Talk:List of fastest production motorcycles by acceleration

Kawasaki H2 Mach IV
I reverted this addition of two sources because they are not new independent sources. The first link is simply another copy of the same Kawasaki press release hosted on a different website. The second source, dragbike.com, merely verifies the fact that Kawasaki made the announcement: "In 1972 when the 750cc Mach IV was introduced it was another Kawasaki ad that announced Tony’s breaking into the 11-second zone by setting a new AHRA record of 11.95 seconds at Fremont." Nobody disputes the existence of the Kawasaki press release. We know Kawasaki made the announcement. What we lack is an independent reliable source that says this bike had an 11.95 second 1/4 mile time. We have nothing but a press release, and a couple other sources that attest to the fact that, yes indeed, Kawasaki did issue this press release.The reason for requesting a better source is explained at the policy Identifying reliable sources. This is a self-published source, and we can accept Kawasaki's claims about itself as long as they meet these criteria, at WP:SELFSOURCE "The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim." Claiming Kawaskai's own bike broke a milestone time is obviously self-serving, and it is at least a little bit extraordinary. The link to WP:REDFLAG expounds on this: the claim is "supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest". Obviously it is in Kawasaki's interest to say their bike is exceptionally fast. We need a disinterested third party who doesn't benefit from the 12-sec milestone breaking record to say it really happened.Keeping the Mach IV on the list is not harmful and it will probably turn out to be true, but we would still like to tag it for a better source. We need to find a published source, someone in a position to know, who can claim the bike broke 12 seconds independent of Kawasaki's claims. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Give it up Dennis. You put me through this over the king of the streets thing about the Kawasaki Mach IV until I found you a Jay Leno's Garage episode the vice president of American operations of Kawasaki said in the interview that it was known as the king of the streets. You didn't claim that was self-sourced. Unless you are claiming it's a false claim it's a good source. The claim of the time and the date and the location of that run are specific. and nobody claiming to the contrary. Tony Nicosia is one of the most famous writers in drag racing history. The Run was an AHRA National Record. They have been defunct for decades.  If Kawasaki had falsified such a claim I'm sure you'd be able to find evidence of that somewhere. This is not a particularly good time for me on this subject. I told you that I used to drag race an H2 and have 2 sub 12 second runs under my belt. I may have mentioned that the NHRA National Record holder in that class used to show up at the same dragstrip I did all the time, National Trail Raceway just outside of Columbus Ohio. "Pistol Pete". Peter Grasselli held the NHRA Street Stock National Record in the class in the summer of 1972 at 11.81 seconds. I was there when it happened as I've said. While I know that's not "proof" it should at least speak to credibility. That part of my life doesn't need embellishment, the actual events are enough. I'm admitting Pete beat me like a drum. Not trying to make self more than I am.  While researching trying to satisfy your pinhead argument,  I came across Pete Graselli's obituary today. He died just over two weeks ago on July 25th, 2018. So it's no insult to injury for you to be quoting Wiki guidelines that we both know are not written in stone. You're now pissing on the grave of a friend. He's the reason I want to document what could be done with the H2 on a drag strip. Any time I think about racing at National Trails I think of him.  I mention his name every time I talk about the era. Here's the link to his obit. If you wait till the page updates you'll probably see what I added to his page. He was a remarkable guy who held many national records over the years who is also a terrific musician and used to stop in the pits to give me pointers that would make me faster. But they called him Pistol Pete because of his extraordinary reaction time. NHRA is not giving access to the public of their old records. I've spent hours trying to find Peak Roselli's record run at National Trail Raceway and, I believe, July 1972 at 11.81. I have even tried to get NHRA on the phone about this. It's an impossible task. They become just like NASCAR. Argue against my sources, make your little notes but do not remove them. Jackhammer111 (talk) 07:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * That Jay Leno video is appalling - I'd use the term sick but that might be considered as complimentary in the modern vernacular. It's abusing the cite AV media without making it clear that only Rick said this 50 years 'after the fact'. A Kawasaki employee confirming he was 12 years old at the time of the alleged events. Gossip like this gives WP a bad rep. Even bumbling Jay got it wrong with the front drum brake mention - credit to them for leaving it in. When I first saw this in WP a couple of years back, I