Talk:Bicycle/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Bicycle Quotes

I gather some quotes from wikiquote. They can be found at User:CyclePat/Bicycle Quotes. This article could probably have a link to the "not made yet", wikiquote page. (I'm not going to start a wikiquote on bicycles unless we are linking to it) --CylePat 22:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a great idea! Julius.kusuma 22:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

If I'd noticed that you guys were interested, I wouldn't have started on my own. There is now a cycling section on wikiquote and a link from the cycling portal. See wikiquote:Cycling and Portal:Cycling -Dhodges 01:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Audio file.

I've started making an audio version of this document. I'm presently at about 25 minutes of speech, into. --CylePat 00:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to convert a wav to ogg? --72.57.8.215 03:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Audacity will do that (just open the wav file and then go to File -> Export As Ogg Vorbis) -SCEhardT 04:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! this is my first attempt. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bicy.ogg#Summary. Part one! I think I'll redo it. --CyclePat 04:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

or

Folding bicycle

An anonymous user just added folding bicycle to the list of bicycles by function, but it's already listed under the list of bicycles by construction. I think it should be reverted. Comments? Julius.kusuma 10:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a commuter / utility bike by function. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] RfA! 15:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't this seem a little bit naive?

this sentence doesn't is contradictory. I think we should reword it to be NPOV via sitting the sources and not just saying "Most bicycle historians" but saying "bicycle historian such as.... joe blow, etc.. etc.. etc...now believe that these hobby-horses with no steering mechanism probably never existed, but were made up by Louis Baudry de Saunier, a 19th-century French bicycle historian. --CyclePat 03:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this needs to be changed to avoid weasel statements. -SCEhardT 03:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Paris-Brest-Paris, Racing in US and Europe, and track bike reverts by User:Julius.kusuma 21:14, 29 January 2006

I made the following edits: moving Paris-Brest-Paris to Bicycle recreation, sentence on racing in US and Europe, clarify comments on track bikes. I feel these are correct; Paris-Brest-Paris is not a race, cycling is a minority sport in US , only track bikes are used for track racing, and not all messenger bikes are track bikes. I did not write the comment about racing bikes being uncomfortable. LDHan 23:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ooops, I only meant to revert the edit to the caption of the photo, not the recent ones that you had made. Sorry about that! Julius.kusuma 04:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Apologies accepted! Thanks. LDHan 09:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Intro

I made a few changes before realising this was a Featured Article - see what you think and hope I haven't stepped on anyone's toes. Feel free to re-edit if deemed desirable. EdX20 20:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks OK to me - in my opinion you have improved the style. I re-arranged the section on gearing without any complaints a few months back. Murray Langton 22:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know Featured Articles couldn't be edited, I think I need to look at the help pages. LDHan 22:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Featured articles can be edited, of course. I guess the goal is to make sure the article stays at that standard. I think some of the added material might go better later in the article, outside the lead section. I was surprised that mention as children's toys has been left out until now. --Christopherlin 23:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Bicycling and health

Avoid excess detail? If it's bicycling, then why not put it in the cycling article? --Christopherlin 23:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I meant. There are several parts of this article that would be better suited to "cycling," but I figured that brief mention in "bicycle" might still be appropriate.Sfahey 16:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You can take it off. It is very likely to happen to someone if they ride 8 hours a day, several days a week and don't angle there seat down. I just thought I would mention so less people would have to live the rest of their life with a feeling of their testes being on fire. However if you want to try to restrict the word from getting out so be it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.25.168.103 (talk • contribs) .

There are several sources. I am trying to prevent damage done to others. It occurs from mal adjusted bicylces seats according to the last study on the list I put in references. If you delete this from the section it would lead me to speculate you have alterior interests. THIS IS RELEVANT TO THE ARTICLE. —This unsigned comment is by 66.25.172.211 (talk • contribs) .

