Talk:Motorcycle land-speed record

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looks completely wrong[edit]

e.g. 47.3 (units? assuming mph) for 50cc seems ridiculous (I went faster on my street scooter) Date format looks inconsistent, e.g. 8/03 with no links to anything. What about Burt Munro?

Munro on the Indian not mentioned? Shame! No units? Well, besides being kept, the list needs serious work--I didn't even look at it, although I was surprised anyone would nominate it for deletion. Still, Munro on the 1920 Indian not mentioned is a more stunning lapse than failure to use units, imo. KP Botany 19:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep[edit]

Glad to see a speedy keep on this, and not much debate the other way, too. KP Botany 16:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcycle land speed records[edit]

While I'm far from an expert on this subject, this seems to me to be a very limited list of US national and class records and doesn't appear to include any FIM approved international records (the top record is currently somewhere in the region of 350mph). I'm glad what's on here is on here, but it does need to be qualified and clarified (i.e why are there 23 different 50cc records?)and greatly added to. Mighty Antar 01:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. Everything besides the paragraph at the top about the current maximum record makes no sense and has no context. Like for 50cc why are some speeds in the 120s and others in the 30s? They don't even have units.

I've removed the entire section, and the external link Bonneville Nationals Incorporated it copy-pasted from. jnestorius(talk) 07:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction[edit]

I commented out a section in the leader as it seemed contradictory and almost nonsensical. If you wish to keep that portion of the article, please rewrite so it does not contradict the rest of the article or the table. Thanks. Kjnelan (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be specific?--Dbratland (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can try, but since there was no record as to why the contradiction tag was placed in the article in the first place, I can only assume it is because of what I found in the introduction. Here is the section I commented out:
First run in 1907, an officially-sanctioned FIM record was not set until 1920. There was controversy over the 1930 record, when OEC claimed to be fastest, on the basis of a publicity photo taken before a Zenith went quicker. "It was quite a while before the controversy died down."[1]
First problem I see is that the table shows the first record of 1903 yet the above states 1907. Which is it? 1903 or 1907? Second is the controversy over the 1930 record. Was there or wasn't there because the table does not show the controversy, but instead calls it a pioneering effort.
I personally thought it was nonsensical because it doesn't do much to explain what the article is about. Is this an article which only has a table in it? Or is there bound to be more information than just a table and a couple of words? There needs to be more of a history, or what is going on, when is the run held, where is it held, why is it held, so on and so forth. Remember, assume the reader knows nothing of the subject and proceed to write as if telling someone for the first time about what is in the article.
Since I don't know much of the motorcycle world, I commented out the above mentioned section in the article to be able to remove the contradiction from the backlog. The section is still there, just commented if anyone wants to fix it who knows more about this field than I do. If the commented out area is not in contradiction with the table in the article, then uncomment it, and run it as is, though I have a feeling it will show up with a contradiction tag again before long. Thanks for taking a look. Kjnelan (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23:53, 21 July 2009 Kjnelan (talk | contribs) (7,683 bytes) (→Piston-engine bike: Changed run in 1930 to reflect cited reference. Try using the discussion page. It will help! You could have changed it yourself. Contradiction removed again. See talk page) (undo)
Rather than wording such things in the edit summaries, try using the discussion area. You might find people will listen to you better if you actually discuss with, rather than rant at someone. You could have also changed the article yourself to remove the contradiction. It would have taken you the same amount of time. Kjnelan (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it have been easier just to correct the date? The 1930 controversy was a publicity issue, since the pic was taken, & published, for advertising by OEC, before the later record was set (later that year, I presume; Tragatsch doesn't say); it's now a settled issue, so there's no reason for the table (which reflects the existing, later record) to mention it. Later records are usual in land speed racing. So are manufacturers trying to take advantage of them. It was (perhaps) less usual in the '30s than now.
On the issue of content, I'm in complete agreement. This is far from complete or comprehensive, but it's also "land speed record" not "land speed racing". The same can be said about this.
FYI, I tagged the page for the contradiction in Tragatsch (fn3); on relection, if the tag is misplaced or misused, do remove it.
I'd also wonder who, exactly, is "ranting"...? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 00:05 & 00:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would not have been easier for me to correct the date, since the exact reason for the placement of the original contradiction tag was never placed in this talk area or discussed. I'm not ranting here... just saying is all. Not every contradiction is obvious to every person. I apologize for my... lack of motorcycle knowledge, but since you were aware of the contradiction and what it was, you could have saved some time, but A.) discussing the reason for the tag here, and B.)Possibly changing the article to remove the contradiction. I'm glad to see you found the discussion page and was able to vocalize the issue. Thank you for your help with this article. Let's agree to be civil and resolve the issue? Is this something you feel comfortable changing to remove the contradiction from backlog? Kjnelan (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any contradiction if the article states that the 1984 edition of Tragatsch's book disagrees with other sources. Sources disagree all the time and it's not a problem. If I'm misunderstanding, can you point out what you think needs to be changed in order to resolve the contradiction?--Dbratland (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dbratland, do you see anything else that would lead to a contradiction? Kjnelan (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm in the motorcycling project. I have a 1977 copy of Tragatsch's book right here with the caption about the supercharged 746 cc machine. I'll be your expert, although I believe this is a run of the mill question of WP:RS that anyone can resolve. Can you say in plain English what is the contradiction? What would resolve the contradiction?--Dbratland (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't see a contradiction, AND you are an expert, AND you believe this is WP:RS then both tags need to be removed. Trekphiler, do you still have an issue with a contradiction in this article, and if so, please outline it specifically. (Dbratland, nice job with the intro re-word.) Kjnelan (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then let me ask you to have a look at a couple of other reliable sources, 'cause the contradiction is within Tragatsch. He cites 2 diff speed/displacement # (on facing pages, IIRC), & I don't know which is the right one (or, honestly, where to find the right one, or I'd've fixed it already). IIRC, he also misdates the first run (if Kjnelan is right; I don't know, I've never seen Curtiss' '03 run mentioned anywhere), which could do with checking. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 01:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC) (edit conflicted...)[reply]
  • P.S. Let me agree, I should have said something here about that sooner. Mea maxima culpa. And to clarify, I meant no accusation of ranting; neither did I think a claim of ranting in edit summary was warranted. Heat of the moment...? On the date, I would have changed (did change) on the basis of a cited source in the table, tho perhaps knowing GHC worked with motos early on gave me a stronger basis for belief. I hope I'm clear on all points now. (Probably not, on my record. ;D) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 05:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should apologize. I was using the definition of rant which is a type of speech given at people rather than with people. And I guess I should know better than to take something out of context. My apologies. You're right... probably in the moment thing. We cool? Kjnelan (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote now says that, indeed, Tragatsch does contradict himself, right on the one page. I changed the displacements to match the values given by the other two sources, both of them Mick Walker, but he had fact checkers and people like Charles Falco looking over his shoulder in the Guggenheim book. So are we all good now?--Dbratland (talk) 05:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you've got that contradiction resolved, I'll leave off the '03/'07, since '03 seems cited (unless that's wrong... :( ). TREKphiler hit me ♠ 06:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the tags then. If anyone finds a contradiction tag in the future, feel free to change it, or tag it (but preferably change it ;) ). Thanks so much for all your help!!! Kjnelan (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Tragatsch, Erwin (1984). The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Motorcycles (second edition ed.). Feltham, Middlesex, England: Newnes Books/Temple Press. p. 304. ISBN 0-600-38477-2. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)

