Talk:Motorcycle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Motorcycle vs motorbike

In the UK, a motorcycle is sometimes called a motorbike. I haven't yet changed the article to say this. I've added a picture of my sons motorbike (a Cagiva Planet, rare in the UK).
Arpingstone 11:45 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Gyroscopic forces and countersteering

"At speed, the gyroscopic forces cause a phenomenon known as "counter-steer" to occur, where (for instance) pushing on the left handlebar and pulling on the right will cause the bike to lean to the left, and then execute a left hand turn".
Really, surely the bike turns to the right!! in which case what has countersteer got to do with it? -- Arpingstone 12:32 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

Have you ever ridden, sir? Sharp (relatively) turns at high speed do indeed cause the countersteering effect. It does NOT turn to the right. Tom S.

[edit] Countersteering

The description of countersteering is correct, but the explanation is incorrect. It is generally considered that precession is only a small component of what goes on during counter steering, and that the major component is simply due to the contact patch moving to the side and causing the motorcycle to yaw (I think it's yaw) around its center of mass.

If precession were a major factor, moving the bars in a wheelie and tank-slappers would induce major lean, and neither is the case.

IT"S HOWDY DOODY TIME Y'all

Hello countersteering is correct but this is offset by leaning the bike to the right to go around the corner, this is demonstratble by the fact that if you try and corner to fast you drift out to the left and crash.

[edit] Usenet comments

Comments on usenet about this text; google groups Giskart Walter 09:25 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Really very dull and boring

This really is a very dull and boring page for motorcycles, the little bits of advice about riding and tuning sound like an old mother hen. One day when I have time I'll write a new one. Bob Palin 23:18, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, get on with it, we've been waiting a year!! - Adrian Pingstone 14:04, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'd totally forgotten about this comment, the page has been edited a lot since then and I think is much better now. Bob Palin 18:40, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Bob, apologies for my rude tone, it wasn't intended to come out like that! Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 09:30, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Motorcycle was NOT invented by Daimler

Daimler's creation had FOUR wheels. Essentially, it was a motorized bicycle with training wheels. However, the additional two wheels prevent it from being considered a motorcycle which is defined as a two wheeled motorized vehicle. I believe this places invention of the motorcycle in William S. Harley's court. I won't change that yet because I can't verify it. Gotta keep things Wiki, afterall.  :) However... many insist that Serial Number One, the first Harley-Davidson does not qualify as a motorcycle either. It is initially pedal-powered, and the frame was simply a modified bicycle frame. Some insist that in addition to having two wheels and a motor, a true motorcycle must have a frame designed specifically for that purpose, and it must be able to move under its own power. How Stuff Works has some insights into this under their section on Harley-Davidsons. I'm going to insert a bit about Harley designing the first motorcycle. I cant verify it, but it should get the attention of someone who knows differently.  :) Tom S.

Not sure who removed my revisions... but while I agree that the reference to William Harley is dubious and needs some consensus, the fact is that Daimler's creation is NOT a motorcycle. It has four wheels. Look at the picture!
Its a wooden cycle frame with a (petrol) engine plus two small stabilizing wheels. I had stabilisers on my first bicycle, but it was still a bicycle. Daimlers idea is recognizably a motorised bicycle, as opposed to a "horseless carriage". There is some reference out there to a steam powered bicycle earlier still. GraemeLeggett 1 July 2005 09:44 (UTC)
Your stabilizers in fact made your first bicycle (bi meaning two) something different, at least until they were removed. I too used training wheels on my first bicycle. The fact that they were TEMPORARY is likely why we dont have a word for bicycles with training wheels. They are a temporary fix to help children learn to ride. The stabilizers on Daimler's creation were permanent, and Daimler was specifically AVOIDING the idea of a motorcycle. We have a word for motorized four wheeled vehicles: four-wheelers. It's not a horseless carriage, and it is not a motorcycle. It is a fourwheeler. While he certainly deserves credit for building the first petro powered vehicle, and should be on this page specifically for inspiring motorcycles, his creation is not a motorcycle. Tom S.
        • And in expansion of my point; Daimler-Maybach did not even call it a motorcycle. Also, if merely resembling a bicycle and having an engine is all that is required to be a motorcycle, the first sentence of this article, which states that a motorcycle is "a 'two wheeled' vehicle powered by an engine" must be revised to say something along the lines of a "motor vehicle modeled after the unpowered bicycle.

