Talk:History of the automobile/Archive 2005-2010

Cyclecar

Some mention of the Cyclecar seems appropriate--Kayaker 10:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC).

Veteran/Brass confusion

The 'Automobile history eras' template talks about 'Veteran' as an era prior to 'Brass or Edwardian' - but it links 'Veteran' here where it refers to says 'Main article: Brass Era car' right under the heading for 'Veteran'. What gives?

Also not explained is the derivation of the name 'veteran' cars. Where did the term originate? Is it a regional term? Help us out with some sources or references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorBakerFineShoemaker (talk • contribs) 22:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yank tanks

I feel that the addition of the yank tank paragraph and photo is out of place in this high-level article. Perhaps it would be more at home in the articles on antique or classic cars but this is way too much of an overview for this location-specific content. There are MANY other things that could be added, but the article would then become too long and would not serve its purpose as a general overview of automobile history. I intend to remove this content. --SFoskett 14:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You've got a point (although I don't understand what you mean by 'high level' article - aren't all articles supposed to be high level? :) ). I now realise why I put it here. In the 'Automobile history eras' overview the cars in Cuba fall largely under 'post war', so I clicked that, but that article doesn't exist yet (which is a bit strange) and it redirects here. That is often a problem when I want to place a photograph and the appropriate article doesn't exist yet. Then I place it in the article that comes closest, so the 'locals' can then use it for the appropriate article when it gets created. I'm not going to start the article, so I'll leave it to those who deal with this subject to deal with the photo and info. Btw, I see I already placed it in the 'classic car' article some time ago. Anyway, thanks for pointing this out to me at my talk page. Not many people are that polite. :) DirkvdM 17:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I mean that History of the automobile should be a general overview of the history of the automobile and cannot include too much specific content. I think that a paragraph, photo, and link to yank tank is absolutely warranted in classic car, but it's just too specific here. And we should all be polite, right?  :) --SFoskett 14:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I've run into a series of new articles such as 1980 in motoring, 1981 in motoring, etc. On a glance, they appear to have been lifted out of an automotive magazine somewhere, but since there are no sources on the articles, this is difficult to ascertain. In any case, though the "years in motoring" concept may be appropriate at some point, I think that for now, Wikipedia would be better served by either merging the information in those articles into "History of the automobile", or perhaps deleting them as unsourced. Does anyone else have an opinion, or perhaps want to suggest another option? --Elonka 23:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a number of series of "years in ..." articles, such as music, film, archaeology, etc. I suspect something similar for motoring might be useful. (This is IMO a seperate point from the fact that the current articles could benifit from better organization and sourcing.) Cheers, -- Infrogmation 23:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep them separate. There is a lot of content on the pages, far too much to go into this article. As is mentioned above, "years in " articles are quite common in other areas and I agree can be useful. Malcolma 10:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of further discussion, and as there is now a large series of "Years in motoring" articles. I have removed the "merge" tag. The "Years in motoring" really need some North American input. Malcolma 16:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up / doubled up text

• Somehow it seems much of the text of this article got doubled up.. I've taken the liberty of removing the doubled section and for reference purposes pasted it below instead

