Talk:Harley-Davidson VRSC

Advertisement

I don't understand the advertisement header. The claim appears to be that this article is WP:NEU. It reads to me as mostly a collection of facts about the models and released dates, which in inherently neutral. What are other peoples thoughts on this matter? War (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100%. I do not understand the advertisement header. Joema (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. This are little more than published statistics and differences between the models. Απόλλων (talk) 14:43, 02 December 2009

The basic issue is that the content is written from the point of view of a Harley enthusiast, or someone who sells Harleys. It takes the tone that Harleys are the only motorcycles in the universe, and follows their development entirely in terms of comparison of the VRSC with other Harleys. For example, a neutral writer would describe the placement of the fuel under the seat and the use of a dummy tank as something done earlier on the Honda Gold Wing. Calling it a "power cruiser" instead of just a cruiser is advertising-speak. The remedy for these problems, and others, is to sit down with independent sources and write the article to reflect what those sources say.--Dbratland (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harley-Davidson VRSC. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227145357/http://www.nthog.com/html/motor_company_history.html to http://www.nthog.com/html/motor_company_history.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Involvement of Porsche Engineering.

Whoever it is that keeps removing references to Porsche Engineering's involvement in turning the engine that H-D designed for the VR1000 into something suitable for mass production and road bikes: please stop it. Plenty of sources confirm that that's how it happened.

H-D created a race engine - as the article states - and Porsche Engineering tweaked the design so as to make it suitable for mass production and also to meet legal standards applicable to road use. That's what happened.

Lots of bits of Harley-Davidson motorcycles rely on engineering advances from outside the USA - like V twin four stroke engines, pneumatic tyres, disc brakes, hydraulic suspension, and more. Pretty much everything that makes up a H-D derives from something that originated outside the USA. But then again, pretty much everything that makes up any machine derives from something outside the nation of its construction. Stick to the facts: aim for neutrality, follow the sources.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Whoever? It says right there in the history who did what and when.

You just added a citation that does not mention in any way that "Porsche tweaked the design". We have multiple sources that say simply that Porsche developed the engine, period. We have one source that adds the detail that a very small number of H-D engineers helped Porsche. You need to find and cite a verifiable, published reliable source that tells us exactly what you are claiming, that "Porsche Engineering tweaked the design so as to make it suitable for mass production and also to meet legal standards applicable to road use". The burden is entirely on you to do that because you're the one making this contradictory claim that does not jibe with established sources, including Cycle World, Autoweek, and Motorcyclist, as well as statements from Porsche itself. The MSN citation you added is a reproduction of a not very well known blog called "Bikewale" [23]. It's an extremely short, superficial post that says absolutely nothing about all this.

Maybe the other sources are all wrong but to prove that you need to show us better sources. If the sources for this don't exist then you're going to have to accept the fact that Wikipedia is going to be written to reflect what is in the sources we have, no matter how passionately you believe you're' right and they're wrong. It happens. The only solution is to find better sources and cite them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, BikeWale isn't a blog, it's a part of CarWale, and CarTrade.com, purely a commercial retail and advertising site, mostly for classified ads. They aren't journalists at all and would never be considered a reliable source. Not that it matters because the source doesn't shed any light on this to begin with. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The last edit I reverted because it unjustifiably removed the reference to Porsche developing the V-Rod engine was from an IP address - so not readily identifiable, hence my comment. Prior similar edits were from a wikipedia account and I'd guess it was the same editor, but that'd just be a guess.

You are wrong to suggest that I added a citation in my last edit - my action was reverting the removal of a reference that had been performed without justification while leaving untouched other aspects of the edit which did so.

I repeat: I did NOT add that citation - I simply reverted its removal, which I viewed as unjustified. However poor the source in question, it does back up the point that Harley-Davidson created the race engine which Porsche then turned into the V-Rod engine - a point which several sources agree on, what the article currently states, and what I'm arguing for in the face of repeated removals of referenced remarks about Porsche Engineering's development work on the job.

There is no conflict between cited sources over the origin of the V-Rod engine: they agree that H-D designed the VR1000 race bike engine which Porsche then developed into something suitable for mass production road bikes. Period, as you put it.

The fact that Porsche Engineering self-published a claim that it "developed" the engine is hardly a reliable source (it's just company PR, and no more reliable than any other company PR puffery). In any case, the Porsche reference [24] states explicitly that "the Porsche engineers constructed a water-cooled 1,131 cc motor based on a racing engine". That claim agrees with other sources which state that Porsche developed H-D's race engine into a unit suitable for mass produced road bikes, e.g., [25]; that one's still referenced in the article.

Whichever way you look at it, there are no sources which contradict the idea that Porsche turned a H-D race engine into a road bike engine, and those sources which do mention the origin of the engine that Porsche developed state that it was a Harley-Davidson race engine.

So: all cited sources agree the V-Rod road engine was developed by Porsche Engineering from the racing engine H-D designed for its VR1000 race bike. That's what the article should state and what it currently does state - so what's the problem?

I used the word "tweaked" rather than "developed" in my initial comment on the talk page (but not in my edits in the article) as an attempt to - umm - tone things down a little? Someone out there seems to feel very strongly that Porsche Engineering should not get any credit for its widely-referenced development work on the V-Rod engine.

(We don't know who it is: one IP edit, and several edits from an account which has only ever edited this page).

I have no passion for Harley-Davidson: my interest here is purely in accuracy (yes, okay, motorcycles too. But I've never ridden a Harley and doubt I ever will. Sports tourers are more my style, if only because I like a bit of plastic to keep the weather off; when I say "a bit", I mean "quite a lot, really").

The only part of the article which I think needs changing is the wording of the lede which currently states: "The V-Rods are first modern Harley-Davidson street motorcycles with double overhead camshafts (DOHC) and liquid cooling.": the restoration of the word "modern" is misleading since the V-Rods are the first ever H-D bikes to go into production with double overhead camshafts and liquid cooling.

I really do not understand the fuss about this.

Yes, it might well be that the engine H-D created for its VR1000 race bike did originate with Porsche Engineering: H-D hired Porsche to produce a modular engine design intended for a line of a DOHC, liquid cooled, 60 degree V twin, four, and six cylinder engines for H-D's Nova project: [26] [27] [28]. But unless someone can find a source which explicitly states that Porsche's work on the Nova project was the source of the VR1000 engine (personally, I'd bet it was), we should go with the existing sources which state that H-D came up with the VR1000 race engine and Porsche developed that race engine for road use (road, street, whatever - who cares?). Since that's what the article currently states, what's the worry?

How about it? Not that I really understand the issue you've expounded on, since the article is generally in line with my thinking, my edits, and my remarks here.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)