Talk:Suzuki Hayabusa

Speed #s?

The #s on 1/4 mile times and top speed thru the 1/4 mile wer 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The quarter miles figures were correct before, they should be reverted pls see [23]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireblade (talk • contribs) 6 June 2006

broken reference

First reference (http://www.qsl.net/n5mya/testdata.html) does not work anymore. Please find a new article if you know where it has moved.

Restricted vs. unrestricted, continued

This is continued from a conversation further up the page, which stretches over seven years and is impossible to parse since it doesn't follow talk page guidelines.

There's a bit of an edit war, involving 72bikers and one editor who operates from a number of IPs; I've warned two of the IPs for edit warring. 72bikers, I don't have to warn you since you know the score, and at any rate it's the other party who is not following policy. Their last edit was this one, and I'll cite the summary so I can explain: "Ok the parts list are not a reliable source (I don't understand why since it's from official suzuki site, instead of other sites that are at the level of blogs) but other references tells that the 2000 model is unrestricted,so why continue to refuse this?" Note that this edit reinstates this hobbling and awkward text, "See http://www.suzukipartshouse.net/oemparts/a/suz/50d40e98f8700230d8b50861/electrical, the central unit (the restriction is put inside the ECM, it's an electronic limit) is the same for both models (check the part 32920-24F21)", which is editorial commentary placed in a footnote.

First of all, if the parts list is not a reliable source you can't cite it--period. "It's from official suzuki site" misses the point. No one doubts that an official parts list lists parts correctly. The conversation is not about whether some part is listed or not: the question is whether there is a limiter or not. Explaining that part #123456789 is a limiter (or not) is not the job of Wikipedia editors: look up Wikipedia:No original research. That is why we require secondary sources. If the model is unrestricted (or whatever, I don't care), and "other references tells us" that, CITE those other sources. So, a. don't cite primary sources; b. cite secondary sources; c. don't put editorial comments in the text or the notes; d. stop edit warring: you revert this one more time and I will endorse that you be blocked, both IPs, and that the article be locked down--it's time to stop playing around and to start following our policies. I have no doubt that a block request will be approved by an independent admin not because I know about Suzukis (I don't, and I don't care about them) but because the policy violations and the inappropriate behavior is really blatant enough. So, having gotten that threat out of the way, please start discussion, right here, what the proper answer is to the query and how that is to be represented in the article. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Ok, so what if I write to Suzuki company and ask them to clarify this information? IF I receive a response letter and I post it here, could it be a reliable source or not (I even ask them the permission to post the answer here, of course)?
  • No! Secondary sources. Go read WP:SECONDARY, please... Drmies (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I was reading right now, I understand, however I have a couple of things to clarify

I deduced from the same ECU number parts and from the procedure of "unrestriction" explained in one references that the 2000 model is unrestricted and this is not acceptable, I understand this BUT

Following the Wikipedia rules, can someone show a reliable reference that state, explicitly, that the model 2000 model is restricted? Because, even in the references cited in the article, all the information that I found is like " the SportRider review clearly states they did not test a 2000 model year Busa or ZX-12R but that there sister pub did "While we didn't have a chance to sample a Y2K ZX-12R or Hayabusa, our sister pub Motorcyclist conducted the same tests with its 2000 test units a year ago. Oddly enough, while both bikes ran sub-185 mph in perfect desert conditions, no hint of a limiter was found in the dyno room." So, if you cite a reference that clearly state that they DO NOT test the 2000 model, how can you tell that the 2000 model is restricted? You deduced it, by the fact that the reference cite ANOTHER reference (that I don't even read) that state the 2000 model doesn't go over 185 mph (on which condition? in which environment? In the same environment how the 1999 model perform?). Sorry but this kind of references and deduction, in my opinion, seems to be unreliable.

72bikers also write: "As all other sources clearly state speeds all blow 187mph for 2000 year models. What they are referring to with the 2001 model year statement, it is known how the bikes were limited but that in 2000 year model Busa and ZX it was not known how they were limited and all review state this as well, because there are no reviews of any 2000 year bike going above 187mph. Verifiable by this statement in that same Sport Rider review "We know for a fact that the 2001 ZX has updated cams and a black box, so it's a safe bet that last year's bikes were more subtly restricted to avoid attracting attention."" Where are these "all other sources"? I see only 2 references near the top speed of 1999 and 2000 version and none of them tell explicitly that the 2000 model is restricted. For example, the Hoyer (2007) only tells that "Sure, top speed was electronically limited to 186 mph in 2000..." but they don't tell that the specific 2000 model is restricted, you deduce it, because it should be noted that:

1) they say that the speed is electronically limited (which is exactly what I said before, so you can easily deduce that if the ECM is the same then they are the same bike, but this is not a proof that follows the Wiki rules, so put this aside)

2) more interesting, let's note that the model sell in 2000 is presented and produced starting from 1999, and in 1999 the agreement wasn't signed yet, so the models affected were the models selling from 2001 (as stated in reference "Trevitt, Andrew (June 2010), "Big Dogs: Derestriction; Uncorking the top-speed potential of the Hayabusa and ZX-12R", Sport Rider, archived from the original on May 11, 2012" that states "Yes, they're restricted. Beginning with 2001 models, Japanese manufacturers agreed to limit their motorcycles to top speeds of 186 mph, under the threat of "if-you-don't-we-will" legislation from European governments."

As you can understand, finding a secondary sources is near impossible right now, since nobody test a 18 years old motorcycle, so If Suzuki answer is not acceptable, If some user's test on it's own motorcycle is not acceptable, how can you put the question aside? Because, as I stated before, even the references that "prove" that 2000 model is restricted are a little foggy about the argument (they clearly not state explicitly that the model is restricted).

So, in my opinion, if a specific test/review of 2000 model is missing, it's better to leave the 2000 model without the max speed, for lack of data.

