Jump to content

Talk:Honda CB750 and CR750

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please find a home for these deleted external links.

[edit]

Deleted external links:

I think some of these can serve as citations on Cafe racer or Custom motorcycle (I don't mean spamming the External links section). Others should be submitted to the Open Directory Project. See also WP:ELNO and WP:LINKFARM.--Dbratland (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horsepower Table

[edit]

I think the specifications table could use some fact-checking, specifically in reference to the early-80s horsepower figure. First off, the line '1981 CB750F' should probably be broadened to '1979-1981 CB750' (I'm not sure if there were major changes between 81/82/83, though I'm doubtful). Next, I think the horsepower figure for the 1981 750 is low. As I recall, I believe the advertised horsepower was around 79-81 (I haven't been able to find much evidence, though I have seen claims ranging from 75 to 85) -- in any case, I think 70 is low. 70 seems to be a reasonable rear-wheel hp figure, but I think the general practice is to use the stated flywheel hp. Does anyone know Honda's claimed horsepower in 1979-1981? Jon1234567 (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The CB750 was 68 hp at introduction, dropped to 60 the next year. Rose to 68 with the DOHC and stayed there until Honda dropped the model. Horsepower is often stated by Honda using PS instead of horsepower which results in a different published amount at times. There is quite a bit of variation in the quoted horsepower ratings from different sources. I actually HAVE Honda's documentation on this. The new CB750 introduced in 2007 had a 75 hp engine. While I have the documentation, it's copyrighted so you cannot use it. Flatshooter (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horsepower figures

[edit]

The engine was derated to 60 hp in the second year of production by lowering the redline to 8000 rpm. The original rating of 68 hp was chosen because Harley-Davidson's highest claimed horsepower was 66. This is stated variously as 67 and 68 in some places. It was found that the engine would accelerate so fast that the tachometer was always reading low. Honda changed the rating to enhance engine life since it was being revved much higher than the tach indicated. Flatshooter (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CB750SC

[edit]

IP 15.203.233.79 claims to own an 83 CB750SC with shaft drive, but American Honda's Motorcycle Identification Guide, and Falloon's The Honda Story (both cited) contradict this. I incorrectly cited Holmstrom's Idiot's Guide as saying the 750 had shaft drive, but he was referring to the 650 and 700, not the 750. The CB700SC of 82-83 had shaft drive, and the CB650SC, of 83-84, but not 82, also had shaft drive. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if there are bikes out there that were customized with parts from a 750 and a 700, or if a 700 was rebadged as a 750. It also wouldn't be too much of a shock if Honda did something weird and didn't document it. Honda is quite frankly insane and would mix and match bits from different models all the time. If you've got engine and VIN/frame numbers, I can look it up and see if it is in the ID Guide as a CB700SC or CB750SC. If you can cite a verifiable source which contradicts these books, that's fine too -- we can simply cite both and state that our sources are in disagreement. Note that you can't cite the bike sitting in your garage on Wikipedia. Sorry. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more links: Some guy over at Flickr claims he has a shaft drive CB750SC, and indeed he has a shaft drive bike. But his photos actually show side panels that say "Nighthawk S 750", not 750SC. And we don't really know if those side panels he has are original to his shaft driven bike. Wouldn't be the first time somebody added badges that claim a larger displacement than the bike came with. Whereas, over here is some other guy on the web who says the CB700SC was the shaft drive bike, not the CB750SC. Which only goes to show why we like sources that are published authorities rather than some guy's personal web site or Flickr account. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the CB750SC and it is shaft drive.Krontach (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
That's great and all, but it doesn't solve our problem. We still need to cite a source that meets WP:RS. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The CB750SC Nighthawk S was sold in Canada 1984-1985, it had a shaft drive, 5 speed with OD, anti-dive, fuel gauge and hydraulic lifters to name a few extras that most other CB750's did not have. The equivalent bike was sold in the USA as a CB700SC Nighthawk S. The difference in engine size was due to a US law that tarrifed any foreign bike over 700cc. Honda reduced the engine size to maintain a market for the bike. I own a 1985 750SC Nighthawk S in Canada. On the serial plate of the main steering head, it shows CB750SC and on the side covers it shows Nighthawk S. I have also owned a CB750 1991, and it is not half the bike the 1985 CB750C is, since it was made to sell for less than $3000, Honda took off a lot of goodies, including shaft drive, although the engine was slightly higher in horsepower and the bike was slightly lighter. In my opinion, the 1984-1985 CB750SC is the best 750 that Honda ever made. ([cite If you need a source for this information: Motorcycle Classics, Richard Backus, July/August edition: http://www.motorcycleclassics.com/classic-japanese-motorcycles/honda-cb700sc-nighthawk-s.aspx#axzz36LLexOo4]) (Philip Ridge) 22:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridgepg (talk • contribs) [reply]

