Talk:Messerschmitt Kabinenroller

Merge proposal: Messerschmitt KR175, Messerschmitt KR200, and FMR Tg500 into Messerschmitt Kabinenroller

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was No merge.

I propose that this article be changed from a disambiguation page into an article on the Messerschmitt Kabinenroller platform and the three microcars based on the platform. To this end, I propose that the existing articles on the three cars, Messerschmitt KR175, Messerschmitt KR200, and FMR Tg500, be merged into this article. There is a large amount of redundancy in the three articles that would be reduced as a unified article. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I am not an expert on bubble cars, but these ones appear to be three different cars. True, they all have (probably rattling) engines at the back. And they all have three wheels except for the big ones that have four wheels. And they all have the same manufacturers' name. But unless you want to go down the road of merging all Studebaker models and all Borgward models - maybe also all Chevrolet models and all Packard models into single entries, I don't think that's enough to justify a merger.

The dangers with mergers of this nature in more general terms are that (1) unless they are very carefully done, you lose information and (2) however carefully they are done, you lose coherence simply because there are more pieces of factual information in a single entry, many shooting off in different directions. For the reader that means (3) if you were just wondering about a particular detail of a particular model, you need to be ever more patient and diligent to find it in a >20kb entry with ever more strands. Some readers will be very patient, willing to devote more time than they know what to do with. That's great. They'll persevere and no doubt end up more well-informed than before. But those of us without such formidable and commendable reservoirs of patience and persistence will either lose the will to live or else, at the very least, wander off to grab a coffee and forget why we originally consulted Wikipedia by the time we get back to the PC. Do I overstate the case? Almost certainly. But I hope, nevertheless, you can see where I'm coming from, Sam B. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 07:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they are three different cars, all built on the same frame. They're not exactly built by the same company: the KR175 and the first two years of the KR200 were built for Messerschmitt by Regensburger Stahl- und Metallbau GmbH, while later KR200s were built by Fahrzeug- und Maschinenbau GmbH Regensburg (FMR) with permission to use the Messerschmitt name on the KR200 and minor derivatives. The Tg500, not being a minor derivative, was not allowed to use the Messerschmitt name, and was sold as the FMR Tg500. Studebaker and Packard, and very much Chevrolet, had many different platforms during the years. Borgward had at least two. Messerschmitt and FMR had only the KR tub.

Regarding the care with which the merger would be done, the merging of BMW 315 into BMW 303 may be taken as an example, although that one was more straightforward than this one would be.

However, I take your point that they are three different cars, and that each is probably notable on its own:

the KR175 for starting the series, for its rapid development, and for the fully faired front wheels,
the KR200 for the revised bubble, wider front track (requiring cutouts in the wheel fairing), and the electric starter that could start the engine in either direction, and
the Tg500 for the larger, two-cylinder engine, the larger wheels, the hydraulic brakes, the gearbox with an H-pattern shifter and a reverse gear, and, by no means least, the fourth wheel.

If there is no consensus to merge, or consensus not to merge, an alternative remains: to copy info from the three articles to build an article on the central platform in greater detail.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that as common cars become more like these models to save petroleum and air, their historical importance will become clearer. I therefore favor keeping each model in its own article. The disambiguation page could be changed to a historical overview that mentions the earlier un-powered versions, but these models should have their own pages. David R. Ingham (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two problems with this:

