Talk:Yamaha YZF-R1

Totally disputed
Examples: There are WP:NPOV and WP:RS issues all over this article. It sounds more like a press release than actual encyclopedic info. Facts need to be backed up by a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia and power words like "groundbreaking", "exceptional", "truly", etc.. need to be avoided all together. Opinions simply shouldn't exist here. The "performance" section needs a reliable, unbiased source. The entire article really just needs a complete rewrite in order to exist here. I'll start on this soon if no one else does first. :) --Roguegeek 00:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * ''Starting with the FZR1000 in 1988, Yamaha introduced several motorcycle engineering firsts including the boxed aluminum "DeltaBox" frame, - This is not the case, as in 1987 the FZR400 had a deltabox!
 * When it was first introduced it was considered a groundbreaking design - WP:NPOV problem
 * It was on par with the power output ratings of its competition but it was unique with its unprecedented agility. - WP:NPOV and WP:RS problem
 * The key in the R1's success - WP:NPOV and WP:RS problem
 * which in turn led to the exceptional handling - WP:NPOV problem
 * The R1 was dominant for three years before the competition could catch up to its level - WP:NPOV and WP:RS problem
 *  but it was only in 2001 that the R1 was truly beaten, by the Suzuki GSX-R 1000, which weighed about the same but produced much more horsepower and torque. - WP:NPOV and WP:RS problem
 * An ingenious fuel injection system was introduced for the 2002 year - WP:NPOV problem
 * The 2004 R1 produces 172 hp at the crankshaft - WP:RS problem
 * giving it a theoretical 1:1 power-to-weight ratio - WP:RS problem
 * In 2006 the Yamaha R1 expanded its output to 175 hp - WP:RS problem
 * The 2006 model year for the R1 is groundbreaking - WP:NPOV problem
 * The 1985 FZ750 is an earlier example of Yamaha's the 5 valve engine design

Scientific Unit Confusion
"The 2004 R1 produces a stated 172 hp at the crankshaft (excluding RamAir) and also weighs 172 kilograms, giving it a theoretical 1:1 power-to-weight ratio."

I have numerous issues with this article, most of them stated above by Roguegeek, but this one stands out above the rest for some reason to me. While it is uncomfirmed data, it is also opinionated, creates a convoluted fact and are inncorrectly paired units of measure. I'll explain:

During the developement of the "horsepower" unit of measure, the pound (lb) was used in its determination. By saying the power to weigh ratio is 1:1 (172hp and 172 kg) is not an untrue statement, but it is misleading since the majority (all I have ever seen) of power-to-weight ratios where horsepower is used at the measure of power are "pounds-per-horsepower." A 1-to-1 power to weight ratio sounds good at face value, but when you consider that 172 kilograms is about 385 pounds, the ratio becomes less impressive with the "appropriate" mass unit in place.

