User talk:AndrewDressel

My contributions to the bicycle frame page were both constructive and argumented. Please restore the changes to make Wikipedia useful to its readers.

As I stated, Open frame is the accepted term, both on commercial websites and colloquially. People searching should be able to find it. Here is also an old reference for its use, ^[1]

90.38.132.97 (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Funny thing about that reference you cite: I found it and inserted it. Thus, I have a pretty good idea how hard it was to find. As things stand now, Wikipedia readers will have no trouble finding "open frame bicycle". Any further insertions of that synonym will simply be giving it undue weight. Further discussion of this topic belongs on Talk:Bicycle_frame#Open_frame. -AndrewDressel (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I am wondering why commercial advertisements are not a good reference source, as that's where most people would come across the terms. At the same time, I see your point that there is enough reference to open frame (where there wasn't before), so people who look for it will find it. Thanks for finding the old reference, since it gives it some legitimacy in non-commercial circles as well. 90.38.132.97 (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

In the past, I have also wondered about and chaffed under the lack of respect shown to commercial sites, especially for the accepted name of things. Now I'm used to it. Thanks for getting this new name added to the articles, and I'm glad we seem to have come to an agreement about it. I hope this experience hasn't discouraged you from making future contributions. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

No, no. I appreciate it. It's often jarring at first when something is changed without a person understanding why. But I see there is not only a good reason, but people like you who care enough to find the reference for the common term they don't want to see overused. I am a big fan of Wikipedia and this is an experience in reaching reasoned consensus, that makes me appreciate it even more. As you mention, the lack of respect shown to commercial sites may be part of a philosophy. & as long as it doesn't ignore accepted names or otherwise interfere with reasonable usefulness of search, it's probably ok. 90.38.132.97 (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

So Andrew Dressel, you’ve turned down some of my edits because Sheldon Brown’s references where not good enough for you, hmmm, data was thoroughly researched, beginning to have doubts about reject, should have given some time to discuss matters with other Wikipedians, at least given me a buzz in my talk page about matter, but you were too quick, plus other constructive edits where blown away. Let’s keep Wikipedia neutral dude!, let us not fall into promotional gimmicks, history has already been written, let us be real, that’s how Wikipedia strengthens! Cheers — Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup. I checked the references, including Sheldon Brown, who is perfectly good enough for me, and none of them confirm that 650B is equivalent to 27.5", as you repeatedly asserted. In fact, neither reference even mentions 27.5" once. I don't know what there is to discuss. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Its the other way around, 650B’s are NOT equivalent to 27.5", plenty of sources confirm that, which i've included a couple, ...and there's plenty more, lets not confuse facts by unfounded publicity contraptions, Sheldon Brown knows what his talking about, ...and i am very neutral, there's plenty of confusion about bicycle wheels and tires, let's not confuse even more, i've researched data thoroughly, so if you don't mind, i'll revert reverted version, peace brother — Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

And i repeat and have been very clear, a 27.5-inch mountain bike wheel uses a rim that has a diameter of 584 mm (23.0") and with wide, knobby tires ~27.5 x 2.3 / ISO 58-584, sum up to ~27.5".

A 650B wheel has since the beginning been a 26-inch diameter wheel (584 mm rim) with ~26 x 1 1/2 / ISO 38-584 tyres, which sums up to ~26.0", or ~650 mm — Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You were right. I just misunderstood what you wrote. I have restored your changes and added a few of my own in the hopes of making things clearer. I apologize for the hasty revert. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, looks good, got to get things straight, we will not get fooled, but it is still 10 to 1, 10 being current misconceptions and 1 being the facts! — Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

In this picture, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BikeLeanForces3.PNG, I want to understand the term (mv^2)/r at center of mass. Why is this term at center of mass? Wouldn't this term negate friction force and make centripetal force zero? SkonMatayatana (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

As the caption under the picture in the bicycle and motorcycle dynamics article attempts to explain, (mv^2)/r is an inertial force that appears in the non-inertial reference frame that is accelerating with the bike. It acts at the center of mass because it is an inertial force caused by the acceleration of the center of mass. In this non-inertial reference frame, the bike is at equilibrium in a steady-state turn, so yes, (mv^2)/r is equal and opposite to the friction force. -AndrewDressel (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. SkonMatayatana (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

On 30 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Baisikeli Ugunduzi, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Baisikeli Ugunduzi has developed a replacement for bicycle tire inner tubes specifically for Sub-Saharan Africa that cannot go flat? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Baisikeli Ugunduzi. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Terrific work rescuing an article I proposed for speedy as a copyright violation. Thank you, 99.149.85.229 (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much, as a novice wiki guy your input is much much appreciated. Thank you very very much. haddon Dhaddonpearson (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, why did you canceled my entry on the manufacturer list? Mbm (www.ciclimbm.it) was established in 1974 and is a well known italian bicycle manufacturer. Why would you want to cancel it from the list??

Regards, Andrei Dandes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawgkernel (talk • contribs) 11:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The simple answer is that entries in the list must be notable, and that notability is indicated the be presence of a Wikipedia article about the brand or manufacturer. No article? No entry in the list. If you believe the brand or manufacturer would pass Wikipedia's notability criteria, by all means, create the article and add it to the list. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

So the page should be named Bicycle Manufacturers that you like ..... You give readers only the information you like and not complete . Please note that I've sent you as reference that company official website and only a simple search would show that is a real manufacturer missing from the list. Waist of time trying to do something good .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawgkernel (talk • contribs) 14:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It certainly is not a list of only manufacturers that I like, but I do my best to keep it a list of only manufacturers that meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, and the first paragraph of the notability guidelines explains exactly why that is necessary. The article specifically states that "this is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by expanding it with reliably sourced entries." If you feel strongly that some manufacturer should be on the list, then write the article about it, and there will be no problem. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a Sram dual drive hub with 3 internal gears and a 9 sprocket cassette and disc brake assembly. The first internal gear, that's the high torque low speed for climbing steep slopes does not engage. The other two positions for level and downhill work OK when shifting. The Click Box is properly aligned at the 2nd middle gear position as per instructions. Understand that the 9 sprocket cassette coupled with the three internal gears of the dual drive will result in 27 separate speed combinations. In this case, the low internal gear not engaging, freewheels the entire cassette, resulting in only 18 operational speeds, not the 27 nominal that it has been designed to do. I need your advice to correct it. I have to walk the bike for steep hills... Thank you.

