Talk:Motorcycle/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

'A historic' vs 'An historic'

The recent unexplained revert of Mboverload (Talk | contribs) by Evb-wiki (Talk | contribs) led me to look into this. It appears that a strong case can be made for either, however, there seems to be a tendency towards 'an historic' in British English, which happens to be used in this article. More on the subject is available here:

• Wikipedia article
• Blog that quotes Oxford

I hope we can avoid an edit war. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks, Andrew. I've been under the impression it was always "an" before an "h" in British English, and that either was acceptable for the silent (or raspy) "h" in American English. Since it is well-documented that we use Brit Eng in this article, I thought the reversion was clear. Who knew? That's what I get for editing in my non-native language. Cheers. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've lived in Britain all my life, and I've never used 'an' before a word beginning with 'h'. This may be a misunderstanding based on the fact that 'h' is generally pronounced 'aitch', and pronouncing that word would warrant an 'an'. But as I understand it, 'an' is only used before a vowel. Digression aside, this may be a regional variation, rather than national. -Nytemaer (talk) 02.33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read Discrimination between a and an besides the above references, but, while some people may improperly use "a historic" instead "an historic," the latter is the proper spelling. Having lived for several years in both England and Ireland I was always taught to use an but remember that we are talking about spelling here and not pronunciation. ww2censor (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh? "A historic" is the correct british way unless you're saying "istoric" which I don't believe anyone does unless they're trying to be excessively French.203.5.70.1 (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

In American English usage the "an" precedes any word that begins with a vowel sound. We have a historic event featuring an automobile.Flatshooter (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

250cc performance

"In New Zealand, "learner" and "restricted" motorcycles may only have a 250 cc engine capacity. This distinction draws some criticism, as it allows 15-year-old learner riders to operate bikes capable of reaching speeds in excess of 250 km/h (160 mph)."

Uhh... 250km/h on a 250cc? Most 250's won't break 160km/h. The fastest 250cc's (which are two stroke) such as the aprilla RS250 are lucky to barely break 200, and won't reach 210km/h. Don't know who thinks a 250cc will reach 250km/h but you'd need at least a modern 600cc sports bike to reach those speeds.Booksacool1 (talk) 06:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In the UK, learners and new drivers can only drive a 125. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.92.18 (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of dubious carbon emission claim

I removed the claim that motorcycles emit 0.40 lb/mile less than the average car, because it does not seem true. Per Mileage#Fuel_economy_standards, the 2004 average highway mileage was 24.6 mpg. Of course, the combined mileage is lower, let's say about 20 mpg. Per Gasoline#Density, the density of gasoline is 6.073 lb/US gal, so the weight of gasoline used per mile for average car is about (6.073 lb/US gal) ÷ (20) mpg; i.e., about 0.3 lb/mile. That 0.3 lb/mile includes hydrogen (and even oxygen for oxygenated fuels), so the carbon used (and emitted) per mile is less than the 0.3 lb/mile of gasoline used. For a motorcycle to emit 0.4 lb/mile of carbon less than a car, the motorcycle would not only have to emit no carbon, it would have to remove over 0.1 lb/mile of carbon per mile. There are no such motorcycles. Not even electric motorcycles charged from solar cells, do not remove carbon from the air. 204.210.242.157 (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Motorcycles will generally emit lower carbon dioxide emissions that automobiles. However Motorcycles, particularly large air cooled engined motorcycles, are an environmental disaster. Here is ONE of the less damning studies from this site http://evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=260&first=4649&end=4648 quote Consider that the cleanest motorcycles in the 2001 model year certified at a level of about 0.32 grams/mile of hydrocarbons on the Federal Test Procedure. On the exact same test procedure the Prius certified at a hydrocarbon level of 0.0024 grams/mile. The cleanest (highway) motorcycle is therefore more than 100 times dirtier than the Prius. Said another way, you could drive the Prius for more than 100 miles before you got to the same hydrocarbon levels the motorcycle would emit in only 1 mile of driving. That Cleanest Motorcycle would be a fuel injected catalytically controlled BMW or Honda motorcycle of recent design. These would also have to be liquid cooled as air cooled engines have terrible problems with blowby due to their necessarily sloppy piston to cylinder tolerances needed to prevent piston seizure as well as bore distortion due to uneven cylinder cooling. An air cooled Harley-Davidson is likely to produce massive amounts of pollutants even if it excels in a comparison to an SUV based on CO2 emissions. When we consider oxides of nitrogen, these are especially hard to control in air cooled and high performance engines without catalytic converters and other remediation techniques. Source Physorg-http://www.physorg.com/news9179.html Motorcycles collectively emit 16 times more hydrocarbons, three times more carbon monoxide and a “disproportionately high” amount of other air pollutants compared to passenger cars, according to a Swiss study to be published in the Jan. 1 issue of the American Chemical Society’s journal Environmental Science & Technology. There is also the issue of vapor leakage through tubes and fuel tanks.Flatshooter (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You might be able to make this point, but I think better sources than http://evworld.com and http://www.physorg.com are needed. To me those sites are blogs of dubious professional credibility. But I think it is simply a matter of working backwards directly to the sources those blog posts are based on, and then backing it up with interpretation from more mainstream news and book sources. Shouldn't be that difficult. --Dbratland (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't accept two types of information as being entirely credible. For one, websites which have simply copied a history from somewhere, and corporate histories from SOME but not all companies. Some company website histories have been created in a very professional manner and can be relied on to some extent. Museums and universities are definitely more credible. Personally owned websites and corporate sponsors sites can be relied on for statistics on their products, and to some extent their history, but it is also known that there are errors in many of them. Having a website that sells any product, detracts from credibility. Many of the sources cited lack credibility. There is no editor here, so there is no one to decide what is appropriate or not.69.250.164.54 (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, your chemistry has let you down. The weight of water given of by the burning of a hydro-carbon fuel is more than the weight of the fuel - and the weight of CO2 given off is much more again. That's because the weight of oxygen taken up is so great (2.5 times as much as the weight of the carbon). I can't do the maths, but I think you're looking at over 3 times as much CO2 (by weight) as the fuel you started with.

Under those circumstances, it seems right to revert you and put the information back in. It's verifiable and it might even be "true". I've added the other thing that Vespa claim, there's a 65% reduction in CO2 emmissions. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

However the source page you reinserted does not support the claim. The one I have reinserted (a pdf file) does support the claim you reinserted. ww2censor (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A Toyota Prius emits 104 g/km CO2, which is 167 g/mile or 5.9 oz/mile. A 1.6 litre petrol Ford Mondeo, one of the best selling cars in the UK emits 170 g/km, which is 273 g/mile or 9.7 oz/mile. A Rolls Royce Phantom emits 377 g/km, which is 607 g/mile or 21.3 oz/mile.

My BMW R1150 GS will do roughly 10 miles on 1 litre of petrol, whereas a 125 scooter will do easily double that mileage. If one litre of petrol results in roughly 2400 g of CO2 then that is 240 g/mile or 8.4 oz/mile for the BMW, and 120 g/mile or 4.2 oz/mile for the scooter.

Vespa claim they emit 0.4 lb/mile less, which is 181 g/mile or 6.4 oz/mile less than a car. So Vespa's figure of 0.4 lb/mile less means they are comparing with a car emitting 10.6 oz/mile, 300 g/mile or 186 g/km - slightly more than the Ford Mondeo in my example above. I'd say that the figures stack up. --TimTay (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the statement "Traditionally, motorcycles used a lot less fuel than cars but modern engines and aerodynamics have largely eliminated this advantage for familiar western motorcycles used for leisure and touring" - and it's grown a tag saying [citation needed]. I find it hard to believe the tag is necessary. Lots of people have noticed this effect and commented on it. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If you change the word traditionally to typically then you have a valid point. It's fair to say that the typical motorcycle nearly doubles the mpg of small cars, nearly triples the fuel economy of large cars, and nearly quadruples the fuel economy of trucks. This is actually a measure of how inefficient motorcycles are. They are typically 300 to 650 pounds with a third to a fifth of the frontal area of an automobile and yet they can not manage a fuel economy improvement of the magnitude suggested by their small size. Flatshooter (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

So, if as you state: "lots of people have noticed this effect and commented on it", you will have no difficulty at all in providing a verifiable third-party source for your statement. Without such a source, the statement is either untrue, or original research, neither of which are allowed. ww2censor (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been well documented in News Paper articles. Here is one such: http://articles.sfgate.com/2001-06-11/news/17601825_1_san-mateo-bridge-motorcycles-richmond-san-rafael-bridge

Prove to me that "Motorcycles vary considerably depending on the task for which they are designed" or that a reliable source said it. And that "In many parts of the world, motorcycles are among the least expensive and most widespread forms of motorised transport". I'm basing what I said on the fact that many modern cars seem to get 50mpg or better (Imperial) and that includes some large cars, if they're diesel. Many motorcyclists don't get that much. Furthermore, it's engine technology that's done it, on top of the aerodynamic advantages we know about. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a little illustration for you on purpose built motorcycles.