Do secondary sources say the speed restriction began with the 2000 model, or with 2001 model? The answer is yes

I think there are a few more sources besides these that directly address this point, but this is a pretty good cross section:
Restricted from 2000 and later:

• McCraw, Jim (June 18, 2000), "What's New and Fast on 2 Wheels for the Summer of 2000", The New York Times
  • "KAWASAKI -- The company has just introduced the Ninja ZX-12R, the quickest and fastest motorcycle it has ever built, limited to a top speed of 185 m.p.h. "
  • "SUZUKI... The Hayabusa ($10,799), perhaps the biggest high-performance bargain on earth -- car or bike -- is available in slightly less garish colors for 2000. It is not quite as quick or as fast as the 1999 model, which was clocked at 194 m.p.h."
• Gingerelli, Dain; Everitt, Charles; Michels, James Manning (2011), 365 Motorcycles You Must Ride, MBI Publishing Company, p. 260, ISBN 0-7603-3474-9, the 1999 Hayabusa remains the only production motorcycle to have surpassed the 300-kilometer-per-hour mark.
• Ker, Rod (2007), Classic Japanese Motorcycle Guide, Sparkford, UK: Haynes Publishing, p. 230, ISBN 1-84425-335-X, As a sop to the road safety lobby, Suzuki restricted the top speed of later versions to a mere 186mph (300kph), which obviously makes a huge difference in everyday riding. For this reason, the original 1999 model will eventually be a sought-after classic.

(source added 16:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC). The June 2000 Motorcyclist had 3 separate articles all arguing their conclusion that the 2000 GSX1300R was restricted, even though offcialy Suzuki said the 1999 X model and 2000 Y model are identical. )

• Burns, John (June 2000), "Kawasaki ZX-12R", Motorcyclist, p. 41-
  • "This new ZX-12R only acheives parity with last year's World's Fastest Bike (and neither the 12R nor the 2000-spec GSX1300R matches the '99 Busa's 189-mph top speed)."
  • "A top whack of 183 mph isn't exactly hanging around, but [the 2000 ZX-12R] is 1.2 mph slower than our 2000 Hayabusa (also, we believe, restricted), run at the same time, and it is a far cry from the 195-200 mph Kawasaki spokespeople had been so careful to not hint at, nudge, wink."
  • "Although factory representatives would not go on record saying the ZX-12R and the year-2000 Hayabusa have been limited, we have accumulated a truckload of circumstantial evidence. To wit:
    "1 At our desert top-speed test site, both the ZX-12R and the Busa were comparatively slow--much more so than we'd expected--and the Suzuki was well down on its previous performances. (We used a dosed highway that virtually reproduced the conditions used for last year's test of the Hayabusa: temperatures in the high 40s, light winds, elevation about 2400 feet above mean sea level, flat and dry pavement. The ZX-12R and the Hayabusa were run in both directions with virtually no difference in speeds, thus ruling out indine or wind effects.) "
    "2 Our Hayabusa was tested with the same rider as last year's bike, and it actually made more horsepower on the dyno (163.7 vs. 155.9) this time around. All else being equal, a more powerful bike should be slightly faster, not slower.
    "3 The release of the ZX-12r to the American press had been delayed by about six weeks without explanation.
    "4 Kawasaki geared the ZX-12R for just more than 200 mph in top gear and biased its powerband near the top of the rev range, a contrast to the Hayabusa's midrange-heavy tuning. We don't think Kawasaki made the ZX-12R "peaky" by accident.
    "5 Finally, and most damning, independent sources, speaking off the record, suggested that limiting these bikes is not just a possibility but a reality. We can't reveal our sources, but let's just say they're people in positions to know."
• Cook, Marc (June 2000), "Are Kawasaki and Suzuki secretly trying to slow you down?", Motorcyclist, p. 41-
  • "Despite the palpitating hype and firehose of rumors suggesting that Kawasaki's new ZX-12R would be the overwhelming new King of Speed, our example flashed past the Stalker ATS radar gun at a mere 183 mph. What? That's it? Moreover, our 2000-spec Suzuki Hayabusa, totally unchanged (so we're told) for this year, clocked a best run of only 184.2 mph. Prerelease rumors had the Kaw absolutely spanking the 'Busa in test tracks in Japan. Motor Cycle News has reported that the British importer tested the ZX-12R, with independent observers present, to 190.8 mph."
• "End of the Arms Race?", Motorcyclist, p. 31, June 2000
  • "Such limits are slated for the 2001 model year with the possibility of even lower limits in the future. […] However, it now appears that both the 2000-spec ZX-12R and the Suzuki GSX1300R Hayabusa (motorcycles deemed potentially "socially unacceptable" by European politicians) are actually slower than last year's Busa. (Regarding any possible limitations, an American Kawasaki spokesperson said that 'this is a very sensitive issue on which we prefer not to comment.') "

(end addition. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC))
Restricted from 2001 and later:

• Brown, Roland (2006), The Ultimate History of Fast Motorcycles, Bath, UK: Parragon, p. 277, ISBN 1-4054-7303-7 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  • p. 277 "But few had any serious complaints, especially in 2000 when the Hayabusa fought off Kawasaki's ZX-12R to retain its unofficial 'worlds' fastest bike' title. Some politicians and bureaucrats were less impressed, however. The following year, in response to a voluntary agreement between the major manufacturers (who were worried about future legal problems), Suzuki fitted the GSX with an electronic device that prevented it from reaching maximum rev in top gear, limiting top speed to 186mph (300km/h)."
  • p. 284 [RE: Model year 2000 Kawasaki ZX-12R, top speed listed as 186mph, i.e. restricted.] "the ZX-12R had become the first bike to be affected by the manufacturers' agreement to limit top speed to 186mph (300km/h), for fear more drastic government-imposed restrictions" Also lists 2000 model year, top speed 186mph"
  • p. 285 "Despite all the speculation before its launch, the ZX-12R proved slightly slower than the Hayabusa in most independent tests"
• Dowds, Alan (2007), Superbikes: Street Racers: Design and Technology, Thunder Bay Press, p. 264, ISBN 1-59223-777-0, Suzuki didn't change anything on the bike from 1999-2006, apart from fitting a 300km/h (186mph) speed limiter for 2001. This was part of a 'gentlemen's agreement' between the major manufacturers to pre-empt government intervention to limit motorcycle performance.