--GeeTeeBee 00:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The first known automobile was a steam car, created by Ferdinand Verbiest, a Flemish priest, in 1678 • Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot successfully demonstrated such a vehicle on a real scale as early as 1769 • Cugnot's invention initially saw little application in his native France and the center of innovation passed to Great Britain, where Richard Trevithick was running a steam carriage in 1801 • Such vehicles were fashionable for a time, and over the next decades such innovations as hand brakes, multi-speed transmissions, and improved speed and steering were developed • Some were commercially successful in providing mass transit, until a backlash against these large speedy vehicles resulted in passing a law, the Locomotive Act, in 1865 that self-propelled vehicles on public roads in the United Kingdom must be preceded by a man on foot waving a red flag and blowing a horn • This effectively killed road auto development in the UK for most of the rest of the 19th century, as inventors and engineers shifted their efforts to improvements in railway locomotives • The law was not finally repealed until 1896 although the need for the red flag was removed in 1878 • The first automobile patent in the United States was granted to Oliver Evans in 1789 • Later, in 1804, Evans demonstrated his first successful self-propelled vehicle, which not only was the first automobile in the USA but was also the first amphibious vehicle, as his steam-powered vehicle was able to travel on wheels on land and via a paddle wheel in the water • Belgian born Etienne Lenoir made a car with an internal combustion engine around 1860, though it was driven by coal-gas • His experiment lasted for 7 miles, but it took him 3 hours • He would have been faster on foot. Lenoir never tried experimenting with cars again • The French claim that a Deboutteville-Delamare was successful, and the French celebrated the 100th birthday of the car in 1984 • About 1870, in Vienna, capital of Austria (then, the Austro-Hungarian Empire), inventor Siegfried Marcus put an internal liquid fuel engine on a simple handcart which made him the first man propelling a vehicle by means of gasoline • Today, this car is well known as “The first Marcus Car” • In 1883, Marcus got a patent for a low voltage ignition of the magneto type in Germany • This design was used for all further engines and, of course, the famous “Second Marcus Car” of 1888/89 • This ignition in conjunction with the “rotating brush carburetor” made the “Second Car’s” design very innovative

Cars Are just stupid! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.86.182.2 (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

•

• It is generally acknowledged that the first automobiles with gasoline powered internal combustion engines were completed almost simultaneously by several German inventors working independently: Karl Benz built his first automobile in 1885 in Mannheim • Benz was granted a patent for his automobile on January 29, 1886 and began the first production of automobiles in 1888 • Soon there after, Gottlieb Daimler and Wilhelm Maybach in Stuttgart in 1889 designed a vehicle from scratch to be an automobile rather than a horse carriage fitted with an engine • They also were inventors of the first motor bike in 1886 • Much earlier, above mentioned Siegfried Marcus in Vienna built his crude First Car (engine on handcart) around 1870 • His Second Car with four seats may have run only in 1888-1889, thus after Benz and Marcus never applied for a general patent for his liquid-fuel wheelers, only for his Second's ignition • One of the first four wheel petrol-driven automobiles built in Britain came in Birmingham in 1895 by Frederick William Lanchester who also patented the disc brake • The first production of automobiles was by Karl Benz in 1888 in Germany and under licence to Benz, in France by Emile Roger • By 1900 mass production of automobiles had begun in France and the United States • The first company to form exclusively to build automobiles was Panhard et Levassor in France • Formed in 1889, they were quickly followed by Peugeot two years later • In the United States, brothers Charles and Frank Duryea founded the Duryea Motor Wagon Company in 1893, becoming the first American automobile manufacturing company • However, it was Oldsmobile who would dominate this era of automobile production. Its large scale production line was running in 1902 • Within a year, Cadillac (formed from the Henry Ford Company), Winton, and Ford were producing cars in the thousands • Within a few years, dizzying assortments of technologies were being produced by hundreds of producers all over the Western world • Steam, electricity, and gasoline-powered autos competed for decades, with gasoline internal combustion engines achieving dominance in the 1910s • Dual- and even quad-engine cars were designed, and engine displacement ranged to more than a dozen liters • Many modern advances, including gas/electric hybrids, multi-valve engines, overhead camshafts, and four-wheel drive, were attempted and discarded at this time • Innovation was rapid and rampant, with no clear standards for basic vehicle architectures, body styles, construction materials, or controls • Many veteran cars use a tiller rather than a wheel for steering, for example, and most operated at a single speed • Chain drive was dominant over the modern driveshaft, and closed bodies were extremely rare • On November 5, 1895, George B. Selden was granted a United States patent for a two-stroke automobile engine (U.S. Patent 549160 ) • This patent did more to hinder than encourage development of autos in the USA • Selden licensed his patent to most major American auto makers, collecting a fee on every car they produced • Throughout the veteran car era, however, automobiles were seen as more of a novelty than a genuinely useful device • Breakdowns were frequent, fuel was difficult to obtain, and rapid innovation meant that a year-old car was nearly worthless • • • • • Major breakthroughs in proving the usefulness of the automobile came with the historic long-distance drive of Bertha Benz in 1888 when she traveled more than fifty miles (106 km) from Mannheim to Pforzheim to make people aware of the potential of the vehicles her husband, Karl Benz, manufactured, and after Horatio Nelson Jackson's successful trans-continental drive across the United States in 1903 • Named for the widespread use of brass in the United States, the Brass or Edwardian era lasted from roughly 1905 through to the beginning of World War I in 1914 • 1905 was a signal year in the development of the automobile, marking the point when the majority of sales shifted from the hobbyist and enthusiast to the average user • Within the decade and a half that make up the Brass or Edwardian era, the various experimental designs and alternate power systems would be marginalized • • • Although the modern touring car had been invented earlier, it was not until Panhard et Levassor's Système Panhard was widely licensed and adopted that recognizable and standardized automobiles were created • This system specified front-engined, rear-wheel drive internal combustion cars with a sliding gear transmission • Traditional coach-style vehicles were rapidly abandoned, and buckboard runabouts lost favor with the introduction of tonneaus and other less-expensive touring bodies • Throughout this era, development of automotive technology was rapid, due in part to a huge number (hundreds) of small manufacturers all competing to gain the world's attention • Key developments included electric ignition (by Robert Bosch, 1903) and the electric self-starter (by Charles Kettering, for the Cadillac Motor Company in 1910-1911), independent suspension, and four-wheel brakes • Leaf springs were widely used for suspension, though many other systems were still in use, with angle steel taking over from armored wood as the frame material of choice • Transmissions and throttle controls were widely adopted, allowing a variety of cruising speeds, though vehicles generally still had discrete speed settings rather than the infinitely variable system familiar in cars of later eras

