Talk:Quadricycle

Untitled

Should this page mention motor quadricycles? They've the same relationship to quads as motortrikes have to pedal trikes and are distinct from cars. (Kirtai 13:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC))

Quadracycle Userbox

To show that you drive a quadracycle you can add the following code to your user page:

{{User:Ahunt/Quadracycle}} 

which will show the following user box. - Ahunt 04:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This user drives a quadracycle

Clean-up tag added by EvanCarroll

Thanks for adding a clean-up tag to this article. Can you provide any specific information on what you think needs cleaning up? It might help those of us working on this article to get started. - Ahunt 11:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, well, some ideas for clean-up would be

• Killing off Citations, References is the Wikipedia convention. One is alright - both is confusing. That which is referenced in the article, is {{cite}}ed.
• Much of this article seems to be closer to original research, or a collection of links, and this article seems to be more of a catalog for quadcycles, than an encyclopedia article of them. I would actually remove links to modern quadcycles, listing only the top 2-3 most reputable companies for each type or even better for all Quadcycles.
  • Listing abstract models, on a general page doesn't inform the reader of anything, or lead them to a wikipedia page with more information. Models are largely irrelevant to Quadcycles, it seems synonymous with listing Honda Civic, and Toyota Prius on a page that describes cars.

EvanCarroll 16:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Those sound like fair enough criticisms to me. I have made an attempt at tightening it up as you have suggested. Ahunt 20:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think quadricycles are extremely cool, but I think this article is still off for Wikipedia's standards. However, I can see you as the primary editor might take excessive pride in it, and don't feel strongly enough to press the issue. I'd hate to agitate someone over convention and preference. However, if you were up for doing more work, and you might be -- I don't know how passionate you are about the subject. You might consider a more academic Comparison of foo (ie Comparison of Quadricycle) article - which would probably receive large praise. An article of this sort, would consist of a list of Quadcycles, both in production and out-of-production, as well as a comparison. For instance, you could list whether or not they have luggage holds, what type of frame they used, if they were of type touring or racing, etc, how much they weighted in at. All of this is still subject to WP:A, but you would hope it is written down somewhere. This would also wrap up the article into what I would perceive as clean encyclopedic material, and bring it closer to FA status. If you are more intrested in seeing this popular convention you can look at a google listing of like solutions. EvanCarroll 03:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah they are a lot of fun to ride. It definitely isn't a matter of pride in this article. My editorial involvement in this article started when I was looking to buy a quadracycle and I started doing research on the net. The Wikipedia article was very short and dealt with quadracycles only up until the end of the nineteenth century. It wasn't very helpful to anyone interested in the subject today, although it was a good starting point. I did my research elsewhere on the net (although there is not much info on this subject anywhere) and then used the results of my research to add to this article. It wasn't all my doing, as you can see from the article history - others have contributed content too. It would be interesting to do a quadracycle comparison article, but there are few sources that actually compare quadracycle types available. The few I have found have some bias issues that make them unreliable. That means the only way to write the article would be to compare manufacturers specs yourself. It runs the risk of being original research, lacking secondary references, but might be possible. - Ahunt 11:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Legality section

this sectionis very vague and only refers to North America. I propose that it should be rewritten to includ some specific info including some from other part of the world or removed intirely and have something along the lines of 'In some areas they have to follow the laws for bicycles whilst other areas catergorise them as 'Vehicles. The article mntions they're popular in France and mentions the chuckle brothers which indicates a need for legality outside of north america. I've not checked for awhile but i belive any nonmotorised Vehicle in the UK follows the same rules and that these rules are esentially the same as for motor vehicles with the exception of not require TAX liscenses or MOT tests.(Morcus (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

This section has been waiting for an editor to find references for other countries to indicate legalities there. If you have refs that indicate legal status in other countries please feel free to add the information and footnotes! - Ahunt (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look and see if I can find anything over at the DVLA website. I stand by my conviction thought hat in it's present state the section isn't worthy to be included.(Morcus (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

I agree, but the solution is to expand it, not delete it! - Ahunt (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Quadricycle in the UK can refer to a "micro car" - a motorised, not human powered, vehicle. These are not cars, and can be driven with a motorcycle licence. Some brand names are Aixam, Chatenet, and Tasso. perhaps a hat-note disambig? Dan Beale-Cocks 16:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't think that should be mentioned here as they are powered vehicles, The reason they are called Quadracycles is because thats what Royal Enfield called their first 4 wheeled motorbike. I Think that infomation should be put on the All terain Vehicle page as thats where all the info is on Quad bikes and said micro cars are classified the same way, I actually think it would be better to start a new page titaled 'Quad bike'. I mentioned that non ATV quads like Micro cars should be on said page on its talk page.(Morcus (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

I've just written a page based on the UK deffinition (Legal and otherwise) for Quade bike's and apperiate any thing you know on the Micro cars that are Quads and thus invite you to discuss on my talk page Talk: Quad bike. (Morcus (talk) 04:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

