Jump to content

Talk:Bicycle/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

"to do" list

Query this claim regarding self-steer. It is my understanding that the self-steer or "steerability" phenomenon with bicycles is primarily related to the relative positions of the front axle with relation to the steering axis of the forks and the angle of that steering axis. That is why the forks tend to be at an angle to the ground and why the forks are usually swept forward of the steering axis. (Objective is actually to counteract self-steer)--Sf 11:03, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Somewhere in this "discussion", Gdr explained the significance of both forking the front wheel forward and the contact point of wheel with ground being positioned slightly behind the turning radius of the wheel. I believe that these contribute ... and perhaps even are vital to ... this whole trail phenomenon which self-steers the thing. The article is already 30kb though, and I don't think any more space should go to the physics stuff. I hope to better "internationalize" the political section, which others wrote long before I got there, today. BTW, I changed the "brakes" section too, re sf's objection. And, finally, I hope this generally excellent article makes it through this process. People will actually READ this one, as opposed to some of the goofy articles (Pepsi can stove?) that get to "feature" status unscathed.Sfahey 16:49, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree that the activism/conflict with cars section needs rework - e.g. the statement about bicycles mixing freely with cars in Amsterdam Copenhagen is false. The transport policy concepts need to be broadened (as tersely as possible). --Sf 17:33, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

brakes

I don't like a lot of the seciton on brakes.

"The larger tires on mountain bicycles present a braking problem, since they are not accommodated by the usual calipers." Millions of department store bikes were built with wide tires and standard calipers. They work, although poorly. I think this unfortunate fact should be recognised by saying "since a standard caliper big enough to fit has extremely poor performance, and this is frequently made even worse by the use of steel rims" or something similar, rather than pretending bikes aren't built this way.

The advantage of V brakes over cantilevers is greatly overstated. Properly set up, V and cantis are equal in performance. Since there is a seperate article on bike brakes, comparison of V to canti should probably go there.

In most cases disks aren't used for increased stopping power, but rather for better handling of adverse conditions like mud. Again, other than acknowleging their existance, specifics probalby belong in the bike brakes article.

delete, anyone?

This page is getting way long (hip U.S.-speak for "very long"). Although much was accomplished here, now that the "feature" nomination went down (narrowly, with 8 supporters, 2 objectors) it is now mostly outdated. If there are no objections in the next couple of days, does anyone mind if I delete down to today's comments re brakes? I will preserve however User:Sboehringer's request for a diagram (that might illustrate the parts) better than the current "reflector" one.Sfahey 00:21, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Archive if you must (though it isn't very long and section editing should make it easy to edit), but don't delete. Gdr 01:40, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
What needs deleting is in the article itself, which appears now to be going backwards. There is a lot of weird new (and misspelled) detail in the history section, too much detail on brakes (as someone pointed out above) which would better go in the "brake system" place, and a long passage on "modal design" (?) which is pretty far out for an article on "bicycle". srf

New section needed?

The passage on police use of bikes needs to come out of the war section. The use of bicycles for policing is well-established and probably predates any military use. Similarly the postal systems of many countries relied and still rely on bicycle delivery, a huge economic and social impact which isn't yet acknowledged. --Sf 10:43, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Time to break away some sections into new articles?

