Talk:Types of motorcycles/Archive 1

dodgy dates
Under ther heading 'sports bike', the dates given are inaccurate. the 'power wars' started well before the late '90s. GSXR1100 & ZZ-R1100 for example? Honda VF1000R/GPZ1000 RX? etc etc. Also the 300k/186mph "gentleman's agreement" had been agreed before the introduction of the ZZ-R1100C1 of 1990. Veej 08:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Acceleration
Changed the word New Kawasaki zx14 to 2006  Kawasaki zx14 as the term  new was vague, only fair as the Addition of the term new kawasaki zx 14  was originaly made by me. I have also made an addition of the 0-62 mph (0-100) and quarter mile times on this page, these specs can be varified on following websites: (Fireblade 21:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC))

http://www.seastarsuperbikes.co.uk/zx142006detail.html http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mckaw/06_ZX-14/index.motml http://www.topspeed.com/motorcycles/kawasaki/index165.html

Touring Motorcycles Are Cruisers?
These seem a lot like cruisers since they are for long distance and comfort. What is the difference other than more conveniences? Zachorious 02:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless i've missed something a cruiser is a ahrley type easy rider bike while a tourer is a BMW, goldwing type bike Pickle 12:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Touring' bikes tend to have specific features that aren't always present on 'cruisers.' Specifically, things like a full windscreen, integrated storage of some sort (typically hard saddlebags, often a topcase, and sometimes more), and often equipment to allow long-distance travel with additional comfort (for example, heated grips, or integrated radio/CD players, etc).  Cruisers form the basis for some touring models (see Harley-Davidsons), but as noted above BMWs, (Honda) Goldwings and their like are touring bikes without being 'cruisers' (distinguishable both by somewhat different ergonomics, but also by differences in chassis layout).  Finally, there's a whole separate breed of 'touring' motorcycles generally known as 'sport-tourers' (Ducati ST* series, Triumph Sprint ST, some BMWs, Yamaha FJR...), which have more in common with sportbikes than they do cruisers, but are still 'touring' bikes in the sense that they are made for long range travel.  Saturn V 15:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Dual Sports
On the dual sport section, the last paragraph claims that russia is the biggest supplier of dirtbikes to North America, i am almost 100% sure that this is false...please cite or I will remove. I also changed from "Northern America" to "North America"

Gabrielzorz 17:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Motocross
The description of motocross was changed, but neither the original nor the new version of the description is complete. The info from both needs to be merged. Also, there are many more displacements than mentioned, and the larger displacements are more likely to be 4-stroke, and the smaller displacements are more likely to be 2-stroke. A fuller description of motocross racing is in Motorcycle_racing. In this article, this summary description of motocross should be about half about the racing and half about the bike itself. Obankston (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Essentially the description should be about the motorcycle in the broadest sense and if the sport is mentioned is should be minor, as there is already a wikilink to the sport. ww2censor (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2010

(UTC)

Concept bikes
Can anyone shed some light on this? I have a few web pages if they can help http://www.sportrider.com/bikes/146_01_honda_nas/


 * I see no reason to include this as a type of motorcycle. Factory concept types are generally produced for publicity and often do not represent machines that will be produced.  Flatshooter (talk) 09:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

'standard' bike?
The term 'standard' bike seems unusual. I've worked in the industry for years & if somebody came to my shop asking about a 'standard' bike i wouldn't know what they're talking about. 'Street' bike or 'Commuter' are more common industry terms for this type of motorcycle & are not open to mis-interpretation. Veej 07:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit this because I haven't been involved in any of the discussion to date. The section "naked bike" starts off by saying they are also called naked bikes. Perhaps they are only called "standards" in the U.S. In any case, this term was likely derived from what we've referred to as the "UJM" or "Universal Japanese Motorcycle" from the 1960s and '70s, before the modern sport bike evolved. They are "standard" because they are just "plain motorcycles", not specialized. Other than "retro" bikes from Triumph, and those few Royal Enfields being sold, I don't really see any of these being sold here. I prefer the term "standard" for a motorcycle with handlebars rather than clip-ons, where the rider is slightly leaned forward, and their feet are below them, without regard to how modern the engine and suspension are. It seems like using ergonomics as a basis might make categorizing the styles easier.

In any case, if the consensus is that the subtitle should be "naked", then the "also" clause should contain the term "standard". --Alanlarue 20:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Standard used to be the term for a normal motorcycle, then it evolved into Cruiser and Naked after the advent of Sport bikes. Naked is more contemporary, but Standard is a well-known term as well. --Sayantsi 19:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the type "standard" is rarely used and not with any particular authority behind it. Same with naked bikes.  These strike me as slang, which includes such odious terms a bobber, chopper, ratbike, and many more.  I object to UJM even more.  This strikes me as being wildly inaccurate.  There is no greater variety of motorcycles that has been made over the years other than those made in Japan. There should be one category for all the one off small maker machines which should be Custom. Flatshooter (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

motorized bicycle, steam tricycle, tricycle, quadracycle, timeline of motorized bicycle history
all the afformentioned links are a a type of motor cycle. Should they not be in the list? If added it will totally devaste the format, any proposition? --Pat 01:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think they're applicable. Looking at definitions of mororcycles;


 * motorcycle, bike -- (a motor vehicle with two wheels and a strong frame).


