Talk:Brammo Enertia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conflict of interest[edit]

Written to update current information on the Brammo Enertia. As I noted on my user page, I wrote the article at the request of Brammo and am being compensated for my time in research and writing, I am aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and I will abide by them. My aim is to provide neutral information and I understand that any parts of the article may be subject to deletion, editing, etc., if they do not adhere to Wikipedia's policies. Prior to Brammo's request of me to update their existing articles, I was familiar with the electric motorcycle industry as a whole, and Brammo's contribution to the industry in particular, because I am concerned about environmental issues and see electric vehicles as one of many possible solutions. I noticed that, as Brammo was headed toward the release of its product, its current pages on Wikipedia were outdated and contained incomplete and sometimes incorrect information. I mentioned this in an email to the company. Several weeks later, it requested that I write the article and update other information. Hbmallin (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja 250 comparison[edit]

I did some calculations and added some references to shed light on the comparison with the Ninja 250. It's still not quite balanced, since the Enertia's range and energy consumption are based on lowering the power down to 40% while the performance is calculated with the power at 100%. If you accelerated the Ninja 250 as slowly as the Enertia in 40% mode, you should get at least 80 mpg, if not 100. Wanna race? I'm taking bets.--Dbratland (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section (comparing the Enertia to the Ninja 250)is getting complicated and messy. What about the tendency of EV owners to seek out and use alternative sources of electricity, such as wind and solar? Can we just delete this section? Hbmallin (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both the New York Times and MSN Autos include the comparison with the Ninja 250. If secondary sources consider it important enough to mention, then shouldn't Wikipedia include it as well?
I didn't know about EV owners getting their energy from alternative sources -- if you have data on how much of their energy comes from alternative sources, it would be relevant to the article, I think. Although if ordinary people are supposed to buy this, then ordinary sources of electricity seem to be appropriate. I was thinking of including mention of what kind of motorcycles $12,000 to $15,000 buys you as well, although maybe that's too far off topic.--Dbratland (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just wondering... what kind of bike do you ride? If it's a Ninja 250, you might need a WP:COI.  ;) Anyway, I actually liked the CO2 comparison, but think it muddies up that section of the article. Also, you're just measuring the amount of CO2 it takes to produce the gasoline, aren't you? What about comparing the emissions of the bikes over those 13,000 miles? Hbmallin (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(See also comment User_talk:Dbratland#Brammo_Enertia_vs._Kawasaki_Ninja.)
I would agree that it is possible that this section of the article might need better structuring, such as breaking it up in to sections. I don't think the solution to a section that might be hard to read is to delete material, unless there are separate justifications to delete it, such as if it were unencyclopedic or poorly sourced.
I think it would be improved by adding the fact that Brammo is the source of the idea that the power is comparable to the Ninja 250, but the independent media chose to validate that opinion by publishing it themselves. A very cursory search turns up even more media who made the 250 cc comparison -- apparently Brammo has been planting that seed to anyone who would listen: [23] [24]. It looks like Wired took the bait too but, like me, they added the observation that the actual performance is not at all comparable. The Wired mention adds even more support for the notability of the comparison. So now we have by my count 5 media outlets who have mentioned this comparison, and if need be I think I can dig up even more.
The carbon emissions are obviously relevant -- that's the whole point of spending $15,000 on one of these things.
A question I have is whether this article is a good place to mention how much carbon offset you could purchase for the $11,500 price difference between a Ninja 250 (or perhaps a 125 cc scooter, which is really the league the Enertia performs in). So far what I've done is perform routine calculations using widely accepted constants like the DOE's lbs of carbon per gallon of gasloline, which is not original research, but perhaps the carbon offset idea goes too far. The merits of carbon offsets are subject to debate.--Dbratland (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that five media outlets all make the comparison with the exact same bike (Ninja) points to that comparison being in material supplied to those outlets by Brammo. As such I think the comparison has little value and should be removed. Otherwise we have a wikipedia article that is regurgitating manufacturer PR rather than stating fact.--Biker Biker (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that five media outlets regurgitate it isn't really our concern- in other words, it makes it verifiable, no matter what the intent or source was, unless they are copying a press release, word-for-word. tedder (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The whole question is very interesting -- I'm not entirely sure what the correct answer is. Maybe we should try to bring experts from WikiProject Energy or the Reliable Sources noticeboard or whatever might be most appropriate. I'm curious what a wider circle of Wikipedians think.--Dbratland (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(pasted from my comments on Dbratland's talk page):We were discussing this issue on the Brammo Enertia talk page and I have some more thoughts about including the Ninja stats. You said that "If secondary sources consider it important enough to mention, then shouldn't Wikipedia include it as well?" A quick look at the secondary sources (MSN and NY Times) shows that they are either quoting Brammo spokespeople or paraphrasing them. As you've noted in other contexts, PR language should only be included in a Wikipedia article if it is supported. Here, it's only in the secondary source due to it being uttered by Brammo. Even if one were to include the Ninja claim, the comparison is limited to output power: "The Enertia's power ratings (12-25 horsepower, 17-34 lb-ft of torque) make it comparable to a Kawasaki Ninja 250 in terms of horsepower." The comparison is not extended beyond that limited issue, so your inclusion of top speed, range, and 0-30 mph time is not relevant. The additional language about carbon dioxide production for gasoline vs. electricity from coal-fired electric plants is also irrelevant. If that is included, then additional information regarding the emissions of both vehicles over the 13,000 miles should be added. But it's not necessary to add any of this because this is not an article about how the Brammo Enertia compares to the Kawasaki Ninja, it's an article about the Brammo Enertia. I want to discuss this with you instead of just deleting it, because you have been at this (Wikipedia editing) longer than me, and I know I have a lot to learn.
I also want to add that none of the comparable EV automobile articles such as Tesla roadster and Fisker Karma have any "justification" about their pricing, nor do they contain comparisons to the "competition." If people want to make comparisons, they can compare the specs from the various bikes. Hbmallin (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because other (somewhat poor quality) articles don't have comparisons doesn't make it correct (or incorrect). Reliable sources have discussed the comparison, which makes it entirely valid to put here. Hbmallin, you have a stated COI, which means you are likely concerned about keeping the article positive. It's important to have a very balanced article; I'd be happy to point you at some featured article-class articles to show you what that looks like. Cheers, tedder (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested in keeping the article neutral. I now see that the original article's mention of the Ninja likely overstepped the bounds of neutrality. I would like to suggest that we move a more general coverage of the power/top speed/range comparison, the cost comparison, and the carbon output comparison to a separate section in the Electric motorcycles and scooters article. And sure, I'd like some recommendations for featured article-class articles on which to model my own. Any help and guidance is greatly appreciated. Hbmallin (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Emissions[edit]