This article is starting to get slightly longer than recomended. This may not really be an issue and it is a diverse topic that needs a balanced treatment. However, there are sections that might be good candidates for movement to their own articles e.g. (as suggestions) the list of bicycle types/clasifications and possibly the Bicycles and War section. The latter probably deserves broader treatment anyway but is not, in my view, a particularly key aspect of general bicycle history.--Sf 17:48, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've said this already, but I believe that, if brief enough, each of the current sections is relevant ... even if mainly as an invitation for readers to go to a more detailed section. The main overreach now is the "Modal design" section, most of which belongs in another, extant article, such as "auto-free zones", "bicycling", etc.Sfahey 00:02, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The correct term is "modal share" and is a standard description used in the international literature concerning the relative participation rates of various forms of transport. The presence or absence of "auto free zones" or "pedestrian areas" is not an accurate predictor of the likely extent of the modal share enjoyed by bicycles in the wider vehicle mix. The term "bicycling", as I understand it to be used in US English, relates primarily to the use of bicycles for sport or recreational purposes. The standard English term "cycle" or "cycling" has a more catholic application. Hence "bicycling" would seem to be inappropriate to discussions regarding the use of bicycles as transport vehicles. The idea that disussions of "courting radius" should stay here while discussions of the bicycle's role in transportation should go elsewhere, would in my view, be very hard to defend.--Sf 14:40, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Before I nominated this article for "feature" status, I deleted or sanitized a lot of goofy stuff that others had written (such as the silly "gene pool" comment) but left some marginal things which I wouldn't myself have included, such as "courting radius". This is of course a communal effort. I don't think the presence of one (or more) marginal bits of info. justifies adding others. I don't believe an encyc. article on "bicycle" ... and I read the Britannica one recently ... would have a passage like "modal". The war section, too, is overlong, but I didn't write it ... in fact I whittled it down and corrected it in places in response to others' suggestions. It is interesting, and since no one objected to its being included, I left it there. I think I will, though, shorten it. Feel free to dl "courting radius". Sfahey 00:05, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi, i don't like having good info deleted so i've reverted Sfahey's deletions and moved the section to a new article, Bicycles in warfare. If there were any corrections you made in that last change you might have to do them again. I've left a skeleton section in the Bicycle article, but it reads like it was written for "the amazing world of military bicycles" or something. Some more general statements might be better. Also I've moved the bit about police with bicycles together with the rest, but it doesn't really fit the heading "Bicycles in warfare". Not sure what to do with it. Hope the change isn't too disruptive. --Pengo 04:08, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that was good ... especially since you took the pre-existing warfare section.Sfahey 04:18, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This has merit also there is a bicycle infantry article which may need to be merged with the Bicycles in warfare article. The battle of normandy article also makes reference to a "30th German Fast Infantry Brigade, comprising of 3 bicycle battalions" might be interesting to follow up. I don't have any personal problem with the courting radius or gene pool issues - in Ireland in the 1950's young men and women cycled distances of up to 20 miles to attend dances and then cycled home again. My grandfather regularly cycled a round trip of circa 80 miles to visit my grandmother --Sf 09:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Old car lobby/environmental lobby trick

User 206.191.1.215 put in a reference to community surveys in the activism section. There are those who would view this as an old car lobby/ environmental lobby propaganda trick. The sequence goes something like this.

A) Initiate a media and political campaign to promote the idea that the main obstacle to cycling participation is a lack of "cycling facilities".

B) Play this up in the media - release statements talking about how dangerous the roads are without "cycle facilities" and condemning the failure of politicians to implement this obvious measure. The object is to play to the lowest commmon denominator by reducing the issue of cycling safety to one single issue by excluding/ignoring all the other awkward issues such as speeding, road design, town layouts, parking, education etc etc.

C) After a sustained campaign, commission a survey to ask uninformed members of the public "what they need" to be able to cycle more. If required use carefully filtered multiple-choice type questions. If you've done your job properly (from a marketing perspective) the public will repeat your initial message back to you.

D) You will now have survey "evidence" confirming the message being pushed at point A) and which can then be fed back into the system.

