Talk:List of fastest production motorcycles/Archive 1

Archive 1

Formatting

The bold text in the table body looks odd. Is there a reason for having it? Also, it would look a lot better if the table had lines/borders, again is there a reason for not having them? Otherwise a very nice article. --Biker Biker (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

I'm not really happy with the bold text, but I'm not sure what else to do. I made an alternate version Talk:List of fastest production motorcycles/Workpage which uses small text for the non-record holders, and normal font for the record holders, but I'm not sure that's any better. I think the best thing might be some kind of show/hide script for the ones that I'm de-emphasizing, but I couldn't get that to work well. I also added an example to clarify what that's all about, in the paragraph above the table. The line graph only shows record holders, so it illustrates the rate of upward speed increase without any steps backwards. I'd like to fill in the end of the table with all the bikes with a 300 km/h limiter, though that's not a high priority. MV Augusta, for one, did claim one of their bikes after 2000 went 190 mph, but I haven't seen independent testing on that.

I know you like lines on charts better, as with List of long-distance motorcycle riders. To me it's chartjunk -- something added out of force of habit or tradition that puts more pixels on the screen but doesn't add more information. On a case by case basis, I think a chart this uncomplicated doesn't need lines to be readable, at least in a few browsers and resolutions that I checked. Since I'm about to send it to DYK, I figured I'd get input from a few other editors and if they think the lines should be turned on, it's a simple matter to flip that switch. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Gaps

Assuming it's a good idea to keep all the non-record holders on this list -- the ones not in bold -- there are some gaps in the current version. I haven't verified what the fastest bike on the market was in 1955, after the Vincent went out of production and before the 1956 Gold Star Clubmans. There's also gaps in 1909-10, 1948, and 1968-72. Also missing horsepower for the Williamson, and end dates for several models like the Scott, Pope, Z1 and others. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible additions

• Triumph 2½HP (1903) 35mph? [1] --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

A Suggestion ...

As a retired paramedic, I believe the relevance of this article would be significantly enhanced by a photo of the victim of history's fastest motor cycle accident. Motorcycles are of course unsafe at any speed, but a 186 mph "gentleman's agreement" is still culpably irresponsible of manufacturers. 20 mph is plenty lethal enough on a "donorcycle." 70.253.86.235 (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Why would this be required? It would in no way improve the article, do you believe that all forms of any speed related accidents should have a warning on the dangers involved, perhaps photos of the victim of history’s fastest horse incident in sections related to those animals, or photos of pedestrians involved in car accidents would improve car related articles.(JMemonic (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC))

This attitude about motorcycles is shared by many people, and the policy WP:NPOV requires that all significant opinions be described and given appropriate weight. But you don't see Traumatic brain injury discussed on List of National Football League records (individual), nor do we see Epidemiology of motor vehicle collisions covered on List of fastest production cars.

The article Motorcycle safety does have a section, Attitudes about risk, which surveys the range of approaches people take to motorcycling's dangers based on verifiable and reliable sources. If you have quality source material you can cite on the subject, expanding coverage of this is certainly welcome. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Both graphs together

FWIW, this view is what both the Motorcycle land speed record and fastest production motorcycle graphs look like on the same axes. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

FIM 1000 P-P class aka Production 1000cc class, and the 196.117 mph BMW S1000RR

The FIM 1000 P-P class or Production 1000cc class is a perfectly fine and respectable thing, and you could argue that it is as close to "stock" as you could come in modern motorsport. But it is far from stock in so far as this list is concerned, which is defined as truly stock and truly street legal. If you mix FIM 1000 P-P class records with the other records on this list, then you're comparing apples and oranges.

While FIM 1000 P-P class mandates using the engine that came on the production bike, the stock exhaust, frame, forks and other major components, the rules do still allow many modifications, including removing mirrors, air cleaner elements, changing tires, and changing final drive gearing. It's that last bit that is most likely responsible for bypassing the 300 kph speed limiter on many bikes, though on some disconnecting the speedometer will do it. I don't know if using a TRE would be allowed under the FIM rules for this class, but it might not be necessary.

It would be an excellent idea to add the list of P-P class record holders to a separate section of this page, or to Motorcycle land-speed record, but for the current list, I've changed the top speed of the BMW S1000RR from 196.117 mph[2] to 188 mph, and cited Cycle World, August 2011. By the same token, there are a host of FIM motorcycle land speed record classes that we could, and should, list as well.

Note that a 2012 Honda CBR1000RR has now exceeded 200 mph in the production 1000cc class at Bonneville, but again, the bike isn't really stock, or street legal, strictly speaking.[3]. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Fabio on superbikes

Supermodel Fabio, a bike nut and all around gearhead, complains that since the gentlemen's agreement, bikes have focused on acceleration and have become too small to save weight, but so a 6'3" man can't ride them. Of course, Kevin Ash, also 6'-3", only thinks it's Ducatis that have a "foot room problem". This may or may not be encyclopedic. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

superbike ban, c 1987

Early discussion of a superbike ban in American Motorcyclist, 1987.

• http://books.google.com/books?id=QPkDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA25
• http://books.google.com/books?id=QPkDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA35 --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Questioning "fastest"

A question re the title. The examples given are not really about the "fastest" bikes, although some of them were, but the bike with the highest designed top speeds. There is a little bit of difference between the two, e.g. quarter mile speeds measure "fast". What are we talking fast in a straight line or fast round a track?

Some of these bikes where not that fast but just had really high gearing. Others of their times were much faster but had lower gearing. There is no mention of the factors that go into defining a high top speed which is really what this topic is about, e.g. the H1 were much faster than Rocket IIIs.

OK, pedantic I know but I thought I would raise the matter. Also, I suggest the Z1R-TC for a mention if it counts as production (it was sold by the factory via its dealership internationally). --Bridge Boy (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"Fastest" is more conventional. It's consistent with List of fastest production cars, and it is in very common usage to mean "top speed" [4][5][6]. The Guinness Book of World Records, in 1999 and 2000, uses the phrase "Fastest Production Motorcycle" for the category as well. The policy WP:COMMONNAME says we should go with what is in normal usage, and not be too pedantic or obscure.

