Talk:Honda ST1300

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Motorcycling  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorcycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorcycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Brands  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


Doesn't the ST1100 and ST1300 engine derive from the Honda CX series engine? Can there be more info on this in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 842U (talkcontribs) 16:55, 29 January 2008

842U (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

The DMOZ link should probably be on the Honda Motorcycles page instead of here. Most of the links that were wiped out were specific to this model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blrfl (talkcontribs) 23:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Pan Weave[edit]

I have recently bought two ST1300s from North Wales police, and their history indicates that they were in service until at least the end of 2009, and probably into 2010 - which means that not all police forces stopped using these bikes from 2006/2007. Also, I have seen ST1300s in use in Den Haag (Netherlands) - in person - and via (contemporaneous) TV footage in Lisbon, Portugal. This indicates that other forces around the world are using the bikes without having the same problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Were the bikes you bought from North Wales police full dress police bikes with blues & twos and a single seat, or were they civilian-spec bikes used for training purposes. I know that some police forces continued to use the ST1300 for training purposes after the authorities version was withdrawn from service. Unlike the ST1100, there is no factory-produced authorities version of the ST1300. In the UK, civilian bikes were converted for authorities use by Sonic Communications with some work subcontracted to other companies. Authorities versions in other countries are similarly locally produced and therefore may not have the problems that the UK version had. This is strictly original research, but I know first hand that the UK problems relate to weight carried in the rear (electronics hump and panniers) and the bike's tyre choice and tyre pressures - as little as 2psi out and the bike can weave uncontrollably. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I think this discussion is relevant enough to the article to keep, though until good sources are found it is somewhat moot. Perhaps it will shake some sources out. --Dbratland (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Both of these bikes were "blues and twos" - they are silver, but had the single seat and "hump" for the radio package. Also have the "Sonic" stickers and job numbers with lighting/communications wiring loom. Not 100% sure, but they both may have sirens still on them (these are hidden up under the right hand fairing, and exit via the vent by the external temperature sensor). You are right that in the UK ST1300s were all (or at least all the ones I've seen) converted civilian bikes. But, there is a "P" model - if you check at Ron Ayers, in the microfiche, you'll find ST1300Ps, complete with the single seat hump parts and front strobe holders (above the mirror pods). I have seen military escort ST1300s with the the Honda style strobe holders - the police/paramedic versions all have the strobes fitted directly to the mirror pods).
Not sure how one goes about showing a "good source" for this information. The bikes I have show through their history that they have been in service, around 5,000 miles a year, until mid 2009 (and some mileage added after that date, so possibly well into 2010). The bike I saw in Den Haag, er, well, there it is, a Pan European (no camera to hand), and the Lisbon bike was in the background during a news report of a intergovernmental meeting there.
This discussion is akin to the previous one I've engaged in about ST1300s, where I've reported usage by the London Ambulance Service. This we're not "allowed" to enter unless we have a citation. Someone did find a decent source, but it seems a odd position to "know" such things, yet they are not accepted as the truth. If I went to court and made the same statements they would be accepted unless there was some obvious inconsistency or there was contra-evidence.
As to other police uses of the ST1300 - I had three fully civilian bikes from a police force, these were in service up to the end of 2008, but not for patrol/blues & twos. May have been used for training, they were fairly high mileage, so I suspect more likely for surveillance. (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
There are a millions of other web sites where you are free to anonymously publish your observations and ideas and opinions. Why is it a problem that this one web site, out of millions, asks you to supply an independent, third party source? --Dbratland (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
This discussion has nothing to do with anonymity, I'm genuinely happy to put my name next to anything I might add. And we're not talking about ideas and opinions either - it is facts that are under discussion.
In the first two paragraphs of the article as it stands there are about a dozen "facts" that have no citation or corroboration at all. It follows that a third party endorsement is not a requirement for an entry.
If I may make a simple suggestion, and I'm sure it is one that Wikipedia will stand, simple statements or facts stand or fall on their own merits - readers can figure that out for themselves. A statement/fact with a citation is stronger than one without, but that doesn't mean that the latter is worthless.
I recall having this discussion previously, when the article stated that "ST1300Ps" had been withdrawn from service in the UK. This statement was completely unsupported by a citation, and, as it turned out, was completely wrong - because there were never any ST1300Ps in service in the UK, all ST1300s used by UK police forces were straight, civilian bikes that had been converted. But you kept on reversing the edit every time I corrected it - when there was no basis for the original statement, only an assumption by the original contributor. No one had seen an "ST1300PA" sticker on a UK police bike, and there was no evidence of that at all.
It took me and Biker Biker to convince you that the text on this was wrong - which you eventually conceded.
On verification, this is exactly what the guideline say:
"To show that it is not original research, all material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. But in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question."
Writing that other police forces around the world, and UK paramedics and military escorts continue to use ST1300s is not a controversial statement. No one is going to challenge it on the basis that they have conflicting evidence, because the statement are undeniably true. The only person challenging these statement is you - and I think you have to recognise that you cannot possibly know everything there is to know about ST1300s.
The essential problem here is that you are not recognising the difference between simple statements of fact, and "original research" (which may be "opinion"). What you are doing is basically undermining the purpose of wikipedia: to generate a work that comprises the input of many people who have particular specialist interest/knowledge.
I ask again, what is it that would provide "proof" in this area, given that the existing "facts" may well be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I conceded what? You lost me there. Wikipedia's policy is not that "simple statements of facts" require no sources, and only opinions require sources. The definition of what a reliable source is is found in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. --Dbratland (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
To be honest I've now lost track of what the discussion is about. You say there never were any ST1300P bikes in the UK and while that is absolutely true because that model designation was not used, they were still official conversion marketed by Honda - as evidenced by the brochure. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Fuel Tanks[edit]

The ST1100 carries all its 7.4 gallons of fuel below the seat. The ST1300 carries about 5 of its 7.7 gallons above the engine, so the split tank actually raises the CG relative to the 1100 when both bikes are fully fueled. To some degree this is true even when partly empty as an empty 5 gallon steel tank is somewhat heavier than the various plastic bits it has displaced.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 16:44, 19 September 2012