Talk:Motorized bicycle/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

difficulty to define a "motorized bicycle":

We could say {of course taking out and developing the idea such as this interjection}(but where would we put this? History? The start?): Some of the major difficulties in defining a motorized bicycle have been because of it inherent association with the regular bicycle. For example, the history of the bicycle has a specific development. These bicycles throughout history often have only become motorized through home made modification(s), {self made motorized kits}(now we need to put some examples)(eg.: is the Pixie motor a self made kit or was it specifically designed for bicycle addition?) or when small manufacturers specifically designed addition kits {from perhaps the Pixie motor? (Or was it the addition kit that came first? Or was it the entire motorized bicycle?) {Personally I would imagine it's the homemade modified kit} to the eventually the electric hub motor kit such as [1]]}. Of course other manufacturers specifically designed some motorized bicycles {I only have recent electric motorized bicycle companies such as [2] but I think ICE would be a good place to look}.

---

Pre-history of the motorized bicycle:-----

While the addition of a motor to a bicycle might seem natural, there are historical key points that lead to it's natural development. One reason would be the amelioration and historical development of the regular bicycle. This bicycle frame, a diamond-frame, such as demonstrated on the "Rover safety bicycle" from Starly & Sutton, c. 1885 (which can be found at the museum of science and technology of canada (Ottawa)) was a safer bicycle than it's predecessor (Ie.: the highwheel, etc.) and may have been a key reason for developing a motorized bicycle. Another reason might have been the development of a stronger frame made of stronger tubing, such as the "CCM Light Delivery bicycle", from Canada Cycle & Motor Co., c. 1932(Which looks a lot like todays modern mountain bicycle). Which in the late 1940s had a "Pixie" bicycle motor installed to add power when climbing hills. (not necessarilly to increase speed). The motorized bicycle is a natural evolution or modification of the bicycle, a sound basic design that can be improved to perform a variety of functions.--CyclePat 20:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

(of course I didn't talk about the normal type of propulsion of a bicylce (pedals) but that might also be a good point to contrast... the adition of pedals, chains,... chained motorized bicycles. to the ruban... etc... --CyclePat 20:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Pat, why would you want to go over this ground in this article? The bicycle and its history is covered in considerable detail in the linked article on bicycles. The "pre-history" od the motorized bicycle is the history of the bicycle! As far as I can see the article as it stands is good, covers the ground thoroughly and in the right amount of detail, and provides sufficient pointers for anyone who wants to delve into it in minute detail. Only bike geeks would even think about anything other than the diamond-frame bicycle. I couldn't even get the "penny-farthing" article renamed to "ordinary bicycle", because only bike geeks like us have any conception that the high-wheeler was ever considered the norm. Leave well alone, it'll only confuse the hell out of people. Trust me, I've tried.

And I really wish you'd stop banging on about CCM. By 1932 the veolmoteur and even the motorcycle were well-established. Gottfried Daimler built the first motorcycle in 1885, Sammy Miller's museum in New Milton (UK) has motorbikes going back to the late 19th Century, and I've seen references specifically to motorised bicycles from 1902 and earlier. I don't think Canada has played a leading role in the development of the motorised bike (compared with, say, France, where models like the VeolSolex and Derny originated) and a small Canadian firm sticking a motor on a delivery bike in 1932 is not, I think, a seminal moment in the development of the motorized bicycle. It might have been a seminal moment in the history of that company, which is great in that company's article, but from the point of view of the motorized bicycle worldwide it is really not significant enough to warrant more than a passing mention, if that. Sorry, I know you are an enthusiast for the thing, but that's how I see it. We have to remember not to be parochial (something I always struggle with too).

