Talk:Bicycle/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Bicycle. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Energy Consumption

I disagree with the indicated energy consumption of 1.62kJ/km/kg, seems to be out be a factor of 10. 100W at 25km/h for 70kg rider sounds accurate.

Distance travelled in 1 hour = 25km

Energy used in 1 hour = 0.1kWh = 360kJ

Weight (including bicycle) = 85kg

Energy consumption = 360kJ / 25km / 85kg = 0.169kJ/km/kg

Leonardo's bike

I think it would be good to add something about the drawings previously attributed to Leonardo da Vinci. Professor Dr. Hans-Erhard Lessing claimed in 1997 that it was a fake, but there have been attempts at discrediting him as well as his findings. I'm not sure what the current scholarly opinion is, but here are two opinions:

http://users.aol.com/PryorDodge/Leonardo_da_Vinci.html - It's a hoax

http://www.kausal.com/leonardo/bicycle.html - Rebuttal.

Popup 10:34, 2004 Feb 6 (UTC)

I've found this site copying the article without providing a link to the source nor displaying the GDFL terms: http://www.vagabondpoet.com/infopedia/bi/Bicycle.html I've sent a mail to inform them.

-- Alno 09:03, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

212.65.19.231 has added a lot of material on the history of the bicycle, but much of it is rather POV. I've attempted to expand upon it and to NPOV some of it, but that work is far from done. Martijn faassen 12:57, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have tried several times but failed miserably to make a link to the Auto-free zone page, which seems quite relevant, can somebody help? AlainV 19:23, 2004 Apr 3 (UTC)

Picture

The picture is very helpful for the non-native speaker. However, there are missing labels for a lot of parts of the bicyle I cannot name. Is it possible to modify the picture accordingly?

User:Sboehringer 2004 Apr 7

mph vs km/h

the page says: The highest speed ever attained on the flat, without riding behind a wind-block, is by Canadian Sam Whittingham, who in 2001 set a 80.55 mph or 142.51 km/h

but, 80.55 mph is in fact 129.63 km/h and 142.51 km/h is 88.55 mph i think that who wrote this mistyped the 88.55 mph, and the 142.51 km/h is right. but i'm not sure, that's why i didn't made a correction yet

Well spotted! I have googled the name and it gets worse: 117kmph/73mph ( http://www.speed101.com/now/fastest_0127_4.htm ) and there are yet more figures. I am not sure either what we should do. Perhaps check the Guinness book of records and be sure to state our sources -- Tarquin 16:26, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Copy-pasted from The Guinnes Book of Records:

Fastest Bicycle Speed: The highest speed ever achieved on a bicycle is 268.831 km/h (167.043 mph), by Fred Rompelberg (The Netherlands) at Bonneville Salt Flats, Utah, USA, on October 3, 1995. His record attempt was greatly assisted by the slipstream from his lead vehicle. ...but says nothing about the 1-hour record. Is Guinnes the authorative source here, or the IHPVA, or another organisation?? Peak Freak 23:06, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reflector picture

Regarding the picture in the Technical Aspects section. It is a picture of a bicycle and the locations of many possible reflectors. I feel that this would be better suited in the Lighting section as it has little to do with the function of a bike. Perhaps a picture pointing out chains, gears, frame, etc. could be added there.

Another picture

IMO the article could use a good image of a bicycle actually in use; someone riding one. -- Infrogmation 16:58, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Subsection formerly known as: Conflict with automobiles

Should this section not cover or link techniques for integrating bike use with car use by sharing lanes where necessary, such as those favoured by Johns Franklin (UK) and Forrester (US)? I don't mean a reiteration, more a summary and an explanation of why such a technique might be used. What about something like:

Some cyclists favour the encouragement of good technique among adult cyclists when on the road over the widespread introduction of on- and off-road cycle trails, tracks and lanes. Their arguments are that such facilities are often poor and unswept compared to the main road network, and that in most jurisdictions the rider of a bicyle is treated in law as a road user with the full rights and responsibilities of any road vehicle user. Such cyclists often encourage a style of roadcraft involving the use of full road lanes by cyclists where the cyclist's own safety benefits from this, and where other road users are not needlessly impeded by the slower vehicle.

