Talk:Bicycle/Archive 2

message: Query this claim regarding self-steer.  It is my understanding that the self-steer or "steerability" phenomenon with bicycles is primarily related to the relative positions of the front axle with relation to the steering axis of the forks and the angle of that steering axis.  That is why the forks tend to be at an angle to the ground and why the forks are usually swept forward of the steering axis. (Objective is actually to counteract self-steer)--Sf 11:03, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *Somewhere in this "discussion", Gdr explained the significance of both forking the front wheel forward and the contact point of wheel with ground being positioned slightly behind the turning radius of the wheel. I believe that these contribute ... and perhaps even are vital to ... this whole trail phenomenon which self-steers the thing. The article is already 30kb though, and I don't think any more space should go to the physics stuff. I hope to better "internationalize" the political section, which others wrote long before I got there, today. BTW, I changed the "brakes" section too, re sf's objection. And, finally, I hope this generally excellent article makes it through this process.  People will actually READ this one, as opposed to some of the goofy articles (Pepsi can stove?) that get to "feature" status unscathed.Sfahey 16:49, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "to do" list

message: The passage on police use of bikes needs to come out of the war section.  The use of bicycles for policing is well-established and probably predates any military use.  Similarly the postal systems of many countries relied and still rely on bicycle delivery, a huge economic and social impact which isn't yet acknowledged.  --Sf 10:43, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section needed? 

message: This article is starting to get slightly longer than recomended.  This may not really be an issue and it is a diverse topic that needs a balanced treatment.  However, there are sections that might be good candidates for movement to their own articles e.g. (as suggestions) the list of bicycle types/clasifications and possibly the Bicycles and War section.  The latter probably deserves broader treatment anyway but is not, in my view, a particularly key aspect of general bicycle history.--Sf 17:48, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've said this already, but I believe that, if brief enough, each of the current sections is relevant ... even if mainly as an invitation for readers to go to a more detailed section. The main overreach now is the "Modal design" section, most of which belongs in another, extant article, such as "auto-free zones", "bicycling", etc.Sfahey 00:02, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: The correct term is "modal share" and is a standard description used in the international literature concerning the relative participation rates of various forms of transport.  The presence or absence of "auto free zones" or "pedestrian areas" is not an accurate predictor of the likely extent of the modal share enjoyed by bicycles in the wider vehicle mix.  The term "bicycling", as I understand it to be used in US English, relates primarily to the use of bicycles for sport or recreational purposes.  The standard English term "cycle" or "cycling" has a more catholic application.  Hence "bicycling" would seem to be inappropriate to discussions regarding the use of bicycles as transport vehicles.  The idea that disussions of "courting radius" should stay here while discussions of the bicycle's role in transportation should go elsewhere, would in my view, be very hard to defend.--Sf 14:40, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Before I nominated this article for "feature" status, I deleted or sanitized a lot of goofy stuff that others had written (such as the silly "gene pool" comment) but left some marginal things which I wouldn't myself have included, such as "courting radius". This is of course a communal effort. I don't think the presence of one (or more) marginal bits of info. justifies adding others. I don't believe an encyc. article on "bicycle" ... and I read the Britannica one recently ... would have a passage like "modal". The war section, too, is overlong, but I didn't write it ... in fact I whittled it down and corrected it in places in response to others' suggestions.  It is interesting, and since no one objected to its being included, I left it there. I think I will, though, shorten it. Feel free to dl "courting radius". Sfahey 00:05, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, i don't like having good info deleted so i've reverted Sfahey's deletions and moved the section to a new article, Bicycles in warfare. If there were any corrections you made in that last change you might have to do them again. I've left a skeleton section in the Bicycle article, but it reads like it was written for "the amazing world of military bicycles" or something. Some more general statements might be better. Also I've moved the bit about police with bicycles together with the rest, but it doesn't really fit the heading "Bicycles in warfare". Not sure what to do with it. Hope the change isn't too disruptive. --Pengo 04:08, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that was good ... especially since you took the pre-existing warfare section.Sfahey 04:18, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text:  This has merit also there is a bicycle infantry article which may need to be merged with the Bicycles in warfare article.  The battle of normandy article also makes reference to a "30th German Fast Infantry Brigade, comprising of 3 bicycle battalions" might be interesting to follow up.  I don't have any personal problem with the courting radius or gene pool issues - in Ireland in the 1950's young men and women cycled distances of up to 20 miles to attend dances and then cycled home again.  My grandfather regularly cycled a round trip of circa 80 miles to visit my grandmother  --Sf 09:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to break away some sections into new articles? 

