Talk:Three-wheeler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Merge proposal[edit]

I disagree. It seems to me that a tricycle is a special case of three-wheeler. It would be absurd to have an article on tricycles discussing Bubble cars and Reliant Robins. —Theo (Talk) 19:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree too.Ditto, and in addition I am working an article on Goliath. Hektor 20:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree, the article could do with expanding, but it doesn't fit in Tricycle. I have removed the tag accordingly. Kcordina 15:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
3wheeled ATVs and 3wheeled cars deserve two completely separate categories. 74.227.46.228 04:58, 28 November 2006‎ (UTC)

Ahem ... about some more merge[edit]

Merge, this time, with Three_wheeled_cars. The contents are quite complementary. I'll let anyone tell which title is better.

I should say that some content from the tricycle article should partially be merged too. What do you think ?

The domain could also be clearly organized with articles like -

  • ==Category:Tricycle vehicules
  • Old machines
  • Tricycle
  • Motorized three-wheeled
  • - car looking
  • - - company 1
  • - - company 2 ...
  • - motorcycle looking
  • - - ...
  • Three-wheeled competitions
  • Three-wheeled physics and safety

-- DLL .. T 21:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The home constructed VW motorbike hybrids are clearly motorcycles rather than cars, so I think the article needs to be split in two parts. However the discussions on geometry and stability are the same for cars, microcars and trikes, and there is already duplication. So combine and expand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.218.42.62 (talkcontribs) 11:03, 17 October 2006‎

Three-wheeled vehicles[edit]

How about this:

  • Move this article, giving it the title "Three-wheeled vehicles".
  • Merge Three wheeled car into this article, since cars are vehicles but vehicles are not necessarily cars (the Daihatsu mini-pickups in the thumbnail come to mind).
  • Add a "see also" or a top-link disambiguation to the Tricycle article, especially as it relates to the children's toy.
  • Have a "See also" list including Microcar, Bubble car, Messerschmitt KR200, Morgan Motor Company, and whatever other relevant articles come to mind.

Reasonable idea?

Respectfully, SamBlob 22:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverse Trike[edit]

A Three Wheel Car and a Reverse Trike as I like to call them are completely different monsters. I think more should be elaborated on the physics and handling characteristics of each that way readers have a better picture then "It’s just a backwards three wheeler"

http://reversetrike.com/home.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.132.10.73 (talkcontribs) 21:44, 9 April 2007‎

Merge, again[edit]

A merge was apparently originally proposed here in 2006. I recently re-tagged tilting three-wheeler and three-wheeled car to be merged here. Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) de-tagged the former and then undid a subsequent redirect, leaving a note here on the old merge discussion which I've now moved below:

* Oppose This is no better an idea for a merge today than it was back in 2005 Andy Dingley (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, I've already done the work. Tilting three-wheeler is now redundant to the material contained at three-wheeler#Tilting option. Unless there is some disagreement to how that work has been done (personally I think I've done an adequate job of the merge), the redirect should be put back in place. If, at some later point, the tilting aspect requires an article to be spun back out again then so be it, but for the time being there is too little referenced material to truly warrant a separate article for this aspect of the subject.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose "But I've already written it" and "Think of the wasted effort" is no more a policy here than it is when you seek to delete others' articles. Nor does this change just because you're an admin and you've previously threatened to block the same editor who disagrees with you. We work by consensus here, and hopefully by aiming towards the best structure for the resulting articles.
Three-wheelers are obviously a huge topic, and current en:WP coverage is way inadequate. Tilting three-wheelers are themselves a large topic, or even more than one, and there is no question of their notability. Merging the content that is appropriate for tilting into the main article would be a problem for WP:UNDUE. Even if the coverage of each is currently far less than it ought to be, we should move in the direction that builds useful articles (and tilting three-wheeler is already a reasonable stand-alone), rather than assuming that our current poor three wheeler article is as big as it's ever going to get. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what you seek to accomplish by throwing in unrelated ad hominem attacks on me. I don't bring up your virulently anti-mergist stance every time these debates come up, for instance, though it's certainly heading for a user conduct RFC in the long run. I can see why having already completed the merge may result in accusations of fait accompli here, but in the end these articles simply aren't improving at any rate as standalone articles: multiple editors over a five-year period have sought to reduce the burden of maintaining these overlapping articles (and thus move the impetus from copying material from one article to another to actually writing new content to flesh out our coverage of the subject) to be met with non-reasons such as "these are important" which don't do anything to address the practical concerns. As it is now, the matter stands: three-wheeler has improved by having material imported into it, and tilting three-wheeler is presently simply a clone of the relevant section here with additional bits of unreferenced trivia thrown in. Redirecting loses us no important detail and ensures that for the time being efforts to improve our coverage of that matter is not split between two overlapping pages. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Motorbike with sidecar[edit]

