Talk:Dodge Tomahawk/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"extraordinary"

This word is... 1. a peacock term to be avoided in articles. 2. not related to the credibility (or lack of) any claims 3. giving undue weight to something that is covered later in the article. (and later in the lead)

Please don't revert me just to prove some form of point, just because you disagreed with my edits on other articles. I know you're a well established editor in the field of bikes, but that's not to say that my edits are no less valid. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of another word to replace the incorrectly used 'extraordinary' and the most accurate term that I can think of is 'optimistic' which still stinks of OR. The fact that 'derided' is used in the lead gives the readers all the information they require, more weight on the fact that their claim was silly, would be undue weight. We don't have terms like 'extraordinary claim' in blatant pseudoscience articles, so it's not warranted here. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Nope. You're watering it down, making vague, and less accurate. There is no reason we can't use specific language to describe what actually happened. It was extraordinary; no comparable motorcycle had ever gone 420mph. They might as well have said the Tomahawk could fly to the moon. The response was not mere skepticism. It was "derision". They chuckled and laughed at Dodge for their silly hyperbole. This is all in the sources. I don't know which pseudoscience articles you wish to copy. Unless you're referring to an FA then I don't think I want to imitate their mistakes. I do know WP:V says we write what's in the sources, not a distorted version of it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

To repeat, you do not have consensus for this change. Reverting is no substitute for discussion. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:OR WP:PEACOCK WP:UNDUE and besides all of those...you are using the word in the wrong way. You are trying to imply that the claim made regarding top speed was extraordinary does not equal a , derision, lack of credibility, dubious, viewed with skepticism etc etc...

In a conversation, I would agree that the claims were extraordinary and the actual claimed speed was also extraordinary - however in a wikipedia article (and especially in the lead) that term is unsuitable. Would you like me to go the Ducati 916 article and put "The Ducati 916 is a very very pretty sport bike motorcycle made by Ducati from 1994 to 1998." just because some article say it's a nice looking bike? Note that the Hayabusa article states "The Suzuki Hayabusa (or GSX1300R) is a sport bike motorcycle made by Suzuki since 1999. It immediately won acclaim as the world's fastest production motorcycle, with a top speed of 188 to 194 miles per hour (303 to 312 km/h)." and it doesn't state "The Suzuki Hayabusa (or GSX1300R) is a extraordinarily fast sport bike motorcycle made by Suzuki since 1999."

I'm pretty sure that removing original research, peacock terms and undue weight all have established consensus. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

If this were controversial I would take a different approach, and balance the competing viewpoints. But this is uncontroversial. The announcement that this thing could go over 400 mph was beyond comprehension. It was the very definition of an extraordinary claim, literally defying the laws of physics, specifically that this bike could not travel in a vacuum. The universal response among credible sources was laughter, derision. They Hayabusa was nothing like the Tomahawk. The Hayabusa was real and did exactly what they said it could to, and it proved it. It was impressively fast, but no so fast that anyone had to rewrite the laws of nature to account for it. A Tomahawk going 400 -- even over 200 really -- would be proof that magic is real.

There's a tendency on Wikipedia to tone everything down to the same level of boring banality. Take off the rough edges. The problem with that is when it flies in the face of what our sources have given us. Pretending the Tomahawk was comparable to a real bike like the Hayabusa is false, it's misleading. It was not a real bike, not anything like an actual speed record machine. It's sort of cool if you accept it on its own terms, but the notion that it could actually go that fast must be presented as absurd.

If there are credible sources we can site that say otherwise, then we'd have to re-balance the points of view. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course it can't achieve the claimed speed, that is common sense and easily stated with credible sources. There are enough credible sources to say the claims were (derided/met with skepticism/etc) that is not disputed and not what I am attempting to remove from the article. It's not as if readers will suddenly think the claims are accurate with the removal of the word "extraordinary" - removing that term removes the editors opinion regarding the claims. We are not here to lead people to opinions with terms like that, we are here to present facts and let the readers work it out themselves. If this was an opinion piece on a blog, I would be more than happy to write "the dumbass topspeed claims" but it is neither a blog, nor a place for editor opinions. Stating "no consensus" when the text is currently in breach of numerous clearly stated wikipedia rules (all of which were formed with consensus) doesn't really count for much. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be a waste of time right now, rather than just get into a nasty revert cycle, I have requested a 3rd opinion, that might resolve this in a more efficient manner. Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment remove "extraordinary" as WP:NPOV and WP:OR. The cited source (in body of the article) simply says "Dodge first announced a top speed of 420 mph" (p. 59) Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 07:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • There is no consensus for changing this article to something that is less factual. You are totally incorrect when you assert that Popular Science "simply says" the speed was announced as 420 mph here. What it actually says is "The bike's name was inspired by the Tomahawk Cruise Missile and it may be equally ridable. Dodge first announced a top speed of 420 mph, then dropped it to '300+'. Can we ride the bike to its top speed? 'No.' Can we talk to one of your company riders? 'No' Can you give us some riding impressions? "No." Can we use the bathroom? 'No.'" That is derision. It's a whole paragraph of sustained mockery. Popular Science is scoffing at the absurd claim that the bike could go 420, and scoffing at the equally absurd claim that it could go 300+. It is utterly misleading to describe that is "simply saying" they announced a top speed of 420.

    In addition, the introduction of the article is not merely about one source. It is a complete summary of all the contents, drawing from many sources. If you read all of them, you will see that there is no controversy over the fact that Dodge's claim was no more plausible than saying the Tomahawk could fly to the moon. We'll need to go to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard now. I'll need a little time -- I have no idea what the rush is to get this article changed now. It has been stable for three years. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The word derision or derided is not under dispute. My edit did not remove that term and as I have previously stated, I support an inclusion along the lines of derided/viewed with skepticism, so please don't try to distract or mislead other editors regarding my intentions about the article. I want to remove the term "extraordinary" because of wikipedia standards regarding WP:OR WP:PEACOCK WP:UNDUE .

