Talk:Bicycle/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Who is Starley?

Good catch. The article refers to "Starley's nephew" without explaining who Starley was. Who was Starley? Is he relevant to this article?

James Starley (Born April 21, 1830, died June 17, 1881) was an English inventor and "Father of the Bicycle Industry." However, this abbreviated history doesn't mention him, so I've taken out the reference to him as J. K. Starley's uncle. Interested readers can find out about him either by reading the main article on History of the bicycle or the article on J. K. Starley. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Side-by-side tandem

Why is tandem only described as fore to aft and not side-by-side? Wouldn't this constitute tandem? http://dheera.net/jason/kanji/tandem.jpg If not does anyone know how it should be described? Jason7825 17:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No, in fact, as the second sentence of the Tandem bicycle article explains, because tandem refers specifically to the for-to-aft seating arrangement and not to the number of riders. Per Sheldon Brown's Glossary A sociable is "a rare type of bicycle for two riders sitting side-by-side. Not technically a "tandem" since that term implies one rider in front of the other." Dictionary.com lists for "tandem"

-adverb: "one following or behind the other: to drive horses tandem."

-adjective: "having animals, seats, parts, etc., arranged tandem or one behind another."

-noun: "a vehicle, as a truck, tractor, or trailer, in which a pair or pairs of axles are arranged in tandem."

-idiom in tandem "in single file: They swam in tandem."

From Latin: meaning "at last", or "at length".

-AndrewDressel 21:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to create a new Wikipedia entry called 'Sociable' do you think this will be acceptable?

-Jason7825 03:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if you can find enough information and can cite good references. I don't think there is much out there. -AndrewDressel 14:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Boneshaler

If I remember correctly the Velocipede was commonly known as the boneshaker not the penny farthing. Could somebody prove me wrong before I change this. (Elephant53 16:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC))

Ha ha, see this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boneshaker (Elephant53 16:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC))

Appropriate technology

I would like to see this article added to the category list for appropriate technology. The category already includes innovations like the OLPC. I think it's self-evident that Bikes are a de facto and classic "appropriate technology". And I think it's important to recognise the appropriateness of bikes for transport in economic, evironmental and social terms everywhere, but especially in the third world. This would be a good gesture toward that end. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.179.82.47 (talk) 14:27, August 7, 2007

Not sure about that. From the appropriate technology article: "Appropriate technology (AT) is technology that is designed with special consideration to the environmental, ethical, cultural, social, political, and economical aspects of the community it is intended for." Bikes originated as a 'conventional' piece of technology in the usual way without giving special consideration to any one particular community in the developing world or elsewhere. If you can find a bike that is designed specifically for the needs of the developing world then you might be closer. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Two wheel drive

I don't have the tome to add this, but here's an interesting link: http://www.popularmechanics.com/outdoors/adventures/1276766.html. A '2x2' bicycle! DirkvdM 08:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Written up in a tome, was it? interesting. -Dhodges 16:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

New Anatomy Illustration

Pondering spending a few hours drafting out a good anatomy graphic akin to this wikimedia photo [1] but more comprehensive, including such regions as the rear cluster, bottom bracket and dropouts. I'm thinking standard road frame as a primary specimen, and perhaps an alternate for suspension frames. Thoughts? Gropo 19:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Spoken Article Request Question

Is there a reason that the spoken article request is still here? I checked the main article page, and saw that someone had already submitted a spoken article for it. Echnaret 02:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The submitted spoken version is incomplete. -SCEhardT 02:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"Motorcycle Sound Trick" section

This section seems out of place and doesn't match the tone of the rest of the article. While I agree that the sound trick with the playing card is cute, I've never heard that compared to a motorcycle before, and I'm not sure this kind of esoterica belongs in such a general-purpose article. Thoughts? Jpp42 11:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Remove it, it's a useless piece of trivia. LDHan 11:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the weight of an average bicycle?

I am trying to figure out the average weight of a bicycle. I hear that bikes made of alloy are lighter, but I want to know by how much? how about bikes with titanium / carbon etc...

A COMPARISON TABLE WOULD BE NICE.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.23.76 (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you should keep in mind that the bike is the one doing the carrying, not the biker, in most cases. :)

My answer is that you should expect around 18-20 kgs for an MTB, less from racing bikes and pocketable ones. There are designs down to 3.5 kg for a price ( http://www.light-bikes.com/bikegallery/BikeListing.asp?id=747 ), but the well affordable A-Bike weighs just 5.6 kgs, however. I agree that a page about comparison of major bicycle designs (or something along the lines) would be a nice thing to have. It could contain data about basic measures when folded/unfolded, next to some other useful information like cost and environmental impact of it's production. I know that bicycles are far the least energy and water hungry (-thirsty) vehicles to use, but there are always some that are greener than others.

