article. --TimTay (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the second part, hence the proposal. I don't think however that F800GS and the new F650GS are different enough to warrant different articles. It's what, color, fork, height and engine control? We would have BMW F 800 GS (slightly misnomered) to cover both in detail and this article pointing over. --Yooden &#9774;

Draft
I created a draft here. Join the fun! --Yooden &#9774;

Names and spaces revisited
I notice that the article has just been renamed from "BMW F 650 GS" to "BMW F650 GS". As I made clear in another section in this talk page, I think spaces in BMW model names are the devil's own work, so I really don't see what was achieved with this latest rename. BMW don't use F650 without the space. Should we let it pass or move the page back to its original version of "BMW F 650 GS"? Or maybe I should just have a nice cup of tea and worry about the world economy and weakness of Sterling instead... --TimTay (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the spaces shouldn't be in there, but I also think we should have one F650 thumper article, and one F650/F800 twin article.. tedder (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree on the spaces. Agree that there should be a F650GS/F800GS twin article - in fact I might just start it. Ambivalent on merging F650/F650GS. Against merging F650CS into anything as it is a completely different bike. --TimTay (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So three articles- F650CS, F650GS, F650/F800 (R? GS? S? ST?). That sounds good to me- let me know (here or on my talk page) if you start the F800 article, and I'll refactor the F650 pages when I have time. tedder (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"I think the spaces shouldn't be in there", see Wikiality. --87.189.83.143 (talk)

Please don't take it personally, but this is a truly disgusting argument, pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT, see any reference from BMW. --193.254.155.48 (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What matters isn't what BMW calls it, but what the common name for it is. The results are mixed: book references with no spaces, book references with spaces. tedder (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's about 50/50 everywhere I look too. No matter which way we do it, readers will find it disagrees with half of what they've seen, so it's bound to always look wrong to somebody. Might as well keep it simple leave the spaces out. --Dbratland (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with the common name too i.e. no spaces. The spaces are a BMW marketing affectation, nothing more. Take a look at any publication, historical or contemporary, and you'll see BMW model names used without space. Every BMW bike model article on Wikipedia omits the spaces - a situation that has been arrived at through the consensus and actions of a number of editors. It seems to me that the only one who doesn't like it is the one who says this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT i.e. that's a two way street. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

phrasing removed
The following was in the article, I removed it because it was too peacock-y. "Most riders find the F 650 GS more comfortable and less stressed than its competitors at freeway/motorway speeds. The standard model's relatively low seat height make it one of the few 650 cc dual-sports that can be comfortably ridden by riders under 6 ft (182 cm) tall." Including here for posterity. tedder (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Significant Re-Write
I've re-written the page to be more legible and clear - mainly the writing quality, not doing much with the actual information or figures.

Deleted the comment about the new G650GS model having a larger alternator than the 2000-2007 version - it doesn't, they both have/had 400W units.

Broke the Dakar variant out into it's own info box so that it can have a picture, and based on my feeling that it was significantly different that it was used/bought by a different market/customer to the regular variant.

That's all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuart.midgley (talk • contribs) 15:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the rewrite. It was definitely needed. My nit to pick is about that alternator- the source listed said it was an upgrade, and WP:V pretty much says the main goal is verifiability, not truth. So I'd prefer for that to remain unless we can find sources that refute it.
 * You might want to join us at WPMOTO. It isn't terribly active, but we try! tedder (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thanks Tedder. :-) There's been a bit of confusion all over the web about the G650GS - BMW has reintroduced it very quietly. It's not even on the Australian BMW website yet, despite being in showrooms already. The US website listed the same specs as the current F650GS twin engined bike for a while, before that error was fixed, so there's been lots of confusion. I'm not worried about the alternator issue - whatever you think appropriate. I believe the current F650GS has the lower power alternator while the G650GS has the same as the old F650GS.

I'll go through the article over the next week or two and try and find sources for as many facts as I can. It'll be a little each day - too much work at home to do it all in one hit.

