File talk:Bicycle evolution-en.svg

Accuracy

No, the diagram seems accurate enough but yes, the little captions are in error or conflict or at least unclarity. The Scots picture is captioned with the name Johnston assigned but a revisionist date, while the 1970s roadbike is captioned with colloquial type rather than professional use, and with date of popular use rather than invention. All are fairly minor failings in my view, but of course a revision by those skilled in the art would be welcome. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The image definitely shows significant artistic skill, but I agree with Jim above, and would be a bit more critical. While the main issue is the captions there inaccuracies with the "racing bike", which appears to depict a track bike with a threadless stem, and a radially laced rear wheel. I would be willing to do the grunt work with inkscape, if we can decide on a changes that make sense to me.--Keithonearth (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Kaldari has recently reminded me about this conversation and how the factual accuracy of this diagram is disputed. I would like to see some changes made to this image to make it accurate enough to be put back in the en:bicycle article. The skill in drawing is great, its only the accuracy of details I have issues with. I would like to propose a list of changes below to make it more accurate. Please discuss each image in it's own section, and add sections if needed. --Keithonearth (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed changes

• File Name

I question if evolution is the best name for this image as does not represent a linear development. That is to say mountain bikes did not develop from road bikes etc.--Keithonearth (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Bicycle captions: inventor name

I want to see the inventor name removed from each bicycle caption. In most if the images it's either not relevant or debatable if the relevant style of bicycle should be attributed to the individual in question.--Keithonearth (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Bicycle captions: year

It would be better to give a date range for each bicycle style, this is especially true of the more recent styles, but would be useful for all the bikes. To say "Racing Bike - 1960" is not at all useful, bikes made for road racing have been made since the bike boom of the 1890s. I would like to see something like "mountain bike; mid 1970s - present; image: late 1990s" --Keithonearth (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• draisine

This one looks good to me. --Keithonearth (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• two-wheel velocipede

The en:Thomas McCall article says that "He built, in 1869, two versions of a two-wheeled velocipede", that is not 1830 as the image presently states, as is confirmed by David Herlihy in his book the "Bicycle, The History" (p66).--Keithonearth (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The more I think about it the more I think that this bike should not be included. If was not an influential design and did not contribute to the design of bikes that followed. Well, to the best of my knowledge/memory, I'll reread the sections on it in my bicycle history books to confirm that. --Keithonearth (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• pedal-bicycle

The inventor is disputed, but otherwise this image looks good.--Keithonearth (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• high-wheel bicycle

This image also looks good, however en:James Starley was an English inventor, (not french as in the image) and it's misleading to attribute the invention of Penny-farthings exclusively to him. They were a natural development of the Michauline style bicycles.--Keithonearth (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• safety bicycle

This image is a faithful reproduction of a Rover Safety Bicycle, and as such is a good example of a 1890s safety bicycle. If we are talking about safety bicycles in general it would seem apropreate for the year range to be "1885 to present; image 1885".--Keithonearth (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• racing bike

This image represents an odd mix of styles from various time periods. I want to make the image of a bike that makes sense historically without being hopelessly dated. The lack of derailleur confuses me, bikes have been permitted to have derailleurs in the tour de france, for example, since the 1930s. Threadless headsets (as in the image) have only been around since the mid 90s. The rear wheel is radially laced, this spoke pattern is only used on front wheels. The top tube is horizontal as is common on older (80s) road bikes, but it appears to be welded as common in 90s and later bikes. Also road bikes were not developed in the USA as the picture oddly states. --Keithonearth (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• mountain bike