Alfredo Morales Miami, Florida, U.S.A. alfredomorales2573@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felo2573 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The first thing I would suggest is that it is out of adjustment, but since you say that "the Click Box is properly aligned at the 2nd middle gear position as per instructions," it seems you have already checked that. I don't have any more knowledge about the system than that. It sounds like you will have to bring it to a dealer. Before I did, though, I would separate the drive from the shifter to try manipulating each manually and isolate the problem into one or the other. Sorry I can't help more. Best of luck. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I was looking for the definition of a Power Lock on Wikipedia and couldn't find it. From the Keyed joint page the Hirth joint seemed the closest match, but definitely the wrong category. I was hoping someone might see the referenced PDFs, know something about these devices, and create a page, but after you deleted it I figured I might as well start it. I've added Power Lock to Coupling#Others in the hopes that someone will see it and fill it in. I now know from the manufacturers data sheets how it works and what it does but not much more so that's all I've added to the new page. Uno b4 (talk) 08:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on creating the new page, but as you can see by checking it, there are some remaining issues. First and foremost is the lack of reliable 3rd-party sources. Does anyone other than the manufacturer write about Power Lock's anywhere? If not, then it just might not be a topic suitable for an encyclopedia. I appreciate that you are trying to get the word about about a product that you find important, but a key aspect to Wikipedia, and arguably one of the keys to its success as an information resource, is that everything in it needs to pass a minimal notability criteria, and all facts have to be verifiable. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I wondered if you got anywhere with that in the end, and if it might be better to just crack on with labeling unicycle articles as both wikiproject cycling and wikiproject circus? EdwardLane (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Got nowhere. Your plan sounds good. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The terminology used throughout the Bicycle and motorcycle geometry page is confusing. This seems to be in large part due to the different way that "rake" is used on bicycles and motorcycles. I suspect that multiple authors were at work and they failed to seamlessly merge their contributions. What follows is mainly an attempt to straighten this out. I don't have a Wikipedia account and am new enough to editing Wikipedia pages that I thought it best to run this by you, who I gather is the biggest contributor to the page. There are two images below that I couldn't insert, apparently because of my not having an account, so I've uploaded them to Tinypic and included links in the text. -Bill Vyn 184.187.191.197 (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Bill, I've moved your detailed comments to Talk:Bicycle and motorcycle geometry and replied there. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Your upload of File:Ape Hanglers.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Another one of your uploads, File:Buddy Bike.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering why you removed my contribution to the belt drive article. I saw text of "non-notable". Spot Brand belt drive bikes do not seem non-notable to me. Thx. -(Ronpage80 (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Ron

I am using Wikipedia's notability criteria, and there is not yet an article on Wikipedia about the company you added. If you feel that Spot Brand is notable, please create an article about it. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, AndrewDressel! Thanks for uploading your illustration of Euler's Disk. I just uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons, since it is potentially suitable for inclusion on multiple wikimedia projects. In the future, you may consider uploading it there yourself, instead of uploading it here, where only English Wikipedia can use it. Cheers, and thanks again for the illustration! Storkk (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Andy, hope you remember the Sheremet family from Kiew. I am Anna the sister of Vitali and I life in Germany now. Mom is in Rome Italy an Vitali still in Kiew. Would be proud to hear from you. You can contact me anytime you want dides@gmx.de It is the email addy of my husband. Many greetings Anna Vitali and Raisa and now Eva and Oskar (they are the new memners of the family) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.9.146.243 (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop trying to back up absurd lying with made up definitions. Oxford English Dictionary

1) Saddle: n. A seat for a rider, typically made of leather, which is raised at the front and rear, and which may be secured to the back of a horse or other animal.

2) Saddle: n. A type of chair or seat: a bench, a settle. Chiefly as the second element in compounds

3) Saddle: v. transitive : to put a saddle upon (a horse or other animal).

What you are trying to do here, is uphold the incorrect definition of an item, for the sole purpose of having a more elitist name over the common and correct word of Bicycle Seat. As the seat is affixed to the Seat Post, not the Saddle Post. This does not need an entry by itself, but should be a subsection of the proper term bicycle seat. The example of the word bicycle seat is absurd at most. 24.190.89.88 (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC) Mike

I have made up no definitions, and I advise you to refrain from make such baseless accusations. Instead, I cut and pasted the definition I cite directly and verbatim from the Oxford English Dictionary online. Here it is again along with all the historical examples upon which it is based:

4. A fixed seat for the rider of a bicycle, motorcycle, etc.

1819 Belles-lettres Repository May 31/2 The Velocipede, or Swift-walker... consists of two wheels, one behind the other, connected by a perch, on which a saddle is placed for the seat of the traveller... The saddle may be raised or lowered..at pleasure, and thus suited to the height of various persons.

1869 Times 5 June 1/5 Velocipedes.—The best bicycle yet introduced. Wrought ironwork, with brass bearings, best tempered steel springs, leather saddle, [etc.].

1887 Visct. Bury & G. L. Hillier Cycling (Badm. Libr.) 340 A suitable saddle is a necessity for the comfort of the cyclist.

1916 Motor Cyclists' A.B.C. 107 A kick starter is fitted to a machine for the purpose of allowing the engine to be started whilst the rider is in the saddle.

1923 H. L. Wilson Oh, Doctor! xxiv. 333 [He] threw a confident leg across the saddle and worshipfully grasped the spreading handle bars.

