Talk:BMW Motorrad/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Misc comments

What about the C1 scooter thing? I think it's deleted now, but should it not be mentioned (even if it makes "real" BMW riders go puce with rage!)? :) See http://www.bmw.co.uk/features/C1/index.html if they haven't removed it yet ... 138.37.199.199 12:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

This article needs tense cleanup. In places it's discussing events in the distant past using present tense. Quicksilver 12:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the tense, revised some of the grammar and added the C1 info. The 80's Kid 16:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Categories: should this really be in the BMW Vehicles category? Shouldn't it go in the Motorcycles category, and perhaps BMW Motorcycles sub-category? -- Pi3832 14:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of the difference between the airhead and oilhead would be useful -- as well as the other modifications, which I recall were rather substantial, made at the same time. At a minimum, the year the air-to-oil shift in R-bikes should be noted. MrRedwood 03:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

After discussion of the Paralever and Telelever suspensions, shouldn't there be an item for the Duolever (recently developed front-end suspension for K-series bikes)? --Davecampbell 02:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC) (2002 R1150RTP)

Feel free to write it! Bob Palin 14:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the title should be BMW motorcycles or Motorcycles. Not many people on in he US know what motorrad means. Also, I agree with the Duolever suggestion. -- Rodendahl 16:09, 15 July 2006 (CDT)

Cleaned up a tad of vandalism. Jdos2 23:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It might help if BMW devotees forsook their light blue and white T-shirts for a minute and understood a few simple things. BMW has rarely been an innovator. It may have developed the hydraulic fork - the jury is still out on that. It did not develop the Earles fork ( Ernie Earles did that), the Telelever (Motodd-Saxon did that), the Duolever (Hossack did that) or the Paralever (Magni at MV Augusta did that). The flat four K arrangement was first used by Ariel. The R32 was a mishmash of Indian front fork, ABC engine and FN gearbox/final drive. BMW is not an innovator! Next, for a six year period, two BMW factories operated. One in Baveria and one in Eisenach in Soviet controlled Germany. BMW did NOT cease production after WWII. (Only US controlled BMW ceased production). The first motorcycles made by BMW were the Helios and the Flink, they predate the R32. Facts, rather than fiction will make this a better article. And if you carry those facts rather than fiction into other articles, you will only improve Wikipaedia! M-72 13:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hiding within a cloak of Anonymity, user M-72 again lashes out at others — masking a deep-seated sense of cultural and personal inferiority. Waratah-9 15:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

And just where is your user page Waratah-9? I don't believe that i have a sense of cultural inferiority, but I'm sure that you can correct me! As to personal inferiority- Yes, I have a small dick! I've gotten over it. Have you? M-72 16:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Images and text flow

I just removed some blank lines that had been added to get text to flow around some images. Using blank lines is futile because what you are doing is fixing the problem for your browser, with your thumbnail size settings, with your screen resolution. Anyone else with different settings will see a completely different result. Summary: It is highly unlikely that anyone will see the article in exactly the same way that you do.

If it is really important that text and image are separated from each other then you can use one of a number of templates or break commands:

• {{Clear}} or {{-}} will make sure that the following text will start after all other images and text have been displayed on both sides of the page
• {{Clearleft}} as above but only clears the text and images on the left side of the page.
• {{Clearright}} as above but right side.

However, I have never been able to get {{Clearleft}} to work so I tend to use the following HTML code:

• <nowiki>

I have added this on the page after the K-series engine section and just before the Model Designation section. This is where I removed the series of blank lines and I assume it is what the orginal editor was trying to achieve.

IMHO these breaks/clears should only be used when absolutely necessary, but they are a useful tool when used sparsely and appropriately. --Cheesy Mike 08:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The roundel/propeller myth

This article states, that BMW's "... logo, a roundel representing an aeroplane propeller in the blue sky ..." Alas, this is not quite true.

In Mobil Tradition Live, published by BMW Motorrad, Issue 01.2005, in an article written by Dr. Florian Triebel, and entitled "The origin of the BMW logo — fact and fiction,"[spam://jeff.dean.home.att.net/roundel-myth.pdf] the myth of the spinning propeller as the origin of the BMW logo was put to bed as the myth it is. Here is the summary of a long article:

"Taken together, all this evidence excludes the possibility that BMW managers in 1917 based the design for their company logo and trademark on the propeller interpretation. All the available sources suggest that the BMW logo was developed on the basis of the company logo and trademark originated by Rapp Motorenwerke. They suggest that the purpose of the blue and white areas was to focus attention on Bavaria as the origin and production site of the products. In fact, the propeller myth only surfaced as late as 1929. It’s likely that the new interpretation was intended to support the marketing efforts for the aero-engine product range. However, the fact is that this interpretation has developed its own authority and tradition by virtue of being recounted and disseminated over a period of 75 years."