How to use convert template for mph and km/h[edit]

It isn't clear from the sources which records were originally measured using mph and which were measured in km/h. It appears the conversion used in most cases was 1.61 km/h = 1 mph, rather than 1.609344. This means you will change the answer somewhat depending on whether you apply the convert template to the mph or the km/h value on the table. It would also be awkward to favor one or the other as appropriate for nationality, especially since when a country went metric is going to muck that up further. It's probably fine the way it is for now, until it can be checked against the official FIM documents. This does not appear to be online any more.--Dbratland (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graph is mere decoration?[edit]

Speed (mph) by year.

Deleting a graph of speed by year because it is "mere decoration"? It seems obvious to me that a line graph of mph vs year illustrates the rate of change in speed records, and it illustrates how the rate of change was fastest during periods of intense competition, while the slope was flatter when there was less interest in record attempts. You can figure all this out by staring at the crosstab for a while, of course, but the graph communicates that information more efficiently. So there are benefits besides "decoration". I'm not aware of any drawbacks to including a graph here; it isn't as if the page has an excessive number of images.

Any reason not to put it back? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it adding anything. The table of speeds & dates does the job just as well. Read it. All I see is a a decoration containing no new information. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I doubt you'll convince many other editors that it's equally easy to estimate the slope of the line by calculating in your head the time span between dates and the difference between the old and new records. You could just as easily argue we shouldn't convert mph to km/h because the reader is perfectly capable of doing that for themselves. But I guess we can wait and see what they have to say. Can I ask again if you know of any drawbacks to the presence of the graph? Is it causing any harm you know of? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a faulty comparison, since simple observation gives an adequate sense of scale. And the test isn't "harm", it's "value": what does putting it in add that's not available already? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's multimodal. It communicates the information in more than one medium, which adds to the richness of the content. People learn and understand better when given information in more than one media. Some individuals understand information better in visual form than in text; these individuals benefit from graphical presentation, while those who learn best from text are not inconvenienced.

The value of graphs is widely accepted: Wikipedia has a page dedicated to the purpose of creating more and better graphs: Wikipedia:How to create graphs for Wikipedia articles. Template:Infobox political party/seats converts a single data point into a graph as a multimodal visual aid; it's used on 500-1000 articles. There are a number of Featured Articles which use graphs which communicate information which is also contained in the text. You would call it redundant, but it's clear there is consensus in favor of using both text and visual modes. For example: Storm botnet, Daylight saving time,Caesar cipher, Hepatorenal syndrome, Influenza...