resurrected an old 1996 computer tower (as it is the only working optic drive I have) to check the hard drive and some burned discs. I didn't find what I wanted (1972) which was sold on ebay to LA just after Katrina, but I did find a Kings of roads or similar x2 (this from memory) relating to a land-speed record contender (supercharged CB900 SOHC) and a Ferrari v CBX shoot out, 1979 and 1980. I wouldn't attempt to use them as both were passing mentions, relating to one-off events, and likely added by a sub-editor as a minor headline. Wikipedia editors often fail to recognise the distinction shown in WP:GNG relating to a passing mention as distinct from "significant coverage". If king of the streets were used often surely a couple of historic sources could be found? Hard-published, not trawled-up by keyword searches. I've already added it to my list but I don't look at American sources presently, and I think it's unlikely in British/Australian. You might try reaching out on Facebook as there seems to be groups for everything.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Way overboard. I'm sure as a 12 old he was capable of hearing people, but that's not the point. When I refer to things in the past you can't accuse me of waiting until the moment you hear it to say it. He's probably been refering to it regularly that way, ever since age 12. I was 13 when the Corvette Stingray was introduced. Within months I could have quoted you every stat about the car. If I use the word Split Window Coupe am I guilty of saying it's 55 years after the fact? Don't be absurd. It wasn't just occasional use. It began as a reference in the street racing Underground but was used so frequently for so many years that everyday motorcyclists new of it or used it. I don't know how old you are, I don't know how old Dennis is but I'm pretty certain you aren't old enough to have known anything personally about the era and I know there's a tendency among younger people to treat things that happened in the past as though they didn't happen just because you weren't there. Just like it's hard to find anybody my age that.elieves the moon landings were a hoax. Just Google Mach IV Kawasaki King of the streets. You'll see several sources none of which king of Wikipedia Dennis found appropriate. Jackhammer111 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * H2 750 ... my first bike at the age of 16... cut my teeth on her and a few corners.. lol Lots of Respect and thank you for your work. No mention of the Kawasaki Eliminators tho? MickTheMaag (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Jackhammer111 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's really a waste of time to have to re-litigate this absurd "King" title. Motorcycles are not crowned "kings" of anything. It's not an actual award or title. It's a turn of phrase one or two people might have used colloquially at some point. It's utterly trivial, at best, even if we could find more reliable sources for this pseudo-fact. Drop "King of the Streets". It's silly and annoying.The Kawasaki H2 Mach IV 	11.95 time is not hurting anything, but it does need a source that meets the criteria at WP:Identifying reliable sources. I wouldn't be surprised if other editors saw it and said we should delete the entry from the list entirely until better sources are cited. If Jackhammer111 is going to keep insisting on deleting the tag, we can ask the question over at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and put the question to rest.Jackhammer111, please stop making remarks about me on this page. If you think I am doing something I shoudln't be, you should take that to an appropriate Noticeboard. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * If you are actually involved in street racing 72, 73 and for six years afterward it would not be trivial. The H-2 broke 12 in 1972. No other factory production motorcycle did that again until 1978. You try to denigrate everything I say. I turned a phrase that one or two people might have used you say. No Dennis, it was common usage among Street racers. The king of the streets moniker was taken so seriously that it became a most impossible to get races in 1973. You obviously weren't there, I was. The fact that you want to address it again at all is more evidence of your prejudice against me personally. I only ended up using the video because you kept deleting my references that you claimed weren't good enough. There must have been four or five of them. It wasn't until you'd heard it come from the mouth of a Kawasaki vice president in regard to Jay Leno's bike but you finally shut up about it. You seem to enjoy making other users spend countless hours responding to your knee-jerk reverts. Again all you have to do is go to your talk page to see the constant and sometimes foul bickering with other users.Jackhammer111 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Whether it is self-serving to quote the name of the driver the date and location of the Run is entirely debatable. What's not really debatable is calling it extraordinary. It is not the least bit extraordinary for the time of a professional rider to be 5/100 of a second faster than the widely accepted 12.0 figure that's even used here on Wikipedia.