[edit] Noise pollution section not NPOV

The section goes rather heavily against bikers for noise pollution without going into the "why" of it. While many bikers just like the sound of their own bikes, many others have adopted the philosophy of "loud pipes save lives". The "Safety" section should link to this (how do I do this?). Many bikers modify their exhaust systems to be as loud as possible to bring attention from other drivers, reducing accidents caused by a failure to be noticed. Numerous studies have sided for and against this theory, but as long as bikers with loud pipes have personal anecdotes of being saved by their sounds the theory has logical validity. You know my reasons now... here comes the change. Tom S.

Who on earth expanded the Noise Pollution section without bothering with talk? They simply reiterate what was said BEFORE. The paragraph on Loud Pipes Save Lives is part of the standard critique to NP complaints. The rebuttal to the rebuttal seems placed to merely neutralize the critique, largely by repeating what was said in the first NP paragraph. Stamping out critique like this is NOT NPOV. Tom S.


[edit] In addition, consider this

If we are to accept the definition of "motorcycle" or "motorbike" as "a two-wheeled vehicle powered by an engine" then I believe credit for the 1st inventor should go to American, Sylvester Howard Roper (1823-1896) who invented a two-cylinder, steam-engine motorbike (powered by coal) in 1867. Thoughts anyone? --Highwayknight 17:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Well... there's no requirement for a motorcycle to have a petroleum-powered motor... only a motor is necessary to fit the definition given. That would mean that this Roper invention is in fact the first motorcycle. One question though... how many wheels did it have? Tom S.
just the two, it was a boneshaker bicycle with the steam engine between the legs - the inventor was killed riding it. I would say it is a contribution to the idea if the practical application of it, perhaps we can say that Daimler's is the ancestor of the modern bike. GraemeLeggett 07:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
hmm... Might work. Either way, I am not comfortable giving Daimler the credit, since his invention had four wheels. If the stabilizer wheels were removeable as in bicycle training wheels, then I'd say sure, he invented the motorcycle. But we either have to change the definition of motorcycle or credit him with only inspiring them. I wonder... is Daimler and his invention featured on an article on four-wheelers? He certainly deservest to be! Tom S.

[edit] Changes to Engine and Off-Road sections

I just rewrote the sections mentioned above. If people like it then I have a bunch more stuff I could add/clean up on this article. - Bruce

Enduros are listed with the Dual Sports, as being "Street legal". Enduros are not street legal. They are off-road machines that are designed to do enrurance racing and are not always dual-sporting. Actually racers will remove unnecessary items from their bikes to save weight and avoid having to fix things like blinkers or getting injured by the license plate. I think we should put the motocross, enduros, trail and cross-country bikes under the "off-road" flag. My neighbor bought a BMW GS and it was sold to him as being an "enduro". He went trail riding with it, broke both the bike and his leg, because he was also told that the trail he ventured on was for "enduros", which it is, but not for a GS, which is a Dual-Sport. --WhiteEcho 18:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Hang on ladies & gents. Enduro commonly is like WRC (Car rallyes) - ie off road stages and off roading linked by road stages. a proper enduro bike is distinguishable from a MX bike primarily by the road legal features (ie lights, number plates, etc as well as some internal differences). A dual sport is an entirely different bike and you really wouldn't take it off road properly. Example of enduro bikes are much more MX oriented (think KTMs, etc, MX like, and general and recently sub 500cc). The BMW is the very odd exception (it and the KTM Super Enduro) as its huge, weights a tonne (well...) and is 1200cc (IIRC) - BMW have styled this an enduro and several specialist publications (Eg in the UK; TBM, TMX, etc) have tested them but seriously it is a novelty for ralleys at best - you would take one to proper enduro unless you was mad!!!
The "off road" banner should IMHO include trials, MX, and enduro bikes but with the caveat that they all can be road legal and trials and enduro bikes are built as such. trail bikes (not the difference between trials and trails) are explicit-ally road legal and thus road bikes as trails are roads but appear off road because they are not on tarmac (a very subtle nuance and legal technicality. Pickle

[edit] First motorcycle

There was some question about Harley building the first motorcycle. However, William Harley and the Davidson brothers (Arthur and Walter) built their bike in 1902.

