Talk:Suzuki Hayabusa

Speed #s?
The #s on 1/4 mile times and top speed thru the 1/4 mile wer 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The quarter miles figures were correct before, they should be reverted pls see —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireblade (talk • contribs) 6 June 2006

broken reference
First reference (http://www.qsl.net/n5mya/testdata.html) does not work anymore. Please find a new article if you know where it has moved.

Stub
I'm removing the stub tag, since this does not seem the case anymore. nihil 21:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

MSRP
I don't think having MSRP is relevant. Even if it is, I don't think this is the correct place. MSRP can change year to year and won't be accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Budlight (talk • contribs) 19 September 2006


 * The linked MSRP article explains that. It is useful to give an order of magnitude for the price: this isn't a one million dollar bike, neither a ten bucks one. --Marc Lacoste 08:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I agree a price range is useful information. I changed the have to has and added ~'s to all the prices to show that they are estimates.  That should convey what you are looking to convey more accurately in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Budlight (talk • contribs)


 * the MSRP is a fixed data, given by the manufacturer, with references. --Marc Lacoste 17:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The MSRP is also useful for comparative analysis -- consider a schoolchild writing a paper of the average cost of horsepower, in dollars. This is encylopedic data. ... aa:talk 06:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Performance
I've kinda gotten tired of the bad information that has been consistently supplied in this article. I have changed the numbers to one that came from a much more updated and reliable source. The previous source was over 7 years old and the information listed wasn't even quoted right in the article. If you have a problem with this, bring a source that is both from a major publication and that was updated after October 2005. If they aren't, just don't even bother. What would be even better is if it was a comparision test between the Hayabusa and the ZX-14 since these are the two major players in the hyper sport market. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I could not quite figure out who contributed the street performance numbers for the new model, but since they were unreferenced and obviously uncorrect I removed them. Sorry for deleting, I know it takes an effort to contribute. A 2008 Hayabusa will give you 0-60 under 3 seconds and an electronically limited topspeed of 186 mph in 5th and 6th gear. Shark Abuser (talk) 07:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

While stating hp numbers, everybody please mind the difference between crank hp and rear wheel hp, as well as the difference between US hp and European hp. A regular US Hayabusa dyno run will bring up between 150 and 155 (rear wheel) hp for a 1999-2007 model. European performance sheets will state 175 (crank) hp for the same bike. Shark Abuser (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I do NOT agree with ANY of the numbers in this article. New UPDATED numbers should NOT be used at ALL on the models between 1999-2000. I have complete and utter proof that a 1999 Hayabusa in England was LIDAR clocked at 200.2 MPH in DEAD STOCK form. I had purchased a BRAND NEW stock Hayabusa in 1999, the FIRST thing I did was take it to a Dyno shop in Knoxville Tennessee. This was a HARLEY dealership and they did NOT like my bike being there. However, they ran it on the dyno, the DAY AFTER I purchased the bike. I had NO TIME to mod it at ALL. It performed at 168RWHP. This can be documented by calling or posting the printout from the DYNO results from Harley of Knoxville.

It should also be noted that the speedometer on the 1999-2000 bikes read 220MPH while the late 2001 to current read 185MPH. The 1999-2000 Bike operated WAY differently then the later models.

The 1999-2000 had a 16 bit ECM(Electronic Control Module) made by Nippon Denso. The late 2001 to late 2007 versions have a 32 bit ECM. While the 2008 version has been completely changed in every way.

So honestly, they are 3 different bikes, with 3 different behaviors. I believe these things are worth mentioning on the main page.


 * 151hp for the 99 hayabusa according to http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/articles/2010JanIndex.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.242.114 (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Model year
If you apply your rationale on model year to every automotive article on Wikipedia, we'd have to append "model year" to all year related content to every article. Good thing the content of the article actually says:
 * "This increased competition would eventually lead to Suzuki heavily revising the GSX1300R for the 2008 model year."

Roguegeek (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Model year is generally used in the US, but not the rest of the world. Wikipedia is an international resource. The "2008 model year bike" was launched and is on sale in 2007. At the very least the section heading should be 2007 - just as the 1999 section heading refers to the bike's launch in 1999 not the 1999 model year. I see no problem talking about 2008 model year as long as it is clear that this is in calendar year 2007. --Cheesy Mike (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've changed the year back to 2008. If you want to change it back, please provide enough fully cited source that contradict the three already existing fully cited sources that say it's on the 2008 Hayabusa. Roguegeek (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Here are a couple more refs I'll throw in if need be.
 * 
 * 
 * Bottom line is that even though the new Hayabusa was available in 2007, it was introduced for 2008. You go to any dealership worldwide and the invoice will say 2008. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In the USA maybe, but the bottom line to me is that the bike was introduced in calendar year 2007. If you want to talk about 2008 model year, feel free but use that phraseology in the table and section heading. If the two of use can't agree then let's go to wikiproject motorcycling and ask for some consensus. IMHO years on their own refer to calendar years. If 2008 is used to mean something else then it should be fully qualified. --Cheesy Mike (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It should really be the other way around. Original edits showed 2008. It's your dispute that it is not. Escalate if need be. I'll find the previous WikiProject discussions about this topic in the mean time. Roguegeek (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Discussion started in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling. Agree to leave article as-is for the moment. --Cheesy Mike (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

BHP
The BHP figures for both(for 1999-2007 and 2008) should be the same scale, either crank or rear wheel, at the moment the 1999-2007 section shows RWBHP(156.1) and the 2008 section shows CBHP(194) ,ty Dognosh (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the Gen 1, 99-07 hp horsepower qualifications - removing the invalid "RWBHP" descriptor and changing it to "hp". It is still wrong though, as it's still not described as "djhp" (dynojet horsepower) horsepower as compared to "true" or "effective" horsepower, but attempts to further qualify "horsepower" get reverted back.

On the Gen 2, 08-09, the "194hp" is still the "manufacturer's claim". It should be qualified as "claimed crankshaft bhp" and should probably be referenced to a Suzuki publication. Marc Salvisberg (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pop-culture section per WP:TRIVIA guideline
Given the WP:TRIVIA guideline I would like to propose the deletion of the section Hayabusa in popular culture since there has been a failure to properly integrate that section into the text.

Also IMO the content of that section fails to meet the WP:REL guideline since the bollywood movie Dhoom has absolutelly nothing to do with the Hayabusa. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  Talk  05:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

changed controversy
changed the term "timing retard" to "timing lock" since it could have been offensive, who ever wrote that, your personal oppinion should stay out of a factual webpage, this is user edited, yes, but, your personal oppinion should stay out of this, get a live journal if you want to rant to the world.

(Racerboy (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC))

Try looking up what a timing retard is before accusing me of ranting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignition_timing

http://www.hayabusacentral.co.uk/shop/product.asp?idproduct=31

http://www.mpsracing.com/products/Schnitz/ho01.asp

(Micky750k (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC))

haha. He didn't know what timing retard meant.

369 MPH? That's amazing!
I think you guys have a bit of a typo for the 2008's top speed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.190.42 (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Big 4 Top speed gentleman's agreement
I'm trying to find bit more info on the gentleman's agreement between the big 4 japanese manufacturers in 99/00 to avoid regulation - there was fair bit about it back in the day in magazines, but google just seems to bring up ways of bypassing it.

Its mentioned here by no source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentlemen%E2%80%99s_agreement

--Micky750k (talk) 08:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you want to know about it? I pretty much have had the bike since it was launched and have been very much into the culture of it. There really isn't much more about the issue, as they just did it in order to stop government regulation and insurance black-balling. They were all pretty much fine with the idea and the process took place in less then a year. There really isn't much news about it, because they were all ok with doing it, as government regulation and insurance black-balling would have killed the business entirely for this class of motorcycle. It was a simple easy choice and they have all stuck to the agreement. I am just glad I had an original bike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.186.201 (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

To do list and other notes on recent revision
The workpage on my revision of his article is almost ready to go live. Some notes:

--Dbratland (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The TV segment on the UK police using a Hayabusa is perhaps not strongly sourced; hopefully some better citation info can be found, and/or more news stories on the UK police Hayabusas.  The video does shed light on the sportbike culture and why some police agencies want this bike (not exactly for the speed).  Also, should Transport cafe be un-redirected to Truck stop?
 * Boehm (2007) and others hint that the "gentleman's agreement" was ignored from time to time, possibly by MV Augusta. Needs to be checked.
 * Starting a How-To on bypassing the TRE/rev limiter speed governor over on WikiBooks and then linking to it with a sister project template might head off adding how-to info that will have to be constantly reverted.
 * The picture of the birdie at the end might seem off topic, but every other article on the Hayabusa mentions it, and Boehm (2007) actually included a picture of one, along with a Ki-43. Also, the bike actually kind of resembles a peregrine falcon -- or maybe it looks nothing like it -- either way, readers can see for themselves.
 * Need photo of Top 1 Oil Ack Attack streamliner, preferably the engines.
 * There is very little criticism (other than harping on what an ugly bike it is) to report from the major motorcycle press, as is their habit. Once I get ahold of copies of the reviews from Motorcycle Consumer News, I'm sure I'll be able to cite some complaints.
 * Unless I overlooked something, Convert in the body text does not use .  The first use of units in the body text (ignoring infoboxes and tables) should Wikilink units with
 * The last paragraph in the intro, about the variation in speed and horsepower results, might seem to violate No disclaimers in articles, but in fact the cited numbers are likely to attract a Template:Contradict without this clarification, particularly with the Hayabusa since the precise speed it can go is so central to it's importance. For the future, a whole page on this topic might be a better solution.
 * I know you didn't ask but my own bias is that the Hayabusa is just a stupid thing, like a joke out of the film Idiocracy.  For me the quintessential Hayabusa moment was when that NFL player planted his face into the windshield of a car while posing like a peacock on his 'Busa in a congested city.  No helmet, of course.  But we're not here to judge and I hope I haven't tainted the article with my odd notions.  I don't think there should be mention of people who crashed or died on Hayabusas unless that can be cited as having affected the bike's sales, design, popularity, etc.


 * Couple of things:
 * My take is the Big Ben crash may be worth mentioning, but it could be argued either way. The bike certainly gained more public attention because of it.
 * Merge the "notes" and "references" sections, call it "references". Having things in what you call "references" (but is really "further reading") is just a statement the article needs expansion to integrate those sources.
 * Nice job! tedder (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks!


 * It's actually not a further reading section; I'm using WP:CITESHORT style*. Partially because recent featured articles seem to favor it, and because I think it's easier to write if the   is relatively short, and the longer full citations are collected together in one place.  So anything under References that doesn't correspond to a footnote should be deleted -- there are some left over from the old version that I have to clean up.


 * Generally I use WP:CITESHORT when I'm doing a new article or major revision, and the regular inline style for quick edits.