From every statement you have made regard this issue, it's obvious your desire to include that term is based on your opinions about the validity and reception of the top speed claim. I agree with those opinions, it was a stupid claim - but that is original research, readers deserve facts and the ability to make up their own minds about the claim and it's reception.

You expressed the desire for discussion, so I got a 3rd opinion. You don't like that opinion, so you reverted. If you want to go to dispute resolution, then don't claim you will need more time. You had the time to reply here, you had the time to revert my edit, so you have the time to go to dispute resolution, well unless you feel that reverting someone has priority over resolving issues, which if I wasn't assuming good faith, would seem to be what you were doing. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Dennis Bratland:, yes, in a common sense world I would call it extraordinary, and a common sense reading of Popular Mechanics would lead me to call it extraordinary. But that common sense element is original research, and the very world is NPOV. 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources', and for the literally extraordinary, a source to be quoted on "extraordinary" is the only way I can see that word making its way to the encyclopedia.

Notwithstanding, your point about the lead being a summary of the entire article is valid. But the body of the article makes no reference to the ordinary, so I don't see how "extraordinary" is warranted that way either. Personally, I think Dispute Resolution is a bit too heavy for this, especially so when you are receiving Third Opinion input. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 07:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

If it is in the sources, it is not original research. Another word we could substitute for "extraordinary" is "outlandish". Anything that treats this "420 mph" claim (or 300 mph) as a valid theory or conjecture is no better than treating flat Earth theory as valid, in violation of WP:FALSEBALANCE. See my comments below. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you User:Finnusertop for taking your time to help with this discussion, an outside opinion is always very helpful.

Secondly, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Dodge_Tomahawk.23.22extraordinary.22_discussion

I didn't really want dispute resolution over the use of one single word, but as Dennis expressed a desire and also that he would do it "later", I started the ball rolling.

Finally, I would love to find a nice source that we could use, or a nice rewording along the lines of "top speed that was considered dubious by some industry sources" to resolve this issue. It's a stupid top speed claim, but we need to leave that either to sources to say, or to readers to work out. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm hunting for sources, 50% of them are just copy/paste from wikipedia. 40% are unreliable sources. 10% just say the specs. Without a good source, I'm starting to get the feeling that the best we can do, in order to remain neutral is to focus on the reaction to the claims, we can't comment on the claims. "top speed claim that was met with skepticism"/"contested/disputed top speed claim"/"top speed claim that industry specialists stated was inaccurate"

The Lamborghini Miura article is a good example. "The car is widely considered to have instigated the trend of high performance, two-seater, mid-engined sports cars.[4] When released, it was the fastest production road car available." The first line states the opinions of a source, it does not portray those opinions as a fact. The second line states a fact. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

See WP:FALSEBALANCE. It is against policy to "remain neutral" between nonsense claims, and actual physical reality. We don't treat fantasy and reality as being on equal footing. See my comments below. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment from an uninvolved editor: Came here from DRN, where I saw the case filing. Not sure if the result there would be any different than here - perhaps going to the no original research noticeboard (WP:NORN} would be a better choice for more definitive input.

As for the disputed descriptor, I find the whole first paragraph problematic. It appears constructed to create an impression of the Tomahawk as a bogus ultra-high-speed vehicle, when the sources as I read them clearly present it primarily as a limited edition novelty, a collector's item, a "rolling sculpture," an over-the-top construction built around a humongous sports car engine, certainly not a serious contender for land speed records, as the current lead paragraph suggests:

"The Dodge Tomahawk was a non–street legal concept vehicle introduced by Dodge at the 2003 North American International Auto Show in Detroit, Michigan. Dodge's extraordinary claims of a top speed of 420 mph (680 km/h) were derided by experts in land speed records, and the Tomahawk never demonstrated a speed above 100 mph (160 km/h)."

A more accurate version would be something like:

"The Dodge Tomahawk is a non–street legal concept vehicle, introduced by Dodge at the 2003 North American International Auto Show in Detroit, Michigan. The four-wheel motorcycle, built around a 500hp Viper sports car engine, was described by Dodge as a "rolling sculpture." The original claim of a theoretical top speed of 420 mph (680 km/h) has not been tested."

This seems both unambiguously factual and true to the the impression given by the sources. Original characterizations such as "extraordinary" and "derided," and extrapolating the casual comments of two experts ("Looking at photos of the Tomahawk, Joe was dubious") as "derided by experts in land speed records," create an unsupported view. --Tsavage (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

That is far less accurate. It is not "theoretical". There is no "theory" to support the idea it could go that fast. The assertion that it could go 420 mph was bogus (and changing the number to 300 was just as bogus). It would be like going to an article like Lord Voldemort and deleting the word "fictional" and merely stating that "no proof of Lord Voldemort's existence or magical powers has been found, scientists claim". It is physically impossible for this thing to have reached any speed even close to what they said. Saying that it has merely "not been tested" is a violation of WP:FALSEBALANCE in the WP:NPOV policy, comparable to "claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones." All of our credible sources tell us exactly this. Wikipedia does not give nonsense equal footing to actual reality. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Some quotations to show that sources consistently scoff at the idea that this bike's top speed is anything but fiction. I don't have time to provide all these quotes at once, so here is the first one, from Bass, Eric. "Cruising Rider's 2005 Bike of the Year: Triumph Rocket III." Cruising Rider May 2005: p. 52+. " What really makes the RIII such a great bike is that Triumph managed to deliver a truly extreme motorcycle without turning it into that most extreme of extremities, the nonsensical Dodge Tomahawk. You all remember the Tomahawk, don't you? Designed to showcase the Dodge Viper's 10-cylinder, 8277cc engine, the car company hand-pushed it up onto a platform awash in laser beams and scantily clad booth bunnies and announced to the press that it actually planned to build the monstrosity as a limited production model.