The problem with the word "motorcycle" as opposed to "motorbike" is that a bike has only two wheels while a cycle may have one or more. I know of no motorized unicycle. In most instances, a motorcycle is distinguished from an automobile in that a cycle has only one driven wheel without another on the same axle or a free-wheeling wheel positioned laterally from it. The first cycle of this sort was the Butler in 1884. Edward Butler designed a tricycle with a single wheel at the back which was powered by a gasoline engine. It had two wheels up front. It was not until 1888 that Butler had this thing in production.

Daimler's unit in 1885 was a wood-frame cycle that had two large in-line wheels where the rear wheel was powered by his motor. There were, indeed, two small "out-rigger" wheels which did not touch the ground except when the unit was leaned over as when turning a corner or when stopped. The rider straddled the frame rather than sitting in a chair-like seat (which feature some might use to describe a motorcycle). --Cadillac 16:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the dicussion on who "invented" the motorbike misses the point that there wasn't one single inventor and that motorbikes or motorcycles are the product of an evolving technlogy. I think it would be useful to include some of this history in the article. I had a look at the equivalent page in German, it has a bit more history and refers to the first motorbike that was available for purchase, the Hildebrand & Wolfmüller in 1894, and also lists some of the significant developments that make up a modern bike - I think this approach is preferable rather than focusing on who invented what. Some time over the next week I might translate the section and include it in the discussion page for input. Hmette 02:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Motorcycles in India

We have a section about motorcycles in India that consists of a list of external links to Indian motorcycle manufacturers. I would say split off a separate article (Motorcycles in India has potential, no?), except there is no content to go with the links. Suggestions? Rl 11:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I have removed it from the article and will place it here.--Clawed 12:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The major Indian motorcycle manufacturers are:


I have give a start. Its upto others to expand. Motorcycles in India

[edit] Flashing strobe headlights?

The article now claims that "Some bikes have flashing strobe headlights.". I've never seen anything that I'd describe like that. I find it hard to believe because if it looks anything like the strobe lights I know, it must be incredibly irritating to everyone involved. Details, please? Is it the main headlight or an additional light? What's the frequency used? Where can they be found (country, model)? Rl 08:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I live in Canada and the big bikes (e.g., Honda Gold Wing) have the strobe light for the main headlight. They have been out for about three years. When you see one coming at you, it sure gets your attention. I think it is the best thing they have yet developed. Police cars have used the flashing headlights in emergency situations to catch your attention. I'll see if I can direct you to a source. Cadillac 22:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I just checked with my "reliable source" who tells me that the flashing strobe light is an aftermarket light modulator. It flashes only during the daytime and can be switched to a steady light. At night, it automatically changes to a steady light. Apparently it is the "rage" for Gold Wing riders. Cadillac 23:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Fascinating. I can't wait to see one of those :-). Thanks! Rl 23:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Here's a link to a company that sells the modulator. http://www.xtremerevolution.com/Store/spc-1294-38-5-kuryakyn-kisan-pathblazer-headlight-modulator.aspx

[edit] Rewrote Safety Section

As noted, I rewrote the safety section. If someone feels I chopped out useful information, feel free to edit it back in. It still needs more work, but I have to sleep at some time. My only concern with the section now is that the writing style may be too dry.

Also, this entire page will soon need to be broken into sub-articles. It's getting excessively large. — User:Bruce2 06:42:45, 2005-08-23 (UTC)

It looks good to me Cadillac 00:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Motorcycle Safety

I see that there is a separate page for "Car Safety" -- Do you think we should move the motorcycle safety section to a separate page? Cadillac 23:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure, why not? I've been chopping up this page like a wild thing, anyway! Bruce 03:39:31, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
Good work on the re-write. I think the "Risk Taking" section should be moved into the safety page, with some editing - what do others think? Hmette 13:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I'd be cool with it Bruce 18:42:47, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
I think the article Motorcycle safety clothing should be incorporated into the motorcycle safety page as well, as it is barely linked from the motorcycle article.--Clawed 21:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree. I didn't even know that page existed. Bruce 23:25:36, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