 * * I just noticed it says I should have used Footnotes, not Notes . Actually Notes or Footnotes is allowed.
 * --Dbratland (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I won't complain if it's your preference, but it is another section that must be kept up-to-date and patrolled. Keeping a single reflist at the bottom is MUCH easier and makes it easier to see drive-by additions to the body or the list. tedder (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a downside. I suppose it's one of those things WP will never resolve because it would require changing so many articles (though a really well coded script could bring them all into line, in theory).  We could discuss choosing a preferred style for WikiProject Motorcycling, if it is allowed for projects to have directives that narrow the options available in WP:CITE.  Even though I like CITESHORT better, I also like consistency.  --Dbratland (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, as the article creator/maintainer, you have the keys :-) If you like a given format, keep using it. tedder (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

And we're live. More notes

 * Proofread again. I always miss things.
 * It's probably sub-optimal to stuff so many competing stats into bhp, torque and weight in the infoboxes. Should choose one representative, or use a range like 159 - 162.6 bhp.  The whole lot of them can be put into a table under the Performance section.
 * Expand the performance tables. I have lots of test data on hand; just need to type it into the tables.
 * Speaking of which, the performance tables would look better if repetitive words like mph, km/h, seconds, etc, were moved up to the column headers, and only numbers were in the rows.
 * Rewrite the Sales section
 * Write a section about the Big Ben crash and other Hayabusa crashes. I've given it some thought and I'm stumped as to how exactly I'd want write it up.
 * Will submit to DYK shortly.--Dbratland (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as DYK is concerned, previous:new ratios are 3.2:16 kB (prose size) and 531:2635 prose words. That's a ratio of 4.96 in words and exactly 5.0 in kB. So it's definitely eligible. Perhaps use the falcon/CBRXX thing for the hook? tedder (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * How about, Did you know...
 * ...that the 1999 Suzuki Hayabusa, named after a falcon that dives at 200 mph and preys on blackbirds, took the title of world's fastest motorcycle from the Honda CBR1100XX Super Blackbird?
 * Alt hook...
 * ...that the Suzuki Hayabusa clinched its status as the fastest motorcycle of the 20th Century after the 2000 Kawasaki Ninja ZX-12R was speed-restricted due to a "gentlemans' agreement" ?


 * I was thinking of using the Bonneville Salt Flat picture, and the Birmingahm Speed Trials burnout as an alt. Maybe I should link to Common Blackbird instead of Blackbird


 * Sometimes I wonder if Kawasaki jumped the gun and restricted the ZX-11 sooner than they had to because they didn't realize that 2000, not 1999, was the last year of the 20th Century.--Dbratland (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking a little more blatant. Did you know...
 * ...the Suzuki Hayabusa motorcycle was named after the predator of the Blackbird, a reference to the Honda CBR1100XX Super Blackbird?
 * tedder (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. --Dbratland (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

UK police Hayabusas
I had to get rid of the section on the East Yorkshire police Hayabusa. It leads back to a Youtube video that is probably violating copyright and doesn't have good information on what media outlet produced it. You can find it easily searching "police hayabusa" in Google video or Youtube. There's also pictures out there of a black and white police Hayabusa, not from OHP or the Yorkshire police; not sure if it is real. Hopefully this can be put back if better sources are found.--Dbratland (talk) 05:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead image
I really fail to see the need to have any old image at the top of the article as long as it meets the Wikiproject Automobiles image convention. It's only a guideline used by a different project than motorcycling, which the motorcycling project falls back on when there's nothing else to go on.

But most of these bike articles cover several models, such as the two in this article. And the Hayabusa article also covers a number of other topics, including the production speed record, the gentleman's agreement, the Hayabusa's sales success, custom bikes, and other uses of the engine. The lead image needs to somehow try to cover the whole article, not just show you what a previous-generation 2007 model looks like. A modified bike at Bonneville Speedway conveys some of these things at once. I don't think a single image could hit every single topic, but this comes close.

The principle is that the lead image is part of the lead section and it should help to serve as "both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article."

Kawasaki Ninja 250R is an example of a similar approach. The individual generations each have a section, and as far as we can manage we have an image of that version that follows the image convention. But the lead image for the article tries to tell you something more, in this case a typical street scene of someone riding the bike. --Dbratland (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included at Talk:WikiProject Motorcycling.--Dbratland (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but the Bonneville image is awful. I'd like to see a firm convention that every infobox image (not necessarily the same as a lead image if the infobox is not at the start of an article) should be a picture of the bike, ideally from a specific angle such as front 3/4 view - similar to the convention adopted by the automobiles wikiproject. Whilst we bikers are nowhere near as anally retentive as those automobile, aviation or train geeks, it would nevertheless be good to have some sort of standardisation for infobox images. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree, Biker Biker. I worked on the automobile image standardization and am excited at the thought of working with the motorcycle editors to come up with a standard for the motorcycle project as well. roguegeek (talk·cont) 18:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose sooner or later we have to either officially adopt the Automobile project's convention, or draft our own. I think there are more pressing issues, but if everyone wants to work on it now we might as well.What I see as the problem with point #5 of the convention is that it fails to take into account Lead section, and instead mandates that the lead picture be a redundant imitation of the illustration that appear further down in the article for each version or generation.  So yes, the detailed infoboxes should have rigidly conventional illustrations of what that one looks like, but the lead image should be less restrictive and try to summarize or represent the content of the whole article.An alternative for this article might be the speed trials burnout, if the Bonneville picture is too cryptic.  But the blandness and redundancy of showing the same thing several times does not work.This image standard has done a lot of damage, if you ask me.  Look at these Featured and Good Articles:  Maserati MC12, Ford BA Falcon, Toyota Aurion, Toyota Matrix, etc.  Every one of them shows the same view of the same car at least twice. Why?  Because you win points for slavishly adhering to the convention, that's the only justification.  Toyota Aurion even has a nearly identical shot of the same silver colored car; the only difference is that it's pointed left instead of right.  It's kind of sad.--Dbratland (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Duplication, yes, but the top image is for people who choose WP:TLDR and/or don't care at all to read and know the difference. Duplication or near-duplication isn't a bad thing for a comprehensive article. tedder (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * But consider Kawasaki Ninja 250R. The lead is better than the Bonnieville picture because you can see the whole bike, but the rest of the article gives you a range of different kinds of images.  I'm actually arguring for a dual role for Infobox motorcycle, one for the lead and another for the full specs of each model.--Dbratland (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm throwing the image in questions up on the right here so all editors can see it. The article covers many topics, but the main subject of the article is the bike. This being the case, the lead image and all infoboxes need to clearly show the bike as the main subject. Now looking at this image (and I really do love this image as it stands alone), we know what kind of motorcycle it is because we are motorcyclists. Can the common reader tell what kind of bike this is from the image? Absolutely not. This is why it can't be considered for a lead image or infobox image. Now, it can be used next to text content in the article that is connected to this image, but that's about it. Thoughts? roguegeek (talk·cont) 18:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The salt flats image is good for the section on racing, but it really doesn't identify the bike very well. tedder (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I would counter by asking what is the point of having two nearly identical images of first generation Hayabusas in the article. First a white 2007, and then a black 1999.  It's redundant, and it wastes space.  All it tells us is that the bike once came in black and in white, which we know from the table at the bottom of the article (where it belongs since colors are so trivial).  But would you delete the second image?  Or violate the convention in the second image?  Again, WP:Lead section has a better solution:  try to summarize the whole article.  --Dbratland (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You wouldn't delete any of the images or violate the convention. The article is about the Hayabusa. The lead image should be a Hayabusa that generally follows the automotive image standards. The infoboxes on the page are for a first and second generation Hayabusa. The images in the infobox should be for a first and second generation Hayabusa. roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Is WP:MOTO truly a subproject of WP:CAR and beholden to those standards? tedder (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not! They have some good ideas which we could re-use, but they are car drivers. Four wheels will always be inferior to two. Maybe I should clarify what I said earlier. I'm all for standardisation of infobox pictures. If there isn't an infobox in the lead of an article then I'm happy for it to be something that captures the spirit of the bike in question - a burnout, a closeup of the engine, whatever makes the bike distinctive. In an article that contains multiple generations of a bike I'd be very happy for there not to be an infobox at the start. I think the automobile and automobile generation infoboxes are are a terrible idea. That's effectively what is being emulated in this article and I'd argue that the leading infobox should be removed because it isn't about a specific model, it is trying to capture all the generations. --Biker Biker (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do wings count as two wheels or four? (hint) I do tend to think we don't need a lot of standards around this, especially as a fledgling group. My proposal: the bike should be close to stock, background uncluttered, from whatever angle and zoom shows the bike best. That's it. tedder (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait. This is because there is an infobox in the lead?  I agree that the fully-filled in infoboxes lower down in the article that detail each version's specs should have an image that follows the car convention.  But the reason there is an infobox in the lead is for quick summary of the entire model range; most fields are blank except for a few that apply to all models, and the top speed field that could be stretched to cover them all.  So essentially I'm using Infobox motorcycle for a different purpose than it's main function.  Which was, once again, already done a long time ago on the Ninja 250 article.But I can see not having an infobox in the lead if that is the sticking point.  It appears the Bonneville picture doesn't have much support but I'm hoping to get closer to a consensus on what a good motorcycle article looks like so we can make more like it.  So perhaps without the infobox, and with an alternative image, we can have something in the lead that is more general and that doesn't duplicate the infobox pictures  --Dbratland (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Horsepower, bhp, hp, etc.
Doesn't this really belong in the engine power and torque section of Motorcycle testing and measurement? Since it covers all motorcycles, not just the Hayabusa? And Motorcycle testing and measurement really needs some love.

(And yes, that is another shot of our friend Bonneville Hayabusa Guy. This is the same bike.  They're all from here) --Dbratland (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

In good humor -

I've written a fair amount of hp and testing stuff - and there's more uninformed junk written about motorcycles than I can believe. :-)

If we don't explain a reason as to why there's 175, 155, 162 on the page, you get is people whining about how the "numbers aren't right". They aren't necessarily right - I gave the reason, with refs, as to why. I also addressed the "99's are the strongest impression in the post. Providing ref, gave a hp range and educated the reader as to what is expected in the real world, bike to bike. The mags grab ONE bike (supplied by Suzuki), on "some" dyno and report that hp number. Other people test lots and average the results.

I wouldn't disagree with you that other parts of wikipedia don't need help - but, what I wrote informed the specific Hayabusa inquirer as to HP numbers - as he's not going to look at the goofy numbers and then trudge through wikipedia to find out why.

So - I'm thinking that the post was appropriate -

Thanks - Marc Salvisberg (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We just need to put in:   If somebody doesn't like what they see, they can click on it and learn more.  And the same could be put in any motorcycle article; most of them have a horsepower field, or they should have one.And I would ask you, do you see anywhere on this talk page anyone whining that "the numbers aren't right?"  This is the most popular article about a motorcycle, getting around 40,000 hits a month.  They seem happy with that aspect, probably because the table specifically tells you where the number came from, and people realize .  If we do start seeing readers complaining that the numbers make no sense, we can respond to that but so far it hasn't happened.But it would be very helpful if you can find better sources and then help expand Motorcycle testing and measurement.  I agree with the others that this is too biased; it isn't an independent source and they're touting their own testing over their competitors.  Perhaps it's true, but it's also self-serving and that makes them no good as a source.  You need a neutral source, such as a mechanical engineering journal, or reputable magazine, or textbook.--Dbratland (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"* It's probably sub-optimal to stuff so many competing stats into bhp, torque and weight in the "infoboxes. Should choose one representative, or use a range like 159–162.6 bhp (119–121 kW). The "whole lot of them can be put into a table under the Performance section.

