Talk:Kawasaki Ninja ZX-14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Motorcycling (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Brands  
WikiProject iconThis 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.

Flagship? also Gentlemen's Agreement?[edit]

i'm just a motorbike fan who's not well informed enough to actually make these changes, but i noticed a couple of inconsistencies across the hypersport pages. Firstly, both this page and the page on the ZX-12R claim that the bike in question in Kawasaki's flagship hypersport. By definition, the company can only have one flagship, so either one of the articles is wrong, or the company has no flagship currentlt. Also, this article mentions a gentlemen's agreement between Kawasaki and Suzuki regarding top speed, though other pages indicate that Honda is also a part of this agreement. If Honda is indeed party to the agreement, then perhaps the wording should be changed to indicate this. If not, then there are a number of other pages that need to be corrected which imply that Honda is party to it.

  • bmcassagne: I bleieve that the ZX-14 is the new flagship model and possibly the Kawasaki site does not reflect this yet.

Top Speed, Quarter mile[edit]

The quarter mile time can be verified from different webistes, here is one of them, [23] I have made some additions to the 0-62 mph standing quarter mile, and top speed data. it can be verified from [24] [25] [26]I would also like to thank my beloved Sharon for helping me out :D (Fireblade)

I removed those numbers from the spec because they aren't specified by kawasaki. They still are in the introduction. --Marc Lacoste 09:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I posted the new separate 1/4 mile section as an interesting addition to show how powerful the new zzr1400 is as stock bike. With small changes (known to us how to do them with reasonable cost) it is a rocket. Section was removed because source unknown. Here the original kawasaki zzr1400 quarter mile time slip from last weekend —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 17 August 2006

  • Several sites state quarter mile times of 9.2 sec for a stock bike at about 147 mph. - bmcassagne
  • Actually 9.2 is with some mods. Very good riders are getting close to 9.0 sec with exhaust and power commander from what I've seen, and having the front end strapped and lowered. Stock is more like 9.6-9.7 sec. - bmcassagne

unrestricted top speed[edit]

I think it should be noted that there is no Goddamn way this bike goes 220 MPH on stock power. 195 or maybe 200, but thats a far cry from 220. Yes, there is a gentelmen's agreement restricting hypersport motorcycles to 300 Km/h (this is noted, and it should be), no this one will not do 220 uncorked. none of the links provided support this claim, and I think that the article should be changed to say: "The top speed is restricted electronically to 187 mph (300 km/h) according to a gentlemen's agreement." don't make any claims unless they can be backed up.

Agreed there is no back up to the 220 mph claim (for now) so I have changed it (Fireblade)
Top speed on the salt flats found to be 190-195mph (bmcassagne)

Roguegeek 27 September 2006 edits[edit]

I disagree with some of them:

  • infobox : OK (but I prefer the flexible thumb size)
  • manufacturer defined specs : They were already, with the source - Kawasaki UK, the only official reference for the important power spec - and a better presentation, using html definition lists.
  • reference format : OK (just put Template:Footnotes)
  • basic external links : were already in the references, including various english speaking official pages. I avoid external links instead of references to have a higher quality, to discourage forums & blogs posts.

So I revert to the infobox version --Marc Lacoste 10:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Never thought of NOT putting an "external links" section in an article, but I absolutely love the reasoning behind that. Pretty positive I'll make that a normal practice when I do editing going forward. This was a good discovery for me. What I would be a little hesitant about is putting power, torque, and any other subjective information up without something explaining it or disclaiming it. They are subjective because the test could be ran 10 times and you'll get 10 different results. I'm not going to remove it, but I would like to here some editor's thoughts on this subject. The one change I will make is removing the link/ref in the section name of specs and place the reference in the body of the section with a disclaimer of "manufacturer claimed" or something close to it. Linking in a section title is highly discouraged as per Manual of Style WP:MSH. Roguegeek (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Glad to see you found the references preference sound, I'll propose that as an incentive guideline, I'll be happy to read your thoughts. But perhaps I had gone too far: I tried to remove all bad sources and leave almost only manufacturer's websites; then I added every english-speaking country for equality, and tried to give each a fact to reference to justify them. It isn't very pretty. But motoring related subjects drain a lot of novice wikipedians linking to unverifiable websites in good faith.
The power of an engine is factual: sample variation can occur, but it's minor in front of test bench variabilities (not even counting bad conversions), so the official manufacturer claim is justifiable. If there is other claims, a good treatment is possible, like in Yamaha_YZF-R6#Controversy. I haven't seen WP:MSH, thanks. --Marc Lacoste 22:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

POV and source problems[edit]

I labeled a couple of statements with the {{fact}} and {{ POV-statement }} tags. Would like to hear feedback.

  • It competes with the Honda CBR1100XX and the Suzuki GSX1300R, but seems to have made them obsolete, and led to rumors of Suzuki updating its Hayabusa.
  • Top speed is restricted electronically to 300 kilometers per hour (187 mph) according to a gentlemen's agreement between Kawasaki and Suzuki.
{{ POV-statement }}
  • With an experienced rider,[neutrality disputed] this bike can reach 100 kilometers per hour from a standing start in under 2.5 seconds,
  • Although the ZX-14 has almost unprecedented straight line performance,its relatively hefty weight means that it still cannot seriously challenge the current 1000 cubic centimeter sportsbike class in a racetrack environment (including Kawasaki's own ZX-10R).

Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

justified --Marc Lacoste 21:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Is there any difference between 2006 and 2007 models for removing the higher resolution image?.
Well I agree with the statement about the heft making it slow in the racetrack enviroment, and I've seen it carried out many times (with Hayabusa's at least) I couldn't find you a source stating that. I do remember reading a couple of bike magazine's reviews of the bike that stated as much (it's strictly common sense as well). Maybe someone more industrious than I could grab a source.--BHC 06:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Roaring Toyz ZX-14[edit]

I can't find any independent news media that mention that Kawasaki commissioned a custom ZX-14 or explain why it matters. They wanted a bike with a lot of bling on it to turn heads at their booth at Daytona. So what? Namedropping alone on Fifth Gear doesn't establish why it's worth informing the whole wide world that this custom bike existed. There's a million custom bikes made every year. Is there or isn't there an independent source that says this custom bike mattered because ____________ ? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Why no metric?[edit]

Seriously, the only three countries in the world which are not using the metric system are Liberia, Myanmar and United States of America. I don't write this because i want (whatever you are using) excluded, but perhaps the system that 98,5% of the world are using should be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaffeburk (talkcontribs) 03:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

No metric? Which article are you complaining about? Kawasaki Ninja ZX-14 has most everything converted to metric. Please feel free to use the {{Convert}} template to fix the handful of items that aren't converted. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
England still posts distances in miles and speed limits in mph, and fuel economy figures are frequently given in mpg, power in hp[27]. So the U.S. really isn't the only non-metric country. — Brianhe (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)