 * Motorcycle (n.) A bicycle having a motor attached so as to be self-propelled. In Great Britain the term motor cycle is treated by statute (3 Ed VII. c. 36) as limited to motor cars (self-propelled vehicles) designed to travel on not more than three wheels, and weighing unladen (that is, without water, fuel, or accumulators necessary for propulsion) not more than three hundred weight (336 lbs.)..


 * Motorcycle: two-wheeled motor vehicle with a capacity greater than 125 cmE3..


 * Motorcycles are technical creatures. Hence, obtaining a technical definition from a non-tecnical source, ie. a dictionary, will always be difficult. A good definition, that differentiates from scooter, moped & motortricycle could be;


 * A motorvehicle with two wheels positioned inline in a strong frame. The engine displacement should be over 50cc (below 50c is a moped). For motorvehicles with suspension, the engine must not form part of the "unsprung mass" (as scooters have the engine as part of the swingarm, ie. their engines travel up & down with the suspension). If a subframe with another wheel is attached to create a sidecar outfit, this third wheel must not be driven (as this would reclassify the vehicle as a motortricycle). Veej 15:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I have a problem with the weight classifications mentioned before. 336lbs? Well then that excludes bikes as light as the R6 (Approx 388 lbs.) That number even excludes my Suzuki GS500E! (Dry weight 374lbs.) The only things that go under that weight are 250's and such.

I find it doubtful that ALL motorcycles have the engine as sprung mass. Given the near infinite permutations of these creatures I doubt that it is safe to assume as such.

What about the Aprillia 50's are those scooters? Doubtful, despite being only 50 cc's I believe that they should most certainly be classified as motorcycles.

Quadricycles? No. Not a motorcycle in the traditional sense (of course that is what we are trying to define here though eh?)

I think that trikes should be excluded and put into their own classification. I think motorcycle should pertain exclusively to vehicles that must be balanced by the operator while in transit.

Of course then we must address "scooters" I'd say that any time you can put your knees together it should be reffered to as a scooter. 24.182.62.190


 * You mention Aprilia 50. Which one? They've made loads. The RS50 is a motorcycle. It has the engine attached the frame & is independant of the swingarm. Whereas the SR50 is a scooter as it has the engine & swingarm incorporated into one unit which then pivots on the frame. The "knees together" definition isn't strong enough. You can't put your knee together on a Gilera DNA50 due to the styling, yet it it still essentially a scooter. It shares the engine, wheels etc with the Gilera Runner 50 which is styled as a scooter. Any useful definition should be engineering based. Veej 01:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The best definition of motorcycle that I've seen yet has come from a dictionary and it is thus:
 * '''Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged, 1947, Publishers G & C Merriam Co.Springfield, Mass. U.S.A.


 * Motorcycle, Noun A two-wheeled automotive vehicle having one or two riding saddles and sometimes a third wheel for the support of a sidecar. Motorcycle, Verb Intransitive To ride a motorcycle or go by motorcycle---motorcyclist, Noun.'''


 * Notice that the definition says riding saddles. This infers the connection in control to riding a horse, which is indeed a valid observation.


 * The Laws of the State of Maryland state "A motorcycle is a self propelled motor vehicle with one front wheel and one or two rear wheels on a single axle. A motorcycle has a motor with a rating of more than 1.5 brake horsepower and a capacity of at least 49cc."


 * Maryland further states about Mopeds: "A moped is a bicycle operated by human power with the assistance of a motor. It is equipped with pedals that mechanically drive the rear wheels and has two or three wheels.  A moped engine has a 1.5 brake horsepower rating or less and if the engine is internal combustion, it has a capacity of 50 cubic centimeters (cc) or less."


 * I see no useful purpose in mentioning the weight of a motorcycle. The US government considers a "heavy weight" motorcycle to be one of 700cc engine size or more.  This definition was used as a measure when levying an unjustified import tariff which damaged only Japanese motorcycle makers.


 * These terms motorized bicycle, steam tricycle, tricycle, quadracycle excepting tricycle, do not relate to modern motorcycles. There is a difference between a three wheeled motorcycle and a three wheeled car and a motorized chair.  The rider sits on a motorcycle with his/her feet on footpegs which are arranged so that the rider can RIDE the motorcycle and control it by the pressure of the riders weight on the footpegs.  This control is needed on rough roads and is similar to riding a horse (which your legs straddle as in riding a motorcycle).  This is called posting.  You must be able to post on a motorcycle by standing on the pegs as needed.  Off road and rough riding requires this.  A three wheeled automobile is a device in which you sit, often in some form of open or enclosed body work.  Your weight in an automobile is NOT part of the controls of that device.  A motorized chair is a device that you sit on, with your legs stretched out in front of you which, like and automobile, provides no control over the vehicle.  A rider on a motorized chair cannot attempt rough roads and must beware of unexpected bumps which could (and does) unseat him/her.
 * By this definition a cruiser motorcycle or any motorcycle which has footrests or pegs that are located far enough forward that the rider cannot post is actually a motorized chair. People who ride in such a position are at elevated risk of injury.  As a motorcycle rider I have at times ridden over objects in the road at highway speeds.  I've ridden over curbs (being careful of engine damage), and have ridden off road on a 550 pound classic motorcycle.  Rider skill includes the ability to fully control a motorcycle.  There is a necessity to post while riding in order to maintain full control.
 * All modern motorcycles have unsprung engines. The goal in motorcycle design is to reduce unsprung weight to as low a level as possible.  A problem with high unsprung weight in the front fork is often felt as heavy steering.  A problem with unsprung weight in the rear wheel is that it will often skip along slightly rippled pavement.Flatshooter (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Title
I think the current title is a tad awkward, how about "Motorcycle Types" instead? --Hooperbloob 20:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is ungrammatical as well as deviating from a pattern already set. It should be Motorcycle Types.Flatshooter (talk) 10:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I get a date?
A bit more history of the development of the types would be welcome, since it doesn't appear to be in the main article. For instance, when was the first dirtbike? What company? Model? When did they first appear in racing, such as at the Dakar? MX/trials events? Also, a pet peeve: what is up with the clustering of photos? Trekphiler 13:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, there only appears to be about half a dozen people on (the English) Wikipedia who know about "dirtbikes". We're generally busy developing our respective pages on stuff like MX, Trials, Enduro - no ones really doing SX, Grasstrack/speedway and I've barely started on motorcycle racing. A long term thing will be to get to articles like motorcycle and types of motorcycles although motorcycle club seams much more pressing (see its talk).


