Talk:Feet forwards motorcycle

message: Hello- Is this for real?? I have not met a feet forward motor vehicle. Who sells them?
:Of course it's for real - try doing a google search. Nobody sells them, that's the problem - so far a truly practical design that has mass appeal has yet to be built. GRAHAMUK 22:15, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The Quasar was the only real 'Feet-First' Motorcycle to make it into limited production.
You can find out more about it at www.quasarworld.com
Mark Crowson
Actually, Dan Gurney's Alligator also made it into limited production in the early noughties, and more of them were built than Quasars. 36 to be precise.
One could also argue that the Voyager designed by Royce Creasey and built by STV in Crickhowell from 1988-1989 was the only machine to be built in more than one example with all the ideal FF criteria of sub-20 inch seat with full back support, proper weather protection and steering separated from the suspension. Five were built, in addition to Creasey's original personal prototype.
Paul N. Blezard  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeetFirstFan (talk • contribs) 11:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feet First Motorcycles 

message: There appears to be some confusion between FF's and Cabin motorcycles (Cabin_cycle) and a TTW  (Tilting_three_wheeler)
An FF is a single track motorcycle with a low seat and a supportive seatback like the Quasar, Phasar and the Voyagers
A cabin motorcycle can be a type of FF but is an enclosed vehicle with retractable stabilisers used to support the vehicle at slow speed (or rest)
A Tilting Three Wheeler (TTW) can be a 'virtual' motorcycle.  It can also be a leaning car.  It is not an FF as such.
:Since the FF is something that very few people have heard of at all, let alone can recognise distinct classes of, I don't think at this stage such distinctions are very helpful in a general purpose encyclopedia. In fact, I think it's hairsplitting, which is always likely when you get a few people who are passionate about a subject and see a hundred distinctions that the layman cannot. Recent edits of this nature have, in my opinion, not added any clarity, and have in fact created confusion. Maybe if FF type designes start to take off and are more widely known, then these distinctions will be worth making. Rome wasn't built in a day, so we might be better off leaving that for a later stage of Wikipedia's development. Graham 04:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, the insistence that "feet forwards" is wrong and "feet first" is right and the only possible accepted term is silly. I happen to know an engineer who has had a long term interest in such designs and has made several of his own; he knows Creasey personally, and he ALWAYS uses the term "feet forwards"! In fact, he was a key source when I first created the article. So yes, maybe "feet first" was or is the term used by some folk, but "feet forwards" seems equally acceptable these days. So I have altered the text so that both terms are given, and POV words such as "mistakenly referred to as..." deleted. Graham 05:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I accept that 'feet first' may have been the original and first-used term, but 'feet forwards' is now also commonly used, even by those who buil the things. I don't mind giving 'feet first' priority in the text (as it now has), but unless you move the article as well then it has the wrong title. If you're going to change things, then please do them properly. As for you owning an FF, so what? This is a general purpose encyclopedia written for the average joe, it's not a forum for FF experts. So the writing must reflect that, and dumb things down (if necessary) so that the issue isn't confused by lots of experts splitting hairs. Imagine yourself in a pub chatting around the table about nuclear physics - you don't know what that is, in general terms, but two other guys are experts. You ask one to explain the basics to you, but as he starts to do so, the other one keeps cutting in picking fault with the guy's explanation and throwing in all sort of weird talk about string theory and gluons. Where does that leave you? Out of it, basically. So just bear that in mind. As for FF, as long as it remains the exclusive niche of a few eccentrics (no offence intended) than it's going nowhere as a form of transport. Maybe by putting it out there in very general, basic terms, people might start to take a bit of interest and move the concept forward. I'd say that at this stage, FF isn't even a fully-formed concept. I could build anything that fits the description, but might not be what you consider an FF. Arguing about what is or is not an FF is silly, since there are so few examples that the term isn't even properly defined yet. It's like saying that anything that doesn't look like the Wright brother's plane isn't an aircraft.   Graham 09:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I see you have missed the point of my analogy with the Wright brothers aircraft. The point is that it's very early days for the FF, so the definitive form has not yet emerged. Thus to attempt at this stage to define it in the way you're trying to is like forcing all aircraft builders to build a canard biplane controlled by wing warping, otherwise it's not a "proper" aeroplane. This is not to belittle the attempts of the pioneers in the field so far, but let's be clear, there is a long way to go. It makes sense at this stage to keep an open mind and I think those builders who have made progress so far would agree with that. Even going as far as to say that even the number of wheels is open to question - thus, to say for example that something other than a 2-wheeler "doesn't count" is absurd. As far as my engineer friend is concerned, he doesn't want his name mentioned as he would prefer that his FF work was not associated with the company he works for (which begins with V and ends with ...o - not a bike manufacturer which is part of the problem); but in any case, I have probably unintentionally mislead you - he has developed several FF designs but hasn't built any so far (mainly because he's not designing for a backyard amateur constructor, but for commercial production - it's very hard to convince anyone to invest in the concept because it's just too cutting edge at present - they all want someone else to take the risks). Maybe to you that is something to be dismissed, but I have seen his CAD work and I can tell you that it is incredibly thorough. The most promising design has even been put through full dynamic simulation testing on a military system, and works. I believe if someone had a few million to invest it really could be the next step for FF. Apart from which, it looks bloody cool - really!, I mean, it makes the Quasar look very 70s. And as it happens, it is a 2-wheeler, though he has also given a lot of thought to the TTW, but at present it's patent encumbered. Graham 09:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that it can be Feet forwards or Feet first, and saying one is wrong is hair-splitting.  Wizzy…☎ 09:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always heard them referred to as 'Enclosed Motorcycles' or 'Recumbent Motorcycles'. If you're looking for an engineer that's done a lot of experiments with this concept, then you could do well to look at under-recognised J. Partridge's  JP7 design - He's built several designs of this style of motorbike. I'm going to add this link to the page since it is the most detailed discussion I have seen of Recumbent/Enclosed/Feet First motorcycles on the internet. Unless you know of anything better! Slothie 13:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the problem comes down to the fact that we seem to be writing for two different audiences - I want to explain the FF concept for the layman, and to write a basic introduction. You seem to want to write for the more informed or existing FF enthusiast. I don't see that this needs to lead to a conflict, provided we build the article in a logical progression, from simple to complex. However, some of the changes you have put in right up front don't help in this goal, which is why I've taken issue with a few of them. But most of what you've added has stuck, which for an anonymous contributor isn't bad. So I don't want to discourage you or alienate you - lord knows there are few enough FF people around who can help on this anyway - but let's try and figure out a better way to get the article into shape so we are all satisfied, both our goals are met and the article is improved as a result. Graham 09:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion 