The dragbike.com article is totally independent of the Kawasaki material, which is not really an advertisement, it's a history of the facts and figures of their bikes still the point is the drag bike article list the name of the author. it's an independent article. The fact that they are referencing the same run, Kawasaki, does not mean it's not an independent article. The only thing the same is the name of the rider the date and the location. It goes on to say more then Kawasaki did. " Kawasaki gave Tony H2 Serial #00012 after setting the new record of 11.95 at the AHRA Spring Nationals." Other sources say it was at Freemont and one says it was AHRA, and this one adds that it was at the AHRA spring nationals. It is wrong of you to make the independent judgment that the source isn't good without taking it to the talk page and getting consensus, especially after I undid your revert. Instead, you reverted again and deleted the sources. It's not factually correct to say they all quote Kawsai. So, let's recap. The sources are just as good as anything you'll find on Cycle world, which you seem to love, The claim by Kawasaki is not self serving unless the truth is self-serving, and it's not the least extraordinary to think an extraordinary Rider like Tony Nicosia could go .05 seconds faster than the 12 used everywhere, including Wikipedia. I'll wait until tomorrow to see what the admin board thinks of what you are doing but then the material goes back regardless of what your opionion is. Jackhammer111 (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Quoting from the dragbike article, "In 1972 when the 750cc Mach IV was introduced it was another Kawasaki ad that announced Tony’s breaking into the 11-second zone by setting a new AHRA record of 11.95 seconds at Fremont." Finding a website that simply regurgitated the contents of a press release doesn't satisfy RS. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * No, did not read further down where it "For all of Tony’s hard work and dedication to the triple program, Kawasaki gave Tony H2 Serial #00012 after setting the new record of 11.95 at the AHRA Spring Nationals." I'm not even using that source since I have added 2 more.