Regardless, Roguegeek, made all the good points. I'd be willing to help clean this up if he hasn't begun already.209.114.201.30 20:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistent Specification
There is no performance information other than power output and torque. Contrast this with super cars on Wikipedia which have statistics for max. speed, 0-100km/h, standing quarter mile etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.124.186 (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Original research
It might seem like something is better than nothing, but adding your opinions, recollections, and experiences to this article only makes it worse. Having to verify even more uncited material just increases the work involved in cleaning up the article. If you want to help, it is far better to add one sentence that has a solid citation rather than multiple paragraphs of unsupported material. --Dbratland (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you not think I took all of that into account? Wait a bit for the references! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What about the statement (which I just deleted) which said that prior to the Fireblade the only litre-class bikes were tourers or cruisers. Completely wrong. The R100GS, for example, was a one-litre dual-sport. The BMW K1 was a one-litre sports bike. Both came long before the Fireblade. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have come to the conclusion that this editor does not know the subjects he is editing, but relies purely on information he finds on the web. If you look at the bulk of the files he has recently edited, you will find they are all currently "in the news".  In having said that, he attempted to edit a file I am involved with, (in real life), and made some rather stupid assumptions, and put it down to WP:AGF. Now, nowhere in WP:AGF can I find any relevance to putting false information!! --Keith 18:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless of any water under the bridge, this type of trouble is easily avoidable by using Workpages or user sandboxes. Help is available if there are questions on how to do that. --Dbratland (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I have serious concerns about the validity and neutrality of the information added, so for now I have reverted the article right back to how it stood before edited it. If he can provide references then by all means let's have another go at editing the article. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Having owned a 1998 R1, and if you look at the earlier versions of this article, you will see my contributions. As the tag that you as editors applied suggested there were not enough references, I went out to find references; as the article lacked an intro, I inserted one which was agreed a year back after another tag issue. Why don't you do the same, rather than ranting and raving rather poorly that an edit is biased? Seems to me you are happier gossiping and adding tags over verifying information with references. Why not challenge yourselves for once an add a reference over a tag? You were the editors who claim some form of expertise, certainly enough to remove references and disagree with what I added. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Having owned an R1 probably is a disadvantage, since it is liable to make you insert edits based on what you know rather than what you can cite. "Gossiping" on the talk page is a good practice, because it helps clear up misconceptions like the belief that your past contributions, or your personal experience, or what bikes you've owned, entitles you to put in uncited edits and not have them tagged or reverted.  As far as whether other editors spend more time or less time commenting on talk pages or adding to articles, that's their prerogative to contribute in any way they please.  Your points are all irrelevant. What was agreed a year back is irrelevant.  WP:V is a policy that is the same for everyone, all the time.  It's your choice to be bold and add information with no sources, but don't be surprised when it gets clobbered.


 * Is there any reason why your edits must get into the article now? Why can't they wait until you have a citation to go with every fact?  What's the rush?  --Dbratland (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
Biker Biker- What on earth would make you think that Factory Pro is an unreliable source? Michael Jordan Motorsports race team, Aaron Yates, Geoff May, Vesrah Suzuki race team, and Robert Jensen are among their users. M4 work (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a manufacturer of dyno equipment. It is a manufacturer using that page to try to rubbish other dyno equipment makers. Given the way the page is written and that most of the figures quoted are the manufacturer's own examples I do not believe that it is a reliable source. By all means if you disagree with me then let's take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling or ultimately to Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I do believe that it is a reliable source.

The numbers provided by Yamaha's marketing department are highly suspect- they're trying to sell motorcycles. Yamaha already got busted on the fake 17,500 rpm red-line on the R6. You think they're telling the truth now?

Do you even OWN an R1?

M4 work (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate M4 work's contributions. You need to stop asking editors if they own this bike or own that bike.  If you have read WP:OR, you know it's besides the point.  Also see Assume good faith. This is about who has good sources, not who is familiar with which bike.  If you keep it up I think it could be interpreted as a personal attack.I agree with Biker Biker that Factory Pro is not a reliable source if you are using them to give "true" horsepower figures.  They are not independent -- see Third-party sources.  Factory Pro has a profit motive here.  If you could cite independent, third-party sources who said "Factory Pro are the only ones with the truth" that would help.  This would be a good time to take a look at Truth.  I do not think you can tell readers the true horsepower of any bike.  The only thing you can tell them is that the factory says this, this magazine says that, this shop says the other.  It's opinion and there's nothing wrong with having opinions in articles but it needs to be presented that way.  When I made the table of conflicting HP figures in Suzuki Hayabusa, that's what I was trying to do:  instead of giving the reader ONE HP, torque and top speed number, I gave them the whole set of conflicting numbers.  Let the reader decide what to believe.If you wanted to cite Factory Pro to make the point that there are disagreements and misconceptions about engine output testing, that would be valid, although then you would also need to cite Factory Pro alongside other competing sources.  I think that discussion belongs in the article Motorcycle testing and measurement -- which is an article that can use some help.   The Dave Searle editorial below makes the same point -- that there has been inflation in the calibration of many Dynojet machines, and it explains why.  It's an interesting story, and it needs more research to explain what is going on.In a nutshell:  cite Factory Pro's numbers along with everyone else's numbers.  Don't try to be the judge of who has the truth.  And then spend your time working on making Motorcycle testing and measurement a better article. Give readers the wisdom do understand why horsepower is so contentious, and they will be able to make up their own minds. (I realize all this is easier said than done, but I think it can be done, eventually).




