Talk:History of BMW motorcycles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Motorcycling History of BMW motorcycles 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.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 August 2005 – December 2007

Contents

[edit] BMW not based on the Douglas flat-twin

I'm pretty sure that the BMW flat-twins owe nothing to the Douglas (UK) motorcycle of the same layout. It's a long time since I've had a chance to compare them, but they didn't look a bit the same eg [1] - the Douglas is chain-driven! Or [2] TomRawlinson 21:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The M2B15 engine was a fore and aft flat twin based on the Douglas design. It powered chain drive motorcyles including the BMW "Helios" 1921-22. The engine has BMW cast into the crankcase and the fuel tank had BMW "roundel" logos on either side. - See Tragatsch for a detailed photograph. M-72 04:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I've modified the article based on what you've said, hope that is OK. Can we add a reference to "Illustrated History of Motorcycles - Erwin Tragatsch" [3] (assuming that's what you're talking about) in the article, along with page numbers?
I'm puzzled by several references in the article eg "Unit Construction" engines (difficult to imagine an integral gearbox as part of a tunnel crankcase!) and alloy cylinders, though I'd not change these entries. Is it helpful or encyclopaedic to mention that ABC used an across-the-frame design before BMW? TomRawlinson 06:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Even in the BMW Museum the sample R23 has Steel/Iron barrels (maybe steel is an iron alloy). Don't expect facts from the blue and white crowd. They far prefer myths to facts! M-72 15:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry it was R32, hard to keep track amongst the B&W BS!M-72 15:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem with technical accuracy and good writing in this article. Bolted-up sections are not "Unit Construction", quite the reverse. Maybe the very first BMWs did copy the Douglas flat-twin, and (perhaps) it's worth mentioning in the article. But a damaging claim of plagiarism requires a proper reference. The allusion to ABC building earlier flat twins almost certainly doesn't belong in the article (even if it was referenced, which it is not). TomRawlinson 16:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Read BMW's own version of its history as even they admit they copied the Douglas. Be aware that the "official" history is sanitised and neatly omits the war-crimes that nearly led to BMW's dismantling in 1945. It also states that BMWs manufactured in Eisennach were badged EMWs in 1947 when this did not occur until 1950.
As to "bolt-up unit construction", the expression has a long history and neatly denotes the difference between a seperate engine and gearbox where the primary chain is adjusted by gearbox movement and a true unit construction. Unfortunately motorcycle part descriptions are often totally inadequate and misleading, just refer to forks and swingarms as examples.
The reference to the earlier ABC should stay as it is often falsely claimed that BMW was the first to use this layout. Setright rightly points out that BMW was probably influenced by ABC in this matter. M-72 05:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I added the comment about ABC as I was told that "my father saw ABC engines being exported to Germany"..check out the similarity between photos of the two engines Dave Roberts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.210.202 (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry86.135.210.202, not good enough. Sopwith appears to have closed in 1921. Gnome et Rhone is a different matter. BMW has a long histoery of copying, dating back to its origins. If BMW copied anything it was the improved 493 cc G-R engine. M-72 (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
This is an encyclopaedia. We put good, verifiable information into articles. We seem to be short of this in regards to many of the claims made. The phrase "Bolt-up unit construction" may have a long history, and there may be places where it has a useful application, but this is not one of them. Japanese motorcycles are "unit-construction", the boxer BMW is not. You may confirm this for yourself by considering the 1955 Mini, which is unit-construction, quite unlike what cars had been up until that date.
Furthermore, we are not here to knock the subject of articles with nationalist slurs against their country of origin, nor to accuse them of lying about their achievements.
Nor are we here to knock the people who love this marque. If there are false claims in circulation from partisan supporters of BMW, then we put them into a different section headed "Controversy". TomRawlinson 15:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

PerhapsTomRawlinson would like to visit the article unit construction, correct it and then discuss the matter here. He might also do a simple google search on BMW slave labor/labour. M-72 23:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spaces in model names

For convenience (I'm guessing) BMW model names here are written without spaces e.g. R1150GS. However, all BMW's websites, literature and owners manuals refer to the model names with spaces included e.g. R 1150 GS. It may be a little pedantic but it is the official name for the BMW models and therefore I think we should follow that convention on this page. --Cheesy Mike 09:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As an encyclopaedia I think Wikipedia should be factually correct, rather than bow to de facto usage. --Cheesy Mike 17:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, you're entirely correct to say that what appears in the brochure is correct, and editors should follow the exact same practise. I've never left a space, but if you're going to go round and fix everything, then I'll mind your back. TomRawlinson 19:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
So Truth=Anal Retentiveness? --87.189.126.6
Great argument! This side of the pond, the US president is called "fucking loony" pretty universally. Care to renamed his article? (Sorry, that was unecessary) There is also an often met misconception that England equals UK, but it doesn't follow that England should be only a redirection. --87.189.126.6