(source added 21:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC) )

• Hoyer, Mark (June 2000), "ZX-12R; Kawasaki's Ultimate Weapon makes a politically correct debut", Cycle World, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 37–43 alt url
  • p. 37 "The gun gave us the Ninja's Numbers: 187-mph top speed and 10.04 seconds in the quarter mile"
  • p. 38 "The bottom line, according to Kawasaki USA, is that the biggest Ninja has been slightly neutered, its engine-control unit altered (and possibly, said our source, final gearing) to reduce the bike's top speed to within proposed limits, which, practically speaking, it now is. This led us to wonder about the 2000 Hayabusa. If Kawasaki tamed its tour de force, did Suzuki do the same to the GSX1300R? Apparently not yet (at least on U.S. Models), as the Y2K Suzuki managed 191 mph, just 3 mph slower than our 1999 'Busa's best."
  • p. 42 "Kawasaki ZX-12R Specifications […] Measured top speed: 187 mph"

(end addition. Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC) )

All of the above sources are reliable, with strong reputations for expertise and fact checking. Based on this, what should we write? Either say that sources disagree, some saying the 2000 bikes were limited to 186mph/300kph, while others say both the 1999 and 2000 models were unrestricted, and the first restricted Hayabusa was the 2001 model. Or don't say anything: the salient point is that the first Hayabsua went much faster 186 mph, and following that, there was a voluntary reaction that limited the Hayabusa, ZX-12R and others to 186mph/300kph. We don't have to identify the exact model year of this. A technical manual or shopping guide, or how-to guide might need to get this date exactly right, but it's not an encyclopedic concern, per WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMANUAL etc.

I actually have been working on a proposal for a while to explicitly say in WP:NOT that we don't settle these questions. Wikipedia's prime function isn't to settle bar bets or help judge trivia night.

The question of the part number of the ECU, besides being original research because it draws a conclusion from primary sources, is meaningless. Why would the hardware need a different part number when what they changed was the software. They could have reprogrammed the same ECU without giving it a new part number. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


Oh, I'm happy to see that there is someone that is accurate and show sources rather than only criticize and insists on the only two (not very precise at all) resource. I was waiting for this problem that you rightly encountered (because I made my own research and I reach the same conclusions as yours): I agree with you about the fact that Wikipedia is not the final arbiter of truth BUT in my opinion this is different from giving inaccurate information, I will explain it better: in this article I see ONLY the resources that make you guess the 2000 models is restricted, so in my opinion it's better to use the resources that you proposed here, because they are better, but there is a more deep problem: all the resources posted by you are reliable but some state one thing and some state the exact opposite, so as you can easily understand only some of them state the right information, but which? I think that it's not, as you said, a function of Wikipedia to search an answer to this question and exactly for that (in my opinion) the article should indicate the 2000 model speed as unknown, for lack of evident proof because some resource say one thing and other say the exact opposite, and all of them are reliable. If you put the 2000 model as restricted, you implicitly take a position and say, implicitly, that some of the reliable resource are wrong, but we have no data and no further informations to decide about this.

I add just one little fact, be free to believe this or not: if you change the software, when someone order the piece, how can you know if you should load the software for 1999 model or for 2000 model? You cannot and so, you might say, you load the software for the 2000 version; but, if we assume that the 2000 model is unrestricted, the 1999 is not, you have changed the parameter of the motorcycle and, for example, you can be no compliant anymore with federal standards, because you change some parameter; this could lead to possible complaints to the manufacturer because I bought an original piece of the bike but it is not really original as it has been modified without any indication. Did you remember the Volkswagen scandal? They had to inform the customers that, after the ECU modification, the car lose some Cv (and therefore some performance), for the Hayabusa is the same. How did I know this? Because 5 months ago I broke the ECU of my 1999 Hayabusa and I order exactly the one on the Suzuki site, and the motorcycle is exactly as before, so I'm pretty sure that, in this case at least, this piece is exactly the same, hardware and software; but, as I said, I wrote this curiosity because you give this kind and complete reply and I wanted to be precise as maximum as I can, but feel free to believe it or not

IP editor the reliable source SportRider review clearly sates they did not test a 2000 model year Busa or ZX-12R but that there sister pub did "While we didn't have a chance to sample a Y2K ZX-12R or Hayabusa,our sister pub Motorcyclist conducted the same tests with its 2000 test units a year ago. Oddly enough, while both bikes ran sub-185 mph in perfect desert conditions, no hint of a limiter was found in the dyno room." What they are referring to with the 2001 model year statement, it was known how the bikes were limited in 2001, but that in 2000 year model Busa and ZX it was not known how they were limited. To dispute this widely accepted fact, simply provide a verifiable credible source that show they tested a stock 2000 year motorcycle and exceeded the 186-187 mph restriction. It is really that simple. Not a source saying this year or that year was restricted but that they actually go on the record and publish that they took a stock 2000 year motorcycle to a speed exceeding the restriction. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 03:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland provide some resource that state the restriction starts from 2000 and from 2001 models, so now this is the main problem: that there are a conflicts between resource and so we/you cannot decide which one is the right one, since all of them are reliable source. Moreover you insist on the fact that "our sister pub Motorcyclist conducted the same tests with its 2000 test units a year ago. Oddly enough, while both bikes ran sub-185 mph in perfect desert conditions, no hint of a limiter was found in the dyno room." but this is only a phrase, where are the official report of this test? If I must provide a resource that tested explicitly the 2000 model to prove that it's unrestricted, then you must do the same to show that it is restricted, but a phrase like this is not enough, I want to see the final report from this "Motorcyclist" resource, can you provide it? Moreover they clearly said that "no hint of a limiter was found in the dyno room" so how can you be sure that, in those conditions, a 1999 model perform better than a 2000? Maybe even a 1999 run sub-185 mph in these conditions, we cannot know this before a precise tests.

