Talk:Honda CBR1000RR

Honda 20th Anniversary Articles
Interestingly, Honda has very prominently used the "generation" differentiation in its articles regarding the history of the CBR900RR/CBR1000RR, as can be seen here: http://world.honda.com/CBR1000RR/history/timeline/ A primary source seems to make the most sense for this kind of information. Unfortunately, I cannot deal with adjusting the tabular information below the article to correspond to Honda's timeline (nor have I had a chance to pull much additional information from the 20th Anniversary articles--feel free!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.98.106 (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Customers and Press Opinion
Customer opinions should be pulled out. Not encyclopedic info. Press opinions should probably be changed to something else like "Press Feedback" and should only be listed if sources could be shown. Thoughts? Roguegeek 16:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The more I look at the opinions section, the more I think it shouldn't be there. Opinions are not encyclopedic material and are not allowed in this way on Wikipedia. No one has posted any feedback so I'm just removing it. If you think otherwise, let's discuss here before we bring it back. Roguegeek 07:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Competitors
The actual competitor list looks fine to me. Problems come from no sources provided for the info shown after a competitor is listed. Although I am a fan of the bike, it seems to be more opinionated than factual information and this is a problem. Info shown here should be encyclopedic only. If it's not verifiable info, I suggest we take it down. Is there a reason why we can't simply list competitors instead? Maybe we could just take the section out all together and list competitors somewhere else (although it already is listed in the info box on top)? Thoughts? Roguegeek 16:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The more I look at the competitor section, the more I think it shouldn't be there until the info listed is completely encyclopedic, which I would consider none of it to be. I'm removing it until we can find info with sources as defined by Wikipedia. Roguegeek 07:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Specifications: Speed
The info under speed in specifications is subjective and probably shouldn't be listed as a spec unless a source is given. I know for sure manufacturers (especially Honda) do not list 0-60mph times, 1/4 mile times, and top speed anywhere in their official spec lists because they too know it's an objective field and can vary depending on several conditions. I'm removing from specs list immediately but have no objections putting in a "Performance" section that could list info like this with a source. Thoughts? Roguegeek 16:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Put it back. This is sheer vandalism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.195.186.54 (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

New distinctive features - POV language
I've tagged the "New distinctive features" section as non-neutral due to pervasive POV language. There are lots of value-judgment statements:

"It is the only real innovation of this motorbike that, except this, it is a very good package of state of the art..." "...very useful in superbike competition but with no effective utility in normal usage pattern." "...but it adds weight (in wrong position, far from center of mass) and it has (minor) problem..."

I like that there is apparently someone with experience and knowledge contributing to this article but the language really should be cleaned up to be more encyclopedic and less preachy. --Bk0 (Talk) 01:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Please change as you see fit. Roguegeek 05:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Complete Rewrite
This article needs almost a complete rewrite. Sentences aren't put together well. Some are totally incomplete. Sections have some POV issues. I'll be working over the next week to do some major cleanup work on this. Have already started by replacing the specs listed with the specs Honda has actually issued. --Roguegeek 17:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Competition section dispute
Currently this section reads as if someone copied it directly out of a Honda brochure. Not only are the claims it makes far from neutral with regards to motorcycles in the same class as the CBR1000RR, but subjective, qualitative claims are passed on as fact. If the "Competition" section is still deemed as important, then perhaps it should be comprised of factual details of CBR1000RR motorcycles used in official competitive events (such as MotoGP). For now, though, I think for the article's sake it would be best to remove this section entirely, as it only links to other motorcycles in the Superbike and Sportbike categories.