 * Despite the above I'll give it a go. In the begging they created some very early bikes, an early test of these (due to road (ie highway) competition being illegal in the UK, arguably the cradle of motorcycling) was to race them on closed course (ie hill climbs on country estate drives - eg goodwood, races on country estate roads eg donington) - the easiest thing to do was to do "reliability trials" (very similar to the current "trials"). This required minimal changes to machines (if at all). These events were taking place at least as early as post WW1, some club can trace event histories back to then, my club only goes as far back as the late 1920s, and the history wasn't recorded very well. Anyway right up until the 1960s a bike could be ridden in anything (generally speaking) - ie a Goldstar was an excellent Trials, Road Race, Grass Track and Scrambles (as MX was then known in the UK) bike, and riders did all of them (and then road the bike on the road to work the next day!). Thus its very hard to say what was the first dirtbike, as the term evolved gradually. Obviously bikes became more specialised and the sports fragmented leaving each discipline (and road legal bikes) on all very different types of machine as the technology progressed.


 * Give me some time and i may get round to having a serious go and editing that section, but I've many other projects on the go.


 * Pickle 14:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ISDT started in 1913. So dirt bikes preceded this time. They derived from Classic motorcycles and became very specialized over decades.Flatshooter (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Trikes ?
I see scooters, mopeds, FF's and sidecars .. but no trikes ? Guess I will have to work on adding that section .. any objections ? Low Sea 23:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Overhere (UK) they are defintly considered motorcylces (but you don't *have* to wear a helmet, i think its the same DVLA class as a Robin Reliant).


 * Like Mopeds, Trikes, Cyclecars and even ATVs may be legislatively or colloquially defined as motorcycles in some jurisdictions. Should they be included? I believe so even if only as a short entry with a redirection to the major entry elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M-72 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Motortricycles don't need a seperate section. I suggest they be cataloged under Custom Motorcycles along with small unit production machines. Motortricycles are considered motorcycles by law and definition in the USA also. These exist in insignificant numbers, like Wankel and Diesel engined motorcycles. Flatshooter (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

image selection
It makes more sense to show a picture of a Harley or other 'traditional' cruiser instead of the picture of the R1200C, given the relative popularity of the two bikes. I don't think the V-Rod is the perfect picture either, but I thought it'd be worth stating here in case anyone runs across a good picture of a cruiser for this article. tedder (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to push my hog (although I probably can upload a better pic), due to WP:COI, but I don't really think the V-Rod is a "traditional" cruiser either. The two pics together just bumped the text down, creating a huge white space. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * yep, I agree, the V-Rod doesn't really fit the category perfectly either. I'll push your hog, it's better than what's there! Specifically, here's the justification I'm using: a traditional cruiser uses an air-cooled transverse V-twin engine; evb's softail represents this much more than a semi-obscure model utilizing a boxer engine. And I'm not a Harley guy- but it certainly represents the cruiser market more than what was there. tedder (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't consider the BMW R1200C to be a cruiser at all since it has a well designed cool running engine and correct footpeg placement. http://www.motorcyclenews.com/upload/660/images/0186673@BMW-R1200C.jpg It has some elements that less observant people might consider cruiser style (like being bloody ugly and archaic). Flatshooter (talk) 10:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Feet forward
After reading the the Feet forwards motorcycle article, I think the subsection here would fit more appropiately in the *Concept* section. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to publish speculation. That includes concepts. Flatshooter (talk) 10:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Truckcycles?
I found the mention in this article of putting truck wheels on motorcycles to create "truckcycles" I think this is a very interesting idea and would love to see a picture of one. I would think that there would be more information about it in the documentary cited in the article. --Tea with toast (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably yet another variation of the Auto rickshaw. There are an endless number of types in use all around the world. The word "truckcycle" isn't used by anyone else; I wouldn't be surprised if it is a Russian mistranslation.  Too bad the link is dead.  --Dbratland (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't consider this a valid concept. It's plainly idiotic. Flatshooter (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

New Lead
I suggest this for a new lead:



Motorcycles are a versatile type of motor vehicle that were created for basic transportation needs around the beginning of the 20th century. Motorcycles serve the needs of people for basic transportation and commerce, of business for communications, and of government for police enforcement and medical aid and evolve with the economy of the regions they are sold in to suit changing needs.

Today we recognize several motorcycle types based on their use. These fall within two basic categories.

There are two basic types of motorcycle designs today. These are found in parts of the world that are also divided into two stages of economic development. Nations with developing economies tend to use a lot of commercial use motorcycles. The motorcycle in these regions are used for basic personal transportation, commercial transportation, courier, and even military purposes. In the developing nations the motorcycles used are those which are the most economical to operate. They are typified by the Honda Super Cub.

Nations which have developed to the point where automobiles and public transport fulfill the basic transportation needs of their populace still use commercial motorcycles. These include the use of couriers, police, and medical personnel which find the versatility and low cost of motorcycle operation to be beneficial. The general populace in developed nations use motorcycles that fulfill the need of recreation and sport rather than necessity. The motorcycle in these nations is a leisure sport motorcycle which can be found in a number of specializations which not usually found in developing nations.

In the developed nations motorcycle design has progressed at a rapid pace. Modern Leisure Sport motorcycles can no longer be serviced at home with simple tools. They now require dealer servicing and advanced knowledge. This is seen as one explanation for the renewed popularity of the Classic Motorcycle as stated by Mick Walker in his book Motorcycle: evolution, design, passion. Flatshooter (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It should also be noted that all motorcycles can be used for practically all the different purposes for which there are specializations. Flatshooter (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Mick Walker on Motorcycle types
Mick Walker is one of the top authorities on motorcycles in the world today. I'm going to quote from his work Motorcycle: evolution, design, and passion (published in 2006). This comes from the section Lifestyle and Leisure.

"Not only has the whole purpose of the motorcycle changed but also the technology behind it. Today, like cars, the motorcycle is no longer contructed in a manner which allows servicing by the home mechanic. Indeed complex computerized operations govern many of the operations.  This is due to both technical advances and changes in the industry, where dealer servicing has become the norm with attendant commercial benefits.  The situation goes some way to explaining why Classic Bikes, have become so popular."

While that is true, it's isn't the only reason. I like classics for a variety of reasons. For one, they are better looking. For another, they are FAST, better designed, and can carry a passenger. The 1969 Honda CB750 is a good example of this. Mick goes on to say, "Today, the motorcycle has defined sectors, sport bikes (many of which require little modification to go racing) tourers, enduro styled on/off roaders, custom cruisers, retro styled machines, motocrossers, scooters, trials bikes and superbikes (classics like the CB750)." Mike isn't entirely accurate though. He gets the fuel type wrong for the Reitwagen. The first motorcycle burned a liquid petroleum fuel known as Ligroin, not Benzine (which is a trademark name). In early motorcycle history he credits the Werner Brothers (of France) "who did much to develop the working utility motorcycle, popularized the diamond frame, with it's central engine position..."

That utility motorcycle design is the progenitor of the current world utility motorcycle and eventually of the modern Classic motorcycle, aka the Superbike. Flatshooter (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Motorcycle Versus Moped Versus Scooter
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Flatshooter (talk • contribs) 10:47, 4 May 2010


 * What point are you trying to make by posting the table? You are using one definition of moped, but in the United Kingdom (for example) and other countries there is no longer a requirement to have pedals fitted (Definition) --Biker Biker (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for Index Structure

 * 1) Commercial Motorcycle Types:
 * 2) World Utility
 * 3) Classic
 * 4) Authorities
 * 5) Leisure Sport Motorcycle Types:
 * 6) Road Types
 * 7) Racing
 * 8) Classic
 * 9) Cruiser
 * 10) Sport
 * 11) Sport Touring
 * 12) Touring
 * 13) Off Road types
 * 14) Trials
 * 15) Trail
 * 16) Motocross
 * 17) Adventure Sport
 * 18) Other types
 * 19) Custom
 * 20) Concepts
 * 21) Miscellaneous

As mentioned elsewhere the coverage of motorcycles is highly biased in these pages. That bias is 99% toward leisure sport machines with no mention of note of the most important segment of motorcycle production, which is the Commercial Segment represented by the World Utility Motorcycles. This is in the Indian and Chinese markets. These markets are growing very rapidly. Hero-Honda is the largest maker of motorcycles in the world. They are showing huge gains in sales numbers and profits. So is Bajaj in India.

The third most important market is the USA which is a Leisure Sport market. This market continues to decline. Europe follows the USA in being another Leisure Sport market. US sales are mostly Japanese and Harley Davidson cruiser types with the remainder being mostly sport, sport touring, and touring machines. US sales figures are not broken down in a succinct manner to determine the actual product mix.

The sales of commercial motorcycles (World Utility Motorcycles)are rising meteorically. BMW sales of Adventure Sports models are just slightly off and lead Europe. Triumph in the UK is showing positive significant sales gains.

Overall Honda dominates world sales, mostly with WUM types. The USA based Harley-Davidson (which sources many of it's parts from Japan), having reduced it's York, PA plant by 60% in size, and cutting employee benefits (and number from a peak of 4400 to about 750 now) is showing a profit in the face of continued sales declines.

