Talk:Yamaha YZF-R6

Adcruft removal

I removed some amount of text from the original advertisement version. Whoever unstubs this may want to review its text, there may be a couple more things from it that should be included. --Interiot 18:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

@ 2001:FB1:188:7217:C84F:641E:FE15:4BD3 (talk) 08:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Merger from YFZ-R6

I'm adding the request to merge the content from Yamaha YFZ-R6 to here as the other article has proper information but it's named wrong and this article could use expanding. --Jhuuskon 14:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I approve a merge. --Marc Lacoste 09:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Competition

Including just the ZX6RR is a bit odd, as it also competes with the Suzuki GSX-R 600, the Honda 600RR, the Ducati 749, the Triumph Daytona 675, etc. In fact, it's misleading to only list one competitor and I'd prefer listing none rather than just 1.

Rritterson 21:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

@ 2001:FB1:188:7217:C84F:641E:FE15:4BD3 (talk) 08:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I removed the Ducati 749 from the competitor list as it's no longer made, and was always considerably more expensive than the R6. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.57.23.163 (talk • contribs).

I notice the info box now contains information that is presented in an easier to use format and linked, thus making the competition section redundant. I am removing it entirely.

Rritterson —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

@ 2001:FB1:188:7217:C84F:641E:FE15:4BD3 (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Spec edits

I moved this discussion from my talk page to here:

10 october edits loose some information, and uses a lower information density for the specs. Is there is a reason? --Marc Lacoste 08:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly sure what you mean. Seems like all of the info is still there. I just re-ordered it and put it together the way the manufacturer does. Can you give me an example? Roguegeek (talk) 09:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

lost information

Head : 11.5° intake and 12° exhaust valve angles (down from 14° both), aluminium valve retainers, two 27 mm diameter titanium inlet valves (from 25 mm), two 23 mm titanium exhaust valves (from 22 mm), 12.8:1 compression ratio (from 12.4:1), semi-hydraulic camchain tensioner became DOHC, 16-titanium valves; metric units loss; output numbers, etc.

lower information density

unjustified table use, one fifth the width, smaller font, etc.

I do agree that the table doesn't seem to be very typical of other motor vehicle articles. The format used before wasn't perfect either, but I do think it was better than the skinny table format. Wikipedia:Embedded list isn't directly applicable, but it mentions the princple that prose is often better than lists or tables of data, since this is supposed to be an encyclopedia rather than a reference manual. --Interiot 18:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree with whatever format is best to use as per Wikipedia policies. If there's a better way to do it, I would definitely want to see it done that way. My difficulty comes in finding a way to show specifications between model years in the clearest way possible, taking up the least room it can. Thoughts on this? Roguegeek (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What shouldn't be disputed is the specification information I changed as it comes straight from the manufacturer's site (which I do reference). If certain info didn't get carried over, please feel free to add to it, but don't just blanket revert changes that do, in fact, supply the most up-to-date and accurate information available. Marc Lacoste's revert also changed facts like current MSRP, an updated image, updated facts about price comparison, and reliable sources WP:RS for everything (which the previous spec sheet did not have). Roguegeek (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question of information loss - which was referenced. You didn't answer the information density point neither. If there is no data in the previous model column, the table isn't justified. BTW, a full text inclusion of the 2004 model spec could be added like "12° down from 14° in the previous model", etc. I reverted because I saw you read the discussion, but haven't answered, which I thought was an assent. Sorry if it was too early. I thought I keep the current price, the image was of smaller resolution for no indicated changes and no less reliable source than some SportRider chart was used. --Marc Lacoste 08:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. Thought I did address those questions for some reason. I don't see any reason for any information that didn't make it into the edits I made to not be included. It wasn't my intention to not include referenced information. As long as it's referenced, it should be in there. Roguegeek (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Not really, could you replace it? --Marc Lacoste 20:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

As for the empty column, I have filled in spec information for both 2001/2002 and 2003/04/05 with references. I feel as if this makes the table justified now, but want to hear your feedback. Is there a better way to display this data? Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a good idea. As Interiot pointed, not very pleasant to read, but information is dense and comparisons are easy. I found joined cells dangerous, perhaps I'll make one cell at time, with "unchanged" for successive cells.--Marc Lacoste 20:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What are the difference between the 2006 and 2007 images? the 2006 was more detailed. And the dyno chart linked isn't rich in observed conditions. Apparently, at the rear wheel, after transmission loss, but who knows? I'd prefer the original engine spec. --Marc Lacoste 20:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Controversy

I'm moving this paragraph off the main article because it is written in a very informal style. If there's useful verifiable / non-original research content here, feel free to reword it and add it back to the article. This was posted at the end of the RPM/controversy section.