Hm, okay. Thanks for the references. It might be better addressed in another article, I don't know for sure. Perhaps you should create an account, at least to sign posts on talk pages. Thanks and good luck. --Christopherlin 19:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It is more likely to occur when someone doesn't angle their seat down. I gave references. Where else would this info go? Yes it is rare? No it isn't that rare if the seat isn't angled down. What other article should we put it in. No one will hear about this until after they get it because you took it off. I know several people who are in chronic pain all with the similar symptons who used to ride several hours a day several hours a week. I just want people to know to angle their seat down. Why would you take that off? Why should I have to sign on? I prefer to be anonymous. Do you have stock in bicycles, do you think I am a liar, or that it is too rare to mention? Here is another journal. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2003 Jun;82(6):479-84. They dismissed, deleted the links, and put up some link saying that goes away if someone stops riding. They just don't know. Misinformed. Sometimes it goes away for some people. -Sincerely sufferer

Pictures of Technical Aspects

Could someone add pictures in "Technical Aspects", more specifically: Frame, Drivetrain, and Brakes. Diagrams would make these sections a lot easier to understand, and should be fairly easily made. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.186.140.55 (talk • contribs) .

'Reqdiagram'

Bicycle frame, bicycle gearing, and bicycle brake systems have the photos covered somewhat. If this article has room for more images, some images could be copied from those. I've removed the {{reqphoto}} since it appears to be fulfilled (or otherwise easily fulfillable). --Interiot 02:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed Reqdiagram tag to prevent this showing on requests page.

Pushbike in lead

Yes, it's a redirect. I had moved it to the bottom of the lead earlier, but some shuffling around happened. Personally, I had never heard the term push-bike until here. How about this old wording in the lead? --Christopherlin 13:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

A bicycle, or bike, is a pedal-driven land vehicle with two wheels attached to a frame, one behind the other. First introduced in 19th-century Europe, bicycles evolved quickly into their familiar, current design. Numbering over 1,000,000,000 in the world today, bicycles provide the principal means of transportation in many regions and a popular form of recreational transport in others. To distinguish a bicycle from a motorcycle, it is also called a push-bike.

Comment. I don't have a position on where it should go in the article but I would have considered it a very common term on this side (East shore) of the Atlantic. --Sf 13:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

As one who would like to see pushbike acknowledged early on in the article, this appears to be a fair compromise. Graham 23:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Definition of push bike

Referring to this comment:-

"To distinguish a bicycle from a motorcycle, it is also called a push-bike."

In the Vicrotian era a "push bike" did not have pedals. It was pushed along as if the rider was actually walking. The bicycle as we know it should I guess be referred to a "pedal bike" but who is going to say that?

I can't find any reference (such as pictures) to this original push bike. Can anyone find such a picture? —This unsigned comment was added by Doobleshaft (talk • contribs) .

• Re: "Pedal Bike" the use of the term "Pedal cycle" is standard in Irish and I believe UK legal documents/legislation. --Sf 14:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I still don't think this term belongs in the lead section, but don't feel strongly enough to fight it. Sfahey 23:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if the term pushbike originally referred to a bike without pedals, in modern usage it means an ordinary bicycle. Graham 00:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Bicycle physics

If anyone speaks German, de:Fahrradfahren seems to be about bicycle physics. --Christopherlin 03:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't speak German, but the existing links cover the topic quite well. Perhaps you would be interested in modifying the section with thinks such as these:

• • Effect of steering-column angle on trail and stability
  • Give typical values of trail and explain the pros/cons of different values
  • Flense the speculation about shimmy

JethroElfman 22:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Which 'existing links' do you mean? The steering and trail discussion could use some expansion. Another one of those things I'll do when I get a round tuit... :-> --Christopherlin 00:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Bicycle Accessories

Cycling has v similar information on 'Accessories', under 'Getting Started'. There is another list of accessories, incomplete, in the Category 'Cycling_equipment'. Perhaps 'Cycling Accessories' could be another page, together with a suggested list of purchases for different purposes; Or perhaps there could be a page dedicated to basic advice for new cyclists. This would be much clearer and have less duplication. Bards 16:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Check requested

On May 5, 198.36.23.57 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) made a large number of changes. Due to that IP's recent vandalism/experimentation at Dr. Seuss, i'd suggest someone look through the changes made here (they mostly look good, but are very extensive, and lack an edit summary). Thanks. -Quiddity 19:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Bicycle physics

Copied from the article:

"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. Once underway, this effort is largely replaced by physical forces generated by the rotation of the wheels which produce a remarkable "self-steering" effect. The angular momentum of the wheels and the torque applied to them by the ground generates a phenomenon called precession, by which the wheel turns, or trails, toward whichever side the bicycle tilts. Like the rider's steering adjustments, this motion automatically returns the contact point of the wheel directly under the center of gravity. These forces, perhaps aided at very high speeds by the gyroscopic effect of the spinning wheels,4 are sufficiently strong that a riderless bicycle going down a slope will stay upright by itself."

