Talk:Honda Super Cub/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Reference?

1. It can run on burnt food oil, while loaded with 10 times its own weight and after a fall from 10 feet.

Is there a reference for this? I can't find any mention of this elsewhere and I thought only diesel engines could run on "burnt food oil", which I assume means WVO.

One story about Mr Honda is that his first engines ran on tree-root juice, being all that was available in post-war Japan.

But all such "alternative" fuels are alternatives for petrol, not for diesel (I'm pretty sure about that - think of alcohol-based fuels).

Tomrawlinson 22:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that raw or fermented/distilled tree root juice? You could probably get a gasoline engine to run on high strength sake with some tweaking to the ignition timing and regular overhauls to deal with the nasty deposits that would result... 77.102.101.220 (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

hehe, well it's got some similarities to the famous well-worn 20 year old toyota pickup, seen battling its way through all kinds of inhospitable environments with minimal maintenance (and notably un-killable by the best efforts of a certain british motoring tv programme). made out of diamonds and granite, it wouldn't surprise me if it can run on old cooking oil; the motorcycle fuel available in many of the countries where it is sold is incredibly poor (octane rating probably somewhere in the 70s) and the frame design is one of sturdiness and easy repair.

plus they do, of course, frequently end up towing more freight than the average westerner would dare put into their car.

Faecetiousness aside, i do wish to make one small point of note: If it's "also known as the Honda C100", shouldn't the spec list include a 100cc (ok, 99cc) engine, not a 49? The Cub range are subtitled according to their engine capacity, hence the C50, C70, world-conquering C90, C100 and in a few areas the C110.. It's not a range crossing designation and doesn't match that of the specified C50.

Also, does any mention need to be made of the cycle's many official/unofficial clones?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.128.25 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 15 August 2006‎

The original Honda 50 was the ohv version, with narrow leg-shields and tiny square indicators. This was the C100. The electric start model may have been the C110 or something similar was the C102.

I don't know, but I presume that "clones" of this model are all licensed by Honda, but built somewhere else in Asia.

Tomrawlinson 22:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Honda also had the Honda 55 Trail cycle that has two sprockets on the back tire and a chain you could enlarge with an extra segment. See [1]. ^BlankVerse 08:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

And a few other types with switchable additional lo-range reduction for extra hilly roads or rough terrain (>50% grades in 1st for some, where it would even be hard to walk...), whether by fiddly, slow-to-change bolt-on sprockets and changeable length chain as you suggest (why they didn't just make it a wide sproket on one side and a narrow one on the other, and a wheel you could take off and reverse with a double-sided-control brake is hard to fathom), or a much simpler and at least as reliable internal transfer box. Mostly with a little more power, EG CT90, CT110. 77.102.101.220 (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't ever remember knowing this motorcycle as "Cub"

I think this article has been hi-jacked by people from one particular market, where this motorcycle was presumably known as the "Cub" or "SuperCub". I only remember it as the Honda 50 or step-thru. I remember them from their first arrival in the west, and have ridden and owned both ohv C100 and ohc C50 models. Tomrawlinson 22:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well mate, on the same note I could counteraccuse you of making that complaint just because your particular market gave them a different name. Round these parts it was certainly the Cub (not sure on Super Cub, maybe that came in after electric start and some other amenities?). Perhaps time to go raid the official Honda archives and settle it properly? EDIT: Well, at least going by some of the illustrations in the later edition CT90/CT110 service manual, Honda were certainly selling a "Cub" variant in some major market, and I suspect it being either the USA or Japan itsel... 77.102.101.220 (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Compiling the Honda Cub photos in a single gallery

I would like to thank you all for uploading those nice and worderful Honda Cub photos. By the way, I would like to suggest gathering all those photos in a single gallery section. It would be nicer to the eyes of the readers. How's that sound? Hezery99 04:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Supercubbook.jpg

Image:Supercubbook.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Reads like an advertisement

In Japan, where some of the world's most discerning and demanding customers reside, the Super Cub is stronger than ever. Sales of Honda Super Cubs are thriving and continue to grow with the 50 cc models leading the way, promising a long future for the versatile and timeless motorbike. The introduction of more options on existing bikes, more accessories available, and a new model, the Super Cub "Street" testify to the staying power of the Cub and ongoing love affair the Japanese have with their home-grown design.--Where's the citation? The whole article reads like a Honda press release. Oswald Glinkmeyer (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur. I'm a Honda man, myself: My dad sold the things when my parents met, (his shop sold her her bike). I favor Honda bikes over the other brands. Even so, this looks more like the copy out of a Honda brochure than an encyclopedia article. If I, someone who is biased in this regard, see this, I can scarcely imagine how it must look to the unbiased reader. Sean.Roach (talk) 04:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

MPG?