2003 S. Mawer Fall (2004) x. 146 He wiped the saddle of the bike and climbed astride it... ‘Hop on.’

If you do not have access to it, I suggest you try consulting your local library. In the meantime, let us move the discussion to Talk:Bicycle saddle. -AndrewDressel (talk)

I did a school project on flying eggs. They are mentioned in a few historical sources. Do you know where a english translation of the relevent passage in the Huainanzi could be found. Do you think they are noteworthy for a Wikipedia article, or a passage in Hot Air Ballon, with a redirect to the passage? Naytz (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I see you previously have been active on the article on countersteering, so I'll bugger you a bit now. I've done some huge amounts of editing on it now:

• Reorganizing paragraphs
• Move related contents together
• Create a flow from top to bottom
• Remove duplicate text
• Remove stuff not related to countersteering
• Countersteering is performed by the driver, it is not a physical phenomena (referenced). The physics of what happens when the driver countersteers is still explained in great detail.

On the talk page there are some older discussions about "bikes vs. automobiles". I was bold and removed the whole thing (cars aren't bikes), and this did not relate to countersteering, only steering/turning. I removed the definition section, only one paragraph here was about definition and that one is moved to the top. This gymnast swing stuff was also rather hard to find related to countersteering...

Maybe you can have a look an see if I removed too much or if the article is fine now.

Cheers, Atlesn (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey Andrew,

You reverted my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newton%27s_laws_of_motion&oldid=629291389&diff=prev

I am not sure I agree with your reasoning as of yet, for three reasons. The reasoning you gave was, "It is true in any consistent system of units. No need to mention a favorite here."

1) The units I mentioned are the standard SI units. SI units are the ones used around the world. It is not that the units are my favorites but that they are the ones universally accepted.

2) The second law is not true if the units are changed. For instance if the second law is given in terms of Newtons, meters per second squared, and grams, it is no longer true. Units give physical meaning to a law and insight into what the law is saying.

3) In practice calculations involving the second law always involve units. It seems appropriate to mention units in a section about the second law because the second law is always used with units.

I would be interested in hearing what you have to say.

P.S. This point may not be worth mentioning. I mean, it's not my main argument, but that we would leave this statement, "Thus, the net force applied to a body produces a proportional acceleration. In other words, if a body is accelerating, then there is a force on it," which was adjacent to the statement I made about units, which you removed, but then remove a statement about units, really boggles my mind. It seems much more relevant to me to mention that there are units in which the force, mass and acceleration are mentioned than the restate the law in a sentence when it has already been stated as a formula. Just making the point that it is not like we're in dire need to save space. Units are so inherent in any calculations or understanding involving the second law that it seems strange to mention the law without mentioning units, and since SI units are the universally accepted system of units, those are the ones to go with. makeswell (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The truth of Newton's second law is independent of any system of units, and can just as easily be calculated correctly in US customary units, where force is in pounds, mass is in slugs, and acceleration is in ft/s^2. As your example in item 2 demonstrates, simply using SI units is not sufficient to be successful. It is always necessary to be aware of the units going into a formula in order to know what units come out of a formula and to make conversions when necessary. My objection was not specifically with providing an example calculation with units, but to the implied assertion that the law is only true if the correct units, or SI units, or even N, m, and kg, are chosen. Finally, the second law is not always used with units. Plenty of analyses are performed that incorporate the second law and many other laws to produce algebraic or unit-less results. After all, Newton published his laws in 1687, and the forerunner to SI units wasn't implemented until the 1790s. Let's continue this conversation on the article talk page. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey Andrew, You would probably know the answer to this- what could be the next step with the SI units in the article on Newton's Laws? makeswell (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andrew You are clearly well versed on the subject. I am interested in your comments on the following: Motorcycle_cornering_when_out_of_the_saddle. Thanks! Mike163 (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Mike, thanks for the reminder. I've replied to your question there. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I felt confused about the need for "positive trail" when reading the article on the two-mass-skate bicycle. The history section seemed to be contradicted by other sections, until I read the entire article several times, and realized that the last sentence in the history section is in the past tense. I thought I could improve the article, by making it clear that the "presumption" mentioned there is no longer true.

Apparently, I also implied something else, which is not true, but I am not sure what it is. I would like the history section bring the reader up to the current state-of-the art, without the need to read the following paragraph. Otherwise, I suggest changing the history section to "Background."

You are obviously more knowledgeable about this subject than I, so I must leave it to you to decide what is true and what is not. I hope you can find a better way to improve the article, so it is less confusing.

Thanks for reviewing my change to two-mass-skate bicycle, and for your many other contributions to Wikipedia.

I will watch this spot, if you wish to comment. Comfr (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Articles for creation

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (babble) @ 20:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes you are right. No limits on Wikilinks. Was doing a clear out on various articles of external links which were dead, incorrect or promotional and I was too keen. However a list a manufacturers is not very informative without a link at all. Maybe those that aren't Wikilinked should go -Robynthehode (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you about the list items that do not link to a separate article. That is the criteria in the List of bicycle brands and manufacturing companies and Tandem bicycle articles. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Wuerzele (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Before I ever accuse someone as a WP:vandal, as you did on Talk:wheel truing stand, I look at their editing history, their user page. I first rule out an honest error, before insulting someone.( You didnt and shot from the hip)

Your userpage very proudly claims that you are one of the 5,000 most active wikipedians of "all time" (which is idiotic hybris if you think about it - how can anyone claim into the future? ) I honestly cannot find you as such and not even as one of the 10,000. Looks like this decor is a shot in the foot. Have you ever thought about removing your unsourced (maybe outdated?) claim, before someone -equally martially as yourself- accuses/shoots you of misconduct? Live and let live, man--Wuerzele (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's see...

1. The link you inserted in this edit is to Howard Hawkins, "an American politician and activist with the Green Party of the United States."
2. I checked the link you inserted, and even though I reside in Milwaukee, as my user page indicates, and ride a bicycle to work every day, I did not find any indication that the linked article mentioned truing stands, so I removed it with the edit summary "No mention of truing stand in linked article."
3. You reinserted the link with this edit to an article about "an American politician" without addressing the issue of there being no mention of truing stands that article. Your edit summary simply asserted that it was "sourced" material,
4. I once again checked all the sources provide in the article, read the linked article, and found no mention of a connection between truing stands and the subject of the linked article. I even checked your user page, but I found no mention of bicycles or cycling, so I removed it again with the edit summary "No source provided. No mention of truing stand in linked article. Stop adding link spam."
5. I came to this talk page and itemized the reasons for removing the link.
6. You went to my talk page, accused me of edit warring, and began making personal attacks:

a. I display idiotic hubris by having some little box on my user page.

b. I display unsourced and maybe outdated claims on my user page. Simply following the provided link would lead you to the list which indicates that I have made 14,489 and which lists me as the 4628th active editor.

c. I "shot from the hip" when I did no such thing.