Just looking at WPMOTO and will join it in a minute. Cheers! Stuart (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to be WP:TE, but I'll add it back- I was careful to give sources while writing the article, and my (only) source said the G got the upgraded alternator- it wasn't talking about the parallel twin. Great to have you around- both here and on all the other articles. tedder (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Is "city/sport" really necessary?
What does city/sport even mean? A combination of paved and off road use? Which is equivalent to dual sport? Or is city/sport just a classy way of saying supermoto? To me, if BMW has made a dual sport which comes in a slightly more civilized version, that doesn't imply the creation of a whole new category. Especially if the geometry and ergonomics of the bike are not fundamentally different from an existing conventional category. Also, what's the source for this term? Any citations?--Dbratland (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There were two versions of the first F650. The funduro was very much a traditional dual-sport motorcycle, while the strada was more street oriented. Using the definitions on Wikipedia it could be argued that the strada is a naked bike. city/sport means nothing. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So the major change was less knobby tires, along with heated handgrips and a taller windscreen? To me when you put street tires on a dual-sport you get a supermoto.  A naked bike has either standard or sport geometry, not the tall seat and long suspension travel of a dual-sport.  But then the Ducati Multistrada is classed as something called "Sport-oriented touring," whatever that is.  I think the point of the link in the Motorcycle Infobox to Types of motorcycle was to only pick from the ones in that article, because then the reader can click on it and get a definition of the class.--Dbratland (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Efficiency
Is fuel consumption typically included in vehicle articles? This source lists the F650 several times as best in bikes over 500cc (and if you exclude the 3-wheel Piaggio, it's the best). MartinezMD (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It can be included where the data comes from a reliable source. Total Motorcycle is certainly considered to be a reliable source for its reviews, but I don't think this is true of the MPG figures because they are rarely based on tests and are mostly based on owner or manufacturer reported data. See the last column in their tables - (M) is manufacturer, (O) is owner, (P) is publication. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Page Move?
Should we move the page to BMW 650 single to more appropriately cover the G-models including the new Sertao? yes hello, nprice (was) here. (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Works for me. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on BMW F series single-cylinder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090118231845/http://bmwmotorcycles.com/bikes/bike.jsp?b=2009g650gs&bikeSection=enduro to http://bmwmotorcycles.com/bikes/bike.jsp?b=2009g650gs&bikeSection=enduro

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Information and references on early F650GS fork failure defect issue
Hello,

In researching the F650GS as I considered buying one, I found a number of accounts of the 2001, 2002, and 2003 models suffering sudden on-road fork failures, in most cases causing severe injuries to the rider. BMW quietly changed the design of the forks starting in mid-2003, but did not issue a recall. The consensus seems to be that this was a factory metallurgical defect issue, but BMW has never acknowledged the problem despite redesigning the part and replacing all dealer parts inventory with the improved version.

There is a lengthy discussion at http://advrider.com/index.php?threads/crash-in-destruction-bay-yt.371650/, with others at https://www.f650gs.crossroadz.com.au/FFIntro.html, http://f650.com/forum/showthread.php?7487-Catastrophic-F650GS-Fork-Failure&s=cec4f8ce100069b16ea53a0e21c10f26, https://forum.ih8mud.com/threads/2002-bmw-f650gs-fork-failure.460941/, https://forums.bmwmoa.org/showthread.php?28793-Catastrophic-Forks-Failure&s=3e703ebb425f11ea8ffcca4eef9c1d54, and other sites. The US NHTSA responded to multiple complaints about this issue with a 2009 summary, linked here https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2009/INCLA-PE09026-37260.pdf.

I strongly believe this information should be included in this article, but wanted to bring it up here before just adding it without saying anything. I started drafting some text on the issue (below), which is a good starting point if anyone wants to take on the task. If not, I'm certainly willing to finish it up and link some of the above resources. I haven't linked online discussion boards as references before, so I'd like some opinions on whether this is even appropriate at all and the best way to cite them if it is.

"In 2008, the publication Motorcycle News ran an article reporting on an incident in which a 2002 F650GS had suffered a catastrophic and apparently spontaneous failure of the bike's front forks while riding on smooth pavement, severely injuring the rider. "

Cheers,

Zonefocus22 (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * That's a "reader's article". We nearly always avoid any self-published sources, or forums or social media. All those links to forums are irrelevant to Wikipedia. We are guided by reliable sources -- those that are professionaly written, have editorial oversight and fact-checking, and are considered reputable by other reliable sources. The fact that the NHSTA received complaints is inconclusive. Random people (or one guy pretending to be several people -- who knows?) can say anything they want in a complaint. The question is, what did the NHSTA verify?According to a 2015 retrospective at Motorcyclist (magazine) looking at used 1997-2013 bikes, "The few problems common to the series include worn steering-head bearings, blown fork seals, and, rarely, regulator failure. The first two could easily be due to riding off-road, while the third seems to be one of those things that pops up randomly." "Adventure" bikes are often pushed to extremes that are better ridden with a dual-sport or enduro bike. You have to be careful buying a bike that has thrashed off-road.Whatever the case may be, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the policy is that no article is written with the intention to serve as a sales guide or shopping guide. See WP:NOTCATALOG #5, also WP:NOTADVICE. Previous discussions on car recalls have set the standard that we generally only mention recalls that were covered outside the specialized motor press, in mainstream media, such as CNN, the BBC, NYT, etc. And this bike wasn't even recalled. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)