Talk:Bicycle

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.

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)

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)