7. You came to this talk page and began making more, uninformed personal attacks:

a. I don't ride the right type of bike to edit this article correctly.

b. I don't live in the right location to edit this article correctly.

8. You finally discovered your mistake and inserted a link to the correct article with this edit and falsely suggested that you were reverting my edit with the edit summary "Undid revision 645844543 by AndrewDressel".

Obviously there is no reason to revert your third attempt to insert the correct link, because you finally inserted the correct link. If you had instead, continued to insert the incorrect link, I believe that my previous assessment would have been correct. It would have been spam at best, and more-likely persistent vandalism. I stand by every edit I make, and I sign my real name. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit war with you over something so pedantic, but I think you should probably acknowledge that it appears you are not being NPOV on this issue based on your biases as a bike wrench. - CompliantDrone (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

You have made some hilarious accusations, but let's examine each of them in turn, just in case you were serious. To be clear, we are talking about this edit of mine, right?

• You seem to suggest that I am somehow being pedantic, that is excessively concerned with formalism, accuracy, and precision, or making an ostentatious and arrogant show of learning.

I didn't add the odd detail suggesting that traditional pneumatic tire designs, which required a separate inner tube, are somehow specific to automobiles. I simply removed it with the edit summary "inner tubes not specific to automobiles." I cannot see how my actions can be construed as excessively concerned with formalism, accuracy, and precision, or how I might have made an ostentatious or arrogant show. Perhaps you are thinking of another meaning of the word "pedantic".

• You appear to feel that I am somehow not editing with a neutral point of view.

What point of view exactly are you suggesting I am exhibiting? If anything, by removing the limitation that separate inner tubes are somehow specific to automobiles, I am actually demonstrating the most neutral point of view. I fail to see what my experience as a bicycle mechanic could possible have anything to do with allowing the description of tubed tires to include motorcycle tires, truck tires, tractor tires, etc.

• You question whether I am exhibiting ownership behavior of the article.

I have made five edits to that article in the past year, out of 23 total edits, and none in the two years before that. You have made nine edits over the same three years. How anyone could construe that as me exhibiting ownership of this article is a mystery to me. On the other hand, I have done some research on tires, I have created several tire-related articles, and continually work to improve them. If you mean to accuse me of stewardship, then I take that as a compliment.

After careful consideration, I am afraid that your comments just sound like sour grapes. -AndrewDressel (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

So you won't mind that I rolled back your removal of material. - CompliantDrone (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No. In fact I thought I had restored that NYT reference. That's why I wrote "NYT is a good source" in my edit summary. Thank you for correcting my mistake. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Andrew, I was trying to edit and add to the fat bike entry to get the facts straight and to give pioneers in fat bike making like Mark Gronewald from Palmer credit for what he did. He created the first fat bike. Mark named it a fat bike and gets no credit for that. He met Ray Molina at Interbike in Lad Vegas in '99 when Ray brought a prototype with him from New Nexico. Mark Gronewald, created a bike with the help of welder John Evingson from Anchorage and built a bike that could accommodate the 80 mm Remolino rims and Remolino tires that Ray Molina had produced in Mexico. Thanks Kathi Merchant Iditarod Trail Invitational race director my email:katharinamerchant@yahoo.com or info@alaskaultrasport.com (formerly known as Iditasport) The bike event on the Iditarod Trail was actually the driver of the development of fat bikes for the race. Both Ray Molina and Mark Gronewald have done the race in 2000 and 2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaskaultra (talk • contribs) 18:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

There must be a misunderstanding, please can you explain better than in edit summary? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Andrew, you are very quiet. The article named above seems to be an accumulation of sundry, possibly related facts. One of the stranger ones is this: "One model is the Humber Sport 3-speed pictured on this page." Where is this picture?

I have plans to re-cast this page with better info. I feel sure you are able to contribute a great deal more.
Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The picture is in the gallery at the bottom of the page. See what you can do. I do not have the time right now to work on it. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

I added a couple of bicycle brands on your page which were missing, but I just found out that you delete them. I would like to know what was wrong with the addition on the page.

Thanks, Ank001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankz001 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I followed the long established practice, described on that article's talk page, of removing entries that do not link to existing articles about bicycle brands or manufacturing companies. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm getting into a disagreement over on the Bicycle cooperative talk page, with an editor who insists that Bicycle cooperatives are not cooperatives. Maybe I'm being too pedantic, (or maybe the article is just too much of a mess to be worth trying to fix) but I'd like your point of view if you have a moment. --Keithonearth (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You have to now go back and change all the links for incoming articles for "Eugene Meyer" to "Eugene Meyer (financier)". See here --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I did a search for what to do in this situation, and couldn't find anything, so did the best I could. Not so great, obviously. Is there a better solution? You seem to be familiar with biographical articles. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to find his birth and death years, do you have any clues, other than his age at death? Some of the Alsatian birth records are online.

Nice piece of work sir, enjoyed!

I authored a free piece of software available on the www.recumbents.com homepage (2nd thing under the world record bike article). I am a retired software engineer and an upright cyclist (bronze medalist in the US Senior Nationals in the triathlon in 2007).

As a software engineer I designed and authored the first PC based flight simulator with shading over 30 years ago (boy 3D programming was tough back then!).

At any rate, I was considering adding a "frame simulator" to the shell builder software. I can do the physics of turn rate and momentum, center of gravity and the force angle applied to the frame but didn't have an approach to produce turn angle based off front geometry and lean. Can you point me in the right direction? Probably could gather some empirical info off my uprights that do nothing but hang from the ceiling these days!

Thanks for any consideration you feel like giving. If you don't feel proprietary about the loop you used to generate the data for the graphics, I could reverse engineer the mechanical behavior out of it unless it was just a "hey it looks like this thing w/o the real physics behind it" sort of animation.

