Talk:Bicycle/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Dynamics

"stoppie" an odd inclusion in this brief section -Sfahey

Arguably. I just included it so the braking paragraph wouldn't be only one sentence. I should have included a link to the stoppie article. Perhaps recasting it to refer to the danger for inexperienced riders on most upright bikes would be better. It can certainly come out if deemed inappropriate. -AndrewDressel 16:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"This steering is usually provided by the rider, but is accomplished by a riderless bicycle itself once set in motion." -Sfahey

I think this version loses the point that self stability occurs only under certain conditions. The geometry and mass distribution of the bike need to be correct, and the bike needs to be travelling at the necessary forward speed. This is all covered in the Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics article. -AndrewDressel 16:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

One goal to keep in mind for this brief section is to keep it brief. See the discussion above about the whole bicycle article being too long. My understanding of the current convention is that the link to another article should be accompanied by a brief summary. The only official comment I can find is 'without including unnecessary detail or information that would be more suitable in "subarticles"' -AndrewDressel 16:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Memory

Just an idle question, but why is it that once you learn to ride a bike, why don't you forget after, like a year?
Tinlv7 21:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

'cause it's ... "just like riding a bike." Sfahey 22:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Accessory or clothing?

I would suggest helmets are not a bicycle accessory as they are not fitted on the bike itself, or are used directly on the bike in the way tools are eg pumps, tyre levers etc. Instead they are an item of clothing and should be classed as a cycling accessory. LDHan 08:30, 13 September 2006

Thank you for the suggestion. I've changed the material to be NPOV and added another reference. -->Wiley 17:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Either way, I don't think this semantic issue warrants mention in an encyclopedia article on "Bicycles". Sfahey 22:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This quote from the Cycling article should resolve the matter 8-):

"There is a wide variety of accessories that can be purchased together with or after the bicycle itself. These include locks, mudguards/fenders, luggage racks and pannier bags, pumps, cycling shorts, pantleg clips, cycling shoes, cycling gloves, ... Items legally mandatory in some jurisdictions ... include: bicycle helmets..." -->Wiley 05:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Types of bicycles

A short paragraph on BMX bicycles was added by 195.8.163.165 (talk). This was then quickly removed by John Reaves with the comment "there's a separate article for BMX".

This seems a little harsh, but I see we are already on a slippery slope. The existing main article list of bicycle types does included a section on BMX with a link to the BMX article, but the same is true for Racing bicycles, touring bicycles, tandems, etc, and they do all receive mention in the main bicycle article. It seems a little snobbish at this point to exclude BMX.

Since the bicycle article itself is already too long, I suggest that we remove the entire bulleted list of bicycle types and let the reader follow the link to the list of bicycle types article for details. Comments? -AndrewDressel 16:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Re-added BMX, but shortened text of list by 2k by removing all descriptions. They already in the List of bicycle types main article. -AndrewDressel 14:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

this article really helped me with my project

Copenhagen?

How can Copenhagen be nicknamed the City of Bicycles if it isn't even mentioned on Wikipedia's Bicycle article? I'm just wondering! --83.90.32.114 12:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't logged in, how silly of me. --[Svippong - Talk] 12:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I can only imagine the controversy that trying to list bicycle friendly cities would cause. Perhaps if someone found a published survey or ranking, it wouldn't be too bad. Even then, it probably should go in the Cycling article instead. -AndrewDressel 16:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Henry Ford was a bicycle manufacturer?

"The Morris Motor Company (in Oxford) and Škoda also began in the bicycle business, as did Henry Ford [citation needed] and the Wright Brothers [citation needed]."

As far as I could find on the internet, Henry Ford nor Wright Brothers has nothing to do with bycicle. In wikipedia articles about Ford and Wright Brothers, bycicles are never mentioned either. --Urod 01:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the article to remove the uncited assertion about Henry Ford and provide a citation for the Wright Brother's bicycle shop. --Wiley 02:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Diferences between a women's bike, a man's bike and a race bike

I think it is important to point these diferences and add pictures to show the diferences. thank you.

