Talk:Car/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Steam automobiles predated gasoline

The article attributes the first automobile to Benz, but a number of steam-powered automobiles pre-dated it.Landroo (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Landroo Steam-powered cars were really not practical but rather experimental. Benz's Motorwagen was the first practical car (that is, a car that could be used without issues, reproduced, sold), and therefore his car is regarded as the first one. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Well this does not match Wikipedia's own article on Steam cars. There were numerous manufacturers and they were manufactured in series, sold and used. There were also steam powered bus services.

And while these vehicles did have their shortcomings, so did Benz's Motorwagen. As far as production is concerned, once again, Wiki articles would seem to contradict this. See Peugot, for example, who were producing cars with suspension and a more modern layout before Benz. The first industrial factory for automobile production is generally regarded to be FIAT in Turin.

There is no doubt that Benz did make a usable Motor Tricycle using an internal combustion engine which was sellable. That is (possibly) a first, but the claim that he is the 'inventor' or the 'father' of the automobile does seem rather pretencious, even if the claim is made by referenced third parties. 88.87.126.220 (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so we have to go with third-party sources, and most of them credit Benz with the first (practical, modern) car. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

It’s a shame this debate has lasted so long, but as an extension to what has been said and cited over at Talk:Benz Patent-Motorwagen, I present to you just a few third-party sources mentioning steam automobiles as the first practical automobiles:

• Collier, James Lincoln (2006). The Automobile. Marshall Cavendish. p. 10. ISBN 978-0-7614-1877-1.
• Flint, Silas (2014-09-26). The First Auto Laws in the United States. Silas Flint. ISBN 978-1-310-87668-4.

^(Although this is a self-published source, Silas Flint is the pen name of Duane L. Ostler, an author with a PhD in legal history.)

Also, prior to diff 1115292228, you stated that “Nationalism also plays a role unfortunately as some Brits, Italians and French don't want to accept it”, and to that I respond that yes, there is a possibility of nationalistic bias in this conversation, but with the same point you are putting forward, I could argue that — seeing as your username is in the Gronings dialect — you may have a particular affinity for your German nextdoor neighbours and that may be why you believe Benz created the “first practical automobile” rather than someone like Cugnot. — Mugtheboss (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Collier doesn't describe steam automobiles as the "the first practical cars". He uses the term "practical" once on that page, when referring to steam cars, not cars in general. And as you mentioned, Flint is a self-published source, so not suitable. Although not entirely objective, even Mercedes(-Benz) acknowledge that there were practical precursors to Benz, but also state Benz developed the automobile "into a product for everyday use, which he then brought to market and as a result made his idea useful for the entire world - unlike the other inventors mentioned here". This line is generally accepted as a reason to give the Patent-Motorwagen the title "first (modern) practical car". E.g. Steven Parissien, from the book you, Mugtheboss, have added to the Benz Patent-Motorwagen page, states "Ford did not actually invent the car; that honour properly goes to the German engineers Karl Benz and Gottlieb Daimler." (p. 2), "The father of the modern car was Karl Benz" (p. 3) and "Benz was not the first man to invent a horseless carriage. All previous experiments had, however, been steam-powered and distinctly uncommercial" (p. 3). Lastly, Ken Helmick, president of the Steam Automobile Club of America, gave his thoughts on Quora on vehicles with steam engines. Even he acknowledges that steam cars aren't really that practical. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

As there can be unclarity as "when the first car was invented" (see e.g. here), I understand the reason for this discussion. But as there are already many sources crediting Benz for creating the "first (practical, modern) car" (and explaining why in the process), I see no reason to change it. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

If Collier has described steam cars as “practical” in any sense of the word, then that has contradicted a point you made; you stated on the other talk page at 21:07, 9 September 2022 UTC that “The world's first practical car is Benz's one, as steam-powered cars are not practical and electric cars came around later.”, that claim has since been superseded and made redundant by this ref.

As for Flint’s ref not being suitable, in the link to the policy on verifiability I provided earlier, it states that “Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.” Check and check.