Nor is there any difficulty defining "motorized bicycle". The article does it right there in the first two paragraphs: it's a pedal cycle with a motor attached. It's distinguished from a motorcycle by the fact that it has pedals and can be propelled by them alone. Where is the supposed ambiguity? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little confused now. On one you are saying the history is that of a motorcycle (which doesn' have pedals b.t.w.) and base on the velomoteur {but we don't substantiat this idea (I go into details and explain that the stronger frame made room for the addition of a motor)} but on the other hand you are saying its that of a bicycle and that it's distinguish by the fact that it has pedals? I really don't feal that a motorcycle has as much significance to this article except for comparing it's early history with previous bicycles. In my personal opinion I feel that the motorcyle is more or less a developpement of the first two-wheeled vehicle called the "Hobby-Horse" (see History of the bicycle)(which didn't have pedals) Again, as you have indicated, a motorized bicycle has pedals. We should at least talk about (or smerge)(small section merger) some history sections that deal with (pedal bikes) and why they became motorized?(or vis-versa the history of bicycles should talk about the slow evolution of it's bicycle to be eventually capable of motorization)--CyclePat 22:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Ambiguity... no I said difficulty in defining it. And in part because of the wikipedia "natural" format (which I'm still waiting to get an answer?) But also because, as I indicated we are not sure what came first... who came up with what idea. Was it the motorcycle that inspired the creation of motorized bicycle? (I think that's another category, as afformentioned (no pedals) and perhaps influenced more by the "hobby-horse"... but perhaps the regular bicycle and its pedal gears where just as influencial for the motorcycle. No matter the case that should be in motorcycle history) Or is it the bicycle that inspired the motorized bicycle? (due to the "subject" title, I would say the bicycle probably had a biger influence... however the motorcyle might have had just as much influence? I don't know?) (What came first the chiken or the egg?) I you trying to say that a motorized bicycle was first built without pedals? Was it someone that wanted to have a motorcycle but had a bicycle (such as the pre-history I have written might suggest) and added a motor? Isn't are article mostly about "adding motors to bicycles? Did the addition of cranks to the "hobby-horse", such as the velocipede (a type of bicycle from 1860, have a stronger impact on the development of the "motorized bicycle?" Which type of bicycle had the strongest influence for motorized bicycles? Which frame had the strongest influence for motorized bicycle? What frames are used today? (Again what came first the motorcycle or the motorized bicycle? Was the motorized bicycle an influence to construct the motorcyle, which in turn, today, influenced the motorized bicycle? (humm...?) By eliminating the pr-history do we not eliminate our human capability to induce an answer to these questions. I certainly think it is worth mentionning specific sections... Not mentionning them at all, I believe, would be worse and leave us with a poor article lacking important historic information. --CyclePat 22:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

If what you're suggesting is we should add more information about the evolution of the motorized bicycle, that could possibly be done. But we would need to back that up with primary sources, and it must be specific to motorized bicycles. We can't re-create the text of History of the bicycle or whatever that article link is. Does anybody have or have access to any scholarly texts that would apply? · Katefan0^(scribble) 00:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

No, Pat, you misunderstand me. What I'm saying is that reference to the ordinary and the Rover Safety is essentially irrelevant in a discussion of the motorised bicycle. There is plenty more that can be said on its history, and on the forks in the road which led to the motorcycle and the moped. But the frame style had no significant influence on the development of the motorised bike: ordinaries were not motorised because they had died out by the time a practical bicycle-sized engine had been developed. I have seen motorised bicycles based on several different frame types, it seems to me that the frame style is no more influential (and not significantly differently distributed) from unassisted pedal cycles. The only style of bike I personally have not seen motor assisted is the recumbent bicycle (I have seen several motorised recumbent trikes). I can't think of any authorities offhand who link the motorcycle to the hobby-horse - this, too, was history by the time of the motorcycle.

I don't believe there was any serious thought given to motorising bikes before the Rover Safety because (a) the Safety embodied the lower CoG and castor steering which makes a bike stable enough to be propelled at higher speeds in safety and (b) the Safety was in any case a response to the arrival on the scene of inventions such as mass-produced ball bearings, practical chain drives and fine casting and assembly techniques which are a prerequisite for motorisation. Of course, back in those days they would try bolting a motor on pretty much anything! Frame style has relevance only in this sense: early motorised bikes were simply production bikes with a motor bolted on. These days you can also still retrofit a motor to a stock frame, but then and now the existence of the motorised bike led to a class of machine designed around the motor. The modern Powabyke, to pick one example, has a mixte-style frame with the main tubes splayed to acommodate a battery. But what I'm saying is that the development of the safety frame is in the past by the time the motorised bicycle really starts to take off in the early part of the 20th Century.