List of fastest production motorcycles by acceleration does exist, along with List of fastest production cars by acceleration. They're poor articles: they suffer from recentism, and fixing that is probably impossible. We don't have much data for every year and every bike; just clumps of tests following whim and fashion. I suppose they could be merged into this page, and it could have one section for top speed and one for accelleration, but one covers all of motorcycle history and the other only covers 2010 and 2011. I'd be tempted to delete List of fastest production motorcycles by acceleration because it's hopless to be a decent article. Might want to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling to go discuss it at Talk:List of fastest production motorcycles by acceleration.

Go ahead and add the Kawasaki Z1R-TC/Turbo if you have a good citation for an independent test, and it was a street legal bike anybody could walk into a dealership and buy. I don't think estimates or factory press releases should count. Surely a magazine rode it and published their results? If not, I wouldn't include it.

It's important that readers understand this page is not that reliable, like the FIM Record list. Magazine tests are inconsistent, and this page is only meant to be a list of the best data we've got. It's not supposed to be the last word.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a small inaccuracy from 1985 to 1996

For model years 1984 and 1985 Honda made an unpopular but brutally fast bike the VF1100S aka V65 Sabre. You had to be at least 6" tall to ride one and have the ability to handle a 600+ lb (wet) bike. I submit it was the fastest bike in the world for the period from 1984 until the CBRXX in 1996. And, until Yamaha made the VMax, it was also the quickest.

Stock this bike came with or without a fairing. Cycle World tested an unfaired version in May of 1984 and hit 139 mph in 1/2 mile. It also said it was still accelerating. The article also stated "With the overall gearing of the V65, the rider shifts into high gear at 148 mph." Cycle World said, "In top gear, the Sabre would be going 177 mph at redline if the engine had the power to pull such high gearing. It doesn't." Remember Cycle World's test was without the factory fairing.

I never did a 1/2 mile test but the two I owned leaped forward on the 5-6 shift somewhere around 150. After that there was more acceleration. The Speedo shown in CW's article read to 160. I vaguely remember a higher number but never thought about it much. It was fairly easy to bury the needle. Yes, speedometers make errors that can grow logrithmically at high speeds. The two I owned were both faired 85s. I recall a 10,500 RPM red line, not the 10,000 mentioned in CW. Obviously I am old an feeb. I also recall a very restrictive 3 stage air box and the bike running much better with filters and baffles removed from stages one and two.

Perhaps someone has better tests of this bike -- jetted right, intake restrictions removed, and with a fairing. Gerard6656 (talk) 03:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

A test of a modified bike wouldn't go on this list. But if a citation for a test of the stock bike would be great to have, if it was faster than the VF1000R. We could make up a separate list of modified bikes but then how would it be defined? FIM has a series of classes of modified bikes that they manage for speed records. Compiling those records on Wikipedia would be worth while. Currently we only have the top class listed, and it's incomplete. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The 1988 CBR1000F technically held the record at 163mph — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.9.25.203 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 19 July 2012‎

Specifics on the gentleman's agreement

Currently the participation of the gentleman's agreement are vague, and the exact figure is said to be unknown. Cycle World has an article with more details:

• Burns, John (April 2, 2012), "Fifty Years of "Do You Have Any Idea How Fast You Were Going?" A brief history of Ludicrous Speed", Cycle World, retrieved November 5, 2012

It says

In October of 1999, we reported, BMW bigwigs had traveled to Japan, concerned that Hayabusas and things running amok on the autobahn were going to cause Bad Things to happen legislatively. A subsequent meeting in Bologna resulted in a voluntary agreement among manufacturers to "cease competitive marketing strategies with respect to maximum speed achievable." That agreed-upon limit was 299 kilometers per hour, or 185 mph.

So the precise number was 299, not 300kph, and 185 mph, not 186mph. This is the first direct claim that BMW was a party to the deal, and the second meeting in Bologna is the only (indirect) evidence I've seen that any Italians took part as well. I'm guessing Ducati was there. But not MV Agusta?

Anyway, the article needs to be updated to reflect this information. Also need to double check the October 1999 Cycle World. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

MV Agusta F4 R 312

Nothing new has come out on the MV Agusta F4 R 312's top speed: it's still the case that the top speed wasn't tested independently. MV Agusta rider Fabrizio Latini reached 312 km/h (194 mph) at Nardò Ring, according to MV Agusta employees such as chief engineer Andrea Goggi. Roland Brown says he was only able to reach 188 mph, although he was not at Bonneville or Nardo, so that's not surprising; it's inconclusive.

However, Alan Cathcart[7], Roland Brown[8][9], and the editors of Motorcyclist (Letters to the editor: Fastest bike is what?! Motorcyclist, August 2007. p. 34) all state that they accept MV Agusta's claim as fact. Roland Brown is the sole source for many of the top speeds of most of the older motorcycles in this list.

Should we simply list the F4 R 312's speed as 194 mph (312 km/h) with no mention that it is merely "claimed", citing the above sources? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• I found an additional source that references an independent test, so updated the table to reflect that, and removed the BMW S1000RR since the F4 R 312 remained in production through 2010, at least. As far as I can tell, the latest F4 models are no slower than the 312, but is not entirely clear and should be verified. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This will probably remain problematic without a single test methodology promulgated and verified by an independent test body (a la land speed record). I wish we had a source for this one that was not a magazine oriented towards a particular national audience. Brianhe (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree completely, but you could say the same about every other source on this list. The introduction tries to make that clear when it says "Unlike those records, which are officially sanctioned by the Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme (FIM), production model tests were conducted under a variety of unequal or undefined conditions, and tested by numerous different sources, mainly motorcycling magazines. This has led to inconsistent and sometimes contradictory speed statistics from various sources." Magazine sources have any number of biases and margins of error. The FIM system, while flawed in various ways, is orders of magnitude more rigorous.