This is funny - YOU (chuckle) whined and suggested ranging HP numbers, did nothing and I did something, and explained it......

And I am whining.... 175? 155? 162? That's not realistic and makes me ignore anything technical in the article. It's not a source for professionals or even at a dealership level, yet.

I know the average Busa owner isn't the most tech savvy, so I'd not expect many "Talk", but you did get one or two, I see - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc Salvisberg (talk • contribs) 22:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't really follow what you're trying to say. But regardless of what you do, the chances of having somebody revert your edits are much lower the better your sources.--Dbratland (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesnt make sense
I'm sure this is correctly sourced as being from Koblenz, Jay (June 1999), "99 Suzuki GSX1300R Hayabusa; Bullet Train On Wheels (model evaluation)", Motorcycle Consumer News (Irvine, California: Aviation News Corp): 30-33, ISSN 1067-8697 1073-9408, 1067-8697 (except the link http://www.worldcat.org/issn/1073-9408, tells me "Sorry, we cannot identify the location you entered. Please re-enter your location." when I try to check) but mechanically and mathematically it doesn't make any sense: A distinctive feature of the Hayabusa engine was its abundance of low end torque. In comparison with the CBR1100XX and the ZX-11, the shape of the horsepower graphs is very similar for all three engines, but the Hayabusa's torque graph departs from the other two early in the RPM range and stays well above them from 3000 through 9000 rpm. This difference has little effect on the ultimate top speed of these motorcycles, but it makes the Hayabusa less demanding to ride by giving the rider a wider margin for error in choosing the right gear for a given speed. I can't tell what would be best to do with it. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What is your question? Which part?  --Dbratland (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I fixed that weird comparison of dyno charts that weren't referenced or cited. What they meant was that the cbr1100xx (what year?) was just a teeny bit faster than the zx11 (what year?) and the 99 Busa made much more power at every rpm. don't know what that 9000 rpm reference was. fwiw, Looking at my own cbr1100xx and zx11 dyno charts, they both went 170ish with stock gearing at redline. Looks like the Gen 1 Busa went about 10 mph faster at the tach redline. I don't know what the "official" top speeds were for all 3 bikes. Marc Salvisberg (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Jay Koblenz's Motorcycle Consumer News article is very easy to understand. Other MCN editors agree with his opinions about the shape of the torque curve, as do writers at other publications.  As time allows I will return to this and try to write a more clear explanation of what Koblenz said. --Dbratland (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Off topic
I just bought a Hayabusa 2004, imported from USA (with miles) and as I live in Europe I would like to have it in kilometers. I've heard that it's possible to convert it. Does anybody know how to convert miles into kilometers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.119.163.242 (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum for that kind of question. You might try posting at one of the forums listed at DMOZ like Hayabusa.org. --Dbratland (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Horsepower
"171.1 bhp (128 kW)[27] Rear wheel 151.5–162.6 bhp (113–121 kW) bhp @ 9500–9750 rpm, See performance and measurements"

All power figures are useless as they are improperly scaled, unscaled and most are uncited. Marc Salvisberg (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help in improving the horsepower figures in this article.With regard to Jay Koblenz's comparison of the horsepower graphs in his 1999 Motorcycle Consumer News article: Koblenz meets Wikipedia's criteria as a reliable source.  That does not mean everything Koblenz says is the "truth", it means that his perspective passes the minimum standard required by Wikipedia for inclusion in an article.  Other opinions, which also meet Wikipedia's standards, should also be included.  If you can cite sources which disagree with Koblenz, please add them to the article -- other than your own company's web site, which, unfortunately, fails to meet the criteria in WP:RS.  If Koblenz is really so wrong, you ought to have no trouble finding reliable sources which say so.I will be restoring the bit about the horsepower graphs from the Motorcycle Consumer News article unless there is consensus against doing so.  My opinion here is that giving the reader horsepower figures that disagree with each other helps the reader understand that experts disagree on the subject of horsepower measurement, and there is no one "true" horsepower figure for any bike.  But we can verify that the source published a particular figure, even if that figure is an outlier in comparison with other published numbers.  --Dbratland (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear on the concept..... you want me to find some print magazine that says the you need a brake dyno to do brake horsepower tests? You keep stubbornly editing listing inertia dyno tests as Brake HorsePower (BHP). Might be pretty hard to find a statement as elemental as that. Some times you just have to know that ice is cold and fire is hot.

Maybe you should cite "BHP". http://www.thefreedictionary.com/b.h.p.? Marc Salvisberg (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm insisting on no such thing. In fact, I thanked you for fixing the errors in bhp and hp.  Good work!  Thank you again!What I object to are your COI edits.  Factory Pro claims their product is superior to Dynojet.  Of course you would say that.  Buy an advertisement somewhere touting your company's product. Please do not try to edit Wikipedia articles to make the articles take sides in your dispute with your competitor over whose dyno is better.  If a third party reliable source publishes a horsepower figure, it should be cited, along with figures from other reliable sources.  Which figure is "true"?  Not our problem.Some people might disagree with the way Jay Koblenz described the Hayabusa power curve, but his opinions meet Wikipedia's criteria and so can be cited.  Other reliable sources have said similar things; they are widely held opinions.Remember, Wikipedia is only an encyclopedia intended to give readers general information.  It is not a buyer's guide for which bike has the most power, or whose dyono is the best.  If the figures we give on horsepower are a little fuzzy or contradictory, there's nothing wrong with that.  Professional racers or tuners know where to find more precise information, and Wikipedia is not it.And once again, I invite you to use your expertise to make Motorcycle testing and measurement a better article.  That article is the best place for you to explain inertia dyno tests and bhp. --Dbratland (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Restricted vs. unrestricted:
I'm new to Wikipedia, but I'm not new to the Hayabusa. There was some incorrect information regarding which model years were restricted and which model years were unrestricted. There is so much information readily available, frankly I was a little surprised. Anyway, I corrected it as best as possible.

FWIW:

1999 and 2000 models were not restricted.

2001 and later models were restricted.

M4 work (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Additions or changes to Wikipedia need to reflect reliable sources and be cited. Your changes didn't indicate sources, so I've reverted it. tedder (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Besides those specifically mentioned, there are another dozen or so sources that say the 1999 model year was the only one that was unrestricted, and the 300 km/h restriction began with the 2000 model year. The production and sales dates of course could vary -- they might have produced and/or sold 1999 model year bikes well into 2000.  But if there is a reliable source who claims the 2000 model year was unrestricted, please cite it.  I think adding other perspectives is valuable, and I would be curious if they have any explanation as to why the other sources differ.  Same thing with the GPS and Lidar claims that the top speed was 197 mph -- cite who published that, because I would be interested in how that came about.Of course, if what we're talking about is original research, then it needs to be published in some other media first, then it can be cited.  I would assume that anybody who has been around Hayabusas for a long time must be able to easily lay their hands on quite a bit of good published material.Any explanation for blanking the custom scene section? --Dbratland (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure how this Wikipedia thing works, but this particular article is full of wrong information. Do you even own a Hayabusa? I earned my expert road racing license on my 2000 Hayabusa. I can find references for this information, but it's kind of pointless, because the wrong information in the Wikipedia page is based on wrong information published elsewhere, or even mis-quoted, and I'm really not inclined to spend a bunch of time helping out if someone who's only experience with the Hayabusa is a google search, is just going to mess it all up again.

For example, no stock Hayabusa has ever been capable of the 200 mph (with just a pipe and an airbox) as claimed in the "Custom Scene" section of the article, and the article cited doesn't even say that. What the article cited actually says, is that a pipe and an airbox will allow the Hayabusa to APPROACH 200 mph, and even that isn't right. A modified airbox will actually LOWER the top speed of a Hayabusa, although it can help the acceleration a little bit at lower speeds, up to about 150 mph, like on a drag strip. Even with a fresh rear tire, a completely stock unrestricted 1999-2000 Hayabusa will hit the rev limiter at no more than 196-197 (actual) mph, although it takes EXCELLENT body position by the rider to do that. Most people don't, and that's why we saw tests of the same unrestricted bikes, with top speeds all over the map, from about 180 mph to about 194 mph. Even if you changed the stock 17/40 final drive for a 17/39 to get around the rev limiter issue, the bike is still about 20 horsepower short of the approximately 175 horsepower that it takes to reach 200 mph.

The 2001-2007 bikes use a different ECM, and are restricted to about 185 mph through the use of an internal ignition timing retard that is built into the ECM. It functions only in 6th gear, as the bike is incapable of going any faster than about 185 mph in 5th gear due to the rev limiter. The 2001-2007 bikes are easy to identify, as they have 185 mph speedometer faces, and steel rear subframes.

The 1999-2000 bikes have their own (unrestricted) ECM, aluminum subframes, and 220 mph speedometer faces.

Here are some references:

http://www.sportrider.com/bikes/146_0110_hayabusa_zx_12r_top_speed/index.html

http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt1922b.shtml

http://www.dixonarchive.com/hayabusa/performance.htm

http://www.ivansperformanceproducts.com/tre.htm

http://store.58cycle.com/product_p/tre.htm

I do not know how to properly install them into the article.

M4 work (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * First, please don't go up inside other people's comments to reply to points they made. I know you only meant to quote me, but it messes the talk page up.  I tried to fix it by moving everything you just said to the bottom of the section, leaving what I said in its original form.  Normally when replying to somebody you don't start a new section, you just add your comments to the bottom.  For readability you can indent your comment with a colon.  Anyway, that's' something that confuses everyone...I understand you're new to Wikipedia. That's why Tedder and I offered you links to the articles on verifiability, reliable sources, and original research.  You want to know how Wikipedia works?  Read.  Or start with WP:5 and go from there.<P>In a nutshell, you're complaining about something that is at the heart of how WP works.  Co-founder Larry Sanger quit and started his own encyclopedia because he wanted experts to have more say over non-experts.  I'm not saying Wikipedia is perfect.  I'm saying Wikipedia is Wikipedia.  If you really want to change how WP works, please go debate that on the policy pages, not here.<P>I appreciate the links you provided and I'll read the articles and add the information to the article.  WP:Citing sources is an article that can help you do that too.<P>With regard to changing it from "hypersport" to "supersport" I think we need to go with what the most common usage is.  Telling people the Hayabusa is a "supersport" is going to totally confuse everyone. Suzuki usually calls the Hayabusa "Ultimate Sport" but nobody else uses that; Suzuki made it up.  Supersport usually means bikes similar to those that race in the middleweight class, like a Daytona 675 or GSX-R600.  No journalists call the Hayabusa a "supersport", and "hypersport" is a term used in many publications.  But I understand why people bicker over terminology like this.  Honda is cheeky enough to claim on their web site that their VFR1200F is a sport bike, not a sport touring bike.  Every article written about the VFR1200F ignores Honda's opinions and calls it a sport touring. --Dbratland (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, thank you for correcting my mistake about Mike Seate's book; it does say the air box and exhaust mods make the bike "approach 200 mph, not exceed it.--Dbratland (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about as far as going inside other people's comments. I thought I just posted at the bottom. If I made a mistake, then I apologize. In any case, thank you for fixing it.

