Talk:Honda CB900F — Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4 Апр 2015 | Author: | Комментарии к записи Talk:Honda CB900F — Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia отключены

Talk:Honda CB900F


on weight 3/26/2008 [ edit ]

The dry figure is completely wrong a misquote. According current 5 gallons of gasoline(30 lbs. by 4.6 quarts of oil, 32 oz. of fork about a gallon of coolant, a some brake fluid all weighs in at 30 pounds. This VERY, VERY BASIC addition).

This assertion is by Sportrider’s own numbers of 455lbs. dry wet. The 30 lb. difference is the same as a full tank(5 gallons in case) of gasoline. This is with the concept of dry weight as quoted which requires ALL from fluids be removed.

does not even claim to do dry weight measurements but, a measurement they refer to as no

To quote Sportrider: These contain fuel consumption measured rear-wheel horsepower and and measured wet and dry (no fuel) weights.

(talk ) 05:02, 27 March (UTC)

That’s fine, but we specify that in the article so not to confuse a reader. Secondary are still more important. (talk ) 16:31, 27 March (UTC)

Rougegeek. I checked out the We’ve already confirmed Sportrider’s own admission that NEVER, EVER measured the dry of the bike therefor are NOT a source on the or otherwise). If you insist on the 455lb. you need to remove the term dry all together.

ESPECIALLY since linked to the definition of the term by 455 pounds is very clearly the number. It’s better the previous total misquote it certainly serves to confuse the as it is written now.

You still misquoted dry weight AGAIN in edit revert in the specs on the page also. Your source is totally invalid as they to OPENLY admit to in their data collection of dry right a the top of the page containing the What Sportrider very refer to as dry weight by their own is clearly something very than the widely accepted for that term.

The only source provided so far is the one I provided, does NOT say 455 pounds. I reverted chart edit.

3 TIMES edit reverted accurate a reputable source where basically add up) to inaccurate data(from a that states that it is not doing the specific measurement you are it as doing numbers that don’t add up by 40%). We all make but, stubbornly edit to a clear error repeatedly.

thoughts on the secondary source

In all Wikipedia entries for specific of motorcycle, manufacturer service primary source) should be the #1 for hard technical specifications. Because there often are no sources that actually the figures for themselves.

About all secondary sources get technical specification figures the manufacturer as it’s impractical to measure independently.

Consider Does Sportrider or any periodical have enough extra to disassemble engines independently an engine bore …(displacement), cam or throttle body diameter, etc. NO, they just the maker. Using dry weight as example. Once fluids are there’s a lot of expense involved in them all completely out again is why Sportrider NEVER did it.

That weight list is long. have to drain fluids every bike on the list clean dry every internal that was bathed in motor coolant, grease brake The only way to do that is tear of each bike apart.

is surely NOT doing all that admit as much.

I’d go as far to say about nobody is doing it. bet that even independent manuals(Haynes/Clymer) written by people who took apart the bikes use manufacturer specs tolerance heavily.

Bottom line:

The of secondary sources are still important does NOT hold up for the of specific machine hard specifications. Up to date manufacturer service manuals(a primary are very highly accurate. are not opinion oriented. Published, derived, independent measurements of the figures are costly therefor do not exist at all. Absence of sources makes the manufacturer manuals(primary sources) perfectly

The burden-of-proof rightfully belongs on the secondary sources in significantly manufacturer service manual specification figures. They occasionally meet that

—Kendog29 (talk ) 05:00, 30 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I the bottom line is that you to find another secondary that shows otherwise. clearly states all article live and breath from sources, so your idea of articles being confirmed by a source is just flat out If a secondary source exists, a more valid source.

torque, and weight. these are subjective and should always be up by a reliable secondary source, I have done. Show a reliable and updated secondary and the info can be changed. Until do not overwrite secondary source with primary source

Also, you confirming with Rider is considered original and is not valid enough to change here. Again, I think you to read up on the policy a little bit I also encourage you to seek from an admin or even use the tag to more help.

I any case, I’m glad we are here instead of having useless edit war. (talk ) 05:26, 31 March (UTC)

Honda official dry 4/21/2009 [ edit ]

The Honda dry weight for the CB900F(919) is 194 kg (

428 lb) (Reference: Australia, [1] .

. Predecessor. [ edit ]

In the market, the 1994 1995 ONE) is a very reasonable The old CB900’s were from years previous(to about or 1983). —Preceding unsigned added by Kendog29 (talk • ) 01:48, 29 March 2008

Sounds good to me. I would it in there. Roguegeek (talk ) 31 March 2008 (UTC)

of Production [ edit ]

Shouldn’t be the final production year of since Honda have the bike with the CB1000?

