Talk:Suzuki GSX-R1000

Weights

Changed the dry weight in the main article (the sidebar already had it as such) to 365 which is suzuki's claimed dry weight: the link is to Sport Rider, who claims a dry weight of 415, how they get this I am not positive, but I think its by weighing it with gas empty vs gas full: gas weighs in at ~ 6 lbs/gallon, 4.8 gallon tank = ~30 lbs, which is what SR.com is listing as the difference between wet and dry weight: this is incorrect, dry weight is supposed to be the bike completely dry, no fluids; not the bike with an empty gas tank. Left the SR link since it has the wet weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.158.130 (talk)

This is because manufacturer claimed weights are ALWAYS estimates and never meant to be factual. Check out ANY bike's claimed dry weight vs what it really is and it will always be different. We should stick with actual weight and not manufacturer claimed estimated weight. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Which actual weight? Actual Dry weight? (bike only, no fluids or fuel) SR's Dry weight? (Bike with fluids, no fuel) or wet weight (bike full fluids and fuel). I vote we do Mfg. claimed dry weight and Wet weight where possible. Then again, I did make the original edit :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.2.190 (talk)

Manufacturers never make a claim to wet weight because it's going to show as being heavy. They only make claimed dry weights. Publications that actually do weight tests really do take the bikes and put them on scales, which is why I'd prefer to use just actual weights. I can compromise though. We'll just use both estimated and actual weights and make sure we cite sources correctly when doing so. May I suggest you also fully sign up for a Wikipedia account (as it's more protective of your identity) and, at the very least, sign your comments properly. Thanks Roguegeek (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

POV

This is an online encyclopedia and should have as much details stats about articles as possible, all the stats mentioned are verifible on the link mentioned at the end of the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireblade (talk • contribs) 18:16, 24 September 2006

Did you even read my response on my talk page when you decided to ask me about this? I'll just do a little copy and paste here... For every one article you can find that has one type of info, you can find another one that will contradict it. In cases like these where multiple sources can contradict each other, it's best to just stay neutral and offer only facts that can not be disputed. In any case you did NOT cite your sources correctly. I'm going to revert these edits until sources can properly be cited. Please read up on Wikipedia's policy on citing sources. You might also want to evaluate what reliable source actually is and what to do. Please also check your talk page for the comments I left on signature usage. Thank you. Roguegeek (talk) 05:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There are also so many grammar mistakes in the edits that were left. Please double-check or have someone proof read before editing. Thanks. Roguegeek (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments. The source was mentioned clearly at the end of the article and it is a reliable source BBC to be exact and the feature is top gear do you even read the article carefully before you start tagging it??? it is unbiased and neutral. It is not an opinion it’s a road test and its results. thanks. (fireblade)

Just because a link is entered into the bottom of an article doesn't mean the fact had a cited source. Please read the guidelines over again on how to cite a source. Simply put, if you don't cite a source correctly, I'm going to either correct it or tag it as unsourced. You need to read these policies before editting. Let me again re-state what I have said in case I didn't explain it clearly. I have no problems with the source, but there are conflicting sources all over the place on this particular aspect. Pull 10 sources that did the same test and you'll have 10 different results. Again, it's best to stay neutral on this instead of just listing facts from one source that really doesn't even specialize with motorcycles compared to some of the other major publications. Roguegeek (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have seen the data on one reliable source here ie BBC, can someone please show me those 10 conflicting sources thanks (fireblade)

I'm not sure you understood the point. It doesn't take 10 results to show it's a subjective topic. It takes one. As long as there is one reliable source that shows inconsistency, then the results are subjective. I think a more important question to ask is why is this very insignificant fact so important to you to put into an article where there are so many more important things to state? Where would it even go? And don't you think there might be more value in finding info on the history of this bike? Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 06:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have said it time and again --This is an online encyclopedia and it should cover all aspects related to the articles, these figures show performance and capability of this bike I think question is why would someone is determined to delete these accurate reliable figures??? (fireblade)

GSXR 1000 not a replacement for GSXR 1100

The GSXR 1000 was an all new model based on the 2000 GSXR 750 - they share virtually the same frame/geometry aside from the frame spars being slightly (0.5mm) thicker. The GSX 1300R Hayabusa is the actual replacement for the GSXR 1100. The 1100 ended production in 1998 and the Hayabusa came along in 1999. The GSXR 1000 did not appear until 2001. At the time that the 1100 ended production, the chassis differed significantly than that of the then current GSXR 750/600.65.93.137.246 (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

recall info

20 Jan. 2009. Suzuki America has done a recall on the 2005/2006 model years due to frame breakage and cracking. http://www.suzukicycles.com/Recalls/pdf/GS_GSX_GSXR_192_WebsiteLetter.pdf 71.105.41.116 (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

2009 specs

Does anyone have any specs on the new 09 model? I.e. power/dry weight etc? Booksacool1 (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

December 2011

was the recall just for the usa or around the world — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.141.115 (talk) 08:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Status as quickest accelerating production motorcycle

Wouldn't it be worth mentioning in the introduction that this is the world's quickest accelerating motorcycle, as the data on this Wiki article indicates, List of fastest production motorcycles by acceleration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revstate (talk • contribs) 21:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually what we need to do is point out that Motorcycle Consumer News reported their best ever 0-60 time for the 2006 GSX-R1000, but this number is an outlier compared with multiple other sources, such as Cycle World which got 2.8 seconds. We can't just ignore the MCN data, but when it's that far out of line with other soruces, we should make sure readers are aware of it. Wikipedia cannot delclare what bike is the fastest accellerating bike based only on our lists; we don't know if our lists are complete. We can cite other authorities who claim that X is the fastest bike. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It's also 2.9 seconds reported at Super Streetbike [23], the MCN time does look like a fluke. Brianhe (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

"Current Year" Section

Hey everyone, a small addition that I believe would add to the article is a "Current Year" section. This section would list the current model of GSX-R 1000, and its specifications. I think it would be nice to be able to easily get some information on the present model of GSX-R 1000, although this section would have to updated annually, I think it would be worth the addition. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this suggestion?

Furthermore, I noticed citations 5 and 14 were dead links, can this information be found elsewhere? Jaypeemac (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

It looks like all we need is to update the table with a column for the 2017- model? No? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)