The effect described in sentences 2, 3, and 4 above IS the gyroscopic effect, so to say in sentence 5 that it is perhaps aided by the gyroscopic effect is confusing. The more important effect, according to Jones and others, is that of trail, described in the third paragraph of the 'Bicycle physics' section. Rracecarr 18:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, 2, 3, and 4 are far too vague. They are only valid for a particular range of forward speeds and only for bikes that have the necessary geometry and mass distribution. "The wheel" should be identified as "the front wheel". Using "trail" to describe this phenomenon begs confusion with "trail" described below.

Also, Andy Townsend's article (note #4) gives a poor analysis of the mechanics involved. There is no 'gyroscopic "resistance" to change in lean angle' no mater how fast the wheels are turning.

Again, "are sufficiently strong that a riderless bicycle going down a slope will stay upright by itself" is only true within a certain speed range and for bikes with the necessary geometry and mass distribution.

Finally, in the second paragraph, the last sentence shows that the gyroscopic effects are "unnecessary to ride a bicycle", not necessarily "unimportant". AndrewDressel 21:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

All of these issues were corrected by me back in February. On May 5 someone reverted the entire article back a few months. Even the first sentence here is poor. The goal isn't just to keep the centre of gravity over the line between the wheels -- the rider also wishes to drive the bike where he wants it to go. While turning, the centre of gravity must lean into the turn (not stay over the wheels) or the bike will tip over. - JethroElfman 16:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Okay, I restored the section. Perhaps someone would like to restore the entire article. The physics section could be tinkered with further. For instance, the "geometry of the front forks" has two components. One is how the contact of the tire to the road trails where the steering axis intersects the road. The second is the angle of attack of the steering axis. The exaggerated angle of a chopper is less stable, yet it is presumably advantageous to have the slight angle of a regular bike. I don't understand why it isn't perpendicular like a furniture caster. The length of trail is 1.5" for standard use, and up to 2.5" for racing duty. Increased distance adds stability for hands-free or aero bar operation, but makes cornering stiff. The speed-wobble section could be reworded. I don't think the comparison to a shopping-cart wheel is entirely accurate in this case. JethroElfman 16:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely better than it was. I don't know enough to add anything myself, but I would like to see a discussion of rake angle included in this section. Rracecarr 17:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Much better. I'll look for a better reference than Townsend AndrewDressel 18:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made some major changes. I clarified self-stability vs rider control and what role gyroscopic effects play. I added a diagram to clarify head angle, rake, and trail. I added a paragraph about the effect of the steering assembly center of mass. I added a link to a video demonstration of self-stability. I probably violated some protocols, but I'll happily fix them when pointed out. AndrewDressel 04:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you are putting too much emphasis on precession. I thought that the Jones article settled that precession isn't such a big deal for bicycles.

My reading is that he established that is isn't necessary. I don't mean to emphasize it. I could put it last. It is still significant because it varies with speed and so contributes to the low and high speed instabilities that usually bracket the self-stable range. AndrewDressel 18:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

For motorcycles it is, so it's good to explain the principles involved.

Its role there is arguable. AndrewDressel 18:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

In that regard, the rear wheel is restrained from precessing because it is rigidly attached to the frame, whereas the front wheel can turn the head axis.

And the frame is constrained because it is attached to two wheels that touch the ground. I just mention the friction of the wheels with the ground, but could add text to include the frame necessary to transmit the force to the rear wheel. AndrewDressel 18:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Even so, as the bike turns through the corner, the rear wheel is thereby allowed to precess and thus aid in turning the mass of the bike.

Nope. Still constrained by the frame, wheels, and friction with the ground, as above. AndrewDressel 18:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph offends my memories of grade 10 physics class. Inertia is not a force. Its effects are applied to the bike through the tire contact to the road.

Depends on the reference frame used, as I mention. See Centrifugal force. AndrewDressel 18:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think your descriptions of trail and head angle are still too intertwined. Trail turns the wheel by gravity when the bike is leaning. Head angle generates a gravitational force to turn the wheel when the wheel is turned off centre, even if the bike is perfectly vertical.

Sorry, but I don't follow you here at all. I specifically do not understand what you mean by "Trail turns the wheel by gravity" and "Head angle generates a gravitational force". Could you clarify? AndrewDressel 02:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If trail is kept to zero, a leaning bike's wheel won't turn regardless of the head angle (you have to extend the curvature of the forks forward to do this).

