Talk:Kogswell Cycles
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 8 October 2010. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
_pictogram.svg){kind=small}
Logo
[edit]The kogswell logo should be edited to remove the big white space on the right, and make it transparent if possible.
Aalpern 20:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Undeletion
[edit]I am curious as to why the Kogswell Cycles entry has been deleted and protected to prevent re-creation. Kogswell has a growing and dedicated group of dedicated "fans" who love the company for a variety of reasons. Their bikes are beautiful, functional machines that combine the best of "old" bicycle design with the best of new technology. I sure would like to see the page re-listed, and I think many others will agree with me. The offending elements of the previous page could be removed or edited to make it acceptable to those in control.
I have no professional affiliation with Kogswell Cycles, although I do consider the owner to be a good "virtual friend" of mine.
Sincerely,
Fbagatelleblack 05:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
A while back I tried to visit the Kogswell Cycles page to learn about the history of the company. When I found nothing, I considered creating a page but that idea never translated into action. I recently learned on the Kogswell mailing list that there was a page but it was deleted and locked. The correct solution would seem to be to remediate the problem and keep the useful parts. I'd like to see this entry unlocked.
Hans Kuhn
As the owner of several of these fine machines, I also wonder why the entry here has been deleted and locked. Kogswell Cycles is certainly interested in growing its business, but I'm sure that is not the primary purpose, which is rather to get inexpensive high-quality steel bikes into the hands of people who appreciate them.A fairly large community of cyclists have contributed ideas and preferences that Kogswell has used as a template for building their bikes. It would be nice to have a history here of how that collaboration came about.
I am not affiliated with Kogswell other than contributing ideas and buying bikes.
Michael Wise Mishaweis 00:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Jim
For opening this page back up. We will try to do you proud.
Fbagatelleblack 17:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
"Customized" Designs
[edit]In the bicycle industry, the term "custom" has a very specific meaning. A "custom bicycle" is one designed and built for one individual. So, I think the recent edit by Atrian might confuse or mislead some people. I will ponder a better description. If anyone else comes up with good verbiage, edit away! Fbagatelleblack (talk) 05:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I did an edit attempting to demonstrate the importance of the Kogswell Owners Group while maintaining NPOV. Did I succeed? If not, let's work on getting from here to there. Thanks! Fbagatelleblack (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kogswell Cycles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100730052838/http://www.biking.com/research/gear-manufacturers/kogswell-cycles.html to http://www.biking.com/research/gear-manufacturers/kogswell-cycles.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Degrees of trail?
[edit]The section about the Randonneur/Porteur model states "The P/R is notable because it [snip] is available with a choice of three different forks with differing degrees of trail"
Can we think of a better way to say that? Maybe I'm quibbling, but trail is not a characteristic of forks. You cannot measure the trail of a fork. It is a characteristic of a bicycle, taking into account the head tube angle, the fork offset and the wheel radius (axle to ground).
The Wikipedia article on Trail is here: [1]
What you can choose with the P/R is three different amounts of offset (also known as rake, but that word can cause confusion due to a different definition in the motorcycle world, and also because some people associate it with the curvature of the fork blade, which is only incidentally related to offset).
If the head tube angle and the wheel radius remain the same, then offset is the only remaining variable and it can change the trail predictably. So saying there are three forks with varying degrees of trail is not far from the truth, but I think it could be stated better. Something like "by choosing from the three different amounts of offset available, riders can get the amount of trail they want, to tune the handling".