(talk ) 04:51, 30 December (UTC)Elysium222.155.161.128 (talk ) 04:51, 30 2008 (UTC)

discussion from the main page [ ]

I have been an avid rider for three decades when I think of a CB900F it is the made from 1979 to 1983.

See the link.

Tx Bill

I have to agree with on this, what is pictured is not what I would consider a it is in fact a Hornet..CB900F’s have air DOHC carburated engines, and made by the Honda Corp 1979 for about 4 years. were available in Europe North America, with a in Europe but not in North America. The American version also had a riding position, a 80MPH and different Carb jetting due to EPA at the time. You will see WAY more CB900F’s on the road still that you will ever see —Preceding unsigned comment by (talk ) 17:29, 20 2009 (UTC)

I’ll in to agree the previous two comments. I helped another user to a page that accurately the real CB900F, but it looks he never continued to publish article. The Hornet/919 IS NOT the CB900F.

Any familiar with Honda could verify this

Here is a link to the sandbox for the CB900F. [2] Does anyone how to get this published and move the article to a new article for the Hornet/919? (talk ) 01:08, 3 February (UTC)

CB900F and Hornet [ ]

Hello. I see the original page was to a different article. This discussion before it is done. merged both generation information onto the same Yes, they are different but they are the same in name and

Both should be represented on the page. This is the same applied to so many different We don’t go making separate for each generation unless is substantial information to support a article.

Anyway, wanted to the discussion topic so all editors can in here. Thoughts? roguegeek ·cont ) 21:50, 3 February (UTC)

I made the changes discussion in the Wikipedia motorcycling These two motorcycles are not the same and do not the same name. The official of the later bike is ‘Hornet’ or

It is not officially ‘CB900F’. As such, it justified to me that they get articles. I acknowledge that is referred to as a ‘CB900F’ sometimes, is why I think it is appropriate that articles mention the other

If anything, the second generation of the is the CB1100F. If someone were to that the CB900F and the CB1100F be in the same article, I would — though you would have to consider including the CB750F, the CB900C, and the CB1000C. The is much more closely to the CB1100F than it is to the Hornet/919. the Hornet/919 is more closely to the Hornet 600 and the CB1000 (Big 1) it is to the original CB900F and CB900C.

(talk ) 22:00, 3 February (UTC) Honda UK calls it the MCN calls it the same. Numerous searches cut anyway you want to that bike as being several things depending on the (ie. CB900F, CB900F CB900 Hornet, 919, etc. ). As far as being related, I with you.

Still, the two aren’t going to have related to them when of the two generations is almost 20 years roguegeek (talk ·cont ) 3 February 2010 (UTC) that there are so many what exactly would it for two motorcycles to have substantial information? 17-year production No shared parts/design?

Different Different family of motorcycles? I did see on one site that the model for the Hornet/919 is indeed CB900F7 (I the tail number changes by — which is more than I initially was aware.

I have yet to see the bike offically a ‘CB900F’ by Honda so I stand by my that the pages be separate. I do not referring to the Hornet/599 as a ‘CB600F’ namely because ‘CB600F’ not overlap with a very earlier model. I think the important thing is that searching for information on the CB900F are not in information on the Hornet/919.

Similarly, people looking for on the newer bike are unlikely to be in the CB900F. For comparison’s sake, the has 5 different pages (!), one page for the CBR600F4 and another for the Some say they prefer of articles, but I would caution there is a wealth of information to the original 900 series that has to do with the more recent Jon1234567 (talk ) 23:02, 3 2010 (UTC)

External [ edit ]

I have removed external link from the links section. Under to be avoided. the site meets #5 due to the amount of advertising on it (there’s an advertisement archive?!), #10 due to the discussion and #11 due to it being a fansite. Thoughts? (talk ·cont ) 23:05, 4 2010 (UTC)

Colors [ ]

Copied from the article:

American colors

2002 Asphalt (Matte Pearl)

2003 — Light Metallic, Asphalt Black

— Light Silver Matte Uranium (Green)

— Metallic Black

— Candy Red

2007 Candy Red

United Kingdom and colors

2001 — Nail Silver, Candy Blue, Mute Black (from 2001 on)


2001 — Red, Silver Metallic (from on)

We should leave this out for and put it back when it can be reliably I think somebody confused the 2001 UK release date the 2002 model year. hyped the bike and showed it in 2001, but it was a 2002 MY.