Shooky56 (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can point you in a good direction. The correct linearized equations along with the MATLAB program to specify values and calculate responses are available for free download at http://ruina.tam.cornell.edu/research/topics/bicycle_mechanics/JBike6_web_folder/

They were validated in this paper: http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsa/463/2084/1955.full.pdf

The little animation I posted are from the non-linear equations I implemented from Schwab's class notes. I confirmed that they agree with the benchmarked linearized equations in this paper: https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/adressel/www/publications/DETC2011-47344.pdf

Good luck. Let me know if I can help further, and I look forward to hearing about your progress. -AndrewDressel (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Greetings,

I would like to propose to add a refference between the Articles written in German and English.

Tretlagerschaltung https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tretlagerschaltung

Gearbox bicycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gearbox_bicycle

Best regards

Done. -AndrewDressel (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

AndrewDressel, I'd like to invite you to an upcoming edit-a-thon:

ART+FEMINISM EDIT-A-THON

• Saturday, March 5th, 9:30 a.m. – noon
• Madison Public Library (Madison, Wisconsin)
• Bring a laptop! There will be snacks and daycare

RSVP on the event page if you plan to attend or have any suggestions. czar 00:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

You received this message because you are a member of Category:Wikipedians in Wisconsin. To opt-in to future Madison event messages, add yourself to the mailing list.

Hi AndrewDressel,

Regarding the article "Treadmill" I wonder why was my edition deleted with "linkspam with poor translation". Don't you find my contribution significant? Have you found such a complete guide somewhere? Please check the link again if you like.

I wonder what was wrong with it. Please let me know, thanks --Wikidomainer (talk) 12:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Old external link does not work so i have changed your dini's surface page with my own. Then You don't accept my change - please remove. --A.kotlorz (talk) 04:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

If you checked the edit history, you would see that some other editor removed you external link. Not me. -AndrewDressel (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I am very satisfied with your current dini's surface page without external links, (although Melcous has my change so trivial understood :-) (or misunderstood?). btw I am a theoretical physicist and privately I also love road bikes so thanks for your wiki information on bicycles! -A.kotlorz (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure it's "Popular" Science but you'd hope they would know the difference between rubber and polyurethane. Thanks for tracking this down. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, do you object transferring it to Commons? If not, wouldn't you like to do it yourself? Ohterwise I could. --SI 10:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Someone has disputed statements on this page leaving a comment within the text in capital letters.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to sort this out. Are you able to do that? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to clean it up. We'll see if it sticks. -AndrewDressel (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for letting me know about my mistake. Actually the before youtube video was deleted by youtube so to provide generic information i replaced it with another link which implies actual information on bikes as well as modified the anchor as it will help other readers to know what kind of external link it is.

Sorry for the inconvenience caused by me. Hoping you would revert it back

Regards, Raj Hirvate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raj4770 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing— Bixi (company) —has been proposed for merging with PBSC Urban Solutions. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Mindfrieze (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing—City bicycle—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. João Pimentel Ferreira 22:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joao.pimentel.ferreira (talk • contribs)

Hi Andrew Just wanted to apologise regarding the edit I made associated with the calculation of a 700C wheel with tyre and its size conversion from mm to inches. I took me a few minutes to understand why I made the incorrect amendment. Essentially I took the 622mm wheel + 2 x 23mm tyre totalling 668mm and divided that by 25.4 However I jumbled the 668mm and calculated 688mm/25.4 resulting in my incorrect answer I remember checking it 3 or times before making amendment - just a bad day I think, nothing malicious

Thanks for rolling back the edit - I will be very sure in the future to ensure that I don't make these types of silly mistakes again!! Cotters07 (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't the bicycle trail be ( RsubW x Cos(AsubH) / Sin(AsubH) ) - (OsubF x sin(AsubH) ) ?

That is, the offset is a distance, OsubF, along a perpendicular to the steering axis.

The steering axis is at a head angle, AsubH, to the horizontal.

The projection of the offset to the horizontal = Osubf x sin(AsubH).

104.59.204.68 (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and that is equivalent to how it is presented in the bicycle and motorcycle geometry article. The only difference is the two fractions you describe are combined into one. Is it presented differently elsewhere? -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Putting both parts over the same denominator results in

( (RsubW x Cos(AsubH)) - (OsubF x sin^2(AsubH) ) / Sin(AsubH)

NOT

( (RsubW x Cos(AsubH)) - OsubF ) / Sin(AsubH) , right?

That is, ( RsubW x Cos(AsubH) / Sin(AsubH) ) - (OsubF x sin(AsubH) )

= ( RsubW x Cos(AsubH) / Sin(AsubH) ) - (Sin(AsubH)/ Sin(AsubH)) x (OsubF x sin(AsubH) )

= ( (RsubW x Cos(AsubH)) - (OsubF x sin^2(AsubH) ) / Sin(AsubH)

104.59.204.68 (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see now that I misread your message. I apologize. With closer scrutiny, I believe I see your mistake: the projection of the offset onto the ground must along the steering axis, not along the vertical, and so must be must be Osubf / sin(AsubH), not OsubF x sin(AsubH).

See the images and derivations pasted below for details. -AndrewDressel (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

hi andrew, i noticed you removed my contributed and CC usable sound file of a bicycle i've recorded. is it because i add that i recorded it? i could have removed that, if that was a problem?

hope to hear from you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArnoudTraa (talk • contribs) 11:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Nope. I removed it because, after listening to it, I didn't think it added anything useful to the article. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Henry Uppadine was one of the very first people to manufacture racing bicycles for the tour to France… But he is omitted from your list of bicycle manufacturers... although the company is no longer in business it was pretty famous and there is a rumor that he did invent the Rams style handlebars.. I can't confirm that it's just from family folklore .. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:B04F:617C:F4F8:CA1:8CB8:F17 (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I created the article: Uppadine Cycles. There is not much source material available online. Feel free to add what you can. A picture would be great. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean by this edit summary for your removal of the content I added. Is your objection with:

• the conversion of 2 pounds in 1818 to $170 in 2017 for readers who have no idea how much 2 pounds might be worth in 1818,
• the source I provided for the conversion, or
• the lack of a source for the 2 pound fine?