  Of course, this preposterous proclamation caused those of us who actually know anything about motorcycles to laugh so hard that beverages of all kinds, colors and alcohol contents flew out of our collective noses. It was plain to see that, even with four tires, the bike's ability to apply its 500-hp and 525 ft.-lbs. of torque to the rear wheels or control it with the front were destined to remain as hypothetical as its claimed 2.5-second 0-to-60 time or 300-mph top speed." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Here is the first of several quotes from Cycle World that cast extreme doubt on the truth of Chrysler's claims of the Tomahawk's power, speed, and performance, based on simple common sense and physical limitations: "Dodge Tomahawk; Ten cylinders, 500 horses, four wheels. Think of it as a Viper that got caught in a trash compactor." Phillips, John. Cycle World. April 2003. pages 70-74. "The first thing [Kirk] Bennet [Vice President of RM Corporation] had to invent was a cooling package. In the Viper's bulbous snout, of course, there's room for a radiator the size of an NFL end zone. But with the Tomahawk, the only available space was in the traditional gas-tank area , essentially nestled in the engine's see. Bennet redesigned the intake runners to rise vertically and draw atmosphere through two jutting scoops just beneath the handlebars— making us wonder if the V-10 still produces 500 bhp." More to come. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland: I understand perfectly what you're saying (snd it would seem so do the other two editors you've been disagreeing with), but the way you're attempting to insert that into the article isn't supported by sources. It's your original conclusion that the speed claim is "extraordinary," as you don't have a source saying that, or establishing "ordinary" in order for you to summarize the comparison. In the same way, "deride" (syn. "ridicule") is your conclusion, the comments you cite may seem to you to be ridicule, but may not to another, which is why you need a secondary source to say that the claims were derided.

The main problem, however, is that your framing creates the impression that the Tomahawk is primarily about a performance/speed claim, which is not the impression I get from the sources: it's an expensive novelty item, an attention-grabber, not meant to be actually ridden, just gawked at and fired up. Perhaps this version is better:

"The Dodge Tomahawk is a non–street legal concept vehicle introduced by Dodge at the 2003 North American International Auto Show in Detroit, Michigan. The four-wheel motorcycle is built around a 500 hp Dodge Viper sports car engine. It was described by Dodge as "automotive sculpture": operational but intended for display only.[PopSci][Forbes]"

Performance claims can be summarized in a separate paragraph if necessary. --Tsavage (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with saying "outlandish claims" instead of "extraordinary claims"? The point is that their claims of 420 and/or 300 mph were bullshit. The reason this matters, and the reason this belongs in the lead, is that the media attention generated by the "420 mph" bullshit is the only reason we have a Wikipedia article about this subject. This concept bike would fail WP:GNG without all the buzz generated by the outlandish (or extraordinary) speed claim. You can't eliminate the claim to notability from the lead.

The following quote is a useful because it takes you through some of the basic math necessary to guess if the Tomahawk could come anywhere close to the claimed speeds. Karr, Jeff. "Traumahawk: with its Tomakawk concept bike, Dodge jumps into the motorcycle business (maybe) with four wheels, 500 horsepower and 1500 pounds. Get your affairs in order. (Cover Story)." Motorcyclist Apr. 2003. Page. 34+; " The math says with 1-to-1 gearing, the Tomahawk has the potential to go approximately 400 mph in some sort of hypothetical netherworld--a speed at which the exposed rider would probably be abraded down to little more than a bloody stump by windblast.

Pull out a big cocktail napkin and a bottle of good scotch and you've got as good a shot at coming up with a reasonable number as anyone. As dirty as a frat-house ass joke, the Tomahawk at top speed would rip a hole in the atmosphere that would take years to heal.

Dodge likes to throw around a 300-plus-mph top-speed number, but we bet physics might intervene well before then. Consider high-speed benchmarks such as the Suzuki Hayabusa and Kawasaki ZX12R. Both are far smaller and cleaner, and go approximately 190 mph on 185 crankshaft horsepower. For the purposes of calculation, to make either of those conventional bikes go 300 mph, they would need to develop about 460 hp, because aerodynamic drag rises with the square of the speed. So the Tomahawk, with its, shall we say, elemental form, would need substantially more than that to hit the 300-mph mark. Probably something close to 700 hp or more if it's only 50 percent dirtier than a Hayabusa. (My, we are charitable today, aren't we?) With its current 500 hp, figure on a Tomahawk top speed of approximately 250 mph. What the Tomahawk would really do flat-out is as much an exercise in Darwinian natural selection as it is a physics problem. Anyone off-center enough to try it probably doesn't have the talent to do it. Pity the poor bastard who takes a locust in the face at that velocity. Whoops, spilled my scotch...and there go all my precision calculations."--Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland: You have not advanced your argument. This latest source is more cocktail napkin speculation about a top speed that no-one, let alone Dodge itself, is seriously trying to argue. All your sources seem to be having fun with being outraged: one author calls his brother, the motorcylce land speed record holder, who looks at some photos, and finds the claim "dubious." It makes another "wonder." Some speculate about resistance and required horsepower, others question the ability to apply torque. Dodge is calling it "automotive sculpture" intended for display not use. Yet you would turn all of that into a serous challenge of a top speed that isn't even the focus of much of the coverage (that would be the revised 300 mph).

Your new WP:GNG argument, claiming that the coverage is mainly based on the 420mph claim, therefore the speed should be in up front and refuted in the lead, is also not supported by the sources. The Forbes and Popular Science articles are both quite in-depth and would together satisfy GNG on their own, and they mention speed in the fourth and fifth paragraph in, respectively - speed is not the main lead. It's pretty obvious that the whole over-the-top production - the look, the Viper engine, the cost - is what's interesting. A senior manager for the Chrysler group is quoted as saying, "Could you ride it down your driveway to the mailbox and back? Yes, if you are crazy enough." How serious about speed does that sound?