I add only one thing: all the hayabusa restricted version as far as I know, till 2016 version, were limited electronically, with a check on gear + rev, what makes you think that only the 2000 model had a different type of limitation? It would be very strange, especially considering that the procedure to unlock the hayabusa limitation, as explained explicitly in one resource, is to fool the ECU about the right gear.

Sincerely I don't know what is the problem of writing that there is a resources conflict and so the exact speed data of 2000 model is not known, instead of putting the 2000 model into the restricted models for sure. If we leave the data non available then further research will be left to the readers that want to know more about this fact.

I found, for example, "http://www.motorcycledaily.com/2000/01/holybusa/" where they states that "Although essentially unchanged from the 1999 model" but we are searching for a specific review of the 2000 models, so a good beginning point is this blog: "http://hyp4r.com/motorblog/suzuki-hayabusa-gsx1300r-performance-statistics-1st-generation-1999-2007/". I know that this IS NOT a valid resource itself BUT if someone can find one of the article cited here (for example "PERFORMANCE BIKES [June 2000]" or "CYCLEWORLD [June 2000]" or "SPORTBIKE MAGAZINE [June 2000]" they review the 2000 model and so we will have a reliable resources. Note that it will be interesting to see even the resource that you have already use (" MOTORCYCLIST MAGAZINE [June 2000]") to confirm the fact (states in this blog) that the test was performed at an elevation 2400 feet above sea level, which is not quite a standard condition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.12.40.153 (talk) 07:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

To dispute this widely accepted fact, simply provide a verifiable credible source that show they tested a stock 2000 year motorcycle and exceeded the 186-187 mph restriction and published this fact. It is really that simple. Not a source saying this year or that year was restricted, because what they are referring to with the 2001 model year statement, it was known how the bikes were limited in 2001, but that in 2000 year model Busa and ZX it was not known how they were limited. "so it's a safe bet that last year's bikes were more subtly restricted to avoid attracting attention." Just show that a verifiable credible source actually go on the record and publish that they took a stock 2000 year motorcycle to a speed exceeding the restriction.

There is a reliable sources stating (Sport Rider whos publisher also publishes Cycle World and Motorcyclist) "2000 test units a year ago. Oddly enough, while both bikes ran sub-185 mph in perfect desert conditions." With a reliable source quoting a very highly respect Motorcyclist who have been in the motorcycle business for over 100 years. Cycle World is one of the most highly respected and most reliable source there is, they have been in the motorcycle business for over 50 years, they are the one that published the 1999 Hayabusa could achieve a top speed of 194mph. I believe they are the only source to do this and so highly respected that all others just refer to there findings. And they also published that the fastest stock motorcycle in the year 2000 was the ZX-12R with a top speed of 187mph here[24]So with these source who specialize in only Motorcycles, state something there is no other source that would carry as much or more weight than these, and certainly not some unreliable blog. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Sport Rider's quote is taken from Motorcyclist 2000 year review. And I have seen Cycle Worlds 2000 year reviews online in there archives accessible with a small fee added to your account. I don't have current access to this now, but it is very easily confirmed with them stating in a 2012 article that the fastest bike in the year 2000 was a ZX-12R at 187mph. There is not a more credible source than these, so if this what they report then it is most certainly true-72bikers (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

As I said, I cited the blog to provide a list of some sources, and it could be great if we can find some of them, like Cycle World because the data of zx-12 is the same one as indicated in blog, so IF even the data states for hayabusa is right (191 mph) then this is the final proof that it is unrestricted BUT we need to see these references because, as you said, this is only a blog and is not a reliable source. Moreover, I read the resource that you provide ("https://web.archive.org/web/20120407081128/http://www.cycleworld.com/2012/04/02/fifty-years-of-do-you-have-any-idea-how-fast-you-were-going/2//") and they don't explicitly say that the zx-12 was the fastest motorcycle in 2000, they only say "In 2000, Kawasaki returned fire with a new ZX-12R. A hush fell over the crowd. Will it do 200? No, it won’t. In fact, it wouldn’t even go 190—only a sluggish 187. It wanted to go faster, but it couldn’t, because it was electronically limited." but nowhere they mention that it is the fastest of 2000.

I just see right now that Dennis (many many thanks for your time and your contributions to the discussion) add the resource that we are talking about, the one from Cycle World, see his previous comment (link to resources: http://www.cycleworld.com/kawasaki-ninja-zx-12r-sportbike-road-test-motorcycle-review#page-2), what do you think? Can we count it as a reliable resource/information? As you say before, Cycle World is a very reliable source.