I think the following statement sounds biased, surely no one actually has these statistics. "Given that motorcycles cover less distance than cars per year on average, the figure per unit distance is likely to be much worse." --David Marcucci 18:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There are, at least for the U.S., statistics on average mileage per year for motorcycles. As I recall, the average yearly mileage for motorcycles in the U.S. is quite low - on the order of ~2000 miles/year, so the statement as written is likely correct. Saturn V 18:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
It must be my oversensitivity to negative motorcycle press but I wish there was a footnote with a source. I'll accept it unless I can prove it wrong. --David Marcucci 15:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Here's a NHTSA page with data from 2004, showing the differences in fatalities/miles traveled for motorcycles versus automobiles (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/whatis/bb/2007/pages/NHTSAPerfMeas.htm). Note that the motorcyclist fatality rate per 100 million VMT (vehicle miles traveled) is an order of magnitude higher than for automobiles. I'm still poking around looking for the average mileage traveled per motorcycle per year from the source - I've seen it quoted on other websites as 1920 miles/year. The chart here (http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/motorcycle/), from the insurance industry, shows that although the number of registered motorcycles has increased (as have fatalities from crashes) in the last few years, the total mileage traveled has actually decreased (no idea how that's determined - no one's asked me how many miles I put on my bikes), so statistically, it's gotten more dangerous to ride recently. I understand the sensitivity to negative press on motorcycles, but I think we should be upfront that motorcycling is statistically much more dangerous than driving (at least in the US, although I suspect the same is true elsewhere)... Saturn V 17:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The problem with NHTSA data is they're comparing apples to oranges rather than like to like. Automobiles are primarily used for transportation. When compared to another form of transportation on an exposure basis - ie mileage, motorcycles come out badly. But since motorcycles are primarily used for recreational purposes (even if ridden on the public road), the correct comparison should be with similar recreational useage. If you compare motorcycles with another "transportational" recreation such as horse riding on an exposure basis, either mileage or hour usage, then motorcycles are a much safer recreation. You'll notice that the exposure data for automobiles is almost never compared with the exposure data for the long distance road haulage industry - cars are SO dangerous that they should be banned. Always remember "Lies, damned lies and statistics". M-72 05:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chassis stability

I have a couple of questions regarding this section. First, I am not clear what to make of "A good motorcycle chassis has no stability problems." That seems a bit overstated. Even "good" motorcycles can become unstable under the right circumstances. Second, I am an experienced rider, but I have never seen the term "capsizing" used in this context. As written, I can not determine the meaning of the sentence. --TheJeffMiller 15:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Construction

Suggest that motorcycle design & construction be forked into a new topic. It could include subjects such as handlebars vs clipons, engine layouts, etc.

[edit] Timeline of Motorized bicycle history

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 04:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Edit by 4.240.239.134

This edit needs to be placed in the correct place in the article (eg not in the intro) and if possible needs to be more understandable. I will place the edit here for the moment.

The primary source of 2-wheel vehicle stability is "Trail" or the distance between center of the front tire patch "footprint" on the ground and the intersection point of a centerline originating between the 2 bearings of the frame headstock about which the front tire "weathervanes" for its basic stability, so as to straighten up when the front wheels encounters obstacles such as surface water, sand or dirt. This is proven in "Physics Today" 1970 issue.

--Clawed 10:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for excising that contribution. I wasn't quite sure how to handle it. It clearly did not belong in the introduction, but I didn't have time to try to fit it in elsewhere and didn't feel like deleting it altogether. Maybe it could be worked in under Motorcycle#Chassis stability. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-06 20:59:24Z

[edit] Risk

While there is unquestionably risk involved in riding a motorcycle the unqualified blanket statement I removed was not up to standard and contained misinformation about dirt bike riding. Bob Palin 03:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cult models

The following section is removed because some of the models do not have a true "cult" following. If there is a model here that you prefer, I suggest you build on the entry. For instance, there is no entry for Vincent motorcycles where the Vincent Black Shadow could be featured.
Models
Some individual bikes almost develop a cult following:

Cadillac 02:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, totally agree with you there, Cad. since when has an SR500 had a cult following? Veej 01:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

A request for mediation was filed... and it appears that the discussion is happening on the main mediation page. --CyclePat 18:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motorcycle scrambling