Minako-Chan* 13:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's stopping you. adamrice 16:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

oh! well, i'll be glad to do it though could someone please help me (point me to) on the image copyright things? (I would like to add images of each type of bike) Minako-Chan*

Leonardo Da Vinci

Where is the mention of Leonardo Da Vinci in this article? Even IBM has a replica of his bike in their museum next to all the vintage computing paraphernalia. http://www.nkj.ru/en/news/5195/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Root Beers (talk • contribs) 12:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Perhaps because it is a hoax: The Leonardo da Vinci Bicycle Hoax. -AndrewDressel 14:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Claims needing references

"straight handlebar, which helps prevent the rider from pitching over the front in case of sudden deceleration"

I do not understand how removing the drops and leaving the handlebar straight would do anything to prevent pitching during deceleration. I would argue instead, that road bikes can experience much greater deceleration due to the hard surface they ride on. -AndrewDressel 15:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the wider nature that helps - also less weight is naturally placed on the handlebars. Road bikes use drop downs for performance but it's bit of a compromise with handling and safety. And ask any down-hill mountain biker about sudden deceleration :) bad·monkey _{talk to the {:()} :: 12:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see how the wider nature helps with handling over rough terrain, but not with pitching. All that matters is the combined center of mass location with respect to the front wheel. Of course everything is a compromise with handling and safety, but I don't know what you mean about drop bars specifically. I'm sure any mountain biker, down-hill or not, has a story to tell about deceleration, but I suspect it has far more to do with the pitch of the terrain than with braking performance. The question remains, does a straight bar do anything to prevent pitching, and if so how, or at least is there a credible reference. -AndrewDressel 13:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Imagine doing press-ups - it is much easier with your hands placed a little outside your shoulders, and much harder with them closer together. Refer new edit. bad·monkey _{talk to the {:()} :: 04:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if this is true, it does not explain how straight bars might reduce the possibility of pitching over the front wheel. Until a reference can be found, this claim cannot remain. The point about "the weight balance is not moved as far forward" is much more a factor of top tube length, stem length, and stem height than what kind of bar is used. -AndrewDressel 14:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"Bullhorn style handlebars ... allowing a rider to rest the entire forearm on the bar."

I have never seen any bullhorn bars that are any better for resting forearms on than straight or drop bars. It is true that aero bars are often used in conjunction with bullhorns, and they offer a great spot for resting forearms, by design, but bullhorns by themselves are no better than drop bars. -AndrewDressel 15:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Mmmn I think whoever wrote that was referring to the very curved design, not bullbars on the side. Might need a bit more work. bad·monkey _{talk to the {:()} :: 12:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it just needs to come out. -AndrewDressel 13:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Needs more definition of bullbars/bullhorns and then revision. bad·monkey _{talk to the {:()} :: 04:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Bullhorn bars simply do not provide any better resting place for forearms. Instead, they allow for a more aerodynamic position. -AndrewDressel 14:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"recumbent bicycle ... is a major compromise on performance in terms of power"

This is a contentious claim that is refuted quite well in the recumbent article. Specifically "A study by Bussolari and Nadel (1989) led them to pick a recumbent riding position for the Daedalus flight even though the English Channel crossing was accomplished in the Gossamer Albatross with an upright position. Drela in 1998 confirmed "that there was no significant difference in power output between recumbent and conventional bicycling."" This is according to Wilson in his "Bicycling Science", Third edition. -AndrewDressel 15:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Needs expansion. You can't stand or sprint with a recumbent. bad·monkey _{talk to the {:()} :: 12:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If that's all that is meant, then maybe that is all it should say. -AndrewDressel 13:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Refer new edit. bad·monkey _{talk to the {:()} :: 04:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Better. I've taken out the POV sounding 'major' and added the 'short-term' modifier in keeping with the published data. It may or may not be 'major' depending on the rider. -AndrewDressel 14:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Steering and seating and recumbent power generation

I was removing the growing argument about recumbent power generation when 203.22.236.14 beat me to it. My reasons for removing it include:

1 - this is a section of steering and seating, not power generation.

2 - there is already a separate recumbent article that already includes this discussion.

3 - the argument, as it existed today, was full of bold claims without any references.

I hope it stays out. -AndrewDressel 00:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)