Talk:Kawasaki triple

King of the Streets

It is not hard to find other pages the refer to the H2 as "king of the Streets". None of them are the kind of journalistic source I'd prefer using but I may make the argument that taken together they are enough. Keep in mind, this isn't about a claim made about a new cure for cancer. It a commonly used phrase among people who talk about this vehicle.

I removed a tag about asking for the meaning of "king of the streets". I didn't put the phrase there so I do NOT understand why Dennis deletes the whole sentence and sends me a message that reads " Please stop adding unsourced content to Kawasaki triple". I had done no such thing.

That phrase had been on the page for many years, something Dennis should know because it was there when he made a bunch of changes to the page over 5 years ago, and 4 more times before October this year when for some unexplained reason falsely singled me after I merely deleted a citation. It was there every time he has made a change to the page. Why me and why now.

The King of the Streets was added by Djfisher22, who started this page. He added it on 27 February 2007‎. His only contributions involve this page and his last edit was December 2007. It was here for over 7 years including the 5 times Dennis made edits. I know that in itself doesn't mean it can't be challenged. But I'd think before casually removing it a couple of minutes in Google could have been called for instead of running a power game on me.

Back on the topic, what do others think about several less than perfect sources being good enough in this situation? The thing is, I can prove there was no car or bike you could by from the showroom that had a faster quarter mile time. I've already shown there was no contemporary bike that was faster. But I would now have to research one at a time, the GM, Ford, Chrysler, AMC, cars made in 72 or earlier and show that they could not go 12 flat in a quarter mile. What a ridiculous waste of time when nobody, not even Dennis is claiming it's not true, only that it's somehow after 7 years unWiki like to not ask for a source. It's highly unlikely is going to claim a car made in the whole era is faster, and in 3 years I never came across even a modified car that was faster in a street race situation.

King of the streets. http://matmoto.com/?p=611 http://boyracer.blogspot.com/2011/11/best-motorcycles-of-all-times.html http://mondopeople.co.uk/strokers/Pages/H2B.htm http://smarterxdesign.co/1972/1972-kawasaki-h2-750-mach-iv-motorcycle-motorcycle-photo-11.html/page/2 http://www.cycledrag.com/two-cycle-dream-becomes-reality

Jackhammer111 (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Is "King of the Streets" a title that is bestowed on a particular model, like Cycle World Bike of the Year? What criteria are used to select it? How often is the title issued? Are there consequences for misappropriating the title? — Brianhe (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

If anyone can prove that it actually had the fastest quarter mile time, then just do so. No need to talk about it, or threaten to do it or promise to do it. Just do it. Give the citation. The three links above to some personal blogs don't meet Wikipedia's criteria. There's nothing "unWiki" about asking for a source, whether it 7 years or 70 years.

Currently the article cites several high quality sources who all said something to the effect that it accelerated faster than "almost anything". Nobody was willing to say anything without qualification, but they were in agreement that it was at least very nearly the fastest thing off the line. Why should Wikipedia go beyond what the likes of Roland Brown and the other experts say? Only with very good sources should we do that.

WP:PEACOCK makes perfectly clear why "king of the streets" is not something any decent Wikipedia article will ever say without attribution. Look at the Bob Dylan example. As Brian says, if you want to quote an authority who calls it "king", by all means, do so. I support 100% saying "The bike was called 'king of the streets' by ... " if they are a reliable source, with a citation. But Wikipedia itself would never hand out that kind of title.

How would having the fastest acceleration even lead to being "king" of all the streets? Do enthusiasts of the Craig Vetter Fuel Economy Challenge consider the H2 king of anything? Not by a long shot. What about 200 mph Club member? Nope, they care about top speed. What about the Iron Butt Association? King of long distance riding? Hardly. "The Streets" encompasses all public roads, and they're not owned by 1/4 mile racers. Most users of "The Streets" are going from A to B in minivans and care more about cup holders than 1/4 mile times.

Cycle World called it the ultimate bike for "light to light freaks" and various similar phrases have been used to describe the subculture of those who value off the line acceleration above all else. And that's great! More power to you. But calling a bike "king" because of one thing, whether it's fuel economy or top speed or endurance or 1/4 mile time is absurd, and hardly neutral.

