Talk:Electric motorcycles and scooters/Archive 1

Better name
Electric motorcycles and scooters → — I'm thinking it maybe it was a mistake to create this page. I created the electric scooters page and then started adding info about electric motorcycles so I thought I would create a page about electric motorcycles and scooters. Perhaps smarter would have been two separate pages about electric motorcycles and electric scooters. Daniel.Cardenas 06:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes a mistake, but only in name. Article names should seldom be plural or long. As for plural, the usual example is there's a "Tree" article and not a "Trees" article. As for this article, it addresses a topic on which we are unlikely to say enough for two articles, so one article is appropriate. Since electric scooters with step through frame seem much more common, the appropriate title is "Electric scooter" with redirects from "Electric motorcycle" to a section on machines more resembling a motorcycle. If you don't know how to rename articles and set up redirects, would you like me to do it? Jim.henderson 17:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There isn't really a section for electric motorcycle. The advantages and disadvantages applies to both as does the intro. Daniel.Cardenas 21:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this page should be renamed electric scooter (motorcycle) and non relevant information deleted. Daniel.Cardenas 01:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Scratch that. I think the current name is the best.  It is about electric motorcycles and scooters.  The only difference between scooter and motorcycle is that one has a step thru frame.  Sorry for changing opinion. Daniel.Cardenas 23:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it unusual to lump electric motorcycles in with e-bikes (or electric bicycles). I'm an e-bike enthusiast, but I have no interest in electric motorcycles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.106.49 (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there any way to renew the campaign to split this article into two pages, one for scooters, and the other for motorcycles? I think that public perception of the two types of vehicles is different, and that grouping them together is going to confuse people. Hbmallin (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 18:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC).
 * I would agree that splitting the article is desirable.--Biker Biker (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I also vote for splitting up the article in two; it's confusing at present, and most vehicles allready have an own page for their electric variant. However, I think it's best to simply change the page to "electric motorcycle"; scooters (and others variants such as mopeds, ...) are all motorcycles. Thus it isn't necessairy to also have a "electric scooter" article; this could however be useful for comparison articles --> ie Comparison of electric scooters, Comparison of electric motorcycles (only actual motorcycles), Comparison of electric mopeds, ...

KVDP (talk) 06:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Plus and minus
In the Advantages and Disadvantages section - Disadvantages 6 and 7 are opinions. 6. The EMB Lectra is an example that contrasts with the article's stated opinion as per documented reviews from standard reviewing agencies which rate the Lectra as weighing comparable to a full-size motorcycle and manuveuring admirably like a regular bike. Another example is the Yamahas EC-02 which is a limited speed light motorcycle that handles similar to any moped. Weight, Control and handling varies with battery-type (which will affect weight), battery placement (which will affect center of gravity and handling), and overall vehicle design. Stating that ALL electric motorcycles and scooters as being heavy with poor control and handling is wrong and needs to be removed. 7. Hill climbing ability and speed varies with gearing, motor torque, and battery capacity. Also, lumping the faster electric Vespa-styled scooters and electric motorcycles which are utilized in traffic is wrong and needs to specify the slower scooters. Lyle.Sloan 07:40, 4 February (Eastern Standard Time US)


 * So as it stands it is mostly true but there are exceptions. Thus the wording needs to be made more complicated.  Go ahead.  Jim.henderson 15:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I deleted 6 and 7. 7 Was a mostly a duplicate of number 5. Daniel.Cardenas 16:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Tandem wheels
Kindly look up tandem. It does not mean side by side. Exactly the opposite. Most two wheel scooters have wheels arranged in tandem. Segway is unusual in not having tandem wheels. Jim.henderson 15:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Racing
I would like to add a segment for Racing. Specifically, dragracing, the minimoto track racing, and the FIA alternative energy cup. Obviously, each would have to lead to another page for full description, but a small intro of each should be enough.

Battery technology
I changed "battery technology is rapidly improving" to "battery technology is gradually improving". The reference cited does not claim that the technology is rapidly improving, except via a bit of optimistic crystal-ball gazing. Even then, the projected capacity of batteries is not expected to be that good: "The real advances in batteries, he says, won't be in energy capacity, but in safety, longevity, and cost."--Shantavira 08:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

evDaytona
Is this relevant ? Rama 14:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is interesting but at $77K I wouldn't say it is relevant enough for the article. You can apply wikipedia notability guidelines if you'd like wp:notability.  I think you will find it falls short.  Thanks for the link on the talk page. Daniel.Cardenas 01:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Electric conversion section
Is it possible to, like with the electric car-article, include a section about electric bike conversions? I added at least one reference (GomiCycle) with the external links.

thanks.