Of course the important point is that the survey is irrelevent as an indicator of the actual effect of the proposed cycling facilities in increasing cycling. There are numerous case studies testing this hypothesis from actual towns and cities - in many cases the hypothesis has proven false. --Sf 15:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bicycle wheel is in need of attention. --Christopherlin 05:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

unusual material

i added some items on frame and steering and read the rest of this article. "clown bike", "legal issues", and some of the political info. seems beyond this article, which wiki says is too long. any takers?128.8.222.43 21:16, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • See previous discussion under time to break away into new sections, the excess length is in my opinion marginal and hence likely to be easily remedied via peer review once consenus on final content is reached. At this stage this point is probably near. --Sf 14:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


User robin klein

I reverted his changes, since it were (poorly implemented) commercial links

Physics

Hmmm... In the PHYSICS section, it is inaccurate to say that the ground applies "torque" to the wheels. At least in this context, referring to the rake/trail of a fork and its self-balancing tendency. In this scenario there is only the FRICTION FORCE between tire and pavement. The only torque that exists between tire and pavement is during the rotation of the front wheel, which is minimal during pedaling at any significant speed. I would like to propose better text but no time tonight...

mph vs km/h error

Under "Performance" the claim is that it takes around 500 watts to ride at 30 km/h. Unless you have the cross-section of a blimp, this is incorrect. It would take in the neighborhood of 500 watts to ride at 30 mph not 30 km/h. For a normal-sized rider it takes less than 200 watts to ride at 30 km/h.

In addition, when comparing the tops of the distributions, top women riders do not have a higher power-to-weight ratio than top men riders. See: http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/profile.html or especially http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/images/powerprofile_v3.gif

16 Sept 2005

I removed the paragraph: "Note that under international cycling federation rules, not every human powered vehicle is a bicycle. The above vehicle would not be allowed in cycling races.". I mentioned the UCI (=international cycling federation) recumbent ban in a new paragraph in track cycling. Hotlorp

Whilst the comment about rural inbreeding might be amusing, is it actually true? In Australia, the majority of people living on the land had access to horses, which have greater speed and range than a bicycle. --Robert Merkel

I think in the UK it was probably true. Bicycles cost much less to feed than horses ;-) -- Tarquin 14:32 Mar 8, 2003 (UTC)
Hi there, I've heard about a study that was done in Italy about this, but weren't able to find references of it. Any hint? Thanks in advance...
-- Alno 09:14, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
"...horses, which have greater speed and range than a bicycle." - Not at all. This has been proven many times in the late 1800s, e.g. by Josef Fischer: 1894 he won the race Vienna-Berlin in less than half the time the fastest rider needed. Also 1894 he has beaten William Cody Junior (son of Buffalo Bill) in a velodrome by a large margin: Even though Cody was allowed to swap horses and did so many times he only managed to make 210km in seven hours - but Fischer 260km. 1895 in a race over the alpes from Munich to Milano he won also against all riders (and other cyclists) who participated.
Just look at the average travel speeds, a cyclist can easily achive 20km/h over hours, a hourse maybe 15km/h.

How about a picture on the top right? It might be good?

I removed the following, since it is mentioned earlier in the context of the influence of bicycles on engineering:

The Wright Brothers worked in a bicycle shop.

Sheldon Brown is a bicycle mechanic not a scientist. Any reference to frame material choice not affecting ride quality is an untrue (and too general) a statement, and reflects only one persons opinion. My opinion is it should be removed, what say you?

History

I'm relatively new to this page, but I thought it might be appropriate to make a brief mention in the History section of the role bicyclists played in creating the Good Roads Movement in the late 1800s. RCMoeur 19 May 2005

Go for it, but please add new "discussion" items to the END of the list. You will see why it works better eventually. Sfahey 04:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

a missing chapter: Bicycle in literature (arts)

I have a very very short story in an textbook about a bicycle for elementary English learners and I am looking for more or other expressions used with riding the bicycle. I would like to bring the students a short story about it as an enhancement of the language and an amusement as well.