message: User 206.191.1.215 put in a reference to community surveys in the activism section. There are those who would view this as an old car lobby/ environmental lobby propaganda trick.   The sequence goes something like this.
A) Initiate a media and political campaign to promote the idea that the main obstacle to cycling participation is a lack of "cycling facilities".  
B) Play this up in the media -  release statements talking about how dangerous the roads are without "cycle facilities" and condemning the failure of politicians to implement this obvious measure.  The object is to play to the lowest commmon denominator by reducing the issue of cycling safety to one single issue by excluding/ignoring all the other awkward issues such as speeding, road design, town layouts, parking, education etc etc.  
C) After a sustained campaign, commission a survey to ask uninformed members of the public "what they need" to be able to cycle more.  If required use carefully filtered multiple-choice type questions.  If you've done your job properly (from a marketing perspective) the public will repeat your initial message back to you.
D) You will now have survey "evidence" confirming the message being pushed at point A) and which can then be fed back into the system. 
Of course the important point is that the survey is irrelevent as an indicator of the actual effect of the proposed cycling facilities in increasing cycling.  There are numerous case studies testing this hypothesis from actual towns and cities - in many cases the hypothesis has proven false.  --Sf 15:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old car lobby/environmental lobby trick 

message: i added some items on frame and steering and read the rest of this article.  "clown bike", "legal issues", and some of the political info. seems beyond this article, which wiki says is too long. any takers?128.8.222.43 21:16, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: unusual material

message: I'm relatively new to this page, but I thought it might be appropriate to make a brief mention in the History section of the role bicyclists played in creating the Good Roads Movement in the late 1800s.
RCMoeur 19 May 2005
:Go for it, but please add new "discussion" items to the END of the list. You will see why it works better eventually. Sfahey 04:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: I have a very very short story in an textbook about a bicycle for elementary English learners and I am looking for more or other expressions used with riding the bicycle. I would like to bring the students a short story about it as an enhancement of the language and an amusement as well.
I would invite extracts from literature by known authors about a bicycle to be included as another aspect of the item investigated.
So, I suggest to add a chapter: Bicycle in literature(arts)
:One very good movie about bicycling was Breaking Away. What is your first language? Sfahey 18:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: nope. Sfahey 22:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  a missing chapter: Bicycle in literature (arts) 

message: Part of the types of bicycle section makes reference to bicycle trials. Fair enough, but what type of bicycle is used in this sport? --Dhodges 23:41, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I noticed that yesterday too, and moved that bit to "bicycle racing. Sfahey 23:30, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: types of bicycle, by sport -trials 

message: This is a featured article...very good. I don't want to spoil the fun, but many bike-related subpages are in poor condition and poorly structured when compared (imo, this should make part of a featured article seal of approvance). Is there a wikiproject on bicycles? Phlebas 22:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When I had more time, I was thinking of starting WikiProject Cycling, under WikiProject Sports. --Christopherlin 00:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Although WikiProject Transport might have a say too. Phlebas 16:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Subpages

message: can someone more skilled than I revert the wholesale and arbitrary deletion-edits made by the user before dhodges.  i hear there is a way to do this without cutting and pasting each bogus deletion. thanks. Sfahey 04:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: doneGzuckier 05:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: recent vandalism

message: This is a "featured article", whose content was the result of a collaboration of some dozen writers. Wholesale changes such as those by 6/5 editor, especially when they are rife with speculation and POV, are not acceptable. Take "a small bite" if you have something to add, but don't eat the whole thing. Sfahey 02:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: revert explanation

message: There's a paragraph that reads "In English-speaking countries, but also elsewhere".  This phrase is essentialy saying nothing.  If it also applies to "elsewhere", why is it relevant that it applies to English-speaking countries?  Perhaps the original author meant to say something like:  "_Mostly_ in English-speaking countries, but also elsewhere"?  Otherwise it should just be removed. nyu 20:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: English-speaking countries?=

message: All this information and not one bit about recumbent bikes. Are people lacking in the knowledge to do it or just manpower? -129.189.10.254
I direct your attention to Recumbent_bicycle. There is a link under Types of Bicycle --Dhodges 22:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, the recent insertion of the recumbent into the "lead" paragraph was both grammatically sloppy and ... I believe ... unjustified. You don't see lots of the newer bike designs there, and as DH pointed out, the recumbent is already included. Sfahey 22:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recumbent Bikes

