Talk:Folding bicycle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] From Bicycle

To be worked into article:

Added and deleted by 88.110.200.31: Folding bicycles can offer more practicality than a traditional bike & are available in a wide range of different styles - from basic 'fold-in-the-middle bikes' to highly developed fast & efficient folders. Light weight is a key factor in producing a decent folding bike, and modern materials along with smaller 16" or 20" inch wheels are commonplace. The technical complexity of a folding bike often equates to higher purchase prices compared to 'normal' bikes.

--Christopherlin 22:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Folding bicycles evolved in the United Kingdom through the insistance of the rail company that bicycles would not be allowed on commuter trains. Because of their compact size, they are regarded as luggage, rather than bicycles. The main market was originally the British commuter, but as the quality of the bicycles improved, the ingenious folding mechanisms, and increasingly small folded size appealed to a wider market with folding bicycles frequently carried in cars, small aircraft and yachts. There are many manufacturers of such bicycles now, in many countries.

--Christopherlin 18:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policy on commercial Manufacturers

I personally think links to commercial manufacturers are OK. I wonder if there is a reason why they were erased? If there is no response people will start putting them back, as they are what most people are looking for when they come to the page.

Notable manufacturers should have their own wikipedia page, see List of bicycle manufacturers. --Hhielscher 20:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Hhielscher is correct. A list of links to Wikipedia articles on manufacturers of folding bicycles would be fine. A list of external links to commercial entities violoates both WP:NOT a web directory and the guidelines on external links. --GraemeL (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with a "list of links to Wikipedia articles on manufacturers of folding bicycles" is that it may generate a series of mostly empty stub articles so that fanatics of various brands can include their bike. For example the Birdy (bicycle) page is pretty lame, I would hate to see hundreds of poorly maintained pages with little following to keep them up. Such pages encourage vandalism or just inaccurate info. I think Wikipedia would be better off with a list of manufacturers. I would also point out that reference books like Thompson's register thomasnet.com are more or less just a list of businesses. The article also refers to iXi and Strida, but does not give links to those bikes. I could create stubs for them but I don't want to create stubs that I know I will rarely look at or help maintain. geo8rge Geo8rge 23:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI Birdy is the brand (exept in Japan) and Riese und Müller is the company behind this fantastic bike. Personally I don't like the Brompton Bicycle article – it is to bold for an encyclopedic article IMHO.--Hhielscher 18:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


I have nothing against Birdy the bicycle, the wikipedia page seems empty. It would be better to just link to the manufacturers page. Having web pages for each brand is a bad idea as it will cause alot of empty stub pages to appear. These stubs will be poorly maintained and easily vandalised. I think a single folding bike page with manufacturer links is better than a folding bike page and a bunch of stub articles containing little more than a link to manufacturer. geo8rge 66.3.84.125 23:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you think is missing from the Birdy article except images? --Hhielscher 16:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


My problem is I am worried about hundreds of manufacturer pages appearing with little following to maintain them. Birdy has many fans, but there are many brands that do not. Those brands will likely produce piles of one tiny stub articles that just have a link to the manufacturer. I think it would be better to just have a list. The Montague Bicycles site is an example of a really weak page that could be a maintenance problem in the future.

There is a list of Bicycle Manufacturers List of bicycle manufacturers. Perhaps folding bicycles could have their own list. Geo8rge Geo8rge 17:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you think about a Category:Folding bicycle?--Hhielscher 18:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, quite proper to make articles like Brompton Bicycle about prominent manufacturers. Must draw the line somewhere, but why is there no Dahon article or even a mention in an article? That's the brand I see most in New York City streets and stores, and that brand and Brompton are my principal candidates to buy next month when my broken collarbone heals but isn't strong enough for a big, crouching road bike. Jim.henderson 00:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Small wheels and stability

"Smaller diameter wheels also seem to be less stable [1]"