I'm no IT geek. I'm a rider. I appreciate all the help I can get with correcting this page. The Hayabusa is an amazingly competent and versatile motorcycle. I would like to keep it civil and polite and all, but with all due respects, it is unfortunate that such a wonderful motorcycle is represented in such an embarassingly bad way by it's Wikipedia page. It is painfully obvious that much of the input came from folks who have never actually ridden a Hayabusa to it's limits.

I do understand that by it's very nature, the accuracy of Wikipedia is subject to the same degree of accuracy that anything else on the internet is. Any goofball can post something on the internet, and if it's repeated often enough, it begins to become accepted as fact by those who simply don't know any better. I do know better.

Rather than get all wrapped around the axle about the esoterics of editing, we should strive to make this Wikipedia page as accurate as we can. We're not there yet.

If we can finally put the restricted vs. unrestricted issue to bed, I'd like to offer an amazingly simple resolution. A link for OEM Suzuki parts:

http://www.suzukipartshouse.net/pages/parts/viewbybrand/1/Suzuki.aspx

Please note that ECM part number 32920-24F21 is the correct (16 bit) ECM for the 1999 ("X" suffix vehicle model) AND 2000 ("Y" suffix vehicle model) Hayabusa. The 2001-2007 ("K1" through "K7" suffix vehicle model) 32 bit ECMs are all represented by completely different part numbers.

I know I'm new here and a little clumsy, but I'm right about all of this stuff. I just need a little technical help.

M4 work (talk) 09:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you read Verifiability? --Dbratland (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I just did. I'm going to try to do a few edits correctly. Thanks.

M4 work (talk) 09:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

To finally put this question aside: I suggest to read the references posted here near the top speed, because they tells that the restricted model starts FROM 2001 model ( see https://web.archive.org/web/20120511012556/http://www.sportrider.com/bikes/146_0110_hayabusa_zx_12r_top_speed/index.html, for me the phrase "Beginning with 2001 models, Japanese manufacturers agreed to limit their motorcycles to top speeds of 186 mph, under the threat of "if-you-don't-we-will" legislation from European governments." is pretty clear and it is even clear that 2001 > 2000). Moreover the other reference ( https://web.archive.org/web/20040313154344/http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt1922b.shtml ) is a review of 2000 model and it is clear even here that the 2000 model is not restricted ( "Launched hard off the line, the Hayabusa hit 60 in only 2.6 seconds! And smashed through the 1/4 mile in a mere 9.8 seconds at 145.8 miles-per-hour! Figures bested only by the incredible result of Cycle World's top speed test, 194 miles-per-hour! We were impressed!").

Also, note that the agreement impose that the speedometer MUST BE limited at 299 km/h (186 mph) and the 1999-2000 models have the speedometer with max speed of 350 km/h.

The final proof of these claim comes from the OFFICIAL suzuki site (and I think that this site have the priority over any other unofficial web page, like the two before); on the official site one can check that the 1999 ("X" model) and 2000 ("Y" model) have the same pieces, they are identical and so the very simple logical consequence is that both models are unrestricted. See http://www.suzukipartshouse.net/oemparts/a/suz/50d40e98f8700230d8b50861/electrical, the central unit (the restriction is put inside the ECM, it's an electronic limit) is the same for both models (check the part 32920-24F21).

IF anyone has a reliable source (like an OFFICIAL suzuki site or an official paper site) that state the 2000 model is restricted, please cite it, otherwise the official suzuki site has the priority (even if even the unofficial site like the two already used state that 2000 model is unrestricted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.12.40.153 (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * IP editor  the SportRider review clearly sates they did not test a 2000 model year Busa or ZX-12R but that there sister pub did "While we didn't have a chance to sample a Y2K ZX-12R or Hayabusa, our sister pub Motorcyclist conducted the same tests with its 2000 test units a year ago. Oddly enough, while both bikes ran sub-185 mph in perfect desert conditions, no hint of a limiter was found in the dyno room." As all other sources clearly state speeds all blow 187mph for 2000 year models. What they are referring to with the 2001 model year statement, it is known how the bikes were limited but that in 2000 year model Busa and ZX it was not known how they were limited and all review state this as well, because there are no reviews of any 2000 year bike going above 187mph. Verifiable by this statement in that same Sport Rider review "We know for a fact that the 2001 ZX has updated cams and a black box, so it's a safe bet that last year's bikes were more subtly restricted to avoid attracting attention." This is a known fact that you can not dispute, unless you can show a reliable source stating any different.


 * The Motor Week review does not dispute this  "Figures bested only by the incredible result of Cycle World's top speed test, 194 miles-per-hour! We were impressed!" That's all they do, not say a 2000 model year Busa went 194mph. The only review from Cycle World to give this number was from the one review of a 1999 model, they archive all there monthly  publishings online accessible with a subscription.


 * The parts number being the same for the ECM does not dispute this matter either as I have stated it was not known how the 2000 model year was limited but simple that it was. The 2000 model year did have speedos that did go higher than subsequent years but that can be easily explained as this was rushed into affect in late 1999. Documented by Cycle World shown in this article as a reference. Also you are wrong to state this "speedometer MUST BE limited at 299 km/h (186 mph) and the 1999-2000 models have the speedometer with max speed of 350 km/h." you are misinformed because no source states that the speedometer face needs to be resticted.


 * Also you appear to be editing from multiple ips but clearly the same person, be warned this could be construed as sock accounts and get you blocked. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so can you esplain the following sentece? "In any event, some phone calls to those in the know, and we had in our hands a Timing Retard Eliminator (TRE) from Ivan's Rockland County Motorcycle. Turns out the Hayabusa limiter works off gear position and rpm, and Ivan's gizmo informs the ECU it's in fifth gear all the time." Seems that the hayabusa limiter is at the level of ECU, so if the ECUs are the same it follows that both bikes are unrestricted.

Also I don't know why you want to block me, I was no rude and I offended nobody, I just want to improve an information that I think it's wrong (compared to the informations that I have, of course); for sake of the truth, I check ALL the pieces from the official suzuki site and there is no differences, not a single bolt differs from the 2 models, so the logic consequences is that it's impossible that one is restricted and the other is not, they have the same exact pieces, from the engine to the last bolt. I edit the article because I think that a piece-by-piece comparison on the official suzuki web site is far better than a couple of foggy references (they don't test the 2000 models or they base the deduction on the restriction over an agreement that is not a federal law or something more than an handshake agreement with no duty between manufacturer).

Footnote style
As discussed above and elsewhere, the use of WP:CITESHORT and parenthetical referencing, along with harvtxt (examples) is not popular. WP:CITEHOW says either style of footnotes is allowed, and even though I prefer Harvard style notes, I can see now that this style is somewhat of a barrier to particpation by other editors. It's a pain to create and maintain this style of footnotes, and it would be easier for everyone if this article just used the normal footnote style, where you put  rather than the two-part system in place now. I also think this page loads way too slowly and all the harvtxt templates might be to blame.

Since I'm the one who created all these harvtxt notes, I will go ahead and put them back into the common style, although first I will probably format the recently-added bare URL refs. I'm pretty sure consensus favors that, but speak up if you really would rather keep this in Harvard style. --Dbratland (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Off topic
did suzuki produce a limited hayabusa in 2005, if so what color and how many units were produced —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.201.12 (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't a forum to discuss questions about the bike. See Talk page guidelines. You might want to try looking up a Hayabusa forum and asking there. I recommend deleting this section from the talk page.  --Dbratland (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place to rant about this. This article shows a man riding his bike without a helmet. Maybe you could consider removing or changing the picture. I made a comment about it in the main page and was kindly removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.176.15.163 (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? Helmets are not mandatory worldwide. --Biker Biker (talk) 04:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * And there's this. Obviously not here to make a constructive contribution. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ariel Atom 500 and the Hayabusa Engine
The Hayabusa engine, well two Hayabusa engines, have been put together and slightly modified by Hartley and put in the back of the Ariel Atom 500. The Atom's 3.0 L engine puts out a total of 500 bhp. The car is also the fastest to go around the Top Gear track, with a time of 1:15.1. I'm still learning how to cite on here (even though I've been on here a while), but I figured I should provide the information :)

http://www.topspeed.com/cars/ariel/2012-ariel-atom-v8-500-ar100592.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gear_test_track#The_Power_Board http://www.topgear.com/uk/photos/ariel-atom-v8?imageNo=2 (Project Free TV link to Top Gear Episode, it's the first 15 minutes or so after the introduction) http://www.free-tv-video-online.me/player/zshare.php?id=856325151a64fa3c (Hayabusa Forum) http://www.hayabusa.org/forum/random-thoughts/143898-when-2-hayabusa-engines-mate-what-you-get.html


 * Interesting. You definitely need to read WP:RS, WP:ELNO and WP:ELNEVER. The first is about reliable sources, which would cover the topspeed.com link as it isn't a reliable source. The second covers the Hayabusa forum - we don't do forums and fanclubs as external links, and rarely or never as references. The last would apply to the pirated TV programme on free-tv-vido-online.me Do you have any other sources that state it is a Hayabusa engine, because it would make a reasonable addition to that section of the article. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Bill Warner crash
--Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/15/us-maine-crash-idUSBRE96E01S20130715
 * http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-bill-warner-20130716,0,7912694.story
 * http://bangordailynews.com/2013/07/15/news/aroostook/officials-say-loring-land-speed-event-organizers-motorcyclist-bill-warner-were-vigilant-about-safety/
 * http://www.tampabay.com/news/obituaries/epilogue-hedy-goes-here-and-here/2131649
 * http://www.cycleworld.com/2011/08/10/warner-goes-311-mph-racing/

No sense
This page needs a good going over, rewording required in many places. There is one mistake that particularly niggles me, but I can't correct it because I have no idea what the author is trying to say: "rounded nose squeezed frontal area away from the headlight". I suggest that the author might like discover what frontal area is: http://www.buechenet.com/tech-ed/dragster/aero.html Yevad (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you phrase your objection in the form of a question? What is it you don't understand? And the link you provide carefully defines the term "projected frontal area", something not mentioned in the article. The article simply mentions "frontal area", in reference to the nose of the bike. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not directly relevant to the question above, but there is an excellent discussion of motorcycle drag in the June 1999 Cycle World. Source: . It makes the points that...
 * Sportbike motorcycles generally have a Cd of .55 to .65 (comparable to a pickup truck), vs Cd .29 for many sports cars and even .20 for high efficiency cars. Motorcycle projected frontal area is in the neighborhood of 2.9 - 3.9 sqft. The Hayabusa's Cd is .56 with a CdA of 2.9 sqft
 * With dustbin fairings, motorcycles could have Cds as low as .45 to 50, but these were banned in racing in the 50s and so are out of fashion among street motorcycles. Rounded, smooth shapes are also out of fashion, in favor of less efficient, pointed, jet-fighter like shapes.
 * Manufacturers don't publish bikes' Cds, or else try to confuse the public by advertising CdA in meters, because the figures, like 0.31, sound comparable to a car's Cd. Cd is dimensionless, while CdA is dimensioned but marketers often fail to reveal the dimension.
 * The MCN article (Koblenz 1999) cited in the article is referring not to overall Cd or CdA, but the need for a minimum frontal area for the headlight and high-beam reflectors, and for the air intakes. They can be raked and made large by stretching the nose, but the frontal projection of the lights and intakes still needs to be a certain minimum. This is why the Hayabusa departed from sportbike convention at the time, two side-by-side lights, and instead stacked the lights vertically and gave them an unusual hourglass shape. Combined with the round, not pointed, nose, many thought the bike was ugly. But that is because fasion demanded a jetfighter shape, in spite of the functional superiority of the rounded shapes. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Restricted vs. unrestricted, continued
This is continued from a conversation further up the page, which stretches over seven years and is impossible to parse since it doesn't follow talk page guidelines.

