Talk:Wire wheel

"They [wire wheels] are suspension wheels"

This statement was just added to the article. I believe that while it has some merit, it is misleading, and should be either removed or altered to more clearly state that they are able to absorb some road shock, but that it's pretty minimal. At least on wheels smaller than Penny Farthings. --Keithonearth (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Keith, the hubs hang by the spokes from the rims held up by the tyre held up by the road. Am I making sense? Eddaido (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Not yet, I don't think. "They are suspension wheels" seems to mean that they provide more suspension to the vehicle than other, non-suspension wheels and begs the questions: how much more suspension and which wheels are non-suspension wheels? If it merely means that they suspend the axle above the ground, then how is that different from all other wheels? -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

First - I m no engineer or particularly clever.

Second with vehicle suspension the vehicle hangs from its wheels (the suspension part). I was not meaning to refer to any "give" in the structure of the wheel.

Third if the vehicle does not hang from the (for the moment) upper spokes in tension they are mighty puzzlingly strong bottom spokes.

If you see what I'm trying to get across to the reader (it was not my phrase I inserted but a quote) perhaps it could be better explained. Please anyone else have a try. Eddaido (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I should have said that the purpose of the phrase was to point up the difference between wire wheels and say pressed steel wheels or cast alloy wheels where I imagine (I'm no engineer) the vehicle weight rests on the lower half of the wheel. Eddaido (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

"Suspension" has a specific meaning in the field of vehicles that is not simply "suspending the vehicle". Instead it refers to the motion of the wheels with respect to the vehicle that contributes to the vehicle's roadholding/handling and braking for good active safety and driving pleasure, and keeps vehicle occupants comfortable and reasonably well isolated from road noise, bumps, and vibrations, etc. In the case of wire wheels, they may play a role in this, especially on bicycles, but without details of what the role is exactly, the comment should come out. -AndrewDressel (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You have written the above while I was at your talk page. Surely in this kind of writing we should be back to basics, the act of hanging something up, the condition of hanging from a support. You seem to have fallen for a short-circuited interpretation. Eddaido (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Then let me go further than on our talk pages, the word 'suspension' has a meaning, your specialized sense is included within that - do you not see that? Eddaido (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about going to primary sources, not basics. If you wish to redefine "vehicle suspension", this is not the place. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

This is really odd, what is basic if not primary? hanging from a support is what the vehicle is doing, the support being the wheels, managing that chosen means of support (wood, cold metal, leather strap, elastic band, lump of rubber) and maintaining vehicle control and passenger comfort is a very sophisticated business. You seem to be trying to make a distinction that does not exist. Suspension in your terms originated with the hanging of seating from leather straps - does that make the link any clearer? Eddaido (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no requirement for a vehicle to hang from anything. From the ground to the chassis, all components may be in compression, depending on design. While vehicles may at one time have hung from leather straps, that is no longer the case, in general, and the articles about vehicle suspension and bicycle suspension reflect that. The fact that the spokes of wire wheels are in tension is already covered in the lede.

If you do not comprehend what I explain that is fine. But I think that you do now acknowledge my point that suspension in your chosen definition for this purpose is well within standard dictionary definitions for suspension and the statement "there is no requirement for a vehicle to hang from anything" is just a little bit out of whack isn't it? And as for "all components may be in compression" - not in the case of wire wheels which funnily enough is just where we came in!

So—I rest my case. Eddaido (talk) 02:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not know exactly what case you are resting, but let my try to summarize mine:

1. You inserted "they are suspension wheels" to the wire wheel article. I have removed it because "suspension" has a specific meaning in the field of vehicles, and in most cases wire wheels play an insignificant role in vehicle suspension. The fact that the spokes are in tension is already addressed in the article by stating that the spokes are in tension. If you would like to elaborate on exactly what role the compliance of wire wheels does play in vehicle suspension, that would be great, it belongs in a separate section, and it will require reliable sources.
2. You inserted "because the vehicle hangs from its wheels" to the suspension (vehicle) article. I have removed it again because "suspension" has a specific meaning in the field of vehicles, and vehicles today are no more suspended from their wheels than their suspensions are composed of leather straps. If you would like to comment on the etymology of "suspension" in vehicles, please do so explicitly, it probably belongs in the history section, and it will require reliable sources.