All things considered, this all seems pretty squarely to be original research and a misrepresentation of the subject, a trifecta on contravening our core policies. --Tsavage (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Treating Dodge's claim as anything but a joke is misrepresentation. The calculations are correct. Do you actually have any facts to cite showing the estimated horsepower to attain that speed for the minimum drag is anywhere near as low as 500 bhp? Your entire denial rests on the fact that the author was laughing at Dodge while producing the facts. But who isn't laughing?

I'm not done. I post one source after another making two points: 1) the speed claim is absurd, 2) everyone who understands the topic responded with laughter, derision at Dodge's absurd claim. I supply one source, and you respond with nothing more than denial. I post another source that says the same things. And you simply deny it. You try to claim they're not saying what their obviously saying. Fine. I will keep posting source after source that says the same thing, and the weight of my argument keeps increasing. Proof by assertion is all you have, and it won't hold up under the weight of the evidence. Treating this "420 mph top speed" nonsense as merely one side of an unresolved dispute is what we mean by "false balance. It's against policy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The two main issues are

1 while we should not try to hide the facts about the bikes inability to reach the claimed top speed and media statements regarding those claims, right now the article is mainly focused on those facts rather than the bike itself. More bike/less speed claim issues.

2 the language/tone used is not neutral. There are plenty of outlandish claims in the automotive industry, Ferrari bring tuned cars to roadtests, everyone lies about bhp and these issues get mentioned in the article (not in the lead) with sentences such as "the factory claimed a top speed of X, however independent road tests were only able to reach Y."

I suggest removing the top speed claim issue from the lead. It's notable, there should be a small section with the claimed top speed, the fact that it hasn't been proven, and the scientific explanation of why it is highly unrealistic - but none of that in the lead. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

No that violates policy, per WP:FALSEBALANCE. No. No. No. When you say removing the rejection of the speed claim is "neutral" you're saying it is taking an even position between two points of view. On the one hand, the point of view of every source we have. On the other hand, Dodge's ill-informed, anti-scientific marketing flacks. The next quote I'm going to post is directly from one of the marketing people who started the 400 mph nonsense, and that person specifically says the reason they they think 400+ mph is possible is because the Tomahawk weighs only 1,500 pounds, vs the 2700 lbs of the Viper. Top speed is is limited by weight! Not drag! (insert *laughter* from the engineers) That's where this comes from. Policy says we don't give balanced weight to unscientific points of view.

How come I'm the only one posting citations here? Where are your credible sources who think 300+ or 400+ mph is remotely possible? You're making armchair speculation with zero support. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, was there a part of " we should not try to hide the facts about the bikes inability to reach the claimed top speed and media statements regarding those claims" or "It's notable, there should be a small section with the claimed top speed, the fact that it hasn't been proven, and the scientific explanation of why it is highly unrealistic" that implied that I wanted to remove the rejection of the top speed claims? Should I reword my previous statement to make it clearer? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Dennis, I'm starting to get the feeling that you're not actually reading or taking in what is being said here. No one is claiming that the top speed claims are accurate. Credible sources to say the speed is possible are not require, as that is not what is being disputed.

What is being disputed is the fact that the article in its current state is not neutral and gives far too much focus to the speed claims. The article is not Dodge Tomahawk top speed claims Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage, thank you for your suggestion - the proposed replacement for the lead seems highly suitable for this article, as well as your reasoning behind it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland: We have three editors here who appear to be in agreement to a somewhat remarkable degree over the problems with your form of coverage of the top speed claims in the lead - I believe that's sufficient local consensus to make the change.

Furthermore, I don't see an implied consensus for the original inclusion of this material, in spite of the fact that it has been in the article for quite a long while, it seems more likely that no-one bothered to argue it. It has been challenged in the past:

• You added to the first paragraph the original comment along these lines in 2009: "The Tomahawk's impracticality was mocked by one wit as a "rideable engine stand."[1]
• It was challenged and removed in 2010, with the edit summary: "dumb quote which introduces bias and does not even name the so-called "wit")"[2]
• 12 months later, in 2011, you added another version to the first para: "Joe Teresi, of Easyriders magazine and owner of the world record setting streamliner ridden by Dave Campos, scoffed at this due to the importance of drag, and Dodge declined offers to put the top speed claim to a test."[3]

No prior consensus appears to exist, only your opinion as to how to cover the top speed claim, which is in a disproportionately prominent and mocking way. It's also seems from these versions that you wish to make it clear in Wikipedia's voice that not only is the speed claim unproven and unlikely, it was mocked, disregarding the fact that you don't have a source that says that "critics mocked the claims." It's pretty obvious that this needs to be fixed. --Tsavage (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't vote on whether or not the Earth goes around the sun.

Here is another quote, from the April 2003 Cycle World cited above:

"At the unveiling DaimlerChrysler's dignitaries resembled high school juniors in Mrs. Grinder's fourth-period study hall, conjuring all manner of performance possibilities. Zero to 60 mph in 2.5 seconds, they eagerly reckoned— 1.4 seconds quicker than the Viper. Top speed? Well, here the speculation ran amok. 'This engine and a 1-to-1 drive ratio, without factoring aero drag, works out to 420 mph' theorized one Chrysler rep. Offered another, 'If a 3400-pound Viper goes 190, this'll go 400, easy.'

Really? We naturally volunteered to test this assertion, but had to withdraw when no 400-mph-capable trousers could be located. Asked one journalist: 'As anyone ever seen a wing-walker on a Boeing 747? No? Possibly there's a reason.'"