Photo of a Trials Motorcycle http://www.motomerlin.co.uk/moto/pro28004l.jpg You may notice there is no seat. Trials machines are ridden while standing. It is low powered compared to sport machines.

Photo of a Touring Motorcycle http://www.bmwcoop.com/wp-content/images/2008/12/bmw-k1300gt-x.jpg The BMW K1300 is equipped with luggage for traveling and has a large enough seat for two passengers to ride comfortably. Touring machines have less power than Sport Machines, but more comfort.

Photo of a Motorcycle with Sidecar http://www.ural-motorcycles.com/content/images/54af27a1c656cae50025d4184bfc0520.jpg The Ural was originally licensed from BMW as the model R71. This was replaced by the R75 which had a direct shaft drive to the sidecar wheel also. Military use motorcycles with sidecars often powered two wheels and could carry up to four passengers. Current production Ural motorcycles also drive the sidecar wheel and can carry up to four people. There was also a Diesel engined Ural at one time. Flatshooter (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You are also dramatically incorrect about motorcycle efficiency. The VAST majority of motorcycles in use today are of the World Utility Motorcycle type such as represented by this: http://www.motorcycle.in.th/mediagallery/mediaobjects/disp/f/f_honda-super-cub-2.jpg This type of motorcycle has sold more than 60 Million units since introduced in 1958. These easily achieve 150-200mpg and more. The cub continues to sell at an increasing rate. It makes up the majority of the 14 million motorcycles that Honda sold last year (mostly in India). The current production Honda Cub is rated 315 mpg. (source is Honda Japan) It has evolved from the 215 mpg of the early carbureted model (1958) to the current fuel injected model. In most parts of the world the Utility motorcycles like the Honda Cub are the 2nd cheapest motorized transportation and in many places are among the most prevalent.. this is true. But Mopeds are cheaper and more economical. Flatshooter (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Why? While in the past the wiki was not so critical about controversial statements, nowadays the burden of proof essentially lies with the editor adding a statement. Malcolm, can you provide a verifiable third-party source for your statement or not? You claim that: "lots of people have noticed this effect and commented on it", so tell us who they are? Why hide that from us? ww2censor (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ww2censor is right. You need to provide citations for claims made on Wikipedia - verifiability not original research, facts not point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimTay (talk • contribs)

Please yourself - the article is laced with uncited and uncitable statements which are perfectly acceptable. If there's a problem with "Traditionally, motorcycles used a lot less fuel than cars but modern engines and aerodynamics have largely eliminated this advantage for familiar western motorcycles used for leisure and touring" then take it out. Preferably explaining yourself here, something I'm not seeing a lot of - as best I can see the statement I want included is actually understated, the motorcycles we lust over are quite a good deal worse than most cars. Your GS is worse than my 2 litre diesel estate. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

So Malcolm you still don't seem to get it. As I stated previously citations were not a big deal in the past and hence there are uncited statements in articles. Any editor may tag them with a {{fact}} template if they think something should to be sourced. However newer edits should be cited, especially controversial statements like the one you made and as you clearly stated that there are many people who have written about what you added, you should not be having any difficulty. Despite all your protestations, you have not offered EVEN ONE SOURCE OF ANY KIND, much less a verifiable one to back up your edit, so I have to assume you don't have any. Or it is possibly WP:OR? ww2censor (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Uncited statements that are empirically true should be acceptable.69.250.164.54 (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't confuse the mass of carbon with that of its oxides. Of course, the mass of the oxides of carbon is greater than the mass of the carbon burnt. Nonetheless, the mass of the carbon itself does not change. The mass of the carbon emitted is much less than the mass of the oxides (such as carbon dioxide) emitted. Likewise for hydrogen. 204.210.242.157 (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, have we been talking about two different things? I don't think it makes any difference - as far as I'm concerned motorcycles we're often acquainted with are little better, and in many cases are worse, than everyday cars. I've told people to take the statement out of the paragraph if they disagree with it - leaving it tagged is the worst option. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

seealso section

I went through the See Also section with a hatchet (see my changes). The wiki guide is pretty lenient on what should and shouldn't be included, so I used WP:UNDUE. Basically, they were all too specific: since this is a large category, I removed articles that should be included in a subarticle. For instance, Electric dragbike should be included in an article about Electric motorcycles and/or Motorcycle racing. Likewise, the List of motorcycle deaths in U.S. by year should be in the article Motorcycle safety. tedder (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

== Help == Can anyone provide a solid source that confirms a motorcycle to be a single-track vehicle so that the Uno (motorcycle) will be excluded. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Who cares? Why even have such a stetement. How many tracks does a motorcycle make at any given time? There are two. This is being precise. There is no instance in reality where the front and rear tracks will be the same. The difference is largely unnoticeable EXCEPT when the motorcycle is turning. Does this statement do anything to describe a motorcycle... no. 69.250.164.54 (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Of course, the Uno is a single-track vehicle, albeit with only one wheel to track. Is the motorcycle a "two-wheel, single-tracking vehicle? A trike is already pushing the limit, and it's a three-track vehicle. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Uno is not a single-track vehicle. It has two tires side-by-side, though they seem to be careful to limit photographs that reveal this characteristic. When stationary, it will not fall over sideways. The dynamic characteristics of a single-track vehicle do not directly apply. It is a Segway PT with a vary narrow track and a seat. -AndrewDressel (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, gotcha. I'm not sure where to find such a source. Dicdef? "A two-wheeled motor vehicle resembling a heavy bicycle, sometimes having two saddles and a sidecar with a third wheel." Sounds like the Uno and Segway may properly be called Gyrocycles. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Found a couple. My copy of Tony Foale's Motorcycle Handling and Chassis Design just arrived. He starts Chapter 4 - Balance and Steering with "As a single-track vehicle, a motorcycle lacks inherent static balance." Vittore Cossalter in Motorcycle Dynamics starts section 1.1 - Definition of Motorcycles with "a motorcycle can be defined as simply a spatial mechanism composed of four rigid bodies: the rear assembly, the front assembly, the front wheel, [and] the rear wheel." That ought to do it. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The BMW, Zundapp, Ural, and Chiang Zhiang motorcycles designed for sidecar often sported direct drive to the sidecar wheel. The R75 weighed about 983 pounds and sported an 8 speed transmission with reverse. The typical sidecar equipped motorcycle could seat two on the motorcycle and one or two more people in the sidecar. photo R12 drive arrangement: http://www12.plala.or.jp/bmwmotorcycle/r75drive2.jpg The motorcycle designed to carry sidecars sometimes featured Earles type front forks and very heavy flywheels. There was considerable pull exerted on steering during acceleration and deceleration by sidecars that did not have their wheel powered. These are motorcycles and they are two track. The sidecars can be removed when not needed. Flatshooter (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

They are single track motorcycles with attached sidecars. Motorcycles are single track vehicles. Attaching a sidecar, whether aftermarket or in the factory makes them motorcycle an sidecar combinations not motorcycles. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Lack of global view

Wow! This article is extremely U.S. and Europe-centric. Barely any images or information on the history of manufacturing and usage of motorcycles in Asia. I've added one image from India. --Incidious (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to expand it! Please feel free to continue, especially if you can find some good Reliable Sources. tedder (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an egregious fault. I'm sure that the VAST numbers of riders of the under 125cc motorcycle riders which dominant the world of motorcycling would wonder what planet the writers of this page are from. 69.250.164.54 (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Types section is long

Since we have Types of motorcycles the Types section in this article could be drastically shortened. I propose that we delete everything here after the introductory paragraph, including all of the sub-types listed here starting with Street. Brianhe (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

One should note that the "Types" section states there are 3 motorcycle types and then lists them together by the 3 types, however the Types of motorcycles seems confusing in comparison and does not seem to follow the sequence or organisation seen here in a coherent way. Deleting everything after the introductory sentence (it's not even a paragraph) would IMHO leave too little prose to give context to the types of motorcycles. However, expanding the introduction to a paragraph for 3 or 4 sentences would certainly work. I know this is not strictly a spinout, WP:SPINOUT does not actually state how much should be left, it suggest a "you should leave a short summary" but one sentences seems just too scant. ww2censor (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "the [ types of motorcycles article] seems confusing in comparison and does not seem to follow the sequence or organisation seen here in a coherent way." Therefore, eliminating the subsection of this article would be doing a disservice to the encyclopedia. If the article were to be organized and improved, I could see it being merged. But I think a summary of the 3 unique "types" should remain. --Evb-wiki (talk) 07:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

