Indoor cycling as acrobatic cycling

It appears that there is a form of acrobatic cycling called indoor cycling that this page does not consider: see http://www.hk-icycling.net/

Gary 04:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand what Gary was saying until I saw a page on UCI on Indoor Cycling. I think in the light of this The title of the page need to move change to "Indoor Group Cycling". Anyone else have any thoughts?

HH 22:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The present content seems a bit strange, because the definition is different from that UCI means by "indoor cycling". There's an article of "indoor cycling", on the other hand, on German Wikipedia; Hallenradsport. The German article describes sports like Artistic cycling and Cycle ball as indoor cycling. --HannaLi 19:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like many subjects on wikipedia this article is totally American-centric. If Wikipedia (English) is a global English language encyclopedia then the term "indoor cycling" should be defined as it is by the Union Cycliste Internationale, the world governing body of cycling who oversees all cycling competition including America. Indoor cycling is an umbrella term for the two sports of cycle ball and artistic cycling, sports which have a huge following in some parts of the world. The whole article sounds a bit like an advert almost as if it was written by "Johnny G" himself. Cycling competition on stationary bicycles is not a concept originating in the 80's.....an almost identical concept has existed for about a century and was massively popular in the UK, europe and even the states and is still practised today..."Roller-Racing" is in principal an identical concept, only the stationary bicycle is different. I propose that this article cover the term globally understood as indoor cycling and that the existing text should be in an article titled "spin cycling" or "gym machines".

Make a new article for that- but i did remove the entire Johnny G section, no citations. Maxasher (talk) 08:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article should include a full definition by international standards. However, since artistic cycling and cycle ball both already have individual pages, perhaps you could simply rewrite the intro to include that and point people to the appropriate pages. I also agree that surely people have been riding stationery bikes long before Mr. Johnny G popularized his Spinning(tm) programs. However, for many people (I think...), spinning has become a genericized trademark for indoor stationary cycling. I think there should be a spinning (cycling) page that redirects here, and that this page should be cleaned up to de-emphasize but still mention Johnny G's Spinning(tm).64.178.41.22 (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"the knee is slightly bent at an angle between 25% and 35%"... since when are angles measured as percentages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.58.122.186 (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indoor Cycling

I think there needs to be a separate article on "Spinning," the original (and licensed) "aerobic class" using a specialized type of bicycle with a weighted fly wheel and adjustable resistance. That article could contain subordinate information about "knockoffs" of Spinning by other companies. A disambiguation page should separate Spinning (TM) from spinning the performance technique. I agree that "indoor cycling" is confusing as the top-level entry, as cyclists have trained indoors for years -- long before the current fitness class was invented or made popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.150.73 (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a cyclist for over 3 decades and have used indoor cycling as a way of continuing my off-season training and maintenance. The Indoor Cycling description is relatively complete but it leaves out quite a bit of information. I tried to post a comment and a link, but it was removed. Unfortunate!

I have been involved with the LeMond Academy since its inception back in 2000 as one of the top regional Indoor Cycling Centers in the United States. My name is Reza Karamooz and I would be happy to answer any questions you might have in regards to Indoor Cycling dos and don'ts.

Fair use rationale for Image:WSSC07 07 MI team.jpg

Image:WSSC07 07 MI team.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article probably describes specific Johnny G. SPINNING PROGRAM

There is a slight problem with using the word "spinning" to describe exclusively SPINNING PROGRAM by Johnny G. There is really lot of material out there proving that the word "spin"/"spinning" was coined with cycling long time before Johnny G. was even born. This is an article from cycling magazine Rambler from 1897 (some 90 years before Johnny found out that "spinning" means really "spinning" :-) that describes one of the first indoor spins...

