Talk:Scooter (motorcycle)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mitsubishi

AFAIK Mitsubishi doesn't manufacture scooters! Mitsubishi even doesn't manufacture any motorbicycles. Can anybody link me? anobo 00:31 26 May 2003 (UTC)

I had never heard of a mitsi scooter either, but I did a quick google search and it appears they do/did--Clawed 03:29, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mitsubishi manufactured motor scooters back in the late 50's and early 60's. They called them "Silver Pigeons" and they were excellent quality scooters for that period. Montgomery Ward sold Mitsubishi Silver Pigeons in the US rebadged as "Wards Riverside." Wards even used that name on Benelli motorbikes, but these came from Italy.

The Silver Pigeon scooter is prized by collectors, but parts are in very short supply.

During World War II, Mitsubishi manufactured airplanes, notably the "Zero," for the Japanese military. They no longer make those, or motorscooters either for that matter. -unsigned

Collecting Scooters

Collecting antique motorscooters is a popular hobby these days. One of the most popular makes is the Cushman which was manufactured in Lincoln, Nebraska between 1936 and 1965. Early Cushmans were called "Autoglide" and they were built up until World War II. The first Cushman to bear that name was the 1944 Cushman Airborne (model 53), a military scooter with a 4 hp engine.

In the 1946 to 1948 period, Cushman was quite successful with their 50-series scooters that used the same engine as the old Airborne. They called them the "model 52" which had an automatic clutch and no transmission, the "model 54" which had two speeds, and the "model 53A" which was called the "Civilian Airborne." It differed from the military model because it had coil springs front and rear. The model 52 and 54 had an enclosed body, which Cushman called a "tailsheet."

The 1949 to 1956 Cushmans included a Pacemaker with a single speed and a two-speed Road King. The standard engine was 5 hp with a 7.3 hp optional. These looked like the earlier models, but the "tailsheet" was wider at the bottom prompting owners to nickname them "Turtlebacks." Cushmans made between 1949 and 1956 were called 60-series.

The most successful Cushman of all was the Eagle, a motorcycle look-a-like that was produced for 16 years. In the 1960's, Cushman Eagles had as much as 9 horsepower.

For more information see http://www.cushmanclubofamerica.com -unsigned

added

I added a section to this scooters page for full-size (unmotorized) scooters. -unsigned

Picture

I have a photograph of about 15 scooters parked on a Firenze street, but this article is quite illustrated. Tell me if you want me to upload it. --Error 22:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

For a GREAT site dealing with scooters, check out http://thescooterscoop.com lots of updates and images. -unsigned

recent edit

I have reverted this recent edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scooter_%28motorcycle%29&diff=51013408&oldid=50733690 because I disagree with most of it. I do not think that any of these are common problems at all. --Clawed 08:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Electric scooters

I resarch since September 2005 electric scooters and have created a page with many photos and details about them. I think it would be usefull for the link list

http://car.pege.org/scooter.htm -unsigned

External links

There was some controversy with the external links. One of the links to a scooter shop was a labeled "rip off artists". I deleted the entire section. Perhaps the wrong thing to do. Probably should add external links back in with pointers to enthusiasts sites and leave the retailers off the list. Here is a link to wikipedia guidelines WP:EL for your convenience. What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas 19:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I cant see why the story of the three students currently going around the world by scooter should be removed. There is a link at the bottom.

• The link is probably all the attention that story warrants. It's not a major piece of information, in terms of the entire history and overall topic of scooters. Spylab 12:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

History of scooters

The first scooter I can find any record of is the French Auto-Fauteui 1902-1906 followed by the British Kenilworth 1919-1924 or the German Krupp 1919-1922. A lot depends on the definition of scooter and I believe footboards are a key factor along with smaller than motorcycle wheel size. Otherwise all the various Stepthroughs are scooters. Even the 1921-1924 Megola is a scooter by the current definition as the rider does not sit astride the engine - it's in the front wheel! But nonetheless both Cushman and Salsbury are very late starters in the business at 1936. Especially if you regard the German Hildebrand & Wolfmüller of 1894 as a scooter. M-72 16:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed back to correct title