      In my opinion, the Motociclismo results are no more disreputable than any others here. The only solution I can think of is to use the article Motorcycle testing and measurement to educate readers as best we can as to all the ways that motorcycle speed tests are flawed and/or questionable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

    • Also, Alan Cathcart and Roland Brown, linked to above, are British, and they both give credence to the Italian claims about the 312. So, perhaps, that neutralizes the issue of nationalism. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Werner models

Re the Werner Motocyclette and the Werner New Werner. Was the former based on the De Dion-Bouton motorcycle engine? If so, I think we have sources to fill out the engine particulars. [10] and [11] should be helpful. Brianhe (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Lightning motorcycles eBike

This does 218 mph. http://ultimatemotorcycling.com/lightning-motorcycles-ebike-sets-fastest-time-at-pikes-peak/ http://green.autoblog.com/2011/08/24/video-lightning-motorcycles-raises-land-speed-record-to-215-960/ The eBike is a production model — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winjay (talk • contribs) 19:23, 10 July 2013

The 215mph bike in the picture is obviously heavily modified, with a special fairing, no mirrors, no headlight, etc. It's not stock, and not street legal. What special mechanical changes were made? Here with says "With only gear ratio and fairing changes, our SuperBike set a land speed record at Bonneville (215mph record and a best speed of 218mph)." That is not stock. Stock means bone stock, the bike you buy at the dealer. 100% street legal. There are many production bikes which can go faster than 218mph if you allow changes in gearing, a new fairing, no muffler or emissions controls, etc. etc. That's what FIM 1000 P-P/Production 1000cc class is for. This list is not FIM P-P class bikes. This is a list of bone stock bikes. Yes, we should add FIM P-P to Motorcycle land-speed record, but that's still a different list than this one.

It also says says "The bikes are built to order according to your specs." Built to order is custom made. There are a million little companies that will build you a custom, one-off racer that will go 200mph, 230mph, even more. Production means mass-produced, built in series. Not built to order.

Props, congratulations, good work, and all. I'm pretty sure the bike goes just as fast whether they charged their battery from a solar plant or a coal plant, but the funny thing about bullshit is that it doesn't matter, right? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Post 2001 bikes

It's unclear whether the gentlemen's agreement is still in effect. I'm also unsure if MV Agusta, Aprilia, or BMW ever considered themselves bound by it. I've added some of the restricted 186 mph (nominal) bikes, but more need to be added. I've put in the BMW S1000RR as the new record holder, based on a test at Bonneville and a number of vague claims that it went significantly over 186 mph. I'd like to see better sources on that.

I'm not totally sure what to make of the results from MCN:

• http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/New-bikes/2010/September/sep0110-standard-bmw-s1000rr-reaches-197mph/_/R-EPI-126474
• http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/First-rides-tests/2010/September/sep2410-near-standard-s1000rr-hits-202mph/

The numbers they give for various bikes don't state in a straightfoward way whether they tested a restricted bike, a derestricted bike, or if the bike was never restricted in the first place.

Ultimate Motorcycling is taking dictation from BMW's Gary Orr, owner of a dealership, that the bike reached 196 totally stock. Other sources seem to kind of support this, but I'd be happier if it was more independent. Is the top speed on the S1000RR governed or isn't it? What about other bikes?

If I change the text to say "The 2008 BMW S1000RR has exceeded the 186 mph limit, but there has been no commentary as to what this means with respect to the gentlemen't agreement." is that synthesis or original research?

I'd like to take a conservative approach and not accept a single claim that a bike reached a record speed, and settle on a minimum speed that multiple sources agree on. But I'm not sure what criteria to use. The alternative is to throw all claims in there and let the reader sort it out. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hallo Dennis Motorrad Magazine in Germany did 9 Litre-class bike shoot outs for two years running and there is high-speed Nardo component to it...BMW S1000RR has won for both 2010 and 2011 running 305kmph which is 190mph bone-stock...So you can safely say that BMW just breaks through the 186mph limit..Cycle World also did a 0-180mph shooout along with top speed where Hayabusa and ZX-14 registered 1mph and 1.7mph above the limit respectfully..yours sincrely Shas Panja — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.102.123.211 (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This could very well be true. But you can have a bike with a governor which is nominally set to 186 mph and have one tester find it goes 188 mph one day and the next day somebody else goes 183. You are never going to get the same result every time, and there's no reason to claim a new record because one magazine found a difference of 1 or 2 mph. You ought to be able to pick up 5 mph just with a tailwind. It's only a gentlemen's agreement after all; nobody is going to come arrest the CEO of Kawasaki if the speed governor on the ZX-14 is off by a few mph either way.

For example, most testers got close to 190 with the 1999 Hayabusa, but Cycle World got 194. Motorcycle Consumer News only got 188. Is 194 the real number? Or 188? Probably neither. I'd trust 190 because that's the number that multiple tests seemed to settle on.

So I'd really try to look more closely at the quality of the testing and the diligence of the testers, and I'd ask for multiple tests that agree with each other. But for the time being the article says the S1000RR goes 196.117 mph and if that turns out to be wrong it won't cause any real harm to anyone. We can improve the citations and the data in good time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It was not mentioned in the article, but I believe some production 1000cc motorcycles are not physically speed-limited to 299 km/h. It is only a restriction to how much the speedometer can display, i.e. with a GPS or just by looking at the rpm of the engine it is clear that the motorcycle continues to accelerate beyond 299 km/h (which I have witnessed). My guess is that they do not want to encourage the riders to go any faster than 299 km/h (hence not publishing any figures of faster speeds), but still not have any restrictions in the electronics which would make it more difficult/expensive for people actually using the bikes for racing and thus requires a non-limited bike. Even if a bike has an electronic speed limiter, isn't the purpose of this article to show the advancements in motorcycle performance over time, hence making it more relevant to publish the real top speed figures without the speed-limiter? --EV1TE (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

(addressing only your last sentence) The basic point of this article is to have a list which is verifiable. I don't know of any sources we can cite for de-limited bikes except FIM Production Class, which would include not just the speed limiter, but also removing mirrors, changing exhaust, etc. You can find blogs and forums where some guy will say how fast his bike went with just the limiter turned off, but they don't meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. You might find good sources for one or two bikes, but it the list would be a permanent stub because we will never find sources for every bike. Magazine tests do pretty much cover all production bikes so we can produce a complete and verifiable list of "bone stock" bikes.