I apologize if our conversation has gotten tangled for being spread over two article and two user talk pages. I hope that be summarizing it all here, we can resolve the issue. -AndrewDressel (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Spyder
the older skinnier cars got them the name

That's OK. I inserted "they are suspension wheels" as a quote from elsewhere and it is about wheels (the subject of the article) not springs and links etc. I was sure I was quoting someone more knowledgable than I am. (Following the questioning I noted I hoped someone else might manage to get the message over better than I can.) Going back again, my point has nothing to do with compliance, all to do with the type of wheels (wire) and their structure which is so different from other wheels. It seems you have been diverted assuming I refer to the vehicle's suspension (- which is from the wheels though I acknowledge that since the advent of tyres and more particularly pneumatic tyres they are now crucial to the overall suspension system, I mean you cannot consider a vehicle's suspension without taking tyre behaviour into account.) Lastly the reason your 'suspension' is called suspension is because it supports/suspends the vehicle on its wheels it is such a simple concept - ah, a spider is supported on its web by suspended filaments, i.e. support by suspension, does that assist with the concept? The spider's body is suspended by what look to me like its knees! There used to be a form of front suspension called knee-action . . but I seem to make a joke of it all.

It seems to me I've raised a point or two that have not been considered in this article. I guess that's because the editors have all been primarily interested in bicycles? I do try to be a realist with Wikipedia editing, if no one else is interested in these points then I will let the matter lie as it stands now which is how it suits you to see it. However I do hope I have stirred your mind enough to set it to work to re-consider your own concepts. Please re-read because I suspect there is a strong element of failing to take on board what I'm trying to explain to you. (Kindly), Eddaido (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I did check out the suspension qualities of wire wheels and several sources confirm that they are negligible: orders of magnitude less than that which is provided by the tire. I've added that to the articles. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

But you did understand though, didn't you, that only you have ever been interested in the (your) suspension qualities of the wire wheels.

Since writing that last sentence I have looked at the article and found your revert. Was it this now reverted part that has led you to your confusion over suspension? I put in that note and reference because I thought it was a curiosity which supported the point that the wire wheel is a (my) suspension wheel where the hub is suspended from the rim and it might also help Andrew Dressler to understand the concept which he chooses not to notice. By the way "Cited reference makes no mention of absorbing shock and so does not support text inserted into article" is outrageous (for ignoring the obvious to even a child). Happy days, Eddaido (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

As I have tried to explain before, you are attempting to use "suspension" in ways that it is not commonly used with respect to vehicles. I am not confused by it, but I believe it has no place in an encyclopedia article. "Suspension", with respect to vehicles, is not used to mean holding things off the ground, nor that things are in tension, even if either of those might have been the original meaning. Instead, "suspension" very specifically means the mechanism(s) by which the passengers, cargo, and all or part of the chassis are isolated from roughness of the ground over which the vehicle travels and wheels are held in contact with the ground despite that roughness. This is not "my" definition. It is used across multiple vehicle industries. A bicycle suspension fork does not mean a fork that holds up a bicycle. All forks do that. Instead, it means a fork which allows the front wheel to move relative to the rest of the bicycle. At the same time, wire spoked wheels are not called suspension wheels because that would imply a ground-roughness-absorbing or traction-improving capability which they do not possess. Instead, they are called "tension-spoked wheels" to distinguish them from wheels with spokes under compression and from wheels without spokes at all. While I appreciate your attempt to improve these articles, your insistence on redefining already-well-defined terms, without a single supporting reference, must be considered original research at best, and removed with prejudice. As for the one reference you did provide, to which you refer above, even the quotation you uncluded specifically states that Cayley's aim was to reduce weight and makes no mention of absorbing shock, the exact words you attempt to support with that reference. That is why I removed it, and that is exactly what I explained in my edit summary. -AndrewDressel (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why this is attracting such a high readership. You so carefully and deliberately persist in your, er, "misunderstandings" I leave you to it. Eddaido (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Rudge Whitworth

