User talk:GearfreeZone

December 2011
Your recent editing history at NuVinci Continuously Variable Transmission shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * See the comments elsewhere. Reverting was a way of getting some of the non-believers to perhaps pay attention to the true situation.  When something is new and something that some people describe as revolutionary, there is a challenge to make the information available without people arbitrarily dismissing it as marketing hype.  Fallbrook cannot put all of the self-appointed Wikipedia editors under non-disclosure and bring them to the Company's R&D facility to turn them into believers.  What is a greater disservide to Wikipedia users:  failure to have information about how a technology can make significant changes in many areas or having that inforamtion supplied by affiliated parties who disclose their affiliation until there are enough non-affiliated contributors to avoid serious information gaps?   24.152.182.171 (talk) 07:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Efficiency
It looks as though at least 3 editors agree that the disputed material which you keep inserting is not appropriate. There has already been some comments to the effect that much of this article reads like a marketing blurb. Wikipedia aims to present a neutral point of view. One thing which would be very helpful and show good faith is details of the efficiency of NuVinci bicycle gearing system (this information would also be useful in the article on Bicycle gearing; so far the company has refused to supply such information. Murray Langton (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A reason Fallbrook has not supplied efficiency numbers is that traditional efficiency measures are not appropriate to evaluating a NuVinci bicycle transmission -- everyone admits that a traction based transmission is going to be less mechanically efficient that one that has actual gears whether a derailleur or an internally geared hub. CVT automobile transmissions are less efficient than manual gearboxes; it's the same situation with the Nuvinci bicycle tranmsission.   However the ability to always be in the right gear with no gaps or pauses in shifting gears has a positive effect on the overall efficiency in the use of energy or human power in going from point to point over a particular terrain. There is yet no reliable way to measure the net effect of a continuously variable   We've seen cars go from 3 speed automatics to 7 and 8 speed automatics and one reason for that is better fuel efficiency -- mechanical efficiecy, unless dramatically worse, doesn't really come into play.24.152.182.171 (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
Hello 64.73.224.162. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article NuVinci Continuously Variable Transmission, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to you, your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.. I notice that your "WHOIS" information shows that you are editing from Fallbrook Technologies. Ebikeguy (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Fallbrook doesn't try to hide affiliations. It would appear that many articles about products or companies in Wikipedia are probably written by individuals either employed by a company or paid by a company to post content but hiding the origin, despite the efforts of the "community" to prevent that.  Fallbrook carefully reviews its press releases to be sure that it can substantiate any claims it makes and has limited what it has contributed about NuVinci technology to what are basically factual statements and not hyperbole or marketing mush.  Unfortunately, there are many skeptics who simply do not or refuse to believe what is being described as factual.  Fallbrook has had many highly experienced and highly educated skeptics come to its facility under nondisclosure agreements and they typically come away believers and impressed by its over 400 patents and applications and over 14,000 patent claims worldwide.24.152.182.171 (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's open format sometimes results in editors with conflicts of interest publishing or editing articles with which they are affiliated. This is not a valid reason for making COI edits yourself.  If you continue to do so, you will be blocked.  If you see any other conflicts of interest on Wikipedia, I encourage you to take action.  Ebikeguy (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, please note that I am not editing articles on Fallbrook and its products because I also have a conflict of interest in this matter. As a journalist who is currently working on an article on the company, I would run the risk of self-promotion if I were to do so.  Ebikeguy (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Fallbrook and Wikipedia
I don't want to get into a long discusssion with you or others in the wiki community but the ability to use CVT technology (NuVinci CVP technology is a new class of CVT) in a varaible speed accessory drive is a sea change in CVT technology. It deserves to be identified as such. It not that different from the fact that others have tried to use a CVT in a bicycle without ever producing something that was commercially viable. NuVinci techology is affect other applications as well including primary transmissions. Incidentally, the Fallbrook Advisory Board consists of retired senior executives from Ford, General Motors, and Peugeot in addition to David Cole who is a respected elder statesman in the automotive industry. If they didn't believe that NuVinci technology was a radical development, they wouldn't be on the advisory board as their reputations are too valuable to them to be "hyping" something for personal gain. Yes, I have an association with Fallbrook which includes being a stockholder and a consultant. As such, I would be glad to put you in touch with one the senior technical people if you'd like to discuss how the technology is revolutionary and its application to accessory drives ties in directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.73.224.162 (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The NuVinci CVP appears to be an exciting new technology, and I would like to see it successfully applied wherever it can offer an improvement over existing technology, but that doesn't have much to do with an encyclopedia entry. First and foremost, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that should only contain facts that can be independently verified and that should remain free of conflict of interest. Thus, when and if the sea actually changes and reliabale, third-party, non-affiliated parties report that fact, I would be happy to add that detail to the NuVinci Continuously Variable Transmission article myself. While I can certainly understand the desire for anyone associated with the technology to shout its praises to the rafters or even calmly state how transformative it will be, Wikipedia simply is not the appropriate venue. -AndrewDressel (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sure Fallbrook would be delighted if you or others who are knowledgeable would edit the article in fashion that the Wikipedia community finds more acceptable. The dilemma, however, is that Fallbrook has something truly new and unique with over 400 patents and 14,000 patent claims worldwide.  For a variety of reasons, Fallbrook's press releases are carefully reviewed to make sure they don't make claims that cannot be substantiated and the Fallbrook website has various press releases describing validation testing and quotes from noted and reliable sources.   The SAE doesn't publish articles that are marketing hype and David Cole is a noted authority.  Fallbrook  doesn't  try to hide affiliations and just because there is a relationship doesn't mean that there is conflict of interest.  Some firms apparently hire people who use pseudonyms to post copy and they can use references that may or may not check out. And there are a number of "pay for play" references cited all over Wikipedia as the basis for various statements.  Fallbrook's purpose in putting material into Wikipedia is not to generate sales but to explain something about which there is still considerable skepticism.  Skeptics who actually meet with Fallbrook under non-disclsure agrements typically come away amazed and believers.  And anyone who rides a bicycle equipped with a NuVinci transmission has an experience unlike any prior riding experience.  Even if it isn't appropriate for how and what they ride but the idea that someone could actually make a continuously variable transmission for a bicycle that works is a surprise to many.   Similarly, the ability to improve both economy and performance at the same time has been thought to be difficult if not impossible.  NuVinci's DeltaSeries(tm) prototypes show that it can be done.  People like you who understand what's going on can help Fallbrook IF they are Wikipedia contributors and so motivated but at this stage there is a need and task to make people aware and Fallbrook pretty much has to do it.   if Wikipedia had existed at the time Jonas Salk invented his vaccine, there probably would have been "editors" who would have rejected an article about it prior to its widespread adoption.  I'm not arguing that NuVinci is a cure for the fossil fuel crisis but the point isn't completely far fetched.24.152.182.171 (talk) 07:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It is completely understandable that a magazine article about a potential new technology will be full of statements such as
 * There is potential to resolve this seemingly inflexible conflict...
 * this may permit use of smaller accessory components...
 * The total accessory package potentially can be made smaller...
 * A new type of CVT developed by Fallbrook Technologies offers the potential...
 * the products in its development pipeline provide...
 * this should provide attractive economic and fuel efficiency benefits.
 * In an encyclopedia, however, these are considered weasel words, and they simply have no place. If and when these innovations come to market and are reported on as established facts, then I will be happy to add them to the article. Until then they simply must be omitted. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Fallbrook was not proposing to put the article in the Encyclopedia which does contain a lot of hedges as Cole probably has some constraints (in case Fallbrook should become a public company). His opinion, however, is that the technology works and has promise. His opinion is a fact. Fallbrook doesn't need Wikipedia entries for its business purposes but if someone hears about NuVinci technology and wants to know what it is and what it can do, the entry should provide that information. Consider the situation with a new drug therapy perhaps called "AX" that may cure or prevent Alzheimer's -- it's been announced and disucssed but not completely proven. Shouldn't there be a Wikipedia article explaining what AX24.152.182.171 (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC) is? Anyway, let's drop the discussion as there will be further edits and further disagreements.24.152.182.171 (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)