Accordingly, I corrected this information. Jeff dean 23:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Way to be bold, Jeff. --Evb-wiki 00:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Remove the irrelevant and unhelpful

I'm going to take out "after World War I, the Treaty of Versailles banned any German air force, so the company turned to motorcycle engine design and manufacturing" since it's highly misleading (not to say needlessly insulting). Almost every manufacturer in every country stopped war production once the war was over, both in WWI and WWII. There is no shame (or relevance) in BMW having done so and becoming strikingly successful in two new fields. TomRawlinson 18:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Setright inter alia makes a point of this as does BMW itself. See http://www.bmwmotorcycles.com/bikes/history_content.jsp?t=year&y=1919&d=1910 M-72 04:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right in one sense, BMW (bizarrely) make this claim themselves, almost in a fashion reminiscent of some quite bitter inter-war Germans.

However, the passages I changed had to be re-written, since they'd been lifted straight from the article you've referenced, breach of copyright. TomRawlinson 18:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations for obscure "facts"

M-72 makes many valuable and interesting claims in numerous motorcycle-related articles about arcane matters and then issues them as facts without citations. In spite of this, it appears that we all accept whatever he submits to be accurate. Because of the importance of the claims, I would like to see citations for these items when inserted — either in the article or related discussion pages — so I and others can consult those sources and inform ourselves better. Jeff dean 14:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I'll be very glad to see you finally make submissions of all your unverified Blue and White statements, Even better remove your sock-puppet frauds from all motorcycle articles. For M/C suspension you might like to read Foale. A major work. For anything else I need to know what languages you are fluent in? English, especially American English is NOT the lingua franca of the mortorcycling world. M-72 09:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see better evidence that BMW is the largest manufacturer of police motorcycles. The article cited is simply a BMW press release. I don't believe that a claim by a manufacturer is sufficient to verify market position. In the meantime I have toned down the world leader claim. --Cheesy Mike 17:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The test for inclusion in the encyclopaedia is verifiability, not truth (strange though that may sound!). There are various tests of Reliable Source, but a claim by the manufacturer is certainly acceptable. You'd need something pretty well-researched even to challenge and set beside it under Wikipedia Neutral Point of View. The US-centric point of view screamed from some parts of this article. BMW motorcycles dominate the police market all over the world, with the possible exception of only two places that manufacture their own, the US and Japan. (And they're even making big inroads there!). It barely needs saying that it is quite unacceptable to suggest that other manufacturers have serious safety related problems in their products. TomRawlinson 18:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability vs. Truth. Yes, I understand that, I just don't think that an article about a company should take press releases published by that same company as verified content, let alone truth. A manufacturers own claims would certainly fail the neutral point of view if used as the source of a claim made in that article. This article shouldn't use absolute adjectives like "largest" and "dominant" if the only source about the manufacturers market is their own figures. --Cheesy Mike 19:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy that covers this is at WP:RS. In a nut-shell, sources that have a number of editors, all presumably interested in "the truth" are acceptable, whereas the "self-published" or "blogs" are not. I would not trust a salesman (or the company that he represents) further than I could throw him, however, for this purpose, press-releases or brochures are pretty much not to be argued with. The danger is that the encyclopaedia ends up reading very anodyne and rather like a gushing sales-leaflet. Unfortunately, any other result is going to offend someone, and risks legal action from the very, very well-funded. Remember, there may be a real vandal comes after you and, if you bully me into acquiescence, something will get left on the page that is commercially damaging to BMW. The Wikipedia Foundation is not going to risk paying for your mistakes. If statements impugning the safety of certain other motorcycles were to re-appear in this article, I can and will fetch an adminstrator to deal with the culprit.

As to "largest" or "dominant" in the police market, you rather have me over a barrel. In order to include that statement, I need a WP:RS that uses those very words, and I might not have one. However, what I've told you is true and is a well-known fact. If you're really unhappy about it, put after my statetment, and it will appear (in small super-script letters) as "citation needed". (entering may have the same effect?). Our successors will battle over this one, but I'm quite sure it's already been said in fairly well regarded books by fairly well-regarded authors, and references will eventually appear. (Such books are normally worse than brochures, but sometimes we have to simply grin and bear it). TomRawlinson 19:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ever been to Chin or India? Or any other part of Asia? BMWs are NOT the common police motorcycle. The sheer volume of indigenous police motorcycles in China alone makes BMWs's claim farcical. The claim may be "well-known", but that does not make it a fact. M-72 23:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

K-Series or K Series?

The article uses both K-Series and K Series, I think it should be one or the other. This is IMHO a language thing however, so I leave it to the native speakers (I don't care either way). --87.189.116.19

Timeline or series

The article repeats information a lot, once organized in the timeline, once in the series description, it should be one or the other. ("These new F 800 Series motorcycles are powered by [...] a belt drive system that is very similar to the belt drive found on the now defunct F 650 CS." vs. "[F 800 S and F 800 ST] also feature a belt drive system similar to what was in use on the F 650 CS.")

I think I prefer the series, as this can also pull in some techincal stuff like Duolever. --87.189.116.19

gss-600.jpg

Your change on BMW motorcycles might not be the best thing to do: The picture you replaced was defected by someone who is a bit pissed at the moment, but should easily be fixed by a non-IP (eg. you). Could you please have a look at Gss-600.jpg, restore the valid version and decide then whether DK-MIL-POL2.jpg is a better choice? Thanks. --193.254.155.48

I'm not quite sure, what this inquery is precisely about. Image:Gss-600.jpg is flagged as a duplicate of Image:Vech-r32.jpg, which is already used on BMW motorcycles. Earlier versions is also blanked so it's probably not a new thing.