I would invite extracts from literature by known authors about a bicycle to be included as another aspect of the item investigated. So, I suggest to add a chapter: Bicycle in literature(arts)

One very good movie about bicycling was Breaking Away. What is your first language? Sfahey 18:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Try The Passion Considered as an Uphill Bicycle race by Alfred Jarry,but not if your school (or your student body) is of a conservative religious nature. Dhodges 20:18, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think a separate page of movies/films about bicycles would be appropriate. A good starting point is here: http://www.massbike.org/info/movies.htm Any objections to creating such a page?

nope. Sfahey 22:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: types of bicycle, by sport -trials

Part of the types of bicycle section makes reference to bicycle trials. Fair enough, but what type of bicycle is used in this sport? --Dhodges 23:41, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that yesterday too, and moved that bit to "bicycle racing. Sfahey 23:30, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Subpages

This is a featured article...very good. I don't want to spoil the fun, but many bike-related subpages are in poor condition and poorly structured when compared (imo, this should make part of a featured article seal of approvance). Is there a wikiproject on bicycles? Phlebas 22:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When I had more time, I was thinking of starting WikiProject Cycling, under WikiProject Sports. --Christopherlin 00:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Although WikiProject Transport might have a say too. Phlebas 16:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

recent vandalism

can someone more skilled than I revert the wholesale and arbitrary deletion-edits made by the user before dhodges. i hear there is a way to do this without cutting and pasting each bogus deletion. thanks. Sfahey 04:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

doneGzuckier 05:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

revert explanation

This is a "featured article", whose content was the result of a collaboration of some dozen writers. Wholesale changes such as those by 6/5 editor, especially when they are rife with speculation and POV, are not acceptable. Take "a small bite" if you have something to add, but don't eat the whole thing. Sfahey 02:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

English-speaking countries?=

There's a paragraph that reads "In English-speaking countries, but also elsewhere". This phrase is essentialy saying nothing. If it also applies to "elsewhere", why is it relevant that it applies to English-speaking countries? Perhaps the original author meant to say something like: "_Mostly_ in English-speaking countries, but also elsewhere"? Otherwise it should just be removed. nyu 20:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

problem with Boneshaker

The article says this about the first modern bikes:

These vehicles were often referred to as 'Boneshakers' as the smaller wheel circumference made for a much harder ride on the poor road surfaces of the time unlike the Ordinaries, whose larger wheels smoothed out the bumps considerably.

But the Penny-farthing article says the Penny-farthing was called the boneshaker. Which article is correct? -- Tarquin 21:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) 

Penny-farthings are boneshakers. Will fix. adamrice 23:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Good catch. Last month someone incorrectly moved the "boneshaker" reference to a point AFTER the wheels became similarly sized, where it made no sense. Adam improveded this, and I just moved the misplaced statement back where it belonged, BEFORE the Englishmen turned "Boneshaker" into their "penny-farthing". Sfahey 28 June 2005 04:15 (UTC)

American or British English?

It appears the article is a mixture. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English says it's usually first come first served, so what should we do? I am American and use Firefox/Spellbound, and I did download a British English dictionary, but knowing how to use it is another thing, especially since it's complicated by the incompleteness of the dictionary. Derailleur is not included in it, for instance. And it didn't like "licencing", but I have no idea if it is just missing from the dictionary or if it is wrong in British English. Spalding 19:13, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Last time I checked derailleur was a French word that has been "adopted" by English  :-)

As far as I know using American or International (Recieved?) English spelling only applies to words/terms that are shared colour vs color etc. Where different terms are used eg derailleur vs shifter either the internationally used term or both should be included. My (Irish) English spellchecker says licencing is spelled licensing --Sf 13:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

