Jump to content

Talk:Steam tricycle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Early comment

[edit]

Added two earlier examples, not a cycling article as such (no evidence of pedals, even in the Parkyns, sources suggest pedal power was replaced by the steam engine, not augmented). Added link to source article, wikilinks and copyediting, removed picture which is sourced from an in-copyright book from a protected (i.e. not free use) site. No longer a stub. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categories:

[edit]

all these categories have it's place for inclusion in this article, why remove it? Also, why remove the stub? There is room for improvement, no?

Second question first: all articles on Wikipedia are assumed to have room for expansion. A stub is an article which has little or no content; this article now has quite a bit. You find longer articles with stub tags mainly because people forget to remove them.
Now the first question.
  • Road transport is still in there, no debate necessary (with me at any rate)
  • Vehicles is still in there too
  • Cycle types is about types of pedal cycle. Steam tricycles are not types of pedal cycle. Only one of them has any provable relationship to pedal cycles (the Parkyns-Bateman), and that appears to have had the pedals removed. An article on the Parkyns-Bateman itself would be very questionable in that category, an article which also includes vehicles which have no relationship at all to pedal cycles is clearly irrelevant in that category.
  • Cycling is about cycling, not driving. Look at the photos: see how much physical exertion is going on! These are embryonic cars, not types of bicycle.
  • Alternative propulsion says it includes:
  • alternative fuels in standard or modified internal combustion engines
  • propulsion systems not based on combustion of fuels
Vehicles which predate the technology to which alternatives are being sought are clearly not relevant to this category, which is really about emergent alternatives not the things to which infernal combustion engines were themselves an alternative.
  • Transportation is still in there
  • Motorized bicycle is for motorized bicycles, which these are not. Even if there were evidence of any of these being capable of being propelled by pedals (which as yet there is not), they are unquestionably motor vehicles not pedal cycles. There is no assertion at all that the steam engine was there to assist with pedalling, it's clearly there to replace human power (or possibly horse power) entirely.
All clear now? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 19:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Wow! yes! Seriously, I actually feel inspired by you! I however need to argue on one point. Does the similarity of with motorized bicycle not put that articles definition into question? Essentially, since motorized bicycles can be propulsed by only engine power (power on demand bicycles... if the user choses too) or pedal power, is there not a similarity. Even though, allegedly most steam tricycles did not have pedals, the word tricycle itself is defined as; "it should have pedals".[1] However, this is not necessarily obligated. Looking at the ethimology of tri-cycle we can see that tri means 3... and cycle from Greek "kyklos" meaning "circle, wheel" [2]

* Tricycle: 1828, "three-wheeled horse-drawn carriage," from Fr. tricycle (1827), from tri- + cycle. The pedal-powered version is first attested 1868. Short form trike (on the model of bike) is attested from 1883. [3]--Pat 20:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

furthermore, aside: moped 1956, from Swed. (c.1952), from (tramp-cykel med) mo(tor och) ped(aller) "pedal cycle with engine and pedals" (the earliest versions had auxiliary pedals). --Pat 20:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We have an agreed definition of motorized bicycle as a pedal cycle with motor assistance, but which can be powered by pedals alone. Even if one or two of the machines in this article fit that description (which is speculation), the article itself describes a class of vehicle which is, fundamentally, not motorized bicycles per that definition. Or, to be more succint, "no" :-)
Also, you may be reaosnably certain that I know the derivation of the term tricycle. I am a geek, I love stuff like that and look up all odd words. Plus I have wanted one of these forever, especially since I have now met its designer several times :-D - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 20:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steam Wagon

[edit]

Perhaps a steam wagon should have it's own article, just like the steam tricyle is seperate from motorized bicycle? --Pat 20:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SOrry about that afformentioned. Seem like a good inclusion. (I just think the other photo should still be there to show a fair representation. (almost 100 years later) and then we could put a modern modernised bike? evolution my friend! I just though this article will probably eventually want to be merged to the article of tricycle --Pat 21:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be surprised if this was ever accepted for merger into tricycle. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Wow! what happened to the steam wagon? We something that doesn't seem to make sense here. If the ethymology says, tricycle is about late 188ish something, then why is it a tricycle. Secondly why is there a picture of a wagon tricycle... whereas we don't even talk about a wagon in our text? Serious problem here!! --Pat 05:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Category

[edit]

New category sugested... I noticed many different articles on trikes, three wheel vehicles, etc... motorized, non-motorized. There are enough articles to warant a new category. I will make a list here (if you wish to add any please do so): --Pat 03:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


list

[edit]

etc...