I personally favor making as many lists as we can. A half dozen lists is great, a dozen would be better, as long as they are apples-to-apples comparisons and the sources are out there. 'List of FIM P-P records' is the one we should create next, and I'll create that list myself as soon as I can. Hopefully somebody else will do it before me. But there are many lists that would be nice to have but can never exist on Wikipedia due to lack of sources we can actually use. Some kinds of lists have to be put elsewhere on the Web, not Wikipedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

RE: Unlimited bikes with limited speedometer: No problem. We have one instance, with a sketchy source, saying the new Ducati works that way. The method used by all the major magazines cited is to measure speed with a radar gun, not the bike's speedo. So the sources cited are more or less accurate. But any time a reliable source says a bike goes faster than the speedometer's maximum, we should by all means include it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

BMW S1000RR record "bone stock" (except the mirrors...)

This edit looks fine except that RideApart's Wes Siler, after asserting the record was set on a "bone stock" bike, he then says in fact the S1000RR's "only modifications were taping over the lights and removing the mirrors and license plate bracket." That's not stock, and not street legal. If they bike were just as fast with the mirrors as without, then they wouldn't have needed to take them off.

WOS says the record was set in the FIM P-P 1000 CC class. As discussed above, we should add a list of record holders from the P-P 1000 class to the Motorcycle land-speed record list. These records are real, and they're legitimate, and we should include them. But they're not stock bikes. They don't belong on this page. This page is only for bikes that are actually, really, truly, honestly bone stock with zero mods, and are actually street legal. It's a matter of apples to apples and oranges to oranges. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Suzuki TL1000R

I missed it at first, but the Suzuki TL1000R doesn't meet this list's criteria. It did surpass the 151–158 mph Kawasaki GPZ900R Ninja (1984–1996) when it came out in 1997, but by 1997, the Ninja had already passed the title to the 170 mph Bimota YB6 EXUP of 1989, 8 years earlier. I'll fix the affected pages.

I think we should add a column showing the span of years when a bike was the actual title holder, so the table will be easier to interpret. So even though th GPZ900R was in production from 1984 to 1996, it was fastest production motorcycle only from 1984 to 1988. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I missed the date inversion too. Do you think adding a "title holder" column runs a risk of approaching WP:SYNTH? - Brianhe (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

If its synthesis, then the whole list is synthesis. Showing which years it was fastest is just making explicit the premise behind the entire list. Right now it's only implied and you have to deduce things like the chronology behind the TL1000R and the YB6. We shouldn't say "title"; it's not an actual title. It should have an name like "Years as fastest motorcycle". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you are saying it's just that all the columnar data come straight from the named cites ... but this new thing would not. - Brianhe (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

To me it's a routine calculation, so it's allowed under WP:CALC. You're just applying logic and math to reach an inevitable conclusion. If there were some alternative way to interpret the data, I'd welcome that as an alternative list we could create. We could check to see if anybody else would think it's original research. Or boldly change it and see who reverts. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

1199 Panigale R top speed

This is being listed by publications as the fastest production road bike. Road and Track (April 22 2013) states that the top speed is 202 miles per hour: "All that raises the top speed from 186 to 202 mph... Without exception, this is the fastest production bike ever to lap a racetrack." [12]. Ride Apart (May 3 2013) also states 202 mph: "This is the fastest production bike in the world after all, something I verified by finding the rev limiter in 6th on COTA’s back straight. The speedometer stops counting at 186mph, but ... [the] limiter kicks in at 202mph." [13]. I hesitate to add this to the article (yet) as it seems to be based on the bike's onboard electronics, rather than external calibrated means such as a radar gun. But I think we'll see that too, soon. — Brianhe (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, the tire diameter at that speed is anyone's guess. The only way to measure it is with radar or a stopwatch. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Well shoot, I forgot we had discussed this, and went ahead and added the Panigale to the table without making sure it was properly instrumented. Are there any really dependable measurements yet? It's been a year plus since it was announced, you'd think somebody has tested the thing. — Brianhe (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've updated the graph to remove the Panigale and add the Brough Pendline and other fixes. Please let me know if I should make the fonts larger or smaller or different. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Update and verify

Cycle World's article Fifty Years of "Do You Have Any Idea How Fast You Were Going?" fills in some missing details on the gentlemen's agreement, and specifically cites the S1000RR as the bike that first broke it, after saying it was BMW who first proposed the rule to the Japanese. The graph of top speeds contradicts some of what we have here, so we'll have to sort that out. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Holy time warp, Batman, this is like the ↑ discussion from November 2012. But you are still right. — Brianhe (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's all I seem to do. Write ever-expanding Wikipedia to-do lists. I think it's going to take 10 years to clear the backlog of high-importance Wikipedia articles that need revision and updates. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I started Kawasaki Tomcat ZX-10 because it looks like it ought to be in the table at least for 1988. However the Bimota in our table starting 1989 is not in the CW table, which is a problem. — Brianhe (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Record holder navbox changes

I agree with the change on the "Records" navbox, removing those bikes that were the fastest on the market, but did not set a new record. Because it's called "records", after all. And it's probably a good idea to keep the clutter at the bottom of pages to a minimum.

On the other hand, this list is not just a list of production speed records. It's called "List of fastest production motorcycles" because it is the fastest new bikes you could buy in any given year. In addition, it adds the one bit of information that it was a new production speed record or not. One reason this is important is that many sources don't use the terms "production speed record" but say something like, "the fastest bike on the market" or "the fastest bike you could buy." It's not up to us to decide which distinction matters most, and there's no reason this page can't be comprehensive and include both.

