mabbey
Junior Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by mabbey on Apr 21, 2015 14:26:28 GMT
Hello everyone! I don't know if everyone read my hello page but I have joined the site because I'm in the process of updating the CB250N/CB400N Wikipedia entry. As this is the place of infinite Super Dream knowledge it only seemed right to get the people here involved too.
Anyone who had seen the entry will probably clicked away in horror of the misinformed, obviously non SD owning writing. Looking back through the edit history I can a previous effort from a member on here that was deleted even though it was factually correct. That was a shame but unfortunately the Wiki users removed it and put up garbage instead.
For the last two weeks I have been nip ticking it and as of today the article has pretty much been redone by me, only the last paragraph is someone else's.
The biggest issue is lack of references that can used, not surprising considering the model is now 35 years old (and I'm only 29!)
Any feedback is appreciated, and if it's alright I'll keep updating this thread as I make edits. Always value a second opinion.
Thanks for reading!
|
|
mabbey
Junior Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by mabbey on Apr 21, 2015 14:30:50 GMT
Today's edit has deleted the paragraph about Norton remaking CB250N's. I have added that the 250's popularity waned in 1983 due to the law reducing learners to 125's.
Also added power and torque figures from sales brochures that I found online. They don't list top speeds so anyone that has a brochure that does that would be helpful.
Thanks, Marc
|
|
|
Post by srx600 on Apr 21, 2015 14:46:03 GMT
96mph did 80mpg aswell
|
|
|
Post by srx600 on Apr 21, 2015 14:59:30 GMT
I have added that the 250's popularity waned in 1983 due to the law reducing learners to 125's.
That was half the reason the yamaha RD had a bit to do with it aswell.. I remember dealers complaining due to having stock that they could not seem to shift. Think its really cool that your updating the CB250N/CB400N Wikipedia entry. I just did not know that you could do this. Some poeple did not like the superdream because it was considered to be slow and heavy. Well its was when compared to a two stroke.But it was a quality piece of engineering. which is reflected in the fact that you can still find rust free tanks, when lots of the suzuki,kawasaki,yamaha tanks have long since gone. People also called them "wetdreams" but they where mainly RD fans.
|
|
mabbey
Junior Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by mabbey on Apr 21, 2015 16:05:24 GMT
I've owned a 250 and a 400 and thought they were great. OK maybe a bit top heavy but I had a Fazer 600 at the same time as the 250 so had gotten used to the weight of a "big" bike
I actually sold the Fazer to pay for the parts to restore the 400. It may have been slower but what it lacked in speed it made up in character. Plus the 400 was faster than people thought, I had riders of GS500's and a GT500B who looked down their noses at the 400 only to be looking at its exhausts pipes when trying to keep up with it.
|
|
mabbey
Junior Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by mabbey on Apr 21, 2015 18:10:43 GMT
Well it looks like even with official Honda sales brochures I fell foul of the Wikipedia police! The power and torque figures have been removed because they were not from an independent source.
Stupid thing is its not like the Super Dreams ever had inflated specifications, that's just what they were?! I have a rolling road result from both of my SD's but that could be contested too. Grrrr
I'll see if I can source some old road tests, I can't find any of my old mags I had during the 400 restoration.
If anyone has an old Bike or What Bike mag they have please let me know! Rant over
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2015 18:14:45 GMT
Don't these wallies who edit credible info have anything better to do?
What is a better reference source than actual Honda literature with regards to performance?
I don't get it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2015 18:37:22 GMT
Ah- Mr Eagleash strikes again... What constitutes a credible reference is still a Wikipedia mystery to me.
June 1980 Bike magazine ran a group test of 250's they called "Giant Test- the SuperTechnoFourStrokes" from page 31 to 39. the CB250 Superdream was pitched against the Kawasaki Z250B, Suzuki GSX250 and Yamaha XS250. Top speed of the SuperDream was reported to be 83mph (prone) and 75mph (sitting up). But these were stated to be estimated. Fuel economy WAS actually tested, and found to be 51.3mpg overall and 46.2mpg ridden hard. The bike tested was a black CB250NA, registration LLB 784V.
|
|
mabbey
Junior Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by mabbey on Apr 21, 2015 18:38:21 GMT
Exactly! I can however use figures from and I quote "respectable bike magazines". Period bike mags are more reliable than manufacturer figures then?!
I saw your scan of an old issue of Bike magazine though Fungobat, could I trouble you in asking which issue this was from. Reckon I can use the specifications they printed instead. I had this exact mag in my collection at some point as well, just my luck my luck that I can't find it anywhere here.
|
|
mabbey
Junior Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by mabbey on Apr 21, 2015 18:42:11 GMT
Mr Crouchyuk, does the June 1980 Bike list specs for the 250? The bike mags would surely have just quoted the mamanufacturers figures anyway but it should mean I can still reference them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2015 18:55:40 GMT
Yes it does of course. What I was trying to cynically suggest was that everything I just typed could well be a load of old bo**ocks I just dreamt up? Rather than copied straight out of a dog-eared 35 year old Bike mag balanced on my lap. But my words are now a credible source...
Next mag down in the pile is also Bike, year before and the CB400N pitched against the RD400E. I collect the bikes history as well you see....
I will dig out some more stuff, but others probably have similar.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2015 18:59:10 GMT
Exactly! I can however use figures from and I quote "respectable bike magazines". Period bike mags are more reliable than manufacturer figures then?! It's a fact that they are not.
I have spotted many inconsistences in some of these magazines regarding the humble 250/400N....
So they can reference as long as they reference false 'facts'?
Simply ludicrous, heh?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2015 19:04:22 GMT
Yes, the Classic Motorcycle Mechanics articles over the years are a bit poor- remember the one where the article on the 400's actually used photos of 250's but they airbrushed the decals out?
I will put up the 2 tests though mabbey- let's see what Adolfo Eagleash is happy with. Wait just there.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2015 19:06:59 GMT
Exactly! I can however use figures from and I quote "respectable bike magazines". Period bike mags are more reliable than manufacturer figures then?! I saw your scan of an old issue of Bike magazine though Fungobat, could I trouble you in asking which issue this was from. Reckon I can use the specifications they printed instead. Can you link it here Marc?
Unsure which article you are referring to. Is it the one that I'm actually in?
If so, that is a very well written article and was quite recent (2013).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2015 19:17:27 GMT
Yes, the Classic Motorcycle Mechanics articles over the years are a bit poor- remember the one where the article on the 400's actually used photos of 250's but they airbrushed the decals out? I will put up the 2 tests though mabbey- let's see what Adolfo Eagleash is happy with. Wait just there..... Yes I have a copy of that here I think, Paul.
|
|