Not true. With zero trail, it won't turn due to the ground reaction force, but if the CG of the entire steering mechanism, including front wheel, fork, stem, handlebars, brake levers, shifters, basket, rack, etc., is forward of the steering axis, as is common, then it will turn into the lean. If it is behind, then it will turn away from the lean. Either case effects self-stability, of course. AndrewDressel 02:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and Jones claims that negative trail makes a bike entirely unrideable, so what's your reference that says it's rideable but difficult?

I'll have to reread. It may be a matter of degree. Rear steering with negative trail is very unstable, but people do learn to ride fixed-gear bikes backwards as a trick. AndrewDressel 18:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The exact quote, from the second to last paragraph of the article, is "I made URB IV by moving the front wheel of my bicycle just four inches ahead of its normal position [giving it negative trial, as seen in FIG. 1 of the article], setting the system well into the unstable region. It was indeed very dodgy to ride, though not as impossible as I had hoped" AndrewDressel 01:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

What's your reference for the note about long-wheel-based recumbents. It sounds interesting and I'd like to read that one.

I just performed the physical experiment described by Zinn on such a bike. I'll see if I can find someone else who has and wrote about it. AndrewDressel 18:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand why head angle isn't just 90 degrees. Is it to keep the rider from going over the handlebars when braking perhaps?

It negligibly reduces that tipping tendency. I think is mostly for trail. I remember reading that the historical origin is lost, but it works well and so is continued. I'll look for that reference. AndrewDressel 18:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It increases the steering effect of the steering mechanism's forward CG. AndrewDressel 01:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Your internal links are done with html references rather than the simple square-bracket approach. Why is that? - JethroElfman 16:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

User error. Will fix. AndrewDressel 18:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

In the new diagram, things are labeled differently from how I learned them. I thought rake was the angle of the steering axis from vertical, which in the diagram is labeled "head angle" (well, 90 degrees minus what I thought was rake is so labeled). Someone on wikipediea appears to agree with me: rake and trail. Here is another random example: www.performanceoiltechnology.com/rake_and_trail.htm However, I also found a reference agreeing with AndrewDressel: www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_ra-e.html ???? Rracecarr 19:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps things are different in the motor cycle world, but go to any bicycle manufacterer's web site (LeMond, for example), head angle is given in degrees from the horizontal (73°, for example), and rake is give as the offset in milimeters of the front hub from the steering axis (45mm, for example). These two parameters, along with wheel radius, define trail. That's how Zinn defines them, too. AndrewDressel 21:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure enough, all the motorcycle manufactures specs I found use 'rake' for head angle. At the same time, bicycle fork manufacturers seem to use either offset or rake. Meanwhile, the Wikipedia rake and trail article was actually "nominated for deletion on 2 April 2006" and the WIkipedia [Bicycle fork] article mentions neither rake nor offset.AndrewDressel 02:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I did some sketches and see what you mean about the recumbent. If the wheel rather than projecting forward of the forks, is mounted rearwards, the centre-of-mass makes it steer the opposite way.

Actually, the one I used has a normal fork, but a long boom to bring the handlebars back to the rider. I've actually flipped the fork around to increase trail, and it goes a long way toward counteracting the adverse effects of the CG being so far behind the steering axis. Still need to find a reference, though. AndrewDressel 23:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The rake and trail article is terrific. I didn't know it existed. It needs linked, and perhaps the caster-angle article as well.

I thought it was, if I can't find it, I'll add it. AndrewDressel 23:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

What I meant about precession is that you put an awful lot of verbage covering it, when everything I've read, including the rake-and-trail and caster-angle articles says that it's trail that makes the bike stable. Angle provides damping in respect to trail. The one motorcycle reference though, says that precession makes a motorcycle corner. How about moving precession farther down and abbreviating it a whole bunch? - JethroElfman 22:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the links I can from html references to the simple square-bracket approach. I've found and moved the Zinn reference to come at the end of the trail paragraph. I've moved gyroscopic effects to last, but left it verbose because it is the one effect that varies with speed. I've added a reference for the low and high speed instabilities I mention. I've added information about making turns. AndrewDressel 01:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed some typos AndrewDressel 03:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the paragraphs on countersteering are too absolute concerning it. The very fact that you can ride and negotiate a corner with no hands makes it look to me like you don't necessarily have to employ the technique.

