Talk:Tweel

Automobiles Low‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Other uses

In May, 1983, Road and Track magazine ran an article titled "The (Spring) Wheel of Fortune" about a similar invention dating to before WWII, which used steel springs between the tread and wheel. --Triskele Jim (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mars Exploration Rovers have all-aluminum tweels...perhaps a see-also is warranted?--Joel 06:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See also [[1]] - Arthur Clarke used the idea in 2001. Which was written in 1968. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Number774 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The link is http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=1681

That is a Pedrail wheel, not a Tweel. Clarke was a well-read sci-fi writer and brilliant engineer. It is very likely that he had read H.G. Wells earlier book describing the Pedrail. Stepho talk 23:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More possible adds…

Just some notes for now. Need to decide the merits and find proper citations.

10-15 year before seeing it in the market place.
Time Magazine "One Of Most Amazing Inventions Of 2005", 21 Nov 2005.
Wins a Popular Science magazine "Innovation Honor", 2005.
Use on TWIKE and Segway products?
Use on forklifts and other "brake-turn" vehicles, (besides the existing mention of wheelchairs and construction vehicles)?

--Charles Gaudette 20:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tweel illustration ≠ tweel photos

The tweel in the illustration is not the same design as the tweels in the photos. Not only that, the Design section seems to describe the illustration but not the photos. The photo shows a tweel with what looks like an alloy hub. Clearly, not a deformable plastic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Radbasa (talk • contribs) 18:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

References

This article is sorely in needs of references particularly with it referring to Marco from My999 radio station in Colorado Springs. I think that's a bit of stretch as a reliable source Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TWEEL vs TWHEEL

Is the correct name TWEEL or TWHEEL? I have seen both on Michelin's website, always in upper case. In either case, I've added some redirections for 'Michelin TWHEEL', 'Michelin Tweel' and 'TWHEEL' to this article. Stepho-wrs (talk) 09:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either way it should not be all capitalized per MOS:TM. - Epson291 (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A photo of a Tweel

... would be nice. Maybe one from NASA? --Bcjordan (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarized content

The paragraph on the drawbacks associated with tweels has been directly plagiarized from Reference 1 (the howstuffworks.com article written by Ed Grabianowski). Other content is also eerily similar to what appears in Mr. Grabianowski's article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.150.78 (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Variations

I see that YouTube has videos purporting to be improvements over the Michelin design: "Real Tweel" ([2]) and "Super Tweel" ([3] There's also a professionally done video with "Super Tweel" in the title ([4]). That last one is narrated by one Brian Russell, who describes himself as the inventor of the wheel shown in the video, an "energy return wheel" (the video mentions http://www.energyreturnwheel.com/). That mentioned URL turns out to be the corporate website for Britek Tire and Rubber. On the site, BriTek offers to license the technology (Apparently now called "The BriTek Wheel"). A report on that website characterizes the BriTek Wheel as a competitor to the Michelin Tweel. I'm not sure how much of this info fits into this article or how it ought to be presented, so I'll just mention it here. Perhaps someone more informed about all this than I can go forward with this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(added) There's some more info in a magazine article (Robert Andrew Powell, Keep Running: A Company in Search of the Finish Line, August 1, 2008, inc.com). That article describes Brian Russell as the inventor of a running shoe called the Bri-Tek (mentioned briefly in a video linked above) and the founder of a running-shoe company named Newton Running (the website credits Isaac Newton as being the inspiration for what it calls "Active Membrane Technology", apparently the technology behind both the running shoes and the BriTek Wheel). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of tire

Per the official Tweel press release: The name “Tweel”’ is the contraction in English of “tire” and “wheel”. Ng.j (talk) 06:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original spelling was tire until this anonymous editor rewrote it. Before rewrite - After rewrite. Ng.j (talk) 10:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per Talk:Tire: "We have had a long (and often acrymonious) debate about the naming of this article - followed by consensus voting. The conclusion was that per the Wikipedia Manual of Style, we will follow the rule that when an article is started in one English variant (US English in this case), it should be kept in that variant unless there are overwhelming reasons not to." Ng.j (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've only been watching this article since Jan 2010, the rule of keeping to the style of the first editor appeared to be in my favour (hence my constant reversions of your changes). Now that you have pointed out the original spelling, I remove my objections.

But since I'm in a grumpy mood, I'm going to mention a few points anyway.

Acrimonious debates about spelling usually come down to two sides both saying 'this is how I have always spelt it, and damn it, that's how everyone else had better spell it!' The rule of following the first editor is often the only way to choose and I follow it as often as I can - even if it means occasionally changing from my own Australian English to that horrible atrocity called American English :)
If you feel a change is so contentious that it needs an entry on the talk page, then reach a consensus on the talk page first, and then make whatever changes the consensus agreed to. Much better to have a weeks worth of discussion on the talkpage rather than a weeks worth of reversion on the main page. But I need to apologise for not answering on the talk page earlier (been quite busy lately).
The consensus reached at tire is irrelevant here. It was solved by keeping to the first editors style - which was more or less a random occurrence. There was no great, supreior reason foudn for following the American spelling and it was strictly relevant to only the tire article. If you want to make 'tire' the only acceptable spelling for all car articles then you will have to raise it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles, where it will either cause a very heated but useless debate or be laughed out of court.

Best regards. Stepho (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User TweelTech

User:TweelTech made some changes to the article. The user name strongly suggests that the user is actually an employee or paid contractor for the company. This isn't bad in itself but of course we need to monitor if they bias it by removing criticism and only adding positive reviews. I did revert them though for the following reasons:

Added references by tacking [1] into the code instead of proper <ref> markup tags.
Counted criticism by adding a reference to a positive review by Grass Roots magazine which requires a paid subscription (meaning that I can't verify it). The citation markup had serious problems.
A change from 'shear band' to 'shear beam'. I would think that a circular tyre would have a band rather than a beam but this may be a misunderstanding on my part.

Most of the changes to the technical description wasn't bad. I probably would have let the changes stay but I reverted it due to the serious wiki markup problems. Would TweelTech or others like to comment? Stepho talk 22:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:TweelTech: We know it is an airless tyre. We know it is made by Michelin. Mention it once and then use the short form in the rest of the article. Using the long forms of "Michelin X Tweel airless radial tire" and "MICHELIN® 12N16.5 X® TWEEL® SSL" every single time makes it tedious to read. Also, Wikipedia does not use symbols such as ®. All names are assumed to be trademarks of which ever company is being discussed. See WP:Trademarks. Links to page away from Wikipedia should be in references or the 'External links' section. Such links should not be in the main article text where they could take an unsuspecting reader away from Wikipedia. Lastly, beware of how you use square brackets - they can have a disastrous effect that breaks the display of the page. Stepho talk 01:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uptis

Michelin have a new variation called 'Uptis' for passenger cars. Due for sale circa 2024. Stepho talk 13:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Y Added to article. -- Otr500 (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links Comment

The "External links" section was trimmed as being excessive. Some (as suggested below) may be incorporated into the article as sources.