 * --Dbratland (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not own an R1 at the moment, but I have owned two previously. I have also owned a four GSX-R1000, a Blackbird, a Hayabusa and a ZX-9R. I currently own six motorcycles including a BMW R1150GS, a KTM 990 Adventure, a Yamaha FJR1300, a Triumph Rocket III Roadster and a Ducati Monster S4R. I'll probably trade in the FJR and KTM soon for something different. I'd guess in the past two years I have owned around twenty different bikes. However, all that is irrelevant as I never add information to Wikipedia articles based on my own experience - that is original research. What is relevant is that the page at Factory Pro you are quoting is not a reliable source. It is a dyno manufacturer setting out why it believes its kit is better than any other manufacturers. Pages that sell things are not by their nature suitable for referencing. I do believe that bike manufacturer's pages are also not suitable as sole sources, which is why magazine and other reviews are better to have in an article. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * M4 work, would you please stop reverting this until a consensus is reached? It's reasonable to include Yamaha's claimed horsepower numbers, clearly stating it is a claimed number (although this might violate WP:NDIA -- a ref might be sufficient), and I don't object to having Factory Pro's numbers next to that.  Readers are smart enough to see that Yamaha's number looks inflated.  It is obvious to everyone why Yamaha would exaggerate.  What you have been doing is deleting Yamaha's claimed number and replacing that with a source that is just as biased and suspect.  You have not provided any evidence that Factory Pro is used to calibrate other dynos, or that independent experts trust Factory Pro over anybody else. There are many companies who claim their testing is better than the completion.  The burden of proof is on you to show why Factory Pro is any different.Another perfectly good solution would be to delete all suspect horsepower numbers until independent third party numbers are available.  It is misleading to write these articles as if the only thing that mattered was horsepower anyway.  There is more to a bike than horsepower. --Dbratland (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Third party sources on Factory Pro

 * So far I've found only one third party article that discusses Factory Pro's claims about "true" horsepower:I don't see any special reason here to treat Factory Pro's claims as fact. Dynojet says one thing, Factory Pro says something else.  We should stick with standard WP practice and cite independent third party sources, such as the usual bike magazines.Factory Pro's allegations can be discussed over on Horsepower or on Motorcycle testing and measurement or Dynamometer, but until a third party weighs in, Factory Pro's numbers should not be given an special preference over other sources.  I would prefer to keep them off the articles completely since they are so controversial.  Manufacturers claims belong in articles, but should be framed as claims only.FWIW, a WP user of the same name,, has previously tried to change the horsepower figures to Factory Pro's "true" values on the articles for the Hayabusa and some other bikes.My personal opinion is that it is very suspicious that nobody else has publicly taken Factory Pro's side here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.Also, WP is an encyclopedia, and for purposes of an encyclopedia read by the general public, the horsepower differences are not that significant, but the controversy is an unnecessary distraction, and so we should stick with mainstream publications. --Dbratland (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Here are two more related stories:  and .   In them, Marc Salvisberg seems to be making the more moderate, and not so strident claim that dnyos and testing methods are simply different from each other, but all that matters to the tuner is getting a baseline number and then repeating your tests on the same machine.  No claims in these stories that his company is the only one with the "truth".  --Dbratland (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Dbratland -

You've softened. Thanks M4 work.

Like you say, what would work well is: "manufacturer's claimed"

"djhp"

"true hp"

Maybe there's a misunderstanding - True hp doesn't mean it's the one true hp figure. It means that there's nothing added, except for normal dyno parasitic drag, corrected to atmospheric conditions and all the EC997, Land and Sea, Superflow, Mustang and non-dynojet dyno guys can talk to each other. True shouldn't replace djhp, it should augment. I have no vested interest in forcing people to deal with smaller power numbers, other than they are correct. They aren't Factory Pro's horsepower numbers - they are every other non-dj dynos' base numbers. They used to be called simply "HP" before "DJHP". Now "HP" needs a qualifier.

True hp can also be referenced to older Hartzel, Go Power and Servequip dynos and djhp can't. The Factory Pro website is the only dyno site with any sort of hp reference table that I can think of.