The relevance of the comment re Daimler is solely to show that 1932 is late in the day as far as development is concerned. I know the difference between a motorcycle, a moped and a motorised bike; I think you are getting too bogged down in one product from one minor manufacturer. My impression from various sources is that France played a leading role here, with the cyclomoteur class being exempt from various regulations, and with young rioders being permitted. France also has a comparable class of light car still, which requires no driving license. I think this regulatory regime combined with the French enthusiasm for cycling led to France being a leader in the development of the (internal combustion) motorised bike. But I don't yet have enough verifiable information to say so in the article.

Finally, as I say, I see no difficulty at all in defining what constitutes a motorised bike. The fact that different legislatures call it different things and accord it different laws is not a reflection of the difficulty of identifying it, it's to do with the historical perspective in those aras. In the UK it is counted as a road vehicle. In other jurisdictions legal regulation of it has got mixed up with the Segway, which is undoubtedly not designed as a road vehicle. The practical definition for the purposes of this article is pretty simple and unambiguous,to my mind.

Is that any clearer? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 11:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

First, I would like to thank you AfD? for answering several of my questions. We must be clear on where we are comming from. When this article started it was soly on "electric bicycle". Perhaps irrelevant now, I think we should however keep in mind that the article is not intended to be a history of the motorcycle, the moped, or even of the bicycle (as my previous history post might have allusioned).. humm... wait a minute... (*think, think,!) Should we do that? hum... I could see a lot, lot more work having to be done. Merge here. Scream there. No. Never mind. Again, I think the frame had an important role in the developement, but now that you mention the gears, the ball bearing, etc... that makes sense to! Could be a combination? I don't agree that "ordinaries were not motorised because they had died out by the time a practical bicycle-sized engine had been developed." (Well first, when we say ordinaries, we mean the triangle-frame such as the CCM bike I was talking about right?) I agree with you that perhaps in the last 10 to 20 years, maybe even more that the bicycle frame was probably irelevant because by this point they where all prety strong (compared to the first pre-history bicycles). B.t.w. here is a link to a motorized recumbent bicycle (the link is already on the main article page). For the speed, I know the CCM was constructed with a motor more for the torc in climbing hills. So the general frame concept, being safer, stronger, must have been a reason for it being a choice of motorization in the late 1930s. If you mean motorized bicycle take of around in the late 20th century you would be more precise to say the late 1970s... that would be correct according to statistic on the registration of Mopeds in Canada! (Moped is a type of motorized bicycle) But if you mean electric bicycles, then the really late 20th century (say around late 1990s) would be appropriate. (They're fairly new I don't have to many stats on that!). If you say France had an influence... I would believe you. It's just setting up our history line! OMG! A history line! humm... user:CyclePat/History line of the Motorized bicycle? (anyone want to dare try and make it! (is it worth an article?) Anyway. I know in music, we often studied the influence of pre-histories influence on the development of newer music (that we hadn't studied yet). Example: The Beethoven influence on so many other composers: the interminable cadences, the, his classic style vs. schoenbergs dodecaphonism. However every composer had his style. I think we might be getting into the history of different styled motorized bicycles (which is always subjective). Major studies are produces on such theories and when we here about it class, it's like a 2 second blurb. (well of course with an analitical study of the symphony to demonstrate) At least we are agreing somewhere in the midle, as you said: "Frame style has relevance only in this sense: early motorised bikes were simply production bikes with a motor bolted on." Now we need to analyse why they where bolted on! (Perhaps it was the stronger frame?) or perhaps as you sugest it was the adventure of trying to hook a motor up to anything? p.s.: I say this with anxiety: If you find anything on the French do post it in the article! Cheers --CyclePat 14:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

No, an ordinary bicycle is a high-wheeler (I thought I said that?). What I'm saying is that the bicycle was sufficiently settled into the standard diamond-frame pattern before the advent of motorisation as to make the history of that development (which is in any case well covered elsewhere) irrelevant to a discussion of the motorised bicycle. It is not at all like musical influences, where there is a continuum of overlapping change over time, and where different composers worked with, or in reaction to other composers. The advent of the safety bicycle format, on which most motorised bicycles are based, was essentially a one-time change. And the UCI want to keep it that way :-)