So stick to what you can actually cite. I think the current state of the article is pretty good, and certainly verifiable. I have some more books I can use to expand the H2 section some more. It is close to being a Good Article, if we cooperate and stop worrying about this "king" nonsense. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

again, sigh, I didn't put the king of the streets line into the article. So now you have whoever put it there, and me, and the references I gave, and if you took time to look you could find that exact phrase used by people in the era, people in blogs referring to it that way, and people who say they owned them saying the same thing. Your definition of "the streets" is laughable. It's silly gobbledygook diversionary nonsense that way over-defines what is obvious in the context of where it was originally put. You are arguing on the head of pin. The streets is street racing. It's unsanctioned 1/4 mile drag racing on public roads. You seem out of your element when writing about it. You say "If anyone can prove that it actually had the fastest quarter mile time, then just do so". That's completely ridiculous. Not only would you have to have data on literally everything on the road to meet YOUR requirement, but more importantly, there is not data on street drag racing. It was not about data and only indirectly about the fastest quarter mile time (here's hoping I don't have to explain that to you). And the point is not that that there was any more data about that then there was in any of street drag racing. The point is that was is was referred to as that. If I took a group of gearheads in 1972 or '73 at a drive in looking for races with their machines at the ready and ask them if the H-2 was the king of the streets, with mine ready, they would, very often grudgingly, agree. Because if they didn't, we'd have to race. Starting with my H-1 and through my H-2 street racing went from easy money to hard to get a race. It became hard to get a race when king of the streets thing got around. And actually I did supply data showing that it was faster than any of it's contemporary competitors so you can't exactly say I'm blowing smoke out my tailpipe. To satisfy your notion I'd have to find comparison tests on all muscle cars as well, and in street racing that wouldn't prove what you think it would anyway because car the drop off going from going from drag strip starting line asphalt is more dramatic in a car than in a motorcycle. You are the only one arguing that it should not be here and doing so on such technical grounds that it's practically absurd. This is not a wiki about brain surgery. And you keep coming up with new ways to sound authoritarian as though you are the last word on all things wikii, as you ending with "stop worrying about this "king" nonsense". With all the writing and research I've done hearing you calling it nonsense is insulting. I mean really Dennis, I am personally insulted to have you smugly refer to it as nonsense. So, I say again, I don't believe there's anything wrong or un-wiki like to find a way to say that was refered to in street racing circles as "king of the street's". I cited 3 sources. I, and you, could find more. How many of those does it take to equal one of what you call a reliable source?

Also, why did you take the url out of the reference to the superbike comparison test? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackhammer111 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Look, Jackhammer, nobody is going to read an essay and try to figure out what you're trying to change. Can you suggest one specific thing that's wrong, what you think it should say, and why it should say it (i.e. what source says so)? We can go from there. — Brianhe (talk) 07:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. I read it. The 3 sources [23][24][25] are low-quality blogs which have obviously lifted the phrase "undisputed king of the streets, even beating legendary muscle cars of the era such as the Plymouth Hemi Cuda" from Wikipedia. Jackhammer, take your sources to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you think they would convince anyone.

We already have lots of sources saying the bike was really fast. What is the point of all this? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a summary of the sources offered by Jackhammer111 so far:

"King of the Streets" sources

Site	Issue(s)	Notes
http://matmoto.com/?p=611	Copied from Wikipedia	analysis per Dennis
http://boyracer.blogspot.com/2011/11/best-motorcycles-of-all-times.html	Copied from Wikipedia, also a blog	per Dennis
http://mondopeople.co.uk/strokers/Pages/H2B.htm	Copied from Wikipedia	analysis per Dennis
http://smarterxdesign.co/1972/1972-kawasaki-h2-750-mach-iv-motorcycle-motorcycle-photo-11.html/page/2	SEO gibberish	analysis per Brian
http://www.cycledrag.com/two-cycle-dream-becomes-reality	Copied from Wikipedia	analysis per Dennis

To me, these all look either strictly unusable, or iffy. Who is cycledrag.com? Is it related to a print publication? — Brianhe (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I can illuminate exactly how iffy they are. Regarding this edit summary, there still isn't a single reliable source for using this "king of the streets" peacock phrase. This latest one, Two-Cycle Dream Becomes Reality, is blatant plagiarism. Even if Jack Korpela at the cycledrag.com were decent source, it's blatantly obvious that Korpella has copy-pasted text from Wikipedia. Here is the July 9, 2007 version of the article which Korpela copied in to his blog post in September 2007. Here is the Duplication Detector showing the plagiarism.

We can't quote any authority who called the bike the "king" and "king of the streets" is not a fact. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The text at smarterxdesign.co is gibberish. It appears to be machine-generated, or machine-translated. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to say that one is loaded with search terms for SEO. But yeah it's gibberish and not to be trusted. — Brianhe (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggest Merging with H2 Mach IV

It appears that much of the content is redundant with the existing article titled "Kawasaki H2 Mach IV" and it seems that both are not needed. Combine, they may provide fuller content.

