Talk:Rowbike

Talk about Rowbike

This page may read like an advertisement because we have created a new product category. The purpose of the article is to inform readers about this new fitness development, and it's exciting potential to improve health, exercise, and overall well-being. Because our goal is simply to inform and engage, Rowbike is more than happy to comply with all Wikipedia guidelines. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience.

Yes, it is an advertisement. I don't know how notable a product it. Someone not connected to the product should make that determination. But the style certainly needs to be encyclopedic, not like the back of a magazine. Please do not remove the "advert" tag until the article reads like an encyclopedia article. Weregerbil 01:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

All adds and products category pages should contain information about safety of the product and some citation to an actual event. This is something all consumers are deeply interested in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.87.55 (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I finally found the Wikipedia criteria for products and services. Does this device fill those criteria? Weregerbil 01:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that link--very helpful. Your suggestions are appreciated.

Someone stated that pre 2006 rowbikes can be upgraded to include a dave cam. I believe this is incorrect. Please explain how this can be done. This is an important point as older Rowbikes are often seen for sale usedGeo8rge (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Combine and rename?

This article is a usable start on street rowing machines / rowing vehicles, but it is still under the name of a specific product, as is the Streetrowing article. I propose merging these two into one, perhaps called street rowing machines or rowing vehicles. I suggest that a single article with headings will be more appropriate to the rather modest numbers of these products actually on the road. Any comments before I set up the new article? Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason not to combine them as street rowing is closely related to rowbiking. I think that the oldest most generic term is rowbiking, which was then used as a trademark by a clever entrepeneur (I state this without proof although street rowing is said to appear in 2007). One important difference between the actual products, Street Rower and Rowbike, is that the Street Rower attempts to reproduce the motion and experience of competetive boat rowing. It might also be worth noting that Rowbike is a cheaper and more established product, Streetrower could be a 'flash in the pan'. Rowbikes are an area where new inventions come and go and where no 2 designs are similar. It is not like standard diamond frame bicycles where you have many manufacturers of similar products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo8rge (talk • contribs) 17:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

| As to the name the problem is you are inventing a name "street rowing machines / rowing vehicles". Currently they are mostly called rowbikes. I have no problem renaming the article but do not think Wikipedia should invent new names. You Could have all actual products point to this page. Currently Rowbike is the closest think to a mass market product. Thys rowing bike is very expensive and is more of a specialty bike. Street Rower may or may not be commercially successful, it is not clear that they are selling many of them (which is common for rowbikes). If you insist the long winded "Rowed Human Powered Vehicles" might work, and is based on preexisting terms. Some of the examples I posted are not 2 wheeled so bike is a bit of a stretch. Once again Rowbike is currently the most accepted term and the only generally available example of the genra.Geo8rge (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Another point worth noting is that using 'street' in the article name is a bad idea. IMO none of the rowbikes could be considered a good choice for street riding. They really are only safe away from traffic, on bike paths or wide roads with little traffic.

I take your point about "street"; many people will feel that way, though I personally disagree and have every intention of using my new Thys machine as transport to work. The machines vary and some are more suitable for street use than others. I still think that I'd prefer a title that's not a trade name, and as you say some of the machines have more than two wheels. I'd go for "rowing vehicles", or "rowed vehicles". Descriptive, comprehensive, but not catchy enough for a trade mark... In short, encyclopedic. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

To me Rowed Vehicle sounds better, but the grammatical precedents are all over the place. Human powered vehicle -> Rowed Vehicle. Row boat -> Row Bike -> Row Vehicle. Rowing Machine->Rowing Bike -> Rowing vehicle. This article is really a sub category of the article human powered vehicles, so rowed vehicles is the way I would go so that it meshes with that article. It seems that virtually all the vehicles are really bicycles, but using the term vehicle is ok.

As to trade names, I see no way to discuss the topic without mentioning trade names as unlike regular bikes, the different machines have little in common. As far as I can see there are only 5-10 manufacturers of anything even close to a row bike, so there is no fairness issue as they can all be listed.

I would say none of the rowbikes are suitable for street use, meaning in city traffic, by the general public.