Well all of this is kinda true but if you get the motor rebuilt by a motor builder it can run more RPM's. Also if you get a hot box which takes the rev limiter out you can run more rpms than the stock limit but be careful because if you go to much over the limit, it'll blow. Like our 2003 Yzf R6 motor we can run the motor at 16300 RPM's before it blows and the rev limiter was at 14500. I also got a 2000 Yzf r6 bored out to 2mm and stroked to 670cc and we can still run it at 16000 rpm's plus the motors cranking out 160 horses thats more than a R1, the motor also has a port and polish head job with wiseco pistons, carillo rods, and we did have titanium valves but they didn't work and got smashed by the pistons. All the motor work was done by Momo micro sprint engines, it has a FTZ exaust system, odum caburators, and a Clifford hot box. By the way I race a micro sprint which can go up to 120 mph on a third mile race track. But I dont know what you can do to the new 2006 to me they don't sound much better or different than 2005 motors. --67.54.202.214

--Interiot 07:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Good remove Roguegeek (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Secondary sources

Please see WP:PSTS for a description of the types of sources. Also keep in mind this is a policy and not simply a guideline.

• Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event. Secondary sources may draw on primary sources and other secondary sources to create a general overview; or to make analytic or synthetic claims. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

With this being the case, a manufacturer claimed spec can be overwritten with information from a secondary source. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Dry Weight vs. Tested Weight

There seems to be some confusion as to the definition of Dry Weight. The Dry Weight as published by the manufacturer is a measure of weight with NO fluids whatsoever. Oil, fuel, lube, and coolant are not included. They arrive at this number by adding the weight of all the parts that constitute the machine in dealer delivered form.

Magazines often publish an as-tested weight which includes all fluids minus fuel. This may be a more useful metric, but it can not be considered a dry weight in the same way as reported by the manufacturer.

On the spec sheet for this page, the discrepancies are misleading. For the 03-05 we have the tested weight listed as the dry weight. For the other model years, it is manufacturer dry weight. Perhaps another row on the spec sheet for "Tank Empty Weight" would be appropriate? Fizzer82

Copyvio

This issued has not been addressed and will be deleted if no reason can be seen to keep an area that is a word for word copyright violation.--71.37.137.109 (talk) 04:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I presume the above commenter is referring to the top section "Yamaha YRF R6 (2008)" which is a word-for-word plagiarism of http://www.yamaha-motor.com/sport/products/modelfeatures/8/0/features.aspx. I am removing this section due to copyright violation.

Rritterson (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Most likely deliberate

I'd just like to add that the Yamaha was most likely acutely aware of the overstated RPM gauge. Why? Well an ECU can't just be 'wrong' on which RPM the bike is at. It has to know the engine position to within a fraction of a cycle to correctly inject fuel and spark etc. It cannot simply inaccurate or the bike would not run. So if the bike knows exactly how fast its turning, why isn't it indicated correctly (or within a reasonable range)? Well it should be quite clear that this is a manufactured inaccuracy (like a speedo). I am extremely critical because this is not a safety 'feature'. Rather it is essentially a lie which they used to market their bike with (17,500rpm redline). No doubt people buy their bikes with redline in mind, after all an extra coupe of thousand revs is useful overrun when changing gear would otherwise steal crucial time. Booksacool1 (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It certainly cannot have been an accident unless their product testing is very slack. However, is the redline question the most important thing about this bike? Why is it at the top of the article. 80.176.88.36 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC).

Lead image, MSRP and warranty.

The relevant policies/guidelines here are WP:CARPIX, WP:NOPRICES and WP:WORLDVIEW.

The consensus is to follow the Automobile Project's image policy. I could support deviating from that policy for the lead image, if the article already had more than one WP:CARPIX style image for each version of the bike, as in Kawasaki Ninja 250R or Suzuki Hayabusa, but if there is only one image it needs to follow the convention. Regardless of what style or policy you follow, File:File yamaha yzf r6 black 2009.jpg is not a good choice. The picture needs to be more about the bike and not the rider.

The policy on prices allows mentioning MSRP -- it disallows street prices at specific retailers -- but it needs context, and it needs to recognize the bike is sold all over the world. Just having United States MSRPs for each year without accounting for inflation, including non-US MSRPs, and not citing any independent sources discussing whether the price is high, low, or what, is not OK. There are a million other websites where you can look up raw stats like this but they do not in of themselves make a good encyclopedia article. --Dbratland (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)