The referenced article does not appear to support the claim. Instead it describes trail as the main predictor of stability. -AndrewDressel 13:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Umm, aren't they connected? Smaller wheel, smaller trail, smaller static stability, easier swivel. Larger wheel, larger gyroscopic effect, larger dynamic stability, more difficult to make a sharp turn on the go. The folder's smaller wheel, both at a crawl and at a sprint, brings elightful maneuverablity to riders who know how to use it, and dangerous instability to those not cautious or accustomed. Jim.henderson 18:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure, they are connected, in that the "trail is a function of head angle, fork offset or rake, and wheel size", but small wheels don't mean small trail unless the other two parameters remain unchanged. I don't know what "smaller static stability" means. Small wheels will have a shorter contact patch for the same tire pressure, which can mean "easier swivel", but not necessarily more or less stability. At most forward speeds and for most bicycle wheels, the gyroscopic effect is not large and has a complicated relationship with stability. Larger wheels, by themselves do not mean "larger dynamic stability". I believe the referenced article concludes that the Dahon stability, or lack thereof, is due to "trail distance almost the smallest of any" of the bikes examined for the report. -AndrewDressel 22:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks; I'm glad I didn't bull ahead and put it in the article as I did with the "methods" section. I do think the question of maneuverability/stability ought to be addressed in more detail by someone more competent than me in the matter. What I do know for sure is that I can make sharper turns on a little folder than on my big roadie, for better or worse. Also the possibility of a stoppie or endo should be addressed, again by that more competent authority than me. Jim.henderson 11:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The sharper turns I can believe, if the wheelbase is significantly shorter and you're talking about low-speed turns. At high speeds, the lean angle and tire traction are the limiting factors. However, without any information on how much shorter the wheelbase is, if any, I hesitate to make any claims based on that. The one example given in the article, the picture with a folding bike superimposed on a more-traditional road bike, shows the folding bike to have the same or even longer wheelbase. Do you have any referenceable wheelbase data? Endos and stoppies would also depend on wheelbase, and more-importantly and more-directly on the location (horizontal and vertical) of the rider's center of mass with respect to the front wheel. -AndrewDressel 16:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The picture is nice, but notice it's an expensive folder intended for high performance; which means it's an odd one. This is in line with the presence of sections of the article called "performance" and "challenging perceptions," titles that suggest that speed is what a folding bicycle is about and it's important that potential purchasers understand that they can win races. Totally off the mark, as far as I see, for most bicycles and almost all folders. People buy them to fit in a small apartment like mine or to carry on a train or for similarly cramped circumstances. Racing has no relevance and a comparison picture overlapping a Brompton or Dahon would be more relevant to what people actually want or use. Funny thing, wheelbase is one of the vital statistics often missing from manufacturers' Web sites. Anyway I need to get a bunch more experience with ordinary folding bikes to inform my judgment on what they can do. I'll do a bit of test riding at the "folder festival" in Manhattan a week from now. Jim.henderson 05:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

This article reads like a piece of pro-cycling propaganda; either the opinions stated ("Folding bikes generally come with a wider range of adjustments than conventional bikes for accommodating different riders"; "folding bikes are capable of high performance. The idea that a folder is slower than a conventional bike does not necessarily hold true"; "the unusual appearance ... have limited their acceptance") should be cited, or they should be removed. Andy Mabbett 23:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So, rather than remove the propaganda, a couple months ago I shoved it to the bottom of the article and added a preface putting speed in perspective. Incidentally, at the end of May I bought myself a Brompton and indeed it is slower than my old Panasonic Sport 1000 and indeed this doesn't much matter for my purposes. When I want distance or cargo instead of comfort and convenience, the antique tourister will provide that.
What is still wrong with the "Perceptions" section, besides the hokey name, is the race claims. Not that statements like "A Moulton Bicycle (whose frame separates in two) was used to win a criterium race on the streets of Toronto" and the others are unbelievable, but they ought to be dated and cited rather than left vague. Anybody got an idea when these things happened, or better yet, anybody got a citation? Jim.henderson 06:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Folding bicycle or Small wheel bicycle?

While most small-wheel bikes are low-performance folders, some (e.g. Moultons) are high performance road bikes with full suspension, available with either fixed or separable frames. Those were developed because of the inherent aerodynamic and other advantages of small wheels, that lead to them being banned from racing for political / commercial reasons.

To confuse matters further, not all separables are small-wheel bikes.

Thus I would propose revising the introduction, and using the term "Small-wheel bicycle" at an early stage in the article, if not in the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G-W (talk • contribs) 18:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Done, and stub article small wheel bicycle drafted.GilesW (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Public Transport Allowance

This paragraph in the main article is confusing. In UK English, car = motor car (automobile (US)) and does not have railway connotations. Referring to Coach (rail), 'railway coach' would seem to be a reasonable compromise. GilesW (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)