|WikiProject Toys||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
Shultz III has requested:
Maybe he could upload it and put up the "fairusein:Soapbox (car)" tag. --Shultz III 16:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but fair use may not extend to non-commercial images (it's hard to establish the status of this one), and in any case, I am not a lawyer. — Lomn Talk 19:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Let's wait for a better image. This one is small, fuzzy and overcompressed, and to my mind doesn't represent a "typical" soapbox cart. Graham 06:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Outside of the tightly regulated US "Sopabox Derby", I don't think there is any such thing as a "typical" soapbox cart. If you want images you can help yourselves to any pictures you like from the gallery on my site. MrPurple 15:55 , 22 April 2006 (UTC)
This article is currently called Soapbox (car). Can this be right? Placing the "car" in brackets indicates that the thing is normally just called a "soapbox", and so might be confused with other soapboxes. Is the thing not normally called a "soapbox car", as a two-word term? If so, that's what the article ought to be called, without the brackets. I can't judge for myself, as to me it's a go cart. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Not even as that, the article should be redirected or deleted, as seeing that its a neologism that doesn't appear to be backed up by any reliable sources. Themfromspace (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Billy cart redirects to this page, but billy carts are really only cousins to the gravity racers being discussed here. They have four wheels and no motor, but that doesn't make them the same! Billy carts weighing an average of 68kg? What kid would pull that to the top of the hill?
If billy carts and US gravity racers must share an article, could we please separate them with subheadings as distinct types. Make it clear that most of the content in the article relates to a peculiar US form of cart. AJTH (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Just edited to remove assertion that three wheelers have lower rolling resistance as this isn't strictly true. Each wheel on an otherwise identical three wheeler must support more weight than the wheels on the equivalent 4 wheeler, hence the resistance from each wheel (proportional to normal force) is increased proportionally. This balances the benefit of having fewer wheels and the net change to rolling resistance is zero. It is still true that rotational inertia of the wheels is reduced, so a 3 wheeler would still be slightly faster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Nothing major, just thought I'd make a note that I've changed some of the chronological tenses on UK colloqiualisms. Is to was and some surrounding language changes merely so the grammar was still correct. The terms were about forty years outdated so it seemed rational. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
citation needed for the claim that "many cities have permanent tracks"
Unless the claim is backed by a list of cities with permanent tracks or sources documenting this claim, this sentence should be changed or removed. Perhaps the claim should be geographically limited? I have been looking for tracks in Europe but there seems to be just one, in England. Tjringsmose (talk) 06:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)