I suggest that the coverage of motorcycles being brought in line with the relative importance of the types of motorcycles sold world wide. The US/UK/Japan domestic markets are increasingly, rapidly, becoming secondary markets. Flatshooter (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What is your source for the term "World Utility Motorcycle"? --Dbratland (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I just don't recognise the distinction between commercial and leisure sport and I opposed the proposed change. Any bike you class as leisure sport is also commercial if bought for a non-leisure purpose. My first full-sized bike was an Aprilia Pegaso 650 - a dual-sport bike that would be classed as a leisure bike by your classification, yet I bought it for commuting and only ever used it for commuting. Its stablemate the BMW G650GS is used as a police bike in the UK, as is the Honda Pan European, Yamaha FJR1300, Kawasaki 1400GTR and BMW R1200RT. Are those leisure motorcycles? No. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Touring and Sport Touring
While we are discussing types of motorcycle I thought I'd throw this one in the mix. It seems to me that there is some confusion between touring motorcycle and sport touring and I'd like to see both articles merged. The names are confusing and subject to local interpretation. BMW only talks about touring bikes - so the R1200RT, K1200LT and K1300GT are all lumped together. Yet here the K1200LT is a tourer and the R1200RT is a sport-tourer. Honda UK has the Gold Wing, ST1300 and Deauville as tourers. Honda USA has the Gold Wing as a tourer, but the ST1300 and Deauville are sport-tourers. Honda Australia doesn't even have sports-tourers, only tourers which strangely means that the one bike that most agree is a tourer (the VFR1200F) is actually a sports bike in Australia. So if a single manufacturer uses three different classifications in three different English-speaking countries, how can we hope to be consistent here. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The VFR1200F is called a sport bike at http://powersports.honda.com/ (US) while http://ww1.honda.co.uk/ calls it a "Roadsport" motorcycle, whatever that means. The worldwide site equivocates.  Merge away.  Merge like the wind.  --Dbratland (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Poll: Are hyperbikes still relevant today?
MCN on hyperbikes. The outcome of this web poll is neither here nor there; but it's an example of how the names for classes of motorcycles can change with the times and with new technology. Scramblers or cut downs or UJMs are other examples of categories that are still with us today, but under new names. I think we should try to describe the current usage of names -- or the name that was current at the time for extinct models -- and include mention of anachronistic synonyms as appropriate. I think trying to create some kind of rational grand unified theory of motorcycle classes is a fools errand. --Dbratland (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Xcite bike
One particular motorcycle hasn't been mentioned: the Xcite bike. See http://www.thedesignblog.org/entry/xcite-bike-takes-biking-to-the-extremes/ it will probably require its own category KVDP (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No way is that a motorcycle. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

A motorcycle can often be whatever the rider wants it to be
"A motorcycle can often be whatever the rider wants it to be" with an illustration of a Lambretta being ridden like a sport bike is, to me, a perfect illustration of what is demonstrated throughout the article: that the various categories of motorcycles are not perfectly defined and that they are much in the eye of the beholder. Which is why so many sources have so many subtle disagreements with each other.If there is something about this statement which is unclear, please explain. --Dbratland (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Perfectly clear to me! --Biker Biker (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This sentence as it stands belongs in a marketing catalogue not an encyclopedia. No matter how much a rider wants it to be, a Lambretta is never going to be: a super motard, the source of true love or the fountain of youth.  It would make more sense if it referred (as you do) that categories of motorcycle are not necessarily exclusive.  Clovis Sangrail (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I had a go at rewording to tighten the sentence up. Also, the caption states 'Lambretta' and the jpg name states 'Vespa'.  Is it a Lambretta?  I wouldnt know.. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I guess. I thought it made the point better before. I believe the picture was mis-named by the original Flickr photographer. It was part of a series of photos of scooters doing the impossible. See also this famous incident. Anyway, the photo should be downloaded and re-uploaded to WP Commons with a new name, and then re-linked from the article, and a delete tag put on the old one. --Dbratland (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm a bit of a pedant with language sometimes. I havent a Commons account yet, but its probably a good time to set one up.  Thanks Clovis Sangrail (talk) 06:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The image commons:File:Vespa scooter racing at 3 sisters.jpg is actually on the commons and just needs renaming if it is inaccurate. The enwiki image you see is simply a transclusion of the commons image, so it needs neither deleting nor reuploading. I don't know the make for sure, but will setup renaming if you confirm the new name requested. BTW Clovis Sangrail while you may not have been to the commons, with m:Unified login, you should already have an account that uses the same username and password. ww2censor (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Now tagged for rename. --Dbratland (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks & Thanks! Clovis Sangrail (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Crossover
The new "crossover" category is interesting, but as far as I can tell, few sources treat it as a distinct category. The whole subject of motorcycle types is a big steaming pile of opinions. What's the use of an encyclopedia article on types of motorcycles if all you get is a lot of random opinions? If you want to help a reader who is new to the subject, stick with what you've got sources for. If solid, reliable sources have anything definite to say about crossovers, cite that. No source? Leave it out. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree also. It would appear that "crossover" is a term borrowed from the car world (where it usually means a 4x4 lookalike that is best kept on-road).  In the biking world it seems to mean a bike produced from a manufacturer's parts bin in an attempt to create a new market.  The term crossover is best avoided.  My sources for the previous sentiments? None I'm afraid.  Mea culpa! Arrivisto (talk) 10:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Classification
You explain your recent edit of Types of Motorcycle with "del expressions of doubt per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch". Is the expression of doubt "purport"? If so, as it is is direct quote from Broughton & Walker, surely is is acceptable, as WP says: "The guideline does not apply to quotations, which should be faithfully reproduced from the original sources" The actual edit was to replace "Two Scots academics..." with "Some experts". Surely it is more accurate and verifiable that they are "Scots academics" (Broughton did a PhD at Napier, and Walker lectures at Stirling) than that they are experts; any anyway, doesn't the term "some experts" hint at a larger group than this Scots pair? Arrivisto (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:CLAIM. You are inserting your own expressions of doubt by trying to characterize the authors. Scots? What the fuck? Who cares? Your opinions about this source don't belong here.The use of "purport" is a a direct quote from the source. The precise point is that this source doubts the validity of the subtypes. Using a direct quote is the most accurate way to relay their opinions without distortion. Your previous edits of this line put words in their mouths, and now you are trying to undermine the source by implying that they are unreliable because they are academics or Scottish (really, what the fuck?). See Describing points of view.This is becoming disruptive. It appears you are doing this as revenge over your rejected "roadster" POV-pushing. We call it disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Please stop. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sob. Losing faith in Wikipedia here. Come on. It's not fair, sorry it's not NEUTRAL, to completely ignore the term "roadster" in motorcycling, as if it didn't existed at all, as if no one ever used it in the motorcycle world. As much as I was firstly irritated by the term "roadster" trying to become a category, I am now much more saddened and 1984ed by what I see happening here with some "experts"... Akseli9 (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Proper Wikipedia editorship requires that we not care about the expertise of other editors, or inject our personal knowledge into the articles we work on, rather, we cite reliable sources. Let's get on with it. — Brianhe (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP is about people - BY the people, FOR the people. It cannot be done by roBOTS, and cannot be achieved purely by apeing other works, which sometimes ARE wrong. Something human HAS to link all this together, and that means individuals, not clones. The salient difference here is that contributors are the authors, whilst editors may not be able to create the articles, hence respective expertise IS needed. Dotting the Is and crossing the Ts is expected, but constantly argueing semantics and needing to have the last word on everything is way-OTT, as is the foul language (twice) which has no place here.--62.253.80.6 (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