•

Someone put vaginal era up and i assume it was suppoused to be veteran era... i changed it but if i was wrong and it was suppoused to be vaginal era i apologize

No mention of the social costs of the automobile

I'd like to see a graph of the number of deaths and injuries per year due to automobiles and other self-propelled vehicles operated by amateurs.

Nota bene?

It engineer Enrico Bernardi (1841-1919, Prof at U of Padua) allegedly in 1884 built the first petrol car, a 122cc motor in a kid's trike; 1882 patented the same 122cc 0.024hp 1cyl engine, used to power a sewing machine; 1892, designed a larger 2seat 3whlr, built by Miari e Gusti, Padua 1896-9. Cf G.N. Georgano (hmmm....), Cars: Early and Vintage, 1886-1930. (London: Grange-Universal, 1985). Trekphiler 03:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

gender of automobiles car vs bike

What would you say is the gender of a vehicle? Would a car be feminine and a bike masculine? there is no need to be politically correct on this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.82.158 (talk) 05:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Autogeography

I'd like to see something about the influence of geography/nationality on automotive development. It's usually agreed Britain's loony Red Flag Act inhibited cars there, while France, with the best roads, had an attitude of acceptance & produced the best early cars, & the best racers/race circuits. (Why'd the French accept so EZly, BTW?) Also, what influenced German, Italian, & U.S. industries? (I'd guess in U.S., lack of skilled people had something to do with the adoption of assemby lines.) Comment? Trekphiler (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Exemplary" examples

The exemplars listed in the post-war and modern era sections are awful--far to U.S.-centric and, well, just plain off. A 1994 Olds 88 is exemplary? Really? Where are examples from these great marques: Aston Martin, Porsche, Mercedes-Benz, Ferrari, Citroën, Renault...to name just a few. I can nominate a car from each of those right now:

Post-War:

Aston Martin DB-5 Porsche 356 Mercedes-Benz 280SL (the "Pagoda") Ferrari Barchetta 212/225 Citroën 2CV Renault 4

Modern:

Aston Martin DB-9, DBS, Vanquish Porsche 911 (in all it's various guises and trims) Mercedes-Benz S-Class Ferrari Enzo Citroën SM Renault Clio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.110.6 (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC) \

The list is a joke. Req citations in future. S-class not on it?? WTF?-72.93.80.253 (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

how can an examplar of an era normally defined as being the last 25 years, be over 40 years old?! (The car also has arguably peculiar styling and an almost peculiar source of power.) I'll take it out later if no one disagrees.Mark Wheaver (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ivan the Terrible?