 * Dennis, Rocknrollmance mentioned only the material from Kawasaki, not the other 2. I still thing the Kawasaki material passes Identifying reliable sources standards because The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim, and There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. Plus I've now sourced it with to different articles totaly independent from Kawasaki. So there is not need for the tage. I'll be reasonalbe and wait before I remove it. Jackhammer111 (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * OK. Iron & Air magazine seems to meet the criteria at WP:RS. I mean, yes, it does appear that five millennials went and started their own online magazine three years after graduating college, but that in of itself doesn't disqualify it as a source. I'm OK with it as long as, and other editors don't object. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I'll say up front that I don't actually care about the outcome of this discussion, and do not intend to get into a drawn out debate - I certainly don't intend to make any reverts to the article. I'm just giving my opinion. I would not consider Iron & Air a reliable source for this. They never mention where they get their information, which is typical (one of the reasons I generally despise using newspapers and magazines for historical content). It is almost 100% certain they are also simply regurgitating the press release, or the other article that did the same. If you reject the idea that explicitly regurgitating the content of a press release makes it reliable, than simply copying the content without saying you got it from a press release should do the same. Since this is a very recent work with no mentioning of some kind of investigative journalism done to confirm the story, it would actually be a wild assumption to think the writers have access to any additional confirmation. The best you could say about all this is that some online magazines that we might consider reliable sources are tossing this figure around. The proverbial "you" has to decide whether the listings on this page are of any records that barely pass the nominal requirements at V and RS, or instead only list things that are well documented by independent sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It is a print magazine as well. Why am I doing all the homework here? The article was written by Rich Brett. Google that name. When you say he doesn't say where the info comes from that is true also of the Cycle world Magazine article Dennis is using as a sole source for the Dunstall. Journalists seldom source their material. That's why they have editors. Like I said, you didn't read far enough down in the dagbike.com article. BTW, I have been in contact with Rick Brett. He is selling a poster on eBay of Tony Nicosia on the H-2 Kawasaki gave him out of gratitude for what he did helping them promote the H-1 His sub 13 run on an H-1 was the fastest a FACTORY production had ever done. He then traveled on Kawasaki's dime to drag strips all over the country taking a fresh H-1 from a local dealer to the track and doing record runs over and over. That is exactly what brought the H-1 to my attention, I had a red one. In late 71, October I think Kawasaki gave him one of the first H-2's off the assembly line. I think serial number made it the 12th bike of the line. He took to Fremont and broke 12 on it. Rick Brett, who until recently had an H-2 museum, is selling a limited run of posters of Tony on the actual bike at the actual strip. At the bottom of each one is a copy of 2 AHRA record certificates. In the eBay the even has a photo of a very old  Tony Nicosia signing the posters. I emailed him about his because, of course, the photo's on eBay are not high res so it's hard to make out the numbers on them. I saved the photo, zoomed and sharpened it and I'm certain the on on the right has 11 on it but I can't read the other two numbers. But assuming good faith on someone as well known as Rick Bret, it's a sub 12 run. His email response the me reads "I actually Own all Tonys records, (not clear what me means by that) but, I am incredibly busy for the next 10 days, remind me after that and I will send a clear photo, there is actual confusion about the record as he set a faster time later than the original record." Nobody has been assuming good faith on my part and it feels like I have to prove things to a far higher degree than should have been necessary. When it comes to motocycles in general no source is bullet proof, even Cycle world. Much of what is written in books is opionion. Nobody is making a counterfactual arguement. Poster on eBay. note old Tony Nicosia signing them.