A proper MTb weighs between 14 and 10 kilos, a road bike about 11 to just under the UCI 6.8kg limit, or so I thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.52.33 (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

We would first need to assemble a list of notable bike candidates that we could take as a representative of the 'average'. This list might prove useful: List of bicycle manufacturing companies What do you guys think? bkil (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

principal means

From the article: "providing the principal means of transportation in many regions, notably China and the Netherlands." No. This is a terrible statement to leave in an article - it reads like someone's odd idea of what weird foreigners are like! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.20.50 (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that's based on stereotypes you hold, but it seems perfectly fine to me. --RealGrouchy (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The claim is way too specific without a citation. Please don't add it back unless you cite a reliable source. -SCEhardT 02:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The world's fastest bicycle ...

User Mccready added "The world's fastest bicycle is a recumbent bicycle but this type was banned from competition in 1934 by the Union Cycliste Internationale." to the lead paragraph. I doubt that it belongs there because I suspect the vast majority of bicycle riders in the world care little about competitive cycling let alone the world's fastest bicycle. Anyone else? -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - perhaps that is more appropriate for the Bicycle racing article? Also, it should be cited -SCEhardT 19:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys I disagree. If you think about the main reason why most riders may not be interested is because they don't know, the second thing to think about is that if it weren't for the 1934 error many more of us would be on recumbents, the third reason is that it is a vital part of the article. Looking forward to you addressing these issues. Mccready (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable, published source saying that this 1934 decision ("error" is POV) caused a significant shift in type of bicycle use, I'd be willing to consider adding it to the history section. -SCEhardT 13:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if the first two points made above (lack of knowledge is cause of disinterest, 1934 decision is cause of current distribution) were verifiably true, they wouldn't prove the third. I have a recumbent and think it's a great bike, but I can't see mentioning it in the lead paragraph. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Found [2] Mccready (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Statements that start with "Theory has it..." on a website with the url www.recumbent-bikes-truth-for-you.com are more than suspect. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What was wrong with the form of words I proposed? Mccready (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) Should it be in the lede? Probably not. (2) The wording is wrong.. The world's fastest bicycle sounds as if the bicycle is fast, rather than allowing the rider to go faster. (3) The citation is questionable, as the source is not reliable, since it is from an recumbent-advocacy group rather than a third party source. Severo^TC 16:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This is from a history of the bicycle published by MIT Press

A racing recumbent called the Velocar (figure 1.26) was developed in France in 1931–1932, from four-wheeled pedaled vehicles of that name (Schmitz 1994). With a Velocar, a relatively unknown racing cyclist, Francis Faure, defeated the world champion, Henri Lemoine, in a 4-km pursuit race and broke track records that had been established on conventional machines (‘‘The Loiterer’’ 1934). A genuine orthodoxy pervaded the bicycle industry and the UCI, which controlled world bicycle racing. Instead of setting up a procedure and special category for machines such as the Velocar, the UCI, at the urging of the cycle trade, banned unconventional types from organized competition. This decision denied novel ideas the opportunity of being tested and publicized through racing and thereby deterred experimentation and development.

Can we agree that it is sufficient then to use it as a source for my original edit? Mccready (talk) 04:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, on page 179 of "The American Bicycle" by J. Pridmore and J. Hurd (Motorbooks International, 1995, ISBN-10: 0760300372) there's text which is very similar to that attributed to the MIT Press publication, including:

As racing was regarded as the leading edge of change in bicycle technology, the union's ruling suppressed development along recumbent lines for several decades.

IMHO, this topic is not sufficiently important or vital to be added to the lead paragraph, but I'd also be willing to consider having material about it added to the history section. --Wiley (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree; I think it would be fine in the history section now that we have reliable sources. -SCEhardT 20:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

The recent picture changes by Motorrad-67 and myself made me think that a discussion of what pictures we should have might be useful. Ideally, it would result in a list of the ideal pictures that we can then try to fill out. Issues with the current pictures include:

1. Is a high-end racing bicycle appropriate for the lead picture given the actually distribution of bicycle around the world? An Asian utility bike would probably be better, especially since there is also a different racing bicycle pictured in the performance section.
2. Is one dirty cantilever arm the best brake picture?
3. How many drive train pictures should we have in the main article?

It would probably be best to have one, or at most two, pictures to illustrate each section, especially when that section begins with a link to a main article. That would currently be:

1 History

2 Uses for bicycles

3 Technical aspects

3.1 Types of bicycle

3.2 Dynamics

3.3 Performance

3.4 Construction and parts

3.4.1 Frame

3.4.2 Drivetrain

3.4.3 Steering and seating

3.4.4 Brakes

3.4.5 Suspension

3.4.6 Wheels

3.4.7 Accessories and repairs

3.4.8 Standards

4 Social and historical aspects

4.1 Social implications

4.1.1 Female emancipation

4.2 Economic implications

4.3 Legal requirements

-AndrewDressel (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the lead image is in pretty desperate need of change as this article is of very high importance and the image is aesthetically boring I think we should try to open with an interesting and dynamic image. (The bicycle commuting article is a good example of this.) I think that, in order to put forth a more global view of this, we should put an image of a utility bike that is a roadster rather than a racing road bike. An Asian model would be good but a European model would be fine too. These are two images that I thought might be decent candidates: A Dutch roadster and the flying pigeon. Something less plain and more reflective of how people use bikes in Asia and Europe rather than just the U.S.A. If this seems acceptable to the communities and anyone wants to deliberate on it, I suggest we make a list of suggested images in this section that might be more interesting for the lead section. Any thoughts? Lexandalf (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

American vs British English

It isn't as heated an issue here as in the motorcycle article, but once in a while 'tires' become 'tyres', etc. As far as I can tell, from looking at the very early edits to this article, it was originally written in American English, the first appearance of 'tires' is spelled 'tires', and it appears to be mostly American English now. I propose that we can minimize future mistaken good faith edits by using the same techniques as in the current motorcycle article:

1. Put a tag at the top of the article and the talk page:

This article uses American English. See talk page for more information.

