Talk:Bicycle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Good article Bicycle has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 31, 2005.
Cycling Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling. WikiProject Cycling is an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
This article is written in American English, and some terms (including {{{1}}}) that are used in it differ from, or are not used in, British English. For more information, see American and British English differences.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Bicycle as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Russian or Ukrainian language Wikipedias.
Archive
Archives



Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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))

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. SeveroTC 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.
This article is written in American English, and some terms (including {{{1}}}) that are used in it differ from, or are not used in, British English. For more information, see American and British English differences.
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". SeveroTC 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)

[edit] 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;

[edit] 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)

[edit] This article needs additional citations for verification.

Anything in particular? There already several references. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)