P.S. I saw yesterday your last comment but I had no time to reply, to make it clear for all other users, the models code are:
X=1999
Y=2000
K1=2001, and so on (I think, but I'm not sure about this detail, that the code K stand for 2K and so 2K1=2001, 2K2=2002 and so on)

IP editor it is a year by year list of the fastest stock motorcycle, so it is explicitly saying that the ZX-12R is the fastest stock motorcycle for the year 2000 with a top speed of 187mph. Also do not touch other editors talk comment you may be blocked for this. -72bikers (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

<br< I've been patient until now but now you make me losing my patience because it's obvious that you're behaving so well to look for insulting talk. First of all, I admit and I thought that it is EVIDENT that I miss click over your section (while I was editing and I thought that I have fixed your comment, so I'm sorry about this issue) but please keep the blocking threats for yourself (because they are useless since, as you (I hope) know, the IP address is dynamic so you can block any IP that you want, I will have a new IP in a couple of minutes; this explanation is to prove that IF a person want to ruin the article or the discussion, it is not an IP block that can stop him, but it is evident that I'm not that person, since I spend here hours to discuss and provide resources and anything else.
About you claim, have you read the reference from Cycle world that Dennis add in his comment and that I repost in my reply? I answer for you: NO, because if you read this you can find that "The gun gave us the Ninja’s numbers: 187-mph top speed and 10.04 seconds in the quarter-mile. Pretty comprehensible, really. Not the fastest, not the quickest. Damn fast and damn quick, yes, but the Hayabusa forged just a little deeper in its maximum exertions, delivering 194 mph and 9.86 seconds" AND more important "If Kawasaki tamed its tour de force, did Suzuki do the same to the GSX1300R? Apparently not yet (at least on U.S. models), as the Y2K Suzuki managed 191 mph, just 3 mph slower than our 1999 ’Busa’s best.". So, because mathematics is no an opinion, 191 mph > 187 mph and so they CANNOT say explicitly that zx12 is the fastest motorcycle of 2000 (and they don't say it in fact).
So, because of all this resources, some of them are indicated even by you as the best of the best, i.e. Cycle World (that state the bike is not restricted, by the way) my proposal is: 1)Add, in the table of the performance, the data for the 2000 model from Cycle World (this seems to be the one that test explicitly a 2000 model); we can even indicate the review from "Burns, John (June 2000), "Kawasaki ZX-12R", Motorcyclist, p. 41-" but with the indication that the test was performed 2400 feet above sea level (since, as you know, with the altitude the performance decrese, so you can lose easily some mph with respect to the sea level. 2)Add all this refecences (or at least some of the most important, posted by Dennis) near to 2000 model into the characteristics box, removing the model from the restricted and leaving the 2000 years alone, with no indication of maximum speed, because of this references contrast.

I ask to you, Dennis, Drmies and 72bikers, what do you think about this solution? In my opinion, it's the best way to solve this indecision, without taking a position and leaving the references, so the readers can search for further information by theirself.

IP editor again I will inform you your blog information is useless. And you have not provided any proof to change the current article. And also will state from your comment that no one can block you, it would seem you are here to just cause trouble. -72bikers (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Have you read my comments above? Because if you read it, there are 2 cases: I'm not able to write in english or you cannot understand it, because I'm NOT state that no one can block me, where did you read this EXACT phrase in my post? I say that block a person that spend some hours in discussion to improve an article is useless since MAYBE this person is not here to cause trouble and to ruin the article and MAYBE everyone can make a mistake, and as you can read, I ADMIT that I make a mistake, so please don't misunderstand my world. Also, seems that you the one that are here to just cause trouble, since, I copy your EXACT phrase:
" Cycle World is one of the most highly respected and most reliable source there is, they have been in the motorcycle business for over 50 years, they are the one that published the 1999 Hayabusa could achieve a top speed of 194mph. I believe they are the only source to do this and so highly respected that all others just refer to there findings. ". Dennis post and I re-post again the resource about the test of hayabusa 2000 model from this EXACT source, I copy here:
"Hoyer, Mark (June 2000), "ZX-12R; Kawasaki's Ultimate Weapon makes a politically correct debut", Cycle World, vol. 39 no. 6, pp. 37–43 alt url p. 37 "The gun gave us the Ninja's Numbers: 187-mph top speed and 10.04 seconds in the quarter mile" p. 38 "The bottom line, according to Kawasaki USA, is that the biggest Ninja has been slightly neutered, its engine-control unit altered (and possibly, said our source, final gearing) to reduce the bike's top speed to within proposed limits, which, practically speaking, it now is. This led us to wonder about the 2000 Hayabusa. If Kawasaki tamed its tour de force, did Suzuki do the same to the GSX1300R? Apparently not yet (at least on U.S. Models), as the Y2K Suzuki managed 191 mph, just 3 mph slower than our 1999 'Busa's best."" THEN you reply with: "IP editor again I will inform you your blog information is useless. And you have not provided any proof to change the current article."
My question is: Are you kidding me?
I admit EXPLICITLY that the blog was ONLY to provide a POSSIBLE list of resources, Dennis understand it and kindly provide this resources, and now you have the courage to say that I/we have not provided any proof to change the current article. If you go back and read Dennis post, you can find TONS of resources, from both points of view (unrestricted after 2001 and unrestricted after 2000) so now and here you must explain to me/ to us WHY we should give more weight to the resources that state the 2000 is restricted instead of the other. I think that there is NOT a reason, a because of this contrast I propose the change write above. IP edit (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC about speed restriction beginning with 2000 or 2001 model year

The consensus is for Option B. Jojhnjoy's suggestion summarizes the consensus: "The best option here would be adding a comment that says something like 'source abc says x and source xyz says y'."