So, let's see if we can improve the types of motorcycles article and merge any information not there already from the "Types" section of this article. Then we can write a short summary and link to the improved article. Let's go for it unless there are major objections. ww2censor (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Great idea. Happy to contribute. --TimTay (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I started by reorganizing Types of motorcycles into sections for Street, Off-road, Dual-purpose and Specialty. Brianhe (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Brianhe, you are quick and it is looking good. The other deficiency of the Types of motorcycles is the lack of references, sources and citations. That may take a little longer. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and made the summary, then trimmed the section. Hope the summary is OK. -- Brianhe (talk) 03:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Motorcycle Rider Postures

Is there really a need for this? The only people who are going to feasibly understand this are already motorcyclists themselves, and have no need for it. Non-motorcyclists are not going to understand or have any interest in this. Nytemaer (talk • contribs) 02:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be useful if it was better written. High speed in the sport position is comfortable because wind-pressure supports the weight of the rider, taking stress off his wrists. At low-speed this position tends to be uncomfortable - though the wrists strengthen over a period, making this less of a problem for the practiced rider. MalcolmMcDonald PS the reference for this section is here and yet seems irrelevant to anything included. (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This should be Riding Positions, not posture. This is a critical issue with regards to safety as several of the riding positions mentioned are unsafe with regard to:

1. Inattentive riding
2. Lack of control
3. Inability to absorb shock

There is a need for this discussion, but NOT HERE. Riding a motorcycle is not for the inattentive or the casual rider. Which is largely why death rates are rising rapidly. I agree this section should be removed. People don't like to be told that their own bad behavior is likely to get them killed. Flatshooter (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There was a Harley-Davidson rider killed in Virginia yesterday, the police said he was blown over while riding on a bridge. I've ridden in winds of 45 to 50 mph. This rider was killed in winds of 20 to 30mph. This is from JSoline [1] There are hundreds of examples of riders "losing control" and dieing.Flatshooter (talk) 09:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Among the cheapest and most popular

I've restored the references removed by MalcolmMcDonald because the references do support the assertion that "in many parts of the world, motorcycles are among the least expensive and most widespread forms of motorised transport.":

• References mention Vietnam and Brazil, two places in the world. More can be found if needed for Taiwan, Thailand, etc.
• CSMonitor: "By far, the largest portion of vehicles on the roads of Vietnam are “motos,” which are small engine – 50cc to 400cc – motorcycles"
• NYTimes: "With more than 15,000 motorbikes and only 47,000 people, Tabatinga resembles a small version of Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, another chaotic place where cars take a distant back seat as the preferred mode of transportation."
• JapanTimes: "The demand for motorcycles...is extremely high due to a dearth of public transport and low income levels that put automobiles out of reach for many."
• NYTimes: "The open border with Leticia, Colombia, allows Brazilians to buy Japanese-made motorbikes there for about $2,000, half of what they cost in Brazil. Chinese-made models, which are less popular, can be had for as little as $900 on the river island of Santa Rosa, in Peru, said Ulianov Mejía, the manager of the Yamaha motorbike store in Tabatinga."
• NYTimes: "In recent years the relative strength of the Brazilian economy and its currency, the real, has made it easier for Brazilians to afford motorbikes"

DHN (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't belong here. It should be in some other section relating to the Social Benefits of motorcycling as it does NOTHING to advance understanding of what a motorcycle is. 69.250.164.54 (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Please examine WP:LEAD where you will find so many things wrong it's difficult to know where to start. The lead is supposed to summarise the rest of the article, not to be filled with concepts never spelled out (and barely hinted at) in the article itself.

Even if we needed references to "prove" that motorcycles are the cheapest form of motorised transport (in the lead!!!), we should harvest our references properly and not inject loaded personal word preferences such as "expense/ive", which none of the sources are using.

And we've been attempting to apply the universally existing and understood pressure of "most affordable" to describe actual conditions/practices that almost certainly don't go on all over the world. When the references don't even support this - in fact, they don't even suggest the idea it's general in those parts of the world that have a suitable climate. Some of the references concern taxation policies and smuggling, a completely different matter again. I've inserted "Being the most affordable form of motorised transport, in some parts of the world they are also the most widespread eg Vietnam.<"Motorcycle makers battle it out in Vietnam". Japan Times.><"Vietnam eats, sleeps, and dreams on motorbikes". The Christian Science Monitor.><"That Roar in the Jungle Is 15,000 Motorbikes". The New York Times.> which is still over the top and someone will probably take out. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what you see wrong with the assertion that the motorcycle is widespread in some part of the world. This article is already very Western-centric, treating the motorcycle as a hobby for some people, talking about the "motorcycle subculture", but ignoring the fact that in some places, it is the predominant mode of transportation. We never asserted that it is the most affordable nor widespread everywhere, just that in some places it is. DHN (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The "nationality-centric" problem at this article is severe but applies solely in one respect. There is unbelievably undue weight given with "other brands sold in the U.S. market" and "Outside of the U.S., these brands ...". And this refers to the only nation of the world where the motorcycle has never been in general use or ever contributed significantly to transport needs! Meanwhile, the UK (along with many other countries) had twice as many motorcycles as cars on the road in the 1920s - and there are some countries (or, more likely, some cities within some countries) where this is true 80 years later. However, we only have references for it in one nation ravaged by a major war and prolonged sanctions and it's only likely to be true for one or two other countries (or cities) in the same climate band. I'll compromise and let you keep Vietnam in the lead, as if it was somehow typical or significant. But I'm only doing that because Jeremy Clarkson was forced to ride a scooter the length of the country by his producers and shared his experiences with 1 billion of us. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It does seem adding Vietnam helps remove the US-centric. But I'm mainly commenting because I'm amused by the Jeremy Clarkson reference. Not sure that's worth sharing in the main article, though. tedder (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If, as seems possible, Vietnam is almost the last place in the world where motorcycles are more important than cars, then I'm all in favor of celebrating that fact. However, that does not mean it belongs in the lead. Jeremy Clarkson's mockumentary richly deserves to be mocked - but it might be the last easily accessible peep-show on the last genuine two-wheeled society - it may belong somewhere. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me if motor scooters are cheapter than motor bikes, but they might not be widely available in countries like Vietnam.--76.102.149.170 (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Picture of Jeremy Clarkson on his scooter in Vietnam, many other references and a full description of this mockumentary at Top Gear Vietnam Special. When faced with difficulties and defeated by idleness, cheat! Regards, MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Legality stuff..

A new legislation has passed in the U.S. that bans the selling of dirt bikes specifically designed for children. It's apparently a result of the ban on toys with lead in them from that Chinese toy thing and applies due to the lead in the engines. I don't know the proper way to edit articles or even much info on the ban, so I'll just put this here.

[2]

Spierred (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Spierred

Very Good! I live near Baltimore, MD, USA. Lead poisoning in Children is a huge problem. The rate of rise of autism is frightening. ANY environment hazard to children needs to be eliminated. We cannot afford to house the rapidly rising numbers of severely disabled children, who eventually become disabled adults. 69.250.164.54 (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Technlogy always appearing late on motorcycles?

The statement "Along with other technologies that have taken longer to appear in motorcycles (e.g. fuel injection, anti-lock brake systems), catalytic converters are becoming increasingly commonplace." is somewhat true but also somewhat misleading, if the general impression is that new technology appears on cars first and then later on motorcycles. You have to be kind of picky about your examples to prove that one way or the other, and there is evidence that the lower development costs allow new ideas to be rolled out on motorcycles sooner than cars. Like 6 speed gearboxes and multivalve engines. I don't think a citataion saying the Kawasaki KZ1000G got fuel injection in 1980 proves the point -- this needs citations from a historian supporting/opposing the general claim, not only specific examples.--Dbratland (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Name an example of technology that arrived on the motorcycle first, other than the Daimler engine, There aren't many. Douglas did introduce the disk brake sooner on his motorcycles. Most of the major design advances have come from racing. Various makes including BMW, NSU, and Honda have become so dominant at times as to have had their developments banned. But none of this engine and chassis features which made them so dominant were produced prior to their appearance on automobiles. This is misleading though. The motorcycle chassis came from bicycle development and advances in the piercing method of making steel tubing, while advances in engines, which were originally made possible by De Dion-Bouton's high speed engine (as well as others of this type) created the industry. Virtually all of the original motorcycle manufacturers wanted to develop motorcycles as a step toward bigger and better things. In this context and because it lead no where, I do NOT credit the Reitwagen as being the first motorcycle. I credit the H&W which was shipped world wide soon after it's introduction and was the inspiration for many makers, particularly the oldest brand name of a motorcycle, which is Triumph from 1902, and of the oldest Japanese makers, which was Meguro (which was absorbed into Kawasaki) in Japan in 1907. 69.250.164.54 (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced claim from dynamics section

Originally

A shorter wheelbase would generally make a bike lean faster.

and now changed to

A shorter wheelbase would generally give a lower polar moment and allow a bike to enter a turn faster.