And you are still far too hung up on that one bike from one small Canadian manufacturer in the 1930s. You'd be far better off spending your energies on researching the really early days of the motorised bicycle. I know of no good evidence that this event (or Canada in general) exerted any discernible influence over the history and development of the motorised bicycle. You've not provided any such evidence either. Oh, and remember that early bicycles all had heavy steel frames. Lightweight frames followed on as manufacturing technology improved. As far as I can tell, in the early days of motorisation, there was no need to look for an especially heavy or rugged frame, as there was nothing else on offer. Again, this is just the view I have from my researches, so if you can provide verifiable documentary evidence to the contrary it would have a place in the article.

Remember, too, that everything in this article must be verifiable by reference to credible external sources. We are not here to conduct original research. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 10:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Why do you question my sources? you have virtually the same info as I do. First off... I'd just like to say... had the wheel never been invented I don't think we would have a motorized bicycle... so history has an important role on this. (aside: Idea: History of the Development of the Motorized bicycle wheel) Okay! Let's write all the sources down again. (*head shaking)(*breather). Maybe you should write down your sources so we can compare notes. (Feel free to add it on my user page under links/"your username")(Many links that where mentioned during discusions in motorized bicycle article where put on my user page) (b.t.w. What the heck is UCI, and why is UCI influencing this article? Please explain why you say "the advent of the safety bicycle format, on which most motorised bicycles are based, was essentially a one-time change. And the UCI want to keep it that way :-))" What do you mean by a one-time change? (This could be worth putting in the article if you explain yourself) Okay... here is my primary source: Bikes:The Wheel Story/(museum of science and technology). B.t.w. I don't think I said this bicycle was the first! The "statements/facts" that I presented seem to coincide with your afformentioned comment, essentially that the safety bicycle format appears to be at this point in time the base for motorized bicycles. NPOV my, my,... anyway! Have fun reading the source. I await your sources for your previous statements. :) --CyclePat 20:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Pat, you are misunderstanding again what I am saying. I do not dispute that CCM added a motor to the Light Delivery, what I dispute is that this bike or this addition had any significance to the global development of the motorised bicycle. Nor does your cited source show that. That source is about an exhibit in a museum - it is contextualising the exhibit, not defining the history of the motorized bicycle. The addition of the motor is a footnote even in this article, it is mainly about the versatility of the diamond frame, which is covered in bicycle. And as for Timeline of Motorized bicycle history, if you're going to include the invention of the wheel you have to include the Bessemer converter, the discovery of aluminium refining and manufacturing techniques, key developments in welding and brazing, the development of fine casting techniques - but I suspect this, too, is well covered elsewhere (probably in industrial revolution). This article is about the motorized bicycle and its development globally. The motorized bicycle is a sideline to both the bicycle and the motorcycle, of some passing interest mainly due to the legislative confusion it arouses. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 12:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

history of this article

Another reason it is important to include this information is because we really don't have anywhere else to put it. Unlike the link to bicycle, which might have the sub-category ordinary bicycle... we are unable to do so with this article. Though this is not a strong argument I have to argue that the article bicycle, has a fair amount of "stolen" information from the article ordinary bicycle. If they can do... why can't we! note: Originally motorized bicylce was only about electric bicycle. Some administrators decided we should merge. It would be kind of stupid to unmerge. I think we should get the general history correct. But how? Question? Is there an encyclopedic article somewhere on motorized bicycle? Anyway, there has been a constant dilema on expending and having different sub-categories for our article (see the Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion (electric bicycle). What does that have to do with all this you ask. I think, in part because of deletionists, that it keeps the article small and medeocre and prevents from quickly expanding new sub-categories that might have important information for the developement of the main article motorized bicycle. Suggestion: Have as many sub-article on motorized bicycles. (that also eliminates the double standard that exist with the afformentioned example in bicycle but also with the motorized bicycles such as "moped"(which has it's own article) vs "electric bicycle." --CyclePat 21:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I tried to leave, but I have to defend myself here. #1, you are completely misunderstanding "deletionist". It does not mean that deletionist users are for deleting material from articles. It means that they believe that articles need a certain level of notability before they should be included. It has to do with article inclusion, not with what to do once the articles are on the site. By the way, there is an article on deletionists at the Meta site.