I am a little disappointed that a perfectly reasonable suggestion on my part has resulted in such pointless responses by both Jeff Dean and whoever 87.189.126.6 is. I will restate that as an encyclopaedia I think Wikipedia should be accurate, but in this case I'm not going to go and make wholesale changes if there isn't widespread support (despite WP:Bold). I would be interested to see what others think. --Cheesy Mike 21:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As usual it's a bit more complicated than people suggest. BMW did not use a space pre-war from all advertising material I've seen. It seems to be a fairly recent introduction, but it may have been country specific at first. Some time after the introduction of the oilheads I think it was universal. I would suggest that no space be used until the date of changeover can be sourced and all models after that date use the space. M-72 23:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I made no suggestions about models other than the ones I changed. In fact, I would be hesitant to change G/S models or anything older without evidence, since the naming style obviously changed then. I think it's safe though to assume spaces for models contemporary to the ones on bmw-motorrad.com, like the R 1200 C. --87.189.116.19

Could someone please rename the articles? As an IP, I can't do it. Thanks. --87.189.116.19

Despite many requests to bar IP editors, the encyclopaedia still permits them (perhaps partly because many/most people's first edits are done anonymously). However, failing to register a name causes problems to other users, and will lead some people to discount or completely ignore your contributions. It also causes you problems, since you'll not have been notified of this addition. TomRawlinson 07:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand that there are problems, that is partly the reason why I do it; I want to learn about the problems. I used to login, but login has it's own problems, and I want to fly anonymous to get a new perspective. --87.189.80.209
Model names without spaces are easier to read. Rodendahl 05:44 17 Jun 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an online Encyclopedia, and I strongly believe it should use the same model names as the maker of the bikes - with the spaces. --84.48.52.216 17:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Revisited - the article didn't have any consistent use of model names which was confusing to the reader. I have gone through and removed spaces from model names so that the article is now 100% consistent. If the consensus is to use spaces the please someone else go through and change every single model name in the article - right back to the R32. --Cheesy Mike (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that great example of Wikiality! WP:SOURCES clearly demand the spaces, yet since the poll says otherwise, the article is left with errors. --87.189.62.202 (talk)
There is little point in changing just one section of the article. It has a negative effect on the article's readability. So fix all or fix none. --TimTay (talk) 10:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
You now know that large parts of the article are wrong. Fix them, not the one that aren't. --87.189.62.202 (talk)
I think you are doing the right thing looking for consensus on the all the BMW motorcycle articles. If consensus can be reached on the use of spaces, and my stance will be to oppose, then all article names and references to models within those articles (and this one) should be changed. Until then I think it is best not to make any changes. I have requested discussion at the Motorcycles wikiproject as it may attract others to contribute an opinion. --TimTay (talk) 10:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Why would consensus be necessary if primary sources are more than clear? WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY --87.189.62.202 (talk)
We had a similar discussion in the aircraft project here [4] recently. The wiki search engine can find 'DH 82' as the top hit (the convention that the aircraft project uses for de Havilland aircraft) but does not find 'DH82' directly, if I was seaching for a BMW bike I would type it in without the spaces. Out of interest, I just looked through four motorcycle encyclopedias (from different publishers) and none of them used spaces. Then again looking at photos of an R 100 RT this is how the name appears on the sidepanels. So, accurate yes but probably not convenient. Nimbus227 (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should include falsehoods only because Mediawiki's search engine is lacking. I'm also sure that something can be found that would solve this problem, either a hack like redirects (which we should have anyway) or a more fundamental solution. Again, we should not forfeit accuracy for convenience.
I know that the wrong way is widely used, but the primary source is unambigious. Also, the better news services use spaces: [5] [6] [7] --87.189.62.202 (talk)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