The original has remained unsourced since March and so should just be removed by now. The new text appears to be more specific, but is still unsourced and perhaps less clear. What does "enter a turn faster" mean? A higher rate of angular acceleration? Is the moment of inertia somehow the limiting factor? In fact, the added wikilink to polar moment appears to be mistaken since "polar moment of inertia is a quantity used to predict an object's ability to resist torsion, in objects (or segments of objects) with an invariant circular cross-section and no significant warping or out-of-plane deformation." -AndrewDressel (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think these citations might help:

• Coombs, Matthew; Haynes, John; Shoemark, Pete (2002), Motorcycle Basics (2nd ed.), Haynes, p. 7.15, ISBN 185960515X, 9781859605158, A long wheelbase gives a motorcycle excellent stability in a straight line but makes it slower to turn into corners. A short wheelbase gives very nimble turning capabilities but reduces straight line stability. Typically touring bikes have a long wheelbase and sports bikes a short one. Hitting a bump at high speed on a sports bike with a short wheelbase results in a far bigger twitch than on a touring bike with a long wheelbase.
  Under the action of the front suspension the wheelbase is constantly changing. When the forks compress, their inclination means the front wheel is actually getting closer to the rear wheel. At the same time the rake angle tends towards the vertical, and so the trail changes. {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

This doesn't sound credible to me. It seems to me that the mass of the motorcycle and the stronger gyroscopic forces of a heavier wheel would reduce the rate change. Longer motorcycles of the cruiser type are notoriously unstable. According to one motorcycle magazine the Honda VTX1800 is one of FEW cruisers which didn't wander at high speed. At higher speeds aerodynamics become very important and control a great deal of behavior. 69.250.164.54 (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Cameron, Kevin (1998), Sportbike Performance Handbook, Cyclepro Series, Motorbooks Workshop / MPI Pub. Co., p. 106, ISBN 0760302294, 9780760302293, Wheelbase: The distance between the front and rear axle centerlines. This is a primary variable because it limits maximum acceleration, controls steering response speed, and has some stability effects. Intuition suggests that we use a long wheelbase for high-speed stability, and a short wheelbase for quick turning in lower speed going. Actually, that works in the reverse; at high speeds, gyro effects slow the steering down, so we need a short wheelbase to make the bike steer. HIgh-speed circuits require taller gearing, which prevents the bike from wheelying much even with the short wheelbase. On lower speed going, a longer wheelbase is useful to allow use of more acceleration without lifting the front wheel. This is why big-engined Sportbikes have longer wheelbases. {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
  • The same book, on page 93 says (quote):
    SINGLE PURPOSE SETUPS:
    A. If Braking Were Your Bike's Only Job
    To keep the rear tire on the ground and the bike steering controllably, major masses are moved rearward and lowered. Front suspension is stiff to carry percent of weight.[sic] Front tire is large for traction. Wheelbase is extended to prevent stoppies.
    B. If Corner Entry Were Your Bike's Only Job
    Masses are centralized to speed roll and turning. Rigid suspension eliminates suspension delays. Front tire is narrow for quick response. Wheelbase is minimum to speed steering.
    C. If Steady Turning Were Your Bike's Only Job
    Engine and rider are raised for cornering clearance, while suspension is supple to maintain maximum grip. F & R tires are equal sizes to carry equal loads.
    D. If Off-Corner Acceleration Were Your Bike's Only Job
    Major Masses are moved forward but not lowered (cornering clearance is needed initially). Wheelbase is long. Front suspension is soft to exploit grip with very light load.
• Zimmerman, Mark (2004), The essential guide to motorcycle maintenance: tips & techniques to keep your motorcycle in top condition, Whitehorse Press Series, Whitehorse Press, p. 175, ISBN 1884313418, 9781884313417, WHEELBASE Wheelbase is defined as the distance between the wheel centers. As a rule of thumb, the longer the wheelbase, the more stable the motorcycle as a whole and the more resistant to changes in direction. The longer the wheelbase, the farther the front wheel needs to be turned to traverse a given bend and the more effort you will need to turn the bike as well. As a bonus, things that go bump in the road will have less effect on stability. A long wheelbase also diminishes the effects of weight transfer under braking and acceleration. Short-wheelbase motorcycles tend to very nimble, but can exhibit a degree of instability at high speed. Again, there is always a trade-off. {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

So I would say "enter a turn faster" means the rider needs to exert less effort on the handlebars and move the handlebars less of a distance (Countersteering of course) to get the bike to lean over and turn at a given rate, while a long wheelbase bike's handlebars must be pushed harder and farther for the same degree of turning. The important thing is that it is all about trade-offs, and that you can compensate (somewhat) for one factor, like wheelbase, by changing some other factor, like rake angle or center of gravity. Another relevant encyclopedic point (as opposed to how-to) is that you can recognize the type of motorcycle or purpose of the motorcycle by (among other things) the wheelbase relative to other types. (Note that Cameron and Zimmerman disagree on the effect of a short wheelbase at high speed. So it goes.) --Dbratland (talk) 01:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Also! IMHO, when Zimmerman says "high speed" he means cruising on the freeway or autobahn at 60 - 80 mph, where a short-wheelbase sportbike might feel twitchy and require constant attention from the rider to go in a straight line or traverse the long, gentle curves of a modern roadway, while a touring bike or cruiser would feel more stable. What Cameron is talking about road racing situations, where high speed means 100 to 180 mph or more, and where a short wheelbase sportbike would feel rock-solid.--Dbratland (talk) 01:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

These are some nice sources, thanks. However, it might be best to pick a simpler, less complicate, non-contriversial example for this section, if there is such and example, and leave the rest for the linked main article. Perhaps the current a longer wheelbase provides more stability in a straight line is sufficient. -AndrewDressel (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Environmental impact section rewrite

The first part of this section cites an LA Times column by Susan Carpenter [3] saying motorcycles are twice as polluting per mile than cars. Then later on, this edit from a year ago tries to have a debate with Carpenter over that. In the mean time, the section has been broken down into sub sections, with the critique of Carpenter getting pushed down the page and ending up in a fragment inside the Europe section. It doesn't make very much sense, and at the very least it needs to be reorganized.

It would probably be better just to lay out the basic facts of motorcycle emissions regulations and only try to compare them with cars if definitive sources exist. Also, the near-disappearance two-strokes, and the possible resurrection of a few of them, in recent years, deserves some mention.--Dbratland (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Another source about this contentious issue [4] Randroide (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting article, making the comparison between cars and motorcycles based on CO2-equivalent emissions rather than straight CO2. If the latter is used then motorcycles, with their smaller engines, will be hands-down winners every time. However, when CO, NOx and hyrdocarbon emissions are taken into account then motorcycles, which frequently don't have catalytic converters to clean up their emissions, will have a higher impact. A large number of modern mainstream motorcycles now have catalytic converters - all BMW's for example - so the issue isn't straightforward. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

CO² is one of five of the major pollutants. This is so constant with relation to fuel consumption that it can easily be predicted. But it's not the most damaging pollutant. Particular Emission are, followed closely by NO_x. Motorcycles are built for high performance. All of the features of a high performance engine, create higher levels of pollutants. Older engine designs, specifically air cooled designs tend to run very hot. They tend to NOT have crankcase positive (filtered) ventilation (PCV). They tend to produce very high levels of pollution as Otto engines always must do in the Particulate Emissions sizes of PM1 to PM10. (the number is in Microns and represents size). So the net effect is that motorcycles as a whole pollute about 100 times more than automobiles (which have been mandated to be cleaned up for the past 40 some years. Otto engines are particularly BAD at polluting at partial throttle because of the limited stoichiometric ratio range at which gasoline/air will burn. One of the features of engine design that had to be removed in controls vehicles was the high compression ratio. It produces higher levels of pollutants. High compressions of 12 to 1 or higher are still used in motorcycle engines. When motorcycles START to be controlled these are likely to disappear. Particulates have to be reduced as well as NO_x and CO. This will very likely mean the end of air cooled motorcycles. It will also likely be the end of relatively cheap motorcycles.69.250.164.54 (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Retro 1920s style bikes

Hi there. I uploaded a photo of

Derringer Bike store window

and a close-up of the 1920s style bikes this guy's company is making. Not sure if it's worth including here or if it's notable for an independent article.

