Talk:Suzuki GS500

Untitled

Welcome to the Suzuki GS500 discussions. Please be courteous. Roguegeek 08:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

GS500E and GS500F Article Combination

With the two bikes being, for the most part, the exact same bikes, we have combined the two articles together to make on GS500 article. There was enough overlapping info to do this easily, but it did need a bit of clean up work to make it flow and read correctly. Thoughts? Roguegeek 08:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Who linked redirected both the sites and forgot to take out the GS500 split page. It asked which one you wanted to see. They are not the exact same bikes. If they are Give me your F I will go get a E to trade with you. I have had both. They do not even resemble each other. All bikes have close to the same measurements. They each need thier own page. If it was the same bike don't you think Suzuki would habe named it a E as well? PlumbTN

They are the same bikes. Go to any of the forums and ask. Just because they're different years with minor changes doesn't mean they should get separate pages. You don't see other vehicle or motorcycle pages split like this. Consistency is importand and the more comprehensive the information, the better. Use discussions before just editing. Roguegeek 23:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The only difference between a GS500E and a GS500F of the same year is the addition of the fairing and the oil cooler. All other parts are exactly the same. Suzuki may have stopped selling the GS500E in the US, but they still sell them alongside the GS500F in europe. The fact that only older GS500E's are available in the US might be what caused the confusion. Timb0h 13:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Specifications tidy up

The article has specs appearing a couple of places and seems a bit inconsistent.

I'm going to see what I can do to get the duplication removed and improve consistency.

Ones that seem a bit inconsistent:

• dimensions
• fuel economy (think this is just due to merging)
• Naming. In particulare the "E" part. I don't believe this reflects the naming in Australia. I owned one one time and there were two types "GS500" and "GS500F" talked about (normal and "fairing"). Perhaps the internal name of "E" is US only? See GS500F and GS500 NathanLee —Preceding comment was added at 18:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Btw, f. free to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the "3.9 litres per 100km" fuel economy info a lot off? I say that because my gs500 uses 7.5 lts to run 100kms, being with the the carb needle on the second line from top to bottom (one line above the standard, to more economic). 200.207.144.94 (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not certain on this, but 31 inches for the width of the bike seems excessive... I am in the process of negotiating to buy a GS500E, so I will try to confirm that value soon hopefully. -m-i-k-e-y-^{Talk / C} 17:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Even if you measured the handlebars on a bike and found the width was different, that would be original research, which Wikipedia has no use for. The stats say 800.0 mm (31.50 in) [23] and for that type of statistic (i.e. not fuel economy, horsepower or weight), the manufacturer is usually the most reliable source. Now if you were to find some other published, third-party expert who argued with Suzuki's stats, that would be useful. --Dbratland (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point well made! I am familiar with WP:OR, just sometimes a little forgetful! I also missed that link, and assumed that the whole thing was unsourced. -m-i-k-e-y-^{Talk / C} 15:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Power claims

This dyno sheet shows that the GS500F stock has about 42.5HP, not 51 like written in main article:

http://smg.photobucket.com/user/jcp8832/media/AnniesGS500dynoRun.jpg.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.244.177.78 (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source, and even if it was, it says right on there the bike is hardly stock. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Suzuki GS500. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20100106135606/http://suzukicycles.com/Product%20Lines/Cycles/Products/GS500F/2009/GS500F.aspx?category=sportbike to http://www.suzukicycles.com/Product%20Lines/Cycles/Products/GS500F/2009/GS500F.aspx?category=sportbike

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Expansion Suggested

The article is very brief and does not cover the popularity and design effectiveness of the bike, as published in many reputable sources. For example, none of the reasons for the bike's decades of success in the market based on practical performance, cost effectiveness, and high maintainability were covered. A well referenced expansion of the Introduction was thus done today, and promptly deleted by 72bikers on the basis that it is unreferenced opinion. Actually, all significant points were referenced, and more references can be added if desired.

I added back one well referenced sentence to open a conversation on the subject. Is there something wrong with pointing out the good features of a product, as covered in the references, so long as less than ideal features as described in the references are also objectively covered? In the case of the GS500, it is a very well regarded beginner to intermediate bike. The only real criticisms as given in the literature are moderately lower power than its more modern water cooled competitors, and a few scattered complaints about corrosion (mostly from users and not professional review). Those criticisms were covered. Readers do want to know these things, and not just dry details. Why not give them encyclopedic summary of what the literature says? That is supposed to be the mission of Wikipedia.