Since deleting him appears to have annoyed Russian partisans, let me reiterate: aside my own personal belief Russian sources rate somewhere around the Enquirer for reliablity, websites (no matter their proliferating number) aren't considered reliable sources. And 3RR or not, I'd rather not have to keep reverting; it's beginning to bore me. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 12:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Your personal opinion doesnt interest anybody and it's also not a guidline for Wikipedia. All the sources are reliable, and down here i talked about them. I'm to bored to revert, but i will revert you till you stop this foolish war. Write Кулибин Автомобиль in google and find the sources you like. Some of my sources are encyclopidic and offical academic works. Get a life.

You clame the sources are not reliable? Lets go thru them.

I see you try to make a point

You clame the sources are not reliable? Lets go thru them.

I see you try to make a point That wont work. Ive got enought not to get mad and simply to keep on reverting you.

The sources you claim are not reliable:

[1] A big site, English.

[2] One of the main sites in Russia about cars.

[3] A sientific work. Here is the sources page of the work.

[4] Encylopedia for youngsters. Offical, academic, and simply written so you could understand.

[5] Again a big Russian auto fan website.

[6] From the big Soviet encyclopedia. Not reliable ah? Cmmon, dont be shy, tell us your bias.

[7] An academic work, here are his sources.

[8] from the automag journal.

After so many sources, some are academical, you reverting seems more like a bias or you wanting to make a point.

Don't tell me how academic they are, 'cause I don't care. As websites: they're prima facie not reliable, per guideline. Furthermore, they're in Russian, so they fail the verifiability guideline, which demands sources in English (& the one in English fails on the first point). Put up just one paper source in English, I'll happily leave Kulibin (& all the website refs) in. And next time you tell me to "get a life", or revert without reliable sources, I'll see an admin about getting you blocked for personal attacks, or vandalism, or both. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 02:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Uuu, scary. Touched a gentle spot? Once you were brought two academic works, and two encyclopedias, you have no arguments left. Just because you were so nice while arguing here, here. A rource in English, and an academic, from the technical institute of Nijhny Novgorod. P.S. Once i already ran into the case of only Russian sources an an administrator there decided that it's OK to have Russian sources as long as they are relibale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.170.147 (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing automatically unreliable about web sources, nor is there anything wrong with foreign language sources- there are plenty of featured articles based on both. English language sources are preferred, but there is no reason that reliable printed sources are preferred to reliable websites. The second English link certainly seems to be reliable, along with the academic Russian sources. The Soviet encyclopedia probably isn't the best of sources- the Soviets weren't known for their accurate portrayal of history. Anyways, if you're looking for printed English sources, there are plenty of ways to find them- try Google Books or Google Scholar. Perhaps it would be worth contacting someone who speaks Russian to help judge the reliability of the Russian language sources? Furthermore, Trekphiler, regarding your concerns about personal attacks- there has been nothing said that is worthy of a sanction. You seem to be rather quick to revert and very unfriendly here, and the moaning about perceived personal attacks is just coming across as an attempt to force 79.182 into submission- this is currently just a content dispute, there is no way that an admin is going to step in and start blocking. You would do well to be a little more welcoming; the way to solve this dispute is through discussion here, rather than revert warring. What do you believe is wrong with the sources provided? J Milburn (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Beyond the notorious unreliability of Russian sources generally (when they start claiming the invention of baseball, I distrust everything from a Russian source), I've seen numerous rejections of website sources, & foreign language sources, on the basis of a claimed guideline. I do no more, & I don't appreciate sniping from an IP editor & claims I've got some hidden agenda. I could care if this lot stays in or not. I thought the idea was reliable & verifiable. My mistake. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 10:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And calling good faith edits vandalism isn't sniping? I admit the Soviets weren't known for producing reliable works, but claiming that all Russian sources are unreliable is dangerously close to racism. Anyway, let's be fair, it's not like the Americans don't claim inventions that aren't their own, and a lot of articles are based on American sources... The rejection of web/foreign sources that you have seen are not directly based on any guideline I know of- certainly not verifiability or reliable sources. J Milburn (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Lifting proposed merge tag

Since there seems to have been no justification or other discussion since the proposed merge tag was placed in July 2008, I've lifted it. I see there is an additional proposal (possibly a more rational one) to merge Automotive market with Automotive industry. But it seems to me quite obvious that the content of History of the automobile needs to be kept as a separate article. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Time to upgrade headings?