Simply there are several problems

Mad Dog Athletics, inc. tries to usurp the word "spinning" for itself by trademarking it (currently TM is cancellation pending due to lawsuit with Aerospinning company)
Indoor Cycling is not defined well
Spinning is also undefined and people use it to describe virtually anything that happens usually indoor on any machine resembling the bicycle
Current article really describes SPINNING PROGRAM by Johnny G (all those rules and positions indicate it) and does not reflect historical usage before Johnny G. and also evolution of spinning as strict outdoor bicycle simulation into more aerobic-style exercising (that pretty much breaks lot of rules imposed on it by hard-core cyclists - for example [1])

So nowadays the term "indoor cycling" is really identical to "spinning" covering wide range of cycling activities ranging from classical SPINNING PROGRAM by Johnny G to aquaspinning or aerospinning.

All those exercise descriptions that are in fact not common to all indoor cycling/spinning exercises but rather specific to indoor bicycle simulation and/or SPINNING PROGRAM by Johnny G should be removed.

--Jan Filein (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jan, do you have a citation for the Spinning trademark pending cancellation? It appears that it's the Aerospinning mark that's pending cancellation: source Serdagger (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Serdagger: SPINNING Registration cancellation pending In addition to it Czech Trademark Office this month newly issued cancellation of registration of SPINNING trademark for Czech Republic[2] - that is really fresh news (btw note that it had been in state of "published document" for whole 11 years - record for any TM - with Czech Trademark Office hesitating to accept it as valid trademark the hole time). And that is huge because voiding TM in one EU member state... --Jan Filein (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am allowed to use his real name here without breaking Wikipedia's "outing" rules since he has already used it himself and has outed himself. I’ve removed the references to “spinning” from this indoor cycling page since they violate Wikipedia’s neutrality rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view) and conflict of interest rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest). “All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view... This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.” Jan, the editor who has added every “spinning” reference he can find and explicitly edited this page to call Spinning “generic”, is connected to Aerospinning, the company that is currently enmeshed in litigation with Mad Dogg in the Czech Republic over whether or not Spinning is generic. We should not be taking sides in their lawsuit over whether or not Spinning is generic. Jan has made a whole host of inappropriate edits to this page (including adding photos of cats cycling outdoors only because it uses the word “spin” in the photo) that have absolutely nothing to do with indoor cycling and whose only purpose is to help him win Aerospinning’s court battle.

If you Google Jan's name, you’ll find lots of instances all over the web of him promoting the Aerospinning brand. Example: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101227/17284312425/spinning-trademarked-gyms-being-threatened-holding-spinning-classes-sans-license.shtml. He even argued with people at the Indoor Cycling Association in an article they wrote talking about the importance of the Spinning brand and why no indoor cyclist should call their sport “spinning” since it’s a trademarked term. Source: http://www.indoorcyclingassociation.com/blog/is-the-spinning-brand-important/

It should also be noted that Aerospinning is owned by GoFitness (we know this from Jan’s post that I linked above where he asks people to “like” GoFitness’ Facebook page since it owns Aerospinning). Here, at the GoFitness website (http://www.gofitness.cz/skoleni), we see that someone named “Magda Krautova” is the company’s contact. Turns out, Mr. Filein is a friend of Magda’s on Facebook. Source, a screenshot I took on Facebook: http://i.imgur.com/M5kDYnp.jpg. So, Mr. Filein is friends with the head of Aerospinning and advocating everywhere on the internet in favor of the company that is knee deep in a lawsuit over whether Spinning is generic. He could some kind of legal representative Aerospinning, or perhaps even someone they hired to do PR. At the very least, his edits have clearly been made with a conflict of interest and are not directed to creating a neutral page about indoor cycling, but are instead more interested in advocating for his Aerospinning company’s current trademark litigation battle than creating a neutral article about indoor cycling.

Furthermore, the claim above that the Czech Trademark Office has canceled the Spinning trademark is false. The phrase “pending cancellation” means only that there is an ongoing lawsuit between Aerospinning and Mad Dogg in which Aerospinning has challenged Mad Dogg’s registered Community Trademark for Spinning® in response to Mad Dogg’s demands that Aerospinning cease using the term “Spinning” in the Aerospinning mark. The proceeding is ongoing and the Czech Trademark Office has not ruled in Aerospinning’s favor or cancelled the Spinning trademark. The fact that Aerospinning has filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the Spinning mark to attempt to defend against Mad Dogg’s challenge to the “Aerospinning” mark (and has not prevailed) does not meet Wikipedia’s standards for establishing that a term is generic.