Someone inccorectly changed the title of this article to Scooter (vehicle), so I changed it back to the original title. As per the Scooter disambiguation page, there are several different kinds of vehicles that are called scooters:

• Scooter (motorcycle), a two-wheeled motorized vehicle with a step-thru frame.
• Scooter, a nickname for a Harley Davidson motorcycle.
• Mobility scooter, a motorized chair with three or four wheels that is designed for people with limited mobility.
• Motorized scooter, a vehicle consisting of a footboard mounted on two wheels and a long steering handle, propelled by a small motor. It is also referred to as a Power operated vehicle/scooter.
• Kick scooter, a vehicle consisting of a footboard mounted on two wheels and a long steering handle.
• Iceboat (also known as an ice scooter), any small, light vehicle able to travel quickly across water, ice, or snow.
• Personal water craft (also known as a sea scooter), a motorboat resembling a motor scooter.
• Scooter (diving), an item of diving equipment used by scuba divers to increase their range while underwater.
• Air scooter, an ultralight helicopter of co-axial rotor configuration
• Speeder bike (also known as a sky scooter), a fictional vehicle used by the character Darth Maul in the movie Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace

Therefore, calling this article Scooter (vehicle) would cause much confusion. Spylab 12:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Scootering terms" ...where do these come from?

Where do the definitions given in the section titled "Scootering terms" come from? What sanctioning body has defined these terms? The "Scooter Cannonball Run" has called itself a run, but is that a definitive term? By what measure is a "ride" defined as "a one-day event in which scooterists from a single area ride together" and not just a bloke hopping on his scooter and riding to the shop to get groceries? Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is this article so mangled?

Normally I'd just try to correct it, but the first paragraph is so mangled I don't even know where to start. The first sentence doesn't even say what a scooter is (for instance there is nothing like "A scooter is a two wheeled vehicle blah blah blah"), it uses a word "possige" which I can't find in the dictionary. The second sentence is even worse: "Modern scooters cover a broad spectrum of cycle design: step-through design or stgn, small or large wheels, front fairings or floor boards, under-seat storage or nol or automatic , the Honda Big Ruckus featured no bodywork, floorboards and no hallmark "step-througstill was classified as a scooter." What is "stgn"? What is "under-seat storage or nol or automatic"? Then it becomes a run-on sentence that appears to have just been randomly edited. I'm trying to figure out what the intent was before going in and trying to fix it. Any clues? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbrown (talk • contribs) 15:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that the article was not written by a native English speaker.--76.102.149.170 (talk) 05:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The problems with this article go well beyond the opening paragraph (which apparently has been rewritten since these comments were made). It's a rambling mess. The second and third paragraphs go into subjects that are just restated later in the article, there are topics there that get repeated based on wherever someone felt like adding a comment, and the history section goes on and on and on as if that's all there was to say about scooters. - 67.39.251.254 (talk) 12:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAD tells us: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead. While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article" The only question I have is whether there should be references in there or not, I'd prefer not. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, "according to reliable, published sources"... which is why unsourced opinions about why people probably like scooters don't belong there. - 67.39.251.254 (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have problems with elements of the article (ie you consider them "surprising" or feel they could legitimately be challenged) then tell us about them. As long as they're in the article as truths not requiring referencing, then they can be mentioned in the lead. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Tmax500

Prominently in the article for over 2 years, it was claimed that the Yamaha TMax500 is of the type wherein "engines located forward of the seat and afixed to the frame (e.g., Yamaha T-Max 500)". It's been changed to "some have engine locations that break with the tradition of classic scooter design" but it's still completely wrong. I know it's wrong because I've just photographed one. Can someone confirm that the Burgman is the old-style, engine is part of the suspension, too? Gilera anyone? Meanwhile, I'll take out the whole sentence. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Did the one you photographed look like this? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Maxi-scooters - are they scooters or underbones?