2. Put comments at the top of each section that say "This article uses American English dialect and spelling. Some terms that are used in it differ from, or are not used in, British English. For more information, see American and British English differences. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus."

Lest I sound like an American English snob, it is easy to see that I did the work of tagging the motorcycle article as British English. Either way is fine, but agree that it looks bad if they get mixed in a single article. If this sounds like overkill or much ado about nothing, just say so and I'll forget about it. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Bloody good suggestion, mate. At a minimum this label will reduce the # of tedious edit wars. BTW, this became a featured article two years ago as a result of a trans-Atlantic collaboration that allowed, as you point out, for uniform American usage. Sfahey (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

OTOH, a note on each section seems much.Sfahey (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try just the flags and see how that goes. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to have the one in article space, the one on the talk page is fine though and I think enough. Also, because a banner is on the talk page, it's now easy to revert with the simple edit summary of "rv - as per talk page". Severo^TC 20:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Tyre is the word. Tire is an americanism and should be replaced with the proper word. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That's weird because the wikipedia article on tires says "Tires, or tyres, (in American and British English, respectively", and the article on spelling says: "Tire is the older spelling, but both were used in the 15th and 16th centuries (for a metal tire); tire became the settled spelling in the 17th century but tyre was revived in the UK in the 19th century for pneumatic tyres, possibly because it was used in some patent documents, though many continued to use tire for the iron variety. The Times newspaper was still using tire as late as 1905." It cites The Cambridge Guide to English Usage by Pam Peters, 2004, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-62181-X. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In Australia i've seen both used.Alexsanderson83 (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the word is tire. That is the correct spelling in the most common form of English used on this planet. Get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.153 (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, the data seem not to agree with this assertion. According to the table provided in the English language article, which appears to be well sourced even if it may not serve as a source itself, American English and Canadian English speakers, the spellers of 'tire', number 276 million while British English, and its sub varients such as Australian English, speakers, the spellers of 'tyre', number 294 million, a landslide in election terms, and that is just counting the 5 largest British English speaking countries and ignoring all the other smaller ones such as Uganda and Malawi. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Motorcycle

Is a motorbike not a bicycle, surely the term applies? "a vehicle consisting of a tubular metal frame mounted on two large, wire-spoked wheels, one behind the other, and equipped with handlebars, a saddlelike seat, and foot pedals" Alexsanderson83 (talk) 11:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not. The term does not apply. I don't know where the definition you quote comes from, but the two articles here in wikipedia clearly distinguish between the two vehicles:

• "The bicycle, or bike, is a pedal-driven, human-powered vehicle with two wheels attached to a frame, one behind the other."
• "A motorcycle or motorbike is a single-track, two-wheeled motor vehicle powered by an engine."

The distinguishing feature is clearly the power source. Also, neither require a tubular metal frame, large wheels, nor wire-spoked wheels. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

the number and arrangement of wheels being two, would the term not apply for a bi-cycle? Alexsanderson83 (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. My answer to your original question "Is a motorbike not a bicycle?" is "No, it is not." (Now without the typo.) The difference in names indicates a difference in power source apparently important to the people that coined the names or that made them common. The terms that do seem to be common to both, at least in some cultures, are bike and cycle. -AndrewDressel (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

By way of clarification on this - in international law the term cycle refers to the human powered vehicle the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic offers the following definition under Article No. 1: (l) "Cycle" means any vehicle which has at least two wheels and is propelled solely by the muscular energy of the persons on that vehicle, in particular by means of pedals or hand-cranks;

Bike size diagram

We have this image which lists all of the parts. I was wondering if anyone can take it as a basis for creating a bike size diagram. It should mark things like frame size, wheel size, clearance from the standard points which bike companies measure all of this. Image:Bicyclemeasurements.svg kind of dates it but doesn't have wheels or tube size or bike height. gren グレン 12:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This article needs additional citations for verification.