Safety

I'm curious as to how one prevents theft of a quaudracycle. I think others would be also so if anyone has any info it would be nice.(Morcus (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC))

I use a lock and insurance. Is that worth putting into the article? - Ahunt (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think its worth mentioning and showing a picture of the lock mostly because if i'm curious about it others will be. I mostly asked becaus I assumed you'd lock one simmilar to a bike but couldn't think what you'd lock it to in a car park. I assume you have to be quite selective about where its left.(Morcus (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC))

Well I can upload that photo and add some words to it. I haven't found a problem locking it up, if all else fails I lock it to a bike rack! Mostly I don't leave it alone, it is more fun to sit with it and answer all the questions while my ride partner does the grocery shopping etc. - Ahunt (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ta. It realy did confuse me and I think the lock thing really does clarify for anyone who was wondering.(Morcus (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

No problem, if that helps. - Ahunt (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Small queries

1. In the History section, it is stated that one of the problems with a rhombus-layout quadricycle was that it "left three tracks instead of two". Why is this a problem, exactly?

2. Pop culture section: there must be some example other than the Chuckle Brothers, which is a kid's show. Please?

195.26.62.238 (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Three tracks makes it harder to turn though I don't know why. As to the Chuckle Brothers, a. whats wrong with them? and b. can you think of any more? (Morcus (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC))

I cleared up the pop culture matter by removing it, what's the point of having that section? Alastairward (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It was unsourced anyway. - Ahunt (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Motorised quadricycles

Ahunt, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. And this article is about quadricycles in all their acceptances, weather in the USA, in Europe or elsewhere. Limiting it to a fraction of the meaning of the word is NOT what an encyclopedia is about.

In all European Union countries, quadricycles refer, as explained in the article, to " European classification for light four-wheeled motorised vehicles". Such vehicles are generally classified as Low Speed Vehicle is the USA, as explained in the reference that you quoted. This is NOT limited to All-terrain vehicle. For instance, the REVAi electric car is classified as a quadricycles - it has NOTHING of an All-terrain vehicle.

So I am afraid I had to revert your changes. If you want to make an article about "human powered quadricycles" only, I suggest you make one called "human powered quadricycles". But do NOT limit this article about quadricycles to the North American acceptance of the word! Thanks, --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You may want to read WP:BRD, the concept of gaining consensus on articles is to make a change see if anyone reverts it and then, if they do, to discuss it, not make a change, see if anyone reverts it, revert it back to your own version and then discuss it.

Right now the lead and the rest of the article is disconnected from what you have added. The lead indicates that the article is about human powered vehicles and not motorized ones. Actually you will find that to some extent that this debate has already be carried out when the article on the UK quad bike was redirected to All terrain vehicle here. Information on all powered off-road vehicles has been consolidated there.

Since you indicate that this term is used to describe totally different types of vehicles in totally different parts of the world then I think you are putting up a good argument that this page should be made into a disambiguation page instead, pointing to "Human powered quadricycle" & "Motorized quadricycle". Otherwise this article will end up describing any vehicle, powered or not, with four wheels. That would require splitting into smaller articles at that point. - Ahunt (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahunt, you are perfectly right: this page should be made into a disambiguation page instead, pointing to "Human powered quadricycle" (and quadracycle, quadcycle, quadrocycle, four-wheel bicycle) and to "Motorized quadricycle". Another British meaning that could possibly be added is "a four wheeled pedal or lever operated light railway vehicle used by track maintenance staff" (see [1]).

Question: do you want to do it? Or should I go ahead and do it this week-end?

You are also perfectly right about the fact that the concept of gaining consensus on articles is to make a change see if anyone reverts it and then, if they do, to discuss it. I must apologize for not following this rule. It may be linked to the fact that I have tried a few time this procedure, but generally did not get any reply in the talk page. So thank you very much for being so responsive. Sincerely, --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I can go ahead and move it. I'll turn this into a disambiguation page, chase down the redirects to it and move the existing article, less the motorized parts you added, to a new location which will be linked here. You can take the motorized portions and find an appropriate article for that, either new or existing, and link it from the disambiguation page. That will divide up the work. - Ahunt (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Ahunt, you did a great job! I will do the motorized quadricycle page ASAP. Best, --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

References

Quinquecycles??

Do any known quinquecycles exist?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be a five-wheeled cycle. The only one I know about is this - it is a quadracycle that requires a fifth outboard stabilizer wheel when ridden solo, due to a design problem. - Ahunt (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw what could be termed a quinquecycle earlier today, it was a twin-rear-axled version of a motor trike. Mspritch (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quadricycle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160513034638/http://www.rmsothebys.com/lots/lot.cfm?lot_id=826757 to http://www.rmsothebys.com/lots/lot.cfm?lot_id=826757

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)