Talk:Motorized bicycle

message: That should be an interesting incorporation into the article. GO HERE TO FIND info on THE TOP GEAR BOX http://www.staton-inc.com/default.asp
BTW how does the gearbox work, and how do you change gears, and operate the gearbox, And what are the advantages/uses of a gearbox. I want to get a 4 stroked bike conversion kit, thus I'm very intrested to know.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.61.26.49 (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should this be removed? Advertising Discussion Kallog (talk) 06:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gearbox For 4 stroked bike engines. 

message: :Image:Powabyke.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Powabyke.jpg

message: Any special reason why Motor bike redirects to this article, but Motorbike redirects to Motorcycle? I would expect them both to redirect to Motorcycle, and Google also seems to think this is what "Motor bike" means. What do other people think? Vadmium (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've often heard about people that ride a bicycle refer to themself as a biker. The difference between a biker and a cyclist is that the biker will use brute force and try to keep his bicycle in top gear, whereas a cyclist will generally keep his performance in a peak ranger with an average RPM. I believe Bike may refer to cycle and hence refer to bicycle. Whereas motorbike is a term often used for the motorcycle which may have an related etymological link to this article. Let's just say, for me, I couldn't really care at this point since the more you become experienced in a subject the more you question it and wonder what is the true answer. --CyclePat (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motor bike 

message: I'd say slighty biased and off topic, but mostly accurate; however, is it accurate to say that 2-stroke motors are inefficient? Granted they do not burn cleanly or completely, but they are efficient in the thermodynamic sense and in power-to-weight (compared to 4-stroke). This is the meaning I think most people would use when discussing motor efficiency.
--Noah (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2-stroke description 

message: There appears to be a bias in favor of "e"bikes in this article. The clear solution is to create 2 pages (one for "e"bikes one for internal combustion bikes).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.245.126 (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me a bit early to split this article up, maybe once it's matured a bit, and has more information. --Keithonearth (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  But eventually it probably should be done. Vmenkov (talk) 02:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that there was originally a separate page for e-bikes, but that it got combined with this one.  Given the global popularity of e-bikes, I think they deserve an entry of their own at this point. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that ebikes deserve a good entry of their own, but don't think that the present content is enough to give them that by simply splitting it now.  Build content first, once it's enough quality and quantity then do it.--Keithonearth (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a separate article will encourage more content creation.149.99.63.218 (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be an article for combustion cycles separate from electric cycles. I think between the articles for mopeds, motorized bicycles, and Electric bicycle laws we could easily reapportion them. Executorvs (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we have seperate pages for electric (or E-bikes) 

message: Hello
Can you please provide specification for Motor bicycle  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.46.233.23 (talk) 08:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifications for Motor bicycle 

message: As of July 23, 2009, this first paragraph is completely contradicting itself regarding whether this article refers to Electric or I.C.E. powered vehicles: "A (electric) motorized bicycle, sometimes referred to as a light electric vehicle (LEV), is a bicycle with an attached motor used to assist with pedaling. Generally considered to be a vehicle, sometimes as a motor vehicle or a class of hybrid vehicle, motorized bicycles are usually powered by electric motors or small internal combustion engines"
(Once again, people are coming up with too many names for the same thing... This seems like an issue in all kinds of subjects...) Spettro9 (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does title refer to Electric or Internal Combustion??? 

message: Electric bikes are popular.  120 million in China.  http://green.autoblog.com/2010/01/19/china-not-feeling-the-love-for-electric-bicycles-any-more/#continued .  People are interested in these e-bikes and don't want to filter out irrelevant bikes with engines.  What do you think about creating a dedicated article for e-bikes?  Thx, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See the discussion two or three threads up.  I think that ebikes should absolutely have their own article at this point.  We would probably need to flesh it out a bit before proceeding.  Fbagatelleblack (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Notice: Unless there is further discussion on this issue, I plan to re-create a separate article on electric bicycles and move appropriate content from this article into that one.  If you would prefer that I did not do this, please post your concerns here ASAP.  Thanks.  Ebikeguy (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I've created a working copy of the Electric bicycle article.  I simply cut and pasted the electric bicycle sections of this article into a sandbox on my user page.  Please look at it, edit as you will, and/or let me know what you think in general.  I'll work on cutting out the electric bicycle sections of this article and adding a link to the new electric bicycle article ASAP.  Once we have consensus (or if I don't get any feedback at all), I will make the split official.  Ebikeguy (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I've also created a first cut at a working copy for the Motorized bicycle article with most of the electric bicycle references pulled out and links to the main electric bicycle article added.  Please take a look and let me know if you have input.  Again, once we have consensus, I will publish this as the main artilce.  Ebikeguy (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, thanks!  Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with the split. Vmenkov (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