Close-up of Derringer bike

ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that recently these board track racer-style bikes, and other teens through thirties style bikes are becoming more popular in the retro reproduction and custom scene. I think there is some boredom with the 50s-60s chopper and cafe racer aesthetics, and they're looking for something fresh. It would make a good subject if more sources can be found commenting on all this. More generally, I'd like so see some digging into the concept of minimalism in motorcycle design, and how so many movements subscribe to minimalism as their guiding light, yet produce such different machines (rat bike, streetfighter, chopper, cafe racer, etc).--Dbratland (talk) 05:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This has no relevancy here. It should be under Types.69.250.164.54 (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Please help

A fellow wikipedian doesn't seem to understand the importance or "usefulness of a "Motorcycle Mechanic" article and redirected my article to plain "Mechanic" due to lack of specialisation, doing so without notice. Any biker administrators here to help?

(Please support the article)

The article before getting arbitrarily hacked:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Motorcycle_mechanic&oldid=328800478

I think you should leave it as a redirect until it is better developed. I created Talk:Motorcycle mechanic and made a subpage under that where you can work on it: Talk:Motorcycle mechanic/Workpage. You can do all the editing you need to there. Leave {{workpage}} at the top until you're ready to copy it over to Motorcycle mechanic. Neither Mechanic, nor Auto mechanic or Bicycle mechanic are very good articles, but you can sort of look at them for a little guidance on what sort of material is needed before Motorcycle mechanic is ready. Wikipedia:Featured articles is a much better place to look for good models. Electrical engineering, Gas tungsten arc welding, Shielded metal arc welding, and Welding might serve as good examples.

It's fine if you only create a stub, but it needs to be more than just a definition of "motorcycle mechanic". Try to find some solid sources and use what you find to guide what should go in the article. If you have further questions, post them at Talk:Motorcycle mechanic. Take your time; it's not going anywhere. --Dbratland (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. User:Spyros Pantenas

This would be better titled as "The Necessity for Dealer/Professional Servicing" which applies mostly to the post Classic machines which are computerized and difficult to maintain.Flatshooter (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

about bikes in china and india versus cars

I said it before. The 2002 information is really outdate. It's even misleading and shouldn't be in this article.

" Helped by government subsidies, the Chinese car market overtook the United States as the world's largest earlier this year and is expected to build on that in 2010.

U.S. auto sales, by contrast, collapsed in 2009 to the lowest since 1970 at about 10.3 million vehicles and are expected to partially rebound next year."

So at least 10 million news cars this year alone. Silverpaper3 (talk) 11:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Where are your sources for these statements? ww2censor (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to see updated info in the lead paragraph. Keep in mind, the motorcycle data are also 8 years old, and India and China have been making more motorcycles as furiously as cars. It would be completely misleading to compare 2009 car numbers with 2002 motorcycle numbers, but a 2002 snapshot of cars vs motorcycles does a good job of making the point that for the majority of people in the world, there are far more motorcycles in use than cars.

If both sets of numbers could be updated, that would be great. But even then, the 2002 data should not be deleted entirely but moved to the history section; the trend we are observing from motorcycles to cars parallels what happened in Italy and Japan after WWII, and in the US when Ford brought cheap cars to the masses.--Dbratland (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Some much more up to date (2006) bike figures here. See same-year car figures at Template:World_motor_vehicle_production_by_country_in_2006 --CIHAGM (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

References

I've fixed most of the inline citation problems, such as broken links and redirects using Checklinks, but there is still one dead link (ref 36: Chung-Li. "Sustainable Development Indicators for Taiwan". Workshop on Sustainable Development Indicators) so if anyone can find and fix that it would be great. One other link has a timeout problem but might be ok (ref 58). ww2censor (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Motorcycles and cars in the lead

There are around 200 million motorcycles (including mopeds, motor scooters and other powered two and three-wheelers) in use worldwide,[6] or about 33 motorcycles per 1000 people. This compares to around 590 million cars, or about 91 per 1000 people. Most of the motorcycles, 58%, are in the developing countries of Asia—Southern and Eastern Asia, and the Asia Pacific countries, excluding Japan—while 33% of the cars (195 million) are concentrated in the United States and Japan.

This seems to attract editors who find it confusing. The point here is that the cars and motorcycles of the world are not evenly distributed. While the US and Japan account for about 6.5% of the worlds population, one third of the world's cars are concentrated in those two countries. It might help if we added Europe in with the US and Japan to help illustrate better. Normally Japan would be grouped with Asia Pacific countries, or with East Asian countries, but the profile of motorcycles and cars in Japan makes it very similar to the US and Europe and dissimilar to China, Vietnam, Indonesia, and so forth.

Motorcycles are not similarly distributed -- almost 60% of them are in the developing world. The graphs over at Worldmapper [5][6] tell this story best and probably the solution is to make some kind of graph of our own here. --Dbratland (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a pity that the Worldmapper images have a non-commercial Creative Commons licence per this. Perhaps they would loosen up on one image for us. Do you want to ask them? ww2censor (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think not since they incorrectly lump mopeds in with motorcycles.69.250.164.54 (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I say it should be moved out of the intro section, except for the barest of mentions (if at all). Then expand more fully in the body of the article where such a complex topic belongs. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Where and how many motorcycles exist makes sense ONLY in the context that developing nations use almost exclusively the World Utility Motorcycles for SERIOUS purposes of commerce and transport while the developed nations use motorcycles for leisure sport for the most part. And this belongs in a section on SOCIAL effects, not in the description of a motorcycle.69.250.164.54 (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be said using different statistics, or in some other way besides statistics, but the fact that motorcycles play one role in the world's rich countries and a completely different role in the rest of the world is one of the most important facts about motorcycles. Something of this nature belongs in the lead. --Dbratland (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I find a number of faults with WP:Lead. In the first sentence here, I take exception to the inclusion of mopeds, scooters, and tricycles with motorcycles. There are critical differences between motorcycles and mopeds. A moped is NOT the prime mover for the vehicle, the rider is. A moped is started by pedaling, even if the moped is on a centerstand. A moped uses an engine to ASSIST the rider. A motorcycle can start from a standstill and accelerate on it's own power. There is a legal definition of a moped and another for a motorcycle. Mopeds are limited to have a low level of power and do not require licensing or licensed drivers (at least not in the state of Maryland, USA). The page Motorcycle REALLY wants to talk about leisure sport motorcycles that are found largely in highly developed industrialized nations. Flatshooter (talk) 08:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately your opinions about mopeds aren't shared by the sources we have [7]. The data combines all powered two wheelers in a single category and cars in another. Other sources, like the MAIDS report for example, typically do the same. If you did have data that told us how many motorcycles vs mopeds each country has, that would be a valuable addition to the article. I suspect the reason such data is hard to come by is that each jurisdiction defines moped vs motorcycle differently. The definition you have given for a moped is not universal.

Other than the mechanical distinction, and local legal rules that vary capriciously, motorcycles, scooters and mopeds play nearly identical roles in the transport infrastructure and the social order of most of the Earth's population.

If this page spends too much time talking about leisure motorcycling in the rich countries and not the rest of the world, that should be fixed. --Dbratland (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I find a lot of the "sources" here are invalid and full of errors. There are reasons to keep mopeds separate from motorcycles and scooters. The main reason is their legal treatment in the localities they are used in. Another reason is that mopeds (or cyclemotors) should be supported by their own site. There are many fine web resources with large amounts of credible detail pertaining to mopeds and overlapping into motorcycle history.

With this topic already being too large and poorly organized it is further confused and distorted by dubious claims of casual "researchers" and COMMERCIALLY BIASED "sources." It's very often true that the cited sources, cannot be verified by following the links or reading the cited material. Too often the person doing the citing has misinterpreted the meaning of an article. Too often the source cited will express contradictory concepts within a cited article which has then been "cherry picked" to use as a supposedly authoritarian source.