There's a bit of an edit war, involving and one editor who operates from a number of IPs; I've warned two of the IPs for edit warring. 72bikers, I don't have to warn you since you know the score, and at any rate it's the other party who is not following policy. Their last edit was this one, and I'll cite the summary so I can explain: "Ok the parts list are not a reliable source (I don't understand why since it's from official suzuki site, instead of other sites that are at the level of blogs) but other references tells that the 2000 model is unrestricted,so why continue to refuse this?" Note that this edit reinstates this hobbling and awkward text, "See http://www.suzukipartshouse.net/oemparts/a/suz/50d40e98f8700230d8b50861/electrical, the central unit (the restriction is put inside the ECM, it's an electronic limit) is the same for both models (check the part 32920-24F21)", which is editorial commentary placed in a footnote.

First of all, if the parts list is not a reliable source you can't cite it--period. "It's from official suzuki site" misses the point. No one doubts that an official parts list lists parts correctly. The conversation is not about whether some part is listed or not: the question is whether there is a limiter or not. Explaining that part #123456789 is a limiter (or not) is not the job of Wikipedia editors: look up No original research. That is why we require secondary sources. If the model is unrestricted (or whatever, I don't care), and "other references tells us" that, CITE those other sources. So, a. don't cite primary sources; b. cite secondary sources; c. don't put editorial comments in the text or the notes; d. stop edit warring: you revert this one more time and I will endorse that you be blocked, both IPs, and that the article be locked down--it's time to stop playing around and to start following our policies. I have no doubt that a block request will be approved by an independent admin not because I know about Suzukis (I don't, and I don't care about them) but because the policy violations and the inappropriate behavior is really blatant enough. So, having gotten that threat out of the way, please start discussion, right here, what the proper answer is to the query and how that is to be represented in the article. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, so what if I write to Suzuki company and ask them to clarify this information? IF I receive a response letter and I post it here, could it be a reliable source or not (I even ask them the permission to post the answer here, of course)?
 * No! Secondary sources. Go read WP:SECONDARY, please... Drmies (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I was reading right now, I understand, however I have a couple of things to clarify

I deduced from the same ECU number parts and from the procedure of "unrestriction" explained in one references that the 2000 model is unrestricted and this is not acceptable, I understand this BUT

Following the Wikipedia rules, can someone show a reliable reference that state, explicitly, that the model 2000 model is restricted? Because, even in the references cited in the article, all the information that I found is like " the SportRider review clearly states they did not test a 2000 model year Busa or ZX-12R but that there sister pub did "While we didn't have a chance to sample a Y2K ZX-12R or Hayabusa, our sister pub Motorcyclist conducted the same tests with its 2000 test units a year ago. Oddly enough, while both bikes ran sub-185 mph in perfect desert conditions, no hint of a limiter was found in the dyno room." So, if you cite a reference that clearly state that they DO NOT test the 2000 model, how can you tell that the 2000 model is restricted? You deduced it, by the fact that the reference cite ANOTHER reference (that I don't even read) that state the 2000 model doesn't go over 185 mph (on which condition? in which environment? In the same environment how the 1999 model perform?). Sorry but this kind of references and deduction, in my opinion, seems to be unreliable.

72bikers also write: "As all other sources clearly state speeds all blow 187mph for 2000 year models. What they are referring to with the 2001 model year statement, it is known how the bikes were limited but that in 2000 year model Busa and ZX it was not known how they were limited and all review state this as well, because there are no reviews of any 2000 year bike going above 187mph. Verifiable by this statement in that same Sport Rider review "We know for a fact that the 2001 ZX has updated cams and a black box, so it's a safe bet that last year's bikes were more subtly restricted to avoid attracting attention."" Where are these "all other sources"? I see only 2 references near the top speed of 1999 and 2000 version and none of them tell explicitly that the 2000 model is restricted. For example, the Hoyer (2007) only tells that "Sure, top speed was electronically limited to 186 mph in 2000..." but they don't tell that the specific 2000 model is restricted, you deduce it, because it should be noted that:

1) they say that the speed is electronically limited (which is exactly what I said before, so you can easily deduce that if the ECM is the same then they are the same bike, but this is not a proof that follows the Wiki rules, so put this aside)

2) more interesting, let's note that the model sell in 2000 is presented and produced starting from 1999, and in 1999 the agreement wasn't signed yet, so the models affected were the models selling from 2001 (as stated in reference "Trevitt, Andrew (June 2010), "Big Dogs: Derestriction; Uncorking the top-speed potential of the Hayabusa and ZX-12R", Sport Rider, archived from the original on May 11, 2012" that states "Yes, they're restricted. Beginning with 2001 models, Japanese manufacturers agreed to limit their motorcycles to top speeds of 186 mph, under the threat of "if-you-don't-we-will" legislation from European governments."

As you can understand, finding a secondary sources is near impossible right now, since nobody test a 18 years old motorcycle, so If Suzuki answer is not acceptable, If some user's test on it's own motorcycle is not acceptable, how can you put the question aside? Because, as I stated before, even the references that "prove" that 2000 model is restricted are a little foggy about the argument (they clearly not state explicitly that the model is restricted).

So, in my opinion, if a specific test/review of 2000 model is missing, it's better to leave the 2000 model without the max speed, for lack of data.