You realize that the fact that the 2 pound fine is not yet sourced is no reason for there not to be a conversion and no reason for such a conversion not to be sourced, right? -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Which bothers me? All of them. The endless addition of conversions to modern values with no context at all is a plague; how much was ₤2 worth at the time? Because $170 today buys a lot more, in real terms, inflation adjusted or not, than ₤2 then. Yes, the conversion should be cited; no argument. Yes, the fine should be cited; no argument. Adding the conversion alone? I'm not seeing how it's worthwhile. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that is information I can work with. Is there some other way to give the reader some idea of the value of 2 pounds in 1818? By itself, 2 pounds sounds trivial and would not seem like a reasonable explanation for the decline of the fad. On the other hand, $170 sounds like a lot and would seem like a reasonable explanation for the decline of the fad. Is there some better way to handle this other than just not handling it? -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"do what the hell you want" (edit summary for edit deleting conversation from his talk page) - TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:56, 7 November 2017‎ (UTC)

Noted. -AndrewDressel (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, Thank you on behalf of those of us out here, who value and rely on the information contributed to information sites, Wikipedia in particular as the most widely known and valued. a quick note on a hybrid bicycle as being in the cycling industry for an extended period of time, hybrids in particular my main volume of sales. the hybrid as you put it far better than I could “blend characteristics from more specialized road bikes, touring bikes and mountain bikes.[1] The resulting "hybrid" is a general-purpose bike that can tolerate a wide range of riding conditions and applications.”

I can’t imagine the amount of messages you get from people, this my first response to anything as I was looking for more explanation for a hybrid, I could forward and will be using yours. The hybrid yes does borrow the flat style of a mountain bike, the mountain bike does not have an upright riding style, actually the complete opposite, as when riding a mountain bike your weight is positioned more forward as this provides for better handling when off-road, per a front wheel drive car on a slippery surface. -t — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecobone (talk • contribs) 04:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion that the mountain bike does not inherently have an "upright riding style", but I question your argument for why it does not. I have not heard before your explanation that "when riding a mountain bike your weight is positioned more forward as this provides for better handling when off-road, per a front wheel drive car on a slippery surface," and I question the link between better front wheel traction and better handling.

In any case, I will take a look at correcting the hybrid bicycle article to no longer assert that mountain bikes have an upright riding style. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Andrew:

It's good to see some interest in this article.

I made some edits to Pope Manufacturing Company and Albert A. Pope about three years ago. I have made some minor changes recently, but I have yet to do a careful reassessment. The motorized vehicles theme needs much more material. I am also interested in hearing from other editors about the bicycle part of the article. The secondary sources provide enough information. How well has the article summarized the material? cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

JH Kirsch (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)This topic was already discussed in the German Wikipedia, please see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:JH_Kirsch#Zusammenfassung - I am an editor of the journal Zeithistorische Forschungen/Studies in Contemporary History, but our articles are no "citation spam" and no advertisements, but valuable content available online (Open Access journal, peer-reviewed).JH Kirsch (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Andrew, I am helping out with a new edition of the book Bicycling Science. I'd like to use your drawing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tire_pneumatic_trail.png. However the resolution isn't high enough. Would you be willing to supply it as a SVG or at least higher-resolution PNG? Theosch (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Theo, sure. Let's switch to email for the details. Can you find me at UWM without me posting my email address here? -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Please enlighten me. What is a Stumpjumper bike? I have never heard of it before. 2607:FCC8:9008:7E00:6C33:2CD9:8311:B456 (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Ha! That's a good one. Someone editing Wikipedia who doesn't know how to use Wikipedia, and someone editing the mountain bike article who doesn't know about the Stumpjumper.

Well, let's suppose you're not joking and try to help you out.

• If you searched for "stumpjumper" on google, the first hit says "Mountain biking's come a long way since the Stumpjumper first debuted in '81."
• The second hit is for the wikipedia article, which opens with "The Specialized Stumpjumper is a mountain bike produced by Specialized Bicycle Components. When it was first produced in 1981, the Stumpjumper was the first mass-production mountain bike."
• If you clicked on the second reference provided to support the 1980s decade in the gears section of the mountain bike article, you would see the USA Today article which explains "this year marks the 25th anniversary of the first mass-produced mountain bike, the Specialized Stumpjumper. Since the introduction of the "Stumpy" in 1981."

I hope this helps, and next time, I'll do my best to include a wikilink in my edit summary. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I am a Mechanical Engineering student and my project is to design a self stable bicycle. The bicycle will be run by a brushless dc motor and I want to get the eigenvalues as a function of forward speed to determine the range of speeds the bicycle is self stable. My question is when all of the terms of the linearized equation of motion of the bicycle are calculated , how can the eigenvalues of the equation be calculated?

Thank you for your time, Christofors Miltiadous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.38.184 (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

First, in case you haven't already done this, you need to rewrite the equations in matrix form: ${\displaystyle M\mathbf {\ddot {q}} +C\mathbf {\dot {q}} +K\mathbf {q} =\mathbf {f} }$ where where M = M0, C = C1*v, and K = K0 + K2*v^2

Then there are at least four different methods of calculating eigenvalues in MATLAB directly from the matrix coefficients, similar to the ones provided in the Benchmark Paper:

1. eig(A,B), to calculate the generalized eigenvalues λ such that Ax = λBx where A = [-C -K; eye(2) zeros(2)] and B = [M zeros(2); zeros(2) eye(2)];
2. eig(C), to calculate the eigenvalues λ such that Cx = λx where C = [-M0^-1*C1*v, -M0^-1*(g*K0+v2*K2); eye(2), zeros(2)]
3. roots(D) of the characteristic equation; and
4. polyeig().

The first three methods produce eigenvalues that differ from those published in the Benchmark Paper by 1e-13 to 1e-16, usually 1e-14, depending on the particular method, the particular eigenmode, and the forward speed. The fourth, polyeig(), merely considers the first two methods as special cases.

I provide more details in a 2011 ASME paper titled "Benchmarking Bicycle and Motorcycle Equations of Motion"

Alternatively, you could just use JBike6, which calculates the eigenvalues for you.