message: Just a personal comment. I saw this machine on the SBS news today here in Australia, and I thought: finally somebody gets it! I was then motivated to find more about it and have summarised it for this article. There is already a stub at CLEVER which I have bidirectionally linked. The thing here is that this is what the FF concept needs - a fresh approach from real engineers (even students!) but most of all lots of real money thrown at it. Backyard tinkering is all very well and a lot of fun, but it's not going to change the world. This just might. Who cares if CLEVER "isn't a proper motorcycle" or whatever other lame criticisms the biking fraternity are likely to pitch at it - it looks like a workable concept, fits all the criteria that combine the good of cars and bikes, (unlike most trikes, which do the opposite) and looks cool enough to possibly tempt buyers. It might not even be that expensive to buy. I really hope something comes of it, though I doubt that the battle will be won by one machine. It's a great (real) start though. Graham 12:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your enthusiasm is exciting, but is bleeding into a bit of POV.  That's not why I'm posting, though; I put together the CLEVER page based on the BBC article, and I have two comments: 1) you don't need all that CLEVER info on this FF page; just a short blurb and a link should be fine.  2) I very nearly changed the link in CLEVER back to Tilting three wheeler until I happened to notice some edit comments you made here.  If in fact the FF motorcycle design does not imply two wheels (ok, plausible) then the first sentence of this article shoudln't suggest that it does.  Even so, I'm thinking that TTW is a better link to put in CLEVER, as it's more specific.  Your thoughts?  /blahedo (t) 03:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently, I feel this article (FF) contains the most complete information about the concept as a whole - its pros and cons and so forth. The other articles do not, so this is currently the best link to direct people to, since they'll find TTW and other related articles from here. That said, it may be that all articles related to this need some reorganisation so that the general concept is split off and placed at the top of a hierarchy or further articles. I may have a go at doing that though I'd prefer some input from others who've put effort in here. For now, the way it's currently linked together will give the reader the most information. By the way, I wrote most of the stuff on CLEVER here before I noticed that an article already existed - so probably the stuff on it here could be moved or copied there. Graham 13:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CLEVER

message: "motorcycles have a relatively high centre of gravity that erodes stability, and reduces aerodynamic performance."
It is not clear that a high centre of gravity in any way reduces stability. Is there a reference for this? In fact,  claims the opposite. -AndrewDressel 14:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed to "Efficiency - motorcycles have a relatively tall profile that reduces aerodynamic performance." -AndrewDressel 15:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physics 

message: This article is apparently promoting an unimplemented concept. To note research and development progress is one thing, but as is this article is WP:POV and WP:CRYSTAL. Potatoswatter 20:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  npov 

message: How is this different than a scooter? Contrast the FF concept with any of these: the Honda Helix, the Honda Silverwing, the Piaggio X9 500 Evolution, or the Kymco Xciting 500Ri. --Noah (talk) 11:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is this different? 

message: If you call a C1 "feet forward", then every low chopper would also have to be mentioned. I'd propose to remove the C1 from this list. Other suggestions? --Trofobi (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Under WP:BOLD it is gone. I fully agree with you. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  BMW C1 

message: It seems odd - to me - that this article lacks mention to Kaneda's bike featured in Akira. It is, by far, the only contemporary and highly recognizable example of a FF, albeit a fictional one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.23.102.124 (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What, no mention to Kaneda's bike? 

message: I think this article would be improved if there was another section listing models currently in production.  Currently it is necessary to read the whole history to get an idea.  This might only include the Peraves MonoTracer (and they can only make 36 bikes per year) but that in itself would implicitly show how small the demand is for this form of transportation. Tjej (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In Production" section? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Feet forwards motorcycle. 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/20060822071250/http://www.craigvetter.com/pages/470MPG/470MPG%20Main.html to http://www.craigvetter.com/pages/470MPG/470MPG%20Main.html
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) 10:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified