Talk:Track stand

Photo

I like the photo but it's a little too crowded. Maybe we can get a new photo that shows only one person doing a trackstand. Will 17:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I tried to blur the background some but it still looks too crowded. I'll try to get someone to pose in front of a plain background, or if another contributor beats me to it that would be fine too! -SCEhardT 23:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The “Technique” section mentions that the handlebar is held at 45°, but the picture shows it at 90°. Since the text says the angle converts forward/back motion to left/right, maybe it meant to say 90°? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iain.dalton (talk • contribs) 05:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Now there is another picture that shows the 45° orientation. Text also now says approximately 45°. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

"Zen" connection

Is this really appropriate or necessary for an encyclopedia article? Needless to say it's completely POV. LDHan 21:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this is wholly relevant. It is what attracts a lot of people to riding fixed/track. Also, individuals who can track stand for long periods of time explain it in some Zen fashion. For example, anyone can balance on a thin wood stump, but it entails some connectivity to be able to stand on it, lets say, for an hour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.161.0.238 (talk • contribs)

I think the trackstand, and the fact it's easier on a fixed wheel/gear bike than a freewheel bike are some of the attractions of riding a fixed wheel/gear bike. But this is separate to a "zen" explaination or description of the experience of a trandstand or riding a fixed wheel/gear bike, it's completely inside the mind of of a person who would do so. You could argue riding a bike itself has some "Zen" qualities because there's more connectivity to your suroundings than compared with driving a car, but nobody does, because nobody's heard of or talks about such an explaination/theory. However I do think there is more of a feeling of "connectivity" when riding fixed compared to a freewheel bike, but it’s nothing to do "Zen". LDHan 13:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the question is whether or not it belongs in an encyclopedia. Nobody denies that many people who ride fixed or can do trackstands talk about a "zen" connection. Whether they are misguided or not is not the issue here. The issue is whether Wikipedia should mention this aspect of the culture even though it's completely subjective and has no factual roots. I say yes because I think that the more the page says the better, at least to a certain extent ;) Will 06:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Since it has been rewritten with a more NPOV, I'm now undecided as to whether it has a place in the article. LDHan 07:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I just went ahead and cut that section. What a very small minority of cyclists think about this move is irrelevant to an encyclopedia article.207.6.31.6 03:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel strongly that we should keep the Zen connection part. Why? Because even though there is no way to write such a section in a verifiable manner or without weasel words, you can't deny that the Zen connection is a part of track riding. Maybe we should include some of the stuff on the track bike page but I feel it definitely belongs somewhere as "a claim of track cyclists." I'm sure, also, that there are websites like [www.oldskooltrack.com] that would make such a claim more verifiable. This is like the light bulb joke, just because such a joke can't be verified it is nonetheless a cultural phenomenon and to that extent Wikipedia should document it. Will 18:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you can deny that "Zen" connection is a part of track riding, and I do. But that's not the issue. Although what certain people's subjective views are can be in an article, the point here is notability, ie whether this "Zen" connection is held by a significant proportion of fixed cyclists, it seems to me such a view is held by a tiny minority, no more than a handful of riders, I would say less than 0.1%. If I beleived that trackstands had a, say, socialist connection, and I had a website stating my beliefs, does that mean the article should mention a connection between socialism and trackstands? LDHan 21:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the Zen connection, as it is currently called, should at least be mentioned on fixed-gear bicycle. I think .1% is a huge underestimate and even that you don't have to be a Buddhist to acknowledge the concepts. If the subset of fixed gear cyclists were that low I would agree with you but I think a large part of fixed gear riding are these ideas like "flow" and "consistency." Will 23:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Track stands on "free-wheel" bicycles

I have seen cyclists on a road bike (not fixed gear) do track stands on flat ground, and they also use their brakes (perhaps just front brake?) and appear able to somehow use their body to push their bike backwards after stopping the forward motion with the brake.

I really don't understand how this is possible, because on a fixed-gear bike, pedaling backwards (as explained in the article) brings the bike under your center of gravity when the latter is in the direction opposite to the turn of the front wheel. But using the inertia of the body to push the bike back would appear to me push the body's center of gravity farther from the bike and not help balance.

I'd sure like someone to figure this out and write up how a track stand can be done on level ground without a fixed-gear bike.

Gary 02:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

On a freewheel bike, I suspect it's just balancing on two points by using your body weight and moving it to keep the bike balanced. On a fixed you stay still and move the bike by forward or back pedalling, whilst on a freewheel bike I think you keep the bike still and move your body, so if you're falling to your right, you adjust and balance by moving your body weight to the left, and not by trying to push the bike towards your left. I haven't actually done it on a freewheel bike, so it's just a guess. LDHan 03:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well it MIGHT be possible because a trackstander relies on making sure the bike is right under his/her the center of gravity. It would certainly be very hard to do on completely level ground.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfisher (talk • contribs)

On level ground, when I track stand on a freewheel bike with a rigid fork I have to creep forward a bit every few seconds. With front suspension however, I use the brakes to make the suspension bounce, thus propelling myself backwards and setting up a forward-backward rocking motion. -SCEhardT 01:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

How to?

Does this article really need a how-to? There is no way that a how-to is encyclopedic although I haven't actually read wikipedia's article on quality to see if it is or is not. I would like to remove this... we already have a link that acts as a how to.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfisher (talk • contribs)

The article needs to explain how a track stand works. Right now the how-to section does this, but I agree that the info should not be presented in a how-to format. Some rewording is in order. -SCEhardT 01:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The new version looks good! Thanks, whoever did all that rewording. 207.6.31.6 03:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed wheel?

I personally have never heard the term fixed wheel, is it necessary to use that term? If it is a real synonym to the more-popular term "fixed gear" then we ought to simply link to fixed gear and let the fixed gear page deal with the other popular nicknames/terms for fixed gear. Please discuss. Will 18:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"Fixed wheel" is definitely used, and it's not even a synonym. Perhaps it's not commonly used in USA, but there are people in other English speaking parts of the world who do use it. LDHan 21:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I did a little research and although I have never heard fixed wheel (I'm from NYC) apparently it is commonly used in the UK and other places (fixed-gear bicycle has a section about this). Nonetheless, shouldn't we at least be consistent throughout the article? Do we need to repeat the fact that it can be called both ways throughout the article?Will 23:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Should we change the lead?

Hi,

Currently, the lead says:

The track stand is a technique that bicycle riders can use to stay balanced on their bicycles while moving only minimal distances.

I think this definition is hard to understand, and maybe even misleading for the uninitiated. Do you think we could change it to this (difference is in bold)?:

The track stand is a technique that bicycle riders can use to stay balanced on their bicycles without putting their feet down, and without moving, or moving only minimal distances.

Is this easier to understand? Is it factually correct? --Mondotta (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the confusion is, but I don't see a problem with your suggestion. Probably can't hurt to be explicit. You might add without moving forward. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)