I suggest we get together and review at least the headings in this article. In the Top section, we have uncritically accepted the statement "scholarship has defined them (the different eras of invention) as follows". What scholarship? Where's the citation, for God's sake?! And why has no-one followed the recommendations in the peer review to make the article more relevant and comprehensive, to look at the history from society's viewpoint as well as that of the car enthusiast?

My specific concerns are: (1) I see our Steam Era material as more pertinent to locomotives and traction engines than automobiles per se. It also mixes up content on various non-steam vehicles (including petrol and electric). The real steam cars (Stanley, etc) are not mentioned. (2) Like someone else above, I question the distinction between "brass era" and "veteran". There is no citation or valid reason, surely, for this distinction. (3) I fully accept the conventional wisdom that pre-1918 is Veteran and 1919-1939 is Vintage (bearing in mind that some are 'classics' and many are not). (4) It follows that our "Pre-WWII era" overlaps Vintage. (Maybe we should clarify this. Eg, is a pre-war VW a vintage car?) It also starts off with a reference to the "Classic era", which is not to be found elsewhere in our list. (5) We then move to the "Post-war era" which has a link to Antique car. Not very well defined, again no citations for the crude terminology. I understand 'antique' to mean something at least 100 years old. At the very least, we should say "Post-WWII era", eh? (6) The "Modern era" is "normally defined as the 25 years preceding the current year" --so not very helpful to a timeless encyclopedia, eh?! And our "exemplary modern cars" are all pre-1987--22 years ago at latest!

As a discussion starter, I propose that we drop the term "era" altogether, make it clear how we define "automobile" and adopt the headings:

(i) "Horseless carriages" (1875-1905) with subheadings for Steam-powered vehicles, Electric vehicles, etc. A typical vehicle in this category is pictured here. We will link to but not attempt to duplicate, eg, History of steam road vehicles.

(ii) Early production vehicles (1888 to 1907) (with subheads for Electric, Steam, Gasoline)

(iii) Mass-production vehicles of 1908 to 1918 (with subheads for Steam and Gasoline)

(iv) Vintage cars of 1918-1929 (with subheads for Gasoline and Steam, and maybe Classics)

(v) Vintage cars of 1930-1939 (with subheads for Gasoline and Diesel, and maybe Classics)

(vi) The Post-war period (1945-1957)

(vii) Impact of global competition (1958-74)

(viii) Safety and economy - the 1970s

(ix) The world car - the 1980s and 1990s

(x) Survivors of a century's growth (Recalling that thousands of car-makers were reduced to a few)

(xi) Alternative power sources (leading in to hybrids, electrics, hydrogen, etc)

I hope at least some editors will agree with me that the current article is a mess, and not very informative from the viewpoint of a general reader. Can we do something about it, please? Cheers Bjenks (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

A comment regarding the relationship between this article and History of steam road vehicles ('HoSRV').

The purpose of HoSRV was to provide a page for the common history shared by many of the early forms of road vehicle, primarilly those powered by steam. It was created from the history section of the steam car article, which in turn obtained it from vehicle. The related section in History of the automobile has been edited in parallel for some time now. Some of the text is likely to be duplicated, but there is probably much that is not.

At the very least, in your revised article, your first section (section '0', not listed!) must include an appropriate summary of the HoSRV article, particluarly relating to automobiles, although you will have 'fun' determining which vehicles are relevant! However, it should be noted that the HoSRV does relate to the history of automobiles generally, so you may need to widen the scope of your summary beyond 'just' automobiles.

In due course I will try to resolve any issues that arise through your reconstruction, but I do not have the knowledge or references to handle later sections.

On a more general note: if the current headings have been 'made up' for Wikipedia, then I see no reason why they should not be changed to something more appropriate.

EdJogg (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The Steam section certainly is a mess. Only the first two paras are actually about steam and then it is off onto Internal Combustion engines. These paras seem to have been taken over by all and sundry trying to get a mention for their particular hero with little thought for the actual significance.

Some comments on your proposed namings. First sometimes you propose vehicles and other times cars. Vehicles is too all embracing and we need to stick with cars or automobiles.