If none of this helps, look me up at UWM and email me at uwm.edu -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

hi i am very sorry that i made tat edit at pulled i didnt meant to do that

Rafaeltan01 (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)Rafaeltan01

Hi Andrew, there's a discussion at Talk:Tire#Void space where you may be able help two editors come to a consensus. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi AndrewDressel, why did you revert my edits to Bicycle Day? Your edit summary says 'Remove image spam ', but I had already done that. And in reverting you also removed the other changes that I had made. all according to MOS:DAB. Leschnei (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

It must have been a mistake. I'm sorry, and I've undone it. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The file File:Telescopic fork with sliders are at the bottom.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I Googled the author. The hits are mainly pages promoting these self-published books. Way down the list you get some academic work, but no signs that he's widely cited as an expert. Can you show me evidence that these self-published books, specifically, are considered to be authoritative? He has access to academic publishers (he has a normal amount of publications for an academic). I am deeply suspicious of any "reference" published via the world's most notorious vanity press: plenty of small craft presses exist that would publish niche work like this. Guy (help!) 22:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

What google returns in a search is not a good indication of someone's stature in a field.

Cossalter:

1. founded the Motorcycle Dynamics Research Group at Padova in 1986.
2. has 1251 citations on ResearchGate.
3. has 548 citations on Google Scholar just for "Motorcycle Dynamics" alone, including in "Advances in the Modelling of Motorcycle Dynamics" by Sharp, Evangelou, and Limbeer, which also refers to him by name: "but Cossalter et al have pioneered the inclusion of tyre width in their descriptions." That is the same Sharp who coined the terms "weave", "wobbe", and "capsize" for the three main modes of a motorcycle in his 1971 paper, "The Stability and Control of Motorcycles", which itself has 568 citations on Google Scholar.

That's about as widely cited as you can get in the field of bike dynamics. Suggesting that Cossalter is merely a self published hack is like saying Sheldon Brown is merely a bike mechanic. -AndrewDressel (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Estabrook Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Benjamin Church House (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Estabrook Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antenna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I have raised a question about renaming Trikke on the talk page and wondered if you had any thoughts. --Darrelljon (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi AndrewDressel, I have a query about something which is mainly your edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bicycle_and_motorcycle_dynamics&diff=prev&oldid=495295469 . Please see: Talk:Bicycle_and_motorcycle_dynamics#Claims_relating_to_locked_steering,_and_starting_things_from_rest,_etc . FrankSier (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you know if the "hang off" bike technique is mentioned anywhere on wikipedia, on a page that I could link to if I wanted to briefly bring up the technique? And I don't mean a niche page, like a video game article that says something like "this game allows the player to use a hang off technique" - I mean a page on something like bike physics, racing, etc.
Apparently Japan refers to it as a "hang-on" technique? --UltimateKuriboh (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Nope, I don't believe it is covered, at least not where I looked. -AndrewDressel (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The WikiEagle

The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter

More information Volume I — Issue 1, Aviation pages by quality ...

Volume I — Issue 1
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle
Announcements After over a decade of silence, the WikiProject Aviation newsletter is making a comeback under the name The WikiEagle. This first issue was sent to all active members of the project and its sub-projects. If you wish to continue receiving The WikiEagle, you can add your username to the mailing list. For now the newsletter only covers general project news and is run by only one editor. If you wish to help or to become a columnist, please let us know. If you have an idea which you believe would improve the newsletter, please share it; suggestions are welcome and encouraged. On 16 December, an RfC was closed which determined theaerodrome.com to be an unreliable source. The website, which is cited over 1,500 articles, mainly on WWI aviation, as of the publishing of this issue. Luft46.com has been added to the list of problematic sources after this discussion. The Jim Lovell article was promoted to Featured Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Hawkeye7. The Raymond Hesselyn article was promoted to Good Article status on 4 December after being nominated by Zawed. The Supermarine Sea King article was promoted to Good Article status on 22 December after being nominated by Amitchell125. The William Hodgson (RAF officer) article was promoted to Good Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Zawed.
Members New Members KingAviationKid (Joined on 17 December) PatrickChiao (Joined on 22 December) Wp9097 (Joined on 16 December) Number of active members: 386. Total number of members: 921. Closed Discussions Featured Article assessment Jim Lovell (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 26 December 2021 Good Article assessment HAL Tejas (discussion) – Closed as not promoted on 30 December 2021 William Hodgson (RAF officer) (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 26 December 2021 Supermarine Sea King (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 22 December 2021 Raymond Hesselyn (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 4 December 2021 Deletion Timeline of Berlin Brandenburg Airport's construction (discussion) – Closed as delete and redirect on 30 December 2021 Evergreen International Airlines Flight 17 (discussion) – Closed as keep on 25 December 2021 Requested moves Akbarpur (Ambedkar Nagar) Airstrip → Akbarpur Airstrip (discussion) – Closed as moved on 30 December 2021 1983 Avensa Douglas DC-9 crash → Avensa Flight 007 (discussion) – Closed as moved on 30 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 035 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 035 (discussion) – Withdrawn on 28 December 2021	Article Statistics This data reflects values from DMY. Aviation pages by quality Quality Total FA 142 FL 15 A 56 GA 505 B 4,573 C 11,878 Start 15,082 Stub 18,754 List 2,539 Category 11,638 Disambig 653 File 2,713 Portal 629 Project 89 Redirect 1,518 Template 2,489 NA 66 Assessed 73,339 Unassessed 1 Total 73,340 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 249,287 Ω = 4.86
New/Ongoing Discussions Featured Article review D. B. Cooper (discussion) – Since 14 December 2021 A-class Article assessment Granville Gee Bee Model A (discussion) – Since 21 April 2020 List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War (discussion) – Since 22 February 2010 Good Article assessment Romanian Air Corps (discussion) – Since 25 December 2021 Jean Batten (discussion) – Since 2 October 2021 Merger proposals List of astronauts by name → List of astronauts by year of selection (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021 List of cosmonauts → List of space travelers by nationality (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021 List of space travelers by name → List of space travelers by nationality (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021 Holidays Czech Airlines → Czech Airlines (discussion) – Since 23 June 2021 Bendix Aviation → Bendix Corporation (discussion) – Since 30 May 2021 Airport Movement Area Safety System → Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (discussion) – Since 29 May 2021 ASDE-X → Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (discussion) – Since 28 May 2021 Splitting proposals Family Airlines (discussion) – Since 23 November 2021 2021 Kabul airport attack (discussion) – Since 24 September 2021 List of military aircraft of the United States (discussion) – Since 16 August 2021 Braniff International Airways (discussion) – Since 8 September 2019 Deletion List of maiden voyages (discussion) – Since 29 December 2021 Requested moves Hot-air balloon → Hot air balloon (discussion) – Since 30 December 2021 Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 108 → Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 109 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 150 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 150 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 206 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 206 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 708 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 708 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 892 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 892 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 TWA Flight 800 → TWA Flight 800 (1996) (discussion) – Since 27 December 2021 Dynamic Airways Flight 405 → Dynamic International Airways Flight 405 (discussion) – Since 26 December 2021 CommutAir Flight 4281 → CommutAir Flight 4821 (discussion) – Since 25 December 2021 Thai Airways → Thai Airways International (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021 Thai Airways fleet → Thai Airways International fleet (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021 List of Thai Airways destinations → List of Thai Airways International destinations (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021 Did you know Ravish Malhotra (discussion) – Since 30 December 2021 Alexander Tahy (discussion) – Since 26 December 2021 Veronica Volkersz (discussion) – Since 6 December 2021 Rudolf Szepessy-Sokoll (discussion) – Since 3 December 2021 On The Main Page Did you know... ... that the aerobatic demonstration aircraft used by SoloTürk is also used in military operations of the Turkish Air Force? (24 December)
Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list. Newsletter contributor: ZLEA