KVDP (talk) 13:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Electric vehicle conversion might be better. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. About 3 paragraphs down, all of a sudden the section begins to read like a Billy Mays TV infomercial. The tone is obviously not appropriate for an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.192.220 (talk) 09:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Also agreed. Something is not very encyclopedic about the Conversion section of the Electric motorcycles and scooters article. In fact, much of it appears to have been borrowed from an article found on V is for Voltage as well as EVworld.com called "Revenge of the Electric Ninja". Scott K. (ScooterSkittles) --174.19.248.78 (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Select production vehicles
We need to come up with criteria before a vehicle can be added. Otherwise the list will become a big spam repository. I propose before a vehicle can be added one must indicate, or it must be obvious why it is best in class or notable. What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

image layout
Don't agree with the new image layout. First picture should show a scooter that is obviously electric. Not something that can be a gas scooter. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Electric crossbikes to include
The eKrad Cross, Zero X Offroad, Quantya EVO 1 Track and eSolex should be included in the article. See this site

Thanks, 81.246.178.156 (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed information
Even cursory fact checking shows the table lists products that don't exist yet. Many have ship dates that came and went and they're still not for sale.

Many of these vendors are asking hopeful customers for deposits and down payments based on the optimistic projections of how well their nonexistent product will perform. This creates the potential for harm cased by false information, and I don't see the need to keep it.

What purpose is served by listing data here on electric scooters that aren't for sale and don't have multiple reliable, independent sources to verify the performance claims? What harm would there be in deleting all those that don't meet a high standard for veracity?--Dbratland (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The purpose is that the EV market is a nascent market with new products that aren't well understood or well marketed. Most of these companies are very small.  Would it be acceptable to you to move them all to a separate "future products" page.  I contend that there is a lot of interest in these products and that the existence of a real world effort to produce the bikes is relatively easily achieved (contact the people doing the work).  By having it on a separate page stops the "pollution" of this page (if you're worried about that) and still allows those interested to refer to a central source. jdh2550  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.83.95 (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Future products section is a great idea. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A separate page would be fine with me. If there is a lot of interest, that should make it all the easier to find reliable sources.   Can you explain why it should make a difference how small the companies are or how well marketed they are?  As far as I know, the standards for notability and verifiability are the same for everyone.


 * If anything, I would tend be more careful about adhering to sourcing guidelines for startups without established products and I'd be especially skeptical of any claims made solely by the vendor without independent third party verification. Since they are asking the public to give them deposits and down payments for their unrealized products, and seeking investors, don't they have financial motives to exaggerate in order to stand out from the competition?--Dbratland (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I also agree that a "future product" page (or section) would be a good idea. I lean toward a separate page, just to keep this one more factual and verifiable. Hbmallin (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

EV-X7
I arrived here searching by EV-X7 and it is not here! What happened to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.95.55 (talk • contribs)
 * EV-X7 redirects to Electric motorcycles and scooters. As yet nothing has been written on EV-X7, so the redirect sends you to what does exist.  Hopefully some day the topic will get more coverage.--Dbratland (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It was widely publicised in 2006/2007, but now the company's website has been de-registered and no news has appeared since, so I think it is safe to assume it is an ex-motorcycle, bereft of life, kicked the bucket, gone to join the choir invisibule.. etc. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Extra scooters
Add the BMW C1-E, TTX GP TTX01, Honda EVE-neo, Yamaha EC-f to the article. Thanks, 217.136.152.98 (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: There is no consensus to move this page at this time  GB fan  06:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Electric motorcycles and scooters → Electric motorcycles —


 * oppose - the article is about motorcycles and scooters. if the content were just motorcycles then I would support the move. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This is not a case when motorcycles and scooters need to be treated as sifnificantly different things. Most of the supposed difference between the two evaporates if you ignore contradictory local regulations anyway. --Dbratland (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Per arguments presented above. Scooters are distinctly different from motorcycles.  I might not oppose a split.  Ebikeguy (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - First, WP articles should take the singular form, so both the current title and the proposed title are incorrect plural forms. Second, I'm confused. Is this request about changing the title, or changing the content/scope/meaning of this article?  As an RM, I would think the former, but the above oppose comments imply this is about changing content/scope/meaning, since the opposition is based on preserving scooter content in this article.  What does that have to do with a title change? I mean, nothing precludes Electric scooter from redirecting to Electric motorcycle, and for the content about e-scooters to remain in this article even if it is moved to Electric motorcycle. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.