Talk:Kawasaki Ninja H2

Supercharger type

Kawasaki's written press materials from Intermot say scroll-type supercharger, but cutaway photos like this clearly show centrifugal, as was reported earlier. — Brianhe (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Similarly the page says the supercharger is driven via a 2 speed dog clutch. As best I can tell this is based on interpretations of patents taken out by Kawasaki. This doesn't necessarily mean the H2 or H2R MUST use all elements of the patent and I'm yet to see anything else to back up the use of a 2 speed supercharger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.134.236 (talk) 09:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC) In fact, the patent applications specifically talks about a relief valve, which is used to regulate pressure. A 2-speed system isn't needed then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1000:1301:85BB:BE0C:CF12:7FAB (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The article accurately describes what Keven Cameron wrote, and the circumstances of his analysis. There isn't any need to belabor the point. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

An unsigned Nov 5 Sport Rider article said the production bikes use a one speed supercharger, despite the patent drawings. This is in contradiction to others e.g. Jensen Beeler in Nov 4 Asphalt&Rubber says it's "designed to have" a 2-speed charger. Article may need revision, or we can wait for more specs and analysis to confirm. — Brianhe (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't find ANYTHING (not even amongst Kawasaki's own marketing materials) other than Keven Cameron's speculative article that mentions a two speed supercharger and yet this 'fact' appears several times in the article. I'm not going to change the page because I want to see how long this type of rubbish can stay online. There's nothing wrong with speculation but it should be clearly labelled as such and removed if found wrong when the facts are known. Wikipedia can be very good indeed but I'm surprised that given all the pre launch interest in the bike and the evolution of the article that it currently is such garbage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.126.255 (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you're correct about the two-speed, but I think this article is clear enough that it is based on preliminary speculation. New bikes of unproven importance, especially bikes sold in tiny numbers, aren't that important to me. There are a dozen other motorcycling articles that need work and are a higher priority to me, mostly because they are historically influential. I don't mind waiting a year or two and then going and seeing what the consensus of the sources is before I update an article on a new bike. But it sounds like this is important to you so please go ahead and collect the information from the sources and fix the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK nom

Nominated for DYK on September 10, 2014: Template:Did you know nominations/Kawasaki Ninja H2

Top speed

So the IOM result of 206 mph was maybe from the rider's cell phone running a cycling app called Strava (!), according to recently added IOMTT.COM, source #28. I was hoping it was a pro-quality GPS logger so we could quote the top speed at List of fastest production motorcycles. But I don't think this is really a quality instrument for claiming a world record. — Brianhe (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, for a superlative like a track record you need quality sourcing. Saying well, it's "unofficial" is kind of a weasly fig leaf covering the fact that it's a poorly sourced claim. The source is just pre-race hype anyway, anticipating that he will set an official record, measured on actual datalogging equipment and not a cell phone app. Wikipedia can wait until that happens and then cover it. The principle to me is WP:EXCEPTIONAL; a superlative like a record should be really solid, or it should be highly notable for other reasons e.g. the unofficial Glenn Curtiss speed record. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, the way the lead compares the H2R with the fastest production motorcycles is misleading; it's not in that class. The H2 is a comparable bike, and 200 hp is not 50% more than bikes in that range. Shouldn't we be comparing the H2R with track-only bikes and the H2 with street legal bikes? I tried to rewrite it a bit but it still needs work. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I felt OK about adding an unofficial time from pro quality datalogger under heavily observed conditions (also with a trap speed quoted somewhere) reported by the tech team. But a self-reported figure from the rider's own consumer phone (with uknown sky coverage and other issues) is a no-go to me. — Brianhe (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

By what rationale do you delete a piece from one article, whilst allowing ostensibly the same content to remain, including the use of a wikilinked "datalogging" and "unofficial" descriptions (both exactly as have been deleted) - written by the editor immediately above - in List of fastest production motorcycles a few days previously??

Either delete both or allow both to exist. Despite several hours passing by to allow the remaining content to be amended without any movement, I still cannot easily see why this is being allowed to stay as-is. What WP:**** 'rule' does this selective deleting/reversion fall under???--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. I fixed it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

ThanQ.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Reopened discussion at Talk:List of fastest production motorcycles#New first place holder with a new citation and a slightly higher top speed. Brianhe (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Maker of race leathers

Regarding this change: this is an article about a motorcycle. I don't see how the name of the manufacturer of one rider's suit on one specific event is important. Comments? – Brianhe (talk) 05:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The suit was made special just for him and his record attempt and is no less significant than the special Pirelli tires information made just for this event you left in. If you know anything about high speed motorcycling then you would know how important Aerodynamic drag plays into this. 72bikers (talk) 06:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