340 MPG sounds very optimistic, even for a 50cc which at best will only get 100 MPG with careful and economic driving. 87.3.221.249 (talk) 08:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that this is wrong - I know that they used to be plugged in the UK for doing about 180 MPG, but that was a UK gallon which is substantially more than a US gallon. I know that Chinese 125cc "clones" have been credited with 150MPG (UK). The downside used to be, of course, that the bike had a ludicrously low fuel capacity, something like 0.2 gallon, which made them difficult to refuel at petrol stations where the minimum fuel delivery was 0.5 gallons... Paul-b4 (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You're not going to like this Paul, but I think you were accidentally refilling just the (optional) reserve tank... the C90s had a fairly sensible 5 to 7.5 litre tank depending on variant (much like the 7-ish litre tank the rental SH125 I rode last had under the seat), and I don't see why they'd specifically try to save a couple of kilogrammes (or a matter of grammes when empty of fuel) on the slightly smaller-engined bike by giving it an impractically small tank like that. These sizes (1.38-2.06 gal US normal and 0.2gal US reserve tanks - reserve good for 54mi at 340mpg UK, or a still-useful 20mi at a more credible 100mpg US) are those listed by the official service book... 77.102.101.220 (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd also dispute that, I think someone is either miscalculating or overstating the truth. If they actually can get 340 - even toddling along at a little under max torque (so probably ~20mph/30kmh) in top gear - then sign me up for one as that'd be well worth setting off 10 minutes earlier to get to work... Most modern scooters I've seen, with better aerodynamics, wider gearbox range and CVT, and extremely clever electronic fuel injection/ignition 4-stroke engines don't often claim significantly more than 100mpg, the best ones being, as Paul says, 150-180. Though I suppose that probably is rocking along near top speed through paved, only moderately busy cities rather than carefully picking a path through congested, lumpy roads. 77.102.101.220 (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Update - OK, having actually seen some more official figures, it MIGHT be credible IF you rode VERY conservatively. And if it's 340 UK MPG. But in real world use, no. The C90 series (S90, CL/CT/CD90 etc) state upto 176-188 US MPG (220-235 UK MPG) at a variety of quite low, steady speeds (30~45kmh) on level ground in the official service book (or a sample specific consumption of 350g of fuel per PS-hour at 7000rpm for the C90; bottoming out at 250g/PS.h for lower RPMs with some of the other variants, which works out to about the same overall result, maybe maxing at 288 uk mpg if you get it exactly right). In normal use, keeping pace with 50+ kmh traffic, acclerating and braking, scaling hills etc, you wouldn't get anywhere close. Though smaller cylinders do work out to less internal friction etc, I don't think the difference between 90 and 50cc will make that much difference, except that you get less peak power and so can't make a 50 use as much as a 90 even by propping the throttle open, if the 90 is driven slightly beyond the 50's capabilities. A steady 35kmh is within the range of both though. 77.102.101.220 (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

top speed?!

Is that when its enclosed in a Worlds Fastest Indian type speed-record fairing? 4bhp just isnt going to get you up to that kind of speed with a normal shape motorbike. Maybe if you re-engineered it into a recumbent kind of shape... other typical 49cc/4hp bikes only make it to a bit over 60kmh once derestricted (from the typical 45-50kmh governor).

Heck I think even last time I checked the specs for the C90 (with something like 6.5-7.0hp) it could only make 47~49mph (about the same speed as a FZ50 after a mild bit of tuning and aero mods on a gentle downgrade), not the full 50. The C50's speedometer goes up to 80km/h as far as I've seen (with 3rd gear shown as being good for about 65kmh, or a little over 40; mind you, that's the recommended max engine speed, with 1st & 2nd being like 25 & 45kmh, not attainable travel speed) but that doesn't mean it can actually go that speed. Do we have any sources/proof for that somewhat incongrous 50mph claim?

Maybe someone got confused after seeing it listed as "50" (kmh) somewhere? 77.102.101.220 (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, after a bit more research, I might credit high 60s or even low 70s kmh. But still not 80. The C90 in most accounts can *just* crest 80kmh, and it has considerably more power (7.0-8.5hp now i've looked into it; or upto ~4.9hp in a certain limited, higher torque but lower speed form) - and Honda themselves claim a slightly optimistic 85-95kmh depending on variant. Oddly I haven't found any direct speed claims for the C50, but any accounts seem to be around 40mph, or mid 40s with some minor mods and a minor downhill slope. Do we have a direct claim for this one? (Couldn't find any) 77.102.101.220 (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Honda 50 in Ireland

Regarding this edit, there are questions from Bmeegan (talk · contribs) as to how to put this back in Wikipedia, such as whether it can be added without the link to http://www.honda50run.com/ or if a separate page should be created.

My reason for reverting the edit was that I thought the main gist of it was to promote the Honda 50 run. The general principle is that WP doesn't promote anything, but rather it is a reflection of things that have become notable on their own merits and have been covered in reliable, independent sources such as books, news media, or in the works of recognized experts.

I think coverage of the Honda 50 in Ireland is an encyclopedic topic, and possibly also events like the run, provided they have been covered elsewhere. The question I have is, what is the subject? The Irish Super Cub scene? The Honda 50 Run? Or something else? I think if we can clarify what the objective is, then it should be easy to know where to go from there.--Dbratland (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Expansion and spitting

See Wikipedia:Summary style. The advertising campaign section could easily spawn its own article, particularly if coverage is increased on the numerous marketing and advertising textbooks that use it as case study. There is also more to write about the imitations of Honda's campaign, and their subsequent moves such as sponsoring the Academy Awards.

The section on the Sym Symba is less likely to make a separate article right away, since there is little more to write about other than the differences between the Honda and Sym versions. As with the VW Beetle or Mini, you don't necessarily have to go write a separate article just because manufacturing has shifted to a new company. The many sub-models of Super Cub probably don't merit their own articles, in fact Honda C70 should redirect here since it doesn't add much new information. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

One article is just fine. And the C70 does redirect here ;) --Biker Biker (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Licensed models

The Sym Symba wasn't the only licensed model to be imported to the US, nor was it the first. There were others, including the 2010 Fly Scout 110 by Flyscooters (now defunct) and the 2004 Jialing models, e.g., the NP Passport. Jialing Motorcycle America is also now defunct, though the Chinese mother company remains hugely viable, in China. 842U (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. I was hoping to expand on that.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a verified year for when the Symba came to the US. This implies that it was before the Fly Scout. There are tons of blog and forum and YouTube sources about the Super Cub clones, but hardly anything that meets WP:RS. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Wired (not my most trusted source) said of the Symba's importing to the US in 2009 was "The world’s best-selling motorcycle is returning to the United States after a 26-year hiatus"[2]. It would be nice to find a quality source telling us exactly when (or if) the Jialing, DYK, or Flyscooter was imported to the US before 2009. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Appearance of advert and peacock issues

I think the biggest problem with this article is that it is too effusive about the Super Cub and reads like an advertisement. But the sources agree that it was a smashing success and you don't find any that say there's anything wrong with the Super Cub. The part about the clutch problems is the only quality defect I've seen documented, and the story about visiting each customer personally puts a positive spin on it. We can be as neutral as we can, but we can't make stuff up, so unfortunately the article is going to have to look a little like a Honda advertisement.