Close

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Top fuel dragster with air drag.pdf.png.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 04:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I can't find any information on how to correct the issue you raise, nor can I see a way to delete the original, offending image, so I just uploaded a new copy with information about who created the original work. Do with it what you will. -AndrewDressel (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Basket and crew.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Can we find and add references to this stub? Bearian (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I've added the one I could find. -AndrewDressel (talk) 07:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Andrew,

My name is Blayze Ashurst. I am an engineering student at the University of Utah in Salt Lake city. I also have a passion for bikes in my spare time, and I am immensely interested in the physics behind their ability to remain upright whilst in motion. I have been fascinated with the bike weaving GIF that I see on the bicycle and motorcycles dynamics page on wikipedia. Can you tell me what program and what equations were used to create this GIF?

The explanation that I have been given is that the rider continuously corrects the steering to keep the cg directly above the line travelling between the contact patches of each tire. This explanation seems true, but also does not seem like the whole story given the effects of head tube angle, rake, and wheelbase on stability and handling characteristics. The book, "Lords of the Chainring" by Wil Patterson helped demystify this somewhat by explaining how parameters like head tube angle affect a riders ability to control the bicycle, but I am seeking more info on how a bicycle can remain stable in an open loop configuration.

Thanks for your time

-Blayze

BLZ2025 (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Dear Blayze,

The program I used to create the animation is the program I wrote for the final project in a graduate course taught by Prof Arend Schwab. He describes the project here: http://bicycle.tudelft.nl/schwab/TAM674/TAM674notbp.pdf

The equations that the program implements are the non-linear version of the linearized equations for an idealized bicycle that Prof Schwab and others, describe here:

http://bicycle.tudelft.nl/schwab/Publications/06PA0459BicyclePaperv45.pdf

You can find a MATLAB implementation of these linearized equations online for free download here: http://ruina.tam.cornell.edu/research/topics/bicycle_mechanics/JBike6_web_folder/index.htm

One of the files in the JBike6 zip file you download is JBike6Integrate.m, which enables you to simulate the motion of a bicycle, and it outputs a time sequence of lean and steer angles. With those, you can make a 3D-looking animation.

JBike6 was written in MATLAB, and MATLAB may be still required to make the GUI work, but if all you want is the lean and steer angles, you can probably make that work in the freeware Octave.

Alternatively, since all the work above was done, students working in the TUDelft bike lab have made simulating the motion of a bicycle in python a lot easier to implement. You can read about it here:

https://mechmotum.github.io/blog/timo-stienstra-graduates.html

Andrew AndrewDressel (talk) 12:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Andrew

This is very helpful information, as a university student I do have access to MATLAB, so I hope to get this program running soon. One other thing I have been wondering about is the characteristic length of a bicycle. The paper "A Bicycle Can Be Self-Stable Without Gyroscopic or Caster Effects", by . D. G. Kooijman, J. P. Meijaard, et all, mentions a speed equal to sqrt(g*l), where g is the constant of gravity and l is the "characteristic length" of a bicycle. According to this paper, a bicycle traveling on a smooth surface at speeds near or at this calculated speed, if perturbed from upright position, will experience an exponentially decaying sinusoidal response as it returns to a straight ahead motion. This paper talks about how this characteristic length and overall formula can be derived from solving a pair of coupled differential equations, which were in turn derived from linearizing the non linear equations for the motion of a bicycle. Do you know how this characteristic length is derived or what the formula for it is? I am also wondering if their are any classes you recommend I take to understand the equations seen in the papers you have sent me. I have looked over the papers and the equations presented are not making much sense to me.

Thanks for your time and help

BLZ2025 (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm traveling right now, and I don't know of the top of my head what Jodi meant by "characteristic length", so I'll have to get back to you on that.

As for courses to take, my best recommendation these days would be "Multibody Dynamics B" at TU Delft. If you follow the link, you can read about the learning objectives and prerequisites for the course, and the lecture notes appear to be available online.

-AndrewDressel (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much Andrew, I tried looking around at google for a derivation of the "characteristic length" of a bicycle, but I was struggling to find results. I guess bicycle dynamics is a very niche topic. I am grateful to know someone who also shares my niche interest and is willing to share his knowledge.

BLZ2025 (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Recumbent seat 2.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article International Cycling History Conference is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Cycling History Conference until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

JMWt (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)