Is motorcycle scrambling a particularly British sport? I'm surprised that there is no article about it? I don't know anything about it other than what I see on TV, with bikes leaping from mound to mound with lots of mud everywhere. Does it have a new name? Like motorcycle BMX? [shower of half bricks follow]. --Concrete Cowboy 18:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Found it! Motocross. --Concrete Cowboy 22:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
If ooyu read the talk of scrambling you'll see how it was the old name for it, still used in the British press and some part of the UK Pickle 16:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This article, especially the "Culture" section, is really written more from a "developed country" point of view, where motorcycles are associated with racing and stunts and tough guys in leather. There should be more information about motorcycles from a "developing country" point of view, where motorcycles are much more relevant, and more regarded as a legitimate mode of transportation. Coffee 18:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that there are also many developed countries where motorcycles/scooters are regarded as legitimate forms of personal transportation - most of Europe for example. The 'culture' of motorcycles differs somewhat from the usage of motorcycles (not unlike the manner in which the 'culture' of automobiles differs from their usage), and this section of the article perhaps reflects that? You might consider starting a section on 'utilitization' in which information as you describe above would be included... Saturn V 13:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Most defiantly, due to vehicle listening laws in Europe particularly (in a developed world context) the usage of scooters, small cc bikes, etc is vast as its many people's fist wheels. Latter the trend is then for superbikes. In contrast America, young people skip the bike stage an go straight to cars, while at latter point the Harley style is very popular while superbikes are very rare. Pickle 16:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Physics

I recommend that we move all the talk about gyroscopic effects, trail, steering countersteering, and stability into one section titled "Physics" as has been done in the Bicycle article. Any objections? AndrewDressel 13:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I did it. I also copied a little text on the subject from the bicycle article. That's allowed, right? AndrewDressel 06:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
It has all been moved to a new article, motorcycle physics, by Clawed AndrewDressel 12:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fuel effieciency

Currently in the article is this line

"Typical fuel effiency range from 25/45 mpg to 50/62 mpg (city/highway) (9.4/5.2 L/100km - 4.7/3.8 L/100km)"

I believe this is too inaccurate and this and the reference should be removed as it does not represent a motorcycles worldwide. The website that is the reference has mostly larger motorcycles and does not seem to include smaller bikes such as 125cc bikes that dominate in many countries in asia and even 50cc scooters which are still motorcycles.--Clawed 00:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for converting to metric, but easy with the bath water, eh? I new it should be that way, but didn't have time this morning. As for smaller bikes, yes, I agree that we should have it, but I couldn't find a source. Can anyone else? -AndrewDressel 01:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I finally found a 50cc scooter reporting 2.2 L/100km and even a Honda XL125 with 470 mpg. -AndrewDressel 13:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Worldwide View

Something new to work on, eh? The link included with the tag does not include any specific suggestions, nor does the anonymous user who posted it. Any ideas?

  • Is the definition somehow anglophone only? Should it also mention scooters? They fit the lead definition, but one does not "sits astride the vehicle" nor does one shift with a foot lever, etc.
  • History? Is there one or more major contributor from a developing country?
  • Construction seems safe enough?
  • Fuel efficiency now includes a 50cc example from India, I believe, thanks to the dunning of Clawed. Maybe there are more examples, but I had a hard time finding even that one with Google. Manufacturers tend not to list fuel economy on their websites.
  • Dynamics is neutral, I believe.
  • Subcultures probably could use one or more non anglo example.
  • Mobility specifically tries to be inclusive.
  • Safety is "According to the US Highway Safety Authority". Any other sources.
  • Types? Don't know.

-AndrewDressel 15:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't see how this article is of limited geographical scope, it has pictures of motorcycles from many countries and mentions motorcycling in many countries all over the world. Bob Palin 15:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it seems a little harsh, but I hesitate to just remove the tab. Perhaps if someone could contribute something about safety in Asia.... -AndrewDressel 23:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] added some

I've added information to the safety section, as some of it was a little harsh: "primary injuries for sportbike riders being broken pelvis" when bike type has nothing to do with injuries. Also the ability for helmets to reduce hea dinjury, and the fact that if proper gear is worn injuries such as skin damage can be avoided

[edit] Steering

"Steering is accomplished at higher speeds through the rider shifting his or her weight on the motorcycle and at very low speeds by trained application of slight turning of the handlebars in conjuction with the shifting of weight." - UJKiller

This is in direct contradiction to the experimentation by Keith Code at the California Superbike School[1] and reported in Popular Mechanics on February 1, 2001 [2]. It needs a comparable supporting reference or it should come out. -AndrewDressel 01:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

-Nothing yet, so I took out the addition. -AndrewDressel 23:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's baaaaaaaaaack, thanks to 81.179.93.143 who inserted 'a combination of leaning and' on 17 September 2006. This addition still contradicts the one published experiment that I know about (mentioned above). Can anyone find a reference that backs this claim up? -AndrewDressel 13:18, 20 September 2006(UTC)

