Talk:List of fastest production motorcycles by acceleration/Archive 1

Image needed
A generic illustration of one of the bikes going fast would be acceptable, though not actually informative. What would be nice is a quality illustration of how acceleration is measured. Usually it's by radar gun, IIRC, though GPS or other equipment might be more common now. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Added image of Hayabusa burnout. Maybe there's something better, but this was the best dragstrip pic of one of the machines mentioned that I found on Commons. Brianhe (talk) 06:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Motorcycle Consumer News
The January, 2012 Motorcycle Consumer News p. 33 has 1/4 mile times for 10 bikes under 10 seconds. Brianhe (talk) 06:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2006 Suzuki GSX-R1000, 9.55 @ 143.02 mph
 * 2008 Suzuki Hayabusa, 9.77 @ 145.97
 * 2008 Kawasaki Ninja ZX-14, 9.83 @ 143.44
 * 1999 Suzuki Hayabusa, 9.84 @ 142.76
 * 2007 Yamaha YZF-R1, 9.88 @ 145.5
 * 2006 Kawasaki Ninja ZX-14, 9.89 @ 143.76
 * 2004 Yamaha YZF-R1S, 9.90 @ 144.98
 * 2002 Kawasaki ZX-12R, 9.90 @ 143.59
 * 2008 Honda CBR1000RR, 9.94 @ 143.12
 * 2006 Honda CBR1000RR, 9.99 @ 143.39

This article sucks. Lots of production bikes missing that would knock half the bikes off the list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.182.113 (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC) this list is BS and biased. The Honda Blackbird would knock most of these machines off the list! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.68.96.227 (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. What source would you like to use? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

GSX-R photos
I don't really have a preference which GSX-R 1000 photo we use. The red bike shows the sujbect a little better, but this isn't actually an article about the GSX-R 1000. Showing it in a dragstrip context is more appropriate and the closeup of the bike is better for the article about the bike. But the dragstrip bike is racing a weird green car, which is kind of distracting.Either way, we need to pick one or the other, not both. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's possible to crop either picture to show the bike better. But a picture of a bike in action makes more sense to me than a glamor shot on the sidestand in the mountains. - Brianhe (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

GSX-R 1000 performance
To Dennis Bratland:

About: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_motorcycles_by_acceleration

You can not remove any entity unless you show facts for doing so. Now you've done nothing and only done it on subjective decisions. "I dont think its so fast, might be wrong" is not enough evidence when there already is evidence for the "Suzuki GSX-R 1000" doing 0-60mph at 2,35 seconds from a known and credible source that is the source for 10 out of the 21 on this very same list.

If you think the source is wrong, start a discussion and you'll have to prove that "Performance Index Winter '12/'13 Edition", and the old '93 company, Motorcycle Consumer News & Bowtie Magazines, are wrong in their doings. But by doing so you are voiding 10 out of 21 on the list.

When you dont have any constructive criticism, then don't criticise or alter wikipedia.

To Brianhe:

You are not allowed to change it to an unverified version.

This line is the basic line that is above any entry any person does where ever he is in the world: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions."

This content is not just verifable, this is verified. If you have any thoughts about it, go do your own testing and record it and get a verified source to publicly announce that you have made a new discovery so we can change the numbers. If you do not come up with constructive criticism (show another verified source in this case) stop altering the wikipedia to an altered, non-verified version.

If you change it again, to a non-verifiable version, you will be violating the basic terms and conditions of Wikipedia and you'll be put with a remark on your account for excessive power abuse.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.198.72.162 (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Dude, this isn't how you go about resolving a content dispute. Each party is supposed to cooly discuss their point of view and we reach consensus. Throwing around terms like "power abuse" doesn't help, and is irrelevant since we're both on equal footing as editors. As to content, Dennis has said it looks like a typo or some other error in the reported figure for the GSX-R. Is there anybody else saying it is a 2.3-whatever second bike? — Brianhe (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

We are no "dude" to you. We are on equal foot to you as you say. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you want to discredit over 9 years of this motorcycle news magazines reportings (yes, they reported 2,35 - in _every_ magazine for 9 years). We don't understand how you can be on one side of the fence. You're supposed to sit on the fence. A source, with facts as a listing article, is only meant to sit on the fence, not on any side.