Much of what is on here belongs on the Mach IV page. Jackhammer111 (talk) 06:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

year 1975

hi to all what is it kawsaki brought out 1962 model kawsaki models why dont you talk about at all seeing as it was the first one 115.166.48.7 (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Expansion chamber vs muffler

This revert may have been a mistake or misunderstanding of the source, which says The mufflers were really racing expansion chambers, muffled just enough to meet the loose decibel requirements of the 1960s. Note that you have to click a "Continue Reading" button to read the full article in Motorcycle Classics. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

There is a problem with there being such a large motorcycle magazine press. Not everybody knows what the hell they're talking about. This article written in 2009 is possibly written by somebody who's never seen a Kawasaki H1. I don't know where the notion comes from that that is in anyway and expansion chamber but she should know better. She should know what an expansion chamber is. I owned and a red and white H1. I rode it I drag raced it and I Street raced it. The only time it was loud was when you had the throttle wide open and the RPM's above 5000.It screamed like an F1 engine of the era. It was music.

I'm going to link an article on Wikipedia about what an expansion chamber is and also show you an eBay posting of a stock H1 Muffler. You tell me what part of that looks anything like an expansion chamber. There has to be an expanding part of the chamber, for an expansion chamber. Part of it has to be significantly larger than the rest to set up the expansion resonance.

There's a problem with relying on the articles on the H series Kawasakis that are critical of the frame and suspension and brakes. Especially of relying on a magazine writer's opinion when in fact such conclusions should be based on data. The first H-1s come late 1968. The H2 comes in 1972. Take a look at all of the other, slower, stock motorcycles you could buy off the showroom and find me some data that says the frame was less " flexible" or the chassis was Superior or that the brakes were better. I can find you comparison testing data that shows the H2 was superior in every way to ALL of its contemporary bikes and that includes road course lap times by experienced riders. I used that comparison test as a reference for something I wrote in the H2 Wikipedia page. By the way I also owned an H2, drag raced it, Street raced it, rode it from Columbus Ohio to the west coast, up and down the west coast, and back to Ohio so I know a thing or two about the H series bikes. But even that I know is not data. But I know these criticisms flexible frames of flexible frames and the Malarkey about Widowmaker criticisms of the suspension and brakes are not based on data. I'm also going to add a link to that comparison test even though it's an H2 not an H1. One thing I do know for sure is it there are a lot of people that climbed on to an H1 or an H2 and tried to treat it like the bike they had climbed off of and when they Twisted the throttle like they were used to doing on whatever they've been riding they were in for a big surprise. Just the huge difference in power weight ratio meant that you had to have respect for just what that engine could do. Everybody I know that had the crap scared out of them by an H series Kawasaki had their fate entirely in their right hand. There had been nothing like it before. Of course there was a learning curve. But it a good excuse for riders that didn't have the nerve to climb off and criticize the machine instead of accepting responsibility for controlling the machine. It was after all, just a machine. It had a throttle a clutch lever brakes and a shifter just like everything else does. And just like the super-fast motorcycles today, how you manage those controls determines your fate.

This single magazine article which is not a great source and contains the bogus claim that they used factory expansion chambers, is used to denigrate the bike several times. I don't know why someone is so eager to run down what can be considered the first superbikes. They changed motorcycle history. They wrecked the British motorcycle industry and had a hand in killing Harley Davidson. I know the Harley guys back then hated my bikes. That's ok, I gleefully took their money every single time. Maybe that is where the bitterness comes from.

Fast is fun.

Expansion chamber

https://www.ebay.com/itm/KAWASAKI-H1-500-MACH-USED-Center-Exhaust-Muffler-18001-085/370911015544?epid=1411814040&hash=item565c04f278:g:wfUAAOSw~3paeiuf

http://www.kawtriple.com/mraxl/articles/1973%20Superbikes/superbikes1.htm Jackhammer111 (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

That's all great, but I know several of us have explained to you several times about original research. You've had it explained to you that if mainstream published sources are wrong, then Wikipedia is going to be wrong too, even if you know the truth. The parts of you comments where you cite published verifiable sources are most welcome, and helpful. The parts where you tell us about your personal experiences are a waste of everyone's time. A lot of Wikipedians won't even read your comment because it's too long. Subtract the irrelevant personal experiences, and you will mostly likely have greater influence on other editors. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Please make edits based on verifiabiltiy

I fear we've returned to the realm of editor opinions vs verifiable published sources. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth is the essay that we should once again review. I restored some deletions based on an editors opinions, and added page specific page refer3ences for Brown 2004 and Brown 2006. Google Books has Cycle World March 1975, so I added a link in that citation. Brown said in a 2004 book that the H2 does 0-100 in under 13 seconds, and just in case you think it was a typo, he said it again, precisely, in his 2006 book. Cycle World's test of the 1974 model was 0-100 mph in 13.2, or perhaps 0.3 seconds off from Brown's "under 13" reported for the 1972. It's plausible enough.