Because I think Wikipedia should give their automotive wheels and their hubs better coverage I have continued to scratch around and found this: Society of Automotive Engineers Inc (New York City), SAE Transactions Volume 16 Part 2, copyright 1922 with inter alia "the wire wheel is a suspension wheel" and "the car weight is hung or cradled . . . ". Mr Dressler might like to comment on these statements. Eddaido (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Ya! You found a reliable, albeit historical, source to support your claim. I will incorporate it immediately, and you are welcome to do the same. BTY, my name is spelled "Dressel" as in the 19 examples already provided on this page, not "Dressler". -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Knockoff hubs vs hubcaps

First, some definitions:

• Hubcap and center caps serve either a protective, keeping the elements out of the hub, or decorative purposes.
• Knockoff hubs and locking caps or spinners form a system for attaching the wheel to the axle.

Thus, I believe it is not helpful nor clarifying to use "hubcap" to describe any component of the knockoff hub system. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Mr Dressel you again seem to have a misunderstanding of the meaning of key words. I'm sorry but I have just found the odd amendment as I go off to another commitment. I will be back here within 24 hours. Eddaido (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. Taking your amendments in order:

1. "I'm pretty sure hubs does not mean hub caps". I think that is right. That is why I changed hubs to hubcaps.

Which is incorrect. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

2. Your link to [Spinner_(wheel)#Original_use] fails because it is to a (very strange to me) USA concept (which should be internationalized so others do not experience your problem).

Fine. Find some international sources. The one I have added to the article is from Australia. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

3. a. Image caption (x2): The picture is of the hubcap and a wire wheel (which the hubcap screws to the car)

I have since removed this picture altogether as being inappropriate for a wire wheel aricle as it does a poor job of showing the wire wheel. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

b.Before 1960 . . . yes, you could call it a locking cap but its not a good description is it, it is all that holds the wheel onto the car, it is a nut, with wings on, and one end covered, or capped . . .

It is not our job to decide what is a good description. It is our job to use the descriptions established in reliable sources. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

and so it fits perfectly with the first two of your definitions above (Hubcap and center caps) and hubcap is used in that way in the second sentence of Wilson McComb's article for Safety Fast. Don Krug sails off into popular American culture but I do not disagree with his initial starting points if you wish to think of the enamelled section of the MG hubcap as a center (sic) cap. In the Bugatti article he chooses to refer to the hubcap as a knock-off cap and that's fine by me too.

So, my vote is for naming it a knock-off hubcap. It goes over the end of the hub, it is not the hub (which you seem to believe it is though I don't believe you really do). It is the cap that may be knocked off using its wings, and then the wheel may be removed from the hub (which has been given the appropriate fittings for that form of fastening)

As before, all you need to do is provide a reliable source that establishes that name, and I'll be happy to mention it as a synonym. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

What Wikipedia badly needs is a new clearer illustration of what is involved copied from McComb's diagram. Can you do that? What reward can I give you.

That might be appropriate for an article on such hubs, but I don't think it belongs in this article about wire wheels. The method by which the hubs of any other style of wire wheel is not mentioned. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Your thoughts please. regards, Eddaido (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Interspersed above. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is your interspersions don't make sense. Can you find a definition of a hub in a respected dictionary that corresponds with what seems to be your own personal concept? Eddaido (talk) 08:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that a dictionary will cover knockoff hubs or its components. They are a specialized system not in common use. It is possible, however, to find books and magazines that discuss them. For example:

1. Original Triumph Tr4/4A/5/6 By Bill Piggott states "Close-up of the 'eared' knockoff hub nut used..."
2. Cloning the Cobras by Rich Taylor in Popular Mechanics from August 1982 states "Note the safety wire on the knock-off hub spinner..."