Talk to the magazine and/or publisher and ask if they have made a mistake. Do not go about editing only based on your subjective feelings. Feelings are to be kept out of this article - especially when it is a Listing article and not a subjective listing.

About power abuse you should read the terms and conditions thoroughly this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.198.72.162 (talk • contribs) 29 April 2015‎


 * This is an obvious error. If this bike actually went that fast, then you'd see other sources saying so. Nobody else came even close to 2.35 seconds. No other bikes with similar weight and horsepower came even close; in fact, many bikes which are much lighter and much more powerful have not come anywhere close to 2.35 seconds. That is utterly implausible. Even "reliable sources" can be in error, and when we have other reliable sources which clearly contradict one outlier, the outlier can be ignored. This is not a significant minority view; it isn't as if MCN is claiming the rest of the world is wrong and they set an extraordinary record with this bike. Per Fringe theories, this outlier should be left out.It is a pity we didn't fix this long ago so it didn't get this far. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Dennis,

There's nothing wrong with changing the number to anything else than 2,35, but don't do it the way you did it "I dont think its so fast, might be wrong", it's purely done on a subjective level.

That is why you get this charge at you. If it was a subjective article, there could be argumented back and forth, but when it is supposed to be a _sit-on-the-fence-article_ you should not change anything to anything where you do not put up directly viewable/verifiable sources that anybody, in the world, can see on the line. It is not enough to direct the attention to a library or some magazine. Nobody is going to read through the whole library to find what you might think is right. Make a direct link linking your claim, as there already is to this claim and many of the other bikes from this index used as source already (MCN perf. index 2013-winter) and it is fine.

If you start taking times in from different sources where there is not the same person riding it, weight, wind condition, track condition, model number, tank empty or tank full etc. you will get different results, that is okay, and it is also stated in the top. But please put a source to your claim, a direct source and not a whole magazine.

Since Wikipedia doesn't, yet, have a centralized headquarter with their own testing fields and test subjects to test everything in the world, to get a scientifically correct wikipedia, we'll have to do with what non-wikipedians have done in their research. So far this index is well-known and has been since 1993 and they have reported the GSX-R 1000 '06 also to be the fastest in a quarter mile on every magazine release, and also the fastest bike, so far, yet another bike is on this list. Remember the GSX-R 1000 has a low gearing, which makes it able to get these ratings. Hayabusa has a higher gearing.

The line on top of the list that states "The widely varying testing methodologies mean that, even between identical motorcycles, the acceleration times vary. Some of these differences include: driver/rider, measuring equipment, track surface conditions, weather/air temperature, and launching technique." is enough.

This is why this index from MCN is so crucial, since they almost have had the same drivers and same fields to do the testings. When you compare the other sources, some of them, they are having videos also, but you see the difference: a tiny 60kg man and a tall 100kg man "test-drives" different bikes. That is not scientifically and yet it should not be viewed as scientific evidence. Untill Wikipedia gets its own headquarter with testing facility, please don't change the source to an unverified or unverifiable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.198.72.162 (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Ducati Multistrada 1200 times
I'm not sure what the policy for sources is, from what I read here, there's some dispute whether to include multiple sources? [] This would put the Multistrada at 2.8s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazamatzuri~enwiki (talk • contribs) 15:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Potential source of quarter mile times.
I came across a page on the Sport Rider website here that lists quarter mile times of quite a few different bikes that they have tested throughout the years. Would this site be considered reliable for referencing? MAbbey (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Delete the claimed/verified column
I'm not sure I understand the first column in the 0-60 table. Are we selecting the best time either the claimed or tested? The only one on there now was the Diavel's dubious 2.6 seconds. What if we just kept the tested column and ignored claims? The table would be easier to read and less confusing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been 6+ months so I went ahead and nuked it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Cycle World test summary
Cycle World test summary March 1982 page 174: --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Padding decimal places
This edit adds zeros to the end of 0 to 60 times in order to make sorting work, which seems like a good idea, but it creates a new problem. If the source gives us 2.6 seconds, and we change it to 2.60 seconds, we add a level of precision that wasn't originally there, i.e. False precision. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * sort can let you display one string, and sort on another. I think it's used in the list of long-distance motorcycle riders. Brianhe (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that did the trick. I used  from Help:Sorting. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