redundant "no universal system"
The first sentence says "There are many systems for classifying" then the first sentence of the second paragraph redundantly says "There is no universal system for classifying". Obviously there is no universal system if there are many systems. (Equally redundantly there are no universal systems for classifying anything- bikes, plants, animals, rocks etc.) Bhny (talk) 05:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There are many systems for classifying living things, such as Bibical categories (birds, animals, fish), folk taxonomy for species and classes of organisms, but the Taxon system is universal, and it is considered authoritative. The states of matter are universal as well. In contrast, there is no such universal system for types of motorcycles. Not only are there many types of classification systems, but in addition to that, there is no one system that is preeminent over the other systems. That's why it's not redundant to say both that there are many systems and none of these systems is universal. It's an accurate summary of the many sources cited below the intro, in accordance with Manual of Style/Lead section. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

MAIDS Report
The MAIDS report, referenced in this article, lists the KTM 950 Adventure S as an example of an Enduro machine. This is ill-informed, as an enduro bike is, more properly, one fit to be entered in an enduro race. For some time, manufacturers have labelled some models "Enduro", when they are no more than a trail bike (eg. CZ 250 Enduro) or an adventure bike (e.g. KTM 950 Adventure S). Of course, some monikers do acquire new meanings: in the car world a GT (Gran Turismo) once meant something like a Rolls Royce Corniche, whereas (after the Cortina GT) it included a souped-up saloon. It is curious that the Report chooses a "moped" as an example of the step-thru. Why not give an example of an actual step-thru, such as the Honda Super Cub, as not all mopeds are necessarily step-thrus? I note also that the report terms the basic type, using the example of Triumph Bonneville T100, as "Conventional Street" bike (rather than the contentious "Standard" or "Roadster"). Arrivisto (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your personal opinions. Wikipedia conveys what we find in reliable sources. The central point of this article is that there is no final word on what the types of motorcycles are. It's not remarkable that various sources disagree on the precise meaning of this terminology. It's exactly what we expect.I'd forgotten that you had gutted the intro, undermining the meaning of the article summary. I put it back so that the article makes more sense. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The intro was "gutted"? News to me.  In reality, it was edited to make the meaning clearer, using more elegant text.  Still, why not turn the clock back? Arrivisto (talk) 12:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Because the intro should be a summary of the main contents of the article. The previous version did that, and was a faithful reflection of the sources cited below the intro. See MOS:INTRO. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, one may choose to use endro to only refer to the modern, formal sport of Enduro and only refer to bikes intended only for that sport, but numerous reliable sources from many disciplines and backgrounds do not use the word only in that way. Thus, the use of enduro to mean "dual sport" does not in any way suggest the MAIDS Report is ill-informed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Harry Hurt in the Hurt Report treats "enduro" as eqivalent to "dual sport". See.
 * Modern Motorcycle Technology: How Every Part of Your Motorcycle Works by Massimo Clarke MotorBooks International, 2010, 9781610590808 also says enduros are general purpose, on/off road machines. aka, dual sport. See
 * Bug Out Vehicles and Shelters: Build and Outfit Your Life-Saving Escape by Scott B. Williams, Ulysses Press, 2011, 9781569759790 also says the same thing
 * Cycle World treats "enduro" as equivalent to "dual sport". See.
 * Going all the way back to 1917, we can see "enduro" being used as a generic term for "off-road" or multipurpose.

