Talk:Indoor cycling

message: It appears that there is a form of acrobatic cycling called indoor cycling that this page does not consider: see http://www.hk-icycling.net/
Gary 04:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Make a new article for that- but i did remove the entire Johnny G section, no citations. Maxasher (talk) 08:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indoor cycling as acrobatic cycling 

message: I think there needs to be a separate article on "Spinning," the original (and licensed) "aerobic class" using a specialized type of bicycle with a weighted fly wheel and adjustable resistance. That article could contain subordinate information about "knockoffs" of Spinning by other companies. A disambiguation page should separate Spinning (TM) from spinning the performance technique. I agree that "indoor cycling" is confusing as the top-level entry, as cyclists have trained indoors for years -- long before the current fitness class was invented or made popular.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.150.73 (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indoor Cycling 

message: :Image:WSSC07 07 MI team.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 01:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:WSSC07 07 MI team.jpg

message: There is a slight problem with using the word "spinning" to describe exclusively SPINNING PROGRAM by Johnny G. There is really lot of material out there proving that the word "spin"/"spinning" was coined with cycling long time before Johnny G. was even born. This is an article from cycling magazine Rambler from 1897 (some 90 years before Johnny found out that "spinning" means really "spinning" :-) that describes one of the first indoor spins...
Simply there are several problems
* Mad Dog Athletics, inc. tries to usurp the word "spinning" for itself by trademarking it (currently TM is cancellation pending due to lawsuit with Aerospinning company)
* Indoor Cycling is not defined well
* Spinning is also undefined and people use it to describe virtually anything that happens usually indoor on any machine resembling the bicycle
* Current article really describes SPINNING PROGRAM by Johnny G (all those rules and positions indicate it) and does not reflect historical usage before Johnny G. and also evolution of spinning as strict outdoor bicycle simulation into more aerobic-style exercising (that pretty much breaks lot of rules imposed on it by hard-core cyclists - for example )
So nowadays the term "indoor cycling" is really identical to "spinning" covering wide range of cycling activities ranging from classical SPINNING PROGRAM by Johnny G to aquaspinning or aerospinning.
All those exercise descriptions that are in fact not common to all indoor cycling/spinning exercises but rather specific to indoor bicycle simulation and/or SPINNING PROGRAM by Johnny G should be removed.   
--Jan Filein (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article probably describes specific Johnny G. SPINNING PROGRAM 

message: First of all - there are two redirects leading to Indoor cycling:
# Spinning (exercise)
# Spinning (cycling)
# Indoor cycling is referenced directly from Spinning/Spin disambiguation page 
which made me believe that "Indoor cycling" article in fact represents also the aforementioned terms. I have assumed in a good faith that any valuable historical facts related to for example "Spinning (cycling)" may be considered as valuable addition to this article. 
But this was the only motivation why I added image of "Out For A Spin" postcard from 1880 depicting two cats cycling on bicycles because I though it fits the "Spinning (cycling)" term perfectly! I really love those historical postcards and I think it is really related to the topic as it is one of the oldest uses of word "spinning" in connection to relatively new (from historical point of view) "cycling" sport that I know about (thus perfectly fitting he Spinning (cycling) redirect). I personally don't understand why Theready199 ridiculous this beautiful 130+ years old postcard. Was my decision to put it here clouded by my passion? I don't know - I leave it for others to judge and reasonably explain why that decision was wrong. I just explained why I think it was the right decision. 
But what I really do not understand is why so nice and certainly hard-to-discover historical jewels like The Rambler article "The Cycle In The House" or extremely rare pictures like 1924 fitness centre with one of the first real "modern" stationary bicycles or indoor cycling race from 1901 and others were removed when they indisputably fits all three terms: Indoor cycling, Spinning (exercise) and Spinning (cycling). It hurts my feelings as a historian and makes me believe that whoever removed this relevant historical facts may not have the cleanest intentions. Why, why would somebody try to hide such as beautiful pieces surely worth of preservation? Don't you find them fascinating, worthy, valuable...? I do! I simply cannot ignore historic facts and cave to some company representative above ordering me not to discuss "spinning" on this page when I have such as rare pieces of our history at my hands. More then hundred years old pieces that unfortunately bare the word "spinning" which some people believe makes them banned from public knowledge because of some new business interests. That I cannot understand, history cannot be bent or twisted or erased. Not today, not that easily. I cannot accept it as a historian - that is why I have to be persistent. Twisting history never yielded anything good. That is my duty to make history known so people may learn. 
I hoped I can contribute with my little bit on Wikipedia with something I intimately know about. But I seem to run in a territory I don't fully understand. And I didn't fully open my trove of history facts about spinning yet... And it is already so hard.
I am sure that somebody will be very persistent to hide those beautiful pieces of history from the public so I put them here in discussion page for others to see and hopefully understand my motivations. Aside all that business/trademark/whatever thinking... let enjoy the beauty of our own history for a moment:
File:Home cycling trainer 1897.jpg|"The Cycle In The House", 1897
File:Spinning (1).jpg|Spin home trainer, ca 1924
File:Spinning (2).jpg|Spinning on roller
File:Spinning (3).jpg|Stationary bicycle trainer
File:Spinning (4).jpg|Spinning driving wheel
File:Out for A Spin.jpg|"Out for a spin", ca 1880, orig. spin(ning) is a synonym of ride  
--Jan Filein (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you referring to "spin classes" (as a generic term) or did you mean to type MadDog's "SPINNING classes"? If you use "spin class" instead of SPINNING class then you add more confusion (see MDA's guideline on trademark use) as you for sure know after 20 years of teaching indoor cycling. Elixon (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert Explanation (revision #592705061, 23:32, 27 January 2014 by Jan Filein)

message: On 21 Jul 2014, OHIM’s Cancellation Division issued its decision on an application by Czech company Aerospinning Master Franchising Ltd., s.r.o. to revoke a community trade mark  "SPINNING": The CTM proprietor's rights in respect of Community trademark No 175 117https://oami.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/000175117 are revoked in their entirety as from 07/02/2012.
The reason stated in the ruling is: loss of distinctive character in consequence of proprietor's inactivity.
No doubts now that the word spinning as it pertains to indoor cycling is generic word. At least in European Union for now. 
--Filein 18:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you referring to "spin classes" (as a generic term) or did you mean to type MadDog's "SPINNING classes"? If you use "spin class" instead of SPINNING class then you add more confusion (see MDA's guideline on trademark use) as you for sure know after 20 years of teaching indoor cycling. Elixon (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trademark SPINNING revoked by OHIM 

message: Article is made from spinning.com sources, like a rewording of advertising fliers. Article has long sections with no citations, and it's obvious that the information refers to very specific group indoor cycling operations. This article is a real mess. I'm surprised to see it left so unencyclopedic and not directed at a generic meaning of indoor cycling. --Chuck Baggett (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is made from spinning.com sources, like a rewording of advertising fliers