Cunard (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Which of three positions about the first Suzuki Hayabusa (GSX1300R) to be speed restricted to approximately 298–301 km/h (185–187 mph) should be written in Wikipedia articles? That *only* the 1999 (code X) Hayabusa was not speed restricted, or that both the 1999 and 2000 (code Y) model years were unrestricted, or that we are not sure because sources don't agree? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Infobox A

Top speed	1999 303–312 km/h (188–194 mph) 2000–present 299 km/h (186 mph)

Option A 1999 was the only unrestricted Hayabusa (current version)

• Hayabusa was unrestricted 1999 only
• 2000 and later Hayabusas restricted
• first model year of Hayabusa to be restricted was 2000
• the first motorcycles known to be restricted under the motorcycle gentlemen's agreement were the 2000 Hayabusa and the 2000 Kawasaki Ninja ZX-12R
• Some sources say the 2000 model was unrestricted, but their evidence and arguments are not plausible. Due weight favors that only the first model year was unrestricted

Infobox B

Top speed	1999, 2000? 303–312 km/h (188–194 mph) 2000 or 2001 to present 299 km/h (186 mph)

Option B unrestricted in 1999, and maybe 2000 too

• Hayabusa was unrestricted in 1999 and perhaps in 2000
• either the 2000 and later or 2001 and later Hayabusa was restricted
• several sources found the 2000 model year bike was electronically restricted at about 300kph, but others tested a 2000 MY bike at essentially the same top speeds as the 1999, in the range of 303–312 km/h (188–194 mph). Suzuki officially said the 1999 and 2000 models are identical, but didn't comment on questions, saying only that it is a "sensitive issue". No consensus among sources favors either point of view.

Infobox C

Top speed	1999–2000 303–312 km/h (188–194 mph) 2001–present 299 km/h (186 mph)

Option C unrestricted in 1999 and 2000

• the Suzuki Hayabusa was unrestricted in 1999 and 2000
• the 2001 and later Hayabusas were electronically restricted to ~300kph (185-186mph)
• first model year of Hayabusa to be restricted was 2001
• the first 300kph-restricted motorcycle was the 2000 Kawasaki Ninja ZX-12R, one model year earlier than the Hayabusa
• Some sources say the 2000 model was restricted, but their evidence and arguments are not plausible. Due weight favors that the first two model years were unrestricted.

The bullet points above describe the general sense of what the article should say. Exact wording will be edited or style, to suit the context, etc. Whether we present these statements without comment, or go into fuller detail about what each source said is left to later editorial discretion. Opinions and suggestions are welcome but this RfC is to decide only if we should say the bike was unrestricted in "1999-only", "unrestricted 1999 AND 2000", or go with "unrestricted in 1999 for sure, and ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ maybe 2000 ". Sources all agree that 1999 was definitely unrestricted, and 2001 and later were definitely restricted, but recognized reliable sources (below) don't agree on about the 2000 model year.

This decision will affect the articles Suzuki Hayabusa, Fastest production motorcycle, and perhaps Kawasaki Ninja ZX-12R, Motorcycle testing and measurement, and other articles and lists. Suzuki Hayabusa has consistently been the most-viewed article about a model of motorcycle for several years. The question, What was the fastest motorcycle of 2000, the Hayabusa or the ZX-12R?, is not in the scope of this RfC, but use the discussion section as you wish.