Anything in particular? There already are several references. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of chalk and abrasive in tube patch kit

While I can find several references, including Sheldon Brown and Jobst Brandt, that describe the need to remove the outer surface of the tube before patching, I can find not one that mentions using chalk for anything other than marking the hole once found. Jobst discusses the need for talc inside the tube, but never mentions talc or chalk for "soaking up" any glue during patching. In fact, the glue is supposed to be completely dry before applying the patch, so there shouldn't be anything to soak up. One posting by Jobst specifically mentions the metal grater being provided for "roughing up" the tube before patching. Without a single reference for using a "grater" on the "French chalk" that detail should not be included in the article. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Over here on the Eastern side of the Atlantic the puncture repair kits used to contain a small yellow crayon for marking the puncture and a square piece of chalk for dusting the repair afterwards. See here for a similar Southern Hemisphere take on the issue; http://www.bv.com.au/bikes-and-riding/10437/ --Sf (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

More examples

http://www.cyclestore.co.uk/productDetails.asp?productID=14556&catID=123

http://sports.ciao.co.uk/Weldtite_Cycle_Puncture_Repair_Kit__6838069

http://reviews.ebay.com/PUNCTURE-REPAIR-THE-DEFINITIVE-GUIDE-TO-FIXING-A-FLAT_W0QQugidZ10000000003479154

Crayon for marking, chalk for dusting --Sf (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, finally. I guess my google searches weren't British enough. -AndrewDressel (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a long time since I had to patch a tube at the side of the road, nowadays most riders I know just carry a spare tube and throw the old one away. Process is as follows: 1 - Find the hole, (first by sound, then your lips which are sensitive enough to pinpoint the hole.) 2 - Rough up the surrounding rubber with the sandpaper. 3 - Mark the hole with the yellow crayon (otherwise it'll disappear under the solution). 4 - Apply solution. 5 - Apply patch. 6 - Grate chalk to dust over any excess solution (I know you're supposed to wait for it to dry, but you'd be waiting a long time for it to happen by itself, quicker to just wipe off the excess and dust whatever's left). These days you can get patches that have the solution already coated on them, you peel them off a backing film kinda like modern postage stamps. That eliminates the need for the tube of solution and the dusting process. Ah, the memories. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Bicycles as the most benevolent machine

Health. Good for your body. Accidents rarely result in death or serious injury, except if other people are driving cars.

Energy Effeciency. Uses human power, and can be modified to do much more than just get around.

Environmental impacts. No emmisions.

Can someone complete this to explain what exactly makes bikes the most benevolent machines? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquamammal (talk • contribs) 03:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Evolution of the Bicycle diagram

The diagram in question places the invention of the racing bike in the USA in the 1960's. This seems unlikely for two reasons; firstly, I have seen images of bicycles that closely resemble modern racing bicycles dating from shortly after the first world war, and images of Bianchi machines from the mid-1950's which are identical to modern (steel-frame) racing cycle in every apparent detail. Secondly, the USA was not a major centre for bicycle road racing until the late 1970's/early 1980's, and European manufacturers (Bianchi, Campagnolo, Raleigh, Peugeot etc.) were dominant in the the sport until the same era. Modern derailleur gear were first developed by Campy in the 1930's, and the word is clearly of Frech origin, though, as it happens, the diagram appears to show a single-speed track-style bike. Bearing in mind the diagram also misplaces McCall's velocipede to 1830 instead of 1869, and lacks sources for its claims, is there any point in retaining it?86.0.203.120 (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed86.0.203.120 (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Bike Shaped Objects

Is it worth adding an article or section on 'Bike-Shaped Objects'?

Possible references:

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

Murray Langton (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Another reference form The Guardian:

[7]

Murray Langton (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem in Dynamics section

The existing text states (in part): A bicycle must lean in order to turn. This lean is induced by a method known as countersteering, which can be performed by the rider turning the handlebars directly with the hands or indirectly by leaning the bicycle.

In effect, "lean can be induced ... indirectly by leaning the bycycle". While true, this isn't informative.

I have added an edit that I think more correctly and usefully describs the dynamics, and welcome improvements. Kotts (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted this text lean may be induced either by a method known as countersteering, which moves the wheels out from under the center of gravity, or by the rider shifting weight, moving the center of gravity away from the line of the wheels because the rider shifting weight cannot move the combined center of gravity of the bike and rider. Leaning merely causes the front wheel to turn which then has the same result as the rider turning the front wheel by applying a torque to the handlebars. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted HG Wells quotation

I just deleted this line:

H.G. Wells said: “Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race.” (Quotegarden.com[8]).

books.google.com fails to find any text written by Wells where it appears, though there are five books all post-2000 that cite this; one cites the author as EG Wells, all the rest don't give a primary reference. Neither does quotegarden.

It could be a remark he made, but even then it should be there in a biography or a book of anecdotes or somewhere.

Googling with [bicycle "despair for the human race" Wells] shows 1290 web pages; all the top ones cite no primary source.

It is possibly one of the many spurious quotations that circulate.

Unless a source is found, let us keep it out of this otherwise excellent article. mukerjee (talk) 05:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Bicycle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This review is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Examples such as "Multiple innovators contributed to the history of the bicycle by developing precursor human-powered vehicles" and "Several why-not-the-rear-wheel inventions followed" are not exactly up to par.

   B. MoS compliance:

   Introduction- Intro is too short, please see WP:LEAD for more info. List incorporation- Lists should be avoided, it is my opinion that the "Uses" section should be presented in prose instead of a list. Construction and parts- A section devoted to a single sentence is most certainly not MOS compliant. The "parts" section also violates this guideline.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Whole paragraphs and sections are uncited.