That's one reason for this addition. I wanted to demonstrate that while sources say good things about the Super Cub, often they got carried away. Claiming it is "maintenance free" is hyperbole. I don't have any idea why anybody would call it "original research" to call hyperbole hyperbole. To me it's stating the obvious.

Most negative material you could cite is off topic. Honda had a lot of labor problems in the 50s and they handled them poorly sometimes, firing some workers they shouldn't have, for example. Though Fujisawa and Honda admitted these errors, for the most part. Whenever they screw up they're always back apologizing! But union troubles really belong in Honda, not this article.

Honda also had huge money problems in the 50s. One thing that might be relevant is the way they raised money. Fujisawa saved the company from the brink the first of many times when he joined the company in 1949. He brought accounts up to date by making all retailers pay Honda cash up front for any bikes delivered. Which is fair enough, but rather hypocritically, Fujisawa maintained the practice of paying Honda's suppliers after delivery; often quite some time after delivery. This difference between cash in and cash out was how the company grew, since the banks and the government didn't like Honda Motor or the guys running it and didn't like to lend them money. And then to build the Suzuka plant, Honda's capital was doubled over and over, to the tune of a billion yen. Due to the recession in Japan in 1959, sales lagged behind the massive capacity of this factory that could crank out 60,000 bikes a month at full tilt. Inventory piled up and Fujisawa was forced to idle Suzuka for five days. Afraid of spooking all the new investors who bought those billion yen of stock, he lied and announced to the newspapers that the plant shutdown was to move equipment from another plant. I think it's probably relevant to this article and we should probably say, "Fujisawa lied to investors and made up the story that Suzuka was idled to move in new manufacturing equipment." In the US today, this would probably be called securities fraud, but I don't know about Japanese law in 1959. Since building the Suzuka plant is relevant to the Super Cub, this episode is also relevant and should be included in the article. The source for most of this is Satō. Sakiya mentions it too but not in much detail. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"I wanted to demonstrate that while sources say good things about the Super Cub, often they got carried away." Essentially, this isn't a place for editors to demonstrate their opinions. Just a reminder: the idea the editor to remove their own point of view entirely. It's very easy for the entire article, albeit ever more interesting in a fancruft kind of way, to become an exercise in hyperbole. Which as you note, it's fast approaching.842U (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You're saying that it's merely my opinion that there is hyperbole about the Super Cub from otherwise sensible journalists? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying it's Original Research. Find a way to edit the article without relying on your personal interpretations. You've opted to leave out the hyperbole, which seems like a smart move. 842U (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Milestones

I'm looking for the source, but IIRC, the Super Cub became the #1 motor vehicle in about 1997, when the total a was about 25 million. That's probably the most significant milestone. In 2008 was when the numbers totaled 60 million. One (weak) source I saw said it was 65 million as of 2010, not surprising given current production rates. It's somewhat trivial, but it would be nice to nail it down if we can. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Original research in Development section

I just reverted this edit. The sentence stating Honda and Fujisawa went to the showrooms of Kreidler and Lambretta comes directly from Tetsuo Sakiya's Honda Motor: the men, the management, the machines. There is a footnote at the end of the sentence. Accusing me of original research, and tagging it {{citation needed}} -- right in the face of a footnote! -- looks an awful lot like a violation of WP:AGF. Perhaps Sakiya's book was read years ago and not remembered in full detail? I assure you I myself read it immediately prior to adding the information to the article, and then I double checked it. See page 117 of the updated paperback edition, third printing 1989. Its the chapter on the Super Cub, predictably titled "You meet the nicest people."

One reason I relied heavily on Sakiya's book is that Roy Bacon, a well established motoring writer, vouches for the reliability of the book in Honda: The Early Classic Motorcycles. If you want to disupte this you'd really need to go and read the sources and then argue specifically where you think they differ from the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a simple resolution: provide transparency. Add the direct quotations from the source to the footnotes. Otherwise, the reader is relying on an editor's story-telling... rather than the reliable source. And footnotes can be incorrectly cited. If an editor wants the information they add to an article to be considered verifiable, then transparency always helps. It is not incumbent upon the reader or other editors to do the homework. If the article doesn't stand on it's own, the article quality suffers. By the way, this section of the development sisn't written in an encyclopedic style. These criticisms are intended to improve the article. 842U (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say that you have to provide quotes from every single book-based reference that you use? Books are verifiable sources - you can check a copy out of your local library and read the pages that are referenced in the article. If you were having a go here at a newbie I might understand, but Dennis has been making quality edits to motorcycle articles for years. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I used to provide copious quotes in footnotes, and I discovered that they had the opposite of their intended effect. Instead of resolving disputes, they just provided fodder for editors to pick apart the source based only on the quotation. By providing quotes, I gave other editors an excuse to not bother to go read the whole book. Or at least the whole chapter.

This is probably why, long before I came along, Wikipedia:Verifiability established the policy that offline sources are just as good as online. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Offline sources expand on this point. The essay Offline sources does suggest that quotes can be helpful, but as I said, often they're not helpful at all. There are also copyright issues. There's no firm guideline on how much copyrighted text you can quote under Fair Use, but about 100 words is a common limit. If you want to understand the Super Cub's development, you need to read more than 100 words of the books I cited.

Which by the way, there are now two books verifying the disputed text. Besides Bacon's support of Sakiya's book, and Satō verifying Sakiya.

Here's the other thing: What exactly is do difficult to believe here? Soichiro Honda spent five years preparing before he finally entered to the Isle of Man TT. Five years. Do you really think that Fujuisawa and Honda would travel 9,000 miles from Japan to Germany while getting ready to for their first-ever export of a motorcycle, and not bother to walk into competitors' showrooms and take a look at similar models? That they would invest 10,000,000,000 yen in a new state of the art factory, betting the company, to build 30,000 motorcycles a month without any idea what the potential competition looked like? Since Soichiro Honda was skeptical of Fujuisawa's idea, doesn't it makes sense for him to drag Honda into a showroom and say, "Here, this is what I mean: these mopeds are nice, but Joe Average Global Consumer won't buy them because they're too flimsy, unreliable, take two hands to ride and their two stroke engines smell. We can make money if we improve on this Kriedler right here. And these scooters are nice, but they won't do well in Asia and Africa and South America." I'm paraphrasing; Satō provides a blow-by-blow account with detailed quotes of what each man said to the other as they were discussing this decision. I highly recommend reading the book.