The Thys machine looks great, I own a Rowbike. Perhaps you could explain the mechanical parts of the Thys machine, I just guessed at how it worked based on some videos from their website.Geo8rge (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, "rowed vehicles" it is. You are quite right about it being essential to use the trade names within the article, much of the article will be discussing the different brands. They are of course very much a minority interest anywhere and I can't see that changing, but my impression is that the market is local, or at any rate national, rather than global. I doubt if there are many Rowbikes in Europe or many Rowingbikes in the Americas.

The Thys machine strikes me as a miracle of simplicity; I'm still trying to work it out and I certainly don't feel able to give any coherent explanation, sorry. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I propose to replace this page with a redirect to Rowed vehicles Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

How would the story behind the individual vehicles and their creators be handled? I find the rowbike story and it's connection to roller blades interesting. I would be interested in the story behind the other machines. While I agree that every little thing out there does not warrant an article, Rowbike, Thys, and some others are real products, not vanity projects. Strida, Birdy (bicycle), and Moka Espresso have their own pages. Why not create a Rowed Vehicle page, put most of the current Rowbike page in it, but keep an independent rowbike page that will just cover the specifics behind the rowbike company and it's history. I think most searches will be on the brand name, so having a page for the most popular machines would help people find what they are looking for.

As far as the Thys machine goes I don't think you need to be an expert. I think what people would be curious about is how it is steered. If the stroke is similar to a boat? Is it one size fits all? Does it have proprietary parts? The rowbike is spring loaded with bungee cords, I wondered how the Thys machine returns the rider to the begining of the stroke. You can also email the makers. I have corresponded with the rowbike people to get some things straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo8rge (talk • contribs) 04:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

OK; my own feeling is still that the individual brands are not really notable enough to justify an encyclopaedia article and that the details you mention should really be left to the web pages of enthusiasts. (Do you have a page that could be referenced?) However, Wikipedia is all about co-operation and respect for other views, and it's a judgement at the margins anyway. I won't replace the Rowbike page with a redirect, and I look forward to seeing what you can do with it. I agree that the rowed vehicles page could benefit from some better comparisons of the machines. Go for it! Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have with "Rowed Human Powered Vehicle" is I cannot find a single reference to the term in google. It seems that Wikipedia would be inventing the term. Is that wong by WP rules? I would not protest the new title, although there should be a rowbike disambig pointing to the new page if only so that bookmarks and links from other sites would still work, the Rowbike article has existed for a long time, I think it would be rude to screw up other peoples links. After reviewing my editing of the article a problem I can see with mixing descriptions of the various bikes together by feature, as opposed to by vehicle, is that there does not seem to be much interest in maintaining the page by users of the other bikes. I think it would be better to organize it by vehicle, rather than common features, so that it will be easier for an expert in one vehicle to make changes. Geo8rge (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Rowbike is notable because;

• 1) It is a creation of Rollerblades inventor Scott Olsen.
• 2) It has been featured in general circulation print magazine reviews most notably Wired [1], and New Scientist [2]
• 3) An internet search shows reviews in the various Gadget review type sites.
• 4) Rowbike is the only design to be subject to a knockoff indicating that Rowbike is potentially the generic form of the design, similar to the diamond frame. [3]
• 5) Row Bike seems to be a generic term for this class of vehicle. I admit that in the universe of vehicles this is a very small one but then so is Tall bikes Geo8rge (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I would hate to spoil your enthusiasm. I have abandoned the idea of deleting the Rowbike article and look forward to seeing what you can do with it. I would however like to keep the Rowed vehicles article; I don't agree that "rowbike" is a generic term; it may be the only brand with significant US presence, but this is not quite the same thing for the English Wikipedia, which is worldwide. Personally I'd have used "rowingbike" generically if it wasn't a brand name; it is the only machine I've heard much of in Euroland. There is indeed an argument for organising Rowed vehicles by vehicle - go for it! Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Your #2-5 criteria look ok to me, but the #1 is not. Not every idea or invention of a notable inventor is itself notable. There are undoubtedly inventions that he is done that are sufficiently notable to be on the article "Scott Olsen", but not as standalone articles. Rowbike looks notable enough, but care needs to be taken to keep it from becoming an advert page.

Advertising?

I put this on discussion again, following the name change of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rowing_cycles, as Rowbike a trademark is and not a generic name. Is it right to have an article for this particular product? Cirrocumulus (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest deletion. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)