Relevant links include:

Sounds great to me. I only put a sentence in there to make note of Forester, but expansion would be great (John Forrester in the UK is a professor at Cambridge, but you mean the US John Forester, right?). My usual style is to just add a little here and there, so however you would like to proceed would be great. Spalding 13:07, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I messed up and mixed up my Johns. JF (UK) is the author of Cyclecraft - Skilled Cycling Techniques for Adults, a publication of The Stationery Office. JF (US) is as noted the author of Effective Cycling. I'll try to get round to integrating some text on cyclist roadcraft. -- Andrew.

Disagree: the debate is already raised in the article which is primarily about the bicycle rather than cycling techniques. In my view the place to explore these important and worthwhile issues is at cycle path debate, utility cycling, segregated cycle facilities and urban bicycling. Some of these articles may need to be merged/cross-pollenated in part. --Sf 10:29, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That sounds fair to me. I'll limit anything I do to this page on that theme to a mere crosslink-and-summarise, e.g. "* There is much debate on <topic x> in <quarter y>." -- Andrew

I added a sentence with a link to cycle path debate since it seemed to be somewhat of an orphan that I never saw before and that I think should at least be mentioned in the main article. Spalding 12:23, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Helmets

I couldn't find anything on wikipedia about cycle helmets! Anyone want to voulunteer?

Bicycle helmet

Amended false claim regarding "virtually all" North American cyclists using helmets. I have been unable to find any source that would support such a claim. The pro-helmet "Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute" puts their best guess at 25% http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm --Sf 13:32, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A university study from Detroit reported that between 60% (on short rides) and 100 % (on longer rides) of American bicyclists were observed to wear helmets. A Canadian study showed >3/4ths of B.C. cyclists, without regard to whether they were on organized trips, were helmeted.

The BHSI spokesman described his 25% as a "wild guess", which is way off both the statistics displayed further down that website (which as was pointed out is politically motivated ... and wisely so, I believe) and personal observations. Until recently I was usually the sole unhelmeted maverick on many bicycle outings, until my boss's husband died from head injuries in a low-speed crash a couple of years ago. In suburban Washington, DC it is RARE to see a cyclist without a helmet on anything longer than a ride to the neighborhood store.Sfahey 23:08, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I cannot dispute your assertions as to helmet wearing rates in your local area - however what income groups are represented? What colour is their skin?. What is the wearing rate in poorer districts? I think it would be unwise to extrapolate this local rate to the entire North Americian continent. As for the BC wearing rates they have a local helmet law therefore this rate cannot be reasonably extrapolated to cover areas without such laws. Also if we are talking North America - where does that leave Mexico or do they count? --Sf 11:26, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Who knows about Mexico, but I ride in a blue-collar county (predominantly African-american, though I don't see how that is rlvnt) where most cycliists are helmeted. On group rides a cyclist without a helmet stands out like a cigar smoker in church. i got to think that 25% and 'virtully all' are opposite extremes. It's probably more like seatbelt use; on highways it's >95% and on back roads who knows. My guess for helmets in Eng-spkng N.A. on trips over a couple of miles is ... 80%. srf