Just because you don't have your hands on the handlebars, doesn't mean you don't countersteer. You do steer in the direction of a turn as necessary, right? If the bike starts to lean, you do steer the wheels back under the center of gravity, right? I get that one can have quite a lot of control over the steering of a bike without the use of hands. The issue is lean angle, however. AndrewDressel 03:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

On a motorcycle sure, since the bike outweighs the rider. On a bicycle, since the rider is so much heavier (and manoevreable compared to being on a motorcycle seat) the rider can shift his weight to produce lean.

Ah, but leaning the bicycle does not move the combined center of gravity of the bicycle and rider to the side. It just lowers it in most cases. If the combined center of gravity is not leaned into the turn, the bicycle and rider will fall over as soon as the turn is initiated due to centrifigul force, or, if you prefer, because they continue straight as the wheels begin to accelerate around the center of the turn. There simply is no other way to initiate a lean, short of some external influence. AndrewDressel 03:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is a fascinating page about steering motorcycles: No B.S. Machine. Perhaps the Countersteering article should reference it. I'll reference it here for now. AndrewDressel 03:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It won't be as efficient, and might not be the norm, but isn't it at least possible?

Nope. No more so than accelerating in space without expelling mass. AndrewDressel 03:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If the rider tightly grips the handlebars to rigidly keep the wheel straight, the bike will lean just by gravity.

Well, yes, you could continue riding in a straight line until an inevitable purturbation tips you in the desired direction. Then, override the natural righting tendency inherent in the bicycle design until the necessary lean angle is achieved. However, if you want to turn when you want to turn, your only alternative is countersteering. AndrewDressel 03:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

To feel the effect of shifting weight, try riding by standing with your left foot on the right pedal. The bike leans greatly left, and you must torque the handlebars right to go in a straight line.

True, due mostly to trail, and not related to the issue except as an extreme example of moving the combined center of gravity far from the vertical axis of the bike. If you let the bike steer to the left, you'd better have leaned the combined center of mass appropriately. AndrewDressel 03:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, I still dispute the precession contribution of the rear wheel. If the frame is constraining the wheel to not precess, the wheel is conversely applying the same rotational moment back onto the frame in the direction of the turn. Hence the spinning rear wheel is applying a yaw torque to aid the yaw torque coming from the friction of the road on the front wheel. Will you say naw to that?

The problem is that unless the precession induced in the rear wheel by leaning the bike has enough torque to skid the front wheel (say 100ft-lbs or more for an adult rider on an average bike with rubber tires on pavement), then it has no effect on the yaw of the bike. The front wheel of a bicycle does not skid in the direction of the turn, and so applies a torque through the frame on the rear wheel about the vertical axis. If you follow the right-hand rule, you find that this torque induces a precession in the rear wheel about the longitudinal axis of the bike causing it to lean in the same direction as the bike is leaning. You can verify this with much more rigor by applying Euler's Equations for 3D rigid body motion. You can also demonstrate it with a toy gyroscope. AndrewDressel 03:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

With my link to the Rake and trail article it is unfortunate that they define rake as equivalent to caster angle.

- JethroElfman 02:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that one needs attention, too. AndrewDressel 03:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Bicycle helmet

Currently, the article states: "Outside the West, use of helmets by utility cyclists is practically unknown. No correlation between decreased injury rates and helmet use has been demonstrated in whole populations." However, a recently published paper from Singapore contradicts both of these statements. See: Helmet use and bicycle-related trauma in patients presenting to an acute hospital in Singapore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.59.18 (talk • contribs)

1) The paper cited does not demonstrate any reduction in injury associated with the use of cycling helmets among the cycling population in Singapore. (They only claim to show this for a subset who end up in hospital which is not the same thing).

2) The Singapore article itself states that utility cyclists eg "those who commute by bicycle, tended not to wear helmets".

Both these facts support the bicycle article as written. --Sf 15:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is too long!