 * I agree with the POV and fact problems here. Any suggestions? Roguegeek (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

An appeal not to turn this Wiki into an US spec dominated Wiki
Please do not turn this wiki into an exclusively US spec dominated Wiki. The Fireblade sells in other countries too. As an Wiki, we should attempt to make this as complete as possible for the benefit of a larger audience. EU specifications inserted are being consistenty removed by US based readers even though all specs are backed up by official Honda documentation. Just because Honda US has released incomplete information does not mean that Honda EU which sells in many countries has not released official documentation. User Roguegeek has contributed to this Wiki and I am sure we all appreciate his efforts but in the interest of completeness, please work together to make this a complete Wiki.NewRider 14:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not that EU specs are being removed. It's that performance numbers that rely on primary sources are being switched with performance numbers from secondary sources. Articles on Wikipedia are to primarily rely on secondary sources whenever possible as per WP:PSTS. Roguegeek (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I added some values (imperial gallon fuel capacities) which were removed - could these be added back in? Also, I think it would be better if the primary units were metric, with various regional traditional units in brackets. Would be clearer for those not used to non-metric measures. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.250.91 (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Specifications: Power
The reference used for the power shown for 2004/2005 and 2006/2007 bikes only provides wheel power, while engine power is given for the 2008 model. This reference should be replaced with one that provides engine power for all bikes. 203.132.82.224 (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My edit to highlight this fact in the specifications box was reverted. Why?  The two sets of information are currently incompatible with each other (depending on how they're read they imply either a huge improvement in performance, or a performance deficit in previous years,) so how on earth is clarifying this "confusing"? 124.176.8.153 (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That is correct. Manufacturer spec sheets always list horsepower, not wheel horsepower.

The hp rating for the 08 model needs a reference too.--59.8.232.63 (talk) 12:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

On what planet does a CBR1000rr make 194hp? Not on this one. I'm not sure what the exact figure is, but this is surely 10-15 hp too much.--131.53.128.23 (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's how it "should be"...... Manufacturer's power should be listed as "claimed". The CBR1000rr wiki info gets that right, but I'd be a bit redundant and put it right the line as "194 claimed crankshaft BHP". (to address the inevitable above post :-) Other wiki entries are a train wreck in that regard - with attempts to straighten out the mess, being reverted out.

ACTUAL chassis (rear wheel)dyno power should say something like "154 True HP (or DJHP) (measured). This cbr1000rr entry avoids another error ("B"HP), but common dealership level dyno's "DJHP", is not "BHP" - "B" means "Brake" and whatever Dynojet horsepower power figures are listed should be clarified as "DJHP" and "True HP" should be clarified as True HP. Dynojet power is NOT "Brake" horsepower, as it's an inertia dyno when measuring power. True HP is power measured at the rear wheel, under load, provided by a brake and measured with a high accuracy load cell. Efforts to clarify that, too - are reverted away.

At http://www.factorypro.com/dyno/true1.html there's a ton of True HP results, many with multiple samples tested. Most all done on the same 2 dyne systems that were calibrated and verified to read essentially the same.

Overall, this entry avoids the hp mess of other entries -

So - Manufacturer's power should be "claimed" crankshaft horsepower" or "claimed rear wheel horsepower" or "claimed stuffed pink bunnies" - or whatever they claimed. And ideally, they should all be crankshaft BHP.

Actual "Measured power" should be "True HP" or "DJHP" "measured". Dynojet power should be "DJHP", never be written as "BHP". True HP should be written as "True HP".

Overall, the cbr1000rr entry is pretty clean. Thanks - Marc Salvisberg (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture
Forgot to mention in my edit summary: See WP:WPACT for some standards on pop culture and vehicles. Unless you have a source saying the comic book, movie or TV show affected the design or sales of the bike, keep it on the page about the media, and off the page about the bike. --Dbratland (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Honda CBR1000RR. 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/20060506021932/http://hondanews.com/CatID7102?mid=2004022043998&mime=asc to http://www.hondanews.com/CatID7102?mid=2004022043998&mime=asc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

New info regarding the 2020 1000RR-R model Specifications section
I see some new info of the 2020 model in the specifications sections without any references...Although I think most of them might be accurate, but still we should remove them unless some reliable sources can be referenced...any thoughts? ABSOLUTE CIPHER (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)