-Again, nothing, so out it comes. -AndrewDressel 20:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Andrew, just FYI, many people have been able to steer Code's fixed bar bike, he just chooses to ignore them Bob Palin 15:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. As soon as one of them gets a report of their success published, we can mention it in this article. -AndrewDressel 23:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Steering is accomplished by leaning the bike or moving the handlebars" - 66.31.1.38 02:32, 7 October 2006

-Again, an unsourced claim by an anonymous user. How does this leaning take place, I wonder? -AndrewDressel 22:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] category question

Last week I asked a question at Category talk:Motorcycles, but I don't think many people are watching that page so I'm coming here. Right now, it seems kind of arbitrary what's put in Category:Motorcycles versus Category:Motorcycling, in terms of both articles and subcategories. I'm thinking we should either merge the two, or put most things under Motorcycling and only articles about particular models under Motorcycles (and then make Motorcycles a subcat of Motorcycling). If you're interested, please comment over at the category talk page. Thanks. --Allen 05:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fairing

In this section it has a picture of a BMW r1200rt. I don't consider this a full fairing. Maybe we need a better picture? --Budlight 21:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stronger than dirt

I see a throwaway mention of dirtbikes, but no discussion of their development (nor of scooters & the like). Neither is their any on the Types of motorcycles page. Can somebody add it? In particular, when developed, what company, model name &/or engine size, use in racing (the Dakar, or track/MX/trial), the like. (Do the same with dirtbikes, too, k? ;-)) Trekphiler 13:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC) this section

reply on Talk:Types of motorcycle
Pickle 14:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category tags discussion

There's a discussion under way on correct use of category tags at Category_talk:Motorcycles. Brianhe 08:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Electric motorcycles or not?

Add link in see also section to Electric motorcycles and scooters - User:Daniel.Cardenas 05:04, 21 November 2006

Removed link "because it was unsourced, POV, and poorly written. Not to mention the devices you were attempting to attach are NOT motorcycles by any way, means or definitions." User:Rsm99833

The link to electric motorcycles and scooters looks perfectly valid to me. That is why I have reinstated it. They are two wheeled powered vehicles. They don't fit into your personal definition of motorcycle but they certainly fit into mine. The first paragraph in the Engine section of the page states "Almost all commercially available motorcycles are driven by conventional gasoline internal combustion engines, but some small scooter-type models use an electric motor,. --Cheesy Mike 23:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because a vehicle has two wheels and a motor does *not* make a motorcycle. What you are trying to add in are classified as motor-driven cycles, which are not the same thing. This is why those particular vehicles have a different classification when getting a license, and also this is the same classification that has been established and recognized by the motor-vehicle industry and is recognized by most, if not all, motor vehicle governing bodies. Rsm99833 00:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If you take the trouble to look at the Vectrix, Taz Electra, Eco Glide and Evader EV1000 you will see that they are in fact electric scooters, not electric cycles. An electric cycle is open framed more like a regular bicycle. Your argument about classification is not valid either. Maybe that is the case in the US but in the UK, for example, all two wheeled powered vehicles are in the taxation class "bicycle" regardless of the nature of the motive power. The Vectrix was exhibited at the Motorcycle World motorcycle show in Beaulieu UK in 2006. It was advertised there as a motorcycle and is subject to motorcycle regulations in that a helmet must be worn. This is not the case in the UK for motorised bicycles. The motorcycle page covers scooters. These machines are electric scooters on two wheels and are therefore valid inclusions in the "see also" listing for the page. I am therefore going to reinstate the link that I still believe was correctly inserted by Daniel Cardenas. --Cheesy Mike 01:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

All fine and dandy. But for it to be a true motorcycle it has to have an engine over a specific cubic size. "electric motorcycles" neither have an engine, cubic size, nor is it thought of as being a motorcycle by any stretch of the imagination. Feel free to link to scooters, as that those are a bit closer. But not the electric. Rsm99833 02:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Hang on, how can a motorcycle, with an electric engine, not be a motorcycle. Where is it mandated that a motorcycle must have a crude oil based (ie petrol or even diesel) engine??? - surely and electric motorcycle wouldn't have a cubic capacity, as that refers the displacement of the cylinder which an electric motorcycle wouldn't have? In the long term with emission regulations, global warming and even sound pollution legislation how is a electrically propelled motorcycle not a valid subject to include within a motorcycle article, hell IIRC way back in the Victorian times they tried steam powered motorcycles. Pickle 17:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, a two-wheeled vehicle with a motor or engine does not automatically make it a motorcycle. In this case, the vehicle in question would be classified as a "motor-driven cycle" Which is what the industry would and does classify it. In any case, it's no more a motorcycle than the the Segway is (and yes, I've seen people try to classify that as being a motorcycle as well). Rsm99833 19:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Here are some citable sources:

Dictionaries:
  • "a motor vehicle similar to a bicycle but usually larger and heavier, chiefly for one rider but sometimes having two saddles or an attached sidecar for passengers." - Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
  • "A two-wheeled motor vehicle resembling a heavy bicycle, sometimes having two saddles and a sidecar with a third wheel." - American Heritage Dictionary
  • "a motor vehicle with two wheels and a strong frame" - WordNet
Note no mention of internal combustion engine or electric motor, just "motor vehicle". -AndrewDressel 22:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
California DMV allows for electrically powered motorcycles with a strange limitation of 45 miles per hour:
  • 400. (a) A "motorcycle" is any motor vehicle having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider, designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground, and weighing less than 1,500 pounds."
  • "(c) A motor vehicle that is electrically powered, has a maximum speed of 45 miles per hour, and weighs less than 2,500 pounds, is a motorcycle if the vehicle otherwise comes within the definition of subdivision (a)."
Electric Motorsports in Oakland, CA lists a "100% Street Legal, Grand Prix Style, Electric Motorcycle, DOT Certified" with a "Top Speed: 65 mph" and "Range: 40 miles"

Are there any citable sources that specifically require internal combustion or exclude electric power? -AndrewDressel 22:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's a reasonable test: those of you who have or are advocting "electric motorcycles" do this- ride on the freeway. 03:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but that has little to do with it. After all, "Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments." Instead, we need to cite "verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics." That is what I tried to do above. -AndrewDressel 04:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The opening sentence is "A motorcycle is a two-wheeled vehicle powered by an engine". In the UK scooter is not a legal definition; two wheeled powered vehicles are mopeds (determined by speed, engine size and provision of pedals) or motorcycles; a "starter motorcycle" (for driving licence purposes) is determined by power output. GraemeLeggett 10:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
This may all be true, but the opening sentence of this same article is hardly a citable source. Perhaps someone in the UK can find a copy of the legal definition that can be cited. The exact power output required to be a "starter motorcycle" would be handy. -AndrewDressel 15:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
On this side of the pond, kids can ride a "small" motorcycles (that has a less than 50cc engine and the speed can't exceed 30mph, can't carry any passengers - ie no second seat or sidecar, i also think there is a power restriction) at 16 with a CBT (1 day training course and theory test) with an "L" plate on the back. The motorcycles typically used are scooter but also there are no a variety of supermotos, road race and trail bikes (conceivably any type of bike as long as it met the legal criteria). Way back in the fuel crisis back int he 1970s i think there was a wave mopeds (the ones where you can pedal to help the small engine get you up hills), but they have died out with the advent of better engines.
The reason I'm moaning here, is as an off road motorcyclist (don't really follow road racing or road legal bikes) many off road publications have followed with interest several prototype electric motocross bikes - thus to me and the rest of the MX community they are a motorcycles, if a little odd (i have to admit I've seen photos of an electric BSA bantam - thats defiantly a motorcycle).
There are undoubtedly quirks of law / tax classifications that focus development on what are superficially bicycles with tiny electric engines which are significantly different from electric propelled motorcycles but is not the fundamental difference between a bicycles and a motorcycle is that a bicycles is self propelled by the rider (ie pedalling!), a motorcycles isn't.
As for some sources there is a variety of stuff on the DVLA website (www.dvla.gov.uk) - our "DMV"
Pickle 15:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I've added a bit on definition, at the bottom in lieu of somewhere better, regarding the legal definition in the UK. GraemeLeggett 16:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motorcycle.com link at bottom of motorcycle page.

The motorcycle.com page doesn't tell much unless you subscribe. I suggest taking them off the list of external links. What do you think? 66.174.79.234 05:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Cloud Observer

I agree. No point having it on the list if it's not going to help people. I'll see if there's something better I can add instead. Spaomark 16:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/t/Talk%7EMotorcycle_9b41.html"