Let me emphasize here, even if this was hard to believe: I've more than met the standards of WP:V and WP:RS. Wikipedia:Assume good faith now places the burden on you, not on me. If you've read the sources and disagree, fine, we can talk. But if you haven't read them then AGF means you should respect the edits of those editors who have. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

(By the way, if it really is so surprising to hear that they looked at Kreidlers and Lambrettas before designing the Super Cub, maybe it would make a good hook for Template:Did you know nominations/Honda Super Cub.)--Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic

Besides disputed facts and original research, what about the Development section has an "unencyclopedic tone"? I'm not sure what this refers to. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia offer excellent reference, i.e., wp:tone:

"Wikipedia articles, and other encyclopedic content, should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary depending upon the subject matter, but should follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable. Formal tone means that the article should not be written using unintelligible argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner.

The article has lots of statements that suggest an intimacy with the reader, a tone that belies objectivity and sobriety, a cloying, precious tone fitting an essay, sympathetic biography, novel or feature article in a fan magazine, rather than an impartial reference article:

• "The germ of the idea" Really, not just the idea?
• "The scooter type nearly fit the bill" Is there a less precious way to say things like this?
• "and general difficulty of use would have to be addressed" Use of passive voice asks reader to interpret 'who' would do the addressing, the way a novelist would draw in a reader.
• "Once Soichiro Honda's interest was finally aroused, on returning to Japan" Again, this is an intimate statement, not the statement of impartiality, but more of a sympathetic biographer.
• "His goal was export on a scale yet unseen in the economic disorder of postwar Japan." This is overly dramatic.

and my favorite, which you have allowed to be trimmed (because maybe you do actually get the idea?):

• "The Super Cub has been compared to the Ford Model T... as an iconic and momentous design in the history of 20th century industry and transport." Statements like this are better made with an inline credit to who is saying them; i.e., "the famous industrial design historian, so and so, says this was "iconic and momentous." It's ok for strong, reliable, previously vetted sources to make puffy statements like that; it shouldn't be the voice of the article. 842U (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Fujisawa had a problem he wanted to solve. He wanted *something* that would sell in both developed and undeveloped countries. He didn't know what the solution to the problem was. He wanted the advantages of a scooter, and the advantages of a moped, without the disadvantages. It wasn't a fully formed idea. It was, to use the correct word, the germ of an idea. He needed the design expertise, and experimentation, of Soichiro Honda to take his initial concept and turn it into a fully-formed, developed idea. Or put it this way: "5. something that serves as a source or initial stage for subsequent development: the germ of an idea." They even use "the germ of an idea" as an example. Or OED: " 4. fig. That from which anything springs or may spring; an elementary principle; a rudiment. in germ: in a rudimentary form." You could accuse me of unoriginality in my word choice, but informality? Insobriety? No, the correct word is germ. In 1956, the idea was a seed, from which the final idea had yet to be developed. In 1957, it existed as a full scale mockup, and by 1958 was fully formed. Why did you really delete "germ"? Perhaps the explanation can be found in Wikipedia:I just don't like it.
• "Fit the bill". The Gray Lady doesn't mind this phrase. Neither does the WSJ. Precious? Again, see Wikipedia:I just don't like it
• Passive voice? Yes, it's generally avoided, but writing that never uses any passive voice is just as dull as writing only written in passive voice. The 4 instances of the words "to be" all describe the outline of the problems that were yet unsolved in 1956. Things to be done. See Wikipedia:I just don't like it.
• Arousing Soichiro Honda's interest. Read Satō and Sakiya. I chose this word because it is an accurate description of the events that occurred. Please, please, please, please take the time to read the sources. It makes all the difference. Perhaps you don't like the word "aroused". See Wikipedia:I just don't... you get the idea.
• "Economic chaos" was the usual word choice in Satō, Sakiya, Bacon, Brown, etc. Read the sources. Read them and tell me if I'm wrong. I toned it down do "disorder" because I thought chaos was overly dramatic. WP:JDLI...
• The comparison to the Model T, Beetle and Jeep is there because so many sources made the comparison. I cited 3 but if you want a dozen I can give you a dozen.[3][4][5] I chose momentous because it means historic, memorable, notable, and pivotal, among other things. I think putting a dozen footnotes after a sentence is ugly clutter and it's not necessary except to satisfy one editor who wants to pick nits. It doesn't benefit the reader.

This is getting tedious. Inventing spurious English writing style "rules" to justify nixing words and phrases that you just don't like is not a good use of your time or mine. A good use of time would be to read sources and put verifiable facts into articles. To check the facts that are already there -- to actually check them, not just casually sling tags wherever you have a gut feeling -- would be a good use of your time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Accept that other editors may and will edit and contribute to the Honda Super Cub article... and your tedium will disappear. 842U (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You have once again accused me of WP:OWN merely because I disagreed with you on a talk page discussion. I did not revert your edits. You said it was unencyclopedic. I inquired as to why. You replied. I replied. I also thanked you for your constructive contributions. That's called discussion and collaboration. I know you're going to go on accusing experienced editors of not understanding Wikipedia because that's simply how you operate, but you should know that every time you do it, they're going to be miffed. You've read Don't be a dick, right? I'm sure you have. That's all I'm saying. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