In fact, what I did find was that Mad Dogg recently had a significant victory last year when a European appellate court ruled that the Spinning trademark was not generic. Source: http://maddogg.com/images/court_ruling.pdf (“[T]he Office finds that nothing in the documentation material submitted in this matter shows that the proprietor uses SPINNING as a generic term.” and “Thus it clearly appears that it is a trademark, and that there is a right to use the trademark.”).

Jan also added several images to this page that have nothing to do with indoor cycling, and serve no purpose other than to attempt to support Aerospinning’s “generic” argument against Spinning. The image with the two cats cycling outdoors, for example, has literally nothing to do with “indoor” cycling and is clearly only uploaded because of its reference to the word “spin”. He also titled the rest of the images as “spin” or “spinning” in a transparent attempt to aid his company’s generic cancellation lawsuit in the Czech Republic. All of those images should be removed. It is not the place of Wikipedia to be used as a company’s shill to win intellectual property lawsuits.

This page must remain neutral. If this page weren’t neutral, we would quote Mad Dogg’s figures about how there are over 200,000 licensed Spinning instructors that pay Mad Dogg to use the Spinning trademark in over 40,000 gyms, that Mad Dogg has valid registered Spinning trademarks in over 80 countries, and that it recently won a victory in Europe that Spinning is not generic. Source: http://www.maddogg.com/about.html. But Wikipedia is not the appropriate space to engage in a debate over whether Spinning is generic. This page should not discuss Johhny G., Spinning, or take any sides related to the lawsuit or genericism. This page is supposed to be about indoor cycling and is not the appropriate forum for Jan Filein or anyone else to spearhead their crusade for or against the alleged genericism of Spinning. I’ve edited the page accordingly. Jan Filein should no longer be allowed to edit this page, and all unnecessary references to Spinning have been removed. Theready199 (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I am connected to GoFitness - I am a paying client there for few years now. I am not hiding it and I also happened to know Aerospinning from GoFitness centre. But I don't get how does it imply that I am having conflict of interest. If it is so then anybody who ever visited SPINNING(tm) class (including me) or happen to befriend any SPINNING CERTIFIED INSTRUCTOR on FB is in conflict of interest? This does not make sense. Would you take me for much bigger authority on indoor spinning-related article if I have never been to a single SPINNING(tm)/Aerospinning(tm)/indoor cycling class? Come on! I can talk about this because I am so familiar with the topic both theoretically and practically.

I really think that "spinning" is a generic term. I do. Sure that my stance is clear to everybody here and I don't hide it so one can find similar statements in my discussions elsewhere on Internet. There was not any need to google it. It would be more suspicious if you didn't find any other reference to what I really think. So why to make it sound like it is so weird that I am having consistent arguments whenever I discuss the topic? That is my knowledge on the topic and I believe that it has the place on wikipedia as long as it is a noteworthy and provable and ... but speculating that I am hired PR guy, or legal representative or the other things you wrote... wow, that is a bunch of lies which is clearly not to the benefit of Wikipedia article. Why would you try to attack me personally for my views? --Jan Filein (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revert Explanation (revision #592705061, 23:32, 27 January 2014 by Jan Filein)

First of all - there are two redirects leading to Indoor cycling:

Spinning (exercise)
Spinning (cycling)
Indoor cycling is referenced directly from Spinning/Spin disambiguation page

which made me believe that "Indoor cycling" article in fact represents also the aforementioned terms. I have assumed in a good faith that any valuable historical facts related to for example "Spinning (cycling)" may be considered as valuable addition to this article.

But this was the only motivation why I added image of "Out For A Spin" postcard from 1880 depicting two cats cycling on bicycles because I though it fits the "Spinning (cycling)" term perfectly! I really love those historical postcards and I think it is really related to the topic as it is one of the oldest uses of word "spinning" in connection to relatively new (from historical point of view) "cycling" sport that I know about (thus perfectly fitting he Spinning (cycling) redirect). I personally don't understand why Theready199 ridiculous this beautiful 130+ years old postcard. Was my decision to put it here clouded by my passion? I don't know - I leave it for others to judge and reasonably explain why that decision was wrong. I just explained why I think it was the right decision.