Sources

Copies of offline sources can be emailed upon request or via Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Other sources on this subject may exist, but these represent the typical published coverage surrounding this issue. Feel free to share other sources that are relevant. Brown, Roland (2006), The Ultimate History of Fast Motorcycles, Bath, UK: Parragon, p. 277, ISBN 1-4054-7303-7 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) p. 277 "But few had any serious complaints, especially in 2000 when the Hayabusa fought off Kawasaki's ZX-12R to retain its unofficial 'worlds' fastest bike' title. Some politicians and bureaucrats were less impressed, however. The following year, in response to a voluntary agreement between the major manufacturers (who were worried about future legal problems), Suzuki fitted the GSX with an electronic device that prevented it from reaching maximum rev in top gear, limiting top speed to 186mph (300km/h)." p. 284 [RE: Model year 2000 Kawasaki ZX-12R, top speed listed as 186mph, i.e. restricted.] "the ZX-12R had become the first bike to be affected by the manufacturers' agreement to limit top speed to 186mph (300km/h), for fear more drastic government-imposed restrictions" Also lists 2000 model year, top speed 186mph" p. 285 "Despite all the speculation before its launch, the ZX-12R proved slightly slower than the Hayabusa in most independent tests" Burns, John (June 2000), "Kawasaki ZX-12R", Motorcyclist, p. 41- "This new ZX-12R only acheives parity with last year's World's Fastest Bike (and neither the 12R nor the 2000-spec GSX1300R matches the '99 Busa's 189-mph top speed)." "A top whack of 183 mph isn't exactly hanging around, but [the 2000 ZX-12R] is 1.2 mph slower than our 2000 Hayabusa (also, we believe, restricted), run at the same time, and it is a far cry from the 195-200 mph Kawasaki spokespeople had been so careful to not hint at, nudge, wink." "Although factory representatives would not go on record saying the ZX-12R and the year-2000 Hayabusa have been limited, we have accumulated a truckload of circumstantial evidence. To wit: "1 At our desert top-speed test site, both the ZX-12R and the Busa were comparatively slow--much more so than we'd expected--and the Suzuki was well down on its previous performances. (We used a dosed highway that virtually reproduced the conditions used for last year's test of the Hayabusa: temperatures in the high 40s, light winds, elevation about 2400 feet above mean sea level, flat and dry pavement. The ZX-12R and the Hayabusa were run in both directions with virtually no difference in speeds, thus ruling out indine or wind effects.) " "2 Our Hayabusa was tested with the same rider as last year's bike, and it actually made more horsepower on the dyno (163.7 vs. 155.9) this time around. All else being equal, a more powerful bike should be slightly faster, not slower. "3 The release of the ZX-12r to the American press had been delayed by about six weeks without explanation. "4 Kawasaki geared the ZX-12R for just more than 200 mph in top gear and biased its powerband near the top of the rev range, a contrast to the Hayabusa's midrange-heavy tuning. We don't think Kawasaki made the ZX-12R "peaky" by accident. "5 Finally, and most damning, independent sources, speaking off the record, suggested that limiting these bikes is not just a possibility but a reality. We can't reveal our sources, but let's just say they're people in positions to know." Cook, Marc (June 2000), "Are Kawasaki and Suzuki secretly trying to slow you down?", Motorcyclist, p. 41- "Despite the palpitating hype and firehose of rumors suggesting that Kawasaki's new ZX-12R would be the overwhelming new King of Speed, our example flashed past the Stalker ATS radar gun at a mere 183 mph. What? That's it? Moreover, our 2000-spec Suzuki Hayabusa, totally unchanged (so we're told) for this year, clocked a best run of only 184.2 mph. Prerelease rumors had the Kaw absolutely spanking the 'Busa in test tracks in Japan. Motor Cycle News has reported that the British importer tested the ZX-12R, with independent observers present, to 190.8 mph." Dowds, Alan (2007), Superbikes: Street Racers: Design and Technology, Thunder Bay Press, p. 264, ISBN 1-59223-777-0, Suzuki didn't change anything on the bike from 1999-2006, apart from fitting a 300km/h (186mph) speed limiter for 2001. This was part of a 'gentlemen's agreement' between the major manufacturers to pre-empt government intervention to limit motorcycle performance. "End of the Arms Race?", Motorcyclist, p. 31, June 2000 "Such limits are slated for the 2001 model year with the possibility of even lower limits in the future. […] However, it now appears that both the 2000-spec ZX-12R and the Suzuki GSX1300R Hayabusa (motorcycles deemed potentially "socially unacceptable" by European politicians) are actually slower than last year's Busa. (Regarding any possible limitations, an American Kawasaki spokesperson said that 'this is a very sensitive issue on which we prefer not to comment.') " Gingerelli, Dain; Everitt, Charles; Michels, James Manning (2011), 365 Motorcycles You Must Ride, MBI Publishing Company, p. 260, ISBN 0-7603-3474-9, the 1999 Hayabusa remains the only production motorcycle to have surpassed the 300-kilometer-per-hour mark. Hoyer, Mark (June 2000), "ZX-12R; Kawasaki's Ultimate Weapon makes a politically correct debut", Cycle World, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 37–43 alt url p. 37 "The gun gave us the Ninja's Numbers: 187-mph top speed and 10.04 seconds in the quarter mile" p. 38 "The bottom line, according to Kawasaki USA, is that the biggest Ninja has been slightly neutered, its engine-control unit altered (and possibly, said our source, final gearing) to reduce the bike's top speed to within proposed limits, which, practically speaking, it now is. This led us to wonder about the 2000 Hayabusa. If Kawasaki tamed its tour de force, did Suzuki do the same to the GSX1300R? Apparently not yet (at least on U.S. Models), as the Y2K Suzuki managed 191 mph, just 3 mph slower than our 1999 'Busa's best." p. 42 "Kawasaki ZX-12R Specifications […] Measured top speed: 187 mph" Hoyer, Mark (June 2007), "'Busas, Baby! Looking Back at Suzuki's Steamroller of Speed", Cycle World, Newport Beach, California: Hachette Filipacchi Media U.S., ISSN 0011-4286 "top speed was electronically limited to 186 mph in 2000" Ker, Rod (2007), Classic Japanese Motorcycle Guide, Sparkford, UK: Haynes Publishing, p. 230, ISBN 1-84425-335-X, As a sop to the road safety lobby, Suzuki restricted the top speed of later versions to a mere 186mph (300kph), which obviously makes a huge difference in everyday riding. For this reason, the original 1999 model will eventually be a sought-after classic. McCraw, Jim (June 18, 2000), "What's New and Fast on 2 Wheels for the Summer of 2000", The New York Times "KAWASAKI -- The company has just introduced the Ninja ZX-12R, the quickest and fastest motorcycle it has ever built, limited to a top speed of 185 m.p.h. " "SUZUKI... The Hayabusa ($10,799), perhaps the biggest high-performance bargain on earth -- car or bike -- is available in slightly less garish colors for 2000. It is not quite as quick or as fast as the 1999 model, which was clocked at 194 m.p.h." Trevitt, Andrew (June 2010), "Big Dogs: Derestriction; Uncorking the top-speed potential of the Hayabusa and ZX-12R", Sport Rider, archived from the original on May 11, 2012 No quotes here. Just read entire article

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Sorry Dennis if I post in the wrong section, I think that the best option is the B, in this cases the neutral point of view is, in my opinion, the best way to resolve issues. IP edit (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• 'Option B - summoned by bot. Given the uncertainty with conflicting reports, the best option is to acknowledge and explain the uncertainty. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

See WP:V. Voting on „which option is correct“ does not comply with the basic Wikipedia rules regarding sources. The best option here would be adding a comment that says something like "source abc says x and source xyz says y". --Jojhnjoy (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

That is exactly my idea, so don't you think that the option B is the best choice? We leave the 2000 without a specific data and we add both resources type near it, perhaps adding the comment that you proposed.IP edit (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Infobox D

Top speed	1999 303–312 km/h (188–194 mph)

References

There are 2 related but distinct problems to deal with. 1) When did the change okay, accurate to the month or at least quarter year. 2) How to describe this so that Americans with their year-ahead model year system and non-Americans using calendar years don't get confused.

American sources tend to (but not always) use model years. For Americans, a 2000 bike was actually introduced sometime in mid 1999 calendar year. For the rest of the world a 2000 bike was introduced in mid calendar year 2000. Sometimes Americans sources will say 'in 2000' to mean the calendar year 2000 and 'for 2000' to mean the year-ahead model year (ie introduced in mid 1999 calendar year). The difference is subtle and not always adhered to such that even Americans don't always know which they are talking about. It gets worse when somebody is using multiple sources and uses the 'years' without due care (sometimes mixing them up without realising it). Some of the sources in the RFC say that the 2000 model year was restricted, so it's likely that the speed restrictions came in sometime in mid 1999 calendar year - the 6 week pause seems a likely time but I'm not interested in drilling through mountains of data myself.

