Talk:Vehicle dynamics

Opposite Lock and Scandinavian Flick
Are these two techniques the same? If so, should they be merged?
 * No they aren't Greglocock 05:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Critical Speed, Anyone?
This article is missing a discussion of critical speed. The article oversteer describes it (ambiguously) and claims it is an important consideration, but fails to offer any physical basis for the phenomenon. (The article critical speed is on an unrelated topic.)

If creating a new article, please see some specific questions about critical speed I have placed on the talk:oversteer page. --User Parsiferon 04:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The Formula (but what is a?)
Someone felt this equation was important enough to have as the sole content of this page before I stopped by, so I leave it here for your perusal: <1/a*cos(a)>

Ideas for adding to the 7 Post Shaker article
I am looking to add some more pertinent information to my article about the 7 post shaker and I am looking for any info that someone would like to add. I would like to expand this article with some pictures as well. Thanks for your time. Rooney McFaddy (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"Static" and "moving" dynamics attributes
There needs to be a split, with some definition of components/attributes of vehicle dynamics - those which are parts of the physically engineered vehicle, and those which are attributable to the user/driver. -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 09:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Need graphic
The authors of this article need to incorporate a graphic such as "KoSysFahrdyn.png", which is on Wikimedia commons (in German). The article itself would have to be adapted to work in the graphic, so I won't do it myself. Thomas.Hedden (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2009 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Vehicular dynamics → Vehicle dynamics – The field is called vehicle dynamics. That's the name of the textbooks. This Ngram shows that "vehicular dynamics" has negligible usage compared to "vehicle dynamics". -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The field is called vehicle dynamics. That's the name of the textbooks. This move to vehicular is lunacy and should have been discussed. Greglocock (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Here is some emperical data about the relative usage of each term: http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=vehicle+dynamics%2Cvehicular+dynamics&year_start=1800&year_end=2011&corpus=0&smoothing=3
 * Without a single comment in favor of the move, it seems to me that we should move it back. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, per nom. ENeville (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2012 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Improper procedure for move request
No notification was placed on my talk page in relation to this move. Vehicular Dynamics is, of course, grammatically correct. If the standard is the incorrect form, that's fine. Next time, please follow proper Wiki procedure as per notification in addition to assuming good faith and avoiding baseless name-calling. Please make a good-faith effort to notify all parties involved before making a potentially-contested move. Best wishes. --Xaliqen (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. If I recall, the initial move was made without any discussion, and I could have just reverted it, according to WP:RM: "If the page has recently been moved without discussion, then you may revert the move (although this is not required, and may not always be possible) and initiate a discussion of the move on the talk page of the article. (See also: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.)" I thought that was a little harsh, however, so invested the extra time to read the instructions and make the formal request. I read the instructions carefully, and I did not (and still do not) see any requirement to make any additional notification.


 * WP:NOTIFY requires that the subject of a discussion be notified, but this discussion was specifically about the move, not the mover, and so does not seem to apply. In fact "initiating a discussion at the talk page of a recently edited article would generally not require notification." While the request was made elsewhere, the entire discussion occurred on the this talk page. Although I can see now that you must not have been watching this page, as I have been, and you might have liked to participate in the discussion, I can see no indication that the burden is on me to notify you or that I followed any "improper procedure for move request."


 * As for complaints about other comments made above, they are completely independent of the move request I made, and should not be conflated with it.


 * Finally, I do not see where WP:TITLE mentions grammar as a criteria at all. Instead, it specifically lists recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency. As "vehicle dynamics" is the term actually used nearly exclusively in the literature, I believe it meets these criteria. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel that way. I didn't believe the move would be controversial at the time, as there had been no discussion in relation to it previously. I hope you'll reconsider your position in relation to attempting to alert involved parties in future discussion. I'm a very reasonable person and would've been open to the precedence argument outlined above, had I been given an opportunity to express my viewpoint.  That's all I'll say on the matter at this time. --Xaliqen (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * How a lack of previous discussion about an article move could be construed to mean that such a move would somehow be uncontroversial is a complete mystery to me. With that logic, someone could blithely move my user page thinking no one would care because no one has commented on it yet. The bigger mystery, though, is exactly what part of the procedure was improper? Those are strong words, and they could really use a little support. Instead of simply reverting the move, which would have been following the proscribed procedure to the letter, interested parties were given seven days to comment. That is the opportunity that the community has decided is sufficient for expressing viewpoints. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Pages get moved all the time, there's no reason to suspect every move will be controversial. There was no reason to suspect this move would be controversial. There is every reason to suspect moving a user's talk page would, in fact, be controversial. Honestly, sir, I attempted to end this conversation before with a branch, but I can do no such thing at this point. I disagree with your standpoint on a fundamental level. I wish you the best on the rest of your endeavors on Wikipedia, but please do not contact me in any way now or in the future. I considered the matter largely closed when adding my small piece of information, but consider it doubly closed now. Rest assured, I will not contact you in the future. It is very safe to say we will not be able to collaborate successfully in future. Therefore, I will not edit this article in future. I consider this an agreeable solution for all parties, I assume, and only hope you come to recognize some of the grievances I outlined above at some point in your life, may it be long and full of illuminating revelations. --Xaliqen (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, where to start...
 * The name of an article is one of the most controversial topics I have come across. Perhaps we edit in different circles, but in my experience, edits get made all the time, and pages get moved quite rarely.
 * We all get that someone might think that this move would not have been controversial. Unfortunately, that thought has been proven to be incorrect.
 * I also thought that this matter was closed, once the discussion petered out and the requested move occurred, but then allegations of not following "proper Wiki procedure" started flying around. I like to do the right thing, and I thought I had, so I replied in hopes of getting to the bottom of the situation.
 * I have made multiple requests for supporting details to back up said allegations of "improper procedure for move request", but I still do not see any. Seriously, the best way to promote good faith is to assume it.
 * In addition to continued protestations about ending this conversation, there appears to be an amazing determination to have the last say. (Man, there is some funny stuff on that page.)
 * We all get that you would like to have been personally notified of the move request. Unfortunately, the burden appears to be on each editor to monitor pages in which they have an interest. That's the purpose of watch lists, right?
 * Thanks for your kind wishes, but don't worry about me. I contribute to Wikipedia mostly for entertainment purposes, and I have found this exchange most entertaining. -AndrewDressel (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Basic forces for the physics of ground vehicles?
Where is the basic force equation for the physics of ground vehicles? We have the rocket equation for launch vehicles and spacecraft, but I'm not being successful finding where the basic physical forces in ground vehicles are explicated on the English Wikipedia. I do have a textbook from a university engineering course that could support such an explication; but am just very surprised to not find this already in Wikipeidia, and maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Once you get beyond Newton 2 then it all gets very complicated very quickly. Still, put up an article and let's see if it sticks. Greglocock (talk) 06:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal - Performance driving techniques
Discussion question: Can entire contents of article Performance driving techniques be moved into Vehicle dynamics (with section title of "Performance driving techniques")? Please add your opinions below. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree: Because both topics are related, move into "Vehicle dynamics" rather than having a stand alone "Performance driving techniques" article. JoeNMLC (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)