   C. No original research:

   Uncited statements may contain original research.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Too many images clutter the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   After careful consideration, it is my opinion that this article should be de-listed immediately. Uncited statements are the issue of major concern, secondary issues include unacceptable prose and image clutter. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 22:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Is the website Did You Know? credible?

The website Did you know? is cited for the claim that there are 1 billion bicycles in use. This is claimed to be twice the number of cars, but World Mapper provides a number of 590 million cars, not 500 million, and they give specific references for where their statistic came from. Surely there is a more accurate and better-sourced estimate than "about a billion". --Dbratland (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Bicycle at commons→

Is this correct, two different links to bicycle at commons

Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Velocommerce

On the website, http://www.velowala.org/pages/velocmmerce.html, I came across the term "velocommerce" to describe economic activity that is dependent on bicycles and other human-powered wheeled vehicles. I like the term a lot. However, according to my Google search, it is used very infrequently. I'm posting about it here, just to call attention to the term. If Wiki observers start to notice that is being more generally used, it could be added to the "Economic Implications" section.--NinetyNineFennelSeeds (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of photo cycle_copy.jpg

What was wrong with the picture?--Bdwolverine87 (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As the edit summary accompanying the revert stated: "Lede already contains better picture of step-through utility bike." Plus, the photo cycle_copy.jpg has a busy background that obscures the bicycles, and the caption suggests that the bikes are somehow "female." Finally, the image has some weird looking text in the lower left corner. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew, and I'd rather not have this picture included. --Keithonearth (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Vuelta a España vs Tour of Spain

a recent edit has referred to the Vuelta a España as the Tour of Spain. I do not think this is in keeping with WP:UE as the Spanish name is also the most common English name. I'm going to change it back, but wanted to leave a note here as I'm expect that the editor had the best intentions. --Keithonearth (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This conversation seems to be taking place on Vuelta's talk page, logically enough. I'd suggest anyone interested in the article's name talk about it there.--Keithonearth (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Pedaling Revolution: How Cyclists Are Changing American Cities

In the United States, there is a tendency to promote the use of the bicycle in city traffic. citing Jeff Mapes in "Pedaling Revolution: How Cyclists Are Changing American Cities"

This addition raises several questions:

• Is this use of the bicycle in city traffic somehow different than urban riding elsewhere in the world?
• Who promotes the use of the bicycle in city traffic?
• Is this promotion a good tendency or a bad tendency?
• From which page or pages of the book is this conclusion drawn?

Without some context, I don't see how this contributes the article. -AndrewDressel (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Frame materials

I have moved these recent additions here for discussion:

• [aluminum alloy] has become the usual material for entry- and mid - level bikes.[9]
• Other materials, such as titanium and most recently carbon fiber are also available. Special materials such as advanced steel or magnesium alloys and even bamboo are sometimes worked with.
• However, regular cyclists often value old style steel frames, for their comfort and durability.[10]
• Many riders, however, claim that steel frames give a smoother ride than aluminum, although this is contested.[11]

Issues include:

• the cited source is a blog by a part-time economics teacher, cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/bikes/best-bike-frame-material, which is to be avoided as explained here.
• uncontested information was lost: that carbon fiber and titanium frames are more expensive than aluminum and steel.
• vague expressions, such as "regular cyclists often value", "are sometimes worked with", and "has become the usual material", which are to be avoided as explained here.
• Wikipedia is definitely not a reliable source, as is stated explicitly here and here.

Perhaps, once cleaned up, this all belongs in the bicycle frame article. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Frame materials have moved on since this was written, and I am trying to modernise it. If you are contesting the assertions, could you give your sources, or even better let us know how you would update the section, Andrew?TonyClarke (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If frame materials have moved on since this section was written, I would find a reliable source that asserts so and cite it. I'll see what I can find today. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

However, a quick check of some well known sources, James Huang, technical editor, Sheldon Brown, bicycle mechanic, and Lennard Zinn, master framebuilder and VeloNews tech guru, suggests that the current article is fine as is: steel is traditional, aluminum has become very common, carbon fiber and titanium are more expensive, and advanced steel alloys and even bamboo are now available. In fact, Sheldon goes so far as to state "If you're looking for a comfortable ride, it is a mistake to focus on the particular material used to build the frame." Any further comments about frame materials really belong in the bicycle frame article, and these sources might yield some new details worth mentioning. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"Stepping machine" pedals

One particular type of bicycle is not mentioned: bicycles with pedals similar to a "stepping machine". I'm not sure which are the manufacturers of these bikes, but I know they have appeared in "the Gadget show"; look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KnUT8gu8dI (at time = 1:38 minutes ) Add in this article and make a new article for the bike type 91.182.11.95 (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There are probably many more types of bikes not discussed here in the main article than the few that are, and that is as it should be. Instead, the unusual types either have their own articles, if sufficiently noteworthy, linked to in the list of bicycle types article, or they are merely mentioned where appropriate, as "stepping machine" types are in the power collection from legs section of the bicycle drivetrain systems article. If an editor thinks a type of bicycle is notable enough for its own article, they should write it, and add links to it from other articles where appropriate. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Lever arm

The lever arm as used in Maurice Houbracken's bicycle should be mentioned. It allows a signicant reduction in the effort required to propell the vehicle. See 91.182.33.18 (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

coaster brake

An anonymous editor inserted a reference to coaster brakes having been invented by the New Departure Manufacturing. This has been reverted as the citation given doesn't support the assertion made. It appears to be true,nonetheless -Dhodges (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to add it back in with the best one of these references. -AndrewDressel (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

As a long-time user of a Dutch bike with back pedalling brakes inside a geared hub (first a sachs pentasport, then a nexus-7), I'm very interested in (and researching about) the invention of such coaster brakes : by whom and when ?