Corrections

[edit]

"Honda's new 750 caused a sensation when it was launched in 1968" Hugo Wilson, Classic Motorcycles Honda "No other manufacturer offered this level of performance, reliability, or features. The combination of the five speed gearbox, electric starting, and a front disc brake was not offered on any other large capacity machine. After it's released no rival manufacturer could afford to ignore it." Ibid "67 HP @ 8,000 rpm DIN, 200 km/h 120 mph weight 220 kb 485 lbs." Ibid Krontach (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

CB750A with kanji script

[edit]

I reverted a comment from the article that CB750As were sold outside of the NA market because the editor saw one with original kanji markings. This would need a third party source. Otherwise discuss here, not in the article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of contributions

[edit]

I have added prose covering racing in June 1970 TT races with two sources, whereas the existing prose states: "Hansen's race team's historical victory at the 1970 Daytona 200 [March] with Dick Mann riding a tall-geared CR750 to victory saw Honda cease all motorcycle road-racing activities..."

I have not yet checked what sources are available to verify the accuracy of this statement. Most likely scenario is that Honda channelled money locally into their national distributors, and were not necessarily Japan-based race teams.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a misuse of the citation http://world.honda.com/history/challenge/1969cb750four/index.html -- it doesn't say anywhere there that they ceased all road racing in 1970. Elsewhere it says "Honda went on hiatus from the World Motorcycle Grand Prix after the 1967 season, ultimately returning in 1979", which leaves room for non-World GP road racing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks, not much time presently. I think I have the UK launch of CB750 (somewhere in the house) probably two mags.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Honda CB750. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First 'superbike'? Conflicting sources

[edit]

Looking at Norton Commando#Models, the first citation added 29 December 2016 in this change by an editor with two-only contributions. The link as added exclaims:

WORLD'S FIRST SUPERBIKE
The result was the 750 Norton Commando, the new type was that of Superbike. It was the first!

This appears to be a glorified WP:SPS owned by Andy Tallone, who appears to be the very same as in the website contact us section (to our left of the beige t shirt). Also canvassing on the same page for amateur contributors.

I saw in a period mag in the house about three years ago that the original usage was a phrase something like ...these super bikes..., then lost it thinking I would remember, so thought I'd put this here whilst I can.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a single source that retrospectively looking back on the bike claims it's the first superbike. There are no reliable sources from the era that say the Norton was a the superbike, whereas there are many claims from the time the CB750 was released that give it the title "superbike". Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Chaheel Riens - you may not be aware that one of the reasons I very rarely now write prose is the proliferation of modern websites that may post-date Wikipedia, are not 'publishers', with no staff and no archives, so have to plagiarise their content (particularly insurance businesses). This is an example of one such (for the general information of other editors/readers). I didn't actually intend to promote that claim, but I will try to find the 1970s mag I alluded to above. Other reasons are that I spend much time trawling through the histories, and that editors determinedly keyword-search, returning websites whose content could have come from Wikipedia.

If you know of any of the "many claims from the time the CB750 was released that give it the title "superbike" I'm sure they would be appreciated at the article, considering the 1998 and 2006 book refs cited.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Superbike" isn't actually a title, any more than "King of the Streets". It's an adjective, and perhaps a genre, but only a rough one. This is why the first paragraph of Types of motorcycles is devoted to telling readers to take all this terminology with a grain of salt. We spend way too much time trying to crown somebody the "first" in a contest that does not exist. For the contenders for the "title" [sic] of first motorcycle, at Motorcycle#Experimentation and invention, we can cite an actual debate among recognized experts as to what does or does not meet that definition. And even then, the answer is ultimately nebulous. But at least it's not a violation of the WP:NOR policy.