Common cars are becoming less like this so that they can meet safety regulations and have all the bells and whistles that buyers want these days. It takes all sorts of hybrid and stop/start wizardry for a car to get the kind of fuel economy a Geo Metro used to get without it, mainly because of the weight of side impact beams and other stuff mandated since the Metro's days.
The disambiguation page has nothing whatsoever to do with the earlier unpowerrd versions; its current purpose is to direct the reader to one of the two existing Kabinenroller articles, the KR175 article or the KR200 article. The earlier, unpowered versions would probably be documented under Fritz Fend.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Partial support - I would support merging KR175 and KR200, but the Tiger is a) too important in its own right and b] too different from the 175/200. The Tiger is also known for entirely different reasons from the Kabinenrollers, and never even used the Messerchmitt name. The "KR" portion says it all. Remaining separate is palatable to me, but merging the little ones would make a lot of sense. Such an article could contain whatever info there may be on the platform as a whole. I guess this is pretty much what SamBlob is proposing beneath? Mr.choppers | ✎ 15:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for I too am not an expert on bubble cars, but there do appear to be three different cars. True, rear mounted engines, and they all have three wheels except for the bigger ones which have four. They do share the same manufacturers' name, BUT, unless you want to go thru wikipedia and merge all of any/or manufacturers models into single entries, I don't think that's enough to justify a merger.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your argument (which is exactly the same as Charles01's argument) in a subsection below. One point, though: the three cars do not share the manufacturer's name. The FMR Tg500 was developed after Messerschmitt sold the factory and new owners FMR was not allowed to use the Messerschmitt name on it. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Charles01 and Degen Earthfast

Both Charles01 and Degen Earthfast present the opposing argument that these are three different cars, and that grouping them would be like grouping all the Studebakers or all the Borgwards.

In reply, I ask this question: Where is the notability of the topic? Are the three cars notable individually or collectively? Are the differences between them significant enough to require different articles for each of them? This may be very likely the case for the FMR Tg500, what with the fairly complete re-engineering of the rear end and with the Tg500 being a sports car instead of an economy commuter like the KR175 and KR200, but how much so is it for the KR175 and the KR200?

Using the analogy of "grouping every manufacturer's cars under one heading", is the KR200 really that much more different from the KR175 than the Ford Escort Mk II (1975-1980) is from the Ford Escort Mk I (1968-1974)? (To continue that analogy, the Tg500 would probably be a Capri, so it seems very likely to keep its own article.)

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

I wonder if this could not be covered better by just having this article be about the platform. Have it be about the body structure, tandem layout, canopy, etc., and have the individual articles include the model histories and unique features of each one. It could be like the article on the GM Y platform alongside the articles on the Pontiac Tempest, Buick Skylark, Oldsmobile F-85, et al..

The problems I have with this are:

one of the two main versions was a replacement for the other, so it's more of KR175 being first generation and KR200 being second generation, and
the two main versions are the only ones designated "KR" for Kabinenroller. The third version, the FMR Tg500, was a sports car developed from the KR200.

Based on those, I am still convinced that a single article could cover the KR175 and KR200 adequately.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're never going to get a single point of view on all this stuff because so much is a matter of personal perspective. If you grew up thinking of these things as a single model, you're hard wired to start with that as your default position. If not, not. That's partly down to what you were taught by friends and parents and partly down to how the cars were marketed in your particular place when you were growing up (if they were). I'm afraid I've not "slept on it" as carefully as you have. But thought sharing is free.... My preference is always for structural simplicity. The "platform" solution is a compromise. I guess compromise is good (I live in England where we're always being told by the ruling classes that "we" do compromise: not sure it's true though, maybe "we" just do muddle...) The risk is that subsequent contributors will miss the point of the structure of the entries and therefore start to cut across what an earlier "architect" intended. In the process of trying to restore (or improve) the architecture there's a risk of losing good content and structural coherence (for the entry - the structural coherence of the car(s) is another discussion).

I thought that was part of the function of the talk page, to discuss the structure and provide a history of the structure so that others can build on it later down (or find their reasons to tear it down and build a new structure within it). Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's why I tend to come back to "one entry per model" and, where opinions differ over whether it's one model or two or three, stick with the larger number - ie when in doubt keep them separate. That may not be the preferred solution if you are writing your own book/article/essay. But I think where there are lots of different contributors over time from different cultural (in terms of unspoken base assumptions about everything from sentence structure to marketing strategies in the 1950s) backgrounds and different areas of knowledge are concerned, a simpler structure maximises (maximizes) the ("upside"!) risk of getting good information clearly presented from all concerned.