BMW (motorcycles) → BMW Motorrad — The name of the BMW subsidiary is BMW Motorrad, I believe the subject matter of this article is the motorcycle manufacturer, not the motorcycles and the title should reflect that —Chris Ssk talk 10:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your arbitary change to the name because it is an article about BMW motorcycles. Refer to the earliest edit. If you want an article about the company, write one, but don't hijack this article for the purpose. While you're at it write an article about the twin BMW companies of 1945-50. M-72 (talk) 03:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.
  •  Oppose - Article should stay at BMW (Mototorcycles), see discussion below. Andrewa (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Article should stay at BMW (Mototorcycles), see discussion below. M-72 (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support - Article is clearly about a company, it's products, and it's history. Roguegeek (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 Comment - In process of gathering additional editors to chime in. This survey should last at least a week. Roguegeek (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh Yes! Let's have an edit war! You bloody wanker! How many editors do you have? I'll raise you five! Go and write a new article and stop hijacking existing articles. BMW Motorrad is an AfD. Stop stealing the real article - BMW (motorcycles). And that is from the anti-B&W crowd. M-72 (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a policy on personal attacks which you definitely need to read. You've been warned on your talk page and the next warning will more than likely lead to banning for a specific time. Roguegeek (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia also has a policy that states that discussion should take a few days, which last time I looked was less than a week. This is a contraversial request that involves more than two editors and should go to arbitration. M-72 (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia certainly has no policy that states that discussion should take a few days if by that you mean we need to go to arbitration just because no consensus is reached in that time. So I'm relisting it, in accordance with the moving guidelines for administrators. If you wish, you can of course invoke dispute resolution at any time, but IMO if we jump straight to arbitration we'll just be told to go through the earlier steps first. Andrewa (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose
  1. English site, english title
  2. I think the original name refers to bikes, and not the company as a whole. Perhaps I'll write a BMW Motorrad article while we're waiting for the final decision
  3. BMW Rocks!
EllanMcmurph (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:

Disagree that the article is about the company, although that's what the current lead would indicate. It's primarily about the motorcycles, and we do need an article about the motorcycles. The organisation is after all mainly notable because of the bikes! Andrewa (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the article started out about the motorcycles it should stay about the motorcycles. A new article can be created for the current company and it's several incantations by someone interested in that. They can then write histories of every other motorcycle company if they so want. Indian would be most interesting. Anyway, wouldn't a BMW Motorrad section be more appropriate under the main BMW article. M-72 (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that's completely ridiculous to think an article can't grow into something larger. Roguegeek (talk) 10:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Nobody is suggesting that. The question is whether the topic of this particular article should be changed, not whether an article in general can grow. The existing topic (the bikes) is encyclopedic, and that should be the end of it; If you think we want an article on the proposed new topic (the organisation), then there's nothing stopping you writing it. But this particular case is even plainer, as the existing topic is what gives the proposed new topic most of its relevance. If it weren't for the bikes, most of us would neither have heard of nor be interested in for the organisation, if it even existed which is doubtful. So if this new article were to be created, there's every risk it would be AfDd and the result would likely be to merge it either to the bikes article or to the parent company article, or a bit of both.
In summary, the organisation is of marginal interest except as a manufacturer of motorcycles, while these bikes are one of the most notable marques. In view of that, what's the problem with the name and topic both staying as they are? Andrewa (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually only the title needs to be changed the article already is about the manufacturer even if you guys don't see it. reading the article is obvious. It talks about BMW's history starting as an aircraft engine manufacturer then moving to making motorcycles, loosing its facilities in WWII and having to start over and the models and innovations the manufacturer introduced over the years, financial difficulties etc. Chris Ssk talk 12:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I just double checked, but I disagree that the current article is mainly about the company. It's mainly about the bikes... as it should be, since that's the article title, and looks likely to remain so. What's the problem with creating a new article on BMW Motorrad AG if you feel so strongly that one is needed? Andrewa (talk) 10:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone actually tell me when the company BMW Motorrad AG came into existence? And can anyone tell me about the TWO BMW firms operating in the late 1940's? BMW has been an aircraft, motorcycle and automobile manufacturer. BMW Motorrad is a fairly modern concern. You can change the name to BMW Motorrad, but everything prior to the commencement of BMW Motorrad AG will need to be removed as it is not relevant to the new company. The article started out and is still about BMW motorcycles no matter which BMW made them. There might be a need for a BMW Motorrad AG article, but that article will not be entitled to talk about the prior works of BMW as opposed to BMW Motorrad AG. M-72 (talk) 02:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont think BMW Motorrad is an AG its a BMW AG subsidiary. As for a date. Accorting to the official website BMW Motorrad came into existence in 1923[8] Chris Ssk talk 15:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
So, let's get this right. By your statements it would seem that you are proposing to change the name of the article to that of a non-existant company that doesn't manufacture motorcycles instead of the name of the company that does manufacture motorcycles followed by the qualifier (motorcycles) to distinguish this article from the more general BMW article that is primarily about cars. Is that correct? If there is no company BMW Motorrad that manufactures motorcycles, then why change the name of the article in the English language wikipedia to BMW Motorrad which is merely the German language equivalent? I think there are a few WP points on that. M-72 (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
No actually you got that completely wrong. BMW Motorrad is a company that manufactures the BMW Motorcycles. BMW Motorrad however is not an AG(Public company) but a subsidiary. A subsidiary is a company that is controled by a parent company. As for BMW Motorrad merely being the German language equivalent of BMW motorcycles. No, its not. BMW Motorrad is the manufacturers name and it is used like that in English speaking countries. The motorcycles are sold by BMW Motorrad USA in the USA[9] and BMW Motorrad UK in the UK [10] Chris Ssk talk 03:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's try this. What is the brandname of the motorcycles manufactured by Bayerische Motoren Werke AG? Last time I looked they were branded BMW. Just had a look in the garage and the roundel says BMW not BMW Motorrad. (And yes I do know that BMW owns Husqvarna and that it treats it as a separate entity.) When people look for information on BMW motorcycles they don't go looking up BMW Motorrad motorcycles. The article started and still remains about BMW motorcycles, not cars and not the BMW corporate structure. M-72 (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The motorcycle manufacturer is called BMW Motorrad that makes BMW brand motorcycles. Its common practice products of two companies that belong (or used to belong) in the same group to make products under the same Brand name. Yamaha Corporation makes all sorts of musical instruments and electronics branded Yamaha and Yamaha Motor Company makes Yamaha branded motorcycles. Both use the same tuning fork logo, Husqvarna motorcycles srl makes Husqvarna branded motorcycles and Husqvarna AB makes Husqvarna branded chainsaws, Both use the same Husqvarna logo as do many other Husqvarna companies. Mitsubishi Group companies make all sorts of products under the brand name Mitsubishi and use the three-diamond Mitsubishi mark.
Where do you base your claim that people don't look for BMW Motorrad? and even if they dont, isn't this article's purpose as an encyclopedic article to inform them that BMW motorcycles are made by BMW Motorrad, a BMW AG subsidiary Chris Ssk talk 22:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Caution