Please use an edit summary for any changes, and please discuss major changes here on the talk page first. And once again, if you want to add the ZX-10 Tomcat or any other bike, please have a reliable source in hand to cite first. Thanks!--Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with not having the "records" navbox on the page of bikes on this list that did not break record but were the fastest on the market.They clearly had a note stating 1. Fastest in production during its lifetime, but not record holder. This is clearly factual information and did not mislead anyone. So why not allow this information to be seen on there page? It can be seen here and in magazine reviews. I don't feel it clutter a page at all it is nice and neat and only adds to informing the public on this wonderful and inspiring thing we call motorcycles! So why withhold clear factual information with credible reference? 72bikers (talk • contribs) 01:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I also would like to point something out that I believe no one has brought up. Not all riders are the same. To easily explain I am reminded of something my aunt would always point out when I was a child there is always going to be someone bigger! simply put this is why we see different result as far as top speed from different publications even if only marginally not all riders are capable of extracting ever mph out of any given model. Even at the highest level only one is going to be the fastest. So should we not just accept the highest number as long as that reference is credible. That's just my two cents! 72bikers (talk • contribs) 02:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You can certainly add a sentence to these articles that a bike was one of a group, including the Hayabusa, ZX-12R, ZX-14 and S1000RR, during the period 2001 through 2006, which all reached a governed speed of 300 kph. You can communicate this information in every article about the bikes that were limited to 300 kph from 2001-2006, so readers are not prevented from finding out that a bike was a member of this group.

None of these bikes in this group was the "successor" to the 1999-2000 Hayabusa, which went faster than 300 kph. The successor to the 1999-2000 Hayabusa was the 2007 MV Agusta 312.

Regardless of the particulars, you can add any verifiable cited facts you want to add to an article. The only issue is using this navbox at the bottom, and having no navbox doesn't prevent you from saying what you want to say in an article if the sources back it up. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Should it also be noted that the mv agusta 312 at best only tied the hayabusa not beat if that 193 is slower than 194 and even its name only states 194. And its reference from the manufacture which I thought was not allowed is a broken link and Motorcyclist also does not state that they went 194 but only 183 then saw his braking marker. Despite my failure to reach said speed, the F4 R 312 presumably lives up to that title is all they state. The third reference only makes reference to a Italian magazine that can not been seen online and checked. 72bikers (talk • contribs) 02:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if it's not online. We'd be unable to cite 90% of the world's books if they all had to be online. See WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:OFFLINE.

The only way this navbox would be correct would be to reconfigure it to list all two, three, or four bikes in a given year that were tied at 300 kph. None of them is THE fastest bike; they're just one of a group. A more sensible approach would be to remove all these from the table and put them in footnotes at the bottom, and only keep the actual record breakers. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Would anyone else like to weigh in on this? What about the mv ugusta did it break the record of the hayabusa? I like how you have added horsepower to list what about adding 1/4 times and speed in the 1/4 to keep the list going kinda like cycle world has done. Or how about starting a list with just stock horsepower that is ever advancing even if top speed stays restricted. You did not speak on the point I brought up as to rider skill? Just curious but the zx12r had the nav bar years ago for over a year and left to stand. Was there another motorcycle besides the zx12r that was documented going 187 between 2000 and 2005?--user:72bikers (talk) 1:06,5 November 2015

So you're saying when you have two bikes governed at 300 km/h (186.411 mph) which sometimes gets rounded to 186 and sometimes 187, we should pretend the tests that published the number 187 prove that bike is faster? And if they rounded down to 186, then that bike isn't as fast? That's just game playing. We know there is lots of variation between one test and another. Differences of 1 mph are insignificant, especially when we know both bikes are programmed to go the same speed. Several sources tested the 99-00 Hayabusa and got numbers ranging from 188 to 194. At these speeds testing is not that precise and you have to assume the actual speed is somewhere in that range. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Do we actually know that in the past especially at the beginning what each manufacture voluntarily governed there motorcycle to exactly 186.Just look at mv agusta of 2007. Why would a publication round there speed up or down. Do cops do this when they use a radar gun as well to check speed? Not asking to pretend anything or trying to play any game that would be childish sir. And you only strengthen my point by pointing out that the 99 hayabusa had different publications post different top speeds. Why do you think that is they rounded up or down from 185 to 194. really, no its because different riders with individually varying rider skills were used by all the different publications. Its just that simple you surely can not be blind to this fact. And is this a discussion if its only me and you dennis talking about this more of a conversation. Surely there are others that could weigh in on this. --User:72bikers (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2015

This whole page needs to be taken with a grain of salt. We just don't have anything better than a handful of magazine tests that are only semi-reliable. Declaring the ZX-12R "fastest" because of a rounding error is original research and synthesis.

MV Agusta isn't a major manufacturer and never participated in the gentlemen's agreement to begin with. Instead of bickering over 1 mph differences -- smaller than the margin of error in any test run -- a much more productive use of time would be to expand Motorcycle land-speed record to include a new section for the FIM 1000 P-P class. That is an official record that shows you what bikes are capable of if you disable the speed limiter and make a couple of minor changes like a new exhaust pipe and removing the mirrors. This is noted above on this page in the section #FIM 1000 P-P class aka Production 1000cc class, and the 196.117 mph BMW S1000RR. It's a task that has been waiting around for somebody to do the work for a few years now.