To do list

• Development section: Fujisawa wanted a step through frame in order to sell to women. Plans to market to Japanese housewives, etc. Bring women into motorcycling in US and elsewhere.
• "...Japanese motorcycles, especially the modest but ubiquitous 50cc Honda “Supercub,” that were so popular in Britain during the 1950s and afterwards. Large numbers of these were sold, both in Britain and elsewhere, often to commuters many of whom were women….By overlooking these bikes and the people who rode them, Shooting Star repeats the same mistake made by the industry itself. Gearing their factories to cater to the comparatively few young men who rode the larger more powerful sports oriented machines, British motorcycle companies failed to develop the economies of scale necessary to remain competitive." [6]
• "The venerable Honda C90 Cub owed much of its enduring success to its durability; it was a workhorse rather than a fashion or lifestyle accessory. But now a number of factors are considered important."[7]
• Briefly mention that Fujisawa and Honda were not the right social class and didn't go to the right schools, so didn't get along with Japanese govt. and banks, and had difficulty getting loans. Which led to living by their wits financially, deceiving investors on Suzuka plant slowdown, etc.
• Besides being distracted by racing, one reason Honda didn't listen to Fujisawa's idea for a new motorcycle was that he thought engineers' opinions counted more than marketing.
• "Months after American Honda's launch, mechanical failures forced it to recall every one of its motorcycle models except the tiny Honda 50 scooter which became a surprise hit, laying a foundation for Honda's U.S. success. " "Surprise hit." Automotive News 8 June 2009: H003. General OneFile. Web. 2 Feb. 2012.
• [8] Besides the product review, this is one of many examples of the use of the "Super Cub" name in US media. Clearly, they didn't run into trademark problems with the Piper Super Cub until later. Lots of ads in Pop Sci and Pop Mech. in the early 1960s say "Super Cub" not "Honda 50"
• "'This is the kind of thinking that shattered the existing idea about transportation,' boasts Honda of the successful entry of the Honda Super Cub cycle into the American market. The American manufacturers, fixated on their existing customer base, continued to turn out large, powerful motor machines. But Honda's thinking went beyond the identifiable aficionados to those regular folks who might become new customers for the motorcycle. It is that insight that has now led Honda, and later other Japanese motorcycle makers, to world dominance in the space of 20 years. " Kotkin, Joel. "Mr. Iacocca, meet Mr. Honda; Chrysler's famous chairman may be the best of America's auto men, but as a manager and an industrialist, he doesn't hold a candle to Japan's most successful entrepreneur." Inc. Nov. 1986: 37+. General OneFile. Web. 30 Jan. 2012.
• "In 1959 the United States became the first market for Super Cub exports, and in 1961 Taiwan became the first country to assemble the model from imported Japanese parts. Since then Honda has expanded Super Cub production to facilities around the world-it's currently produced in 13 countries and sold in more than 160. " Tuttle, Mark, Jr. "Kickstarts." Rider May 2006: 20. General OneFile. Web. 30 Jan. 2012.
• 1995: "In its motorcycle venture, Honda plans to invest $100 million with Vietnam Engine & Agricultural Machine Corp. to build an assembly plant in Vinh Phu province. The plant, to be located 20 miles from Hanoi, will produce 100cc and super cub-type motorcycles, aiming for annual output of 200,000 cycles by the end of 1997, the year that production is to begin. By 2005, Honda hopes to produce 450,000 cycles a year. It expects total annual sales of motorcycles in the Vietnamese market to grow to 500,000 by the end of the decade from last year's 335,000. " Honda Sets Cycle Venture in Vietnam; Ford and Chrysler Plans Win Approval. Suris, Oscar. Wall Street Journal [New York, N.Y] 07 Sep 1995: A11.
• Japan's Motorcycle Wars -- too many items to list, especially names, dates and statistics on the development decisions, the pre-export years, and the players who made decisions, and made mistakes or misapprehensions on introducing Hondas to the US. Quotes from Edward Turner are pure gold.

More to follow. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Manual_of_style. Need to bold first occurance of model names, but not sub-model trim variants. Must bold first occurrence of names that redirect, i.e.:
  • Honda 50
  • Honda C100
  • Honda C100 Super Cub
  • Honda C50
  • Honda C70
  • Honda C90
  • Honda Supercub
  • Honda cub

• Not sure what you do with dab links that are not redirects, such as C110 and C65. Create redirects at Honda C65? Ignore? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• "I've read a lot about Soichiro Honda. One of the best books I've seen is Sol Sanders' 1970s classic, "Honda: The Man and His Machines,"" This book is not easy to get a copy of, but I'm working on it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Honda 70/CD70 -- seems to be a later version of the Sports Cub series, C110 and CD65. Assembly seems to have shifted to Pakistan and Atlas Honda, according to unsourced WP articles. Grow a Sports Cub section, then split to its own article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Change to main picture

File:Honda SuperCub rider carrying wooden box in Tokyo.jpg

Yamaha V step through

Just thought i let everyone know that i changed the main picture as it wasn't actually a super cub. Even though in the description of the picture it is listed as a super cub, it is actually a Yamaha V step through. I know this because i had one of them and the front of the bike is slightly different to the super cub --The Otaku Ben 64 (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2012 (GMT)

Thank you! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we get the image renamed in Commons? --Biker Biker (talk) 08:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Good Catch! 842U (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Yamaha V50 rider carrying wooden box in Tokyo.jpg fixed at Commons. The bad name one tagged for deletion. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy in wording

This revert is necessary for the sake of accuracy. As explained, the idea in 1956 was a germ. Deleting the statement that the pair didn't quite find what Fujisawa had in mind removes information which is relevant to the motivation for making the bike. If Fujisawa *had* seen examples of this kind of bike, it would have meant competition. It explains why he predicted that they would sell 30,000 a month: because he knew, after witnessing it with his own eyes, that nobody made the kind of motorcycle he thought would sell.

"Formality" is nice, but when you make the wording more bland and more vague, you remove information and then the article makes less sense, and readers learn less from it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to understand a rather esoteric distinction: the difference between the idea of something and the germ of the idea of something. But its very tricky territory, and I suggest you're either proferring original research, or the source material needs to be quoted directly. Besides, I thought you wanted to get the article absolutely perfect... later. 842U (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The accusation of original research is the same old red herring. You think you can studiously avoid reading the sources and that gives you a license to pull WP:OR accusations out of thin air. Read the sources, then accuse me of misinterpreting them. If you don't read the sources, then accept my citations by AGF. But also, something else is going on with these strange deletions you've been making.