message: Please would you consider using S.I. units for performance terms and other physical magnitudes?
I understand that non-standard units are also provided (in second term) for readers that might lack the understanding of the information in standard units.  Also, usage of hours in km/h is so common that I would also find it acceptable.  However, things like:
  - kJ/h -- This is weird and not easily understandable.  What is wrong with Watts (i.e. J/s) to express power?  Equivalency would be: 1 kJ/h == 1000 J / 3600 s == 1/3.6 W
  - kJ/km -- This is strictly correct, but redundant.  The base units are joules and metres.  Adding a 1000/1000 factor doesn't provide any extra information, so why not just J/m ?
  - kJ/(km∙kg) -- Same here.  Why not J/(m*kg) instead?
(I'm ignoring the fact that J/m is equivalent to N because expressing an energy-per-distance inefficiency ratio wouldn't be easily understandable in newtons.  But if you think this contradicts my argument, then please go for it, too.)
Robertmh 10:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: J/m is equivalent to N. Exactly! This "energy-per-distance inefficiency ratio" is just the force needed to push the bicycle forward. — Monedula 13:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  S.I. units 

message: What does this mean?  Is this just another BE/AE problem or is it a Dutch formulation?  Or is this a strange formulation?  As an educated SAE speaker, I am uncertain what it means - with or without the illustration!
:I wrote that (it's my photo). What I meant is that Amsterdam bikes are often colourfully decorated. So that's typical. This one goes a bit further, so it's 'more than typical'. Is this unclear to others as well? Maybe there should be a few words on this in the text then. Done that. DirkvdM 09:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More than typical 

message: Need help.  Can anyone here please come to check out the electric bicycle site.  Some people have changed it to motorized vehicle.  --CyclePat 06:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electric Bicycle 

message: I added a link an unreal invisible bicycle.  http://www.geocities.com/verdrahciretop/invisibike.html
Humm...  LOL  --Pat 21:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pat - I removed the link since it doesn't add anything to the article. If you strongly believe it belongs in the article, please discuss here. Thanks -SCEhardT 02:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't remember where but under transport, I think, there is a category for future or fictious transportation.  (ie.: Magic carpet, etc..) --Pat 04:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictious or unreal bicycles added 

message: I question this statement under the Bicycle Activism section:
:"some members of the US Vehicular Cycling Movement oppose the use of segregated cycling facilities as a matter of principle"
I'm aware of an opposition to the support and creation of a certain type of facility, bike lanes, but I'm not aware of anyone in the VC/EC movement, such as it is, who is opposed to the use of all "segregated facilities as a matter of principle".  Even bike lane opponents do not oppose their use when they exist.  I know for a fact that John Forester, arguably the de facto leader of the VC/EC movement, is not opposed to such use, for example.  Unless someone can provide basis for this statement within a week or so, I will remove or rewrite it if no one else will.  Thanks.  --Serge 16:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify your position, what do you think of children using bike paths?  --Serge 06:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Desegregating a public facility only modifies the basis upon which an individual's use of that facility is regulated. Instead of separating or banning travelers by class or group, the government can restrict the use of a public facility by a person when that individual's operation of a heavy vehicle (such as a car) in a public facility (such as a path) poses an extraordinary danger to others (such as children) or their property. Since the government has this option for protecting the rights of others, segregation of public transportation facilities (as I defined above) is not only an unfair infringement on the personal liberty of some travelers, it is also unnecessary. --Bwileyr 20:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  So if motorists are prohibited from using a bike path, you would not call for boycotting that path because of that, right? --Serge 21:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If a "bike path" is a public facility that is intended to separate people on a basis other than their own personal merit or performance, then it is a segregated facility that (IMHO) deserves to be boycotted. The government has the option of protecting the public without resorting to such segregation by restricting a given person's travel when it poses an extraordinary danger to others or their property. BTW, there are some motor vehicles which aren't heavy enough to pose such a level of danger (usually those which don't require a license to operate).  --Bwileyr 22:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you two talking about the same thing?Sfahey 23:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  EC/VC proponents oppose use of facilities? 

message: In bicycle#External links does this belong here:  
*Townsend, Andy (2005). Motorcycle Stability and Steering. Rider Education of New Jersey, Inc. Retrieved March 30, 2005
I think this information would be better under motorcycle, however there maybe some tranferable skills that are applicable to bicycle?  --CylePat 02:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything, probably countersteering. --Christopherlin 03:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  does this belong here? 