Sticking a navbox at the bottom of the Wikipedia article on the ZX-12R isn't going to settle anybody's bar bet. Guys who refuse to accept that "fastest production motorcycle" was a meaningless thing from 2001 to 2006 don't care what Wikipedia does and we will never resolve their nerd fights. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, note that Burns, John. "Kawasaki ZX-12R." Motorcyclist June 2000. page 41 puts the ZX-12R's top speed at 183 mph (294.51 km/h) while "Clarion call: 299.5 km/h (maximum speed in test of Kawasaki ZX-12R)." Cycle Canada July 2000. pages 56-7 gives us 299.5 km/h (186.10 mph). So it's not honest to insist the governed top speed is 187, while the governed top speed of the other bikes like the 2001- Hayabusa is 186. They're all around 186 to 187, and you can't pick out one Cycle World test because you like 187 better for that one bike. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok well spoken I guess for now this list as stated is the best way we can inform and honor the heritage of this quest for ever faster motorcycles! also just curious if anyone else besides myself who has spoken on this subject has even rode at these speed. I personally have gone over 172 mph multiple times but have not hit the limits of my zx-12r! --72bikers (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2015

Me, going 120 on my CBR was all the excitement I could handle.

It looks like not many people are watching this page right now. I would expect @Brianhe: to chime in but I think he's busy now; we'lll probably here from him when he gets back. WikiProject Motorcycling is kind of sleepy at the moment, but you can post a note over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling to see if anyone wants to offer an opinion. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution gives the full rundown of the whole process for working out content disputes. In this case I think Wikipedia:Third opinion is probably the logical step. I'm happy to hear what others think about this too. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

120 is pretty fast 156 mph is what that 600 tops out at. By all means ride at your own pace. that's a good read by the way the pace and the pace 2. But at 46 you really should try to go as fast as you can before you get to old to tuck in all hunched over a motorcycle! A little tidbit of info time is relative to speed Time dilation so the faster you go the more time slows down! I think we could all use a little of that LOL! Even if only very small and minute. --72bikers (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2015

New first place holder

I think we have a new claim to top speed record holder thanks to ‎72bikers's addition at Kawasaki Ninja H2. 204 mph recorded by Sport Rider [14]. Thought I'd post here before updating the list, to see if there are any problems with their methodology or whatever. – Brianhe (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The H2R isn't street legal, though. We'd need to have the speed of the H2. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot about that little caveat. It should get honorable mention though :) – Brianhe (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Anybody wants to run with teh big dogs can stack up against FIM 1000 P-P class. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

To pre-empt future confusion, do you know if the Ducati 1199 Panigale R is street legal? It appears to be. And it's probably faster than 193 mph, if we can find a good test. – Brianhe (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't find any top speed tests. Just this: "...you can watch the speed readout on the easy to decipher thin-film-transistor (TFT) instrument display go blank after it passes 186 mph. (MotoGP rider Nicky Hayden, who also attended the launch and who presumably gets an even better drive out of T11, tells us the Panigale R continues to accelerate even after the screen goes blank, suggesting that Ducati has opted out of the gentleman's agreement that electronically limits top speed to 300 kph, or 186 mph.)" Frank, Aaron. "Ducati 1199 Panigale R: the Panigale gets prepped for World Superbike." Motorcyclist July 2013: 46+ --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

its ok i found sources and added it Zachlita (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I would not deny the horsepower or speed. The reference states The R ships with a track-only Termignoni exhaust system that ups power from 195 hp to 202 hp and torque from 98 lb-ft to an even 100. All that raises the top speed from 186 to 202 mph. And also state While the 1199 R is road legal in its stock form. So it come with 2 exhaust one to make street legal and one for the track only that produced the 202 mph. Is this fair to compare to stock street motorcycles? I have made contact with a ducati dealer for confirmation on this and awaiting there reply. 72bikers (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

On the basis that you've not seen it, you might be interested in this. I dug the books out when recalling Dennis Bratland's sub-12 second quarter-mile time for an 810 Dunstall Commando, which I reckon, as a range-topping, exotica-of-the-day, had a 5-speed box with the ultra-low bottom for launch, as tested by CW on the 750s.

I am not au-fait with the present day test-procedures, so you can decide if any of the content is helpful, but from my perspective variations of a few mph on absolute top speed could never be eliminated due to the variables, including rider height/weight/bulk/tuck, except by providing three identical bikes from the same source, ridden by three test riders, with swaps, on the same road/day, with correctly-averaged results.

For the same windage reason, testers historically disfavoured public drag-strip events, which, although convenient, were unrepresentative being one-way, as in England were mostly converted WW2 airstrips, where the runways were aligned into the prevailing wind. For example, the works Norton street-class Commando wearing full road trim returned 12.08 at Santa Pod, and 12.13 at Elvington in 1973, so it was as much the PB times at any particular venue that were targeted for improvement, as the variable weather conditions were the same for everyone on the day and could make a significant difference.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

These lists are nothing but a ranking of published numbers that meet WP:RS. They shouldn't be mistaken for TRUTH. I hope every reader is made aware of the margins of error and testing bias that is behind any comparison. The point of motorcycle testing and measurement is to spotlight these caveats, but it isn't a comprehensive enough article. Any quality information we can add will help everyone know why we shouldn't take test numbers too seriously would be appreciated.

At the same time, Wikipedia is made of what we can verify, not alternative outcomes we can only imagine. It is what it is. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Though I'd prefer to see citations to rigorous, measured speed record testing, not a record based on gearing calculations, consensus seems to be to make the Panigale R the current record holder so I'll work with that. – Brianhe (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with the numbers or the test.