And "administrators" did not decide to merge the articles. Alynna is not an admin. Just diz guy is not an admin. And there were others that supported merging. I'm not really sure when I became "the bad guy" on all of this. I did not make decisions as to merging on my own. I strongly dislike how I leave the article and now it's back to...let's create all of these sister articles and categories. Let's go back to arguing for the 10th time that we need a separate article on electric bicycles. The consensus was for merging. Again, I was not on my own. It was me and kate and alynna and some others. I'm sorry you were on the losing end of the merging issue, Pat, but accept it and try to work within what is being done here instead of continually hinting that we need a separate electric bikes article. That was decided a month ago. Please move on. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feal that way. --CyclePat 08:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Now we still have a problem. As I said "Unlike the link to bicycle, which might have the sub-category ordinary bicycle... we are unable to do so with this article." Does anyone have a possible cause or more importantly a solution? Another problem is getting the general history correct. That is why I started a timeline on the main page. (Any other suggestions) And finally, again, is there an encyclopedic article somewhere on motorized bicycle? --CyclePat 08:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know the possible cause: one person who for reasons known only to themselves insists on trying to put half the history of the bicycle into an article discussing motorisation of the bicycle, when that history is already well covered in bicycle and the major turning point was already wel past before motorisation became a practical proposition. The solution is obvious to everyone but you, Pat. You are right that getting the history correct is problematic (per WP:NOR). The solution is not to create a separate article including such irrelevancies as the invention of the wheel and speculation about the first (unpowered) bicycle, plus, purely by conicidence, the addition of a commerically available motor to an existing bike by one small manufacturer in Canada, an event whose significance you have yet to provide any authority for. These irrelevancies get removed here, and they would get removed there as well (assuming it survives its VfD). WP:V and WP:NOR are the key problems, and you have yet to address them. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 12:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay! I've talk about this with you before. There is no argumenting here on the importance/significance in the global history of motorized bicycle... But since you want a talk about it, then here we go. I have simply presented some facts that I found at the Museum of Science and Technology of Canada. I am presenting the fact not arguing. You are arguing about nothing. I haven't found any studies or information on the significance of this CCM bicycle. But it feels like you might have some because you keep deleting the information about CCM. Is this original research of yours? So what I'm saying is would you stop it. My viewpoint should be fairly reported, and its alleged (according to you)minority status noted, and then I would be happy. --CyclePat 18:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Pat, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. I removed the CCM solely because there was no evidence of its significance to the global development of the motorized bicycle, which is what this article is about. As soon as you provide that, in it goes - but you say you have no such evidence. As far as I can tell Canada itself, with which (as your homeland) you are naturally most concerned and most interested, is itself not significant in the global development of the motorized bicycle. So put the Light Delivery in the article on CCM, where it has an indisputable place. In the mean time we have enough notable examples to make the history and development clear within this article without running off after apparent red herrings. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 19:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

should we add {{notsportcycling}}

Should we add somewhere in the article a spot for {{notsportcycling}}? (sample here)

or {{cycling project}}?

(sample here)

--CyclePat 22:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

(I just added the {{cycling project}} category! --CyclePat 22:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Well it been two days or so, that I asked what you think about adding {{notsportcycling}}. I guess I'll just do it and see what people say. --CyclePat 04:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

French: Motorized bicycle links to ("bicyclette assistée") in French or as we say in english "power-assisted bicycle"

The french article of motorized bicycle only talks about electric bicycles. It is well written and that's why I'm hesitant to begin re-writing it to reflect more general concept of motorized bicle. The link is no longer really valid and should be removed to the french article. However, I think we shouldn't forget about the article (humm... Vélo à assistance électrique. I'll see what I can do as a simple user. I'm not quite sure what? But in the mean time any sugestions? --CyclePat 06:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