This amount of detail is BS - WP is supposed to be para-phrasing and a summary of the salient points, not quoting every little detail parrot-fashion. There is no need to include the manufacturer - by stating that the suit was made for him personally is WP:OBVIOUS - he is of very small stature, probably could not get a set from the regular store to fit exactly, and would not be wearing someone else's leathers, even if he was the same proportions as Max Biaggi (my comments here could be regarded as WP:SYNTH, but it's not in article-space). It breaches WP:PROMOTION - he is contracted to the clothing business Rev'It! [sic - with the exclamation mark] for normal purposes - we don't need to promote this Dutch business. It also implies that his normal race-suit is poorly-aerodynamic, which in itself breaches WP:SYNTH, and by singling-out the maker it also implies no other manufacturer could make an aerodynamic suit as good as they could.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Your response only seems like a effort to pile on as your points seem baseless. As I have pointed out already the suit was made special just for him and his record attempt as this speed is far above normal race speeds and is no less significant than the special Pirelli tires information made just for this event you left in. If you know anything about high speed motorcycling then you would know how important Aerodynamic drag plays into this.72bikers (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Needless to say I wholeheartedly agree with Rocknrollmancer. It is hoped that we can reach consensus, perhaps with 1-2 more editors or more weighing in. - Brianhe (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed as to more editors weighing in that is what Wiki is based on. My stance is that the suit was as or even more important than the tires which were rightly named. Because like the suit they were one off made special just for the event and the speeds achieved, and both were critical to the speed achieved. I would also like to point out that I am only trying to provide the reader with a neutral point of view WP:NPOV of all the information that is sourced. I say this because my motives seem to have been unjustly brought into question. I would also point out that mancers motives seem to be derived solely from his unsupported opinion WP:OR, that the speed achieved was false and just some promotional stunt put forth by Kawasaki. When all sources even the go to source in the motorcycle world, Cycle World report it was Kenan Sofuoğlu who had the dream to try and hit 400 kph, and all report he did accomplish this. And as reported it was his idea to attempt this as apposed to being put up to it by Kawasaki as a promotional stunt. And because of his unsupported opinion he is constantly trying to belittle and tear down this information brought to the readers.72bikers (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Battlegrounding and article ownership

72bikers has been regularly immediately reverting/overwriting content at this (and at least one other article} for many months now, providing evidence of OWNership of the article and much non-neutral-point-of-view contrary to WP:NPOV by quoting alleged secondary-sources which are based on a professional Kawasaki video stunt made for entertainment-only. The video stunt was professionally made with many staged camera angles and could be far from the actual claimed speed that 72bikers is desparately trying to establish in a hommage to Kawasaki and their rider.

Even though the so-called secondary sources are based on the Kawasaki Primary sourced press-releases, this only makes for a distorted Wikipedia article in that WP is now being manipulated by Kawasaki through 72bikers, which is maybe exactly what they wanted. I will list the breaches of policy/guidelines/essays later. This type of gross over-emphasis of trivia contained in the prose is what takes up much editor-time when editors should be contributing elsewhere. Constant search-engine trawling only swamps the article with more secondary sources that are re-hashing the same old initial content as promoted by Kawasaki.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Just because I regularly check my watchlist or remove edits that changed sourced content for unsourced content, does not mean evidence of OWNership of the article. But I think it is you who feel ownership of the article and from your talk page I am not the first to state this. I also believe it is clearly you who are editing on a non-neutral-point-of-view contrary to WP:NPOV by providing no sources for your opinions WP:OR. And your repeated attempts to belittle the information solely based on your own opinion (OR). None of the information is based on a Kawasaki press release as you have asserted. In fact I would challenge you to show this Kawasaki Primary sourced press-releases, that you say all this information is based on and that I am being manipulated by. Your groundless statements that I am being manipulated by Kawasaki is clearly your inept attempt to make a personal attack on me. This all boils down to one simple fact with your statement and could be far from the actual claimed speed it is your unsupported belief (OR) this motorcycle is incapable of this speed. Your repeated attempt to have the heading say claims instead of attempt is further proof. And as I have pointed out claims by definition means this state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof. Also now evident by your attempt to belittle the sourced references. I would also point out your own words taken from your talk page I am the world's worst for acceptance of websites so you are personally bias to any online reference. I would also point out this matter seem to be more of a dislike towards me rather than about the content, by your actions to pile on other conversation on this talk page as well as your conversation about me on your talk page with other editors. 72bikers (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Even though your recent addition there to old comments seem to read like you read this and tried to tone down your comments, your distaste of me still reads through.72bikers (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Piper Cub engine comparison

I like the idea of comparing things to establish scale and context. Generally the less familiar thing, say the Ninja H2, is compared with something many readers are familiar with, say a common Toyota Corolla or their own lawn mower. Common 300-horsepower cars would be a Ford Mustang GT or Dodge Charger R/t. Comparing the engine to a Piper J-3 Cub engine seems kind of arbitrary and out of left field. How many readers have any idea how powerful that even is? Do they know how fast that plane goes, or how much work is required to keep it aloft? If this were an example chosen by a reliable source, I'd respect the source and follow suit, but if it's only something an editor came up with, it's probably not helpful. Can we find a better comparison? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Top speed

FWIW and for those interested, race commentator and ex-racer Neil Hodgson stated on UK television that a new record was set by the (semi-works) Ducati Desmosedici (with rear-suspension lowering device) at 218mph, 17 Oct 2020 at Aragon. Reckoned to be near 300 bhp.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)