Talk:Honda CB900F
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Honda CB900F 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] Cheese alloy
I've reverted the following again,
"The camchain in the cb900f were fabricated from a revoloutionary honda alloy of mild steel and mild cheddar."
but I want to make sure I'm being sane about it. You can't make steel out of cheese... can you? :-) -FrankTobia (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] misinformation on weight 3/26/2008
The "dry weight" figure is completely wrong & also a misquote. According current wording: 5 gallons of gasoline(30 lbs. by itself), 4.6 quarts of oil, 32 oz. of fork oil, about a gallon of coolant, a battery & some brake fluid all together weighs in at 30 pounds. This contradicts VERY, VERY BASIC math(simple addition).
This assertion is supported by Sportrider's own numbers of 455lbs. "dry" & 485lbs. "wet". The 30 lb. difference is the same weight as a full tank(5 gallons in this case) of gasoline. This is inconsistent with the concept of "dry weight" as currently quoted which requires ALL weight from fluids be removed.
Sportrider does not even claim to do true "dry weight" measurements but, a different measurement they refer to as "no fuel".
To quote Sportrider: "These charts contain fuel consumption data, measured rear-wheel horsepower and torque, and measured wet and dry (no fuel) weights."
http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_weights_measurements/index.html
--Kendog29 (talk) 05:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's fine, but we will specify that in the article so it's not to confuse a reader. Secondary sources are still more important. Roguegeek (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Rougegeek... I checked out the revise. We've already confirmed from Sportrider's own admission that they NEVER, EVER measured the "dry weight" of the bike & therefor are NOT a source on the issue(secondary or otherwise). If you insist on the 455lb. number you need to remove the term "dry weight" all together. ESPECIALLY since it's linked to the definition of the term by which 455 pounds is very clearly the wrong number. It's better than the previous total misquote but, it certainly serves to "confuse the reader" as it is written now.
You still TOTALLY misquoted dry weight AGAIN in your edit revert in the specs chart on the page also. Your "secondary source" is totally invalid here as they to OPENLY admit to half-measures in their data collection of dry weight right a the top of the page containing the data. What Sportrider very loosely refer to as dry weight by their own admission is clearly something very different than the widely accepted definition for that term. The only valid source provided so far is the one I provided, which does NOT say 455 pounds. I reverted your chart edit.
3 TIMES you've edit reverted accurate data(from a reputable source where numbers basically add up) to inaccurate data(from a source that states that it is not actually doing the specific measurement you are quoting it as doing & numbers that clearly don't add up by >40%). We all make mistakes but, stubbornly edit reverting to a clear error repeatedly????
Some thoughts on the secondary source issue:
In all Wikipedia entries for specific models of motorcycle, "manufacturer" service manuals(a primary source) should be the #1 source for hard technical specifications. Why? Because there often are no secondary sources that actually checked the figures for themselves. About all secondary sources get their technical specification figures from the manufacturer as it's impractical to actually measure independently.
Consider this. Does Sportrider or any periodical really have enough extra manpower/money to disassemble engines & independently confirm an engine bore & stroke(displacement), cam profiles, or throttle body diameter, tolerances, etc.?? NO, they just quote the maker. Using dry weight as another example. Once fluids are added there's a lot of expense involved in getting them all completely out again which is why Sportrider NEVER did it. That Sportrider weight list is long. They'd have to drain fluids from every bike on the list then, clean & dry every internal part that was bathed in motor oil, coolant, grease & brake fluid. The only way to do that is tear most of each bike apart. Sportrider is surely NOT doing all that & they admit as much.
I'd go as far to say that about nobody is doing it. I'd bet that even independent service manuals(Haynes/Clymer) written by people who SOMETIMES took apart the bikes themselves use manufacturer specs & tolerance data heavily.
Bottom line:
The idea/rule of "secondary sources are still more important" does NOT hold up for the purpose of specific machine hard technical specifications. Up to date manufacturer technical service manuals(a primary source) are very highly accurate. They are not opinion oriented. Published, properly derived, independent measurements of the specific figures are costly & therefor often do not exist at all. Absence of secondary sources makes the manufacturer service manuals(primary sources) perfectly valid. The burden-of-proof rightfully belongs on the potential secondary sources in significantly contradicting manufacturer service manual hard specification figures. They only occasionally meet that burden.
--Kendog29 (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I think the bottom line is that you need to find another secondary source that shows otherwise. Policy clearly states all article should live and breath from secondary sources, so your idea of technical articles being confirmed by a primary source is just flat out wrong. If a secondary source exists, it's a more valid source.
- Power, torque, and weight... these are practically subjective and should always be backed up by a reliable secondary source, which I have done. Show a more reliable and updated secondary source, and the info can be changed. Until then, do not overwrite secondary source information with primary source information.
- Also, you "confirming" with Sport Rider is considered original research and is not valid enough to change information here. Again, I think you need to read up on the policy a little bit more. I also encourage you to seek help from an admin or even use the {{helpme}} tag to request more help. I any case, I'm glad we are discussing here instead of having some useless edit war. Roguegeek (talk) 05:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] ??Predecessor??
In the American market, the 1994 1995 CB1000(BIG ONE) is a very reasonable pick. The old CB9000's were from several years previous(to about 1981 or 1983). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendog29 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