The pattern I see in your edits is one I've run into before on Wikipedia. The belief that to be sober and formal, you can't have narrative. Because narrative means a story and a story means drama. And drama is unencyclopedic. This is of course incorrect, and there's no policy or guideline that says you have to delete narrative and only present a disjointed collection of facts. Consider this from John Bull (locomotive):

On November 12, 1831, Robert Stevens (then president of the C&A) repaid some political debts by inviting several members of the New Jersey legislature and some local dignitaries, including Napoleon's nephew Prince Murat, for rides behind the newly delivered locomotive over a short test track. The prince's wife, Catherine Willis Gray, made a point of hurrying onto the train so she could be declared the first woman to ride a steam-powered train in America.^[3][6][8][9]

Or Holden VE Commodore]:

Shortly after stylists penned the first design sketches, Holden engineers began work on developing the chassis. Opel, which had provided the basis for all previous Commodore generations, ceased production of their rear-wheel drive Omega in 2003.^[10] This meant that Holden had two options: to use another GM platform, or to develop an all-new vehicle. GM's new premium rear-wheel drive Sigma platform was to see production in the 2002 Cadillac CTS. Holden's engineers were offered this platform, but decided it was not appropriate.^[11] The Sigma platform’s double A-arm front suspension and extensive use of aluminium were too costly for the VE's market segment. The luggage compartment was deemed too small and the Sigma interior package could not be stretched sufficiently to become a family-sized car. In particular, the rear-seat shoulder width was too tight.^[12] These major drawbacks made Holden decide to develop an all new platform, known as the GM Zeta platform, on which a number of forthcoming GM vehicles will also be based.^[13]

I shudder to think what you'd do to these featured articles. Life is narrative, and one thing Wikipedia's best writing has in common is that it is narrative. A led to B, B led to C. When you come along and change that to "A. B. C." with no connective tissue, it's necessary to revert. Removing a specific class of facts -- facts that show causality over time, and that show people's motives -- is a kind of tendentious editing which is biased and deceptive. Your version is false, and unsourced. I dare say, it's original research -- or at the very least, fails verification. It is verifiable that Fujisawa and Honda were rational men, and that Honda Motor followed a strategy based on reason and evidence; at least they did so most of the time, and when they made mistakes, they still had their reasons. By deleting the reasons and the evidence, you violate WP:V and WP:NPOV. That kind of damage needs to be reverted. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

No one said anything about narrative. But if an editor insists on casting a narrative with nuanced and evocative language, arguing tendentiously themselves that the evocative language is verifiable; then its not too much to ask for a direct quote from a source. The article has taken on a promotional, highly sympathetic quality, bolstered by a sweet and precious quality that's more fitting of a novel. Plenty of narratives are recounted formally, without an insistence on flowery language. Wikipedia in its own guidelines asks for that.842U (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what is stopping you from visiting a library. But what you're saying is, you don't believe that in 1956, Fujisawa's idea was not yet fully formed, is that correct? You want to see quotes that prove that in the early stage when they traveled around Germany looking at competitors motorcycles, you want proof that the Super Cub concept was at that time not a fully-fleshed out and complete idea? Oh, and it is incredible that they dared to visit Kreidler and Lambretta showrooms? I can try to give you specific quotes to narrow questions, but if we start down a road of demanding more and more and more quotes, it's a waste of time. I'm not allowed to quote the whole chapter. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been very clear. Each time I reiterate myself, you find another new and creative way of arguing the point — all the while avoiding the possibility of co-editorship and cooperation. You've discouraged me from editing (ostensibly, so the article could remain static and thereby gain DYK status -- while you continued to edit the article). You've suggested my point had something to do with narrative and how if we eliminate the words "germ of an idea," for example, this would somehow threaten the narrative spirit of an encyclopedia... or a Holden article. Now you're suggesting my point has something do with adding a whole chapter of quotations. Again, the point is to either formalize the language in the article (avoid indulgant, personal, precious, intimate language) or quote your source. Either of these will eliminate the impression of original research, advertorialism or editorship by someone too close to the subject to be impartial. None of which are in the article's best interest... or yours. On the "germ" point, would you be willing to compromise on "the idea was conceived" rather than "the germ of the idea came"? 842U (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy with any word that means (metaphorically) germ: antecedent, egg, embryo, font, fount, fountainhead, generation, genesis, root, seed, stem, well. I'm unhappy with any implication that there wasn't significant development work to be done in 1956. It's easy to say, "I want something that has the advantages of both a motorcycle and a scooter, with none of the disadvantages." It's not easy to bring that germ to fruition.

Why did you delete that the pair never quite found what Fujuisawa wanted? Why are you so hostile to saying they went as a "pair"?

Here are some quotes. From Sakiya, pages 117-118:

"Arriving in West Germany, they wandered through the streets of Frankfurt, Hamburg, and Munich like two young motor enthusiasts visiting showrooms by such big names as Kreidler and Lambretta. Fujisawa's persistence gradually aroused Honda's interest. At each showroom, Honda thought he saw the exact one his partner was asking for.

"Is that the type you mean?"

"No, not those. There's no future in them."

"How about this one?"

"That won't sell"

"What are you asking for, then?"

"I don't know exactly either. But my general idea is a bike powered by a 50cc engine, on which a young copule would start whistling happy melodies."

"Have you seen anything like that?"

"No, that's why we must build one."

A year later Honda asked Fujisawa to drop by the research and development laboratories...

Jeffery Alexander, in Japans Motorcycle Wars, writes on p. 200:

Already in 1956, Honda Sōichirō and Fujisawa Takeo had traveled to Europe to investigate the market there and purchase small German, Austrian, and Italian motorcycles for study... Fujisawa also pressed Honda to develop a vehicle that would not frighten consumers by reflecting the stereotypical image of macho outlaws..."

I prefer third party sources, but Honda's official version says the same thing:

[Honda] would ask Fujisawa:

"That kind there? Or this kind here?"

Fujisawa would just shake his head.

...adding that they returned to Japan with, "about five sample bikes he had bought over there. There were an NSU from Germany, a Zundapp, a Puch from Austria, and so on."