Amway, this inspired me to move my essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to settle bar bets out of my sandbox. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, what exactly is wrong with the current sources in the article? The Sport bike article also corroborates the claim. The use of the term as a title seems acceptable as well? I'm failing to see a problem that necessitates either this discussion or an entire essay. Although I accept that said essay may have uses elsewhere and for other less sourced articles. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The CB750 was the first motorcycle to be called a "superbike" overstates how confident we should be that nobody on Earth used the word prior to 1969 for any bike. It's not wrong, but it could be better phrased. Other articles like sport bike and Types of motorcycles should similarly aim for phrasing that doesn't reify 'first superbike' into something it isn't. If readers only remember on model from the (very roughly speaking) 'superbike era', it should be the CB750. If they can remember more than one, they should be aware of the BSA Rocket 3/Triumph Trident, which was technically earlier than the Honda, though it was definitely overshadowed by the CB750. We should place a higher priority on trying to make readers understand and maybe even rember why the Honda became more famous than the BSA/Triumph, than them remembering a meaningless superlative like 'first superbike'. An even worse case is the Kawasaki H2 Mach IV that misses the forest for the trees. It make way too big a deal out of this obscure, non-thing, "first racing tail", when it should instead do a much better job of helping the reader understand the relationship between these important bikes, the CB750, Trident, H2, and others. These bikes generally changed the public perception of motorcycle capability, reliability, what should come standard (e.g. electric start). Nonexistent superlatives like 'first racing tail' are exactly why Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to settle bar bets needs to exist. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is your opinion that "first superbike" is a meaningless superlative - the motoring press seems to disagree with you, hence the continuing usage of the term regarding the CB750. The article contains sources from the bikes release that call it the first superbike, hence we can too. If you feel differently, and wish to discount the sources to fit your own area of knowledge - I believe an editor has written an essay about this here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to settle bar bets. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chaheel Riens it is unclear whom you are addressing directly above: It is your opinion that "first superbike" is a meaningless superlative - the motoring press seems to disagree with you - as "I believe an editor has written" refers to Dennis Bratland? I had drafted a sort-of comment (saved to my 'sandbox' - draft webmail accessible from any device, as per my norm ), but that would need amending, perhaps.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Honda allusion was first introduced into this article in Oct 2007 by a US IP overwriting existing usage relating to Beezumph triples, citing smokeriders.com (unable to ascertain what that was/is). Hence this term would've easily been searchable to anyone (incl 'professionals') writing anything at all post that date, by dint of WP's high SEO. The Beezumph unreferenced prose introduced the term Superbike 30 April 2006 by a UK editor (blocked in 2014). This is mainly to aid my own recall.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dennis in that my gut-feeling is the superlative may have been WP:SYNTHed by singling-out the Honda, relying on modern retrospections for citiations. I won't be writing much as I am thronged with other (including non-Wiki) stuff, but first I'll try to finish three major discrepancies that I first touched on years ago. The lede citation box here [6] is deadlinked, can be seen at Wayback which (comments below) lead me to Cycle (magazine) March 1970, seen at Worthpoint.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 11:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'm pretty sure at least some of the wording I'm referring to was written by me. All I'm saying is it can be better, avoiding elevating colorful prose to some kind of world record or official milestone. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. I'll continue gradually - one reason is the son of a deceased motorcycle mag editor has requested historic info and images of his then-estranged father (the son has a Wiki-BLP using a performing name, so as not to be associated with his famous uncle!). I have sent some and have some more, when Honda was critiqued for shuttling about one-only pre-production model to various press-launches (his dad appears named with the bike, in a 'rival' mag, in an office suite). I also have the first small batch quantities, dates and price into UK. Thx.--00:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Original research added immediately before a long-term citation

[edit]

I've added {{Failed verification}} for "Hansen told Soichiro Honda that he should build a 'King of Motorcycles' " as it is original research added 9 October 2014, immediately before a long-term citation. The actual citation was added 29 July 2010 in this diff, merely to substantiate the production quantities. Similarly, I cannot find anything cited to support "[Hansen]...flew to Japan and discussed with Soichiro Honda the possibility of using Grand Prix technology in bikes prepared for American motorcycle events", as seen in the opening line of the 'Early racing' heading. I've also deleted my own citation which appears to be out of place (although its not been moved) until I find the mag to check whether it should be there.

Wikipedia charges one with assuming good faith, so this 'hommage to Hansen' can remain but any subsequent citations should be carefully examined. One of the reasons I have mostly stopped adding prose is due to unregulated websites sourcing from Wikipedia without acknowledgement, and with determined editors keyword-searching, arriving at WP:CIRCULAR referencing.

I raised a query at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 268#Prabook relating to the website being found and used by keyword searching - any old (new) thing they find lying about. As a control, I checked William Dunlop at Prabook where the WP article has been cloned, including the image I uploaded to Wikipemedia from Flickr - no acknowledgements - to our article William Dunlop (motorcyclist), or to the Flickr user.

It's not incumbent on me to search and satisfy referencing for Honda CB750, but this King of Motorcycles is distracting me from the alleged folk-lore king of the streets, more unreferenced original research, introduced into Kawasaki H2 Mach IV in this diff, 30 December 2010. Thanks for reading.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandcast

[edit]

This is tremendously important to some [rich] people and more detail might be thought appropriate - but ref. 25

http://world.honda.com/history/challenge/1969cb750four/page04.html

no longer points to anything to do with casting, sand or otherwise . . . it is, for our purposes, broken

86.135.129.111 (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Honda_CB750_and_CR750&oldid=1207633648"