Talk:Roadster (bicycle)

Word 'heavy' overused
The word "heavy" is used 12 times in this short article. Once or twice should suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stadsfietsen (talk • contribs) 23:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Should this be combined with European city bike?
The link from European city bike here says the difference is that the Roadster is lighter. This is especially ironic seeing the comment above that the word heavy is overused here--Zachbe (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose a merge with the so-called "European city bike". The roadster has a better defined history, and characteristics, ECB is an ambiguous term used loosely to refer to any comfort bike that looks European.  Merging them would just make for a confusing article.  (I guess my posting this is fairly unnecessary as this idea seems to have spured no interest, but I just wanted to add this just in case)--Keithonearth (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Totally agree, but we must remember that contemporary "European city bike" are Descendants of the English Roadsters. There's plenty of data that will eventually be added and separate articles will be necessary ∞ Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 03:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead image
We have tried several lead images lately, but all have been rejected by another editor for some reason or another.

Seems as though we need a better image. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My personal preference would be the Brosen - roadsters don't have to have rod brakes. The modern ones don't and even some of the pre-war ones used Bowden cables.   I'll change it to that image unless anyone has any objections. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

English racer? (History section)
My recollection of the US "English racer" of the mid-late 50s was that it had a cable-actuated 3-speed rear hub, not derailleur shifting as the article states. Note that most of the images in the article show non-derailleur bikes (with chain guards) -- some apparently single-speed and some with cable-actuated rear hubs. Generally cable-operated rim brakes were used on the US "English racers" of this era.

(Other de rigueur features of the English racer of the 50s were a frame pump and a headlight.) drh (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Should this be combined with City bicycle?
The article City bicycle was substantially improved since this issue was evoked. I suppose the two articles should be merged. What do you say? João Pimentel Ferreira 23:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joao.pimentel.ferreira (talk • contribs)


 * Totally Opposed; City bicycle has nothing to do with a Roadster Bicycle. A Roadster bicycle is of another breed ″that nowadays it adapts to city use″, a roadster bicycle was, in its glory days, not necessarily used in the city but also in the countryside as well as for carrying freight [sort of a pickup truck]. A Roadster bicycle was originally built for multiple uses, as well as racing when it was adapted as a Path Racer. Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Here further info about Roadster Bicycle @ Encyclopædia_Britannica/Bicycle, section [913]: Frames.—Fig. 1 represents a road-racer. A full roadster would have the handles a little higher relatively to the saddle, and would be provided with mud-guards....  Let's keep Wikipedia enciclopedic. - Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Parroting Britannica from 1911 his hardly what we mean by "encyclopedic". That's one definition of roadster, and it matters in the context of what they thought in 1911, but that should be balanced with all the other definitions that reliable sources have attested in all the other periods. Personal enthusiasm for "glory days" or whatever isn't relevant. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

This article should be deleted
It's nothing but a hyperactive rant about the author's desired specifications in a city bike, most of which is just a paraphrased list of vintage bike parts from sheldon brown's website.

The truth of the matter is that 28 x 1½ inch wheels, steel cranks or a sturmey archer gear hub don't make anything more or less of a roadster, those were just common bicycle parts in the early-mid 20th century. Today we build these exact same kind of bikes with 700c wheels, aluminium cranks and shimano hub. Same kind of bike, performs the exact same function in the same sort of way, just newer parts.

Likewise this distinction between a "roadster" and a "sports roadster" did not exist in the industry. Rather, the heavier bikes with 28 inch wheels are just an older technology than the slightly lighter and faster ones with 26 inch wheels. When 26" came in the 28" wheel bikes were relegated to niche markets such as very tall customers.

When you take away these attempts to define a product category by specifying outdated components you're just left with an extremely poorly written version of the city bike article. If you were to rewrite the article to be about bikes that look old but are really new, then you'd just have a pointless page about a fashion trend in the city bike market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A442:581E:1:185A:2A89:89EC:C6 (talk) 07:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * So what if the term is outdated? That can be fixed with a tense shift. Citations support the existence of the category. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I didn't say the term is outdated, I said that this article is trying to define the term by listing bicycle technology that A) doesn't determine what kind of bike it is, and B), obsolete. You can go out and buy a roadster brand new that is visually and functionally indistinguishable yet meets none of this article's supposed requirements for being one.


 * To put it in other terms, imagine if you had two articles about cars. One called "Car" and the other one called "Automobile". And the one called "Car" talks about how cars are defined by having hand-cranked engines and wooden spoke wheels. You would think that's fucking stupid definition of a car, no?


 * Or perhaps a third example, we can have a wiki page "Human" and a wiki page "person". Here we will write that a "person" is a kind of great ape distinguished by owning eight-track tape players and flared trousers.2A02:A442:581E:1:F43B:90A6:748:CA1 (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Better definition / differentiation
From reading the article's introduction and first paragraphs, and skimming the rest of the page, it's really not clear to me what makes this type of bicycle different from the bicycles that are more common today. I think it would greatly improve the article to have that information clear and upfront. Unfortunately, I cannot contribute it, since I don't have that information. Cotoco (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and it's not our job to create or invent definitions of things. That would be original research. We merely report what significant sources say the definition is. Perhaps this type of bike isn't different from others, but if sources speak of it as if it were, our job is to convey what the sources are saying.You won't find a bulletproof definition of SUV or station wagon, or of road bike or BMX bike. And don't even get me started on much abused terms like crossover or hybrid. If you find a Wikipedia article that claims to give you the one true definition of these things, it's likely the article is ignoring significant points of view, not giving due weight to all significant sources, and oversimplifying what the sources say.Vehicle marketers like to invent new categories for their products to reside in, so that they can achieve the coveted "in a class by itself" status, or simply to seem newer or more with it. Terms like roadster are historic in nature, meaning one thing in 1890 and something else in 1920 and something else in 2019. What makes something exotic and sporty in one decade is merely utilitarian in a later decade.So yes, people disagree on what precisely a roadster is, and the meaning has changed over time. I know many would like for Wikipedia to invent an intensive definition that is logically consistent in all cases, but as someone once said, Wikipedia is not here to settle bar bets. Just write an article that faithfully summarizes what sources say. The sources don't need to be consistent or all-knowing. They merely need to be reliable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)