So you mention all the configurations, cars with only three wheels, motorbikes with a extra wheel at the back, a bunch of comments that actual seem only to be relevant for recumbent (un-powered ) bicycles. What about a motorbike with a sidecar ? That used to be a very common form of three-wheeled motorised vehicle.Eregli bob (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

See Sidecar, sidecar "outfits" are primarily "add-on's" to a motorcycle and not original equipment or "as manufactured". There are exceptions, such as the WW 2 BMW R75 and the Zündapp KS750 outfits, both of which have driven rear and sidecar wheels. But, both of those are both military only motorcycles.--TGC55 (talk) 10:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Isetta, not a true three wheeler[edit]

Isetta looks like a three wheeler, but has four wheels (two aft wheels in a closed position). Plxdesi

As far as its dynamics though, it's still a three wheeler. We might explain this, but should still include it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The four-wheel Isettas had a solid rear axle, but the UK factory also made a few three-wheelers. As far as I know the three wheel version was entirely confined to cars built for the UK market and is a bit of an obscure quirk given Isetta's international distribution. I think for the sake of clarity the Isetta isn't a great example and doesn't really belong here. Mighty Antar (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the UK true three wheelers might even have been the majority of them - UK car tax and licensing encouraged three wheelers. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
It might have been the majority of UK production - I don't think anyone knows for sure, but it was still a relatively small proportion. Sources vary, but total production of Isettas worldwide (not including UK) was somewhere between 130-140,000. Total UK production was about 30,000 cars in both 3 & 4 wheel versions. Mighty Antar (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Lateral 'instability'?[edit]

I see this stated all the time, but where is there a reference in any literature that shows this to be true? In fact it is blatantly false if the vehicle is properly designed. There is only one research paper that addresses lateral stability for three wheel vehicles and it is based, not on supposition, but on actual testing. It was published in 1981. In it the researchers did an exhaustive literature search of over a million documents trying to find any references to stability issues and testing that would confirm this statement. They found none. The research report can be found under the following title: Evaluation of Electric and Hybrid 3-Wheeled Vehicles for Handling and Stability DOT HS-806092; September 1981, authors Paul G, Van Valkenburgh, Klein, R., Szostak, H.; Contract No. DOT HS-9-02309. Volume 1 is the Executive Summary and Volume 2 is the Research Report. It is not available online. It has to be purchased in a print format. The research report is more than 130 pages. Quoting from the Executive Summary Conclusions, "There are small differences between 3- and 4-wheelers. The original question leading to this research was: “Is there any performance difference between 3-wheel and 4-wheel cars?” Within the limits of the capabilities of the vehicles tested, few differences were found that could not be explained by factors other than the number of wheels. For example, if we look at the vehicle factors that affect handling, stability, and braking, we can see that there are only a few that are functions of the difference between three and four wheels. This research shows that traditional state-of-the-art vehicle dynamics knowledge applies to 3-wheelers also. The handling characteristics are still primarily a function of suspension geometry, weight distribution, steering and suspension compliance, tire properties, etc. The only obvious exception is that anti-roll bars are of lesser significance because the front/rear roll rate distribution is not a variable." "Single rear wheel configurations understeer...Single front wheel configurations oversteer. ..Oversteer is difficult to control. ..Overturn is easily avoided. While for a given track width and center of gravity location a 3-wheeler will overturn more easily than a 4-wheeler, these variables are easily modified so that a 3-wheeler is superior. In fact, one 3-wheeler tested had a better overturn safety margin than most 4-wheelers,...Based on the research done to date we believe that it is possible to build a 3-wheeled car with essentially the same handling and overturn characteristics as any given 4-wheeled car."Johpav (talk) 07:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

A good example of just how stable the three wheel platform can be might be Spirit of America (automobile) Mighty Antar (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Example possibly, but not a proof. The stability, or otherwise, of LSR cars is dominated by their aerodynamics. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this necessary?[edit]

"Diagram showing an initial velocity vector for three vehicles and the corresponding angular displacement from the initial wheel positions required to change the direction of the initial velocity vector by the same value when turning using various three-wheeled car steering mechanism configurations"

This is a joke, right? This is meant to be funny? God, I hope so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Murray (talkcontribs) 11:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)