Talk:Yamaha YZF-R1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Motorcycling Yamaha YZF-R1 is within the scope of the Motorcycling WikiProject, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of motorcycles and motorcycling. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

[edit] Totally disputed

Examples:

  • Starting with the FZR1000 in 1988, Yamaha introduced several motorcycle engineering firsts including the boxed aluminum "DeltaBox" frame, - This is not the case, as in 1987 the FZR400 had a deltabox!
  • When it was first introduced it was considered a groundbreaking design - WP:NPOV problem
  • It was on par with the power output ratings of its competition but it was unique with its unprecedented agility. - WP:NPOV and WP:RS problem
  • The key in the R1's success - WP:NPOV and WP:RS problem
  • which in turn led to the exceptional handling - WP:NPOV problem
  • The R1 was dominant for three years before the competition could catch up to its level - WP:NPOV and WP:RS problem
  • but it was only in 2001 that the R1 was truly beaten, by the Suzuki GSX-R 1000, which weighed about the same but produced much more horsepower and torque. - WP:NPOV and WP:RS problem
  • An ingenious fuel injection system was introduced for the 2002 year - WP:NPOV problem
  • The 2004 R1 produces 172 hp at the crankshaft - WP:RS problem
  • giving it a theoretical 1:1 power-to-weight ratio - WP:RS problem
  • In 2006 the Yamaha R1 expanded its output to 175 hp - WP:RS problem
  • The 2006 model year for the R1 is groundbreaking - WP:NPOV problem

There are WP:NPOV and WP:RS issues all over this article. It sounds more like a press release than actual encyclopedic info. Facts need to be backed up by a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia and power words like "groundbreaking", "exceptional", "truly", etc.. need to be avoided all together. Opinions simply shouldn't exist here. The "performance" section needs a reliable, unbiased source. The entire article really just needs a complete rewrite in order to exist here. I'll start on this soon if no one else does first. :) --Roguegeek 00:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific Unit Confusion

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

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

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

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

[edit] Inconsistent Specification

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