The end of the "activism" section of "bicycle" sounds controversial. I've heard some studies, which purported to show huge safety gains from using helmets, criticized for ignoring the possibility that helmet laws reduced the number of cyclists and this then caused the reduced head injuries. But ... and I ask this naively ... are some groups really claiming that helmet use INCREASES the rate of head injuries? And, is the current wiki article endorsing this view ... or just reporting on it? It's not clear which from the text.Sfahey 04:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dealing with the last first: yes there is evidence suggesting that helmet laws and helmet promotion has being accompanied by increases in risk of injury. As to the skin colour etc argument this is entirely relevant. In short, one of the most prominent US claims for "huge safety gains" from helmets was obtained by comparing the injury severities of mainly white, middle class, children cycling in parks under parental supervision and comparing these with mainly black, city centre kids cycling unsupervised on city streets. The differences in injury patterns were attributed to the higher helmet wearing rate in the former group. In my view, much of what passes for helmet research in the US is at best junk science and at worst scientific misconduct, certainly the whole issue has raised serious questions regarding the peer review procedures operated by some journals. For a more detailed treatmentof the issues see http://www.cyclehelmets.org. ~~I take the point about the sentence in the bicycle activism section and I will reconsider the phrasing. --Sf 11:07, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)~~ Done --Sf 11:44, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Interesting stuff, especially the commentary on the Brit.Med.Assn link from the "bicycle helmet" page. Curiously, I've been a lone voice arguing against the humongous helmets used in (American) football, which not only apply as much force as they absorb, but also subject the wearer to much more torque than would occur say, in rugby, which I played in college. We got lots of busted noses, but head and neck injuries were much less common than in football. There must be a HUGE difference "across the pond" on this issue, since you would only rarely get an argument here from a cyclist (I used to get berated for riding bareheaded on group trips), and NEVER from a medical person, on the advisability of helmeting. Myself, I think the protective effect (many claim 80% fewer head injuries!) is exagerrated by the American studies, but opponents' claims of INCREASED injuries, and the reasons cited in those links for them, are spurious.Sfahey 23:04, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So which reasons are "spurious"? --Sf 10:22, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The POV stuff on helmets in "bicycle" is now better, as it is stated as the opinion of the anti-helmet lobby, so this beyond the point, but briefly: the claims that more will be injured as the # of cyclists falls below some critical mass is bizarre, as it would take a ton of quitters to accomplish this; suggesting that helmet lids will increase torque and cause injuries is like saying that seatbelts in cars is bad because someone once drowned (vs. thousands saved) when he couldn't get out of his belt; claims that the helmets "grab" the concrete harder are way outdated and irrelevant to the new plastic helmets; helmets making some lunkheads do crazy things has no relevance to increasing MY safety by wearing one; and on and on. Don't get me wrong on this. I am talking about encouraging, not requiring, helmets. I think for better or worse they will become in Europe what they have become here (and in bike racing I imagine are most everywhere): better and accepted.Sfahey 00:17, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The safety in numbers evidence is pretty robust and well published. As for your apparent belief that seatbelts result in reduced deaths this is a matter of dispute see seat belt legislation the history of seatbelts and the theory of risk compensation argues that engaging in an "arms race" model of safety is futile - particularly for cyclists. --Sf 11:05, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In most European countries, helmets are viewed as an indicator of inexperience or recklessness, and their use is considered unusual for adult utility cyclists.

Really...? I went to university in the UK, and the police would frown (if not stop) you if you were riding without a helmet. Also, the biggest helmet users seemed to be the 'pro' cyclists. However, my experiences in France and Belgium indicate that, in other parts of Europe, wearing a helmet is far more uncommon. Might I suggest removing or toning this down as a bit of an overgeneralisation? – QuantumEleven | (talk) 18:38, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

It seems that the more accurate statement would be something along the lines of:

In the United States helmet use is governed by local regulations. In most instances helmet use is mandatory for children and infants, and in some locales it is also mandatory for adults. Among the utility cyclists the view on helmet use varies, but most hobbyists and competitive cyclists are proponents of helmet use. The [USCF rulebook] even strongly states that "At all times when participating in an event held under a USA Cycling event permit, including club rides, any rider on a bicycle or motorcycle shall wear a protective, securely fastened helmet that satisfies the standards specified in USA Cycling Policies. (See Policy I, Sections 1 and 2.) [disqualification and a $20 fine for failure to wear or for removing such a helmet during a race. The fine is also applicable if the rider is not racing, but is participating in the event as described below]. 'Participating in an event' means riding a bicycle in the vicinity of a race at any time between the beginning of registration and the last awarding of prizes, but does not apply to riding rollers or stationary trainers in order to warm up. "

By contrast, the UCI did not make helmet use in racing mandatory until 2003-2004. And there is not helmet rule for riding outside of UCI races. In Europe you see many racer-types train without wearing a helmet, while in the US most wear a helmet. Cultural difference.