Most importantly, it's verifiable. If you have a published source who says Brown is wrong, please cite it. If not, please keep personal opinions and original research out of articles. Verifiable source may indeed be wrong, but we accept them unless another verifiable source contradicts them. Not based on editor whims or attitudes or assumptions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't figure out what to do with this malformatted comment, up in the wrong section. With respect to this deletion, "adequately" is not a criticism. Brakes need to be quite good to perform "adequately" on a bike with extreme (for the time) levels of acceleration. Mentioning that some riders tried to upgrade the brakes is not a damning criticism. It says more about the mentality of sport bike riders. They're always looking for more.

The article does not rely on Roland Brown alone. Other sources, like Cycle World, and others, are cited as wall, and they don't contradict Brown. They are generally consistent. Additionally, Roland Brown is a respected author of many books and articles, and nobody has cited verifiable reasons why we shouldn't trust his research as much as anybody's. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Here is what dennismoved into archive. Evidently because he doesn't want to discuss my point about too much reliance single source.

"this page, and others rely far too much on the work but one author, roland brown. it is not possible that roland brown referenced nine different items found on this page on a single page of his book and the reference to zero to a hundred miles an hour in 13 seconds on an H2 is glaringly wrong. Dennis writes "mainstream published sources are wrong, then Wikipedia is going to be wrong too." There is no reason for Wikipedia to be wrong when there is evidence to the contrary as in the case expansion chamber's. No reason to leave 0 to 100 in 13 seconds on the page right after the claim of a 12 flat quarter-mile regardless of what it says in a book. the 73 superbike article is contrary evidence. Roland dennis roland claims that the H2's bikes were"adequate". That's an opinion that is contrary to actual data in the 1973 superbike comparison test where the H2 generated more braking force then all 7 of its competitors. That is not adequate brakes, it's the best brakes. Actual data, not writers opinion."

The fastest documented run of a stock kawasaki H2 mach IV 750 is 11.95 seconds at 115 miles an hour. there are six different sources for that run. so it doesn't really matter what roland brown wrote in books about 0-100. He's been proven wrong by other sources. Jackhammer111 (talk) 05:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Read the edit summary. Does it say my name? No. It says lowercase sigmabot III. That's not me. You're posting replies to threads from FIVE YEARS AGO and complaining that some bot moves them into the archive. Who? Or what, is User:lowercase sigmabot III? Click, and read for yourself. Go to their talk page and ask them what they do and why. Information about how all this works is at Help:Talk pages and Help:Archiving a talk page. If you're confused, go over there and nicely ask someone to explain. You're making accusations out of ignorance, blaming me for your own blunders and misunderstandings. You think I have nothing better to do than persecute you at every turn? If your coffee is cold, guess what? It wasn't me. If your favorite TV show is cancelled, also not me. Bad things can happen in your life that have nothing to do with Dennis Bratland.

Brown has not been "proven wrong" in any way. No source contradicts him.

Data proves him wrong. The et and speed used in the fastest accelerating motorcycles prove him wrong with 6 sources. (one of which btw contradicts the claim that the Dunstall Norton was a production motorcycle. more on that later). With 12.0 as the standard for the H2 you'd have to making a nonsensical argument that the run was under 100 mph. Is that really the head of the pin you want to dance on? Jackhammer111 (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

You're the one making your own calculations and estimates and surmising what you think is hypothetically possible. The question is this: if Brown is so wrong, why are you the only one who has ever said so? Cite a reliable source who says "Brown is wrong". Cite a reliable source that says, "This data is wrong". Or "We can't trust Roland Brown".