1. It's a pity that the late Sheldon Brown is not more precise than invented during the 1890s
2. New Departure Manufacturing (in Bristol, Connecticut) introduced the bicycle coaster brake in 1898. Introduction usually comes a short time after the invention itself (patent)... but not always !
3. German Ernst Sachs (with Karl Fichtel) started making various (8 types of ?) hubs for bikes, from August 1895, in his brand new factory. So he could have invented (i.e. patented) a back pedalling brake around 1898, although his first torpedo hub seems to have been massively produced only from 1903, even if Ernst Sachs article on wp: de [12] indicates a 1903 patent and another source says introduced in 1903 [13]

Coaster brake should not be mistaken with the back pedalling geared hub (or technique), more ancient, and which was not invented by British Sturmey-Archer in 1901 or 1902, but by various French men, with a first invention in... 1868, then around 1895-1897 (and also by an Italian engineer).

Alongside the actual date and name of inventor for coaster brakes, another interesting point to be clarified is to find out who (and when) had the idea to combine both techniques in the same hub.

Still researching and... looking for some help :-)

Please forgive my poor English as I'm a French guy ;-) (...and I can't speak/read German)

--Polofrfr (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Health risks?

I bumped into that for so many times - allegedly bicycles could be harmful to man's health: http://www.prostatitis.org/bikeprostate.html Many articles warn that long and regular bike rides could bring about prostatitis and even cause impotence. Any serious sources to back up that opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilya-42 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Bike Stability and Control - Explained in Simple Terms

I saw this article as lacking a simple explanation of how bikes can be ridden without falling over. My guess is that this question is the biggest piece of info that people seek from this article, yet the article did not explain it in simple terms that can be understood at the elementary level. And clicking through to the Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics article would get the vast majority of readers stuck in a quagmire of trigonometry and derivatives.

Because of this shortcoming, I added this easily accessible explanation: Revision as of 20:20, 2 August 2011

A few days later, I was sad to see that it got deleted. The article, as it stands now, is woefully inadequate in explaining to the average person how and why bikes work. I actually know highly educated engineers who will argue that bikes stay upright because of the gyroscopic effect of the wheels spinning. This is grossly mistaken and has been disproven.

Somewhere on Wikipedia, there should be a simple explanation of how a bike works. I suggest that this article here is the perfect place to make this info available.--Tdadamemd (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I won't try to argue that the current article is perfect, but it currently states "a bicycle stays upright while moving forward by being steered so as to keep its center of gravity over the wheels," and that is about as simple as it gets. Considering the number of views this article gets per day and the items that do get raised on the talk page, if this topic were the main reason that readers come here, and they did not find what they needed, I think it would be mentioned once in a while. As for details, such as the role of gyroscopic effect, they are already handled in the main article on the topic. -AndrewDressel (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Regenerative braking

Can regenerative braking be mentioned in the article ? The Copenhagen Wheel (see http://web.mit.edu/press/2009/copenhagen-wheel.html ) and Maxwell Von Stein's bike (see http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/tag/maxwell-von-stein/ ) both have regenerative braking integrated.- 91.182.76.226 (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably doesn't warrant a message in this article, but might fit in either bicycle brakes or electric bicycle, where regenerative braking is already mentioned. There are issues with the technology such this, however. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

This could probably be added to this Human-electric hybrid vehicle article. Legion211 (talk) 07:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Of interest to here or another wp article?

http://www.parleecycles.com/in-the-media/2011/8/10/prius-x-parlee.html <-- csmonitor.com article page 40 of 19-September-2011 issue by Chloe Stepney: Bicycling by Brain Wave; A Prototype Bike Backed by Toyota, Shows Major Advances in 'Neurocontrol'. 141.218.36.50 (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Meh. Fun to play with, but as the guy in the video says: it is just a hack of off the shelf parts. I doubt we're going to see anyone riding around with whatever that pile of electronics they show stuffed in the back of the rider's jersey, instead of hand activated shifters, any time soon. When we do, and reliable sources cover the development, we can write about it. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Pedals needed?