So we should make a distinction between the different cycling "cultures" to be more accurate and not overly generalize. Julius.kusuma 18:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Questions regarding specific regulations for racing cyclists are best left to pages that concern racing cycling. Similarly detailed discussions of general US Bicycle helmet regulations should go on that page. The UK is only one country out of 20+ European countries and even within the UK helmet use varies considerably from area to area. Also since the levels of cycling in the UK are quite low the number of adult utility cyclists in the UK is only a fraction of the European total. Hence it could be argued that one persons isolated experience of cycling in the UK does not negate the general European experience --Sf 11:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Further to this, a recent national survey of helmet wearing among the UK subset of the European cycling population found as follows: Cycle helmet use on major built up roads was 25%, on minor build up roads the wearing rate was found to be 9.5% (27,164 cyclists observed) Source: TRL Report 578 Cycle Helmet Wearing in 2002 --Sf 12:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

That sounds pretty convincing to me - thanks for checking this up, Sf. – QuantumEleven | (talk) 15:01, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

In most European countries, helmets are viewed as an indicator of inexperience or recklessness, and their use is considered unusual for adult utility cyclists.

The above paragraph has been the target of my edit for the day. At any rate, it is not the case that helmets are viewed as pussy-gear. Anecdotically, I didn't use to wear one until the other fellows at my kickboxing gym coerced me into getting one.

--81.42.159.231 10:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Time to condense?

In the next couple of days, I'd like to shorten this unwieldy thing, especially by moving the "history" section to its own page and doing a briefer such section for the main page. Maybe will add a "helmet paragraph" too. btw, do they use them in Europe for short trips as they do in the U.S.? Sfahey 01:31, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Feature ready?

Whaddya think? Anyone know how to maybe get another picture, perhaps of a current non-American style bike, at the start. The mountain bike picture is good, but there's too much empty space at the top of the article. And,anyone wanna renominate this for "feature" status? If not , I'll try to figure out to do so. p.s.: nice recent adds, both the new photo, and "propulsion". Sfahey 23:16, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

i reconfigured the "propulsion" section. now "contents" is smaller, and the top looks more balanced.

excellent. now i gotta add my "references" for the history stuffSfahey 23:30, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Frame flexibility

I cut this sentence from the article from the section on bicycle frame construction and moved it to bicycle frame construction:

Because even a very flexible frame is much more stiff than the the tires and saddle, ride comfort is in the end more a factor of saddle choice, frame geometry, tire choice, and bicycle fit.

I think this is alluding to the myth about frames being flexible and that flexibility contributing to the comfort or otherwise of the ride. That myth and its refutation deserve treatment in Wikipedia, but it needs to be at more length than this. So I cut the line. Gdr 23:36, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

That section in no way endorsed the importance of frame flexibility, but suggested that it was relatively UNimportant.Sfahey 22:45, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. That's exactly why I removed it. It was a rebuttal to a claim not made in the article, and therefore confusing to the reader, who will ask "what is this sentence talking about? more a factor than what exactly?". I thought it better to put the rebuttal next to the claim. The new context at bicycle frame construction is ideal. Gdr 01:06, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)

Gyroscope

This is just nonsense:

Once underway, a bicycle's upright position is largely maintained by gyroscopic forces generated by the rotation of its wheels. Physicists refer to this phenomenon as precession, the effect of which also stabilizes a spinning top.

Bicycles stay upright by making small steering movements to keep the wheels under the centre of gravity. The geometry of the bicycle frame assists with these movements by turning the front wheel towards the side to which the bike is leaning.

Any cyclist can tell you that staying upright does not get harder as you slow down. You can come almost to a stop without any difficulty, although the slow speed means that the steering movements become bigger. If gyroscopic forces were at work then balance would get harder as you slowed down. Gdr 23:36, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

This objection is all wet. Any fool can roll a coin upright across the floor and see that the spinning motion is what keeps it upright, while it immediately falls flat when it slows. Anyone who has been on a bicycle knows you need "little steering motions" at first, but that you can easily ride "no hands" once you get over 5 mph, and you can not balance at all ... hands or no ... while standing still. Bike mechanics like to get a wheel spinning, then pull it off the axle and demonstrate the surprising pull toward the perpendicular when they hold it spinning between their hands. And physicists have named all this "precession".