cbr 1000rr
There is no way this is 9.68 at 138 mph is accurate.It must be a typo or misprint to achieve this 1/4 mile time and only go 138 mph does not seem plausible. Sport bike has a 09 at 9.90 and 146 mph. They also have a 2010 at 9.67 at 150 this seem to be more accurate and plausible. 72bikers (talk
 * Yes, I reverted it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be one more mistake with the cbr 1000rr. The 0 to 60 time list 2.6 for the 2008 to 2014. While the cycle world reference listed are only both for a 2013 and one of those is the sp model. Mcnews has the 08 at 2.9 (72bikers (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC))

Data sorting
Recent changes have messed up the table sorting. For instance the 2010 Suzuki Hayabusa (2.74 s) and the 2000 Kawasaki ZX-12R (2.7 s) are juxtaposed transposed. The data-sort-value item in the table should not have been removed. Padding out the numbers with zeroes makes them sort correctly, but should not be done on the displayed values because it asserts precision in excess of that actually present in the reported measurements. - Brianhe (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing any error on the page. As to the juxtaposed comment this term is meant to reflect the comparisons of (different things) together in order to create an interesting effect or to show how they are the same or different. As these two bikes are not next to each other as they should not be because of there different times not sure what you are trying to convey. All times are in there right order and all times I added are exactly what the sources say. I will take a look and repair any perceived error. 72bikers (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry I used the wrong word, meant transposed, i.e. swapped or out-of-order sorting. Click the triangular sorting widget at the top of the time column in the first table, and I think you will see what I see. Brianhe (talk) 05:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep now that you have clearly conveyed the error I will resolve this issue.72bikers (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Change of Title
I think the title of the article should read "List of quickest production motorcycles" to make it very distinct from the other list. Daimler Ben (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Quickest doesn't mean fastest acceleration. I know some motorsport media like to pretend quick means 0-60 or 1/4 mile, but it doesn't. In normal English, quick and fast are the same thing. So we'd end up confusing most readers. Also, it's preferable to follow the same convention as List of fastest production cars by acceleration, whenever possible. It's an awkwardly long title, but it serves a purpose. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Norton Dunstall
I have a bad history of Dennis Bratland harassing my edits on motorcycle related pages. And I am not the only one. I was clear about why the Norton does not belong on the list because it wasn't a factory bike. In stock NHRA racing you can't race modified factory bikes as stock. Dunstall bought Norton 810 MK1's and highly modified them so they are not production motorcycles. Lot's of builders modify stock bikes. Denco Mach IV Kawasaki's for instance. Their numbers do not count. I want to preempt an edit war. Jackhammer111 (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have a complaint about me, take it to WP:ANI. What we have here is another case where reliable sources say one thing and your opinion is something else. You’re entitled to your opinion, but all we’e doing here is following what the sources say. As with the previous issues, you need to cite reliable sources or defer to the sources we have. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The ownership of the bike during the production process doesn't make it non-production. It's common for products to be partially manufactured in one location, shipped elsewhere, and finished in a different location. Coca Cola syrup is made in a central location, and shipped out to multiple bottling plants. In the past, convertible versions of cars were often shipped off to a coachbuilder to turn the hardtops into cabriolets. Karmann did this. Alpina does this with performance versions of BMWs; similarly, Mercedes-AMG. The Civic Mugen Si is another example, and many Shelby Mustangs are in fact production cars. The original Mini Cooper was made this way. Knock down kits are made in one country and reassembled in another country to avoid tariffs, often under the ownership of a local subsidiary or independent importer. What makes it a production vehicle is that it is not bespoke, made to order. It is series-manufactured. They produced multiples of the same product. The Norton was made in one factory, shipped to a different one, changing ownership along the way, and then sold to the public as a street-legal motorcycle.Most importantly though, we have a source telling us it is a production bike. Wikipedia is not a bunch of stuff we made up. It's things that were published by established experts, and we merely repeat what they say, even if we don't personally agree. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * So if someone added the 1000 HP shelby Mustang to a list of the fastest accelerating production cars you'd be ok with that. Jackhammer111 (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't misrepresent what I said. It wastes everyone's time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * - you have three times used words to allude to Dunstall purchasing Mk1 810s (two in mainspace-change edit summaries and directly above). What do you mean by this? What was an 810 Mk1? Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I think 810 Mk1 was what dunstall called his, so your point is taken. The Dunstall was built out of 750's. Which leads back to it NOT being a production motorcycle. I think I know how it got called a production bike but I'll eleborate on that seperatly Jackhammer111 (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * As has edited WP but not responded, it is incumbent on me as a courtesy to other readers (and whilst I have the mags littering the place - the house is in turmoil presently) to confirm that the factory only initially produced 750s (745 nominal), not 810s. The 810 was a Dunstall big-bore conversion available to anyone at 68 GBP (1972) rising to 90 GBP (1975) including by mail-order and was considerably earlier than the factory 850 (830 nominal). These are adverts but I would've preferred to find an earlier press-release or new-product summary. The thumbnails are unclear but comprise replacement aluminium thick-finned cylinder block + dedicated cam followers (that's lifters to the Americans, but actually described as tappets, a quaint old English term) plus at least I would expect significant re-jetting to enrichen the larger air mass. I also thought a thick cylinder-base gasket (spacer) was available to reduce the compression ratio, but that remains to be proven. The 1975 advert also claims 5 mph and 1.1 sec off the quarter-mile for the Dunstall/Gordon Blair Commando/Triumph 650 2-1-2 exhaust, and offers CB750 to 900, and CB500 to 605 conversions comprising liners, unlike the Japauto QX1000 I saw in Spain in 1978 which had a complete replacement cylinder block, again thick-finned. I have three 810 engine images on my computer from a few years back that can be supplied by email, one is Flickr (close up of installed engine, but cannot trace using Google image and Tineye searches) and the others are bare barrels, pistons and cam followers probably from ebay (this offer not extended to anyone leaving hostile messages on my Talk page ). Commando Mk1, Mk2, Mk3  I also have some concerns that I cannot recall Commandos ever being referred to in England as Mk1, Mk2, etc. This could be just a serious shortcoming on my part. The WP article initial upload (permalink) shows what is likely to be Original Research from a long-blocked editor. In those days, 2006-2008 they wrote anything they liked with shit references added to try to legitimise - in this case two being a private American museum. I will add this to my research list, if anyone has any suitably-period hard publications to consult it would help - nothing web, nothing recent and/or post Wikipedia.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The Shelby Mustang is one of our problems. Both are aftermarket producers. The other problem is Dunstall doesn't even fit Wikipedia's definition of what a production vehicle. In the very first sentence, it says mass-produced. Obviously, the Dunstable was not mass-produced. It was bought from the actual factory and modified, in the same manner, Shelby buys Mustangs from Ford and makes 1000 HP versions. Do I need to add that the bikes were junk? They wouldn't hold a head gasket and stretched head bolts because of the engine mods and everything else Dunstall did to the bike was poorly made. Tjh Dunstall "factory" was no more than a garage up a back alley He also buil Hondas and Kawasaki's that may well have broken 12 seconds. Do you want to call them factory bikes? How many different factory bikes can buy and still be considered production? It's absurd on the face.