Is a bicylce without pedals (e.g. a draisine) still a bicycle? I say yes. If so, the term "pedal-driven" should be removed from the very first sentence (and possibly elsewhere). mbrennwa

According to the OED, pedals are part of the definition. I've added a reference. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

CTC magazine recommends teaching kids to ride on a pedal-less bicycle, but this is a very restricted example.--Old Moonraker (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

A number of early bicycles used treadle mechanisms.-Dhodges (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but treadles are there instead of the cranks, not the pedals. As far as I can tell, treadles do have some sort of pedals.{152.88.172.55 (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)}

The current situation appears to be:

1. One arguably authoritative and reliable source includes pedals in the definition.
2. There is at least one example of a device with bicycle in its name that does not have pedals: the balance bicycle.

The issue seems to boil down to the question of whether the definition for a thing must allow for all named variations of that thing. For example, is a motorized bicycle still a bicycle, and if it is, does that mean that human-powered must also be removed from the definition of bicycle. Similarly, a stationary bicycle does not have wheels and is not even a vehicle, but I don't believe anyone would argue that we should remove wheels and vehicle from the definition of bicycle. Therefore, I see no reason to alter the definition of bicycle to make pedals optional either. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I revised the first sentences in the article according to the above discussion. The change is not yet 'live', so I guess someone has to review that first (but I don't really know how that works in Wikipedia). {152.88.172.55 (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)}

The usual method is just do it, but as there has been a to-and-fro of edits on this topic you could make the suggestion on this page instead, or invite editors to read your suggestion in your own sandbox. At the moment, we can't see them! --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Swiss Army Window Cleaning Bicycle

This edit reports a TV programme creating a Swiss Army Window Cleaning Bicycle as a joke. It doesn't have a place in the lede section here or, as far as I can see, anywhere in the article. It's non-notable and will have no lasting historical significance, a requirement for inclusion. I propose a RV. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed by User:MrOllie—thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of bicycle commute speed to car commute speed

The paragraph in the performance section comparing car commute speed to bicycle commute speed seems to cite Ivan Illich's work severely out of context and the comparison to bicycle speed appears to be original research. Illich's numbers appear to be an estimation of total-cost-of-ownership whereas the number given for a bicycle appears to be just a normal cycling speed that the author decided was "average." No sources are cited, except the link given to the Wiki page on Illich. Furthermore, since Illich's work is from the 1970's, his numbers are likely severely outdated if they were ever accurate at all. I would recommend deletion of this paragraph. Vbscript2 (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Having received no further input, I went ahead and deleted the paragraph. I don't edit wiki often, so if this was not the correct action to take, please let me know. Thanks.

Vbscript2 (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not keep with kilometre per litre conversion?

It has been estimated bicyclers get 912 miles per gallon gasoline equivalent.

108.195.138.124 (talk) 04:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, for those who haven't seen my Edit summaries, I think it's gimmicky trivia, which involves all sorts of assumptions that probably apply to very few people. Happy to hear other views though. HiLo48 (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The provided reference walks through the assumptions, and there are not that many. It also gives a fuel economy estimate for Tour de France riders of 300 mpg. Automobile mpg ratings are also based on assumptions. Hence the expression "your mileage may vary." Considering the world-wide concern about access to and the cost of energy, it doesn't seem too trivial. I think a range of 300–900 mpg_‑US (0.78–0.26 L/100 km; 360–1,080 mpg_‑imp), with the appropriate conversions, would be useful. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

But nobody consumes food in litres (or gallons). For it to make any sense to a reader at all, he or she would have to follow the link and go off and look at the reference. I believe that's bad content. I'd also add that here in Australia, where we successfully metricated decades ago, the metric way of indicating fuel consumption is in litres per 100km, not kilometres per litre. It was a bit odd when we started using it, but I assume that it's the standard approach in the metric world, and we're all used to it now. So such an addition would need to follow that convention. HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. When I read what I wrote above, I see "L/100 km" as the second units, as I requested of the template, with mpg first because the article is written in American English. Are you seeing something different? As for whether people consumer litres or not, it does not matter because we are trying to compare different systems so that readers familiar with one can better understand the other. Automobile fuel economy as been a public topic for decades while human fuel economy has not. Expressing the comparison the other way, in distance per calorie for example or distance per hamburger would only leave readers wondering unless a value was given for both. Automobiles cannot consume hamburgers, of course, but it is still a way understand the scale of things. By the way, lest anyone claim that hamburgers are US-centric or whatever, I chose that example in the spirit of the Big Mac Index published by The Economist. -AndrewDressel (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I was looking at the heading (which obviously you didn't write) when I wrote of my concern with the metric units, and yes. I now see your conversion. That's fine, but still ugly because of too many measurement systems. I still find the whole thing clumsy. But that just me, I guess. HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

A range sounds like a good idea as it reflects the reality of bicycling, such as City versus Highway milage estimates in the US. 99.181.138.32 (talk) 05:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

(od) Since the article is in miles per gallon gasoline equivalent, does wikipedia have a conversion template to kpg? I'd assume kpLitre only. 99.181.148.240 (talk) 05:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

To me, the units should be energy expended per unit distance, such as kilojoules per kilometer. This would get around the difficulties in measuring energy use in terms of gallons of gas or hamburgers.--Triskele Jim 16:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Add Bicycle Innovation Lab?