Do secondary sources say the speed restriction began with the 2000 model, or with 2001 model? The answer is yes
I think there are a few more sources besides these that directly address this point, but this is a pretty good cross section: Restricted from 2000 and later: (source added 16:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC). The June 2000 Motorcyclist had 3 separate articles all arguing their conclusion that the 2000 GSX1300R was restricted, even though offcialy Suzuki said the 1999 X model and 2000 Y model are identical. ) (end addition. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)) Restricted from 2001 and later: (source added 21:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC) ) (end addition. Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC) ) All of the above sources are reliable, with strong reputations for expertise and fact checking. Based on this, what should we write? Either say that sources disagree, some saying the 2000 bikes were limited to 186mph/300kph, while others say both the 1999 and 2000 models were unrestricted, and the first restricted Hayabusa was the 2001 model. Or don't say anything: the salient point is that the first Hayabsua went much faster 186 mph, and following that, there was a voluntary reaction that limited the Hayabusa, ZX-12R and others to 186mph/300kph. We don't have to identify the exact model year of this. A technical manual or shopping guide, or how-to guide might need to get this date exactly right, but it's not an encyclopedic concern, per WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMANUAL etc.<P>I actually have been working on a proposal for a while to explicitly say in WP:NOT that we don't settle these questions. Wikipedia's prime function isn't to settle bar bets or help judge trivia night.<P>The question of the part number of the ECU, besides being original research because it draws a conclusion from primary sources, is meaningless. Why would the hardware need a different part number when what they changed was the software. They could have reprogrammed the same ECU without giving it a new part number. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC) Oh, I'm happy to see that there is someone that is accurate and show sources rather than only criticize and insists on the only two (not very precise at all) resource. I was waiting for this problem that you rightly encountered (because I made my own research and I reach the same conclusions as yours): I agree with you about the fact that Wikipedia is not the final arbiter of truth BUT in my opinion this is different from giving inaccurate information, I will explain it better: in this article I see ONLY the resources that make you guess the 2000 models is restricted, so in my opinion it's better to use the resources that you proposed here, because they are better, but there is a more deep problem: all the resources posted by you are reliable but some state one thing and some state the exact opposite, so as you can easily understand only some of them state the right information, but which? I think that it's not, as you said, a function of Wikipedia to search an answer to this question and exactly for that (in my opinion) the article should indicate the 2000 model speed as unknown, for lack of evident proof because some resource say one thing and other say the exact opposite, and all of them are reliable. If you put the 2000 model as restricted, you implicitly take a position and say, implicitly, that some of the reliable resource are wrong, but we have no data and no further informations to decide about this. I add just one little fact, be free to believe this or not: if you change the software, when someone order the piece, how can you know if you should load the software for 1999 model or for 2000 model? You cannot and so, you might say, you load the software for the 2000 version; but, if we assume that the 2000 model is unrestricted, the 1999 is not, you have changed the parameter of the motorcycle and, for example, you can be no compliant anymore with federal standards, because you change some parameter; this could lead to possible complaints to the manufacturer because I bought an original piece of the bike but it is not really original as it has been modified without any indication. Did you remember the Volkswagen scandal? They had to inform the customers that, after the ECU modification, the car lose some Cv (and therefore some performance), for the Hayabusa is the same. How did I know this? Because 5 months ago I broke the ECU of my 1999 Hayabusa and I order exactly the one on the Suzuki site, and the motorcycle is exactly as before, so I'm pretty sure that, in this case at least, this piece is exactly the same, hardware and software; but, as I said, I wrote this curiosity because you give this kind and complete reply and I wanted to be precise as maximum as I can, but feel free to believe it or not
 * "KAWASAKI -- The company has just introduced the Ninja ZX-12R, the quickest and fastest motorcycle it has ever built, limited to a top speed of 185 m.p.h. "
 * "SUZUKI... The Hayabusa ($10,799), perhaps the biggest high-performance bargain on earth -- car or bike -- is available in slightly less garish colors for 2000. It is not quite as quick or as fast as the 1999 model, which was clocked at 194 m.p.h."
 * "SUZUKI... The Hayabusa ($10,799), perhaps the biggest high-performance bargain on earth -- car or bike -- is available in slightly less garish colors for 2000. It is not quite as quick or as fast as the 1999 model, which was clocked at 194 m.p.h."
 * "This new ZX-12R only acheives parity with last year's World's Fastest Bike (and neither the 12R nor the 2000-spec GSX1300R matches the '99 Busa's 189-mph top speed)."
 * "A top whack of 183 mph isn't exactly hanging around, but [the 2000 ZX-12R] is 1.2 mph slower than our 2000 Hayabusa (also, we believe, restricted), run at the same time, and it is a far cry from the 195-200 mph Kawasaki spokespeople had been so careful to not hint at, nudge, wink."
 * "Although factory representatives would not go on record saying the ZX-12R and the year-2000 Hayabusa have been limited, we have accumulated a truckload of circumstantial evidence. To wit: "1 At our desert top-speed test site, both the ZX-12R and the Busa were comparatively slow--much more so than we'd expected--and the Suzuki was well down on its previous performances. (We used a dosed highway that virtually reproduced the conditions used for last year's test of the Hayabusa: temperatures in the high 40s, light winds, elevation about 2400 feet above mean sea level, flat and dry pavement. The ZX-12R and the Hayabusa were run in both directions with virtually no difference in speeds, thus ruling out indine or wind effects.) " "2 Our Hayabusa was tested with the same rider as last year's bike, and it actually made more horsepower on the dyno (163.7 vs. 155.9) this time around. All else being equal, a more powerful bike should be slightly faster, not slower. "3 The release of the ZX-12r to the American press had been delayed by about six weeks without explanation. "4 Kawasaki geared the ZX-12R for just more than 200 mph in top gear and biased its powerband near the top of the rev range, a contrast to the Hayabusa's midrange-heavy tuning. We don't think Kawasaki made the ZX-12R "peaky" by accident. "5 Finally, and most damning, independent sources, speaking off the record, suggested that limiting these bikes is not just a possibility but a reality. We can't reveal our sources, but let's just say they're people in positions to know."
 * "Despite the palpitating hype and firehose of rumors suggesting that Kawasaki's new ZX-12R would be the overwhelming new King of Speed, our example flashed past the Stalker ATS radar gun at a mere 183 mph. What? That's it? Moreover, our 2000-spec Suzuki Hayabusa, totally unchanged (so we're told) for this year, clocked a best run of only 184.2 mph. Prerelease rumors had the Kaw absolutely spanking the 'Busa in test tracks in Japan. Motor Cycle News has reported that the British importer tested the ZX-12R, with independent observers present, to 190.8 mph."
 * "Such limits are slated for the 2001 model year with the possibility of even lower limits in the future. […] However, it now appears that both the 2000-spec ZX-12R and the Suzuki GSX1300R Hayabusa (motorcycles deemed potentially "socially unacceptable" by European politicians) are actually slower than last year's Busa. (Regarding any possible limitations, an American Kawasaki spokesperson said that 'this is a very sensitive issue on which we prefer not to comment.') "
 * "Despite the palpitating hype and firehose of rumors suggesting that Kawasaki's new ZX-12R would be the overwhelming new King of Speed, our example flashed past the Stalker ATS radar gun at a mere 183 mph. What? That's it? Moreover, our 2000-spec Suzuki Hayabusa, totally unchanged (so we're told) for this year, clocked a best run of only 184.2 mph. Prerelease rumors had the Kaw absolutely spanking the 'Busa in test tracks in Japan. Motor Cycle News has reported that the British importer tested the ZX-12R, with independent observers present, to 190.8 mph."
 * "Such limits are slated for the 2001 model year with the possibility of even lower limits in the future. […] However, it now appears that both the 2000-spec ZX-12R and the Suzuki GSX1300R Hayabusa (motorcycles deemed potentially "socially unacceptable" by European politicians) are actually slower than last year's Busa. (Regarding any possible limitations, an American Kawasaki spokesperson said that 'this is a very sensitive issue on which we prefer not to comment.') "
 * "Such limits are slated for the 2001 model year with the possibility of even lower limits in the future. […] However, it now appears that both the 2000-spec ZX-12R and the Suzuki GSX1300R Hayabusa (motorcycles deemed potentially "socially unacceptable" by European politicians) are actually slower than last year's Busa. (Regarding any possible limitations, an American Kawasaki spokesperson said that 'this is a very sensitive issue on which we prefer not to comment.') "
 * p. 277 "But few had any serious complaints, especially in 2000 when the Hayabusa fought off Kawasaki's ZX-12R to retain its unofficial 'worlds' fastest bike' title. Some politicians and bureaucrats were less impressed, however. The following year, in response to a voluntary agreement between the major manufacturers (who were worried about future legal problems), Suzuki fitted the GSX with an electronic device that prevented it from reaching maximum rev in top gear, limiting top speed to 186mph (300km/h)."
 * p. 284 [RE: Model year 2000 Kawasaki ZX-12R, top speed listed as 186mph, i.e. restricted.] "the ZX-12R had become the first bike to be affected by the manufacturers' agreement to limit top speed to 186mph (300km/h), for fear more drastic government-imposed restrictions" Also lists 2000 model year, top speed 186mph"
 * p. 285 "Despite all the speculation before its launch, the ZX-12R proved slightly slower than the Hayabusa in most independent tests"
 * p. 285 "Despite all the speculation before its launch, the ZX-12R proved slightly slower than the Hayabusa in most independent tests"
 * alt url
 * p. 37 "The gun gave us the Ninja's Numbers: 187-mph top speed and 10.04 seconds in the quarter mile"
 * p. 38 "The bottom line, according to Kawasaki USA, is that the biggest Ninja has been slightly neutered, its engine-control unit altered (and possibly, said our source, final gearing) to reduce the bike's top speed to within proposed limits, which, practically speaking, it now is. This led us to wonder about the 2000 Hayabusa. If Kawasaki tamed its tour de force, did Suzuki do the same to the GSX1300R? Apparently not yet (at least on U.S. Models), as the Y2K Suzuki managed 191 mph, just 3 mph slower than our 1999 'Busa's best."
 * p. 42 "Kawasaki ZX-12R Specifications […] Measured top speed: 187 mph"


 * IP editor the reliable source SportRider review clearly sates they did not test a 2000 model year Busa or ZX-12R but that there sister pub did "While we didn't have a chance to sample a Y2K ZX-12R or Hayabusa,our sister pub Motorcyclist conducted the same tests with its 2000 test units a year ago. Oddly enough, while both bikes ran sub-185 mph in perfect desert conditions, no hint of a limiter was found in the dyno room." What they are referring to with the 2001 model year statement, it was known how the bikes were limited in 2001, but that in 2000 year model Busa and ZX it was not known how they were limited. To dispute this widely accepted fact, simply provide a verifiable credible source that show they tested a stock 2000 year motorcycle and exceeded the 186-187 mph restriction. It is really that simple. Not a source saying this year or that year was restricted but that they actually go on the record and publish that they took a stock 2000 year motorcycle to a speed exceeding the restriction. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 03:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland provide some resource that state the restriction starts from 2000 and from 2001 models, so now this is the main problem: that there are a conflicts between resource and so we/you cannot decide which one is the right one, since all of them are reliable source. Moreover you insist on the fact that "our sister pub Motorcyclist conducted the same tests with its 2000 test units a year ago. Oddly enough, while both bikes ran sub-185 mph in perfect desert conditions, no hint of a limiter was found in the dyno room." but this is only a phrase, where are the official report of this test? If I must provide a resource that tested explicitly the 2000 model to prove that it's unrestricted, then you must do the same to show that it is restricted, but a phrase like this is not enough, I want to see the final report from this "Motorcyclist" resource, can you provide it? Moreover they clearly said that "no hint of a limiter was found in the dyno room" so how can you be sure that, in those conditions, a 1999 model perform better than a 2000? Maybe even a 1999 run sub-185 mph in these conditions, we cannot know this before a precise tests. I add only one thing: all the hayabusa restricted version as far as I know, till 2016 version, were limited electronically, with a check on gear + rev, what makes you think that only the 2000 model had a different type of limitation? It would be very strange, especially considering that the procedure to unlock the hayabusa limitation, as explained explicitly in one resource, is to fool the ECU about the right gear. Sincerely I don't know what is the problem of writing that there is a resources conflict and so the exact speed data of 2000 model is not known, instead of putting the 2000 model into the restricted models for sure. If we leave the data non available then further research will be left to the readers that want to know more about this fact. I found, for example, "http://www.motorcycledaily.com/2000/01/holybusa/" where they states that "Although essentially unchanged from the 1999 model" but we are searching for a specific review of the 2000 models, so a good beginning point is this blog: "http://hyp4r.com/motorblog/suzuki-hayabusa-gsx1300r-performance-statistics-1st-generation-1999-2007/". I know that this IS NOT a valid resource itself BUT if someone can find one of the article cited here (for example "PERFORMANCE BIKES [June 2000]" or "CYCLEWORLD [June 2000]" or "SPORTBIKE MAGAZINE [June 2000]" they review the 2000 model and so we will have a reliable resources. Note that it will be interesting to see even the resource that you have already use (" MOTORCYCLIST MAGAZINE [June 2000]") to confirm the fact (states in this blog) that the test was performed at an elevation 2400 feet above sea level, which is not quite a standard condition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.12.40.153 (talk) 07:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * To dispute this widely accepted fact, simply provide a verifiable credible source that show they tested a stock 2000 year motorcycle and exceeded the 186-187 mph restriction and published this fact. Not a source saying this year or that year was restricted, because what they are referring to with the 2001 model year statement,   Just show that a verifiable credible source actually go on the record and publish that they took a stock 2000 year motorcycle to a speed exceeding the restriction.
 * There is a reliable sources stating (Sport Rider whos publisher also publishes Cycle World and Motorcyclist) With a reliable source quoting a very highly respect Motorcyclist who have been in the motorcycle business for over 100 years. Cycle World is one of the most highly respected and most reliable source there is, they have been in the motorcycle business for over 50 years, they are the one that published the 1999 Hayabusa could achieve a top speed of 194mph. I believe they are the only source to do this and so highly respected that all others just refer to there findings. And they also published that the fastest stock motorcycle in the year 2000 was the ZX-12R with a top speed of 187mph hereSo with these source who specialize in only Motorcycles, state something there is no other source that would carry as much or more weight than these, and certainly not some unreliable blog. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Sport Rider's quote is taken from Motorcyclist 2000 year review. And I have seen Cycle Worlds 2000 year reviews online in there archives accessible with a small fee added to your account. I don't have current access to this now, but it is very easily confirmed with them stating in a 2012 article that the fastest bike in the year 2000 was a ZX-12R at 187mph. There is not a more credible source than these, so if this what they report then it is most certainly true-72bikers (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

As I said, I cited the blog to provide a list of some sources, and it could be great if we can find some of them, like Cycle World because the data of zx-12 is the same one as indicated in blog, so IF even the data states for hayabusa is right (191 mph) then this is the final proof that it is unrestricted BUT we need to see these references because, as you said, this is only a blog and is not a reliable source. Moreover, I read the resource that you provide ("https://web.archive.org/web/20120407081128/http://www.cycleworld.com/2012/04/02/fifty-years-of-do-you-have-any-idea-how-fast-you-were-going/2//") and they don't explicitly say that the zx-12 was the fastest motorcycle in 2000, they only say "In 2000, Kawasaki returned fire with a new ZX-12R. A hush fell over the crowd. Will it do 200? No, it won’t. In fact, it wouldn’t even go 190—only a sluggish 187. It wanted to go faster, but it couldn’t, because it was electronically limited." but nowhere they mention that it is the fastest of 2000. I just see right now that Dennis (many many thanks for your time and your contributions to the discussion) add the resource that we are talking about, the one from Cycle World, see his previous comment (link to resources: http://www.cycleworld.com/kawasaki-ninja-zx-12r-sportbike-road-test-motorcycle-review#page-2), what do you think? Can we count it as a reliable resource/information? As you say before, Cycle World is a very reliable source. P.S. I saw yesterday your last comment but I had no time to reply, to make it clear for all other users, the models code are: X=1999 Y=2000 K1=2001, and so on (I think, but I'm not sure about this detail, that the code K stand for 2K and so 2K1=2001, 2K2=2002 and so on)