This is the English wikipedia, we have nothing to do with articles on fr. If you want to make or request or propose changes to the fr article, you should do it on that article's talk page. · Katefan0^(scribble) 06:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't say it that correctly. I meant to say. Our english article, on the left side has a link to the french article on electric bicycles. I though this somewhat, redirect to the french article, should be deleted. --CyclePat 06:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I figured it out. For your info: I removed the [[fr:Vélo à assistance électrique]] because it talked soly of "power-assisted bicycles" (bicyclette assistée) --CyclePat 06:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Sorry, I misunderstood. However ... I don't mind that you removed the link, but would point out that the reason to have removed it is because it's in French, NOT because it only deals with one aspect of motorized bicycles. If it's a relevant aspect of motorized bicycles, I don't see any reason per se to be trimming external links unless they're frivolous or inherently commercial in nature, etc. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

If I'm reading correctly, the reasoning was that this interwiki link to the French Wikipedia article was removed because it only deals with one aspect of motorized bicycles. --Alynna 21:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Right, I got that. What I was saying is that it's an invalid reason for removal. But in the end it should probably stay removed since it's French and this is the English wikipedia. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought the whole point of the "in other languages" links was to link to other wikipedias, which are in other languages...--Alynna 22:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

NEW Category

My edits:

• Added a new category [[category:Motorized bicycle]]
• Also added timeline section
• added Transportion and cycle stub
• added many other appropriate categories.
• Placed Moped in the category of motorized bicycle.--CyclePat 08:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed the timelines since we are still a long way short of having enough externally verifiable data to support that article. I suggest that we work on it at Motorized bicycle/Timeline until we have enough verifiable data to make a decent article. And Pat, I am going to ask you to provide verifiable external references to support your continued assertion of the significance of CCM's fitting of a commercially available motor to an existing frame, in the context of the global development of the motorized bicycle. Which books, by which authors, mark this as a significant event? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 13:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I brough back the link to the motorized timeline, please allow enough time for everyone to see the link, and please leave it there until the deletion dispute is resolved. --CyclePat 01:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Why? It is much more usual to wait until there is excess information in an article before splitting out, and in any case any critical points we can identify might just as well be added to the transport timeline. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Call for collaborative edits on a rather clunky paragraph

People have been adding engines or motors to bikes for at least 50 years. The Canadian company CCM was attaching a "Pixie" bicycle motor to the back of their light delivery bikes in the late 1940s. Early motorcycles were simply bicycles with engines; essentially a motorized bicycle. (See Motorcycle History) A bicycle with a small motor added used to be known as an "autocycle" or "cyclemotor" [1].

This paragraph is awkward. It seems to me, someone not knowledgeable about cycling issues at all beyond a few political issues mostly regarding Segway, to be strung together without context. Why are these things mentioned? Why is the CCM mentioned, why should I care that a bicycle used to be called an autocycle ... this needs more context. Someone who can provide it should take a whack here on the talk page at making it more useful for the casual reader. For an intro paragraph, I still have no feel for the history of how this evolved. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It reads awkwardly because it has an irrelevant reference to something halfway through the evolution of the internal combustion assisted bicycle stuck in the middle. I'll see if I can't make it a bit more coherent. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Colaborative Research

the information found at http://www.picosearch.com/cgi-bin/ts.pl?index=132708&calln=4&lastq=&opt=ANY&doc0=0&query=bicycle is to large to discern by myself in the short amount of time necessary to have a descent article before the deletion. Please help by including any pertinent information for the article. Thank you! --CyclePat 04:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, check out http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~pattle/nacc/arcindex.htm --CyclePat 05:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Pat, I know Andrew Pattle personally so will ask him for some of his sources to follow this up. But will you please stop pissing all over the consensus here and trying to make a WP:POINT. There is a strong' consensus on this page for keeping history within this article unless and until it becomes too large (which it has not yet). Also, much of the stuff you (I'm assuming it was you, given the text) put into the timeline was irrelevant to the motorized bicycle as defined. It might have the makings of a timeline of motorcycles, or even powered two wheelers generally, but the BSA Bantam is a motorcycle, the Honda Cub is a motor-scooter, the horse-drawn cart, although undoubtedly available as a powered two wheeler, is not actually a motorised bicycle according to the formal definition. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 09:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see my response on the appropriate page. Thank you everyone for your edits. --CyclePat 11:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Timeline of Motorized bicycle history