This is probably clue to the source of the thinking of the non-engineering people at Chrysler who seem to believe top speed is limited by weight, rather than drag. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland: You keep bringing out quotes that all illustrate what has already been addressed, that journalists and bike enthusiasts and anyone with access to a published forum are making sport of attacking the top speed claims - some may actually be outraged, but that's irrelevant - and no-one, beginning with Dodge itself, is arguing against any of that. No-one, including the editors you're arguing with here, is trying to say that the Tomahawk can achieve any high speed, or suggesting that unlikelihood should not be covered in the article. However, you also can't make too much of this, as, directly from the manufacturer, it's made clear that the bike is not intended to be ridden even down the driveway - theorizing about top speed is just part of the general media and blogosphere commentary, not an overriding central point about the Tomahawk.

What you have done is synthesize all of this "no way it can go that fast" chatter into a Wikipedia statement using words like "outlandish," "scoffing," "deriding" - you are trying to make your own conclusion as a Wikipedia statement. You are assembling a bunch of sources, and characterizing them in a particular way: you say, "deriding," I say, "joking" - who's right? Exactly, it's not up to us anonymous editors to argue endlessly, whether one person's "ridicule" is another's "joke," and THAT is why we absolutely rely on reliable sources to decide: "ridicule"? "joke"? both? We find the source and report it, not report about it. You should (re)read WP:SYNTH.

On top of that, while it is fine and useful to point out in the article that various sources found the top speed claims dubious and highly unlikely, to give that too much emphasis, without pointing out that Dodge itself said the bike is operational sculpture that's not meant to be ridden, gives the false impression that the speed claim was a major element in the product's appeal and coverage, when clearly, it was not (as I illustrated earlier by pointing out that two RS articles, together sufficient alone for GNG, didn't even mention speed until several paragraphs in). Over-emphasizing speed would then be creating a non-neutral point of view. You should (re)read WP:NPOV... And WP:VERIFIABLE, and the rest of WP:NOR as well... --Tsavage (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't believe this has really been discussed to this extent. This dodge tomahawk and I call it this because by definition it is not a motorcycle or even a real vehicle. IT is not legal to ride on the street. Was created to just show case a motor and as stated by it's creator dodge it is just a rolling sculpture . Has never been ridden more than 35 mph and even at that speed it was dumped by a professional rider! Even if it were stable enough to ride. I don't think it would be able to achieve any notable speed. Because of its drag coefficient is to great because the lack of fairings. But being a concept or rolling sculpture it does not need them. So to sum this up to make any claims of being the fastest motorcycle or any to speed claims are just absurd and really laughable. And why would you want to write a article on a out of date 13 year old subject larger than anything that was ever published. Does someone have a personal agenda? Or clearly just way to much free time. Could this time be better spent on a more deserving subject or even better our families or at least making money for them. For grown men to debate this article to death really does not help to inform or educate anyone! 72bikers (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The topic meets notability criteria, so that's why it exists. What happens on this article matters because the precedent can't be allowed to stand. We have three editors stonewalling because they won't tolerate ANY criticism of a corporations words and actions. They're proposing a balanced article should be nothing more than a credulous rewrite of the marketing press releases and published spec sheet, and the analysis and opinions expressed by expert authors have to be minimized to almost nothing. That's a huge problem, and it really doesn't matter whether it's a Pokemon article or an article on world hunger. The POV-pushing deletions of well-cited content have to be stopped. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

You do realize the more you speak on this subject the more you make it sound like your personal agenda and not a fair and balanced subject. I never said it was not deserving of a article. I have read the article and what was published on this as well. It is in my opinion what is in the article is more than enough to state the facts on this subject. To add what you have done in the draft of this subjected is redundant and repetitive. The same facts over and over you have every bit of information ever written and then some on a 13 year old publicity stunt to showcase a motor dodge built! To do this only subtracts from the subject matter and only bores reader into not even finish reading the article. Why would you keep challenging these fact when so many other editors clearly disagree with you? Do you believe that you are the only one who is knowledgeable enough to know what a good article should or should not have in it? If so then please state your credentials like myself are you a motorcycle mechanic? Are you a published author of any kind? Are you a engineer of any kind? Do you hold any form of credentials or higher learning that would make your opinions more valid than someone else's? If so please do inform us so that your opinions might hold more weight. Just being someone with a lot of free time and a willingness to try and inform people does not make your opinions any more valid than anyone else and twist things to your own ends. Try stepping back and see things from all sides and not get so personally involved over the subject matter! I am reminded of a line from a movie learn to let go!72bikers (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, when other editors write War and Peace-length arguments on the talk page pushing their version, that's just fine. They're allowed to stick to their guns day after day and that's just fine. But when I do the same thing then I must have a personal agenda? How convenient.

It's false to claim every other editor supports deleting so much content from this article. Brianhe and Vintagent (that's Paul D'Orleans, author of two motorcycling history book, Cycle World columnist, expert on classic and custom bikes, etc) also agrees the comprehensive version is better.

Let's make a list of all the compromises that I and Brianhe and the Vintagent have given these guys in our version Draft:Dodge Tomahawk. Concessions given to meet them halfway:

• Removing "extraordinary claim"  Done
• Removing "derided by land-speed experts"  Done
• Adding stronger positive statements to the lead  Done
• Expanding the background, design, fabrication, debut sections to reduce proportion of criticism  Done
• Expanding positive information from many diverse sources for better balance  Done

They came in and simply nuked text, did little to no actual research or writing, and instead used the talk page to argue and argue and argue. We, Brian, Vintagent, and I, did work to address the problem and met them halfway again and again and again. We gave them everything they asked except for one thing: total censorship of all criticism.