What seem like you are speaking to is how they did the test that is all irrelevent. That is not what I am taking issue to. The fact that you are listing a track motorcycle. That is not street legal in the configuration that is was tested to achieve these result. Is what you seem to be turning a blind eye to! Are you going to include the ninja h2r then to the list as well? The ducati with that track only exhaust is no more legal than the ninja h2r with its track only exhaust. The motorcycles all on that list are street legal stock production motorcycle. You have that stated all at the top of the page . the bike you are listing with those number is a track bike not a street bike it is just that simple lol. It is clearly stated as such in your reference. 72bikers (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

"The fastest production motorcycle for a given year is the unmodified, street-legal motorcycle with the highest tested top speed". The duc is not street legal as tested its just that simple. Your reference states this "While the 1199 R is road legal in its stock form" 2013 Ducati 1199 Panigale R

• Engine: 1198cc, liquid-cooled, Desmodromic L-twin • Power: 195 hp @ 10,750 rpm • Torque: 98.1 lb./ft. @ 9000 rpm "The R ships with a track-only Termignoni exhaust system that ups power from 195 hp to 202 hp and torque from 98 lb-ft to an even 100. All that raises the

top speed from 186 to 202 mph." Its clear as day all right from your reference. Modified non street legal. 72bikers (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Or maybe stock non street legal. If it ships with the termignoni exhaust, then it can be considered as stock. It's something that comes with the bike. But being stock or modified doesn't matter so much, being non street legal would make it unsuitable for this list. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I removed the Ducati from first place. The source says very clearly that it had a track only exhaust and that it hits 186mph without that exhaust. If someone has a different source to states it goes over 193mph in a street legal setup, please link to those sources here, so we can verify them. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

yeah it aint streetlegal i see that now. sorry Zachlita (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Lightning LS-218 not stock

The Lightning LS-218 has been frequently called the new "fastest production motorcycle" because of it's Bonneville run of 218 mph, but according to Motorcycle Daily that run was done "with high speed gearing and fairing." Regearing a bike, changing the fairing, removing lights and mirrors, and other small mods, puts you more or less in FIM 1000 P-P class, not stock. In 2011 a number of readers were saying Leslie Porterfield on a Honda CBR1000RR had set a new production record of 200.137 mph, but though sources reported that as "FIM 1000 P-P unmodified production class", the definition of "unmodified" and "production" is requires hand waving and a wink. A later 1000 P-P record was in 2012, with Valerie Thompson going 197.46 mph on a BMW S1000RR [15], not a Bonneville but in a 1-mile course.

The LS-218 is also made on order, by hand, much like the MTT Turbine Superbike, which doesn't meet our current definition of mass produced. As always, we will create an appropriate list for all these almost-stock, almost-production bikes in due course. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

model year

As the references state 2005 to 2006 that is what I was going by. As far as the zx14 released in 2006 that should not directly reflect the 12 as the 11 was produced up to and including 2001. As I agree that the 12 was not produced in 2006 that simply the 2005 models were still being sold in 2006. This is a unusual case as this does not usually happen. 72bikers (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi 72bikers, thanks for discussing this. So it sounds like you are agreeing with my comment on your talkpage, there was no 2006 model year ZX-12R produced. And it looks like you changed the table back, which is appreciated. – Brianhe (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

images added to the table

because they look nice. I'm missing a couple. Also, I may have put the wrong year, so anyone can locate the missing few, or put a more accurate model, please do. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

new idea...

Why do production bikes have to be street legal? The H2R is clearly a production bike, it just isn't legal on the roads. Just because it seems like the fun thing to do, I think we should change the criteria for the list here, to reflect the true production track only bikes. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

As per consensus, I've removed the mention of bikes having to be street legal, to be included on this list. I waited almost two months for anyone to object, so consensus is quite clear regarding this issue. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm willing to see how this turns out but we've chased our tails a few times before on what would qualify, if a strict "road legal" definition isn't kept. For instance would a spec series race bike like Formula 450 be considered "production"? - Brianhe (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

From what I read about a Formula 450 bike (just now), they don't seem to be very standard. Something that comes direct from the factory however, would be nice to see on this list. It would also be useful to have this list sortable, based on street legality. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Anything that is produced to an identical standard, street legal, track only toy, or racer - if it's production, rather than bespoke, then it should be here. These bikes belong here, as they are obtainable. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course the H2R is the first bike I can think of to add to this list, any other factory bikes that would be fun here? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not a fan of the idea. But as long as it was separated and clearly defined as a not street legal bike. Maybe I guess would be a good idea could include the Ducati 1199 Panigale R with its track only exhaust and it much higher top speed on that list too. 72bikers (talk) 04:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's factory equipment, so why not? Any other track toys that fit the criteria? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

How about Honda RCV1000R - it looks like it meets the definition of production vehicle. Cycle World calls it a "production racer" [16]. Several bikes went 200+ at Indianapolis in mid 2014[17]. Brianhe.public (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Temporary section - Ducati ST series

Any views or objections or consensus on my proposal to merge the Ducati ST pages?

(This seemed a good place to contact the usual suspects; but I suggest this section be deleted after a short period, as it is somewhat off-topic). Arrivisto (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good idea. The usual place for notices is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling. If you want to get fancy, (or formal, if you think there might be controversy), use the merger tags at Wikipedia:Template messages/Merging and it will automatically put the article in Category:Articles to be merged and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling/Article alerts.

There's no need to delete the section; I'll turn on auto-archive. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

New record claim - 400 km/h

According to this, Kenan Sofuoglu went 400 km/h on an unmodified Kawasaki Ninja H2R on the deck of the İzmit Bay Bridge in Turkey on June 30. I don't see any timing apparatus, just a video of his digital speedometer going to 399 then 400. - Brianhe (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure such a claim would be laughed out the door at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but there's only one way to find out. We probably should post this question, and several related ones, at the RS/N to get us back on firmer ground with wider consensus behind the sourcing and claims we accept on the motorcycle speed lists. These motorcycle lists are members of a larger family in Extreme motion and they should probably be brought back in line with the others in the group, using similar criteria and similar standards of sourcing as the others. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

RFC/discussion of article Suzuki Hayabusa#RfC about speed restriction beginning with 2000 or 2001 model year

Hello, List of fastest production motorcycles. As a prominent contributor to Suzuki Hayabusa#RfC about speed restriction beginning with 2000 or 2001 model year, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:Suzuki Hayabusa#RfC about speed restriction beginning with 2000 or 2001 model year, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC) --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of fastest production motorcycles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130218103430/http://www.mvagusta.it/en/contents/f4-1078-rr312 to http://www.mvagusta.it/en/contents/f4-1078-rr312
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cycleworld.com/2012/04/02/fifty-years-of-do-you-have-any-idea-how-fast-you-were-going/2//