But what I really do not understand is why so nice and certainly hard-to-discover historical jewels like The Rambler article "The Cycle In The House" or extremely rare pictures like 1924 fitness centre with one of the first real "modern" stationary bicycles or indoor cycling race from 1901 and others were removed when they indisputably fits all three terms: Indoor cycling, Spinning (exercise) and Spinning (cycling). It hurts my feelings as a historian and makes me believe that whoever removed this relevant historical facts may not have the cleanest intentions. Why, why would somebody try to hide such as beautiful pieces surely worth of preservation? Don't you find them fascinating, worthy, valuable...? I do! I simply cannot ignore historic facts and cave to some company representative above ordering me not to discuss "spinning" on this page when I have such as rare pieces of our history at my hands. More then hundred years old pieces that unfortunately bare the word "spinning" which some people believe makes them banned from public knowledge because of some new business interests. That I cannot understand, history cannot be bent or twisted or erased. Not today, not that easily. I cannot accept it as a historian - that is why I have to be persistent. Twisting history never yielded anything good. That is my duty to make history known so people may learn.

I hoped I can contribute with my little bit on Wikipedia with something I intimately know about. But I seem to run in a territory I don't fully understand. And I didn't fully open my trove of history facts about spinning yet... And it is already so hard.

I am sure that somebody will be very persistent to hide those beautiful pieces of history from the public so I put them here in discussion page for others to see and hopefully understand my motivations. Aside all that business/trademark/whatever thinking... let enjoy the beauty of our own history for a moment:

"The Cycle In The House", 1897
Spin home trainer, ca 1924

Spin home trainer, ca 1924
Spinning on roller
Stationary bicycle trainer
Spinning driving wheel
"Out for a spin", ca 1880, orig. spin(ning) is a synonym of ride

--Jan Filein (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trademark SPINNING revoked by OHIM

On 21 Jul 2014, OHIM’s Cancellation Division issued its decision on an application by Czech company Aerospinning Master Franchising Ltd., s.r.o. to revoke a community trade mark "SPINNING": The CTM proprietor's rights in respect of Community trademark No 175 117^[1] are revoked in their entirety as from 07/02/2012.^[2]

The reason stated in the ruling is: loss of distinctive character in consequence of proprietor's inactivity.

No doubts now that the word spinning as it pertains to indoor cycling is generic word. At least in European Union for now.

--Filein 18:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with many of the posters that this article seems to blur the lines between the MadDog trademarked program spinning and all other indoor cycling programs. At some points the author uses the term spinning, and others he uses indoor cycling. In my 20 years of teaching indoor cycling, I've found that there is a big difference between the 2 types of classes. Extremely high cadence, jumps and isolations are hallmarks of spin classes. Spin classes that use rudimentary power meters with weighted flywheels exaggerate the amount of watts produced, and therefore the amount of calories burned. This is not meant to be critical of spin classes, or indoor cycling classes as a form of aerobic exercise. But failing to separate spin classes and indoor cycling classes into separate categories makes it impossible to accept the accuracy of this page. Blamie1957 (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Beth Lamie, Owner - The Wheelhouse Cycling Studio & Pegasus Elite Athlete Management[reply]

Are you referring to "spin classes" (as a generic term) or did you mean to type MadDog's "SPINNING classes"? If you use "spin class" instead of SPINNING class then you add more confusion (see MDA's guideline on trademark use) as you for sure know after 20 years of teaching indoor cycling. Elixon (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Article is made from spinning.com sources, like a rewording of advertising fliers

Article is made from spinning.com sources, like a rewording of advertising fliers. Article has long sections with no citations, and it's obvious that the information refers to very specific group indoor cycling operations. This article is a real mess. I'm surprised to see it left so unencyclopedic and not directed at a generic meaning of indoor cycling. --Chuck Baggett (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://oami.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/000175117

[2] "OHIM's decission on SPINNING trademark revocation". OHIM.

[1]

[2]