Since Image:Vech-r32.jpg is already used on BMW motorcycles, i decided to use the image, i originally uploaded to Commons, because i needed in an article about the danish military police.

Also may i suggest that we continue this discussion on Talk:BMW motorcycles#gss-600.jpg, where i have also copied your comment and my reply.

--Hebster 16:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Erm... are we talking about the same pictures? One shows two R 1200 GS, the other one a bike from the middle of the 17th century. Why should they be flagged as duplicates?

Rats, User:Staeckerbot must be mad, it is the one who marked this. It's not, the pictures are blanked, so identical. Doh.

Anyway, I guess both might be of good use in this article. --87.189.126.65

Well Image:Gss-600.jpg seems to be in order again, so i have put that one back on, in stead of DK-MIL-POL2.jpg.

--Hebster 22:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please Revert User:Jeff dean's Changes

The following pictures were already flagged for speedy deletion because User:Jeff dean set them to the same nothingness. Please recreate the pictures from history.

• Image:R51-600.jpg
• Image:Head-shot.jpg
• Image:Restore600.jpg
• Image:4generations.jpg
• Image:Paralever-bmw.jpg
• Image:Valvecovers.jpg
• Image:Rt-saddle.jpg
• Image:Bmw-earles.jpg
• Image:400-w.jpg
• Image:R1200rtp.jpg
• Image:R100rt.jpg
• Image:Absbrakes.jpg

Apologies

My apology to all for my Wikibehaviour last week. It was uncalled for. Jeff dean 23:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thumbnail sizes

Once again I have removed the thumbnail size from the image in the K bikes section. It doesn't need a size on it. Rodendahl says on my talk page that if the thumb tag is removed the caption disappears. That is standard image behaviour, but removing the size doesn't affect the caption - just look at all the other images. Removing the size from a thumbnail lets it be displayed at the size specified in a user's preferences page. As for the image in the R bikes section which has a pixel size attached to it - the one of the 4 cylinder heads - that is to show off the detail. Personally I would be in favour of removing the size off that image as well. --Cheesy Mike 03:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the most recent change of this thumbnail as vandalism. The editor in question has been requested to discuss his misgivings here rather than arbitrarily revert the article and he has ignored those requests. Let us not forget that Wikipedia has a policy that is called into play for this situation. (see WP:MOS#Images) Trusilver 05:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This editor was not familiar with where he should discuss the difference of opinion until now. It was not a refusal of choice. It was ignorance. Now that I have found it, I would like to point out that the /*K series*/ section has been singled out for a change of the thumbnail size. If anyone is going to enforce image guidelines, then that enforcement should be applied equally to the entire article and not to one just one section. I have looked at the image guidelines and found that many places in the article do not follow it to the letter and yet it does not distract from the article as a whole. Calling the change back to what the author intended vandalism, does nothing but inflame the situation. It is a difference of opinion NOT vandalism and it was not as arbitrary as the singling out just one section of the article for this tit-for-tat. Rodendahl 05:30:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't know where to discuss it? Tell you this himself did he? Because stop me if I'm wrong, but looking over the individual's entire edit history, he never once suggested anywhere that he was unaware of where to discuss this article. I have a pretty decent tolerence when it comes to the assumption of good faith, however when someone makes multiple reverts after being asked to please discuss it on the talk page and then leaves a derogatory and confrontational edit summary, THAT is when what would normally be a good-faith misunderstanding becomes vandalism. As such, I stand by the revert as vandalism.

Honestly, you people need to start talking to each other rather than spending two days reverting each other's edits over such a trivial issue. A few dozen words can save two weeks of edit wars, I have seen it a hundred times before. Cheers. Trusilver 00:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I told the truth. Believe me or not it won't change what was true. Again you inflame by using words like derogatory and confrontational rather than focus on the issue of arbitrary selection of one section's edits. I wonder if you are trying to push my buttons and sucker me into being exceeding unprofessional. Well I won't. It's not worth it. It is time to move on and put this where it belongs, behind us. Rodendahl 17:03 17 Jun 2007

Rodendahl just changed all the image sizes (other than the logo and "headline" image) to be consistent. That is a good move and fully in line with WP:MOS recommendations. I certainly don't concur with any assertion that what he did was vandalism and am disappointed by the bad feeling that was created as a result. --Cheesy Mike 14:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Trademark / Roundel

Lets not perpetuate the BMW Logo propeller myth. The BMW elaborates on the factual history of the logo, as does The BMW Trademark article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 842U (talk • contribs) 14:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The article mentioned doesn't have any form of reference or citation. IMHO until it does, it is not to be believed. --Cheesy Mike (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Mike, fine then, but where is the substantiation on the "propeller" story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 842U (talk • contribs) 17:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

BMW can't even get its own story right about its origins regarding BMW and BFW so why should we believe any version of the "roundel theory" without proper documentation. M-72 (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)