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Stock(ish) production H2 record at Bonneville

Now we have a 209 mph record speed certified by the SCTA for the street-legal Kawasaki Ninja H2. Should it replace the record listed for the track-only bike? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

"Only" 299 kph

At least in Germany, all bikes falling under the "Gentlemens Agreement" were restricted to 299 kph; that is also the top speed given in the registration papers. 89.183.27.185 (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Source? Dates? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Suzuki GSX-R 1100 (G-H-J) and Honda CBR1000F removal from the list

My revision (two bikes added) has been canceled because I cited Motorcyclespecs.co.za as a reference, but the site cited MOTOSPRINT as the original source (scanned pages)! It was a very popular magazine in Italy, which had the reputation of carrying out extremely precise and detailed instrumental tests. Claudio Braglia, the director, is also a well-known name in Italian motorcycle journalism. Podz00 (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

That’s actually worse, since it violates WP:COPYLINK. We could cite it and not admit where we read it, but I have to ask why the GSXR they tested is so much faster than other contemporary road tests? Do you read Italian well enough to be sure their bike was bone stock?

Also, why did we believe the Autocar joint test of the FZR at 160mph, but then reduce it to 158 because motispecs.za says so?

I’m fine with the changes if we can avoid the sketchy sources like this .za and that bikez.be, a similar crowdsourced/scraper/copyvio cash grab site. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

My bad, I shouldn't have reported that site, sorry.

Coming to your question, the only "tunings" that have been made to the bikes before the tests concern the calibration of the suspensions, the replacement of the fork oil and the choice of ideal tires (Suzuki has been tested with three different types: Dunlop of original equipment, Pirelli Phantom Sportscomp and Metzeler ME 1). For the rest they are 100% original, so there is no reason to believe that the tests are not reliable.

I don't understand your last comment about motorcyclespecs, because, as I told you, all the data reported by me are taken from Motosprint (254,857 km/h or 158.36 mph for FZR), a professional and trustworthy magazine like few others, I assure you. As for the speed variations, I think it is quite normal that there are differences of a few km/h between one test and another, depending on several factors: altitude, weather conditions, small differences in production between individual units, differences in wear between tested models, aerodynamics influenced by the rider shape, etc. --Podz00 (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

OK. Sounds reasonable. We can cite the magazine as an offline source. It's convenient to offer links to sources on the web, but not mandatory; you probably already know all this.

Wikipedia can't be the final arbiter of truth, and we don't bestow the title of fastest bike. When we create a list like this, we're culling information from various sources and picking which ones to go with. It's important to try to let readers know that without pushing disclaimers into articles. The best case scenario is when a reputable source like the Guinness Book or a major media outlet chooses to call a bike "fastest production bike" or whatever, and we can attribute it to them in the text.

This is one of my pet topics; I wrote a whole essay: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to settle bar bets. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. To be honest I'm still not very familiar with Wikipedia (the editing part, obviously), so sometimes I make some mistakes.

I corrected the page by citing only the offline source. Is it ok like this? --Podz00 (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure. I put back the 1989 racer for now. It would be nice if we could get a 1987 in stock form, but it's adequate. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2020

1958-1970 Harley Davidson XLCH had a top speed of 120 MPH which was documented in Hotrod magazine test November 1966. Bullitt65 (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NJD-DE (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Bullitt65, Njd-de - I have added a row for XLCH as I have a 1965 UK road test with a top speed of 122mph: "It had the most cubic centimeters of capacity, the most comfort and the highest top speed of any of the standard production bikes we have tested—122 mph." Also mentioned is that no 650 would live with it on the climb up Snaefell, when used attending the 1965 TT races (Snaefell Mountain Course). Stated to be 55 bhp (claimed), same as a Vincent Shadow spec. The price is quoted as 800 GB Pounds, more than twice that of a Triumph Bonneville 650 or Norton 650/750, as anything American was deemed luxury goods in the post-war economy.

As I tried to explain relating to Engineer boot (written by seemingly a Swiss national living and working in the Carolinas, who had assumed that American footwear was readily available in UK), we could not buy any clothing for similar reasons; particularly American helmets, which in any case were not approved by British Standards, hence could not be advertised/sold for road use, meaning they could not be imported in large-enough quantities to be economically viable. Even by 1977, the largest retailer was still marking Bell Star as for competition use only.

Editors are also reminded that there is an anomaly in the List where the 1979 Dunstall Suzuki CS1000 was road tested at 153 mph and would slot into a five-year niche; can be seen/verified at this Bonhams sale archive, with a few more bits at this Google search. The speed appears as crude lettering stuck on to the side panels. I sold the Motorcycle News edition to the (then) owner of the actual road test machine around 12 years ago. It helps knowing these aspects.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Rocknrollmancer: About the Dunstall Suzuki GS1000 CS: if it was street legal, sold to the general public and even listed in the Suzuki catalog, I don't see why it can't be added ;)
You should have the Motorcycle News article, but perhaps the title "153 mph The Dunstall Suzuki speeds up!" would be enough. What do you think? --Podz00 (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Podz00 - I'll give it some thought; Dunstall had an arrangement with Suzuki GB that allowed their modified bikes to be covered by the factory warranty (some were just body-kitted). There was a GSX1100 version that followed the 8 valve, but I can't remember that too well. Bri - I was looking at File:Quail Motorcycle Gathering 2015 (17135744583).jpg, and similar at Flickr for early examples with the 'Sportster' legend on the chaincase. Thanks for fixing the link that I left incomplete 8¬(.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Rocknrollmancer: The type of bike seems suitable for the list, it would just be better to have that article on hand to get more information on the test. Let's see what others say... --- I'm not an Harley expert, but the Sportster model in the image you linked, from the code on the engine, should be a 1957 XL (without the 'H'), which features a less powerful engine with a lower compression ratio. However, the look shouldn't be so different, it can be put in place of the current one in my opinion. --Podz00 (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)