My copy of ISO 8090 (Cycles — Terminology, same as BS 6102-4:1991) certainly says rear derailleur (7.1) and front derailleur (7.11). Since we have now international standard English terms for all bicycle components, why not use them? Markus Kuhn 13:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
What I meant was that we undoubtedly have a mixture of Americans and Brits editing this article, so the English is mixed, which is against the Wikipedia guideline to keep consistent within an article, and is also distracting and hard to spell check. So we need to choose one and stick with it. I can only get history back to July 27, 2001, so I can't find the article originator to see which English they prefer. So how do we choose now? (And forget I ever mentioned derailleur! That was a side point. ) Spalding 15:11, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
So how do we choose now?
Flip a coin, but first we'll have to argue whether to flip a Pound Sterling, a Euro, or a Sacagawea Dollar :-). Seriously, it doesn't matter (except to the language Nazis); just choose one and impose it uniformly.
Atlant 15:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Probably doesn't matter, however compared with many other countries the bicycle has very little cultural significance in the modern US. As a citizen of a country (Ireland) that speaks International/British English and has historically had a robust cycling culture - it feels strange to have an international article on bicycles written in the style/spelling of the state that has brought the practice of car culture to its most extreme forms. (Or put it another way I vote international - if we're voting) --Sf 16:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
From my admittedly limited experience in England, I'd say the bike in the seventies-aughts plays more of a cultural role in the US than in England. In the US, there are more bikes owned than cars. In any case, why handicap people in the US and other coutnries using US terminology? Let's include both terms where they are not near homonyms.
The purpose of Wiki is to provide information, and in order to do so it must first be of a form that is understandable. So I would say use both derailleur/shifter. Otherwise we risk making it unsearchable for certain groups of people. Of course this will make the article less elegant, but if a Brit wants to use the article for other purposes, then the person can just run a search/replace. Same with an American. The articles are all GFDL-ed anyway, so editing is allowed. But I prefer a "source" on wiki that is actually as useful as possible, and as easy to search as possible. I say pomato, you say pomatoe!  ;-) Julius.kusuma 18:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Above, someone says that we have an intl. standard for bicycle terms. But the hot key does NOT lead to anything about bikes. Other terms that are different in Birt. and US English: dynamo->generator, mudguard->fender (What do Brits call mudflaps (which is what an American would think of seeing the word mudguard)?
In the UK, mudflaps are called mudflaps :-) LDHan 16:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Here we go. It doesn't sound as though the issue was resolved with the above discussion, but anonymous user 210.193.160.201 has started switching spellings: "offense" to "offence" and "center" to "centre". "Tires" remain "tires" although he did change one (out of five) instances in the List of bicycle types article and "aluminum" became "aluminium" in the Bicycle brake systems article. I wouldn't care much, but I've been watching the mess it has made of the Motorcycle article. Any ideas for how to handle this effectively and quickly? -AndrewDressel 02:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm just going to ignore it since there's no consensus on which national variety of English is to be used. --Wiley 05:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Recumbent Bikes

All this information and not one bit about recumbent bikes. Are people lacking in the knowledge to do it or just manpower? -129.189.10.254

I direct your attention to Recumbent_bicycle. There is a link under Types of Bicycle --Dhodges 22:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, the recent insertion of the recumbent into the "lead" paragraph was both grammatically sloppy and ... I believe ... unjustified. You don't see lots of the newer bike designs there, and as DH pointed out, the recumbent is already included. Sfahey 22:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


S.I. units

Please would you consider using S.I. units for performance terms and other physical magnitudes?

I understand that non-standard units are also provided (in second term) for readers that might lack the understanding of the information in standard units. Also, usage of hours in km/h is so common that I would also find it acceptable. However, things like: 

 - kJ/h -- This is weird and not easily understandable.  What is wrong with Watts (i.e. J/s) to express power?  Equivalency would be: 1 kJ/h == 1000 J / 3600 s == 1/3.6 W
 - kJ/km -- This is strictly correct, but redundant.  The base units are joules and metres.  Adding a 1000/1000 factor doesn't provide any extra information, so why not just J/m ?
 - kJ/(km∙kg) -- Same here.  Why not J/(m*kg) instead?

(I'm ignoring the fact that J/m is equivalent to N because expressing an energy-per-distance inefficiency ratio wouldn't be easily understandable in newtons. But if you think this contradicts my argument, then please go for it, too.)