Perhaps the difficulty is that you seem to interpret "knockoff hub" as referring to the eared nut that holds the wheel in place. I believe, based on how it is used in all the sources I have provided, that the expression "knockoff hub" is referring to the entire system or the just the center part of the wheel, hence the word "hub". This is held in place by a threaded piece of metal with two or three tabs or ears and which is called either a "nut", "spinner", or "locking cap", depending on the author. I have not yet seen it called a "hubcap". -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

My 2¢ to this argument

• The hub is what the wheel is attached to. A regular steel or alloy wheel is mounted on the hub using threaded studs attached to the hub and is fastened to the hub by tightening lug nuts onto the studs on which the wheel is mounted. -Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, although we are discussing an alternative to that system. There are no studs nor lug nuts in the knockoff hub system. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• The knockoff nut is precisely that, a nut on a protruding threaded axle on the hub. The wheel is mounted over the protruding axle, and the knockoff nut holds the wheel in place. -Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree about the knockoff nut, but the diagram provided by [Wilson McComb] indicates that it threads onto a part of the hub, not the axle. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• A hubcap, on the other hand, is a protective cover that prevents dirt and grime from getting into the hub. A hubcap plays no part in securing the wheel to the vehicle. -Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Here I agree with you 100%. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge Reaction to a radial load (tensioned wire spoked wheel)

Reaction to a radial load (tensioned wire spoked wheel) is already transcluded here. Pinging @AndrewDressel:. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

oppose -It is transcluded into 3 separate articles: wire wheel, bicycle wheel, and spoke. It resolved a conflict and has remained stable for years. What is to be gained by merging now? -AndrewDressel (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think any article's main prose content is supposed to rely on transclusion this way. It is sometimes appropriate for templating bits of layout, graphical content, timelines, and such, but not whole paragraphs forming sections of articles. Wikipedia:Transclusion#Pages with a common section says, "Common sections like this should be marked with an explanatory header, and/or given a special layout, to inform the reader that this section of the page is in a different location, since transcluding shared article sections can easily confuse novice editors and readers alike if left unmarked." It's inherently kludgy and prone to error.

I get that the goal here is to explain the mechanical principle that underlies the way wire wheels, wire spokes and bicycle wheels work, but what special reason is there to deviate from the normal way Wikipedia is written? As far as I know, articles like Waveguide filter or Distributed element filter wouldn't transclude all or part of an article on the principles they rely on, like Electromagnetic radiation, to explain how they work. They include brief summaries of the content, then link to the main article for the full story. That is, we use Summary style to handle these situations, not transclusion. Wikipedia could have been built the other way, but it wasn't, mostly because it's too technically complicated and hard to maintain. This is an odd duck. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hub --> only to Bicycle hub

The lead is about wire wheels. Surely its a mistake to link hub to just one kind of wire wheel. When linked to the DAB page it gave the reader the opportunity to decide cycle / auto wheel. Why not drop the link in the lead and add the more precise links in the body of the article where the different types are covered in detail? Eddaido (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

First, it's not going to stay that way. Sooner or later, a WikiGnome will come along and try to resolve the disambiguation, so you'll end up rehashing this ever month or two forever. Second, the dab page offers nothing good, except Bicycle hub. Locking hubs is irrelevant. Wheel hub assembly is a badly written stub with no useful insight that's relevant to wire wheels. The redirect at Bicycle hub actually takes you someplace with useful information, which is approximately applicable to both bicycles as motorcycles, such as that the hub "consists of an axle, bearings and a hub shell."

The actual solution for some future date is to go to Wheel hub and create some useful content that applies to all wheels, then links to sub-articles on bicycle, auto, motorcycle and other kinds of wheels. But that is the future, not now. For now our only good choices are linking to what we have at Bicycle hub or else giving the reader no link at all. Something is better than nothing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree with everything you write but I do agree the proper solution is to find a public-spirited editor to write an article maybe called Wheel Hub. I still think mine is the better interim solution, putting the links where they fit and not in the lead. What do you think? Eddaido (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Reaction to load. Transclusion is unwarranted and fraught with error.

Hi Andy,
I know a bunch of changes in a row by an IP are difficult to review, that's why I included the very detailed edit summaries. Give them a chance, okay?
So anyway, a "result reached by consensus" is not an excuse for disallowing changes. By that reasoning, any change to that section would be revert-able regardless of merit, and you know that can't fly. If anything, the consensus solution here is just the result of some ridiculous old controversy that arrived at a strained solution that fully satisfied very few -- just to keep the peace. "Don't rock the boat" is never a good reason to revert any change, especially when a change is in dire need.