text: The split is complete.  See the new article Electric bicycle.  If you have any questions, complaints or ideas, please discuss them here.  Ebikeguy (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Bravo! I applaud the success. But, 5 long years (a halft a decade) later... (from the time the article was first created in 2005) Where the heck where you guys all this time?  LOL.  Okay seriously though: the article electric bicycle needs some work. One of which includes properly referencing this article and not simply regurgitating a copyright-violation. Yes!  Despite the fact that everything was writen in this article "motorized bicycle", and on Wikipedia, one must still give due respect to the orginal authors, (I believe that's part of GFDL licencing), such as myself and other valiant and persistant contributors. --CyclePat (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S.: What a discusting mess on referencing this has made. And, the legal definition section... yuck. The canadian term is PAB power assisted bicycle.... that doesn't belong in the "motorized bicycle" section anymore because it is specific to electric bicycle, yet it does belong in the article because it pertains to a confusing definition which is similar to the motorized bicycle.  I trust you understand the paradox and the conflict behind this and the level of attention that is require when removing information. Currently, I must express my disatisfaction with the afformentions points I have just highlighted... Referencing and moving key elements of the article.--CyclePat (talk) 03:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: p.p.s: If electric bicycles are so important and deserve it's own article, why isn't it mentioned in the lead section of this article? --CyclePat (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, by all means, edit the article to correct the problems you point out.  Ebikeguy (talk) 04:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  electric bike into separate article 

message: The common legally accepted term for a motorized bicycle is Moped.
The difference between a motorized bicycle and a motorcycle is this:
*A Moped has pedals to start the motorized bicycle moving. A moped engine cannot started a from standstill.
*A Motorcycle does not have pedals, it starts while standing still and moves without any assist from the rider.
*Another category exists in the USA which is Motor Driven Cycle
.  It's a moped of a certain power level that must be licensed.
The Reitwagen of 1885 is a motorcycle, it does not have pedals and as such cannot be the progenitor of the Moped.  It was the first IC engined two wheeler.  The Roper machine is typically dated 1868 and BEHIND the 1868 Michaux-Perreaux steam velocipede. As an aside, Roper killed himself riding his machine.
Three wheeled motorized vehicles are automobiles if the driver sits on them, and motorcycles if the rider sits astride them.
Various legal authorities have additional criterion as well.  The engine in a Moped is NOT the prime mover, it is an assist engine.  The engine in a motorcycle is.
The word bike is a diminutive and should not be used. The proper term is bicycle.
:We've been over this 20 quazilion time. No. Your solution is not a good option. The desire of Wikipedia is to represent the views of proponents in a fair manner. MOPED is discussed fairly. Also, please read the history of what previous editors have talked about regarding this "electric"/"motorized" bicycle article. The spliting of this article and removal of some of the information regarding electric bicycles, leaves to desire. I hope, you're not another person pushing to split out and remove all information on "MOPED" now. What a mockery of fairly representing view if you still think you should remove information on MOPED, which has it's own article.  There is an article on Laws of electric bicycles preciselly because of this. --CyclePat (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In short, you will never avoid the conflict of reciprocating, or vary close/similar definitions but different words for the same thing (prety much). IT'S OUR JOB to properly and fairly demonstrate this within the article. I've expressed dissent on the split of this article towards electic bicycle precisely because of this frustrating removal or lack thereof attention to maintain the status of these conflicts. --CyclePat (talk) 04:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Title of this page should be MOPED not motorized bike 

message: The information on legality in Canada is entirely incorrect. Motor Vehicles are under provincial legislation, not federal. For example, the NS MVA Section 2 c) ii says anything under 50cc and incapable of providing assistance past 30km/h is legally a "bicycle" 
(see http://nslegislature.ca/legc/statutes/motorv.htm)
A "Moped" is a pedal capable vehicle AT OR OVER 50cc which is regulated like a full motorcycle.
24.224.205.177 (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian Legality info is incorrect 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Motorized 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/20111002171912/http://www.mathieudepuydt.com/Minerva/history.html to http://www.mathieudepuydt.com/Minerva/history.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110301001705/http://users.senet.com.au/~mitchell/bikes/california/html/califspec.htm to http://users.senet.com.au/~mitchell/bikes/california/html/califspec.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Why not merge this with mopeds as that is what they are? Motors plus Pedals. 120.21.19.52 (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looks like another article about Mopeds with a different title