And so on. The consensus that using graphs, even to illustrate a very simple set of data, even a single data point, is in principle beneficial. If you were to cite a substantive flaw with the graph, that could be fixed. But your objection lacks substance and boils down to I don't like it.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the graph does add value, it provides an instant visual summary of the progress of the record, so I have reinstated it. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"boils down to I don't like it" It boils down to, I don't see it adding anything useful, as stated. My likes or dislikes have nothing to do with it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 12:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content wrong[edit]

There are numerous mistakes of riders, dates, speeds etc and the content is generally not fit to be published

The pre WW2 organisation was the FICM, which was reconsituted as the FIM and moved from London to Geneva after the war.

Flying start records were or are set by measuring elapsed time over distances which could be 1 kilometre and/or 1 mile. Thus the time needs to be stated and the speed calculated directly from thr time.

The only authoritive source is the FIM in Geneva whom I have recently visited on this very topic. For its 75th anniversary FIM published (but did not date!) a complete account of all speed records since it first recognised them about 1920. Of course it can makes mistakes too and there are some obvious typos here. But this is its only current statement on what the historic records are.

FIM states times and speed in km/h by capacity class and so to find the "worlds fastest" you have to go through at 2 tables each for 1300cc, 1000cc, 750cc and 500cc (at least). The fastest may be either in the flying mile or flying kilometre.

Certainly this needs fixing - yet another book has just been published with what I believe to be mistakes in its record table.

I have a prepared a spreadsheet based on FIM information for the period 1920-1939 which I am happy to share but I have no idea how to do it.

Let me know via this if I can help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.165.70 (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC) by 02:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)tsrwright 121.210.165.70 (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could upload the spreadsheet to Google Docs. I assume that the records you are referring to are these - http://www.fim-live.com/en/sport/world-records-attempts/events/ --Biker Biker (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upload spreadsheet - to where? I need a bit of guidance pse. The link to the FIM website given above only provides information for 1979 onwards. I have referred my queries on the interwar years records to FIM and they are looking into it. Meanwhile I am happy to publish my spreadsheet if I can be advised at tsrwright@gmail.com or here. 02:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)tsrwright121.210.165.70 (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Log into your gmail account. Click the Documents tab at the top. On the left, click the red box that says Create, then choose Spreadsheet. Click File > Import. Click Browse and find your spreadsheet file. Then click Import at the bottom. When it says "File imported successfully" click Open now. In the upper right, click Share. Next to where it says "Private - Only the people listed below can access", click change, then choose "Public on the web" or "Anyone with the link". It will then give you a URL to copy. Copy that URL here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the very clear instructions. Problems is Google docs does not import some of the layout dodges I use in Excel nor could I see how it would handle a pdf. Anyway I have uploaded a spreadsheet pdf to a web album which I hope can be viewed at https://picasaweb.google.com/terrywrightcooper/RecentlyUpdated?authkey=Gv1sRgCI2v2_jP6JjBkAE I could edit the table that exists but in my view the format is wrong. The elapsed time must be stated and a specified factor stated and used (perhaps as now used by the FIM) for conversion to speeds in mph and kph. Note that what my table shows is the the absolute fastest may be over a flying mile or km and in any capacity class.

(UTC)tsrwright121.210.165.70 (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 19.09.29 line for Henne in the uploaded spreadsheet should state the machine as BMW

As regards the queries raised with FIM and not answered yet I am reasonably sure as follows:

GS Wright should be JS (Joe)

A Boyce should be A Bruce (Alan)

Edward Magner is Edward Wagner

The time corrections can only be guessed at but my guesses are better than the official figures!

121.210.165.70 (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)tsrwright121.210.165.70 (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding the spreadsheet viewable, but not readable... It looks blurry to me. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 06:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd select the relevant cells in Excel, then go to a new Excel sheet, and right click, "Paste special" and select "Values only", to remove the extraneous features from the sheet. Save that copy, and upload it to Google docs. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can read the posted file fine myself but I am using Picassa free from Google. If I could upload it as a pdf to Google docs I would but frankly whenever I have tried to use Google docs it has been a pain.

I think the main issue is to consider if and how to modify the current table and I will gladly edit it with what I believe to be the correct values which have been verified by the FIM. Feel free to email me direct - this is all too clumsy 121.210.165.70 (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)tsrwright@gmail.com02:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thevintagent.blogspot.com[edit]

Wasn't there previous consensus that Paul d'Orléans/thevintagent.blogspot.com is considered a reliable source? I can't seem to find the discussion now. Here's some refs I found:

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that this question has come up for Kevin Ash's blog. His articles that have been published in a third party publication, and gone through an editor, are fine. But I'm not entirely comfortable citing either Ash's or d'Orleans's blog, if nothing else than because there's more chance of error when they acted as their own editor. In the case of this citation http://thevintagent.blogspot.com/2010/10/oec-zenith-and-stolen-record.html the obvious solution is simply to add inline citations using the same sources that d'Orleans used for his blog post. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going fast[edit]

I suggest a move to Motorcycle land speed record (now a redirect) is apt, both because it agrees with the automotive record page, & because it agrees with common usage on the subject. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Motorcycle land-speed record. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Motorcycle land-speed record. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Motorcycle_land-speed_record&oldid=1204085281"