Steam Engine

My favourite editor is at it again. I do hope his edits about the steam engine bicycle were only by mistake. Right? I believe, steam engine motorized bicycle is worthy of notation in this article. But, for some reason the link was recently removed? Reasons being? Also, who believes that this steam engine, though it might be extreme, is in fact a motorized bicycle? So what is all the fuss about. This is yet another poor edit/delete because I have been stereotyped as some sort of weird backyards editor. So, anyone here ever tryed to ride a steam powered bicycle? Check out the link... Steam Engine bicycle. Cheers! --CyclePat 04:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

What are you on about? Please link diffs. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 09:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I see there is no contest, it's been a few days now since the link to a steam powered bicycle was removed without reason. I will put the link back. For formating, should it go in the place where steam engine appears or at the bottom. (Previous it was at the bottom and was deleted. --CyclePat 18:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, what are you on about? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

No answer, but I think I've worked it out. Generally, in articles, links in the text are Wikilinks, external links are usually placed in the "external links" section. I rationalised the external links section because it had multiple links to pages at various depths on Andrew Pattle's NACC Archive microsite: I replaced that with a link to the NACC Archive root, and added a link to the NACC itself. I have left the steam engine bicycle link in this section this time (against my better judgment) because I simply can't face yet another protracted argument with CyclePat. Frankly, steam engine power is (again) of virtually no overall significance. How many motorised bicycles are steam powered? The evidence thus far is that the number produced is in single figures. Actually Andrew's link has precisely one, built as a curiosity by an eccentric. Amusing enough, but again 'completely irrelevant to the global history of the motorised bicycle.

Pat, I have a brilliant idea. It's pretty clear to me (and I guess to you as well) that your POV on this issue is somewhat quirky. Why don't you get a free hosting provider, make a page which looks how you want it to look, and we'll put it in the external links section as "CyclePat's Canadian motorized bicycle pages" or some such. The things you're adding, although often of no demonstrable significance, are interesting enough. This approach will allow you to say what you want to say in the way you want to say it without the constant conflicts with others whose vision of the subject differs from yours. What say? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 15:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I must admit, that does make sense!  :) You hit the spot dead on! lol. The items I hapen to talk about are (assumingly) less notable (or less renoun or famous would probably be better) but they might have a significance. I will look into your suggestion. But, I have a feeling this is something that must happen with other subjects (wiki articles) as well. Do you know how they generally deal with such a things? (That is to consider an item that is less renoun or less notable?)... I though according to NPOV it would be to mention something about them without specifically mentionning them. :s (confusing) Any sugestions? Well actually you did give me a suggestion. Thank you, I'll check into it. --72.57.8.215 23:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell issues like this generally get fixed by the proposer either deomnstrating genuine significance, sufficient to persuade other editors, or accepting the consensus and dropping the matter. In some cases where passions run high we get edit wars and mediation. In this case, with you being the only dissenter and apparently amenable to reason, that should not be necessary. I will be very happy to link to your external page should you choose to make one; I believe it's a good way for you to state your case in your own words. On WP other editors will always come along and change things. Also, it would allow you to put up the how-to I seem to recall you discussing, on how to get your electric bike registered (or was that someoen else?) How-tos don't belong on WP but often get linked. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 13:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Merger

Someone has state that Moped is a motorized bicycle. (http://www.mopedarmy.com/forums/discuss/1/232107/231706/) Therefore, as per WP:MM#Merging these article should be merged. --CyclePat 22:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggest we keep seperate pages. The moped really became it's own machine during the fifties and sixties, I think that the moped warrants mention on this page though, and while you could say that mopeds are motorized bicycles, you can not claim that all motorized bicycles are mopeds, since mopeds are legally regulated and defined as having 50cc engines, and a number of early bike motors and motorized bicycles (such as the Whizzer) use an engine of a larger displacement than 50cc. There are a few mopeds that blur the lines between what is clearly a moped and what is clearly a motorized bicycle, such as the VelosoleX, Honda P50, and the Garelli Mosquito - these machines should probably be mentioned on both pages, but after the early sixties the moped and motorized bicycle's (baring those examples above) evolutionary paths diverged in manner significant enough that they became seperate - although they remain much more similiar to eachother than to any other motorized transport. Just my 2 cents. User:K-111