More specifically:

(iii)Mass-production vehicles of 1908 to 1918 should be "Cars of 1908 to 1918". Most cars of this period cannot be described as mass produced as for every Ford there was a plethora of companies producing handfuls.

(iv) and (v) The word Vintage should be dropped as it has a specific meaning in some countries. In the UK, by convention, only cars earlier than 1931 should really be called vintage.

Definitely avoid the terms Classic - very ill defined - and Antique. Malcolma (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The "steam paragraphs" are certainly a mess. A recurring problem is that the available information is sparse, and in many cases there is little proof that certain vehicles even existed, let alone ran under their own power; yet still people add more -- that Russian 'steam bike' is a case in point (we have no English language refs to describe it sufficiently to establish its claims.

I am working on these, but am frequently side-tracked.

EdJogg (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The French likely invented the automobile

Nicholas Cugnot may well have invented cars capable of carrying people back in 1771. This was before the Oruktor Amphibolos and other American devices, and while his vehicle apparently didn't run very well, it apparently ran, and this was deemed worthy enough of preservation in some museum. Thus, Barack Obama's apparent suggestion that the USA came up with cars is likely incorrect. But not necessarily because of Karl Benz and Germany, as many in the media seem to have suggested. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are considering Cugnot's vehicle (which wasn't really an 'automobile', although it was self-propoelled and could carry passengers) then there are many vehicles which were made prior to Benz's, but the Benz was the first one produced in numbers. Cugnot's was the first for which there are reliable reports that it was both built (in little doubt as there is one preserved in France) and actually worked. EdJogg (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Obama's throw-away message was, of course, a matter of politics rather than historical fact. Imho, there is, however, a good case for the idea that American ingenuity, enterprise and hard work did much, if not most, to bring cars to the common masses at a reasonable price. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

...and thereby are most responsible for the damage caused to the environment by excessive car ownership and use ( :o) )
EdJogg (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Just like the French, trying to steal English & German inventions. Its pathetic that half the page on "French inventions" are filled with inventions that were actually invented by the English or Germans lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:CA0:3449:D196:1722:CDF7 (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Translate from Macedonian?

Until yesterday, this talk page had a request for a translation from the Macedonian version, which has achieved 'Featured' status. The request was removed yesterday, as "our article is as good or better".

Just wanted to re-inforce this. If you examine the first version of the Macedonian article, you will find that it is written in English! I suspect their version originally came from here...

EdJogg (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama comment

I removed the below from the artice:

United States President Barack Obama appeared to be unaware of the relevant history when he presented an address to a Joint Session of the Congress on 24 February 2009. In his address he stated:

"...I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from [its auto industry]."

Random uninformed comments by famous people (and even random informed comments by famous people) are not needed in the article unless they particulary contribute to understanding of the article's subject. I don't really see how that Mr. Obama's statement contributes to a general understanding of of the history of the automobile. See also Wikipedia:Recentism. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Bravo! Obama clearly has nothing to contribute to the subject. Nor can we accept a 'trivia' section in this article--it could quickly overwhelm the factual content, which is itself currently under review for an overdue revamp. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sensible move. I didn't add the comment, but I did convert it from inline text to a footnote. It clearly didn't belong in the early history section, but I was expecting rather more attention to be paid to it than was the case. Now a month has passed and I suspect we won't hear of it again. I have no complaint about its removal.

EdJogg (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Prevalence of V6s

Hi EdJogg, I just wanted to chime in that V6s are very common in the U.S. (I don't know about elsewhere), so that's probably where the idea of their prevalence had come from. However, I didn't re-add it, because I don't know how the adoption of V6s would be considered an "advancement" so much as just a change from what came before. Cheers, — ¾-10 00:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I suspected that the comment related to the US and, does it perhaps reflect a reduction in engine size?

In the UK (and presumably Europe generally) V6 engines are mainly seen on the high-performance variants of small- to medium-sized cars, particularly 'hot hatches' (hatchbacks) favoured by 'boy racers'. (Sorry, I know this is non-US terminology, please use WP for anything unfamiliar!) The vast majority of vehicles have four-cylinder engines. My perception is that the availability and proportion of diesel-powered engines (relative to petrol/gasoline) has increased significantly during the time that I have been driving (which is longer than I care to remember!) Of course, this is unreferenced, but then so was what was replaced...