Now, let me take a few moments to check policy on verifyable sourcing. There is no way to see that cycle world article other than paying 20 buck for an old copy, or, maybe, buying a Cycle world subscription. If I'm not misaken, if the source can't be found by viewers it's not allowed. Jackhammer111 (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * That's incorrect. See WP:Offline sources. Besides the Cover to Cover online Cycle World archive, there are many public libraries that keep back issues of this magazine. If your library doesn't have it, you can submit to your librarian a photocopy request to a library that does have it. The Wikipedia Library is another resource where you can get free access to paywalled archives. In addition to all that, you have the WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request where you can find an editor somewhere who does have the access you need and they can check it for you.Ultimately, however, even if all of those fail somehow, and you have no access to a book or other media that is offline, the Verifibility policy says at WP:PAYWALL "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". The policy WP:Assume good faith means you should, by default, trust other editors when they cite a source you have not seen, unless you have clear reasons not to. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Here's some more sources that agree with the July 1971 Cycle World citation we have which says the Dunstall is a production motorcycle:
 * Not everyone defines "production" the same way. It's clear that these bikes were made to meet homologation rules, so they were manufactured in series and available to the public according to the race sanctioning rules. We could, for purposes of this list, come up with our own more restrictive definition of production, but I don't believe there is consensus for that kind of change. It's much simper to take our sources at face value rather than second guess them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not everyone defines "production" the same way. It's clear that these bikes were made to meet homologation rules, so they were manufactured in series and available to the public according to the race sanctioning rules. We could, for purposes of this list, come up with our own more restrictive definition of production, but I don't believe there is consensus for that kind of change. It's much simper to take our sources at face value rather than second guess them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not everyone defines "production" the same way. It's clear that these bikes were made to meet homologation rules, so they were manufactured in series and available to the public according to the race sanctioning rules. We could, for purposes of this list, come up with our own more restrictive definition of production, but I don't believe there is consensus for that kind of change. It's much simper to take our sources at face value rather than second guess them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * On the First Source, you added, the word produced is not the same as the word production. On the Second Source the article just Quotes Dunstall's own moto, which is a far worse case of self-sourcing than Kawasaki's history as they had been using that moto long before the 810 runs, and it refers to them at one time being recognized by Auto Union under Homologation for the sole purpose of racing a single model motorcycle for racing in that single governing body. It was raced in the Isle of man races twice in the sixties, long before the 810's. I've sourced that here as well. The 810 was not a Homologated model and was therefor note even a production motorcycle that could be raced in Auto Union races. Jackhammer111 (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Sure, you could criticize these two sources, and I see your points, but they do add weight to the main source, the July 1971 Cycle World which is quite explicit and clear that they considered it a production motorcycle. They wrote at length on the question, because it was a big deal to them to have tested their first production bike to break the 12 second "barrier". (Not a real barrier; a door is a barrier, a wall is a barrier. 12 seconds is an arbitrary whole number. If there were 20 hours in a day or 50 seconds in a minute, 12 seconds would have been reached sooner. It's a metaphorical barrier.) Having someone like John Burns come along 41 years later and judge retrospectively that the Dunstall wasn't production is nice and all, but the July 1971 source was contemporary eye witnesses coverage from a published, reliable source. It's the gold standard. (Please don't start telling us again what you personally eye witnessed. It carries no weight here, though it does carry weight on many other important sites on the internet. Wikipedia is only one peculiar website, not the last word.)Are you waiting for a copy of the article? You should be able to get it from the resource exchange if not interlibrary photocopy.If no other editors can give their opinions on this, then we should try either an RfC or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. One of those will probably give us a resolution. I'm prepared to accept a consensus I don't agree with. All we need is a stronger showing of other editors' opinions.I strongly caution you: do not write any more WALLOFTEXT posts. That almost grantees you will not hear the opinions of anybody. If you want participation, be concise. Don't talk about yourself. At all. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes Dennis, finally you have hit the nail on the head.Homologation . I was hoping for you to bring it up so I wouldn't have to explain to you what it is. In 1967 he sold enough of a particular bike to be homologated under the rules of Auto-Cycle Union which control the Isle of Man TT. He raced that motorcycle in 1967 and 1968. There's no evidence than any other motorcycle he made was homologated. He never sold enough of his other models, including Kawasaki's Honda's Triumph's you name it, to be homologated for those bikes, including the Dunstall Norton 801. So what Cycle World wrote was technically true in a past tense. I'll see if I can find it again but I came across an article yesterday that showed a blatant commercial tie between Dunstable and the author of that article. Another big problem is that Dunstall doesn't fit even the Wikipedia definition of a Production vehicle. We can avoid discussions about renaming the title of the article yet again to specify factory production, or we can remove the Dunstall. He didn't mass-produce vehicles and you can't call his facility of factory Unless you want to call a couple of garages down & Ally in London a factory. Google this address .156 Well Hall Rd, London SE9 6SN, UK. The garage is behind that corner building where the so-called Factory for Dunstall. I can't find any other motorcycle on the list that is not a factory production motorcycle nor does any of them carry a nameplate that is not of the factory in which the motorcycle was made.