Of course, if you can find twenty or thirty articles a category is warranted - if it's much less then please don't. Unless you can find a substantial number of individual articles on tricycles which are not already linked from the tricycle article it will be adding to the burden on the poor old Wikiputers to no practical benefit. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

without pedals vs with?

[edit]

Is it understood through the indented quote that the tricycle was created without pedals at first? --Pat 04:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

[edit]

Following removed 11 December, 2005:

One dictionnary states a tricycle "should have pedals".[4] However, the ethymology sugests that it's simply a vehicle with three wheels. This is because "Tri" means three and cycle, which is from Greek "kyklos", means "circle, wheel" [5].
* Tricycle: 1828, "three-wheeled horse-drawn carriage," from Fr. tricycle (1827), from tri- + cycle. The pedal-powered version is first attested 1868. Short form trike (on the model of bike) is attested from 1883. [6]
  1. The definition of tricycle is properly part of the tricycle article. I have placed it there.
  2. The bit about pedals is an interesting curiosity, but the definition in the dictionary says "usually", the one which states it mist have pedals is from WordNet, an experimental cognitive science lexical reference system. Every dictionary I have seen has a definition which is compatible with steam power.
  3. Comments re short form trike attested 1883 also belongs in the tricycle article, where I have placed the link.

Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If those comments belong in tricycle article so does the rest of this article. I suggest we merge. --CylePat 14:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe the definition is important because it explains the inclusion of the "steam wagon" that you added. Otherwise I believe the steam wagon doesn't have it's place in this article. Take Note: the ethymological definition is important for the later example because it fall within that period (ie.: the second picture of Léon's steam tricycle)--CylePat 14:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pat, if you think this belongs in tricycle why did you fork in the first place? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was a specific vehicle, that I found in a book. It was called a steam tricycle. There are many more in that online book, that you can't access. The article was about steam tricycle, and I didn't foreshadow the possibility of inclusion into an article called tricycle (which is usually a kids pedal-power tricycle). Steam Tricycle was barely elaborate (2 vehicles) when I started. Thanks to your knowledge, we now have an excellent article, that seemingly could makes it's place, elsewhere. Finally, ever since the etymology was added, I've been thinking about that. We can now argue that this is a simply a tricycle (even though it doesn't necessarily have wheels). Then again, having a specialized article is, (has always been) my style. (Their's a first for everything) One more reason to merge/redirect or at least include a little more information about the steam tricycle (Not that I haven't noticed there is some their already), is to help that article become a featured article. Finally, I'd like to say, that forking seems to help in development of the main article.--CylePat 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Found (via Wikipedia:Dead external links/404/s) that this article contained a Dead Link:

I have tracked-down the article on the Internet Archive here but it is not now worth linking to (most of the pictures are gone, for example). However, some of the text might be useful for anyone researching steam tricycles, so I have 'rescued' it and reformatted it onto a sub page for easier reference. (See Talk:Steam tricycle/Virtual Canadian Vintage Motorcycle Museum)

EdJogg (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

demise of cugenot's dray?

[edit]

Hm, rather than it "not meeting the requirements", all other histories I've seen til now say that it proved difficult to control (with the boiler over the steering wheel), then ran out of control in early trials and crashed. (The army then presumably deciding that as horses were no harder to control, faster when untethered and not as destructive, why change? :D) .... which is correct? 193.63.174.10 (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot you will see numerous refernces and links. The one that I take as 'definitive' is this:
I have not looked at it in a while, but it is based on the genuine historical records and states that there is no record of a crash having taken place.
There is also the fact that it could only make enough steam to run for 15 minutes, and then had to be stopped to be stoked up again!
Cugnot's page covers it in much greater detail, so it only needs a brief reference here.
EdJogg (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steam_tricycle&oldid=1206852310"