message: WP:ISNOT a link farm, this article had far too many external links (to my mind).  So:
* The World's Bicycle Conference:  Velo Mondial
Velo Mondial - 23,400 Google hits, first few pages all look relevant.  Widely discussed, looks significant.
* The World's Data Base for Cycling Expertise: Velo.Info 
Really?  330 links in, no Alexa ranking; I don't think so!
* BikeForums.net (2005). BikeForums. Retrieved March 30, 2005.
Widely linked, Alexa rank 11,790.  I'm not a fan of web forums, but it's hard to dispute that this is a major one for bikes.
* BikeJournal.com (2000). BikeJournal Site to maintain mileage records and communicate with other users of the site.  Two members rode in RAAM 2005 http://www.raceacrossamerica.org/ and four members are forming a team for 2006.
Not widely linked, Alexa rank 398,391. 
* Brown, Sheldon (2005). Extensive online bicycle glossary.
Sheldon is a bicycle god.  I think his site is the most often cited authority, 50,000+ links in, Alexa rank 49,869 (low) but lnked from everywhere.
* Bryan (2004). Bryan's Bicycle Page. Retrieved March 30, 2005.
Random user page.
* Croydon Cycling Campaign (2003). Information & Help. Retrieved March 30, 2005.
Alexa rank > 4million, <1000 links in.  Content is mainly covered in linked Wikipedia articles, and this is in any case a small local group.  Sorry, chaps.
* eHow, Inc. (2005).  How to Make Your Bike the Perfect Fit. Retrieved March 30, 2005.
Since we don't currently have an article on bicycle fitting I guess this is the next best thing, although there are online bike fit calculators which are better.
* Learn to Bicycle (2005). Learn to Bike, no training wheels.
Sorry, it's a user page.  We need an article on learning to ride a bike :-)
* European Cyclists' Federation (2002).  Cities for Cyclists. Retrieved March 30, 2005.
Change to the root.
* Exploratorium (2004). Science of Cycling: Human Power. Retrieved March 30, 2005.
Undecided at present.  Has interesting and relevant ocntent, but we need an article on science of cycling
*  Folding bikes, electric bikes, trailers, trikes and alternative transport Retrieved June 5, 2005
I love AtoB, but this belongs in the folding bicycle article.
* Gray Matter Media (1995). The eJournal website Bicycle Touring Central. Retrieved March 30, 2005.
"Bicycle Touring Central"?  Not perhaps overstating that a tinby fraction are we? ;-)
* Hashmi, Khurram (2004). Bicycle Safety:  Road Hazards, Accident Prevention and Risk Mitigation. Retrieved March 30, 2005.
Interesting article, but specifically related to bicycle safety
* Hudson, William (2003). Myths and Milestones in Bicycle Evolution. Retrieved March 30, 2005.
Reserving judgment - we should have a history of cycling somewhere...
* Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (2005). CyclingForum.org. Retrieved March 30, 2005.
Forum with no Alexa rank.
* Jones, David E. H. (1970). The Stability of the Bicycle. Scanned in copy for download for personal use.
Copyvio, sorry.
* Killian, Michael (2004). SidewaysBike (Not Your Father's Bicycle) Retrieved March 30, 2005.
Interesting curiousity, maybe a job for unusual bicycles
* Lessing, Hans-Erhard (1997). The Leonardo da Vinci Bicycle Hoax. Cycle Publishing. Retrieved March 30, 2005.
An interesting curiosity, already discussed under Leonardo da Vinci
* Transportation Alternatives (2005). The advocates for cycling, walking, and environmentally sensible transportation Retrieved March 30, 2005.
alternative propulsion is that way ->
* Wachtel, Alan; Lewiston, Diana (2000). Risk Factors for Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions at Intersections. Bicycling Life Website. Retrieved March 30, 2005.
cycle path is over there ->
: Re: History of cycling, History of the bicycle exists. Also, "how to ride a bike" might be better in wikibooks as opposed to wikipedia. --Christopherlin 20:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, and yes you could be right.  Now the "see also" section eneds some work, perhaps on the model of telephone. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: This is referenced by note 4 and should not be removed. I will put it back. Gdr 01:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: And this is referenced by note 3. I will put it back. Gdr 01:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still a copyvio.  I have referenced books in the past, but I don't scan them and put PDFs on the wew, or link to those scans. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  RfA! 15:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pruning links