When this article was first proposed for "featured status", one critic asked for more info on this phenomenon. I did the research, and included it. Sfahey 00:44, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was the critic who objected to the featured article status because of the missing explanation why a bicycle remains upright. The precession explanation is, as far as I know, generally accepted. I think that the sentence should be re-inserted. The precession explanation may not be the whole story though. Andries 17:33, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The sentence should not be included, because it is wrong. A correct explanation of how a bicycle remains upright would look something like this:

A rider stays upright on a bicycle by steering the bicycle so that the point where the wheels touch the ground stays underneath the center of gravity. When the rider find himself leaning slightly to the left, he steers the bicycle to the left to counteract the fall; when he finds himself leaning to the right he steers to the right. The faster the bicycle is going the quicker the bicycle comes back under the center of gravity and hence the smaller the steering needs to be; at speeds over about 10 km/h the steering movements are quite imperceptible to the rider, but they are clear when the track of the wheels is traced along the ground. A feature of bicycle geometry — known as trail — assists the rider with steering: the contact point of the front wheel with the ground is behind the line of the steering axis. Trail means that when the bicycle leans to one side, the wheel turns to that side — exactly the motion needed to correct the lean. This "self-steering" effect is sufficiently strong that a riderless bicycle going down a slope will stay upright by itself. Gyroscopic forces generated by the spinning wheels also contribute to the self-steering effect, though their contribution is small, as the self-steering effect can be demonstrated at low speeds when the gyroscopic forces are negligible. Some people (reference needed here) believe that gyroscopic forces help balance a bicycle directly, but this is not the case: a bicycle with counter-rotating wheels canceling any gyroscopic forces is no harder to ride than an ordinary bicycle (David Jones, "The Stability of the Bicycle", Physics Today (April 1970): 34-40.)

Gdr 23:40, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)

Several of the last edits appear helpful. Most, like the detailed description of the "penny-farthing", which is described well enough later, are excessive, and will be reverted.Sfahey 00:44, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sfahey, thanks for the current explanation why a bicycle stays upright. I think it is better than the original precession-only version. Andries 17:31, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The gyroscope myth seems very commonly held. Let me see if I can disabuse you of it by some simple plausibility arguments:

No matter how fast you go, you still make steering motions. Examine the track left by a bicycle tyre on the pavement. It is not a straight line, but makes shallow curves to the left and right. The movements become smaller as you go faster, because at higher speeds it takes less time to move the bicycle back underneath your centre of gravity and so you don't need to steer so much to get the same effect.
When you ride "no hands" you still make steering movements, just not by pushing on the handlebars. Again, you can check this by looking at the track.
If gyroscopic forces were the main element in balance, then bicycles would be as easy to ride on ice as they are on dry pavement.
Children have to learn to ride bicycles.
Trick bicycles with the steering connected the wrong way round are impossible for experienced cyclists to ride at first.
You can balance a bicycle at very slow speeds: I checked today and I was easily able to balance at one rotation every 10 seconds (about 0.8 km/h). The gyroscopic forces are negligible at this speed compared to the force exterted by my weight.

And a reference:

Bicycling Science by Frank Whitt and David Wilson cites a study by David Jones, who cancelled the gyroscopic forces in the wheel with a counterrotating wheel to try to make an unridable bicycle. The modified bicycle was no harder to balance than the original.

Gdr 09:43, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

Whoever started this off with the "this is nonsense" comment is doing this forum a disservice. The only issue here is at what point gyroscopic precession and related physical phenomena which have nothing to do with the rider kick in and contribute substantially to maintenance of the upright position. I agree with most physicists that this is sooner rather than later. The child argument above is irrelevant. Of course, it takes practice to get started, but once going (?5,?10,?15m(m.or km.)/hr) physics clearly kicks in, and the youngster looks like he's been cycling for years. The tire marks on the ground are also irrelevant - they will be observed whether the bicycle is rider-controlled or simply running down a hill on its own, which it will do forever because of the physics of precession and angular momentum which not only keep the bike upright but also tend to direct the wheels straight ahead. Try to slide a skate upright across a hockey rink ... it will tip right over just as if it were standing still. In any event, the "nonsense" comment at the start of this otherwise civilized discussion is, in the view of any (of the many) physicists and bicyclists I know, inaccurate at best. As the starting point of a discussion, it is offensive and immature. srf