http://www.woodgate.org/dunstall/chap2.html Jackhammer111 (talk) 04:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't see a convincing case for removing the Norton Dunstall. The argument seems to rest on an arbitrary definition of "production" that just happens to suit the goal of glorifying the Kawasaki H2 Mach IV. Up until today we have used a broad definition of production for this list, and suddenly narrowing it because of this issue is biased and tendentious. The wording on the Dunstall explanatory note carefully matches the source: "first stock, production motorcycle to achieve a quarter-mile time under 12 seconds in Cycle World's testing." We have no independent verification on the first bike ever to go under 12 seconds. Only Cycle World telling us it's the first bike they tested which achieved that time. We also have a variety of sources which all repeat Kawasaki's press release that the H2 Mach IV broke 12 seconds in March 1971, two months before Cycle World published their Dunstall road test. So this 2012 retrospective doesn't contradict the July Cycle World. John Burns wrote in the 2012 article that "The '72 Kawasaki Mach IV 750 was the first production bike to break the 12-second barrier [sic]". [12 is not a barrier, it's a whole number.] But it wasn't tested by Cycle World in March 1971. In July 1971, Cycle World for the first time published a test of a production bike that went under 12 seconds. Both can be true. One is CW's experience, the other is global.I don't know if we want to take Burns's faith in Kawasaki's press releases as the final judge of this. We don't normally trust press releases for other automotive and motorcycle superlatives. Cars are rejected from Production car speed record if they were only tested by the manufacturer, not independently. That list has a list of cars excluded, the also rans, for reasons such as lack of independent verification. List of fastest production cars by acceleration mentioned tests done by factories, but removes them if an independent test fails to verify the time.Wikipedia isn't obligated to judge for the world which motorcycle first broke 12 seconds. We can verify that Cycle World says their first sub-12 second test bike was the Norton Dunstall, but we don't have good independent sources from 1971 who were checking under every rock on every continent to determine the first in the world. We have people like John Burns trying to figure out 43 years later, and that's great. We can used in text attribution to include Burns's opinions in an article somewhere, but we can't crown a winner.We should probably have an RFC on whether or not to narrow the definition of "production" and possibly another RfC on whether or not to include non-independently verified tests.  --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Not arbitrary when it doesn't even fit Wikipedia's own definition of what a production vehicle is. By the way the Kawasaki is a factory production vehicle as is every other motorcycle on the list. That fact means the definition has never been broad as no other aftermarket makers have a bike on this list. It's been narrowed by the definition of "production". Why do you use the word bias, Dennis. I thought you were arguing not to make this discussion personal. I could equally argue that for some reason you're being obviously biased towards the idea of the Dunstall belonging on this list against evidence and reason because of the world "production" in a magazine. And now you're going back to arguing about the sourcing on the Kawasaki? Your insistence that the other sources merely quote Kawasaki's history is false. It is not factual. I even added a source to a Cycle World article. So now you have Cycle World and f 4 other sources if I put the dragbike one back up, written years after the fact in some kind of conspiracy to claim the H2 went sub 12 seconds. It's totally absurd. As a journalist, Burns didn't need to be relying on a Cycle World test in order to be standing by his journalistic claim nor did the writers of the other articles. It's called journalism. You assume good faith. And yes 12 seconds had been a barrier. The mach3 had gone well into the 12's but could not break 12. I rarely ran below 12.5 on mine.  