Once you have found the change date, you will need to describe it in terms like (change the exact date to suit) 'The bike was unrestricted before Oct 1999 and restricted after that date'. Phrases like 'the 2000 model' will mean different things to different readers (Europeans will think the model introduced in mid 2000 calendar year, Americans will think the model introduced in mid 1999 calendar year). Avoid the word 'model' (eg 'the 2000 model') unless you make it blatantly clear with phrases like 'in 1999, for the 2000 model year, the speed was restricted'. Even this is easy to read wrong, so the month is a much, much clearer way to state it.

According to WP:MODELYEARS, vehicles sold in places besides America should not use model years, although you can add phrases like 'in 1999, for the 2000 model year,' to help Americans understand what's happening. Americans really do think only in their year-ahead model year scheme and get confused when presented with calendar years. But that's just one market compared to the rest of the world which gets really confused with American model years. And doubly unfortunate that both systems often looks exactly the same when written down but mean different things. That's why it's so much better to write months (even Americans know that August 1999 is part of the 1999 calendar year when talking abut vehicles) or to at least specify 'model year' or 'MY' when we mean model year. It's a quagmire but not impossible.  Stepho  talk  22:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

That's cool that you want to unravel this mystery, but it has remained unsolved for 18 years now. I can believe that American consumers might be confused by calendar years and model years, but the sources listed above are professional journalists who have covered the motor vehicle industry for years. Writers like Roland Brown are in the UK. Writers like Mark Hoyer, Marc Cook, John Burns, and so on, often write feature articles about European or Japanese market models that Americans can't have. I don't have any evidence that they don't know what a model year is, or that US and non-US market products may differ. Anyway, the problem at hand is what our article should say based on the sources we have in front of us. If in the future better sources are found, naturally we can change the article to reflect that. But this conundrum has been unsolved for 18 years. The question is, with the sources we have right now, what should the article say? If you think it's not impossible to find the month and year production dates for the first restricted bikes, I would ask you to tell us specifically how. It doesn't seem to appear in the parts catalog, or any official Suzuki statement or publication. If you can help us out in that way it, we'd all be grateful. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Stepho for this interesting detail, moreover I can add, as a curiosity, that in Europe, in the common language of everyday, when people speak non-technically about a model, i.e. a 2018 model, we have in mind the model that will be sell in 2018 year, so this is a model that is introduced in mid 2017 year. Instead, when it comes to technical discussions (i.e. review or so on) then the things go exactly as you said (I didn't know the Americans year-ahead model year).IP edit (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Which version is supported by evidence in citations? Those should be spelled out here to give others and idea of what should be included or not. Bmbaker88 (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• None. They don't agree. If this were all easily spelled out by the sources there would be little disagreement and no need for an RfC. The reason we've invited others to help make this decision is that our sources don't make it easy.

  Cook (June 2000) and others say the 2000 model year was restricted, while Hoyer (June 2000) and others say the 2000 MY was unrestricted. The three options (as I see it) are A: ignore the sources that say the 2000 was unrestricted, C: ignore the sources that say the 2000 was restricted, or B: take the middle ground between A and C, and say that we know 1999 was unrestricted, and we know 2001 was restricted, but for 2000 sources don't agree.

  We all have unverifiable, original research theories to explain the contradictions, such as mechanical defects, or an undocumented mid-model year change, or even deeper subterfuge by Suzuki or the media for unexplained motives, but none of that is encyclopedic. All we have is what's in these sources, and we need to find a consensus on what to say about it in the article namespace. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

My advice is to say that "Cook states that the model was restricted in 2000, while Hoyer states that this occurred in 2000." This revsion guarantees that both sources are represented. Bmbaker88 (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

OK. Do you mind saying you support Option B in the survey section above? Just to make it easier to determine consensus. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GSX-1300RR?

So we have a YouTube video from Motorcyclenews.com that shows us at 4:39 a shipping crate label that says GSX1300RRQM2 E02 2535. This is the only known use of "GSX-1300RR". But it actually says GSX1300RRQM2. We just choose to rationalize it to really mean GSX1300RR? Or GSX-1300RR? We don't know. If we're going to take this crate sticker literally, then we need to call it GSX1300RRQM2. Or GSX1300RRQM2 E02 2535? Seriously?

At Suzuki's global site we see GSX-R1000/R and GSX-750 and such, but only Hayabusa, not GSX-1300-anything. It's not mentioned in the press release. That's where we'd see a name change.

A packing crate label is just a packing crate label. If they have changed the model code, they will say so clearly. It shouldn't require sleuthing to figure out. Just leave it out for now. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The RR has been spoken by cycle mag reviewers who attended the overview sessions at the introduction but there is a lack of consistency with regard to the naming:

https://www.cycleworld.com/story/motorcycle-reviews/2022-suzuki-hayabusa-first-ride-review/

https://www.motorcyclistonline.com/story/reviews/2022-suzuki-hayabusa-gsx1300rr-first-ride-review/

Suzuki sites worldwide have similar issues:

Suzuki Austria:

https://www.suzuki.at/bike

Deepmac (talk) 00:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, the Cycle World and Motorcyclist citations are a big improvement over the packing crate sticker in the YouTube video. Those are adequate to change it to RR for the 3rd generation if we want to. I'm still wondering why we don't see it in any official Suzuki publications, but it's not a controversy as far as I know so there's no reason to question it. I'd still wait and see but we don't have to. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if the journalists have picked up the extra R from the color code? I found this on the Suzuki.ca website today: GSX1300RRQ- Glass Sparkle Black/Candy Burnt Gold GSX1300RQZ- Metallic Mat Sword Silver/Candy Daring Red Deepmac (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)