 * IP editor it is a year by year list of the fastest stock motorcycle, so it is explicitly saying that the ZX-12R is the fastest stock motorcycle for the year 2000 with a top speed of 187mph. Also do not touch other editors talk comment you may be blocked for this. -72bikers (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

<br< I've been patient until now but now you make me losing my patience because it's obvious that you're behaving so well to look for insulting talk. First of all, I admit and I thought that it is EVIDENT that I miss click over your section (while I was editing and I thought that I have fixed your comment, so I'm sorry about this issue) but please keep the blocking threats for yourself (because they are useless since, as you (I hope) know, the IP address is dynamic so you can block any IP that you want, I will have a new IP in a couple of minutes; this explanation is to prove that IF a person want to ruin the article or the discussion, it is not an IP block that can stop him, but it is evident that I'm not that person, since I spend here hours to discuss and provide resources and anything else. About you claim, have you read the reference from Cycle world that Dennis add in his comment and that I repost in my reply? I answer for you: NO, because if you read this you can find that "The gun gave us the Ninja’s numbers: 187-mph top speed and 10.04 seconds in the quarter-mile. Pretty comprehensible, really. Not the fastest, not the quickest. Damn fast and damn quick, yes, but the Hayabusa forged just a little deeper in its maximum exertions, delivering 194 mph and 9.86 seconds" AND more important "If Kawasaki tamed its tour de force, did Suzuki do the same to the GSX1300R? Apparently not yet (at least on U.S. models), as the Y2K Suzuki managed 191 mph, just 3 mph slower than our 1999 ’Busa’s best.". So, because mathematics is no an opinion, 191 mph > 187 mph and so they CANNOT say explicitly that zx12 is the fastest motorcycle of 2000 (and they don't say it in fact). So, because of all this resources, some of them are indicated even by you as the best of the best, i.e. Cycle World (that state the bike is not restricted, by the way) my proposal is: 1)Add, in the table of the performance, the data for the 2000 model from Cycle World (this seems to be the one that test explicitly a 2000 model); we can even indicate the review from "Burns, John (June 2000), "Kawasaki ZX-12R", Motorcyclist, p. 41-" but with the indication that the test was performed 2400 feet above sea level (since, as you know, with the altitude the performance decrese, so you can lose easily some mph with respect to the sea level. 2)Add all this refecences (or at least some of the most important, posted by Dennis) near to 2000 model into the characteristics box, removing the model from the restricted and leaving the 2000 years alone, with no indication of maximum speed, because of this references contrast. I ask to you, Dennis, Drmies and 72bikers, what do you think about this solution? In my opinion, it's the best way to solve this indecision, without taking a position and leaving the references, so the readers can search for further information by theirself.


 * IP editor again I will inform you your blog information is useless. And you have not provided any proof to change the current article. And also will state from your comment that no one can block you, it would seem you are here to just cause trouble. -72bikers (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Have you read my comments above? Because if you read it, there are 2 cases: I'm not able to write in english or you cannot understand it, because I'm NOT state that no one can block me, where did you read this EXACT phrase in my post? I say that block a person that spend some hours in discussion to improve an article is useless since MAYBE this person is not here to cause trouble and to ruin the article and MAYBE everyone can make a mistake, and as you can read, I ADMIT that I make a mistake, so please don't misunderstand my world. Also, seems that you the one that are here to just cause trouble, since, I copy your EXACT phrase: " Cycle World is one of the most highly respected and most reliable source there is, they have been in the motorcycle business for over 50 years, they are the one that published the 1999 Hayabusa could achieve a top speed of 194mph. I believe they are the only source to do this and so highly respected that all others just refer to there findings. ". Dennis post and I re-post again the resource about the test of hayabusa 2000 model from this EXACT source, I copy here: "Hoyer, Mark (June 2000), "ZX-12R; Kawasaki's Ultimate Weapon makes a politically correct debut", Cycle World, vol. 39 no. 6, pp. 37–43 alt url

p. 37 "The gun gave us the Ninja's Numbers: 187-mph top speed and 10.04 seconds in the quarter mile" p. 38 "The bottom line, according to Kawasaki USA, is that the biggest Ninja has been slightly neutered, its engine-control unit altered (and possibly, said our source, final gearing) to reduce the bike's top speed to within proposed limits, which, practically speaking, it now is. This led us to wonder about the 2000 Hayabusa. If Kawasaki tamed its tour de force, did Suzuki do the same to the GSX1300R? Apparently not yet (at least on U.S. Models), as the Y2K Suzuki managed 191 mph, just 3 mph slower than our 1999 'Busa's best."" THEN you reply with: "IP editor again I will inform you your blog information is useless. And you have not provided any proof to change the current article." My question is: Are you kidding me? I admit EXPLICITLY that the blog was ONLY to provide a POSSIBLE list of resources, Dennis understand it and kindly provide this resources, and now you have the courage to say that I/we have not provided any proof to change the current article. If you go back and read Dennis post, you can find TONS of resources, from both points of view (unrestricted after 2001 and unrestricted after 2000) so now and here you must explain to me/ to us WHY we should give more weight to the resources that state the 2000 is restricted instead of the other. I think that there is NOT a reason, a because of this contrast I propose the change write above. IP edit (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC about speed restriction beginning with 2000 or 2001 model year
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which of three positions about the first Suzuki Hayabusa (GSX1300R) to be speed restricted to approximately 185 - 187 mph should be written in Wikipedia articles? That *only* the 1999 (code X) Hayabusa was not speed restricted, or that both the 1999 and 2000 (code Y) model years were unrestricted, or that we are not sure because sources don't agree? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Option A 1999 was the only unrestricted Hayabusa (current version)
 * Hayabusa was unrestricted 1999 only
 * 2000 and later Hayabusas restricted
 * first model year of Hayabusa to be restricted was 2000
 * the first motorcycles known to be restricted under the motorcycle gentlemen's agreement were the 2000 Hayabusa and the 2000 Kawasaki Ninja ZX-12R
 * Some sources say the 2000 model was unrestricted, but their evidence and arguments are not plausible. Due weight favors that only the first model year was unrestricted


 * Option B unrestricted in 1999, and maybe 2000 too
 * Hayabusa was unrestricted in 1999 and perhaps in 2000
 * either the 2000 and later or 2001 and later Hayabusa was restricted
 * several sources found the 2000 model year bike was electronically restricted at about 300kph, but others tested a 2000 MY bike at essentially the same top speeds as the 1999, in the range of 188 - 194 mph. Suzuki officially said the 1999 and 2000 models are identical, but didn't comment on questions, saying only that it is a "sensitive issue". No consensus among sources favors either point of view.

The bullet points above describe the general sense of what the article should say. Exact wording will be edited or style, to suit the context, etc. Whether we present these statements without comment, or go into fuller detail about what each source said is left to later editorial discretion. Opinions and suggestions are welcome but this RfC is to decide only if we should say the bike was unrestricted in "1999-only", "unrestricted 1999 AND 2000", or go with "unrestricted in 1999 for sure, and ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ maybe 2000 ". Sources all agree that 1999 was definitely unrestricted, and 2001 and later were definitely restricted, but recognized reliable sources (below) don't agree on about the 2000 model year.
 * Option C unrestricted in 1999 and 2000
 * the Suzuki Hayabusa was unrestricted in 1999 and 2000
 * the 2001 and later Hayabusas were electronically restricted to ~300kph (185-186mph)
 * first model year of Hayabusa to be restricted was 2001
 * the first 300kph-restricted motorcycle was the 2000 Kawasaki Ninja ZX-12R, one model year earlier than the Hayabusa
 * Some sources say the 2000 model was restricted, but their evidence and arguments are not plausible. Due weight favors that the first two model years were unrestricted.

This decision will affect the articles Suzuki Hayabusa, Fastest production motorcycle, and perhaps Kawasaki Ninja ZX-12R, Motorcycle testing and measurement, and other articles and lists. Suzuki Hayabusa has consistently been the most-viewed article about a model of motorcycle for several years. The question, What was the fastest motorcycle of 2000, the Hayabusa or the ZX-12R?, is not in the scope of this RfC, but use the discussion section as you wish.