I know this falls under Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, but consider two German light cars of the same period that sold far better than the Kabinenroller did: the Goggomobil and the Isetta. The T saloon, TS coupé, and TL van versions of the Goggomobil do not have their own articles. The only Goggomobil model with its own article is the Dart, which is notable as looking nothing like any other Goggomobil and being built only in Australia. The Isetta, on the other hand, has one article covering all the versions made by all four or five of its manufacturers (depending on whether Isetta of Great Britain would be considered a manufacturer or just an assembler). Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the 1950s all over west Europe (including West Germany) we entered an era of relatively cheap motor fuel. (The Americans had already been there for at least couple of decades.) People ate better and more and they got bigger. So did their cars. "Bubble cars" like the Messerschmitts became, in retrospect a little bit of a foot-note in motoring history. I like cars (and I got bigger too) so I'm quite happy about that. And fifty years later there is a temptation to see bubble cars in those terms.

What I see is a peculiar phenomenon in postwar Germany up to about 1960: with so many engineers out of work and so many people wanting private motor transport, there was a large amount of well-designed cheap transport of all kinds, from mopeds like the NSU Quickly to light cars like the Goggomobil. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But if you read your history forwards, starting at (or nearer) the beginning and ending at (or nearer) the end, at the time when the Messerschmitts were around they would have been seen by many as a route to widening participation in the motorcar age. I guess that's another reason I would like to see separate entries to encourage people to take more time with the sources including contemporary sources to build the information in an interesting and (one hopes) accurate and readable way. What is certain is that many foot-notes from the perspective of 2013 will have become defining themes from the perspective of 2063, and plenty of the things that we see as defining themes of our own centuries will have shrunk from view in fifty years time. But which ones? No, nor do I (know the answer to that), but we need to have the humility and wisdom to appreciate that the prism through which we view history changes and will continue to change for as long as there are still people around who care enough about the present and future to study the past.

Success Charles01 (talk) 08:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of how the defining themes of 1956 (when Messerschmitt sold the Regensberg operation to FMR) diifer from the defining themes of 1972 or of 1996 (the publication dates of the printed sources I possess), but I do know that one of the defining themes of Wikipedia is notability. What the discussion now boils down to is whether the KR175 and KR200 are each notable on their own or if they are just "early Kabinenroller" and "late Kabinenroller". Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back to voting

Oppose this conversation has gone all complicated, & that tends to confuse matters. to get back to the original point, i too oppose the idea of merging. there is nothing to be gained glomminng everything into an all-in-one lumpen-mass article.

each type was a distinct product, with clear differences between them, AND EACH HAS SUFFICIENT "NOTABILITY" TO JUSTIFY AN ARTICLE. there is ample possibility to create a "complete" article for each one, & there is plenty of precedent for separate articles for different models of automobile. jamming them all together does not make a "better" article, it makes for a worse one.

additionally, there is the change of name & ownership, the "pre-messerschmitt" vehicles, the italian variant....

i have no objection to picking one article (appropriately-titled) to serve as a "hub", but this should not be used as a "stage" in merging.

& with respect "early kabinenroller" & "late kabinenroller" are not satisfactory classifications for a serious & complete treatment of the subject, merged or not.

(i also wish to state my support for many/most of the other opposing points raised above, which i am not going to to list, as that would be redundant & time-consuming)

Lx 121 (talk) 04:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Putting something in all caps does not make it so. How is the KR175 notably distinct from the KR200? I don't mean just details like differences in front track, the cutout in the front fender made necessary by the track difference, etc. How, in what way, is the KR175 notable on its own?

""Jamming them all together" reduces listing all the common features twice, and can easily contain all the info with no redundancy. This can be done by treating the KR175 as the "First generation" and the KR200 as the "Second generation", which has been done in several articles for long-running models.

The one point on which there is consensus is that the FMR Tg500 will not be merged into the Kabinenroller article. Although it uses the same unit body, it is very different in weight, power, and target market.

On the other hand, the KR175 and KR200 are about as different as a '55 Ford Thunderbird and a '57 Ford Thunderbird.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Scope of new article

I am converting this disambiguation page into an article on the Kabinenroller platform and the technical features common to the KR175, the KR200, and the Tg500. It will supplement all three articles rather than replace any of them. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]