As for steam vehicles being uncommercial, one could argue that an invention doesn’t need to be profitable to exist.

Now we require not only established consensus on the meaning of “practical”, but now it’s a Collier vs Parissien situation. I’ve now figured out that we’re getting absolutely nowhere in reaching consensus regarding this matter. — Mugtheboss (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why you are trying to put forward discussions about my older posts instead of just replying to my most recent ones. I had already deleted the bit about nationalism but somehow you are putting it back - for what? I also don't know why my exact comment from more than a month ago is relevant now since I've already elaborated on it since. I also don't think having a PhD in legal history is making Flint an expert in the field of automotive history. One thing we can agree on is that we aren't going to reach a consensus here. There is thus a clear reason why steam cars e.g. didn't make it as a product for everyday use (and for the average household) and why Benz rather than Cugnot is credited. Have a great night. Cheers, Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

”I don't know why you are trying to put forward discussions about my older posts instead of just replying to my most recent ones.”

So you’re saying that your older comments about this matter aren’t as relevant as your most recent, and that they should be disregarded?

“I had already deleted the bit about nationalism but somehow you are putting it back - for what?”

I simply replied to an opinion you regretted stating. I have not modified any of your replies, and yet you decide to blank parts of mine, why?

“I also don't know why my exact comment from more than a month ago is relevant now since I've already elaborated on it since.”

How have you elaborated on that very point, exactly?

“I also don't think having a PhD in legal history is making Flint an expert in the field of automotive history.”

Wouldn’t you agree that knowing the laws regarding steam automobiles could allow one to understand how practical they are?

“There is thus a clear reason why steam cars e.g. didn't make it as a product for everyday use (and for the average household) and why Benz rather than Cugnot is credited.”

Please tell me where the clear reason is. — Mugtheboss (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Newer, elaborated comments/discussions are obviously more relevant. There is e.g. no need to simply quote my exact comment from more than a month ago, and then stating "If Collier ... this ref", to just try and cover the fact you didn't read your own source properly. I have already made myself clear, see e.g. my comments above from 16:55/17:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC) (or this one), and I have no desire to keep talking to a brick wall. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

”Newer, elaborated comments/discussions are obviously more relevant.”

Now that this has been said, everything that has been stated from your side up to this point falls apart, you have personally told me that the very foundation of your side of the debate is irrelevant. Time to find another!

”There is e.g. no need to simply quote my exact comment from more than a month ago, and then stating "If Collier ... this ref", to just try and cover the fact you didn't read your own source properly.”

I did read my own source properly, but somebody ended up deciding to try and argue their point using nothing but the word “practical”. Speaking of sources, throughout both talk pages I have provided five which support my side of the debate, where are yours?

”I have already made myself clear, see e.g. my comments above from 16:55/17:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC) (or this one)”

You just said that newer comments are more relevant, why are you now mentioning something you said at the very beginning of this debate?

I would be satisfied if we could call it here, agree to disagree and just say something in a note along the lines of “some sources credit Benz as being the creator of the first practical automobile,*refs* while others credit prior steam automobile innovators.*refs*” — Mugtheboss (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Don't try to cheaply bend my words, you know what I mean. I'm simply stating that in this very conversation (on this talk page), e.g. my latest comments and latest discussions (like those from two days ago) are worth more now than my initial comment from 10 July, since I've elaborated on it and have made several explanations since. I've never said all of my previous comments are worthless now. Why is this even a debate?

"I did read my own source properly, but somebody ended up deciding to try and argue their point using nothing but the word “practical”. Speaking of sources, throughout both talk pages I have provided five which support my side of the debate, where are yours?" LOL - you don't read your sources properly (e.g. you also didn't research the Parissien one you provided thoroughly), or else you would have known that the Collier reference couldn't have supported your statement ("I present to you just a few third-party sources mentioning steam automobiles as the first practical automobiles"). And if you can't seem to find any of the sources I've provided already, it's time for you to go to Specsavers I'm afraid. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

“Don't try to cheaply bend my words, you know what I mean.”