There is a fantastic range of information here, but I think it is too long, and therefore difficult to find info. Can some of the longer sections be hived off into their own articles? BrainyBabe 15:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. For example, motorcycle physics is its own article. Bicycle physics could be too. AndrewDressel 15:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I was going to make AD's proposal myself. As good as it is, that section is disproportionately long. Any takers on writing a summary to leave behind in the main article?Sfahey 23:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for cutting one section! It's still too long, though. The history section is lengthy, considering that there is already a separate history of the bicycle. Recumbents are taking up a lot of room too! Even the list of all the parts goes into so much detail that each one takes up all my screen. I'd prefer about three sentences, if there is a link to an article on, e.g., brakes. Is anyone feeling BOLD enough to make big changes like this? BrainyBabe 06:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Did I miss something, or did the "bicycle physics" section just disappear. That's not "bold", it's reckless. What's s'posed to happen is that a shortened version be left behind in the main article. FWIW, I think the "history" section is the right length, whether or not there's a separate such article. Sfahey 15:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC) (the editor who shepherded this art. to FA)

It didn't just disappear; I moved it to a new separate article. I followed the example of the motorcycle article. There, motorcycle physics is only refered to in the "See also" section at the end. I was bummed when it moved, because I had spent some time on it, but that appeared to be the way things are done. AndrewDressel 12:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There, I put back in a couple of paragraphs with a link to the new bicycle physics article. Better? AndrewDressel 13:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Good wiki-spirit. I almost missed it again with its new title (Balance). This section, and the give-and-take about helmet usage, were the main bugaboos in getting this to FA. The physics thing sort of went from the gyroscope thing to the college physics level and up to phd before it was settled.Sfahey 21:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Shortened recumbent description as well and added link to seperate article. Tried merging text, but couldn't find anything that wasn't already covered. Sorry to whoever took the time to write it all. AndrewDressel 12:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the 'Performance' could also get this treatment. AndrewDressel 13:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. AndrewDressel 13:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Still 56k, down from 69k, but longer than the "preferable" 32k AndrewDressel 13:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the 32k figure, as suggested by it being in quotes, is arbitrary; broader topics are expected to be longer than most. I'm going to go check and see how big "Pepsi-can stove" was when it made FA last year. "Bicycle" deserves ~10X more space. Sfahey 22:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

How about moving sections 2, 3 and 4 of to their own pages? I'll wait a week for comment and then do this. Raelx 18:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite a lot of what's in Sections 2,3,4 has references to 'more detail' pages - do we need to move more stuff into these pages? E.g. re 'Drivetrain', I could move quite a lot of this into Bicycle gearing. Murray Langton 06:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Done -AndrewDressel 19:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Tried to shorten history section to just a skeleton and leave the details for the main article: History of the bicycle. Also swap pictures to show just the 3 main phases: pushbikes, high-wheels, and safeties. Now article 'is 47 kilobytes long.' -AndrewDressel 17:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Keeps getting longer (now up to 49 kilobytes). The two main candidates to get moved out now appear to be Construction and parts and Uses for bicycles. Any arguments for keeping or moving one or the other? -AndrewDressel 23:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Down to 47 kilobytes by abbreviating list of bicycle types. Removed text duplicated in List of bicycle types main article. -AndrewDressel 14:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved Bicycle uses into own article. Remainder is down to just 36k. Removed "Very long" tag. -AndrewDressel 03:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

v0.5 nomination

Excellent work with the article; I've passed it for inclusion into Version 0.5. However, could we get the only unsourced statement with a citation? It's the only real problem with the article. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Drivetrain efficiency?

I'm a bit sceptical about the reported efficiency for the drive train, especially for internal gearing. Most internal hubs have one direct drive gear, in which all the planetary gearing is effectively locked. Shouldn'd that be as efficient as the best external gearing or even a single-speed (given that the chain line should be optimal)? Moreover, Rohloff claims 95-99% efficieny for the Speedhub 500/14, and claims that to be "totally comparable with those of a high-quality derailleur gear system"[1]. --Stephan Schulz 21:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed image with obsolete license tag

Dutch utility bicycle featuring rear internal hub brake, chaincase and mudguards, kickstand for parking, permanently attached dynamo-powered lamps and touring handlebars.

This image uses an obsolete licence tag, and needed to be removed to maintain featured article status.

What do you mean by "obsolete license tag"? And who says it "needed to be removed" to maintain FA status. It was there when FA was awarded. Sfahey 21:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The article's been put up for featured article review, and one of the critisms was that this image's license tag (see File:Brosen city bicycle.jpg) has become obsolete, I'm pressume since the article was first promoted. --jwanders^Talk

I've got a bike, you can ride it if you like. (unsigned)

I started to delete the above comment, but decided against ... as it's both amusing, and perhaps a mite suggestive. Sfahey 02:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Look up Bike, and you'll see that you're more on the button than you think you might be....:-) Martyn Smith 17:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)