The only change I'd like to see to it is moving the cogset to inside the chain and seat stays (it oddly seems to be outboard of them). The bike appears to be from the late 90s or early 2000s, as it has v-brakes, and a threadless headset, but the rubber billow seals covering the fork stanchions as is no longer done. Labeling this as 1970s is wrong, however mountain bikes were developed in the mid 70s. --Keithonearth (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. I took the liberty of adjusting a grammatical bit, but haven't been participating, being busy with other activities including, umm, bicycling in the suburbs in search of Wikipictures. I agree entirely with the proposals discussed above, insofar as my lesser degree of studiousness allows understanding. Surely the word and date changes can be made by anyone familiar with the relevant software. Changing the drawings without spoiling their excellent quality may be more difficult and, far as I see, less important. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Jim. Glad you're getting a chance to actually get out on your bike. I agree that for the most part the pictures do not need to be changed, just the captions. The only exceptions being the road bike that I'd like to see replaced (unfortunately), and the minor tweak to the Mountain Bike making the chain and seat stays join each other at the dropout instead of disappearing behind the cassette. If the graphical changes don't happen right away that's ok, but they should get done. --Keithonearth (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I have deleted the inventor's names and countries, as I think it is the easiest change that I can do right now. I will try to upload another image, with a better name such as "Bicycle Develompent in years" or something like that. --Fiestoforo (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Very good. We can take down the accuracy flag. Jim.henderson (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Impossibly Oversimplified

While I appreciate the motivations for an image like this, the notion that one could show bicycle history as a linear process with one predecessor and one descendent type at each stage is ridiculous. The evolutionary process that has resulted in the huge array of modern bicycles is complex, and it spreads out into many and various bicycle types as the process continues. Not sure a simplified diagram like this can be of any real use. Sorry to be a curmudgeon here. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you Ebikeguy, but the fact that the image fails to convey the entire evolutionary process of the diversity of bicycle types doesn't make it a useless image. My point above about the file name is really the same point as I believe you are making here. This is not a image representing bicycle evolution, however it is an excellent comparison of historical and modern bicycle types, and can be useful as such. --Keithonearth (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll not stand in the way of consensus, but it seems to me that any graphic like this should, at the very least, show the most popular bicycle design of all time, the rod-brake roadster, as designed by Raleigh and copied by countless companies in China, India, etc. Arguably, almost all "modern" designs are offshoots of that evolutionary branch, and I believe that it is still the most commonly manufactured bicycle type in the world. India clings to this design, although China is certainly branching out in many directions at this point. Also, since electric bicycles are the most rapidly growing market segment at this point, a strong argument could be made to include them in this diagram. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you Ebikeguy regarding the roadster. It would be great to get that included in the image, as it is a historically, especially taking into account India, China, and other countries they export to. However I do think we should try to move away from trying to make this a diagram of bicycle evolution, or thinking of it that way. Especially as it reminds me of this sort of simplified view of evolution. A view where it's the march of progress culminating in... '90s mountain bikes. It's not an image of evolution, just some examples of bikes at different points in time.

So I would like to see roadsters included in the image, but the lack of them seems to be less of an issue then the ones I talk about above, and it seems like a lot more work to fix then the ones I talk about above. So if anyone wants to jump in and draw one to scale, that'd be great, but I've not got enough time to do that myself -- nor do I have enough time to draw a replacement road racing bike for that matter, an issue I feel to be more pressing, as there is errors in the image as it stands.

Regarding the electric bike: I'd rather not see one included. I think electric bikes are a rapidly growing thing, and they may become very important in the transport needs of many cities, but they are very diverse, so how would we choose one particular image to represent all of them? Also they would be the only example of bicycle in the image that are not purely human powered. If we included them it could be argued that other mechanically powered bikes should be included, ie motorcycles, or fuel cell powered motor cycles. I think including electric vehicles would broaden the scope of the image too much, and it would make it confusing.

But I'm talking too much and have more important things to be working on. Thanks again for taking the interest. --Keithonearth (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Stayed off the bike mostly this week, but busy processing the photos snapped while biking, and even living a little of my real life, alas. There seem to be more opinions on how to redo the chart, than redone versions, whose absence saps your opinions and especially mine of relevance. When someone uploads a few improved versions, we can start making valid comparisons and serious criticisms. Perhaps if we get merely a few of the proposed little component drawings, we can discuss their sequence, arrangement and titles. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Pedal Assist Electric Bicycles

Like the step from the Draisine to pedal bicycles, Pedelecs are the evolution from pedal only to hybrid (pedal+motor assist) bicycles.
I suggest to discuss the integration of an pedelec drwawing next to the mountainbike. --angerdan (talk) 11:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)