"result reached by consensus" is a reason to exercise caution and weigh the argument of one new editor against the argument of all those that reached that consensus. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

1) One size does not fit all. The wording in that "little article" doesn't fit well equally in all the articles it's pasted in. Each article has different requirements as to what's on-topic and what's off-topic for one thing. It's a much taller order to make one "small article" fit everywhere. The most common way of handling this problem is to make a customized blurb in each article, then make a link to the "main article".

In what way does it not fit? -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

2) There are lots of things that, in the context of the small article's own page look just fine and dandy, but when duplicated in the context of this article are completely out of place. For example, What the heck is the "It has been suggested that this article be merged into Wire wheels. (Discuss) Proposed since August 2015." tag doing in this article? It's an article-tag at the top of a section for one thing, which is out of place. And, it's suggesting a merge which looks like it's already done, which is incongruous.

The merger suggestion has been up for a while, and has garnered little support. Just remove it if you don't like it. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

3) Over-citing. Over-citing is a frequent result of pissing contests such as the one that occurred here. Once the need to assert one's "Star-bellied" vs. "Plain-bellied" POV is removed, many of the excessive citations can be seen more clearly as unnecessary and can/should be culled.

By what means do you suggest to remove the need to account for the two popular ways to describe what happens? -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

4) The argument about what to call the redistribution of forces is stupid (I say), but whether it's stupid or not, it's off topic and quite POV. Engineers know better that redistribution of forces depends on the relative magnitude of the load and it's much more complicated than the simplistic and vague explanations such as "stands on lower spokes" or "hangs from upper spokes". For this article to go anywhere near that tainted article and its POV controversy would be unencyclopedic. Transcluding that "little article" here just imports all of it's stupid troubles.
173.76.190.204 (talk) 06:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You do a lot of name calling, but you do not persuade. You have not introduced any new evidence to support your changes. The one true issue that you point out, the merger tag, is temporary, and after sufficient time should just be removed. If you could cite a source that asserts that wire wheels on automobiles are somehow fundamentally different than wire wheels on bicycles, then you would have a point to make. Until then, your only argument is that "you don't like it." -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Should Knockoff wheel redirect elsewhere?

Knockoff wheel currently redirects to this article. This seems an odd state of affairs as all "knock-off" or "knock-on" wheels are not wire wheels. For example, see the wheels used on Lamborghini Miura, Lamborghini Espada, Jaguar D-type, Ferrari 365 GTB/4 (there's even a photo of this very non-wire wheel included in this article under Wire wheel#Sports cars). I suggest that it should instead redirect to Centerlock wheels, as knock-off hubs are a type of center locking hubs. I'm aware that the centerlock wheel article is currently very underdeveloped, however it makes the most sense to expand that one to cover this specific type of wheel-hub fastening system, rather than spreading information about that system among articles such as this one (wire wheel) or Spinner (wheel) that aren't really about it. I edit a lot of articles about vintage automobiles with this type of hub/wheel system, and currently I have not found a good main article that really explains this somewhat common wheel fastening system. Your thoughts? Prova MO (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Spinner (wheel) would be a better candidate.  Stepho  talk  23:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I can't suggest any solution but seeing this reminded me of meeting a motorcycle collector nearly four years ago, also has (had) two unrestored E type Jags, one a drophead hulk with k/o steel wheels and cross ply tyres. This reminded me that the wheels have adaptors (spline to bolt-on flange, as seen in this image) and a quick look at WP doesn't seem to cover this aspect. Also note k/o adaptors for wire-spoked wheels are used extensively in American dirt-oval motorcycle racing, synonymous with the trade name Barnes.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm getting a little off topic here, but I've definitely seen what you describe on other cars/wheels and suspect it is actually quite common to have a bolt-on splined flange on wheels for for a centerlocking splined hub. For example, this Ferrari Testarossa wheel [23] (seen installed on a car here) is meant to have a splined center pressed/bolted in. I've also seen three-piece BBS race wheels with a similar design. Note that these are not adapters, insomuch as the bolt pattern on the wheel is not also meant to be used to secure the wheel to 5-bolt hubs. It's strictly to bolt the splined center on. This allows the main body of the wheel and the center to be made of different materials and allows flexibility for repair/replacement of individual components of the wheel. There's no difference in this aspect between vintage "knock-off" alloy (non-wire) wheels with the spinner-type nuts and modern styles of centerlocking wheels. Prova MO (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it's important not to read too much into what I wrote as an off-the-cuff remark; I used the term adaptor as an expedient, as that is how it functions. Interface would not be an historically-applicable term, although there may be a dedicated parts-catalogue description. Considering period Jaguar, was there one steel wheel type that could be adapted between a conventional studded-flange via a bolt-on adaptor that secures to a large central thread? That's how I surmise rationalisation of components, rightly or wrongly. The adaptor would be forged, whereas the wheel would be softer pressed-steel. In 1970s UK, one alloy wheel brand had steel tubes cast-in, and could be used with conventional (original) chamfered, self-centring nuts; the other type was drilled cast alloy, which needed dedicated sleeve-nuts provided with the aftermarket wheels. I imagine that rationalisation dictated that Jaguar used one type of steel wheel for both applications, but this could be wrong.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