• Browsing in Copenhagen’s ‘Bicycle Library’ July 23, 2012 99.112.212.152 (talk) 08:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggested Merge from Bicycle Shaped Object

The article may or may not meet WP:GNG. It has been AfD'd, with no consensus reached. I think it would solve a lot of problems if it were included here. After all, a BSO is a bicycle to anyone but a bicycle guru. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is a POV fork and should be renominated for deletion. Any sufficiently large category of product is going to have high end and low end offerings, and inevitably some pundits will argue that the products at the extreme low end are a poor value. If Wikipedia were a consumer shopping guide (it's not) then there would be a place for this type of consumer advice. But we don't fork off ultra cheap PCs (like eMachines) or ultra cheap cars (like Yugo (car)) and write separate articles filled with nothing but invective against them. Value (economics) is a far too complex subject to allow such a POV fork. Note that Lemon (automobile) can refer to both low end and high end cars; it's not about cost cutting so much as warranty, or lack thereof.

I can think of more arguments why this POV fork should be deleted; I'm only just warming up. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Be my guest. I'd like it to go AfD again too and fully agree with your arguments. My suggested merge was to at least get rid of the article seeing as the last AfD was so recent. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The term is becoming quite common, with specific connotations, in general usage now and it should have some coverage on Wikipedia. Merge, rather than delete, trying to cite the specific meanings but trimming the casual invective. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If the term becomes common enough, it might merit inclusion a dictionary, but this is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias don't make new entries every time a new term is coined, especially a new word for an old thing. The question is, with low end bicycles, what makes that subject special? In comparison to low end cars or low end furniture? The answer, as far as I can tell, is that it aggravates bicycle advocates. They want cycling to be taken seriously as a form of transport. They're offended at bicycles being classed with children's toys. They want adults taking up cycling to have a good experience and not be turned away by a cheap bike. All POV, all bicycle advocacy-related, not generally bicycle related. There are other aspects, like how low-cost imported goods could might or might not harm domestic production, and that society might or might not be harmed by the habit of buying ulta-cheap commodity goods at big-box stores. But these subjects aren't only about bicycles.

The other odd question is why all the handwringing over this is in the UK. Chinese bikes are exported globally, but we only see British sources here. Why is that? If it's a UK-only issue, then it belongs in an article about the UK. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support It's not UK only. The term could be expected to be found in an encyclopedia, as it is used by writers. The current content would need summarising/rewriting in accordance with what the sources say. Perhaps a targeted redirect to bicycle#standards would be appropriate, if it is the case that BSOs often fail standard tests/inclusion of standardised components expected in products of higher quality. -- Trevj (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• That's a link to an art show. "Bicycle shaped object" in Reno means a sculpture that looks like a bike, proving that this meaning has not spread beyond the UK. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) AFAICT it's real bikes (rather than sculptures) and is "an opportunity to show off your cool and rare bicycles". Anyway, we'll see what comes of the AfD. -- Trevj (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It has some currency outside the U.K. This blog is from Canada:"About the bike". Retrieved 2012-08-13. {{cite web}}: Text "The Bike of Doom" ignored (help). -Dhodges (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• oppose merge In what possible way was this a POVFORK, either by editing history, or by topic overlap?

Also note that this is now listed for deletion again at WP:Articles for deletion/Bicycle Shaped Object (2nd nomination), as the first AfD gave the wrong answer. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Pictures August 2012

Could we have a broader range of bikes featured in pics - from tatty ones to modern full-sussers - Enduro 2013?

The images just look a bit tired - my humble opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesx12345 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that we should reconsider the the image in the lead section of the article. I have two reasons 1) The image is aesthetically boring; I would call it a bit dry (I recognize that this is subjective so feel free to disagree). This article is of primary importance to its subject and I think we should try to open with an interesting and dynamic image. The bicycle commuting article is a good example of this. The image almost tells a story when you look at it. The one on the top of this page does not. 2) I think that, in order to put forth a more global view of this, we should put an image of a utility bike that is a roadster. I am thinking something like this this image of a Dutch roadster or maybe this photo of a cyclist in Paris which resides on the commons. Something less plain and more reflective of how people use bikes in Asia and Europe rather than just the U.S.A. If this seems acceptable to the communities and anyone wants to deliberate on it, I suggest we make a list of suggested images in this section that might be more interesting for the lead section. Any thoughts? Lexandalf (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree. With a broad topic like "bicycle", you're never going to find one image that represents the subject globally, so instead go for something attractive and thought provoking. I think the lead images for Scooter (motorcycle) and Sport bike are fairly successful. File:Cycliste à place d'Italie-Paris.jpg is good. I like File:Left side of Flying Pigeon.jpg as well (most popular bike ever). There are several at Flickr we could import to Commons: [14][15][16][17][18]. I wouldn't try to argue to decide what is the perfect bicycle picture. Just find one that's somewhat acceptable, and then change it in a month or two. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I really like the flying pigeon photo that you linked to. I also think that there is a certain logic to using the most popular bike as the intro. As of right now I vote for the Flying Pigeon Left Side image. Let the discussion and suggestions continue Lexandalf (talk) 07:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Other suggestions for an alternate lead photo are welcome. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)