How Long Is This Page To Be Frozen?
I would like to add the following under the heading sports bikes: "High performance, high power to weight ratio sports motorcycles used in high-speed stunts (including illegal stunts on public highwways) are sometimes called "crotch rockets." I would also like to revise the description of scooters to add some sources on the different kinds of scooters and where scooters and motorcycles begin to intersect, separate out mopeds, and add the fact that the earliest Harley Davidson was what we would today call a moped (a bicycle with a small engine added). But apparently the article has been page protected against all edits, not just edits by one editor who is allegedly not properly sourcing text. I have to wonder about that decision. In any event, how long will that remain in effect? ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  16:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you click on history at the top of the article, it shows the protection was for 3 days, it expires 04:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC). But if the dispute above returns to edit warring, the protection might be extended.The CNN article is an acceptable source, but it seems rather confused: behaving as if sport bikes are a new thing (rather than something that dates back 30-40 years at least). There were a number of better-written news sources about Hollwood Stuntz and other street hooligans in the wake of the Alexian Lien beating (see that article for some sources). Speaking of which, and I have been working on a broader article on the topic, Draft:Motorcycle hooliganism. It is getting close, but it still needs more revision and consolidation, and an expanded section on the Alexian Lien beating. I think Alexian Lien beating should be merged into Motorcycle hooliganism when it goes live. We could use help on the hooliganism article, if you'd like to contribute.Note that almost all early motorcycles of the 1900-1910 period had pedals, Triumph, Indian, etc. Yes, you could call them mopeds, but nobody does. Just as many bikes without pedals today are called mopeds. Logically you'd think the word "moped" had something to do with peals, but in reality people use the word in a nearly arbitrary way. Not unlike the other motorcycling types. It's confusing but it's not our job to fix messed up language; merely to report it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the informative response. Motorcycle hooliganism sounds like the right page to describe behavior (or misbehavior). While this page seems to be focused on machines and not their use (or misuse), in the case of crotch rockets the two may be linked. Maybe it would be better simply to define it thus, under sports cycles: "A 'crotch rocket' is an alternative name for a high performance sport motorcycle, sometimes used as a perjorative to describe illegal high speed stunt riding," cite the CNN article, and link to your new page on Motorcycle hooliganism. As to mopeds, on reflection the similarity between that and the first Harley better belongs in the Harley Davidson article. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  16:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's usually a pejorative. Either to imply that sport bike riders are hooligans, or because they don't like imported bikes. It dates to 1974 . --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting, and glad to have a date of origin for the term. Since those sources are both slang dictionaries, it raises the question whether we should say (perhaps I am getting too picky here) "'crotch rocket' is commonly used slang for a sport motorcycle . . . " As to whether it is most often a pejorative, it does seem sometimes to be used in marketing sports cycles. It may have become a marketing positive the way "bad ass" originally a term of derision, now can in some circles be complimentary. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  17:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Introductory paragraphs and kneejerk reversions
I have reverted D.B's (not unexpected) reversion. I made a number of changes for inter alia the following reasons: (1) The opening sentence(s) should be short and snappy, and should describe what lies ahead. (2) This sentence is absurd and meaningless: " Strong lines are sometimes drawn between motorcycles and their smaller cousins, mopeds, scooters, and undertones" (3) "There are many systems for classifying types of motorcycles .  There is no evidence given for this.  (4)  Before doing a knee-jerk reversion, please do other editors the courtesy of thinking for a minute whether the new edit has improved what was there before.  I am confident that my edit has made it a better Wikipage, and it should be left until a consensus against it comes to light.  Arrivisto (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are ignoring what is stated in the sources and promoting your own opinions. You are wrecking the lead section by removing material which is necessary to adequately summarize the article contents. Per MOS:LEAD, "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies". The only important controversy in types of motorcycles is that there is no established definition for any of the types. Please stop making unsourced changes.Let me ask this: whom are you quoting when you write that scooters are sometimes not considered "true motorcycles"? Whose opinion is it about cruisers, that "at very low speeds, they can be cumbersome to handle"? You're replacing sourced material with your own ideas, using Wikipedia as a soapbox. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not promoting my own opinions; I am trying to improve a second-rate article. Your persistent wholesale reversions are inappropriate to the wikipedia ideal and tantamount to vandalism.  You insist on taking this page backwards, not forward.  You won't let anyone else make improvements.You write: "Let me ask this: whom are you quoting when you write that scooters are sometimes not considered "true motorcycles"?  All I have done is to rewrite an existing but clumsily made point, namely  "Strong lines are sometimes drawn between motorcycles and their smaller cousins, mopeds, scooters, and undertones", which is a ridiculous sentence. And what nonsense to say, "standards seem to have disappeared".  To the blind? To say "(standards) feature smooth tires with a light tread pattern" is a poor description.  I have re-ordered the categories to match the list in the intro; but you restore the previous chaotic. As I asked before, please stop making retrograde changes, please stop treating this page as your very own, and please stop telling everyone else what to do.   