No other motorcycle in drag racing was breaking 12 seconds until the H2's of 1972. NHRA called it "street stock". Everything had to fit factory specs except for tires and sprockets. You could NOT even race an H2 with expansion chambers in that class. (Grassilli, and others who could afford it, not me, had the engine blueprinted, tear down rules applied, and they trailered the bikes in because of the nature of 2 stroke engines you wanted to start the day stone cold.) If the NHRA and AHRA gave Public Access to their old records we wouldn't even be having this conversation. I'll say it again. Tony, who had set the world on fire with the Mach III ran 11.95 on the Mach IV, only .05 faster than the 12.0 I can find you a dozen sources for. But this is no longer about the Kawasaki. there is no doubt the Kawasaki belongs on this list. it's about Dunstall. the Kawasaki was built on an assembly line in Japan. Every other motorcycle on the list was built in what satisfies Wikipedia's definition of a production vehicle Factory. The Dunstall was not. It is an extreme outlier.  Every one of them has an engine built by the same manufacturer whose name is on it. I know that you know dog stole bought Norton 750s from the real factory and made them into 810 CC engines in a garage up an ally in London. And added other junk to them. I'm not even saying that Cycle World didn't use the word production. The whole topic doesn't live or die because of that one word in an article that you and I both know they misused. I know that you know what Homologation is. I've already provided a link to Dunstall's history that explains exactly how the became Homoltated by 1 particular racing body in the whole world as a producer for the sake of racing the Isle of Man race. So, like you said both can be true. Dunstall sold enough bikes to be called production on 1 bike that raced for 2 years. Homologation, as you should know, is good only for the model you sold enough of to be homologated, so cycle world could call Dunstall a producer although he was not homologated on that model? Do you follow? They would have the same reasons to stretch the limits of truth as you think Kawasaki did. They needed to sell magazines. (more on that later) You brought Homologation up your self. I thought I'd get to avoid explaining to you, but evidently not. So, Dunstall builds bikes out of a garage, only was a producer of one model, and doesn't fit even Wikipedia's own definition of what a production vehicle is. It makes Wikipedia self-inconsistent. It is extremely misleading to over a thousand people a day to ignore these facts because of your slavishness to a single obviously misused word in a single article. The combination of these facts overrides one word in one magazine that is not the bible. Set the Cycle World article aside for a moment and address these things Independently. What constitutes a production vehicle? How could the Dunstall have ever been designated a production bike? Was it because of the homologation rules of Cycle union? Did that designation apply to the bike cycle world tested? Is it misleading to over a thousand people a day to use this outlier as worthy of being on a list with real factory motorcycles at all, let alone be claimed as the first sub 12 bike.? Jackhammer111 (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have been trying to digest this and it's difficult with chronologically-displaced responses. I'll try to read through (again) the text-screed, but just for now Woodgate.org is a WP:SPS owned by Mr (I think John) Woodgate - most of what I've seen is about right. Dunstall's new manufacturing premises were a new build on a major reclaimation development, outside of London near the River Thames (Google maps - at some point in the early 1970s, former-racer John Blanchard took over the old corner-shop - I believe Dunstall had both for a time). There isn't a 'proper' address, so no Google street view when I looked some years ago. I've just found by chance (when researching Vincent and employee Ted Davis) a proper print allegedly March 1970, one of several various donated by a member of public, of a Dunstall Kawasaki triple with Paul Dunstall also in shot working on another bike (you can see the bike here). Dunstall was scaling-back his race investments but there are a few other pics of his supported-rider before he died in a road traffic accident in 1973. I'll try to use a bulleted list for concision in any future comments.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

MTT and Boss Hoss
Why 420 bhp MTT Y2K And 450 bhp Boss Hoss has not been included? 203.194.99.167 (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Why no harley destroyer
Why no harley destroyer included factory 10 sec 1/4 mile bike. And 0 to 60 3.5 sec. 75.118.246.72 (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Why no Vmax 1700 gen2
I believe that the gen2 Vmax should be on this list 184.167.52.249 (talk) 05:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Ducati Panigale V4
Released in 2018 and certainly meets the requirements for acceleration. 2604:3D08:B87E:DD00:BDC2:46A:3A53:7561 (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)