And that's not enough. Still staring a gift horse in the mouth and refuse to accept victory. Are these guys here to build an encyclopedia or is it all just a battleground?--Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I can find no reference to the one person with credentials you reference on this discussion. And only two references on the draft page and those to were to delete redundant or controversial information. And find it odd that you would state someone else credentials with a trivial role in this whole thing. Instead of your own as to add weight to your opinions. Am I to assume then you only have a high school diploma and neither any higher learning or trade to add any weight to your opinions? And to the other person you referenced they only marginally spoke on this subject and it is not entirely clear they sided with you. On the other hand there were what at least six or seven who disagreed with you on this entire subject. But I digress back to the subject at hand. I feel you neither took my advice on learning to let go or tried to step back and see things from all sides. Of your own words you were the soul creator of most of the content that was removed and in so felt attacked or belittled and then lashed back. And in doing so you neither helped your case or made your opinions more valid. And in truth you your self have done the same thing removed others content from a article without any discussion as if only your opinion mattered. When challenged on this state they were just cluttering a page or simple state we are not doing this as if you run or work for Wikipedia. I myself have had to go to great lengths to inform you and help you to understand on dry and wet weights when it comes to motorcycles to be able to post information without you removing it. And also on the subject of ram air you had wrote like this was just some made up thing of manufactures to sell there product."Is this just somebody hypothesizing? Did they do a dyno run inside a wind tunnel? Doesn't almost every modern sportbike use some sort of "ram air" system? And aren't we sort of left guessing about whether or not it really works?" I once again had to educate you on this. Ram air systems are designed to : get more air, and thus more fuel-air mixture, into an internal combustion engine. They represent intermediate steps between a standard naturally aspirated engine and a forced induction system, such as a turbocharger or a supercharger. Provide more performance than a conventional intake with a minimum of additional complexity. So its a way to get more in without the external parts like a turbo or like in the h2 a supercharger. Its even in cars The classic Ram-air intake is that seen on the Formula Firebird,, which consists of one or more forward facing scoops that are designed to force, or ram, more air into the intake manifold.. In many ways, this system is almost a hybrid between natural aspiration and forced induction as it compresses the air before it reaches the manifold. When tuned correctly, this option can provide a significant power increase. The biggest drawback to this system is that because it relies on the car's forward motion, it is only really effective at speeds of 40 miles per hour and above. At lower speeds, it loses most of its effectiveness as the air does not reach the scoop quickly enough to be compressed. These systems are not all created equal having a centrally located inlet on the most forward leading edge is the most efficient. As well as having the straightest rout to the air box some current model motorcycles have there's go rite through the neck also a large air box and sealed mental box like on the zx12r is better than a leaky plastic box. They first appeared on the ZX-11 model in 1992. And more show you published articles on this with testing done just to be able to post information on a article as it pertained to this. But to be honest you did help me in some areas as I was a new contributor. But there were many point you would just remove my contributions I felt just because you failed to understand the information correctly. And if I failed to enlighten you would say to just post on the talk page and get a consensus from contributing editors and when none weighed in it was if you word was law. Just curious that now even when things weigh in against you still feel like you are in the right. And only you know best or that people are out to get you or that they only disagree with you because they want to have a argument just to have a argument. My advice to you would be just to do unto others as you would have done to you. Not to take things so personally and oh ya learn to let go. 72bikers (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, you don't know who Paul D'Orleans (The Vintagent) is. All that matters is that he's one of the three Wikipedia editors in good standing who support the draft version of the article, and so clearly there is not a strong majority in favor of the mass deletion of content. I have no idea what to say to all the armchair opinionating about the top speed. Everything that Brianhe and Vintagent and I want to add is well-sourced. That's all that matters by policy. You are entitled to your private theories as to why all the cited experts are wrong, but your novel theories and opinions have no bearing on the policy that says all significant viewpoints should be covered, per WP:UNDUE. Cycle World, Motorcycle Consumer News, Motorcyclist, Popular Science, Dave Campos and Glynn Kerr together represent an obviously significant point of view. Three or four editors don't get to censor significant points of view just because they don't like it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

don't put words in my mouth I never said I did not know who Paul D'Orleans (The Vintagent)is. But the fact you brought him up when asked about your credentials is questionable. And the fact that he has not commented on this talk page at all. The fact that he only made to corrections to the draft of the dodge tomahawk. And they were to delete one a duplication and the other was to remove controversial material. That's it but ok he is on your side if you say say so it must be true rite. The other thing you mention I am not sure what to make of "armchair opinionating about the top speed" is this reference to your misunderstanding of ram air?

I did not state your reference were not well sourced. When in fact you took every bit of information ever written and copied it the draft to state and restate the same thing over and over again. Like the top speed of something that was never even ridden over parking lot speeds. And then state these are my private theories as to why all the cited experts are wrong. what am I stating they got wrong? But to have the audacity to state "your novel theories and opinions have no bearing" really? Then to state "Three or four editors don't get to censor significant points of view just because they don't like it". When in fact is was much more than that. But is it not true that you have done just this thing your self to others? You know what they say about people that live in glass houses? But again it does seem like you are taking this all to personal and just lashing out! 72bikers (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

We've been through those sources, they don't mention the speed claim upfront, usually only several paragraphs in - in the case of Cycle World, it's 21 paragraphs - and they devote very little space to the claim, averaging around 14% by my quick survey. Your attempts to include top speed as a large portion of the article, msking it seem far more important in the media than it wss, is biased use of the sources, a violation of NPOV and OR. You've been involved with this article for at least five or six years, and let it be almost entirely about top speed, now some other editors have arrived to improve it, which is the way Wikipedia works - sooner or later, every one of those millions of articles that need attention should get fixed, and right now, this one seems to be on deck. --Tsavage (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You're working on the basis of a totally made-up Wikipedia policy that which paragraph a fact is found in is a reason to delete it from an article. Laughable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

"Balancing aspects: An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." WP:BALASPS (part of WP:NPOV)