A moped is not a motorcycle. It is a motorized bicycle using an IC engine to assist the rider who is the prime mover. A motorcycle does not have pedals, starts without being pedaled, and has it's IC engine as the prime mover. A Motorcycle will have two wheels, each of which is larger than 14". A motorcycle will also be ridden on, with the legs astraddle it (to distinguish it from 3 wheeled automobiles.) In my state a Moped engine cannot produce more than 1.5 HP and the engine must be less than 50cc. If a moped meets these criterion, then it can be ridden on the streets without having to be licensed and taxed and the rider can ride on it without having a motorcycle drivers license (but it required to wear an approved helmet).

The State of Maryland is one of the most active states in doing motorcycle fatality research. That research would be polluted if moped and scooter data were included. A responsible researcher would not do so. The research shows that a typical TBI in Maryland costs from $2 to $7 Million dollars in treatment. It has also shown that wearing a helmet reduces TBI by 40% and more. This data would be of little value if mopeds were included. Flatshooter (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

'The Lead Page'

This is the current text on the lead page:

A motorcycle (also called a motorbike, bike, or cycle) is a single-track,[1] two-wheeled[2] motor vehicle. Motorcycles vary considerably depending on the task for which they are designed, such as long distance travel, navigating congested urban traffic, cruising, sport and racing, or off-road conditions.

Motorcycles are the most affordable form of motorised transport in many parts of the world and, for most of the world's population, they are also the most common type of motor vehicle.[3][4][5] There are around 200 million motorcycles (including mopeds, motor scooters and other powered two and three-wheelers) in use worldwide,[6] or about 33 motorcycles per 1000 people. This compares to around 590 million cars, or about 91 per 1000 people. Most of the motorcycles, 58%, are in the developing countries of Asia—Southern and Eastern Asia, and the Asia Pacific countries, excluding Japan—while 33% of the cars (195 million) are concentrated in the United States and Japan. As of 2002[update], India with an estimated 37 million motorcycles/mopeds was home to the largest number of motorised two wheelers in the world. China came a close second with 34 million motorcycles/mopeds.[7] [8]

I'm new here so I hesitate to comment on this page. As I have been reading a bit here I find that several people have complained about this opening page. I humbly submit my comments. Here are the opening points:

1. A Motorcycle should never be called a bike (which is a bicycle) or a cycle (which is just inaccurate slang).
2. Motorcycles are not always two wheeled. Sidecar motorcycles have three wheels of which two which are (optionally) driven . This means that a sidecar equipped motorcycle is a two track vehicle. Motorcycles have also on occasion been fitted with outriggers and wheels for training and testing. Classic BMW motorcycles were designed for sidecar use into the 1960s. Some learning class motorcycles and some BMW test motorcycles have training wheels and crash prevention wheels.
3. There is not to my knowledge any motorcycle design specifically made for congested traffic. The dual purpose machines having long travel suspension which is exceptionally good for rough streets and potholes, but it has the rough road suspension for dirt riding not specifically for bad street paving. This class of motorcycle is the best seller in Europe in the BMW R1200GS. BMW refers to it as Adventure Sport type. Air cooled motorcycle engines are particularly ill suited for slow congested traffic as they tend to overheat. Many motorcycle riders do not recognize the symptoms of engine overheating. Transverse boxer and V-Twin air cooled engines are adequate at even slow speeds but inline V-twins tend to have problems with heat. Running an air cooled engine motorcycle into a stream can seize an engine.
4. I suggest a page specifically for motorcycle types.
5. Mopeds and tricycles are not motorcycles and shouldn't be grouped with them. In automotive history tricycles are considered automobiles.
6. Motorcycles are NOT the most economical form of motorized transportation anywhere. Mopeds are cheaper.
7. I see no reason to put in sales numbers or numbers of distribution on this page. Many people in industrialized nations have no regard for the types of motorcycles sold in most of the developing world. Unless you're going to specify that India and China use motorcycles such as the Honda Super Cub almost exclusively the mention of the numbers of motorcycles used in developing nations is very misleading. Europe and Japan operate almost as one market for Leisure Sports machines, but Developing Nations rely to a huge extent on Japan for World Utility Motorcycles which dominate world sales. This page gives the impression that the oversized machines found in the USA and Europe are widely used elsewhere which is untrue. If you want to talk about distribution you should be accurate and state what type of motorcycle is being used and where. This should be located elsewhere. It must also be recognized that many "sources" have produced sales numbers in conflict with realty. Harley-Davidson uses the automotive industry practice of counting a motorcycle shipped from the factory as sold, even though they are unsold sitting in dealer showrooms and doing so soaking up profits on "floorplan" financing. No other motorcycle manufacturer does this. Harley-Davidson has been sued for stock manipulation for this practice which is still prevalent. Sales, production, distribution should be hosted elsewhere IMHO.
8. This page ignores it's purpose which is to describe what a motorcycle is and give a direction for continued reading. It's as if the writers are embarrassed by the triviality of motorcycles as a subject and are trying to aggrandize it by quoting numbers of masses of motorcycles the like of which are not even found in most of the Western world except when mandated by driver training programs. This degrades the topic.
9. No one would have an idea what a motorcycle is from this page.

1. Motorcycles are popular in the developed world because of the sensation of driving which is very exhilarating. They bring increasingly higher and higher prices and maintenance costs with higher levels of performance for their given functions.

I suggest something like this:

Motorcycle is an English word which refers to a two wheeled vehicle commonly powered by an internal combustion engine. The motorcycle is referred to as a Motorrad in Germany, as a Motofiet in Denmark, as a Motobicyclette in France, as a Honda in Vietnam, as Nanahan in Japan, and in many countries simply as a Moto. (Insert a photo of a modern motorcycle)

A motorcycle at first glance can be recognized as a bicycle with an engine on it. It has two wheels, a seat, handlebars, lights, and controls for all it's functions.

The motorcycle developed to fill the desires of the populace in various parts of the world ranging from a need for basic transportation, to the needs of commerce, and for the pleasure of riding for it's own sake. (Insert photo of a basic World Utility Motorcycle)

A ride on a motorcycle is a thrilling experience. Many riders revel in the complexity of it's controls, the openness of the view from the seat, from the wind in the face, the sound of the engine, and often from the very high performance that a motorcycle can deliver.

Motorcycles vary in the size of their engines and the levels of performance they deliver. From the earliest days of their development the motorcycle was often faster than a typical automobile. Motorcycles, for their cost, have often offered a higher level of performance than automobiles which are more practical, but seldom provide as much thrill in driving. Today's high performance motorcycles can deliver speeds and acceleration matched only in the most expensive sporting automobiles.

At the same time, motorcycles, in smaller models offer a low purchase price and a low cost of operation. The most popular motorcycles are the World Utility Motorcycles. These are used by the millions in developing nations. They seldom have the ability to exceed 60 mph.

Motorcycle designs were developed largely as the result of competition. The International Six Days Trials were held to develop reliable motorcycles that could travel over any type of terrain found. The Tourist Trophy races on the Isle of Man were used as a showcase for manufacturers to tout their high performance creations. It has always been said that if a maker won on Sunday he would sell on Monday.

There are also the off road motorcycle designs. These are sometimes used for touring, trail riding, trials competition and racing. (reference a page devoted to motorcycle types)

I don't like to criticize without offering an alternative. This strikes me as serving the purpose of the lead page far better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flatshooter (talk • contribs) 13:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A motorcycle should never be called a bike? What on earth makes you say that? In the UK, for example, a motorcycle is most commonly called a bike and people here talk often of motorbikes rather than motorcycles.

I wouldn't call the Triumph 2300cc a motorbike.

It is absolutely right that alternative words should be used in the intro. And why do you say that a moped isn't a motorcycle?

Because.. it isn't. There are tests for a motorcycle. It must be able to start from standstill as it's normal operation. It must be startable while sitting still. It's engine must be the prime mover, not an assist motor.

The legal definition of moped changed a long time ago in many countries (such as the UK) so that pedals are no longer needed - a moped is now defined as a motorcycle that cannot exceed 50 km/h.