Arrivisto (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not nonsense that standards seemed to have disappeared. It's what the cited sources say. Do you have any source which uses the highly opinionated phrase "true motorcycle"? Wikipedia is not here to promote your opinions on the existence of a "true" anything. Your opinions about the low speed handling of cruisers remains unsourced. Your removal of the complete article summary continues to violate MOS:LEAD. I and others have repeatedly asked you to stop adding unsourced opinions to articles. Stop edit warring and find some sources for your opinions, or else leave it alone. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I refute your allegation of "edit warring". It is you, not me,  who insists on keeping this article as your own private domain.  Putting that aside, let's address, one by one, some of the edits that you have reverted.  (1) Why was it wrong to reorder the categories in accordance with the list of the 6 types in the intro? (2) Why revert from "footpegs" to "foot pegs? Both terms are valid, but a google search indicates that "footpegs " is the more common term. (3) Why revert the tyre description of "standards" as "They feature smooth tires with a light tread pattern " "Smooth"? "Light tread pattern"? Really? Wasn't the edited description more useful? (4) Why, having mentioned "naked" in the intro, do you delete an explanation of what a naked is, and how it came to be?  (5) Why revert "precise" to "strict", when the former is more accurate? (6) Why keep the ridiculous sentence: "Strong lines are sometimes drawn between motorcycles and their smaller cousins, mopeds, scooters, and undertones"  Does it mean anything? If it does, who draws these strong lines? And what are these "strong lines"?  (6) Why, when the  "strong lines" sentences is merely rewritten to make sense do you make accusations such as "highly opinionated"? (7) Why, when one changes the format of the "Off-road" subheading to match all the others, do you revert to the incorrect display?  (8) Why continue with the misleading and meddlesome sentence, "Some experts do not recognise …….", when the the so-called experts are no more than writers of a dreadful pot-boiler report? (9) Why revert "UJMs .. were admired for their reliability" to "UJMs .. were admired for their simplicity"?  When the classic UJM, the CB750 was introduced in1969, it was arguably the most complicated bike ever produced. People marvelled at it, but not because of its "simplicity"!  (10) Why, if you feel that a point is unreferenced, do you not put a  like anyone else, rather than instantly deleting it?  I could go on, but I hope I've made the point that my edits are not (as you allege) "vandalism" nor "disruptive" nor "warring", but are bona fide attempts to improve the article.  In short, why presume that you are always right, and that no one else has anything useful to add; and why be so vituperative to others, when editing for Wikipedia should be a pleasure?  Please, let's keep this pastime of ours civilised and enjoyable! Arrivisto (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The answers to all your questions are in the footnotes I've given. You repeatedly refuse to provide footnotes for your changes. Yes, I could add a citation needed, but it's not required. I would do so if, given the choice between tagging and deleting, I thought the tagged version was better than the version without the unsourced material at all. But the way you have structured your changes, it's too difficult to pick through each change. You first totally revise the intro, in violation of MOS:INTRO. Then you follow that with a series of unsourced opinions. Why should I spend time picking through each unsourced opinion and tagging it, just to remove the change to the intro? It's not worth it to go to that much work to keep changes that are totally unsourced.You should add only your least controversial edits -- with sources! -- and refrain from your large changes and deletions until you have consensus on the talk page. Then you wouldn't have this problem.You are never going to make any progress this way. You are going to have to do some actual research. That means cite some sources. You've been asked a dozen times, by me and by others, to cite sources. That's all this is about. You cannot declare something you don't like "ridiculous" and delete it if it is well sourced. You must provide your own sources. The onus is on you do to that. Do you have any reliable sources that call Motorcycling Sport and Leisure " a dreadful pot boiler"? No? It's merely your opinion and that's the problem. You cannot discount sources just because you don't like them. You must provide your own sources that support your side.You can keep trying to edit war, but how has that worked out? All you accomplished was getting the page protected from editing. Don't keep doing it. Instead, come back here with some sources to support your changes. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Issue 1
Since it seems to be at the crux of multiple disputes, why not first let's go to the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and find a consensus among other editors on whether or not  is a reliable source or not? Once done with that, we can move on, step by step. Agreed? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * OK. I'm sorry I missed the import of this earlier, so here's a belated reply.  The "PTW" report (above) would seem to be a reliable source, and there is no reason not to cite it.  My complaint was that I felt that the sentence: "Some experts do not recognize sub-types, like naked bike, that "purport to be classified" outside the six usual classes, because they fit within one of the main types and are recognizable only by cosmetic changes." is clumsy and should be rewritten more clearly and concisely.  Arrivisto (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So you dislike quoting the book because you dislike the phrasing they used? The problem I have there is that it's an opinionated statement on their part, and the best way to avoid mischaracterizing an expert's opinion is to quote it directly. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As it was not in quotes, it did not occur to me that this text was a direct quotation from the source. I'd taken it to be a rather clumsy sentence composed by a WP editor; but if it is indeed a direct quotation, then it is, of course acceptable. Arrivisto (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)