This is complicated. While Centerlock wheels is probably the most appropriate fit (in terms of title), Spinner (wheel) currently talks about knockoff wheels in its current status (though it mentions several designs). While not an ideal title, the latter article would be more descriptive for viewers and editors (and not lead to a stub). --SteveCof00 (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify further, I added the (then two) images at Wire wheel#Sports cars in this 2015 change - IIRC, simply to enable visualisation of long-existing content (by showing a comparator between two Ferrari types) which specifically mentioned that wire-spoked types had started to be replaced in 1960s production by cast (or forged) aluminium-alloys.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the Spinner (wheel) is a better redirect for knock-off wheels than the current one. I'm just a little hesitant to say it should redirect to Spinner (wheel) and be done with it, because that article seems more about the (predominately American) visual style derived from this type of hub, mostly done with hubcaps, rather than the hub type itself. Here is another suggestion. One could add a section break after the first "Original use" paragraph of that article. Something like "Spinner hubcaps" since those remaining paragraphs in the first section exclusively talk about the visual style of hubcaps modeled after the type of hub. The first section, "Original use" could have a Template:Main pointing towards Centerlock wheels and Centerlock wheels itself can be expanded with a "knock off wheels" section derived from the text of that "original use" section. My goal would be to promote writing about the technical development of knock-off wheels in the Centerlock wheels article, while keeping the Spinner (wheels) article primarily focused on the visual styling of spinner hubcaps and wheels. Prova MO (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Note instructions on lugnut

I strongly support all Prova MO's concerns and suggestions including regarding any link to Spinner (wheel) as an unfortunate mistake. The redirect is a relic of early days when some prided themselves on reducing the number of articles.

Hubs

Knock-off wheels (should be knock-off hubs) must re-direct to a majorly improved Centrelock hubs article. Its not the wheels its the hubs as make the difference. Eddaido (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Special bronze? mallet to knock on/off without damage to nut

I agree that centerlock hubs is a better title than centerlock wheels. It clarifies the intended coverage of the article away from talking about wheel type to the actual hub technology which is largely independent of wheel construction. The way in which the existing redirect conflates wire wheels with a type of hub was the initial issue that led me to create this discussion. Prova MO (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Centrelock wheel, which should be expanded with much of the content from spinner. Leave spinner for the decorative aspects, including real wheels, wheel trims and those fidget-spinner things for rappers. Centrelock would expand to cover the first of these, from the vintage wire wheel era, also the steel discs, cast or forged alloys and the modern race-derived wheels with a single nut, requiring a tool to remove them. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I have begun expanding Centrelock wheel with additional sourced information. I won't yet change the redirect of Knockoff wheel to point to it, nor will I yet change Wire wheel or Spinner (wheel) to refer to it. Since this affects multiple articles, I'm not sure what the best practice is to reach consensus (usually I'm working on single articles in relative isolation, so this is my inexperience speaking). But at least expanding Centerlock wheels will demonstrate what that article could become. Prova MO (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I have finished my first pass at expanding Centerlock wheel. Unless anyone objects, I will shortly change the Knockoff wheel redirect to point to it, as well as adjusting portions of Spinner (wheel) and Wire wheel to link to it. Prova MO (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)