Look at reference point 13 which states "^ "motorcycle, n.". Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford University Press. March 2009. "1. A two-wheeled motor-driven road vehicle, resembling a bicycle but powered by an internal-combustion engine; (now) spec. one with an engine capacity, top speed, or weight greater than that of a moped."" Flatshooter (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

So. you already have a reference on this very page that says a moped is not a motorcycle. Flatshooter (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

As for your own suggest intro, I don't like it much. First of all you don't give all the foreign words - this is English wikipedia and there are foreign language interwiki links on the left-side of the page. "thrilling experience" and "wind in the face" are not encyclopaedic. You use a lot of language that doesn't suit an encyclopaedia such as "Many riders revel" (who? how many?), "It has always been said" (by whom?), or "they are used by the millions" (need to be precise and provide citations), or "A motorcycle at first glance can be recognized as a bicycle with an engine on it." - that last one I just don't get. A modern faired motorcycle looks nothing like a bicycle. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not entirely disagree. Since the Wiki dictionary listing does list many of the foreign terms for motorcycle. Note reference point 14 ^ "Brief History of the Marque: Hildebrand & Wolfmuller". Hildebrand & Wolfmuller Motorad, European Motorcycle Universe. http://www.cybermotorcycle.com/euro/brands/hildebrand_wolfmuller.htm. Retrieved 28 June 2007. This page is using one of the very terms you object to. So the page itself is using foreign words you object to AND has a false statement that the H&W was referred to as a motorcycle. This is a false statement because the word motorrad was translated into english. The H&W being German was then and always will be a Motorrad. Other early motorcycles were motobicyclettes and motocyclettes etc. etc. If you aren't going to admit original terms in foreign language you can't claim that their translation was an original word. 69.250.164.54 (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Without addressing every single point here, I would suggest you dig a little deeper, and understand some of the relevant policies here. For example, it's not relevant to Wikipedia what a motorcycle should be called.

Yes it is. This is also a principle of law. The devices that are NOW widely known as motorcycles bear very little resemblance to the original motorized bicycles, but still are ascended from them. Since the term motorcycle has been in use for more than 100 years in English speaking countries it's a standard that has been set, as if carved into granite. Allowing others to dilute the meaning is part of social disintegration and a descent into he abyss of ignorance and apathy. If you want to propose a document as an encyclopedic article then it has to have references which are truthfully authoritative. I've already seen several references which are without authority. Besides, you can list the slang terms in the wiki dictionary section, as the REAL non-English words for motorcycle are listed. I reiterate, slang should not be part of the main lead.Flatshooter (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Staying within the limits of other's published texts is severely restricting and has the danger of buying into the bias of he writers. Just because they have written a document isn't a guarentee of authority. I see this daily in many areas where I am authoritative. Flatshooter (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

A motorcycle as defined by Webster (the real G & C Merriam Co. not the fake dictionaries). It is a two or three wheeled automotive vehicle having one or two saddles which sometimes has third wheel to support a sidecar. That's actually all that is needed to describe a motorcycle. That's authoritative and it counters quite a bit of what's on the page now. I scanned the listing if you want to see it. It has a nice illustration of a motorcycle with labels for the parts.Flatshooter (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikpedia is not here to tell anyone what they should say.

Of course it is. That's the point of having rules and insisting on references, even though those references can be cited, doesn't mean they are truthful or accurate. That's one reason genuine publications have editors. Ever heard of Alex Haley? Would you cite his work of fiction as a reference? It was touted as a masterwork until someone did REAL research on it's claims. How about anyone who EVER worked for Petersen Publications? Flatshooter (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a verifiable fact that a motorcycle is sometimes called a bike.

You should hear what we call Harley's!!! Ever heard a rap song and what they call Women. Do you know what we call politicians who's lips move? Calling something by an inaccurate name merely perpetuates the ignorance of the masses. Webster's G & C Merriam says a motorbike is a very small motorcycle. The US government in their usual way of saying things, considers a heavy weight motorcycle to be any motorcycle that has an engine of 700cc or more. Trust the US Government to set a standard based on size and label it with weight. Today's 700cc machines are considered as entry level. Why? So that the dealers can try to make more money. Only some US states and riding training companies even purchase motorcycles under 750cc now. No wonder so many new riders are being killed. Flatshooter (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You suggest a page of motorcycle types. What about Types of motorcycles?

I had not read that far when I mentioned that. I looked at it. What a mess! It's tied up in a hack war. It's pretty confused and inaccurate as well as incomplete when I looked at it. I am just learning what goes on here. The topic and the forum page are FAR TOO LARGE. I think there should be spinoffs. Is that a correct term for this? Flatshooter (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a link to it right there in the section Motorcycle#Types. Your opinion that mopeds and tricycles should be grouped elsewhere is only your opinion

My opinion counts for a great deal. I am a historic resource. I'm right, everyone else who disagrees is wrong. There is a time to be pompous and this is one of those times. Flatshooter (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

-- sources generally group them together,

Which is why they lack authority. They do not have a clear idea of what the subject material represents. Flatshooter (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

and this is all about what the sources tell us, not any editor's opinions.

Sources are not necessarily authoritative. It took me decades but I finally realized that having achieved a printed word is no indication of authority. I consider the quoted sources in a manner similar to some of the reviews in Consumer Reports. If I KNOW nothing about a subject, I trust what they say. But when I am VERY familiar with a subject (such as 35mm Cameras and Digital Cameras) I find their conclusions, their criteria, and their methodology to be less than sufficient to draw the conclusions that they have sometimes reached. When I KNOW a subject quite well, I am NOT very likely to let others misrepresent it without comment.Flatshooter (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This page is in need of improvement, and I think you're on the right track, but I'd suggest more research and a closer look at the sources, and a closer look at WP:COMMONNAME and similar policies.

I will take your suggestion. I have a problem with not having enough time. I wish this forum was in PHPBB instead since it's so much easier to use.

I agree with Biker Biker that the description of motorcycles and definitions suggested are unencyclopedic, overly personal, and in need of sources to back them up. --Dbratland (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a motorcycle. I can describe it. That's authoritative. The real problem is that people just dissemble too much. Flatshooter (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me emphasize that nobody should be discouraged from editing this article. Just try to stay away from personal opinions and stick to verifiable sources, that's all.--Dbratland (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

How do you suggest correcting a false statement from personal knowledge? Do you think I'm going to go to the Library of Congress to look up something I read 40 years ago? Not bloodly likely. I know the truth... I don't need to prove anything. So in this way, the truth is suppressed. What do you expect when you have a volunteer venture. People will wander in and out an do pretty much anything they feel like until they get disgusted that they can't get their own way. Ideally there should be a consensus, not the constant change. There should be a controlling editor for every major topic who decides with those who propose authorship what should be included. If I tell you my experiences with my motorcycles they are truthful and real. I'm not going to spend the money to publish a book (actually I am but not about this) just to give you a supposed authoritative citation. In doing research on my family for the last twenty years I learned a few things. One.. it's vital to get the information that people have from personal experience, before they're gone. Flatshooter (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

After reading WP:COMMONNAME, you should read No original research. Also read WP:Truth. It's very clear you have ideas about what Wikipedia should be that are drastically at odds with Wikipedia policy. The place to discuss your ideas is on the policy pages, not here. There are appropriate forums for you to discuss how Wikipedia ought to be run. I think one way to free up time to read policy pages might be to spend less time discussing moot issues on article talk pages. --Dbratland (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Definition of Motorcycle

Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged, 1947, Publishers G & C Merriam Co. Springfield, Mass. U.S.A.

Motorcycle, Noun A two-wheeled automotive vehicle having one or two riding saddles and sometimes a third wheel for the support of a sidecar.

Motorcycle, Verb Intransitive To ride a motorcycle or go by motorcycle---motorcyclist, Noun Flatshooter (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Vehicle safety template

This template {{Vehicle safety‎‎}} needs consensus before adding it to the page. The data all come from a single source, which appears to be somebody's personal web page where they aggregate data from various sources. The author of this web page appears to be John Brignell, a computer science professor. One of the things that raises alarms for me is that the numbers seem a bit out of the ballpark in comparison with other transport sources, and it's not totally clear to me how to go back and check where they come from. One more thing: this page has a copyright notice at the bottom, so I suspect an exact copy of this table is a copyright violation.

There are three main statistics for which vehicle safety can be compared: (Data taken from UK transportation)

Deaths per billion journeys
Bus: 4.3
Rail: 20
Van: 20
Car: 40
Foot: 40
Water: 90
Air: 117
Bicycle: 170
Motorcycle: 1640

Deaths per billion hours
Bus: 11.1
Rail: 30
Air: 30.8
Water: 50
Van: 60
Car: 130
Foot: 220
Bicycle: 550
Motorcycle: 4840

Deaths per billion kilometres
Air: 0.05
Bus: 0.4
Rail: 0.6
Van: 1.2
Water: 2.6
Car: 3.1
Bicycle: 44.6
Foot: 54.2
Motorcycle: 108.9

--Dbratland (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Dunno, it might be OK, it depends on the copyright of where he got the info from. I don't see any evidence it was taken from multiple sources. I got it from automobile[8].