Dave Searle left out a ton of very specific information in his Measurements article about djhp. It took both of us many hours to put the story together, 1400cc V Max (magazine test bike). I was a bit perturbed that I put as much time into research and wasn't credited. Objectively, it was a very soft article that just barely made the point.

Regarding our website - We sell dyne systems, but, we also do tuning.

Listing all of the bikes we've tested and averaging or ranging the power outputs doesn't get us any points from anybody (esp. the manufacturers)and I think that it just gives people an idea of what a "non-magazine test bike" makes. From first hand experience, I don't trust "magazine test bikes" as they are the best of the best (or 200cc better....)

I'd think that the Factory Pro list is a more objective source than a magazine dyno test. The manufacturers have a vested interest in giving the highest hp bike to the magazines - and we get bikes from dealerships.

Somebody made a reference to a press release from Roadracing World. I was quoted by name "maintaining". The Roadracing World article was edited in a way that credited unnamed "Dynojet officials" saying that their dynos are accurate and that they've sold many more dynos. That wasn't in the supplied press release. What you don't know is that Dynojet sponsors their race team and historically, the editor has spared no good words in respect to Factory Pro.

Marc Salvisberg (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's really hard to ignore the apparent conflict of interest, Marc, and I suspect that's what is clouding things. Please read WP:PSTS, which helps explain why we trust secondary sources (magazines and books) over primary sources (manufacturers and dyno makers/promoters). tedder (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the bottom line here is that zero independent sources support Factory Pro's assertions. Zero. Marc even claims to have worked with Dave Searle on his MCN editorial, yet Searle chose not to publish Factory Pro's claims, even though MCN is advertising free and has the least allegiance to any vendor.  This is a case of using WP to right great wrongs, perhaps advocating a fringe theory, and it should stop.  These refs to factorypro.com should be removed until 3rd party sources back them up. --Dbratland (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with you on this. The factory pro refs should be removed. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thirded. tedder (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok -

Cite the use of the word "hp".

Please use citations that specify the type of test equipment that the print magazines used, instead of references that do not specify test equipment used and please address the properly referenced inflation in http://www.truehp.com/magazine/dynojet_dyno_inflated_hp_reason.html, which is a reprint of a PRINT article from Hot Rod magazine, by Jeff Hartman.

Years ago, "hp" was always calculated using well established engineering equations and it was not necessary to describe "hp" as real, actual or true. It is only in the last decade that the uninformed public has come to think that the inflated dynojet hp scale numbers are actually "the hp" and that anything that is lower must be wrong. Searle (MCN, Measures) didn't mention Factory Pro or "true" HP by name, but it's impossible to not read and understand that there are real numbers and that the dynojet numbers are inflated.

The "hp" references in this article are not properly cited.

Are they real hp? or dynojet hp? or another dyno company attempting to make a stab at duplicating dynojet's unpublished inflation curve?

Horsepower and torque are measured and calculated using engineering calculations that are available in any dictionary or encyclopedia.

DB - in the two moderate "stories" you mentioned, I fact checked one of them and rewrote about 1/2 of the article (including the conclusion), which was approved by the editor and printed.

Motorcycle Consumer News Measures - how dj inflated their hp numbers to sell more dynos and ruined engineering honesty. http://www.123people.com/ext/frm?ti=person%20finder&search_term=mark%20dobeck&search_country=US&st=person%20finder&target_url=http%3A%2F%2Flrd.yahooapis.com%2F_ylc%3DX3oDMTVnYTdzZjFnBF9TAzIwMjMxNTI3MDIEYXBwaWQDc1k3Wlo2clYzNEhSZm5ZdGVmcmkzRUx4VG5makpERG5QOWVKV1NGSkJHcTJ1V1dFa0xVdm5IYnNBeUNyVkd5Y2REVElUX2tlBGNsaWVudANib3NzBHNlcnZpY2UDQk9TUwRzbGsDdGl0bGUEc3JjcHZpZANqUjgwbDJLSWNycS55cmpnWnBBNDE0U1NXODV4SVV2aGpSVUFCeENB%2FSIG%3D11revvmpf%2F**http%253A%2F%2Fwww.mcnews.com%2Fmcn%2Feditorials%2F2009OctOpenRd.pdf&section=document&wrt_id=257