In general, common sense should prevail over citing of PAGs, but since you ask, that seems to apply quite well. --Tsavage (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see where in there it says anything about "delete everything past paragraph 7!" Where are you getting that from? I don't see any mention of paragraph 1 or 2 or 16 anywhere. If it was a book would we only use the first 50 pages and ignore everything past page 312? Or Perhaps 313? See, you're inventing an arbitrary standard, because you don't like it but lack any policy or guideline to justify it. The clearly expressed views of Cycle World, Motorcycle Consumer News, Motorcyclist, Popular Science, Dave Campos and Glynn Kerr are a significant point of view. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

You already got a long list of concessions to meet you halfway. What are you trying to get out of this? You got almost everything you asked for. Congratulations! Declare victory, accept a good comprise, and move on. Drop the stick! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

"treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject" Design, fabrication, performance, etc, are aspects of the subject, not viewpoints. If an aspect is covered a lot in the sources, we cover it a lot here, if it is covered only a little in the sources, we do not cover it a lot here. Cycle World devoted three out of 32 paras to top speed and that appears 21 paras in - it is reasonable to call that "a little." Same case in the other feature article sources. --Tsavage (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

None of that information comes from independent sources; it's merely a rehash of what Dodge claimed. Nobody tested the Tomahawk, nobody got a close inspection. Nobody witnessed the design process; we only know what Dodge chose to tell the public. You're proposing articles about motorcycles should be nothing but warmed-over press releases. Your made-up paragraph-counting yardstick is getting old. I've already told you I think it's arbitrary, and you've not found a shred of support for this 3/32 paragraphs proportionality anywhere. I've never heard of such a standard used anywhere on Wikipedia.

I don't know why you keep repeating it to me as if I'm going to give you a different answer. Brianhe and Vintagent read your repetitive assertions of the same argument ad nauseum; you failed to convince them. They support the proposed draft. So here we are. You don't need to keep beating the same dead horse. You think we should follow your made-up standard by counting paragraphs. We don't. There. You don't have clear consensus, and you've been clearly told that the current version is not stable or accepted; we've simply agreed to cease edit warring.

I'm going to finish fully expanding the draft to cover more of the design and fabrication -- which is to make you happy, a concession that you should accept gracefully instead of demanding total surrender -- and then we shall see what we shall see. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Why do you keep putting words in other peoples mouths let them speak for themselves. You do realize you sound a bit like a child ranting like as if stopping your feat or holding your breath till you get your way. And you continue to speak as if only your opinion counts what were your credentials again? you make statements of the only one to have found some publishing that stand out in some way from what is already written or referenced? There is a reason there was never much written on this subject. It was never aloud by the manufacture to be fully tested or reviewed by any one. Because they did not want to be liable for damages if some one got hurt. This is not street legal or even a real vehicle. It was just a promotional stunt by dodge to show case the engine that's it and as stated by the manufacture and by independent sources as just being rolling art. You sir are the one that is really beating a dead hoarse! 72bikers (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Right here. See the edit summary. Not everybody needs to make their point by writing 10,000 word talk page comments. You've repeated that you think this is personal to me. I've explained my motives. I've explained what my intentions are: to finish expanding the draft to better compromise and meet the demands that they made to improve the article. What else can I do for you now? May I help you? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

If I stop replying, it's not because I've accepted any of these arguments, or that the current version is stable, or that this is resolved. It's just that I don't see any point in going around in these same circles again. I'm sorry I repeated my points as many times as I did; if you guys want to keep re-posting your previous arguments, have at it by yourselves. We'll let you know when we're ready to proceed. Cheers. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Going to hold just your breath then. 72bikers (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Good luck proceeding without consensus, Dennis. Every dispute resolution step has told you that you're wrong. Are you expecting that clear consensus to change? I can't see it happening. It shows exactly how unwilling you are to compromise, when you create a draft and don't invite the editors who have different opinions to contribute towards that draft. You aren't compromising, you are creating a new version, based on your opinions, with editors you are willing to allow contribution from = not a compromise. You have lots of sources, the only problem is that basically they are all stating the same thing, and when you include them all, it completely destroys the balance of the article. The problem here is only 50% about content. The other 50% is your attitude towards this article and other editors. When you realize and accept the latter, you might find it easier to resolve some of the issues in this article. Good luck with that, it is sincere advice, not criticism. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

References

article stability

It is very nice to see that we finally have a stable and balance article. It's unfortunate that it took the article being locked to achieve it, but it has the desired effect. I suggest that all major/controversial changes to the current version of the article are dealt with on the article talk page, requiring clear consensus. Thanks to everyone involved in making this a balance article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The page is fully protected until tomorrow due to edit warring. That is not in anyway "stable". You do not have consensus for deleting all commentary and criticism from the article, turning it into a promotional press release. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a well-discussed local consensus among several editors holding essentially the same opinion about relative balance of the top speed claim coverage, and the currently locked version of the article appears consistent with that view. --Tsavage (talk) 08:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS states "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." Since the content was continually disputed and reverted, and continues to be disputed, there is no consensus here. That's part of the reason why the article was locked. – Brianhe (talk) 09:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that WP:SNOW pretty much covers the single editor that has issues with the article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Not true. I have issues too, so that makes two of us. There's some new text on the way concerning reactions/criticism that's been contributed by a third. – Brianhe (talk) 11:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Then I hope it comes soon, it would be good to keep the discussion flowing, rather than get back to some silly edit and revert cycle. 11:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)Spacecowboy420 (talk)

Brianhe: Intriguing, because I can't imagine what new material may be out there, or novel and compelling take on what material exists now.