- No need to take offence. I wasn't criticizing the writer, just the sentence. Gdr 23:40, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)

Energy efficiency

This sentence appears to be false on the face of it:

As demonstrated by S.S.Wilson¹, it is the most efficient transportation machine, as measured by the number of calories of energy the rider must expend to travel a given distance

since the rider of a motorbike or horse expends fewer calories of energy to travel a given distance than the rider of a bicycle. I tried to edit it to make sense, but I was reverted. I don't have the cited reference to hand. What exactly does it say, and what is the real claim being made here? Gdr 09:49, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

The issue being demonstrated is that the bicycle is the most efficient form of transport yet identitifed in terms of the energy required to move the bicycle and it's passenger over a givenn distance. As claims go it's pretty straignforward and verifiable.

--Sf 10:10, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's what I thought it meant, so I rephrased it as follows:

As demonstrated by S.S.Wilson¹, it is the most efficient transportation machine, as measured by the work expended to travel a given distance

But that apparently wasn't acceptable: User:Sfahey reverted it with the comment "this paper measured "human" energy; "mech'l" efficiency discussed two sentences down". Gdr 10:34, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

To my mind your phrasing appears more appropriate, I have a paper at home that references work on comparitive energy efficiencies of various forms of transport I will recheck this and get back on Monday. Certainly, if mechanical effiency is established, then reference to Wilson's work on human input (as outlined above) would appear to be superfluous.

--Sf 10:45, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

the Wilson paper studied "human" efficiency by measuring how many cals. it took to fuel a given bike trip rather than walking, running, etc. mech'l efficiency, which is discussed two sentences later, is something different.Sfahey 16:35, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The rewrite looks good to me. Thank you. Gdr 14:49, 2004 Oct 30 (UTC)

For those of you worried about comparison, I've done a little research and added:

"and an average petrol-powered car (consuming 80 cm3/km) would require about 2321 kJ/km, almost 37 times as much."

Yes, petrol-powered devices do consume energy (chemical energy in carbon-based substances, just like humans). And in fact are about 37 times more inefficient when converting it to travel distance.

nyu 10:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

What is a fender?

There is a reference to European bicycles having "fenders" as a long standing European cyclist and (native English speaker) I have never heard of such devices in connection with bicycles.

--Sf 11:41, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Fender" is American for "mudguard". Gdr 12:05, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

And I thought a fender was some kind of guitar. At least this is what I get when I do a Google image search on that word. --AlainV 19:41, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As it happens there is a List of bicycle parts page where the Fender is listed. Now guess where that links to? --Sf 12:59, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since bikes also have "tires", I guess an American created the article in the first place.

Vaguely related to this discussion, I find the absence of fenders/mudguards, as well as the other neat features of European utility bicycles, reprehensible and ugly. On the college campus where I work, whose bicycles seldom see anything but "macadam" (how's that, Brits?), easily nine of ten are deep-treaded, wide-tyred, minimalist mountain bikes which look they were issued to some third-world Communist army. No chrome, fenders, chainguards, or bells, and stiff seats that'll give you Lord knows what. Our public has been hoodwinked by the manufacturers, who discovered that they could eliminate all these options, call it a "specialty" bike, double the price, and sucker buyers into coming back and paying extra when they realize what a mess is made the first time they ride through a puddle. Sfahey 04:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Efficiency, etc.

Yes, I had several problems: 1. see above re human/biological efficiency vs. mechanical efficiency, which were added to this article long ago by other writers and which refer to two separate things. the "as measured" phrases made this clear, as does reading the footnotes. 2. for the reasons i gave, i think "precession" has lots to do with stabilizing a fast-moving bicycle. interestingly, this section originated from a suggestion by a prior "featured article" reviewer. i read up on it, tested it, discussed it with a department head physicist, and included it with the proviso that it was in play only after initial balancing (such as the child mentioned above learns) got the rider started, and that it only 'helps to maintain' the upright position. roll a wheel down a hill. it doesn't tip over until it stops. perhaps a compromise statement would suffice, rather than ones simply erasing it. 3. someone butchered the section on "lighting" while apparently trying to link "halogen" lighting. 4.the "penny farthing" is described later in the article. these are unfamiliar terms to non-U.K. readers, so i chose the more commonly-used "Ordinary" for the main text. 5. re the top picture: this, unfortunately is the most common bike seen on streets in North America. i actually sent out work for a picture of a "European" style bicycle but got nothing suitable. I do not believe that one should "object" to a featured article candidate because you don't like the photo.Sfahey 16:35, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

