Talk:Bicycle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Bicycle is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 31, 2005.
WikiProject Cycling (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Environment / Green vehicle  (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Green vehicle task force.
 
WikiProject South Africa / PSP SA (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Wikipedia Primary School project.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Types of bicycle[edit]

This article lacks any proper description of types of bicycle, such as track bicycle, road bicycle, hybrid, racing bicycle, etc, together with a scientific analysis of efficiency and function.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.212.245 (talkcontribs) 16:42, 27 July 2015‎

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bicycle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Number of produced bicycles isn't supported by source link.[edit]

"Bicycles were introduced in the 19th century in Europe and as of 2003, more than 1 billion have been produced worldwide, twice as many as the number of automobiles that have been produced."

Source Link: http://www.worldometers.info/bicycles/

This data is not only out of date but these "facts" are also wrongly displayed on the wikipedia page. They only refer to the 1 bn number here:

"It is estimated that more than a billion bicycles are present in the world, with nearly half of them in China."

A billion bicycles present doesn't mean only a billion have been produced in history. A quick look at the annual production numbers on the same page show that the worldwide production output of bicycles has been around 100 million per year over the last 30 years, so the total number should be way more than that. The "twice as many as the number of automobiles that have been produced" claim is also directly at odds with the "car" wikipedia page where it claims that there are currently more than a billion cars on earth.

87.166.150.79 (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't say "only a billion have been produced in history". It says "more than 1 billion have been produced worldwide". If you have a more specific statistic you can cite, one that is more recent, that would be most welcome. Please cite it. Based on what we have now, it's safest to say that there more than one billion have been made.

The other statements about 500 million in China are based on the other source cited, so that should be footnoted with it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I have never edited a Wikipedia article so please excuse that I don't know how any of this works, I just noticed that odd line in the article and wanted to make someone aware. That said I still think that line is wrong, to me at least "more than 1 billion have been produced worldwide" doesn't mean "there are 1 billion bicycles that have been produced and are still around" either. And as the wikipedia page is using the past progressive "have been produced" I would assume that indicates ALL bicycles that have been produced at some point prior to 2003. Like if I said "up to this date 500 million iPhones have been produced" would you assume that only includes all the iPhones that are still used today? The source Link simply says, in 2003 at least, there were "more than a billion bicycles present in the world", why not just use that expression? 87.166.150.79 (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, I backed up the claim with additional sources, The Economist and others. It's pretty uncontroversial that the number of bicycles is over the 1 billion mark, even if nobody has any way of getting an accurate count. There's no point in quibbling over the precision of the ~500 million estimate for the Flying Pigeon model, because it's obviously nearly 10 times as many as the next closest model of vehicle, the Honda Super Cub, and 15 times as many Toyota Corollas. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I think we're talking past each other here. I don't have a problem with the sources, I just think the expression "more than 1 billion have been produced worldwide" on the wiki article misrepresents those facts cited in the sources. Just like the "worldometers" site, the Economist article only says "There are more than a billion bicycles in the world", it doesn't say anything about production, it just says 'there are currently X number of bicycles in the world" which I don't doubt. Of course common sense tells you that that if there are currently more than a billion bicycles present in the world, the total number of bicycles produced must be way higher because not all of the bicycles produced are still around. 87.166.191.52 (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, common sense. I hope you don't think we are going to pretend we don't have common sense.

Saying more than 1B were made is a weaker (more cautious, more conservative) statement than 1B+ are in service. Multiple sources verify that at some point in time, at least a billion were made. They don't all agree or give a date on when that number was reached, but we can be sure that by 'now', a least 1B were made. Some sources say that many are still in use, but again, the dates differ and it's unclear how the arrived at that estimate. Records exist at bicycle factories, but it's only guesswork when a bicycle is retired. It's too strong an assertion given all the sources.

The weaker claim is copiously sourced and doesn't offend common sense. Further sophistry can safely be ignored. Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

To me, as an average reader, the phrasing "Bicycles were introduced in the late 19th century in Europe, and by the early 21st century, more than 1 billion have been produced worldwide", especially with the time frame, sounds like that according to some estimate sometime around the start of the 21th century the one billionth bicycle was produced. Of course "more than 1 billion can technically mean any number higher than one billion, but generally I would expect that number to be somewhat close to one billion. Looking at the graph on the "worldometers" source link, we can see that bicycle production in the 1950s was about 10 million per year and then climbed to about 100 million in the 80s where about it has remained until today. Roughly tallying up these numbers tells me that the total production just since the 50s is closer to 5 billion bicycles which is a lot more than 1 billion. If you want to use a weaker, more cautious statement, why not just use the even weaker statement that's actually in the sources and just say "by the early 21st century, there were more than 1 billion bicycles worldwide"? 87.166.191.52 (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bicycle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sources / References[edit]

I have a problem with updating the reference Ida Husted Harpers' work, cited in the section on bikes and female emancipation. I would love to update the link so that it directs the reader toward the openly accessible archive (linked below) instead of the google page. The address is: https://archive.org/stream/storyevolutions00harpgoog?ui=embed Can anybody help with this technical challenge? Thanks! --Kasimir Katowitsch (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done, you can see how I did it here. This is a list-defined reference, so the code for the reference itself is actually in the references section of the article, and the other inline references have a pointer to that code (where you see <ref name=HustedHarper1898 /> instead of a fully defined reference). Thanks for the suggestion! Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Excellente! Thank you for the quick response! I wasn't aware that such a list of defined references exists in some articles. Life long learning :-). --Kasimir Katowitsch (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

German maker Möve introduces a new pedal mechanism called Cyfly.[edit]

Some of you fanatics better google bicycle "cyfly" and add a paragraph about it. According to Der Spiegel, it allows even inexperienced cyclists to drive faster without any problems - by as much as 20%, without electric assistance. An assembly of eccentrically swivelling rods surrounds the central pedal bearing.

Hmmm, wouldn't even a 1% advantage dominate subsequent Tours de France, unless the rules forbade it? And if protected by patent, what would limit its price in racing configuration? Layzeeboi (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm indeed. "The system is 1x only," "requires a custom frame," and "current adds about 2kg to the weight of the bike," so not a clear winner yet. I believe the appropriate response of an encyclopedia is to wait and see if anything comes of it. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, we should resist any mention of rumored or proposed products or technology. WP:CRYSTAL: "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." We almost always end up having to go back and delete it later when it doesn't pan out. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Another objection would be that, even if true, it would a tiny detail of racing, and better handled in Mechanical doping. However, I assume the more substantial objection against hypothetical technology would still apply there. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)