 * Jackhammer111 (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I had come around and said the Iron & Air source was adequate, but Someguy1221 wasn't impressed. If readers of this article think the sources look sketchy, then we need better sources. We've been told that clearly. We need independent verification. Nothing you've written here refutes the substance of what Someguy1221 said. Rather, you've repeated the same "I was there" and "I know this guy, I know that guy" kind of argument from authority which many editors have repeatedly told you is irrelevant on Wikipedia, and is a distracting waste of your time and ours.We should probably follow the example of Production car speed record and remove the H2 Mach IV from the list, since the one thing all of our sources agree on is that nobody independent of Kawasaki verified the time. There's just various people who happen to believe Kawasaki. Like Production car speed record, we can mention the H2 Mach IV, below the table, and tell readers it's not included because wasn't independently tested. We might eventually have a shadow list of also-rans similar to Production car speed record. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Firstly I'll address the H2 alleged 'King of the streets' myth.
 * Revisiting the old posts at Talk:Kawasaki triple :"...then taking his money* drag racing a stock motorcycle is ALL about the launch* they were going to revoke my license in Ohio for getting six speeding tickets in well less than 2 years* flying a F-18 to flying a Grumman F-6-F hellcat* landing one of THOSE on an aircraft carrier at night.(which my dad did btw.. lol)* I LOVED the sound of the big block guys with headers and trick cams..." This type of stuff - together with the determination to include into WP unsubstantiated American folk-lore - indicates that this is not the right venue for - It's all about you
 * Dennis has suggested there are other websites where these things could be ruminated-over
 * I have suggested reaching out through a Facebook group – turns out that the ‘’Rick Brett’’ mentioned is an admin at such a group with 6.3K members
 * The poster sale is of no historic value – fake, fake, fake photo-shoot with no spectators - contrary to the words used by Brett on eBay: "It is from One of his World Record runs and includes a copy of the certificate". Somewhat misleading, and deliberately so.
 * The bike has bellmouths, indicating (presumably) unallowed engine modifications, presumably also needing up-jetting and up-needling as a minimum to suit, rendering it not stock-production. Somewhat misleading, and deliberately so
 * I don’t understand how an American organisation claimed a “world record” when ‘world’ would need to be ratified by the FIM? Is this Bob Leppan all over again? With AHRA in place of AMA? Claiming a world record when it was actually a North American achievement?
 * My basic knowledge of 1970s UK sprinting is that records have to be set in two directions (ie. including reverse), to negate wind-advantage, with an average figure calculated. Both runs needed to be within one-hour to qualify. Anything one-way is deemed to be venue-only.
 * Admin Someguy1221 has advised at AN/I "tl;dr" = too long, didn't read
 * Text-walling of bygones including street racing, adolescence, Corvettes, Shelby Fords, Moon landings etc is all irrelevant and irritating to anyone trying to read
 * Wikipedia is no place for rubbishing past events, disparaging Paul Dunstall's engineering standards, or for bigging-up people such as Tony Nicosia and Pistol Pete - it's supposed to be WP:NPOV
 * I didn’t realise that the template cite AV media wasn’t used when introducing non-historical content, instead being written longhand with the Youtube URL link unformatted in this diff, 3 September 2015
 * I found the following by chance, written by Jackhammer111, 14 October 2015: "''Who gives a crap what Gallender claims if there not supporting evidence that the claim has the slightest relation with reality? It's really an outrage that experienced wiki editors should be embarrassed by.
 * Who gives a crap what Kawasaki US promotional employee Rick Herzog claims if there is no supporting evidence for 'king of the streets' ?
 * Based on this alone, Jackhammer111 should have known the Jay Leno conversation was wrongly added as there is no historical substantiation whatsoever, as per previous advice at Talk:Kawasaki triple
 * If King of the streets was so commonly used, it should have been reported contemporaneously
 * It really rails against common-sense that, where there is no known historical evidence, and there was already a lengthy dispute, a Point-of-View pusher goes for the last-ditch, scraping the barrel ploy of finding a modern conversation in a contrived, made-for-entertainment video and then presents it as a false historical source
 * Something similar happened to me, where cite AV media was used by a relatively-new editor, having no topic-area knowledge and/or previous editing within that scope, found a 2014 video and shot it straight into the lede
 * The editor had previously admitted falsifying refs elsewhere on WP.
 * The outspoken, alleged-expert (speaking on VT) later failed to engage with me via his University email, the acknowledgement being evasively-worded. A Freedom of Information request for disclosure of payment made in exchange for his on-screen comments was refused
 * The editor then keyword-searched historic tabloid newspapers and created bogus prose based on the headlines-only, breaching WP:SYNTH, again shooting it into the lede
 * The same editor then created an article using modern keyword-searched sources, then falsified additional content, based entirely on supposition
 * A modern conversation has no historical value or relevance where there is no tangible proof. Hitler was a woman. B52 bomber on the moon. Both have been published
 * The Jay Leno's Garage reference could not be considered impartial, involving a fairly senior Kawasaki North America employee who probably facilitated the whole thing - suggest he could be contacted/challenged to provide any genuine – secondary - period sources?
 * Admin Someguy1220 has offered an opinion in this diff, explicitly stating "...I generally despise using newspapers and magazines for historical content." (meaning when used in modern times)
 * A Google search provides nothing historic - as we all know
 * One 1994 hard-published source states that Z1 was 'King of the Streets' (Dad's - scroll down to 1994 Old Bike Journal
 * Others state the H2 was 1969 (Simeone Museum, Gear Chic (cloning Simeone Museum)
 * That should do, and I hope it proves someone else is doing the work? I'm still thinking about Norton. --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Rocknrollmancer. I I appreciate the heavy lifting work you did. I intended to address the places that we agree and disagree. I still hope to find time to do that. I do want to mention I was not comfortable with you calling that poster" fake fake fake". You had no evidence that the it was a fake. It is not a fake. In the bottom left corner of the is a copy of the record certificate. I've known the record was real. It's sad nobody can access old AHRA and NHRA record books. I had no doubt about it but the picture of the poster just not high resolution enough to be able to read the text on that certificate. I knew it was out there. I don't want to assume you want to make things personal. But you do a fair amount of talking down to me in what you wrote, and I don't like it. I don't know who would. You did indeed prove someone else did the work. But I have the bigger fish to fry right now which is Dennis yet again stepping in and destroying my work. And he did so without discussion without notice for me or without bringing it to the top page. I thought the final thing that might end his carping about sourcing Tony necrosis would be a photograph of the record. I knew it existed,