Correction: "WP:CONSENSUS states "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." Since the content was continually disputed and reverted, and continues to be disputed, there is no consensus here." That is a misapplication of WP:CONSENSUS. The excerpt, under "Reaching consensus through editing," describes implicit consensus for routine, unchallenged edits. When edits are challenged, "Reaching consensus through discussion" applies, and we have discussed at length and arrived at what appears to be consensus. A formal close for the discussion wasn't requested, because it wasn't clear that the dissenting editor would not respect the views of several opposing editors, and would instead escalate to outright edit warring. Please be clear on policies and guidelines before citing them, in order to avoid confusion and muddying the content issues. --Tsavage (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

If you want to know what changes would have been made had the page not been locked, you can see them at Draft:Dodge Tomahawk. Brianhe (talk · contribs), Vintagent (talk · contribs) (support expressed in this edit summary) and I have been working to write a comprehensive version of how the article should look. You'll note that it actually contains quite a bit more positive commentary on the Tomahawk than before, without soft-pedaling the truth about the speed claims. Once the design and fabrication sections are fully expanded, and mention is made of Wolfgang Bernhard's grand entrance at the Detroit show, it's practically a Good Article. So there's three editors who don't support your censored version, and I don't see anything in AdventurousSquirrel (talk · contribs)'s comments above that suggest he's with you either. There is no consensus supporting the mass deletions of content.

We have a very fine article ready to go and then we can put this behind us. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Dodge Tomahawk seems fine to me, up to the third paragraph of the "Top speed" section, and from there on, each paragraph should be examined, most importantly for verifiability, neutrality, and original research, also for redundancy and overall readability. There is some interesting new information, like the Kerr review, and results from the NYT' picks of the 2003 Detroit show survey, but much of those 1200/2600 words is a lot of the same overemphasizing of the speed claim commentary. It's not only an issue of balance, it's now the often redundant, non-summary style writing that is tedious to read, and gives the impression that overall response to the Tomahawk was quite massive, when in fact, it was not - it was a publicity project on a fairly grand scale, and was duly noted as such. -Tsavage (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I have multiple sources that call it things like "the most talked about debut" at the Show, along with "most memorable debut". The crazy top speed, along with the motorcycle-ness, and the impracticality, were the reasons for that huge buzz. Because it's near the end of the article, we can assume that only readers who really care about the Tomahawk would even keep reading that long. Most people will read the lead and the specs, and maybe skim a little down and then stop. Readers who want more can get more; the "more" consists mostly of detailed discussion on of the plausibility of it's performance. So every kind of reader is well-served.

As far as proportion, it will look a bit different when another 10-20 sentences are added to the Design and Fabrication sections. But in the end you have to admit that we're milking every bit of non-performance criticism content we can from the sources. The simple fact is that our sources don't give us the balance point you want to see; our sources give us some basic details about the vehicle's design, construction, and functioning, and then a lot of detail on "can it do what they say it can do"? Plus a lot of detail on why big corporations do these crazy (and canny?) projects. Stay tuned and I think we can have an article we agree on. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The bottom line is, you are still attempting to insert extremely detailed coverage of the top speed claim, yet there isn't a single in-depth source that gives that aspect of the Tomahawk any sort of major prominence. And your proposed content is mainly reviewers guessing about what they saw in photos, or at an auto show.

Also, I have concerns over the use of sources. I found a problem with literally the first item I randomly checked:

"GM designer and automotive columnist Robert Cumberford agreed that leaving consumers disappointed is a risk, noting that the public loved the Range Stormer concept, creating a panic at Land Rover when they had nothing as "zoomy" to sell.[4]"

Not only is that bit of padding wildly off topic, Cumberford isn't even referring to the Tomahawk, it is a general comment in a chapter on concept cars, "The Concept-Car Concept." The Tomahawk is mentioned a couple of paragraphs earlier, with the entire description:

One of the more outrageous of recent concept "cars" was the 500-hp Dodge Tomahawk V10 motorcycle introduced at the Detroit show in 2003. As a usable vehicle, it was essentially worthless.

Once again, in a new source you've brought in (and misused), the focus on the Tomahawk is clear: it's an over-the-top concept, realized as extreme eye candy that you drool over, but don't actually ride - top speed isn't even mentioned.

There was no big, overriding top speed controversy; Wikipedia can't manufacture one. --Tsavage (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It is utterly false to accuse me of "manufacturing" the debunking of the top speed claim; it's a well-cited fact. And "there isn't a single in-depth source that gives that aspect of the Tomahawk any sort of major prominence"??? Yes, there are several, and I've repeatedly cited them. I've repeatedly cited that WP:UNDUE clearly shows that we need to give significant attention to these several articles that do give it major prominence. You're going to go on denying these articles say what they say, and I don't know what to do about that except remind you that at least two others besides me think you're wrong (The Vintagent is a published motorcycling author and columnist, Brianhe is a highly respected Wikipedian), and if that's not enough, then we need to move on to further dispute resolution.

This is not a WP:BLP and the idea that we urgently need to delete this potentially damaging, 12-year-old content about a company, not a person, and a company that doesn't even exist as DaimlerChrysler any more, is unjustified. There are a number of books aimed at children and juveniles that credulously repeat the nonsense claims: [5][6][7], and we should go the full distance to show that those old nonsense press releases were totally debunked. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The top speed section should contain the following:

COO Wolfgang Bernhard said in 2003 that no one had ridden the Tomahawk faster than 100 mph (160 km/h).

Speculation about the Tomahawk's top speed came from the media, and within DaimlerChrysler. One Dodge representative said, "If a 3,400-pound Viper goes 190, this'll go 400, easy, while another stated "this engine and a 1-1 drive ratio works out to 420mph" Senior designer Walters, who was in charge of the Tomahawk project, said he did not believe published speeds of 400 mph were possible, noting that the bike was geared for acceleration, and if geared for speed, 250 mph (400 km/h) would be within reach.

It is disputed that there was an actual official factory claim for 420mph. The whining about not having the aero is unrequired, Dodge already stated exactly the same thing. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Spacecowboy420's draft text regarding speed claims, it imo accurately frames the situation and balances the top speed aspect in relation to the rest of the coverage. --Tsavage (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion
"Whining". Nice. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC) As nice as this, Dennis? [8] Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)