Robertmh 10:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

J/m is equivalent to N. Exactly! This "energy-per-distance inefficiency ratio" is just the force needed to push the bicycle forward. — Monedula 13:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

More than typical

What does this mean? Is this just another BE/AE problem or is it a Dutch formulation? Or is this a strange formulation? As an educated SAE speaker, I am uncertain what it means - with or without the illustration!

I wrote that (it's my photo). What I meant is that Amsterdam bikes are often colourfully decorated. So that's typical. This one goes a bit further, so it's 'more than typical'. Is this unclear to others as well? Maybe there should be a few words on this in the text then. Done that. DirkvdM 09:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Electric Bicycle

Need help. Can anyone here please come to check out the electric bicycle site. Some people have changed it to motorized vehicle. --CyclePat 06:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Fictious or unreal bicycles added

I added a link an unreal invisible bicycle. http://www.geocities.com/verdrahciretop/invisibike.html

Humm... LOL --Pat 21:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Pat - I removed the link since it doesn't add anything to the article. If you strongly believe it belongs in the article, please discuss here. Thanks -SCEhardT 02:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I can't remember where but under transport, I think, there is a category for future or fictious transportation. (ie.: Magic carpet, etc..) --Pat 04:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


EC/VC proponents oppose use of facilities?

I question this statement under the Bicycle Activism section:

"some members of the US Vehicular Cycling Movement oppose the use of segregated cycling facilities as a matter of principle"

I'm aware of an opposition to the support and creation of a certain type of facility, bike lanes, but I'm not aware of anyone in the VC/EC movement, such as it is, who is opposed to the use of all "segregated facilities as a matter of principle". Even bike lane opponents do not oppose their use when they exist. I know for a fact that John Forester, arguably the de facto leader of the VC/EC movement, is not opposed to such use, for example. Unless someone can provide basis for this statement within a week or so, I will remove or rewrite it if no one else will. Thanks. --Serge 16:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure if I'm a member of the "US Vehicular Cycling Movement", but I do cycle in the US and I do support the boycotting of segregated public facilities (i.e., those public facilities which separate people on a basis other than their own personal merit or performance) as a matter of principle. IMHO, to use a segregated public facility is to condone, at least to some degree, the segregation itself. --Bwileyr 05:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Just to clarify your position, what do you think of children using bike paths? --Serge 06:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Desegregating a public facility only modifies the basis upon which an individual's use of that facility is regulated. Instead of separating or banning travelers by class or group, the government can restrict the use of a public facility by a person when that individual's operation of a heavy vehicle (such as a car) in a public facility (such as a path) poses an extraordinary danger to others (such as children) or their property. Since the government has this option for protecting the rights of others, segregation of public transportation facilities (as I defined above) is not only an unfair infringement on the personal liberty of some travelers, it is also unnecessary. --Bwileyr 20:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
So if motorists are prohibited from using a bike path, you would not call for boycotting that path because of that, right? --Serge 21:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
If a "bike path" is a public facility that is intended to separate people on a basis other than their own personal merit or performance, then it is a segregated facility that (IMHO) deserves to be boycotted. The government has the option of protecting the public without resorting to such segregation by restricting a given person's travel when it poses an extraordinary danger to others or their property. BTW, there are some motor vehicles which aren't heavy enough to pose such a level of danger (usually those which don't require a license to operate). --Bwileyr 22:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Are you two talking about the same thing?Sfahey 23:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


does this belong here?

In bicycle#External links does this belong here:

  • Townsend, Andy (2005). Motorcycle Stability and Steering. Rider Education of New Jersey, Inc. Retrieved March 30, 2005

I think this information would be better under motorcycle, however there maybe some tranferable skills that are applicable to bicycle? --CylePat 02:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

If anything, probably countersteering. --Christopherlin 03:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:ISNOT a link farm, this article had far too many external links (to my mind). So:

Velo Mondial - 23,400 Google hits, first few pages all look relevant. Widely discussed, looks significant.

* The World's Data Base for Cycling Expertise: Velo.Info

Really? 330 links in, no Alexa ranking; I don't think so!

