Talk:Folding bicycle

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

What is going on here is disgraceful. It goes beyond just mentioning. There are multiples of links and pictures of just ONE brand. That is simply unacceptable on a neutral venue as Wikipedia. This is of course a malignant plague that is affecting nearly all of Wikipedia's pages that deal with certain items that are manufactured/sold by a big name brand company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loginnigol (talk • contribs) 11:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I count six pictures of (6) different brands/makes of folding bicycle[1], did I miss something? —Sladen (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Small wheels and stability

"Smaller diameter wheels also seem to be less stable [2]"

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Ode to 16 inch wheel size

Buda2 (talk) added:

The most significant characteristic affecting handling and ride quality is the wheel size. Road shock becomes worse and steering becomes increasingly sensitive as the wheel size gets smaller. A 16 inch size wheel is generally considered to be the smallest size that is suitable for general use, such as rides exceeding 10 kilometers. The 16 inch size, while not as comfortable as larger bikes, has the advantage that it will still fit in a case that is small enough to go on airlines without paying a luggage surcharge.^[1]

^ "A 16 inch wheel folding bicycle is ideal for travelling". Retrieved 2009-10-13.

To which I ask "who is Peter Spiro that we should take his word on this?" I was the 8th and 9th visitor to this page when I checked this reference. While not damning by itself, it does make me wonder what kind of self-published established expert on the topic we are reading. -AndrewDressel (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Authoritative, I don't know, but he's right. After 27 km Sunday pedalling to various Open House New York sites I'm glad my Brompton's wheels are not smaller. My big bike gives a much nicer ride, but it has only done about 30 km this year while the Brompton's handiness has made it work about 1400. This Sunday's Tour de Bronx will add another 50 km or so. I hope someone more famous can be found to agree with this fellow, whoever he is. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folding tricycle

How about folding tricycle? It should be covered in this article or in a separate article which doesn't seem to be present on wikipedia.--79.116.87.108 (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Add a section. If not directly in the article, then here in Talk Page and when it's good enough we can transfer to the article or make a new article of it. Jim.henderson (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable brands and manufacturers

As with the List of bicycle brands and manufacturing companies I suggest that we simply apply the standard wikipedia notability criteria in order to avoid a list full of wp:linkspam and wp:cruft. Thus, if there exists and article about the brand or manufacturer, it can be included in the list, if not, then it should be excluded. It already works well in the Bicycle chain#Manufacturers, Bicycle tire#Manufacturers, and Tandem bicycle#Manufacturers article sections. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AndrewDressel, Sorry, for some reason I believed there to be a MOBIC article. And as I went in search of it real life intervened in the form of attention deprived cats. I only temporarily put the MOBIC weblink. I do see a few MOBICs here in Philly as they are fairly inexpensive. --Degen Earthfast (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Sounds like you've got it under control. -AndrewDressel (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Folding bicycle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090517095942/http://www.businessweek.com:80/magazine/content/06_24/b3988102.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_24/b3988102.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Folding bicycle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_24/b3988102.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130527140218/http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/11701.aspx to http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/11701.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

rise in popularity and production, portability

It seems that they become more and more popular for airplane travels and while staying in the hotels ("concealed carry"), Brompton mafia.

Also it seems that there was a sudden rise in popularity in 2010s and subsequently many models and startups were created. 95.178.184.165 (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "A 16 inch wheel folding bicycle is ideal for travelling". Retrieved 2009-10-13.

[1]