Whether such a table would be in fact copyright is probably highly debatable, there needs to be some degree of artistic invention for it to reach copyright, and just listing the death rates in order of risk like this may well not be enough.- Wolfkeeper 16:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That the statistics were collated in the UK doesn't seem to me to be an issue either, provided we say that, statistics like these always have some associated location.- Wolfkeeper 16:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I need time to research -- maybe someone can help me find it -- but numbers that come from Tom Vanderbilt, I believe, author of Traffic, say that bicycling and walking have very nearly the same risk, with walking being more dangerous than bicycling. Motorcycling is not drastically more dangerous than walking, per mile. I will do my best to cite the specific source for that. But it makes me wonder why Brignell's numbers are so drastically different.

One reason might be that the UK and US are such different environments. Vanderbilt points out that traffic safety is very different between Belgium and the Netherlands, two otherwise very similar countries. Thus it's possible these UK numbers, while perhaps true, should not be interpreted to represent the risks faced in the US, China, India, Africa and so on, and so the table belongs on an article about safety in the UK, not a general article about motorcycles in the world.

It's a fascinating and worthwhile topic, but I find this table to be too facile and simplistic. And the template is all from a single source -- that is not OK for controversial issues. Not everyone agrees about these safety questions, in spite of the way Brignell scoffs at the errors other people make with statistics, I don't know of any reason to think he himself is immune to error or prejudice. I would trust Brignell more if multiple independent sources were backing him up. Also, he's a computer science professor. I have a computer science degree and I don't consider myself an transport expert; it's a different field.

It looks to the untrained eye to be an exact copy of Brignell's table, but perhaps his table is not creative in any way. I'd like to hear other opinions on the copyright question. One way to be certain we aren't violating copyright is to refactor the table to a genuinely different format; including data from other sources would be one way to accomplish that goal. --Dbratland (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not comfortable with any data published by numberwatch.co.uk, which is one man's personal soapbox website, which attempts to discredit official statistics and instead interpret them in a way that suits the website owner. It is not a reliable source. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer to see worldwide figures presented rather than just UK. Furthermore the UK-only figures that are presented in Brignell's table seem to be out of date. According to the figures on the website (and copied into the template) in the UK motorcyclists are between 35 and 40 times more likely to be involved in a KSI accident when compared with cars. In section 2.1 of this document from the UK's Department for Transport, that 35x figure is acknowledged based on a study published in 1993 for accidents that happened in 1989. However it goes on to show that by 1999 the UK KSI ratio for motorcycles vs cars had dropped to 28. I'm pretty sure that the 1993 survey of 1989 data is what Brignell's table is based on. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

To show much more up to date UK figures for all modes of transport (not just bikes vs. cars), page 176 of this document from the UK Department for Transport has comparative year-on-year data up to 2007. Interestingly it shows that the bike vs car KSI ration is more like 50:1. But again, it is only UK data and I feel it would be better to present data from more than one country. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe the template to be so flawed that I have removed all instances of it from articles. Comparative accident data is useful and informative so let's see if we can get a better set of data before re-publishing. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm still very enthusiastic about the idea behind {{Vehicle safety‎‎}}. The data just need more weight behind them, from multiple independent sources. I will help out with that as best I can. --Dbratland (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been mentioned at Talk:Automobile, Talk:Rail transport, Talk:Bicycle safety, and Talk:Vehicle. --Dbratland (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I oppose this. It has no business being included with a discussion of Motorcycle. The published data is NOT credible at first glance. In this area we have had data for a long time showing that the motorcycle is about 36 times more likely to kill it's rider than a driver is in an automobile. But this serves no purpose on this page. If there were a separate topic of Motorcycle Safety, then it would be appropriate there, or perhaps on a page with Ecological and Social Concerns... but NOT here. Including such a page here, will serve no purpose. I doubt it would be allowed to stay very long. Put on a Society page along with a discussion of White Slavery and Drug and Gun Running by motorcycle gangs. People would likely read it there.

I'd rather see discussion of the Vision Zero concept and how Norway became the first nation to build a highway specifically to be SAFER for Motorcyclists. Flatshooter (talk) 09:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead image

Reverted BMW pic

Current Triumph pic

An IP editor who seems to like pictures of BMW bikes just changed the lead image back to the rather poor, low-resolution image of two BMW R1200GS motorcycles. That image had previously been the lead image, but was changed in May to have two images - one showing a 1950s Triumph and the other a Ural sidecar outfit. While I wasn't a great fan of the triumph image either, it is much more preferable to the BMW one (so I reverted the addition of the BMW). The Triumph piccy shows a bike and absolutely nothing else, thus making the bike the focus of the image. Also, having just one bike in the picture shows parts in reasonable closeup. That said, I think it should be changed for a better one that a) is of a more recent model and b) shows the bike in three-quarters profile so that the front and side can be seen rather than just the side. So I'm asking for suggestions and then concurrence on a new lead image. (Personally I'm happy for the sidecar to remain as second lead image) --Biker Biker (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The pair of touring bikes with gear and helmets on a roadside might be more appropriate for Motorcycling, i.e. motorcycles in context of riding. But I agree for Motorcycle the focus should be on the machine. I think any image that has been in the lead of a high-traffic article for a month or two is ready to be replaced with something fresh. That BMW image was there for more than a year. The Triumph picture is fine, particularly because that model is iconic of the 'standard' motorcycle, but nonetheless, it would be nice to rotate in a new, high-quality image before too much more time goes by. --Dbratland (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with needing a new image just because it has been there for some time. However, any clean studio style image of a motorcycle alone allows reader's to focus on the subject of the topic, so such an image seems the most appropriate for this article not the BMW image, which I agree is more appropriate to Motorcycling. Let's find a suitable image of a more modern bike. ww2censor (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

What about this studio image of the BMW S1000RR? It is a featured image on Wikimedia commons. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that one is fine, myself.* But I anticipate that somebody will say a specialized model of sport bike is not broadly representative enough of all motorcycles. That starts a quest for the one true quintessential motorcycle, which does not exist. Motorcycles are many things to many people. Or you compromise by stuffing a half dozen images in the lead, which is sloppy and confused. That's the reason I see a benefit in not being married to any image -- if we agree to change it within a moderate timeframe, nobody has to love it that much and we can focus on more important things.

Also, I wouldn't automatically disqualify a candidate because it's not modern or not a studio image; it would depend on the merits of the image.

* If we do use File:BMW S1000 RR Studio.JPG on Motorcycle, then we should find something else for the lead of Sport bike so as to not seem obsessed. --Dbratland (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

A new motorcycle like the S1000RR is no more a motorcycle than one that is 50 years old. There's nothing motorcycle-y that one is over the other. I'd prefer an image that clearly shows what a motorbike is- in my mind, that means older bikes might be better, as they show the engine and frame/wheels better than a new bike. tedder (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a very good point - the Triumph photo shows all the components clearly. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Types

One particular motorcycle hasn't been mentioned: the Xcite bike. See http://www.thedesignblog.org/entry/xcite-bike-takes-biking-to-the-extremes/ it will probably require its own category KVDP (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not a motorcycle in my book. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

well, actually it is, the definition of a motorcycle is: "motorcycle (also called a motorbike, bike, or cycle) is a single-track, engine-powered,[1] two-wheeled[2] motor vehicle", the Xcite bike looks weird, but fits that description. 91.182.14.86 (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant discussion, as the xcitebike.com domain is no longer registered implying the company has gone titsup and the product was vapourware. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be another similar product aswell: the MXB Motocrossboard, see http://motocrossboard.com/ 81.242.252.87 (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I wonder, being so similar, how it is that the Motocrossboard has a patent pending? Is it actually the same inventor/invention? Brianhe (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

WP's definition of motorcycle in the media

In the December 2010 Motorcycle Consumer News, columnist Fred Rau quotes this article's first line on the question of What is a motorcycle? It reflects poorly on Wikipedia that we seem to be touting such a rigid definition -- two wheeled only -- when I think all we meant was that the primary definition of a motorcycle is a two wheeled motor vehicle, deferring to the expertise of Tony Foale and Vittore Cossalter.

I think a "mostly" or "generally" needs to be added to the lead as a qualifier, and a new section should be written, above the History section, that discusses the whole topic of "what is a motorcycle?" It should explain that definitions vary depending on whether you are looking at the motorcycling media, a dictionary, various legal jurisdictions, a club, or a sport sanctioning body. I think this sort of nuanced explanation works fairly well in Types of motorcycles and Sport bike. By explaining the differing opinions on the subject, it provides a good lead in for the History section's coverage of whether it was the steam velocipedes or the petrol Diamler Reitwagen were the first motorcycles. --Dbratland (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

We also contradict ourselves in the very next paragraph of the lede redefining motorcycles as "including ... two and three-wheelers". — Brianhe (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)