No, I don’t.

”LOL - you don't read your sources properly (e.g. you also didn't research the Parissien one you provided thoroughly)”

I was referring to the Parissien ref, but as I already stated, “If Collier has described steam cars as “practical” in any sense of the word, then that has contradicted a point you made; you stated on the other talk page at 21:07, 9 September 2022 UTC that “The world's first practical car is Benz's one, as steam-powered cars are not practical and electric cars came around later.”, that claim has since been superseded and made redundant by this ref.”, why are we running in circles? Aren’t we mature enough to come to a compromise that satisfies both parties instead of bickering our opinions thin? I’m sure these authors wouldn’t appreciate us waving their books around like auction paddles.

“And if you can't seem to find any of the sources I've provided already, it's time for you to go to Specsavers I'm afraid.”

It’s probably time for you to go to Pearle, as you haven’t managed to see that you haven’t used a single cite template in this whole conversation — just plain links — and you provided me a ref from the Mercedes website that would — if it weren’t subjective — support my side of the debate, you said it yourself; “even Mercedes(-Benz) acknowledge that there were practical precursors to Benz”. The second ref you provided is on a user generated website, akin to citing a YouTube video. Only your third ref is valid. — Mugtheboss (talk) 11:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

A person doesn't have to use the cite template to provide sources; you managed to open and read the refs from these "plain links". "Even Mercedes(-Benz) acknowledge that there were practical precursors to Benz" ==> don't skip the important bits here as MB then go on to state that Benz developed the automobile "into a product for everyday use, which he then brought to market and as a result made his idea useful for the entire world - unlike the other inventors mentioned here". So MB state here that Benz made the car practical (that is: for individual, everyday, commercial use - unlike previous inventors, precursors), which is the point of the debate (and looking again at that page, MB don't describe any precursor as "practical", so I don't know why I put that word there). Again, there are plenty of books which point to Benz's car as the first (practical) one (such as Parissien). But just to give some examples from authors with WP pages (and thereby neglecting 99.9% of the books in which the same facts are stated, not to mention the books which haven't even been translated into English):

• "Cars, 1886-1930" (Georgano, 1985) ("the first motorcar, which the Benz is considered to be because it was followed within a few years by replicas built for commercial sale", p. 16).
• "Energy and Civilization: A History" (Smil, 2018) ("Karl Benz builds the first practical car", p. 452).
• "The Motor Car: Past, Present and Future" (Genta et al., 2014) ("The first motor car (meaning the first car manufactured for sale and not for scientific experiments), the Benz Patentwagen", p. 30). Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

But one thing I agree with you is that this has just been a childish debate from both sides, and we should just end now. I don't mind changing "as the world's first practical automobile" to "as the world's first practical modern automobile" on the Benz Patent-Motorwagen page. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

You know what, if — as an addition to that — there is text somewhere in the page (perhaps as an efn?) that indicates or acknowledges that there were steam automobile innovators (albeit nobody who could mass-produce steam automobiles) that made Benz’ invention possible, that sounds like a deal. — Mugtheboss (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

What do you think of this? Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that we’ve reached consensus! — Mugtheboss (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Automobil

„Both forms are still used in everyday Dutch (auto/automobiel) and German (Auto/Automobil).“

I can't imagine Dutch people saying „automobiel“ but I can assure you, we in Germany don't use „(das) Automobil“ besides in ironical use. We say „(das) Auto“.

Even the automotive industry uses „Auto“, https://www.volkswagen.de/de.html (Autoabo [car subscription], Autokauf [car buying]) or alternatively „(das) Fahrzeug [driving device]“ (which sounds either businesslike or juristic) or „(der) Wagen [car]“ https://www.mercedes-benz.de/passengercars.html?group=all&subgroup=see-all&view=BODYTYPE. But „Automobil“ only sounds old-fashioned or historical and that since decades! I'm seventy years old, and one of my first words was „Auto“, but I've never heard or seen „Automobil“ before I read the name in some old books. Sometimes is referred to the car industry as „Automobilindustrie“ or even „Autoindustrie“, but the word „Automobil“ on its own would only be used corncerning oldtimers.