Here's another article on how to measure true or real or actual or effective hp and not a mention of dynojet horsepower. http://www.howstuffworks.com/horsepower1.htm

Best regards, Marc Salvisberg (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * My reaction is that we have failed to fully explain Wikipedia. Can you verify for me whether you have or have not read Verifiability, Identifying reliable sources and No original research?  You seem obsessed with WP:Truth, and that's great. Who doesn't like truth?  Truth is a wonderful thing. But Wikipedia is not the place for you to set the record straight. You need to find other venues to publicize your cause, and then if that is successful, Wikipeida can then cite those sources.  WP: GREATWRONGS speaks to this issue too. --Dbratland (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And another thing: The How Stuff Works article was written by Marshall Brain, founder of howstuffworks.com. He has degrees in electrical engineering and computer science, and job experience teaching computer science and running a software company.  Maybe he is an expert on horsepower, but we don't have evidence of that expertise.  More to the point, nowhere in his article does he use the phrase true horsepower, nor does he criticize Dnyojet, nor does he say Factory Pro is better or "true".Regarding Dave Searle's article:  since MCN does not accept advertising, there is no reason why he couldn't have said that Factory Pro is "true" and criticized Dynojet the way you would have liked him to. But he chose not to.  As far as I can tell, Searle said what he meant and meant what he said.  The Jeff Hartman article agrees with Searle's article as far as how Dynojet machines have error introduce in them and what it means.  Where does it say "true" horsepower? Where does it mention Factory Pro?If you want MCN or any publication to say explicitly that FP's products are "true" and your competitor's products are faulty, contact them and ask them to say that.  If they decline to do so, your problem is with them and not with Wikipedia.  --Dbratland (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

# of LE/SP produced is incorrect
The LE and SP versions of the 2006 model share the same hardware but are painted differently. The LE has the 50TH anniv. yellow and black colors while the SP has a somewhat black paint job. The LE was offered in the North America market while the SP was available in Europe. 500 of both the LE and SP were produced resulting in 1000 of the Ohlins suspended bikes world wide, not 500 as stated in the article.167.191.42.7 (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Charles (LE #145 owner)
 * Do you have a reliable source indicating the total numbers? tedder (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What is open class?
What is open class, it is up there in the lead but I am pretty sure most reading this article will not know what that is. If possible we need a link to what open class means. --Inayity (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sport bike. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The term is very vague and does not exist on other similar bike pages (see CBR1000rr). Even on the page discussing it, it is poorly referenced and not qualified.--Inayity (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't just say "open class". It says "open class or superbike", so if the one doesn't ring any bells for you, it suggests the other. If you're complaining that motorcycle "classes" are confusing and poorly defined, that's reality. Wikipedia can't make up our own cleverly designed classes to sort out the facts to our liking.If you were talking about racing, like Superbike World Championship, then you'd be given a clear definition and the bike would either be a member of the class or it wouldn't. But street bikes are only roughly analogous to racing motorcycles. Many 1,000 cc "superbikes" don't race in Superbike World Championship. So they're called that, or they're called "open class" or whatever. Literbikes sometimes. There's many names, and they are vague.What we do at the top of an article is tell readers what term our sources mostly use to describe a bike. If the term the sources use is vague, so it goes. Be glad we're not classing plays as tragedies or comedies or tragicomedies or dramadies. That would be a real headache.If you can show that most sources use a different term for the R1 than open or superbike, then please change the article and cite it. Honda CBR1000RR would be a better article if we were to use the commonly used terms "superbike", "open class" or "liter bike", as the sources do, rather than the vague "sport bike" that we have now. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Euro values and NOx values
It would be good to add the Euro0-5 levels of the bikes according to their age, especially as (ultra) low emissions zones are getting more strict. NOx values (for example 0,12g/Km for RN09) would also be useful to be able to apply for exemptions (London) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 08:38, 23 December 2019 (talk • contribs) 62.235.102.188 (UTC)

Reverted odd non-English text added to the article (I believe Greek?)
Someone replaced the initial paragraph with one in Greek, I believe; reverted.