"The pair went to showrooms such as those of Kreidler and Lambretta motorcycles looking for the kind of motorcycle Fujisawa had in mind, but never quite finding it, instead seeing designs that Fujisawa said had "no future" and would not sell well" is an accurate summary of this. "Fujisaw [sic] and Honda visited Kreidler and Lambretta showrooms, as well as others, researching the kind of motorcycle Fujisawa had in mind. Fujisawa said the designs had "no future" and would not sell well." is much further from the source, to the point that it is in fact inaccurate. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to stay neutral in this given that I have worked with both editors on different articles, but I am struggling to see what 842U is getting so worked up about, and I am honestly starting to think there is some hidden agenda here with 842U. I want to assume good faith, but right now I am seeing bad editing - and it is tough to post this because I have such respect for both of you. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I've made a few minor edits to the article, a handful. Each has been reverted, and argued repeatedly. Look at the brevity of my responses here vs. the counter arguments and tell me, seriously, who is getting worked up. My purpose, as stated, is to have the article, in a handful of locations, achieve a greater degree of impartiality than is clear from its informal tone. I have been persistent, and there is no other agenda. Thanks for the assumption of good faith; we can all use it. 842U (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Not all of your edits have been reverted, and I appreciate your work. The issue is when you do more than change wording and tone (though none of several other editors who have reviewed this article fixes has voiced a complaint that the tone is unencyclopedic). If you are going to delete content or change meaning, you need to be aware of whether or not that change moves the article closer to or away from the source.

It's like when somebody shows up to a reading discussion who hasn't done the reading; faking it only gets you so far. I would very much enjoy discussing this subject with someone who has read the sources. I think your opinions would be very helpful; I have made many errors and will likely make more in the future. But I don't think this article is so bad that it can be improved by editing from a generic article template; it is good enough that it can mostly be improved only by working from the sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Please review your sources and your citations for accuracy. Your intro sentence that the "Nicest People" campaign is a "classic case study in marketing" doesn't appear to be supported by your citations. The first citation, (Packer, Jeremy (2008), "Motorcycle Madness; The Insane, Profane, and Newly Tame", Mobility without mayhem: safety, cars, and citizenship, Duke University Press, pp. 123–124, ISBN 9780822339632, retrieved 2012-01-28) doesn't mention the campaign being any kind of case study in marketing. The second citation (Reynolds, Thomas John; Olson, Jerry Corrie (2001), Understanding consumer decision making: the means-end approach to marketing and advertising strategy, Psychology Press, p. 22) doesn't mention Honda. 842U (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I find at least six hits for Honda in Reynolds. It's an example of actually using it as a case study. It's a consumer marketing book and it uses "Nicest People" as a case study. The Packer citation references the statement that it changed people's attitudes about motorcycling. This is not something that is widely disupted, hence only two citations. I could have used more. Here is another case study. Here's another one. They're endless. There are many quotes I could have used, such as Rau, which I cited elsewhere: "No wonder that to this day, in colleges and universities around the world, the 'Nicest People' campaign is studied as a model for a successful advertising campaign." In Aaron P. Frank's 2003 book it says the campaign was "one of the most memorable (and successful) in the history of commercial advertising." p. 37, and on p. 43, "The 'Nicest People' campaign invented lifestyle marketing, and is still taught in universities around the country, some 40 years after its appearance, as one of the most effective advertising campaigns in history." This should be more than enough.

I'd advise poring over the data on model variations. Like whether they really had leading shoe drum brakes. As discussed below, there is plenty of room for improvement in the outline of each model variations technical changes over the years.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Try this search: [9] as well. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could update your citations to actually reflect the sources you refer to here. Otherwise the citations are unsupportive.842U (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Still? You still have a problem here? You said Understanding consumer decision making doesn't mention Honda. I showed you it mentioned Honda by name six times, at least. I showed you the case study. I pointed out that Mobility without mayhem was cited to support the other half of the sentence, and I gave you a link showing that it says the campaign changed US attitudes about motorcycling. Which should have been more than enough for facts that are not disputed by anybody, anywhere except one Wikipedia editor. And then I piled on more quotes and more citations, showing more case studies, and more authors saying it was taught in schools, used as a case study, widely discussed 40 years later.

And still you're not happy? What's going on here? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Check the PAGE NUMBERS of your citations. They're specific and they're incorrect. 842U (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Restructuring questions

The Model history section is the one most in need of revision, because, as pointed out above, the Super Sports Cubs, C110 and descendents, don't exactly fit. The sports Cubs were only one of three major branches of the Super Cub line, the other two were the Honda CT series trail bikes and the Honda Z series monkey bikes. It might make more sense to break the chronology into four parts: one main one for the classic Super Cubs, step-through frame, leg shield, and 17 inch wheels, and three sub-sections: Sports Cub, CT, and Z. CT and Z can be relatively brief because they have main articles now. The Sports Cub section will be larger for now, but eventually will be spun off into its own article. This will allow removing the C110 from the statistics table and so the it displays better, instead of being too crammed with columns.

The alternative is to stick with a strictly chronological order, as it has now, where the not particularly similar C102 and C110 are introduced in the same paragraph because they both appeared in 1960. If you expanded it to describe the CT trail bikes and Z bikes in a similar chronological fashion, I thin it would be unreadable. So it's probably best to have 3 sub-sections, as described above, and maybe have an infobox on the right with a timeline.

I think there will be a need for a Super Cub navbox at the bottom took, with all Super Cub models and sub-models, blocked out in timelines and showing the family relationships. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

History

Let's discuss facts for a (welcome) change!

1.

< The technology developed in the Isle of Man TT racing program was equally vital to the new lightweight motorcycle >

This can't be right as it stands, simply because Honda didn't race in the Island, as opposed to visit to gather information, until 1959. (More credible,and seen on the cmsnl website only minutes ago, referring to the C100: "Arguably Honda's most important model, without this they could never have afforded to go racing!")

2.