I came up with the name Rick brett because he was selling the posters on eBay. I googled his name and I contacted him. It took a while to get a response but last week I got a Facebook friend request from Tony Nicosia. His page is a treasure trove. I've been in contact and he knows I'm trying to get his record accepted here. He gave me his phone number I haven't called him yet partly because I'm still a litle gobsmacked. He want to talk to me because he's interested in the fact that I knew Pistol Pete Grasselli. He also knew Pete and raced Nation events. In fact he was well aware that Pete had the NHRA record at 11.81. Aand amazingly, and I'm going to his message to me here, he said, "IT WOULD BE NICE TO GET PETE'S NAME IN THE BOOKS". and with his help or the help of his friend I fully intend to do that. Like I have said repeatedly the NHRA record was 11.81. I was there and the story of how he did that is an interesting one but I won't put it here in. That record held for several years. I have been to disparaged here repeatedly for claiming things that I knew to be true. Now, a little bit at a time i'm proving that it's all true and I'm hoping the facts will outlive me.

Right now I've got bigger fish to fry because I see Dennis the Menace has been back. What he did made the article worse, not better. He did not improve it. to be frank, figured that a photograph of the AHRA record certificate would shut him up. Instead he comes back yet again violating WP:OWN and acting like the bully he has always been. I figured he would scrutinize me adding the photo of the certificate but I did not think he'd dare delete my perfectly good references AND the certificate without bringing it to the talk page. One of the two sources he left behind one of them doesn't even mention the 11.95 record at all, and the other one is the weakest of them all. that's what makes the article worse, not better. Every source of mine he deleted confirmed the 11.95 on that certificate. I do not know how you could prove something more definitively. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, Plus because he's got such experience here he makes those changes in a way that can't be reverted and buries comments in the edit code that should be on the talk page. I can't simply undo what he did although I should have every right to because he made no counter-argument as to why those references should be removed. His personal discomfort aside he does not have any more autority here than I do. so I'm putting them back. If he had a problem with the Facebook link you should have said something not just offhandedly and arrogantly delete it. That piece of proof is the thing I've been working on for months. And to just dismiss it without comment is insulting. It is the definitive proof. I've done a little checking and Facebook is not a specifically excluded source. Wikipedia:Verifiability, Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves. "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves"  then it lists criteria and ends by saying "This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, Reddit, and Facebook." it meets all the criteria, especially number 4 which reads "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity." now do I expect Dennis to be reasonable? He never has. He has put unreasonable demands on what I have posted here over and over again and used his Superior knowledge of how this place works the bully me into submission until I'm worn out. That's why I haven't been here in several months. I don't have hours at a time to blow over and over again, evidently, Dennis doesn't do anything but. BTW, last September at 68 with bad shoulders I did a 12.28 on my 82 Magna V-45 I've owned for 13 years. The launch is completely different than the old H2. it took me a long time to get the confidence to take it out to National Trails and try it. I was a lot braver when I was 21 and 22. I had a butt pucker moment on my next run. That will be the last time. Want to see the trip tic?

I could open that certificate photograph in a separate tab and it's url would not say Facebook if that made anybody feel any better. just how are you supposed to treat photographs of documents? But I shouldn't have to. There's nothing wrong with the link that I provided especially since people have to do is click on Tony's name to see the rest of the page the judge the authenticity for themselves. On the photo page is his comment explaining that the 11.95 was the back up run to his first run off 11.85. he purposely chose 1195 run so that he could come back and get another 50 ahra points for setting the record lower again. Which he did. I'll be asking him that certificate. Which is in the 11.8's. Then it will be goodbye Dunstall regardless of how you want to define production. It's worth noting not another motorcycle did a quicker quarter mile for another 6 years after the 72 Kawasaki H2. that is what so remarkable about that motorcycle. no I'm going to take a note at the triples pages. I've never been the least dishonest about anything I've tried to put here.Jackhammer111 (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * H2 750 ... my first bike at the age of 16... cut my teeth on her and a few corners.. lol Lots of Respect and thank you for your work. No mention of the Kawasaki Eliminators tho? MickTheMaag (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2022 MickTheMaag (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Why are there two 0-60 GSX-R 1000 times for the 2006 model?
The 2006 GSX-R 1000 in the "By 0–60 mph, 3.5 seconds or less" section is listed as 0-60 in 2.35 seconds and 0-60 in 3.35 seconds. Since the 3.35 time is one second slower for the exact same year, make, and model, why should it be included? I suggest we delete it.

VFR750F quarter mile?
Under quarter mile times, the VFR750F quarter mile time is listed as:

1986	Honda VFR750F	10.95	113.95 mph (183.38 km/h)

Could this time be accurate? It is an entire 10mph slower than anything around it. I checked the Cycle Magazine source attached to it, which does indeed have 10.95 listed as the time but also has 2.4 seconds listed as the 0-60mph time. They cite the bike appropriately as only havine ~80bhp, which would make it an extreme outlier as most other 10-second bikes seem to have almost twice the power, at least. If we are to believe the citation, wouldn't we also have to list the 2.4 second 0-60 to make this 80hp bike the second fastest to 60mph in history?? I just noticed this and wanted to point it out for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.234.104 (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * HAD 3 VFR 1000's ran the hell out of em.. lol MickTheMaag (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

cbr1000f
why no cbr 1000f ,got the cbr 600f ?? 82.69.88.92 (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Lightning LS-218 2.2 Second 0-60 Questionable
So the article cited quotes a 5 second time for 0 to 100 km/h; I searched the 2.2 second time in Google and there are many articles that say it’s true. Can someone dive a bit deeper into this? 2603:8001:6E00:B2B5:9974:1283:5B0A:263C (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)