EdJogg (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No, we have boy racers & cafe racers here, too. ;D (Of course, being Canadian, I speak both Brit & American fluently. ;p) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Electric vehicles

The section on early electric vehicles isn't really a summary of History of the electric vehicle, which is kind of implied by using it as a 'main' link. (Noticed in passing.) -- EdJogg (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Why reversion was wrong

I'm reluctant to challenge another editor on matters of trivial opinion about English language usage (in which I am an experienced professional) but I've just had a copy-editing job totally reverted when there were good reasons for all of my quite minor changes. So, here goes, chapter and verse:

• "The next year, Dutch designer Jacobus Spijker built the first four-wheel drive racing car,[ref] which never competed and. . ." reverted to The next year, Dutch designer Jacobus Spijker built the first four-wheel drive racing car;[ref] it never competed, and. . ."

COMMENT: The use of a comma before 'and' and rejection of a relative pronoun in favour of a semi-colon to introduce a relative clause is definitely NOT "better than before".

• "(a tradition that continues) while, in 1896, William Jennings Bryan would be the first presidential candidate. . ." reverted to "(a tradition that continues), while in 1896, William Jennings Bryan would be the first Presidential candidate. . ."

COMMENT: The reverting editor is simply uninformed about how parenthetical commas work, plus the fact that 'president' is a common noun when not part of a specific title.

• "The Studebaker brothers, having become the world's leading manufacturers of horse-drawn vehicles, made a transition to electric automobiles in 1902, and gasoline engines in 1904, but also continued to build horse-drawn vehicles until 1919." reverted to "The Studebaker brothers, having become the world's leading manufacturers of horse-drawn vehicles, made a transition to electric automobiles in 1902, and gasoline engines in 1904, but they continued to build horse-drawn vehicles until 1919."

COMMENT: A marginal difference, this one, but (perceiving a potential ambiguity) I wanted to make it quite clear that Studebaker made both cars and horse-drawn wagons until 1919. What's the harm in that?

• "[Bertha Benz] travelled more than 80 kilometres (50 mi) from Mannheim to Pforzheim". . . reverted to "[Bertha Benz] traveled more than 80 kilometres (50 mi) from Mannheim to Pforzheim"

COMMENT: This is an article in which UK English spellings (including 'travelled') are consistently used. It is plainly incorrect to revert such a change without checking to see what spellings are used elsewhere in the article. (The same principle would, of course, apply in reverse where an article consistently has US spellings.)

• The newly formatted quasi-subhead "Some examples of cars of the period included:" reverted to "Some examples of cars of the period included the following:"

COMMENT: While 'the following' is useful in a standard sentence construction, it is superfluous when appearing at the head of an obvious list. It is both parsimonious and more encyclopedic to omit it in this instance.

I submit that none of the reversions were to language "better than before" as the editor's summary proclaimed. As one who expends a great deal of time and care on the task of proofreading Wikipedia, I find it demoralising to have accurate work reverted in such a cavalier fashion. Anyway, I have reverted it back for the above reasons. I respectfully urge editors to avoid pushing personal language idiosyncrasies which may not be helpful to a global audience. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I may have been too hasty... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Starter engine

Nowhere it is mentioned that: In 1914, starter engines appeared commonly, and were powered by car batteries. Car batteries first appeared in 1905 for automobile lightning, but weren't used until now for starting the main internal combustion engine via a (electrical) starter engine. 91.182.144.189 (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(Ignore the Obama ref--I can't make it go away! --BJ)

Hi. I plugged in the code for the citation you supplied. Unfortunately it seems to give no access info, and is in German which I can't read anyway. The idea is worthy of progression with English-language refs which must be available. The article already has a cited statement "the first electric starter was installed on an Arnold, an adaptation of the Benz Velo, built between 1895 and 1898" which leaves us up in the air. The article on starter motor gives more help but is still lacking in terms of the point you raise about battery operation (which Cadillac made a regular thing in 1912). So I agree it would be good if someone could do more work on it. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)