Copies of offline sources can be emailed upon request or via WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Other sources on this subject may exist, but these represent the typical published coverage surrounding this issue. Feel free to share other sources that are relevant. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * p. 277 "But few had any serious complaints, especially in 2000 when the Hayabusa fought off Kawasaki's ZX-12R to retain its unofficial 'worlds' fastest bike' title. Some politicians and bureaucrats were less impressed, however. The following year, in response to a voluntary agreement between the major manufacturers (who were worried about future legal problems), Suzuki fitted the GSX with an electronic device that prevented it from reaching maximum rev in top gear, limiting top speed to 186mph (300km/h)."
 * p. 284 [RE: Model year 2000 Kawasaki ZX-12R, top speed listed as 186mph, i.e. restricted.] "the ZX-12R had become the first bike to be affected by the manufacturers' agreement to limit top speed to 186mph (300km/h), for fear more drastic government-imposed restrictions" Also lists 2000 model year, top speed 186mph"
 * p. 285 "Despite all the speculation before its launch, the ZX-12R proved slightly slower than the Hayabusa in most independent tests"
 * "This new ZX-12R only acheives parity with last year's World's Fastest Bike (and neither the 12R nor the 2000-spec GSX1300R matches the '99 Busa's 189-mph top speed)."
 * "A top whack of 183 mph isn't exactly hanging around, but [the 2000 ZX-12R] is 1.2 mph slower than our 2000 Hayabusa (also, we believe, restricted), run at the same time, and it is a far cry from the 195-200 mph Kawasaki spokespeople had been so careful to not hint at, nudge, wink."
 * "Although factory representatives would not go on record saying the ZX-12R and the year-2000 Hayabusa have been limited, we have accumulated a truckload of circumstantial evidence. To wit: "1 At our desert top-speed test site, both the ZX-12R and the Busa were comparatively slow--much more so than we'd expected--and the Suzuki was well down on its previous performances. (We used a dosed highway that virtually reproduced the conditions used for last year's test of the Hayabusa: temperatures in the high 40s, light winds, elevation about 2400 feet above mean sea level, flat and dry pavement. The ZX-12R and the Hayabusa were run in both directions with virtually no difference in speeds, thus ruling out indine or wind effects.) " "2 Our Hayabusa was tested with the same rider as last year's bike, and it actually made more horsepower on the dyno (163.7 vs. 155.9) this time around. All else being equal, a more powerful bike should be slightly faster, not slower. "3 The release of the ZX-12r to the American press had been delayed by about six weeks without explanation. "4 Kawasaki geared the ZX-12R for just more than 200 mph in top gear and biased its powerband near the top of the rev range, a contrast to the Hayabusa's midrange-heavy tuning. We don't think Kawasaki made the ZX-12R "peaky" by accident. "5 Finally, and most damning, independent sources, speaking off the record, suggested that limiting these bikes is not just a possibility but a reality. We can't reveal our sources, but let's just say they're people in positions to know."
 * "Despite the palpitating hype and firehose of rumors suggesting that Kawasaki's new ZX-12R would be the overwhelming new King of Speed, our example flashed past the Stalker ATS radar gun at a mere 183 mph. What? That's it? Moreover, our 2000-spec Suzuki Hayabusa, totally unchanged (so we're told) for this year, clocked a best run of only 184.2 mph. Prerelease rumors had the Kaw absolutely spanking the 'Busa in test tracks in Japan. Motor Cycle News has reported that the British importer tested the ZX-12R, with independent observers present, to 190.8 mph."
 * "Such limits are slated for the 2001 model year with the possibility of even lower limits in the future. […] However, it now appears that both the 2000-spec ZX-12R and the Suzuki GSX1300R Hayabusa (motorcycles deemed potentially "socially unacceptable" by European politicians) are actually slower than last year's Busa. (Regarding any possible limitations, an American Kawasaki spokesperson said that 'this is a very sensitive issue on which we prefer not to comment.') "
 * alt url
 * p. 37 "The gun gave us the Ninja's Numbers: 187-mph top speed and 10.04 seconds in the quarter mile"
 * p. 38 "The bottom line, according to Kawasaki USA, is that the biggest Ninja has been slightly neutered, its engine-control unit altered (and possibly, said our source, final gearing) to reduce the bike's top speed to within proposed limits, which, practically speaking, it now is. This led us to wonder about the 2000 Hayabusa. If Kawasaki tamed its tour de force, did Suzuki do the same to the GSX1300R? Apparently not yet (at least on U.S. Models), as the Y2K Suzuki managed 191 mph, just 3 mph slower than our 1999 'Busa's best."
 * p. 42 "Kawasaki ZX-12R Specifications […] Measured top speed: 187 mph"
 * "top speed was electronically limited to 186 mph in 2000"
 * "KAWASAKI -- The company has just introduced the Ninja ZX-12R, the quickest and fastest motorcycle it has ever built, limited to a top speed of 185 m.p.h. "
 * "SUZUKI... The Hayabusa ($10,799), perhaps the biggest high-performance bargain on earth -- car or bike -- is available in slightly less garish colors for 2000. It is not quite as quick or as fast as the 1999 model, which was clocked at 194 m.p.h."
 * No quotes here. Just read entire article
 * p. 38 "The bottom line, according to Kawasaki USA, is that the biggest Ninja has been slightly neutered, its engine-control unit altered (and possibly, said our source, final gearing) to reduce the bike's top speed to within proposed limits, which, practically speaking, it now is. This led us to wonder about the 2000 Hayabusa. If Kawasaki tamed its tour de force, did Suzuki do the same to the GSX1300R? Apparently not yet (at least on U.S. Models), as the Y2K Suzuki managed 191 mph, just 3 mph slower than our 1999 'Busa's best."
 * p. 42 "Kawasaki ZX-12R Specifications […] Measured top speed: 187 mph"
 * "top speed was electronically limited to 186 mph in 2000"
 * "KAWASAKI -- The company has just introduced the Ninja ZX-12R, the quickest and fastest motorcycle it has ever built, limited to a top speed of 185 m.p.h. "
 * "SUZUKI... The Hayabusa ($10,799), perhaps the biggest high-performance bargain on earth -- car or bike -- is available in slightly less garish colors for 2000. It is not quite as quick or as fast as the 1999 model, which was clocked at 194 m.p.h."
 * No quotes here. Just read entire article
 * "KAWASAKI -- The company has just introduced the Ninja ZX-12R, the quickest and fastest motorcycle it has ever built, limited to a top speed of 185 m.p.h. "
 * "SUZUKI... The Hayabusa ($10,799), perhaps the biggest high-performance bargain on earth -- car or bike -- is available in slightly less garish colors for 2000. It is not quite as quick or as fast as the 1999 model, which was clocked at 194 m.p.h."
 * No quotes here. Just read entire article
 * No quotes here. Just read entire article

Survey
Sorry Dennis if I post in the wrong section, I think that the best option is the B, in this cases the neutral point of view is, in my opinion, the best way to resolve issues. IP edit (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Option B - summoned by bot. Given the uncertainty with conflicting reports, the best option is to acknowledge and explain the uncertainty. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
See WP:V. Voting on „which option is correct“ does not comply with the basic Wikipedia rules regarding sources. The best option here would be adding a comment that says something like "source abc says x and source xyz says y". --Jojhnjoy (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That is exactly my idea, so don't you think that the option B is the best choice? We leave the 2000 without a specific data and we add both resources type near it, perhaps adding the comment that you proposed.IP edit (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

<references group="Comment" />
 * References

There are 2 related but distinct problems to deal with. 1) When did the change okay, accurate to the month or at least quarter year. 2) How to describe this so that Americans with their year-ahead model year system and non-Americans using calendar years don't get confused.

American sources tend to (but not always) use model years. For Americans, a 2000 bike was actually introduced sometime in mid 1999 calendar year. For the rest of the world a 2000 bike was introduced in mid calendar year 2000. Sometimes Americans sources will say 'in 2000' to mean the calendar year 2000 and 'for 2000' to mean the year-ahead model year (ie introduced in mid 1999 calendar year). The difference is subtle and not always adhered to such that even Americans don't always know which they are talking about. It gets worse when somebody is using multiple sources and uses the 'years' without due care (sometimes mixing them up without realising it). Some of the sources in the RFC say that the 2000 model year was restricted, so it's likely that the speed restrictions came in sometime in mid 1999 calendar year - the 6 week pause seems a likely time but I'm not interested in drilling through mountains of data myself.

Once you have found the change date, you will need to describe it in terms like (change the exact date to suit) 'The bike was unrestricted before Oct 1999 and restricted after that date'. Phrases like 'the 2000 model' will mean different things to different readers (Europeans will think the model introduced in mid 2000 calendar year, Americans will think the model introduced in mid 1999 calendar year). Avoid the word 'model' (eg 'the 2000 model') unless you make it blatantly clear with phrases like 'in 1999, for the 2000 model year, the speed was restricted'. Even this is easy to read wrong, so the month is a much, much clearer way to state it.

According to WP:MODELYEARS, vehicles sold in places besides America should not use model years, although you can add phrases like 'in 1999, for the 2000 model year,' to help Americans understand what's happening. Americans really do think only in their year-ahead model year scheme and get confused when presented with calendar years. But that's just one market compared to the rest of the world which gets really confused with American model years. And doubly unfortunate that both systems often looks exactly the same when written down but mean different things. That's why it's so much better to write months (even Americans know that August 1999 is part of the 1999 calendar year when talking abut vehicles) or to at least specify 'model year' or 'MY' when we mean model year. It's a quagmire but not impossible.  Stepho  talk 22:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's cool that you want to unravel this mystery, but it has remained unsolved for 18 years now. I can believe that American consumers might be confused by calendar years and model years, but the sources listed above are professional journalists who have covered the motor vehicle industry for years. Writers like Roland Brown are in the UK. Writers like Mark Hoyer, Marc Cook, John Burns, and so on, often write feature articles about European or Japanese market models that Americans can't have. I don't have any evidence that they don't know what a model year is, or that US and non-US market products may differ. Anyway, the problem at hand is what our article should say based on the sources we have in front of us. If in the future better sources are found, naturally we can change the article to reflect that. But this conundrum has been unsolved for 18 years. The question is, with the sources we have right now, what should the article say? If you think it's not impossible to find the month and year production dates for the first restricted bikes, I would ask you to tell us specifically how. It doesn't seem to appear in the parts catalog, or any official Suzuki statement or publication. If you can help us out in that way it, we'd all be grateful. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you Stepho for this interesting detail, moreover I can add, as a curiosity, that in Europe, in the common language of everyday, when people speak non-technically about a model, i.e. a 2018 model, we have in mind the model that will be sell in 2018 year, so this is a model that is introduced in mid 2017 year. Instead, when it comes to technical discussions (i.e. review or so on) then the things go exactly as you said (I didn't know the Americans year-ahead model year).IP edit (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Which version is supported by evidence in citations? Those should be spelled out here to give others and idea of what should be included or not. Bmbaker88 (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * None. They don't agree. If this were all easily spelled out by the sources there would be little disagreement and no need for an RfC. The reason we've invited others to help make this decision is that our sources don't make it easy.<P>Cook (June 2000) and others say the 2000 model year was restricted, while Hoyer (June 2000) and others say the 2000 MY was unrestricted. The three options (as I see it) are A: ignore the sources that say the 2000 was unrestricted, C: ignore the sources that say the 2000 was restricted, or B: take the middle ground between A and C, and say that we know 1999 was unrestricted, and we know 2001 was restricted, but for 2000 sources don't agree.<P>We all have unverifiable, original research theories to explain the contradictions, such as mechanical defects, or an undocumented mid-model year change, or even deeper subterfuge by Suzuki or the media for unexplained motives, but none of that is encyclopedic. All we have is what's in these sources, and we need to find a consensus on what to say about it in the article namespace. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My advice is to say that "Cook states that the model was restricted in 2000, while Hoyer states that this occurred in 2000." This revsion guarantees that both sources are represented. Bmbaker88 (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Do you mind saying you support Option B in the survey section above? Just to make it easier to determine consensus. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GSX-1300RR?
So we have a YouTube video from Motorcyclenews.com that shows us at 4:39 a shipping crate label that says GSX1300RRQM2 E02 2535. This is the only known use of "GSX-1300RR". But it actually says GSX1300RRQM2. We just choose to rationalize it to really mean GSX1300RR? Or GSX-1300RR? We don't know. If we're going to take this crate sticker literally, then we need to call it GSX1300RRQM2. Or GSX1300RRQM2 E02 2535? Seriously?<P>At Suzuki's global site we see GSX-R1000/R and GSX-750 and such, but only Hayabusa, not GSX-1300-anything. It's not mentioned in the press release. That's where we'd see a name change.<P>A packing crate label is just a packing crate label. If they have changed the model code, they will say so clearly. It shouldn't require sleuthing to figure out. Just leave it out for now. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

<P>
 * The RR has been spoken by cycle mag reviewers who attended the overview sessions at the introduction but there is a lack of consistency with regard to the naming:


 * https://www.cycleworld.com/story/motorcycle-reviews/2022-suzuki-hayabusa-first-ride-review/


 * https://www.motorcyclistonline.com/story/reviews/2022-suzuki-hayabusa-gsx1300rr-first-ride-review/


 * Suzuki sites worldwide have similar issues:


 * Suzuki Austria:


 * https://www.suzuki.at/bike


 * Deepmac (talk) 00:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, the Cycle World and Motorcyclist citations are a big improvement over the packing crate sticker in the YouTube video. Those are adequate to change it to RR for the 3rd generation if we want to. I'm still wondering why we don't see it in any official Suzuki publications, but it's not a controversy as far as I know so there's no reason to question it. I'd still wait and see but we don't have to. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if the journalists have picked up the extra R from the color code? I found this on the Suzuki.ca website today:

GSX1300RRQ- Glass Sparkle Black/Candy Burnt Gold

GSX1300RQZ- Metallic Mat Sword Silver/Candy Daring Red Deepmac (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)