I can see how it would improve all of the electric vehicle articles to add these calculations. The math is not hard.

Relevant[edit]

To me it is obvious that discussion of a so-called "zero emissions vehicle" would make emissions relevant. A comparable issue is the interest in the total greenhouse gas emissions that go into constructing the Honda Insight vs a conventional economy car. Why on Earth would anybody spend $15,000 on a 50 mph motorcycle if not because greenhouse gas emissions are of prime importance?--Dbratland (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Honda Insight article contain information on the total greenhouse gas emissions that go into constructing it? Should this be a new requirement for all vehicle-related articles? All articles on anything that is manufactured? If not, why not? Hbmallin (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I read that CO2 article from the DOE wrong... my apologies. So where do we go from here? You're counting the CO2 that results from the Ninja burning a gallon of gas stored in its tank and comparing it to the CO2 burned by the power plant that charges the Enertia's batteries. Are we missing anything? Should we include all greenhouse gases? Nitrogen oxides? Should we mention carbon monoxide emissions? I'd like to add a bit about the noise output as well... do you have any thoughts about that? I think we got off on the wrong foot, and then when you didn't respond to my earlier questions, I tried to be bold and that didn't go over very well. I'd like to work with you on making this a better article. Hbmallin (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely, all those details matter, and I think they should be added. I've seen the pros and cons of the silence of electric vehicles discussed a number of times in various media. It should not be at all difficult to total up the other types of pollutants from electricity generation and burning gasoline and perform the same comparison
With regard to featured articles, there are lots on the list and any one of them can serve as a guide for what the goal is. The article on MDAC is a good example, because it is also about a product, and it discusses the security flaws and other defects in the articles intro, and at different points in the sections of the article. There are lots of good examples of articles that introduce differing points of view and supporting/opposing data.
Please re-read other stuff exists. It simply does not matter what defects articles like Honda Insight have. We are not required to repeat the same flaws in all other articles. I was referring to discussion outside Wikipedia about the manufacture of the Insight.--Dbratland (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy of calculations[edit]

Obviously open to some debate. The sources cited in the current version use data provided by the US DOE. If these basic constants are not correct, then please provide sources.--Dbratland (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the section on emissions because it incorrectly stated that the Ninja emitted a certain amount per gallon. The reference cited refers to the amount of emissions produced in the manufacture of different types of energy. Thus, the figures quoted in this section referred to the amount of CO2 emitted by the refinery and supply chain in the production of a gallon of gas, not the emissions of the Ninja. Hbmallin (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I cited say no such thing. Or if they do, can you point it out? It is talking about the amount of carbon that comes from burning a gallon of gas. That's what "consume" means. Not deliver, not transport, consume. I have now added additional citations from the EPA that verify the 19.5 lbs/gal carbon emissions, and a citation of the definition of Emissions Coefficient. Further verification of these calculations is found here, a broad discussion of how to calculate GHG emissions. It also verifies the estimated 1.37 lbs/kWh average for US electricity production, and supports the basic logic that says electricity consumption is not truly "zero emissions." It's zero emissions at point of consumption, but electricity does pollute; after all, most of it comes from coal.
If you have citations that contradict any of this, please share them.--Dbratland (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also important to note (though this is an old article), it's not 19.5 pounds of carbon, but carbon dioxide and water. You can't break the law of conservation of mass. :) The weight includes the oxygen taken in (to make CO2) and the water produced, as I understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.201.39.74 (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Police vehicle[edit]

Although this was added awhile ago and reverted fairly recently because it was a "rumor" in some blog, it has recently been covered in major news sources, (albeit by press release), e.g.: Forbes Hbmallin (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, it is a press release from Brammo, not an independent source. Second, it says, the "Enertia is currently in trial use with the Hong Kong Police and the Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department." Please read WP:COI and WP:RS, and STOP adding misleading information to Wikipedia articles. --Dbratland (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Brammo Enertia. 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:

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: 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) 15:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brammo_Enertia&oldid=1200323532"