I agree with K-111. The suggestion comes from a moped message board, not from Wikipedians. We have already explored this and there appears to me to be a strong consensus for this being separate, not least becasue most jurisdictions treat the two differently but also because the two strands of development are entirely separate. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 09:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey CyclePat, I'm glad to see you're at the Moped Army's forums and making good use of them. I was going to say hi over there, but have been busy with the Thanksgiving festivities this week and taking a little time off the internet. As for the merger request, I still don't think these two articles are necessarily a good match. We failed to reach a consensus last time this merger was suggested, and I'm still of the same opinion—that mopeds are functionally more like a 50cc motorcycle with starting pedals than a bike with a helper motor. --Charleschuck 03:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello, and yes, Happy Thanks Giving (for you US neighbors). Comments are duly noted and appreciated. Thank you. It would be nice to have at least one more opinion, if possible someone new. To summarize what you guys have said:

• Some motorized bicycles are Moped because of jurisdictional laws (obviously some are not)
• Not a good match because later on in there history the two strand shave different developments? (Okay, but if we want to add that to our article, we have to be careful when demonstrating and we should keep in mind the new electric bicycles)(which I think we do, right?)
• Motorized bicycle are more like a bike with helper motors vs a 50cc motorcycle.

my quick comment: I think it's is really nice gray area. That's one reason I asked the question. (We describe it fairly well in the motorized bicycle article) In the context that it was put, I agree with you on this! (a Moped should be a moped)) However for example, my electric motorized bicycle is registered as a moped here in Ontario. So legally a motorized bicycle could be a moped. not all are! (as you demonstrated) This exception to the rule, I though would be a nice inclusion. As you said... That made me believe that motorized bicycle, was a broader term that could include prety much all mopeds (with pedals). It changes so much from jurisdiction that, that's why I asked? If we get this cleared up, or at least clearly stated (which I believe, by recolection, we do in the motorized bicycle article.), I think we will be on our way to a featured article. --CyclePat 05:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is that Moped is a legal classification that varies between various countries while motorised bicycles is a defined type of two wheeled vehicle. All particular types of motorised two wheeled vehicles should be and can be classified as a motorised bike, scooter or motorcycle. I do not think there needs to be a merger as my recent edits to the moped article clearly show that these articles are of two seperate concepts. --Clawed 08:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• I propose that the merge tag be removed, there being no apparent support and previous (apparently similar) discussion having already rejected it. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 22:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I am going to remove the merge tag. You just don't give up, do you Pat? Stubborness will be your undoing here, I guarantee it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

And yes, this was already defeated. We work on consensus here, Pat. I'm not sure if you just think I'm making this up to be mean or what. Wikipedia:Consensus. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You might think so, but I couldn't comment on that. However, if you take a look at the start of that Wikipedia:Consensus page, you may notice someone put the comment "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia." You may also notice that this merger request was initiated because of a third party POV oppinion. But Again, I couldn't possibly comment on that, now could I. --Pat 05:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I can comment that it is my belief you probably should have let another administrator remove the merger, considering the vested interest you have in this article. What happens when a merger is removed early? Why should it be removed early? --Pat 05:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Can someone explain the significant relevance of legal definitions to these decisions of whether to merge or not? I mean, what relevance does no legal distinction between a road bike and mountain bike have on whether we should have separate Wiki articles on these? I don't see how whether the law distinguishes between motorized bicycles and mopeds should have any weight on a merge/separate Wiki decision either.

Having said that, it seems to me that there is a significant distinction between mopeds and motorized bicycles that warrants separate articles. But, then, I also think a similar significant distinction applies to electric bicycles and motorized bicycles in general. I don't know much about any of these topics (I'm into pure human powered cycles, thank you). But I will say from my ignorant disinterested and therefore relatively neutral POV that I could certainly see wanting to read and learn about mopeds independent of motorized bicycles, and the same about electric bicycles. I think you should be consistent and do the right thing... create separate articles for each of these distinctive types of vehicles. --Serge 06:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I also belive that mopeds and motorized bicycle should be allowed separate articles. --Eav 04:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)