Although the usual link to Wikipedia:naming conventions has been removed, there seems no reason they shouldn't be considered relevant to this discussion.

I'm also a bit wary of the suggestion above that others are being lobbied. This is not the normal way to build consensus. Andrewa (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] No Alloy heads or barrels

The photos of the R32 clearly shows iron heads and barrels. Unless someone can find a photo verifying alloy heads and barrels or some other verifiable reference I will modify the section to agree with the photo.M-72 (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Have modified the section M-72 (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BMW Motorrad article

So since the editors who edit this article regularly think this article is about the history of BMW motorcycles, I'm going to take their advice and spin off an article that's specific to the company. This being the case, I'm going to start removing company info from this article and into the BMW Motorrad article. I wanted to get feedback before any of this started just to know if I'm stepping on anyone's toes. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The page is 42 kilobytes long so its within the limits for a split, I think turning this into "History of BMW motorcycles" and take models, engines, technologies, etc. to a new BMW Motorrad article is a good idea. Chris Ssk talk 01:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:BMW Logo.svg

The image Image:BMW Logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BMW Motorrad instead of BMW (motorcycles)

Isn't it more specific to put this article as BMW Motorrad instead of BMW (motorcycles)? The designation "Motorrad" is BMW's official name for their motorcycle division; why don't we do it here? Luigi6138 (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I proposed the change about a month ago, see the archived discussion above. Chris Ssk talk 01:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This is true. Editors (not including myself) already agreed that this article would be an article on BMW motorcycle history only and that a separate article about the company specifically would be created. That article will be the title of the company, BMW Motorrad, and, since no one has really responded to my topic discussion above, I'm probably going to get started on it sometime this weekend. Roguegeek (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The entire set of BMW articles is a schemozzle - a mess! It needs consolidation and correction and most of you wankers do NOTHING! This comment is deliberately offensive because I repeatedly see those that will and do not! Be BOLD! Go forth and do SOMETHING! But cease to harangue us! Start by looking at every "BMW" article including History of BMW and do better. You will be corrected - and isn't that for the good! M-72 (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Chris Ssk talk didn't like what I said, so I'll translate it into an English that most can understand. "If you want a bloody BMW Motorrad article, write the damned thing and leave the rest of us Luddites] alone. M-72 (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
This isnt your article, others have every right to edit it. See WP:OWN. Having 2 articles on basically the same subject so you can have your own article makes no sense. If you want a BMW article only you can edit go make your own web page or something. If you dont want it edited, don't submit it to wikipedia. Chris Ssk talk 15:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It isn't nice to be sore about it either, and attack others. See WP:NPA. Luigi6138 (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
And it's even less nice to imply intent that may not be apparent. As a matter of interest, who made you God? M-72 (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)