6.the hunched position is both mechanically AND aerodynamically more effective; hence the original choice of "efficient", which covers both. 7. see above

Many things to respond to here. 1. The claim about biological efficiency was really unclear. Now it actually says what it means. So result achieved! 2. See section 10 above. 3. My typo, now fixed I hope. 4. "Penny-farthing" is a very commonly known term in the UK and readers from that country will expect to see a mention in the early history. 5. I will see what I can do to find a better photo. 6. I don't believe the claim that the hunched position is mechanically more efficient (riders stand up in order to exert more power). 7. My reasons for cutting this sentence are in section 9 above; please respond there. Gdr 14:44, 2004 Oct 30 (UTC) P.S. I really hope this article does get featured: I think it's mostly good. However, I want it to "exemplify Wikipedia's best work".

This is excerpted from the essay Energy and Equity, by Ivan Illich, which is in the book Toward a History of Needs (Pantheon, 1978). The full text of the essay is available online here at The Ivan Illich Archive.

"Man, unaided by any tool, gets around quite efficiently. He carries one gram of his weight over a kilometer in ten minutes by expending 0.75 calories. Man on his feet is thermodynamically more efficient than any motorized vehicle and most animals. For his weight, he performs more work in locomotion than rats or oxen, less than horses or sturgeon. At this rate of efficiency man settled the world and made its history. At this rate peasant societies spend less than 5 per cent and nomads less than 8 per cent of their respective social time budgets outside the home or the encampment."

"Man on a bicycle can go three or four times faster than the pedestrian, but uses five times less energy in the process. He carries one gram of his weight over a kilometer of flat road at an expense of only 0.15 calories. The bicycle is the perfect transducer to match man's metabolic energy to the impedance of locomotion. Equipped with this tool, man outstrips the efficiency of not only all machines but all other animals as well."

"Bicycles are not only thermodynamically efficient, they are also cheap. With his much lower salary, the Chinese acquires his durable bicycle in a fraction of the working hours an American devotes to the purchase of his obsolescent car. The cost of public utilities needed to facilitate bicycle traffic versus the price of an infrastructure tailored to high speeds is proportionately even less than the price differential of the vehicles used in the two systems. In the bicycle system, engineered roads are necessary only at certain points of dense traffic, and people who live far from the surfaced path are not thereby automatically isolated as they would be if they depended on cars or trains. The bicycle has extended man's radius without shunting him onto roads he cannot walk. Where he cannot ride his bike, he can usually push it."

"The bicycle also uses little space. Eighteen bikes can be parked in the place of one car, thirty of them can move along in the space devoured by a single automobile. It takes three lanes of a given size to move 40,000 people across a bridge in one hour by using automated trains, four to move them on buses, twelve to move them in their cars, and only two lanes for them to pedal across on bicycles. Of all these vehicles, only the bicycle really allows people to go from door to door without walking. The cyclist can reach new destinations of his choice without his tool creating new locations from which he is barred."

"Bicycles let people move with greater speed without taking up significant amounts of scarce space, energy, or time. They can spend fewer hours on each mile and still travel more miles in a year. They can get the benefit of technological breakthroughs without putting undue claims on the schedules, energy, or space of others. They become masters of their own movements without blocking those of their fellows. Their new tool creates only those demands which it can also satisfy. Every increase in motorized speed creates new demands on space and time. The use of the bicycle is self-limiting. It allows people to create a new relationship between their life-space and their life-time, between their territory and the pulse of their being, without destroying their inherited balance. The advantages of modern self-powered traffic are obvious, and ignored. That better traffic runs faster is asserted, but never proved. Before they ask people to pay for it, those who propose acceleration should try to display the evidence for their claim."