PhaseAcer (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Editor PhaseAcer the article is not overly brief. You appear to be removing content you find unflattering and replacing it with content you feel pays tribute to the motorcycle. Not everything is notable for Wikipedia such as (and more), color schemes or trim options are generally not mentioned, as these vary by country. As with prices and trivia, the exception is if reliable sources are cited showing a color scheme was notable. You would also seem to embellishing your edits not fully supported by sources. as well as inducing errors into the article. The lead content in the article is not to be overly long, it should just be a short overview of the body of the article. I have provided some content on your talk page for you to read over and help you navigate Wiki, such as how to make citations for the article. I see and share your passion for motorcycles but take your time and start out slow. -72bikers (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

72bikers, I was not of the opinion that the article had unflattering content--I think it is leaving out important content. In particular I thought it was lacking summary review in the Introduction that fairly presented the positives and negatives on the bike, which according to the literature are almost all positive on this machine. For example, a reader who is a prospective buyer of a used GS500 really wants to know these points, and cares much less about historical coverage of which sub-models were produced on exactly which dates. When I first read this article, I could not have cared less about that--I wanted to read the bottom line good and bad on the bike without having to chase down and read all the references. That dry coverage dominates the Introduction as you have reverted it. As another example, you have reverted me twice to keep the Introduction beginning by stating that the GS500 is an "entry level" bike. If this is interpreted as "beginner bike" (which is likely since there is so much coverage of learner bike qualification in the Introduction), then it is in direct conflict with the literature, which has the strong majority view that the GS500 is also quite suitable for more experienced riders. However, I'll try again with very strict and exact referencing written in as neutral a tone as possible, and see if I can satisfy you that way. I'm not trying to turn the article into an advertising piece, but I do think it could better summarize the literature and therefore be a better article.

Additionally, if the Introduction can be expanded a little to better cover the key points to a reader, I would like to propose adding a section on the design and maintenance of the bike. It represents the technology and design peak of the mid-sized air cooled carbureted parallel twin class of bikes that began with the Triumph Speed Twin in 1937, proceeded through the excellent Honda CB77, CB350, and CB400 in the 1960's and 70's, and pretty much ended with the GS500. But, despite being a well refined example of this design path, it has a few problems as a consequence of this architecture. For example, being air cooled and running hot it needs its exhaust valves to be kept trimmed in to the high end of the recommended range to minimize valve recession. That is very useful information for readers, which could be briefly mentioned with references to send them to right place for details to take good care of their bikes. There are several other issues like that as well, such as its strong propensity for exhaust head bolts to corrode and break, which can be headed off by replacing them with stainless steel hardware.

PhaseAcer (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a buyers guide nor is it a repair manual or a forum on likes and dislikes. I think perhaps these points are where you are running afoul. Please read the material I left on your talk page. Historical coverage is what an encyclopedia is. a section on design yes "a section on the design and maintenance of the bike" maintenance no "the technology and design peak of the mid-sized air cooled carbureted parallel twin class of bikes" yes. "It represents the technology and design peak of the mid-sized air cooled carbureted parallel twin class of bikes" for substantial claims as this there would need to be verifiable reliable sources to confirm. I will state again wiki is not a buyers guide nor is it a repair manual These facts of policy can be found in reading through the content left on your talk page. I see and share your passion for motorcycles but take your time and start out slow. Here is a good place to get direction WikiProject Motorcycling and here is a good place to ask questions talk:WikiProject Motorcycling. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

72, I had a look at your references on my talk page, thanks. I'm a newish editor who has worked on only about a half dozen articles, though some of it has been pretty involved work. So far what I have seen is that sometimes nobody much cares what you write if it is sensible and decently referenced, other times you can be telling important truths where you have outstanding professional references and there are no opposing references, and if it is different than a group of active editors have previously written or like, you can still run into an intense fight. If I get into that situation where the majority view of the references is being rejected, I just keep stacking the references deeper and seeking to strictly stay within policy. Sometimes I have convinced other editors that way, and sometimes there is no convincing them. Sometimes consensus rejects a strong majority reference view that conflicts with their opinion, and you just have to let it go.

Concerning necessary referencing for strong claims in motorcycle design and history, it does not always seem to take a lot. I note this introduction to the Honda CB77: "The Honda CB77, or Super Hawk, was a 305 cc (18.6 cu in) straight-twin motorcycle produced from 1961 until 1967. It is remembered today as Honda's first sport bike. It is a landmark model in Honda's advances in Western motorcycle markets of the 1960s,[4] noted for its speed and power as well as its reliability, and is regarded as one of the bikes that set the standard for modern motorcycles." The reference for making such a sweeping statement of praise is a single old magazine article that is not even web accessible or directly quoted--so it's pretty hard to judge its weight. There are only ten total references in the article, with four of them being different versions of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", and another being a coffee table book forwarded by Jay Leno about movie stars and their bikes. So, only five real references, of which 2 are pretty hard to get magazine articles. But, despite this small set of references which seem poorly quoted from (one brief and vague quote from the author of one book in the body, no significant majority view of a body of strong references), there is apparently consensus on that praise. The Talk Page is two thirds consumed with discussing whether the CB77 really is the bike in "Zen" ), and the rest about the movie "Roustabout" and Elvis Presley riding a CB77. None of the editors on the Talk Page discussions even MENTION the claims of greatness made for the CB77, and whether any further evidence and references should be presented to support those claims.

My goal here is just to tell the truth about the GS500 as described in the references, hopefully in a way that benefits readers. The bike has its positives and negatives, but is overall a fine machine well representing the apparent final state of air cooled carbureted mid sized parallel twin bikes, since everything else newer is now water cooled and fuel injected. The quality of the GS500 is not high performance, but in its balance of performance, cost effectiveness, easy maintenance, and long service life, and the resulting high popularity and real world use over a period of decades. In that sense it has probably excelled over the CB77/CB350/CB400 and the Triumphs that came before it. That seems worthy of pointing out. PhaseAcer (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)