So, if no one has any objections, I will change that. Dä Chronist (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

What change are you proposing? Springee (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I would omit „Automobil“ and/or attach the Volkswagen Site behind „Auto“. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dä Chronist (talk • contribs) 16:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, I would change the sentence as follows:

„The form „auto“ is still used in everyday Dutch (auto) and German (Auto) .“[with the VW link] Dä Chronist (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I think I would remove the sentence as it's not really about the English language use of the word. Springee (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, perhaps the easiest way. Dä Chronist (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2023 (2)

In this phrase:

Many cities in Europe, have banned older fossil fuel cars

Please remove the comma. 120.21.35.15 (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2023

In the introduction, please merge the concluding pair of paragraphs. Right now, "there are costs and benefits to car use" begins a paragraph that doesn't mention any benefits, and then there's a paragraph with no introduction. 120.21.35.15 (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done  Stepho  talk  01:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

What are the recent changes without comments please?

@Michael7604: Please could you explain the changes you made without comments. I object to the removal of the diagram of the electric car and your statement that “Cars contain three internal parts systems essential to their function: The internal combustion engine, the drivetrain, and the chassis control system.“.

I am reluctant to rollback all your changes as some may be good. But that is hard to tell as you did not write any change comments at all, so I don’t understand the purpose of some of your changes Chidgk1 (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. A battery electric car or fuel cell car obviously does not have an internal combustion engine. Electric cars with wheel hub motors obviously don't have a drivetrain. Neither does a rocket car. In the early 20th century there were steam cars with external combustion engines, eg the Stanley Steamer.  Stepho  talk  23:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I have rolled back all the changes but I have no objection to some of them being redone with suitable comments - for example the info about steering might be good Chidgk1 (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there were problems with my changes, since not all cars have an internal combustion engine. But I thought the article was too focused on the societal aspects of cars, and on the development of electric cars, and lacking in an overview of the mechanisms of how cars commonly used today work, which is likely something that someone starting to learn about cars would want to learn about. Maybe we could divide the section "Operating principles" into subsections for internal combustion engine-powered cars and electric cars. Michael7604 (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Dunno - maybe others have opinions. Anyway why not start with (hopefully) non-controversial stuff like steering - I thought the steering diagram you added was really good. Adding an alt text for that diag too might be interesting for you. I think maybe nowadays a default alt text can be added in Commons Chidgk1 (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Also if you are interested in condensing the history section that keeps the article a reasonable length even if you add more stuff about ICE cars Chidgk1 (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps consider replacing history with an excerpt of the main article - although that would need a new talk page section here as others might not agree Chidgk1 (talk) 06:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

My 2c is that any section with a corresponding main can be cut ruthlessly back to a single paragraph, maybe a couple for particularly complicate topics. After all, its the job of the linked main article to go into detail.

Batteries can be mentioned in the 'Fuel and propulsion technologies'. This section should mention (but only in passing) batteries, alternative hydrocarbon fuels (eg LPG, CNG, ethanol), compressed air engines, clockwork engines, flywheel engines, (eg KERS), steam engines (eg Stanley Steamer), and fuel cells. Probably also mention gearboxes, diffs, wheel hub motors. And of course point to a list of main articles. Not sure if all those articles exist yet in a form we can directly point to but its a target to aim for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepho-wrs (talk • contribs) 07:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Michael7604: Have added a little on batteries and a tiny sentence on wheel hub motors. Unlikely to do much else on this article - over to you re the rest of Stepho-wrs suggestions Chidgk1 (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Should the history section be an excerpt?

Yes the lead of History of the automobile should be expanded and excerpted here. For various reasons including that the section here is far too long now Chidgk1 (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes - as per my mini rant a few sections above.  Stepho  talk  10:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)