If the picture of the CD70 (with its T-bone frame, light-alloy cylinder head, oil pump, manual clutch, four-speed gearbox, telescopic forks, no cover on the drive chain) belongs in this article, then what separates the set 'Super Cub', which belongs, from the set 'Not Super Cub', which doesn't? (Underbone (so-called)? No, that's not it, evidently. Horizontal cylinder? Possibly . . )

3.

The C200 (model 030) became, after revision with the 89cc overhead cam engine and telescopic forks, the S90 or CS90 (model 028). The C90 (model 046) was something else, namely the same engine in a CM90, with tweaks. The article is confused here.

4.

As a matter of considerable interest, has anybody (outside the factory) ever seen a C100 with a twin-leading-shoe front brake as standard?

86.181.177.63 (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

1. The Isle of Man program began years before 1959. Soichiro Honda didn't just show up in 1959 and start competing; he spent at least three years in preparation. Honda and Fujisawa came to Europe in 1956 to scout both the racing competition and the commercial competition. The idea that they couldn't afford to race before the C100 makes no sense. In 1958 and 1959 they were selling stock and spending like mad on their new factory. They didn't start to make big money from the Super Cub until after the Isle of Man victories, which were years in the making. And after Suzuka was running two shifts, and they had the sales network running to sell off Suzuka's vast output without getting buried in inventory. Until then, the future was uncertain and they didn't appear to have a lot of spare cash lying around. But they went racing anyway. In fact, it was the famous Honda IOM victory that made European consumers take notice of the Honda brand, which led to expansion of Honda subsidiaries in Europe. The fact that engine technology transferred from racing research to the new Super Cub engine is well sourced. It's interesting that Honda would simultaneously undertake such huge projects as the huge 10 billion yen Suzuka factory, launching their US subsidiary, and GP racing, all at once in 1959 and 1960. They had boundless confidence. That, and Fujisawa was a whirlwind doing his thing, and Soichiro Honda was a cyclone over in his bailiwick. These details should be expanded, and at some point an separate History of Honda motorcycles should be written to cover it in full detail.

2. That's a good point, but it's complicated. There is no Wikipedia rule that distinct models of vehicles belong on separate pages. Wikipedia:Summary style is a decent outline of how articles grow organically. So Honda Super Cub is the main article for the Super Cub and all it's descendents and cousins. The purpose is to cover the main history, the major models, and summarize the sub-models and related models, like say, Monkey bikes. Even non-Hondas. I'm inclined to think that splitting off a separate page called Honda Sports Cub might be a good idea, and put most of the information about the C110, CS65, CD70, Honda 70 and so on there. But even then, those models should be mentioned here in some detail, then passed over to the sub-page. Same for You meet the nicest people on a Honda, and other future sub-pages. But the rule is, follow our sources. If sources say it was related to the Super Cub family, it belongs on this page, no matter which way the cylinder points or what frame it had.

3. Yes, the article is confused on a few points like this. I don't think we should try to hit ever single variant of all 65 million bikes they made, but we can realistically try to describe the most important variants. Unfortunately, sources are imperfect. If you have good sources to cite, please fix any errors you find. It shouldn't be that hard to clean up.

4. Again, this is just what the cited sources say. Maybe they're wrong. Maybe they're referring only to the Super Cubs in the UK or the US as the case may be, and not worldwide. But you can help by citing your sources and we can see if it can be worked out. If two source flatly contradict each other, cite them both and just state what they say.

We don't need to get too deep into precise details of models. Wikipedia is not a collector's guide or a repair manual so it's OK to be general and incomplete on some of these details. But if parts are just wrong, please correct them with better sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

On point 4 (twin-leading shoe front brake): 'The Book of the Honda', by John Thorpe, published by Pitman in 1964, apparently in the days before ISBN, since none is evident, has an exploded view of the 'Front Brake and Hub, C.100 and C.102' captioned 'On early versions of the Honda a backplate secured by a torque arm was used. Later versions have the slotted type of backplate. Otherwise the front brakes of all models are of similar design. Both types are shown here.' The view clearly shows one cam operating on two identical shoes, one leading and one trailing. The cmsnl website shows another view conveying the same story. http://images.cmsnl.com/img/partslists/front-wheel-c100-worldwide-except-usa_bigma000019f11_7d25.gif I am, to be straightforward about it, not prepared to spend time and money establishing whether the sources you refer to are in error or have been misquoted. Sorry. 86.181.177.63 (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Isle of Man

I emphasized 1956 because it is relevant to the Super Cub, but the racing program began earlier. Honda Dreams raced in Japan and in Brazil in 1954. Soichiro Honda came to see the IOM TT in 1954 as well, as "a research venture, to gather information needed to perhaps put together a Honda racing effort for a future TT -- and what he observed was certainly a reality check." (Frank 2003, p. 23) The NSU 125 racer put out 18.5 hp, more than double the 8.5 hp of the Dream 4E, which had 220 cc. Honda carried two suitcases of racing parts back to Japan to study, abandoning his clothing in the airport because he couldn't bring a third suitcase on the plane, according to legend. Honda had a new R&D center and proving ground, and started his first racing motorcycle then, the RC141 modeled on the NSU Rennmax, in 1954. Five years later, in 1959, the RC142 placed 6th through 8th at the Isle of Man, and won the Manufacturers Cup. The Super Cub only went on sale in Japan in August 1958, near the tail end of the development of the RC141 and RC142, so not too much money from it could have gone into racing. Probably the Cub F, selling at 6,500 per month, and the Dream D, at 3,000 units per month, was where the profits came from to finance the early racing. Japan's Motorcycle Wars says that Honda's costs were high as they struggled to keep up with the huge demand for Super Cubs in 1958 and 1959. Tetsuo Sakiya wrote in Honda Motor that, "It was because of the research efforts for the Isle of Man that the power from the same engine size had now increased nine times," (p. 118) referring to the 0.5hp 50cc Tohatsu generator engine and Honda's later copy of it, vs the 4.5hp Super Cub. I'll find the specific references I saw that said Honda's first place finishes in 1964 and 1964 were a direct catalyst to European sales of the Super Cub, which only just began selling in Germany in 1961 and the UK in 62, France in 64. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)