Just there were still MY CB900Fs for sale in 2008 though it had been replaced. But articles go by model year. (talk ) 21:38, 9 February (UTC)

TRAC — or 1983? [ edit ]

Honda Elysium

Question on — was this added in I used to own a 1982 model and am confident it did not have the TRAC I was under the impression (in the US, anyway) TRAC was only available on the CB1100F, not any of the 900s.

Perhaps was different in Europe? Jon1234567 ) 03:31, 10 February 2010

You’re probably right, they phased in the changes on 1982 models or some Myers — a UK writer also says 1983. The source for 1982 is Brown.

updated it to reflect the disagreement. I if we can check another source also says 1983, we can Brown on this question and say 1983. —Dbratland (talk ) 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Calipers [ edit ]

I can state with certainty dual-piston calipers were in 1982 (in the US, at least). I believe were also used in Jon1234567 (talk ) 04:43, 10 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable Littering this Article [ ]

Good article, but seems to be by a Honda enthusiast who’s a bit Many references are to an opinion may have been influenced by You can reference an opinion to support I can provide plenty of references the moon landings happened in the desert.

QUALITY references

I did over 50,000 km (30,000 on a Bol D’Or (Rolladoor) in the early an earlier model than the the model in the leading photo, the some facts presented in article are quite different to my that of anyone else I who owned one. I’ll down through the article my bit. Free free to

The … was longer than the article appears self-contradictory. My ratio was higher than here. Combustion chamber angle/compression ratio worth on too, it’s what the interesting characteristics of this

Number of valves per cylinder (4) not also important.

Exotic it comes from overseas. Japanes bike is exotic if you live in Japan. What the prefix Ex mean? Dictionary,

Pigs fly. Handling was

In Australia the frame had a well-deserved for flexing, that removable maintenance) frame rail behaved like a hinge was one of problems, the suspension was pansy-soft.

was excellent, when the stands modified tucked away but above 140 km (85 mph) the bike poorly to bumps/wallows in corners, shocks hopeless, front dangerously soft the bike up alarmingly when braking corners. Air preload was useless for but quite good for blowing seals even if you didn’t

The Rolladoor has only one front brake, that disc has 2 rotors.

Quite unusually for a long … the engine had no

totally gutless below rpm

lit up like a rocket at around rpm

ran reliably to 10,500 rpm (1,000 rpm the redline)

at 11,000 rpm the valves tangle catastrophically with other or the piston. See valve See Ducati re desmodromic.

Various to invrease the upper limit, as heavier valvesprings double were tried, but met with success.

If the valvesprings in your aren’t in new condition (off-spec or assembly or lost tension due to age, etc) the upper will be lower.

Broken mentioned lower down in the probably occurred when an moving piston met a downward valve, or hit two valves that had tangled. Valves can float at rpm. Ever wondered why use desmodromic heads?

Mercedes racers used too.

Many people the it dropped out of gear stories around at the time were from sloppy gearchanges or gear linkages. Nobody I had this problen.

Approx rpm at approx 100 km (60 mph) on standard was revving ridiculously high. of smaller rear sprockets sold.

The bars were clipons excellent, very quality design manufacture, amount of adjustment if reversed down so they dropped gave same position as clipons. Left in the standard you’d be instantly blown off the at 130 mph (210 km), no perhaps it.

New red-lit instruments (different to ones pictured in article) generally considered excellent, a few didn’t like them

Many people thought the finish was better than Models without the ghastly pressed rivetted aluminium looked very smart.

was renowned as an instrument of torture, of any bike I’ve owned,1,000 km miles) in a day was almost unbearable.

Excellent finish Excellent Excellent power when you got up it.

Awful handling the only who said it handled OK were 750 Honda owners journos to advertiser pressure Honda. below 7,000 rpm. handling. Drank like a if you were up it.

Awful handling. seat. Awful handling.

the top nonsense. The Rolladoor was quickly obsolete by the GSX 1100 Suzuki.

I air-cooled motorcycles existed 100 before Honda came A 1930’s Brough pulled 130 same top speed as the Honda. heads, anyone?

I enjoyed my but my next bike was a GSX 1100 It thrashed the Honda in every except finish groundclearance (I wearing holes in alternator

Honda really blitzed the with Honda propaganda, was dutifully repeated by the motorcycling where Honda spent of advertising dollars when the Bol was released, it seems to be still around. — Preceding unsigned added by (talk ) 19 October 2013 (UTC)


Tagged as:

Other articles of the category "Honda":

Our partners
Follow us
Contact us
Our contacts

Born in the USSR


About this site

For all questions about advertising, please contact listed on the site.

Motorcycles catalog with specifications, pictures, ratings, reviews and discusssions about Motorcycles.