No vehicle performance test is Gospel. The fact that one time one guy had a 12 second run doesn't mean Joe Blow can hop on the same model and repeat the same run at whatever altitude and weather and rider skill level he has. It's absurd to think every one of these sources are going to be in perfect agreement. That's the reason why none of them are making these complaints. Only you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

No, You are the one that is saying you think it's hypothetically possible the 12.0 runs used several places could be done at less than 100 mph. Nobody is claiming "joe blow" could jump on one and go 12 but the title of the page is not what joe blow can do. Why do you think that bolsters your argument? Roland Dennis books are not bibles and are overused here (again, address the fact that so many of them are supposedly on the same page of a book). If another accepted source's data contradicts what an editor added from a roland brown book then the reference should be deleted. The pages about the H bikes are histories and primary sources like a photo of a document are acceptable. And the document presented here shows that shows zero to well over 100 mph in less than 12 seconds. What part of that don't you understand? the notion that sources are wrong then Wikipedia is wrong is nonsensical when the goal is to use the best information that can be found. What is wrong should be discounted when it's proven to be wrong. I can't believe I have to make this argument. Are you saying it should stand because it's technically true? What Brown wrote, zero to 100 in less than 13 seconds, now is as meaningless as if he said zero to a hundred in less than 14 seconds, or 15, or 16. I would be technically true but of no value.Jackhammer111 (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The goal is not to “use the best information that can be found”. The goal is verifiability. We take reliable sources at face value, and don’t spin them or weed out whatever we find inconvenient. Your agenda on this topic is to tell the world your truth. To set the record straight, as you see it. So you make up reasons to discount reliable sources you don’t like. Is Brown overused? Not according to any evidence. It’s a claim you made up to justify your agenda. Is Brown considered unreliable? No, not according to any evidence. Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Addressing recent templating and vandalism/deletion

I have restored the historic citation from industry-experts that was determinedly vandalised by Jackhammer111 based on what I believe to be personal prejudice and a demonstrated determination to establish folklore by excluding established works and figures. It is unacceptable and breaches WP:NPOV to delete content and to alter direct quotations to include the phrase "I'm here" (so am I, but choose not to write prose, mostly).

Recent templating

{{What?|reason=Before we had a direct quote. Now it's reworded to correct grammar, but without the end quote mark. Is it still a direct quote? Or a paraphrase? Is this critique even relevant?}}

• Yes - it was a direct quote, but on reflection, it was not as clear as it could have been so I have amended/expanded the context.
• Yes - this critique was/still is relevant, as it's the only ref contemporaneous with the events, and industry-experts chose to nationally-publish their scepticism that Kawasaki was promoting unobtainable performance data. To deny it is breaching WP:NPOV, sanitising WP for the sake of personal vanities. These Kawasaki-exaggerated performance claims continued with the GPz900, the GPx1000 and the faked-up bridge crossing, all of which I am working on along with 400 other things, mostly non-Wiki.

{{check|reason=Who is John Day? The author? What is Full Chat? Is this a letter to the editor? A forum?}} and {{check|reason=We have a direct quote here but we really don't know what it was supposed to say. We have good reason to think it's not verbatim}}

• This first tagging in itself is breaching the basic tenet of WP:AGF; accept that an editor correctly-submits the correct content.

  John Day was a staff-writer of the feature (and others, of course) for two years at least. In that particular issue, speading over two full pages are 10 separate topics and a sporting calendar for the two months the magazine covered. The full(er) quote is:

  Kawasaki's own ambitious claim is that this five-speeder is the fastest and best accelerating road machine ever produced, being capable of 124 mph and 12.4 sec. for the standing start quarter mile.

  Impressive as they are, these figures will undoubtedly be disputed. But there can be little doubt that this machine is the most powerful 500 production machine ever built.

The above are just two of the five paragraphs devoted to this machine. I included {{Sic}} after 12.4 sec. due to past experience with difficult editors wanting to show they 'knew better'; despite this, Jackhammer111 seemingly did not understand that the abbreviation used was faithful to the original, nor to leave the quote alone and NOT apply vandalism to what was perceived to need correction. AGF decrees that I allow for such misunderstanding.

Cycle World's own 1969 figures are 119.14 and 13.2; undoubtedly Motorcycle Mechanics were cognisant of this. Motorcycle Mechanics also has an image similar to one of Cycle World's with a jocular caption alluding to American track testing methods.

Full Chat is a double-entendre, with synonyms: full bore, full stick, flat stick, Harry Flatters, against the stop. John Day, one of several staff-writers, wrote this for at least two years, preceded by Bruce Cox; around that time, ex-racer turned journalist/author Charlie Rous wrote a similar feature: On the Megga - synonyms: on cam, on the pipe, in the power band - the double meaning here is an analogy with (non electronically amplified) traditional loud hailer, with the writer figuratively proclaiming the gossip, via the printed medium.

Are you with me so far? Say, "Yes, Steve".

I would not use readers' letters as a citation without obvious disclosure written within, as seen in inline citations #1, 2 and 3 at Rice burner#References and at Talk:Rice burner#Historic origins, in this case to establish historic/dated use of the phrase (WP normally has modern keyword-searched examples which can only establish the writer's opinion at the time of writing - no historic value whatsoever).--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)