  • BikeForums.net (2005). BikeForums. Retrieved March 30, 2005.

Widely linked, Alexa rank 11,790. I'm not a fan of web forums, but it's hard to dispute that this is a major one for bikes.

* BikeJournal.com (2000). BikeJournal Site to maintain mileage records and communicate with other users of the site. Two members rode in RAAM 2005 http://www.raceacrossamerica.org/ and four members are forming a team for 2006.

Not widely linked, Alexa rank 398,391.

Sheldon is a bicycle god. I think his site is the most often cited authority, 50,000+ links in, Alexa rank 49,869 (low) but lnked from everywhere.

* Bryan (2004). Bryan's Bicycle Page. Retrieved March 30, 2005.

Random user page.

* Croydon Cycling Campaign (2003). Information & Help. Retrieved March 30, 2005.

Alexa rank > 4million, <1000 links in. Content is mainly covered in linked Wikipedia articles, and this is in any case a small local group. Sorry, chaps.

Since we don't currently have an article on bicycle fitting I guess this is the next best thing, although there are online bike fit calculators which are better.

* Learn to Bicycle (2005). Learn to Bike, no training wheels.

Sorry, it's a user page. We need an article on learning to ride a bike :-)

Change to the root.

Undecided at present. Has interesting and relevant ocntent, but we need an article on science of cycling

* Folding bikes, electric bikes, trailers, trikes and alternative transport Retrieved June 5, 2005

I love AtoB, but this belongs in the folding bicycle article.

* Gray Matter Media (1995). The eJournal website Bicycle Touring Central. Retrieved March 30, 2005.

"Bicycle Touring Central"? Not perhaps overstating that a tinby fraction are we? ;-)

* Hashmi, Khurram (2004). Bicycle Safety: Road Hazards, Accident Prevention and Risk Mitigation. Retrieved March 30, 2005.

Interesting article, but specifically related to bicycle safety

* Hudson, William (2003). Myths and Milestones in Bicycle Evolution. Retrieved March 30, 2005.

Reserving judgment - we should have a history of cycling somewhere...

* Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (2005). CyclingForum.org. Retrieved March 30, 2005.

Forum with no Alexa rank.

* Jones, David E. H. (1970). The Stability of the Bicycle. Scanned in copy for download for personal use.

Copyvio, sorry.

* Killian, Michael (2004). SidewaysBike (Not Your Father's Bicycle) Retrieved March 30, 2005.

Interesting curiousity, maybe a job for unusual bicycles

* Lessing, Hans-Erhard (1997). The Leonardo da Vinci Bicycle Hoax. Cycle Publishing. Retrieved March 30, 2005.

An interesting curiosity, already discussed under Leonardo da Vinci

* Transportation Alternatives (2005). The advocates for cycling, walking, and environmentally sensible transportation Retrieved March 30, 2005.

alternative propulsion is that way ->

* Wachtel, Alan; Lewiston, Diana (2000). Risk Factors for Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions at Intersections. Bicycling Life Website. Retrieved March 30, 2005.

cycle path is over there ->

Re: History of cycling, History of the bicycle exists. Also, "how to ride a bike" might be better in wikibooks as opposed to wikipedia. --Christopherlin 20:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, and yes you could be right. Now the "see also" section eneds some work, perhaps on the model of telephone. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

* Townsend, Andy (2005). Motorcycle Stability and Steering. Rider Education of New Jersey, Inc. Retrieved March 30, 2005.

motorcycles are over there ->

This is referenced by note 4 and should not be removed. I will put it back. Gdr 01:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

* Jones, David E. H. (1970). The Stability of the Bicycle. Scanned in copy for download for personal use.

Copyvio, sorry.

And this is referenced by note 3. I will put it back. Gdr 01:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Still a copyvio. I have referenced books in the past, but I don't scan them and put PDFs on the wew, or link to those scans. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 15:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bicycle/Archive_2&oldid=1085910056"