One of the criteria for defining a scooter is that a scooter has smaller wheels than a conventional motorcycle. Some believe that the definition includes the engine being on the swingarm, as with the Vespa, but this argument is invalidated by the Cushmans and the early Lambrettas, which did not have any rear suspension, and by the Heinkel Tourist, with a frame-mounted engine and final drive through a chain enclosed in the swingarm.

Are maxi-scooters really large underbones that are called scooters by an indiscriminate West, or are their wheels small enough with respect to their size that they can legitimately be called scooters?

Maxi-scooters:

• Honda CN250 Helix/Fusion/Spazio: 12 inches front/10 inches rear
• Honda RSS250 Reflex/Forza: 13/12
• Honda Silver Wing (scooter): 14/13
• Suzuki Burgman:

• 400: 14/13
• 650 Executive: 15/14

• Yamaha Majesty: 14/13
• Yamaha T-Max: 15/15 (wonder if the front and rear are interchangeable, like Vespa's and Lambretta's used to be?)

Conventional scooters (usually interchangeable front and rear):

• Vespa 150 (1965): 8
• Vespa ET4 (2005): 10
• Lambretta LD125 (1957): 8
• Lambretta 150 Special (1967): 10
• Heinkel Tourist: (1953-1955) 8, (1955-1965) 10

Underbones:

• Honda Super Cub: 17/17 (50 cc motorcycle, bigger wheels than the big maxi-scooters)
• Honda Wave: 17/17
• Modenas Kriss 110SE: 17/17 (hmm...)
• Suzuki Raider 150: 17/17 (I think I see a trend here...)
• Yamaha Nouvo Z [1]: 16/16 (as opposed to the Yamaha Crypton Z, which was 17/17)

Conventional motorcycles:

• Yamaha RX100: 18/18
• Yamaha SR500: 19/18, or 18/18 in later models
• Yamaha V-Max: 18/15
• Suzuki X6: 18/18
• Suzuki GT750: 19/18
• Suzuki Katana GSX 1100S (1981): 19/17
• Suzuki GS500: 17/17
• Honda CB250 Nighthawk: 18/16
• Honda CB450 "Black Bomber": 19/18
• Honda CB750 K0: 19/18
• Honda CB750 Nighthawk: 17/18
• Honda Gold Wing

• 1975 GL1000: 19/17
• 1981 GL1100 Interstate: 19/17
• 1984 GL1200 DX: 16/15
• 1988 GL1500/6: 18/16
• 2001 GL1800: 18/16

• Kawasaki 750 H2 Mach IV: 19/18
• Kawasaki Z1: 19/18
• Kawasaki KZ400: 18/18
• Kawasaki W650:19/18
• Harley-Davidson XLCH:19/18
• Harley-Davidson FX 1200: 19/16
• Harley-Davidson FLH 1200 Electra-Glide: 16/16
• Harley-Davidson FLHC 1340 Electra-Glide Classic: 16/16
• Harley-Davidson FLHR Road King: 17/16

Based on the above, with the possible exception of the T-Max, it does seem that the touring scooters are closer to classic scooters than they are to underbones or conventional motorcycles. While the above is (hours of) original research, it does invalidate the idea that the maxi-scooter is more closely related to the underbone than to the scooter.

I therefore ask that all reference to touring scooters being a development of the underbone concept be removed.

No signature (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet again, following wheel-sizes has laughably misled the writing of the article. The T-Max is a Vespa-style scooter. It uses (almost certainly, though I can't actually see it on the photo I took) a one-sided, sheet-metal, Vespa-style wheel. Yes, it's almost the size of a motorcycle wheel, but that's because this is a big Vespa-style scooter, not because it bears any relation to a Cub-style scooter. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Two differences that need resolving

There are two differing points of view that keep this article going back and forth.

The first argument regards underbones. While there is consensus that underbones differ fundamentally from traditional scooters, there are two different ideas on how to deal with this:

• 1: Two separate definitions for the term "scooter" are to be used, one to accommodate traditional scooters and one to accommodate underbones.
• 2: "Scooter" should be defined as the traditional scooter, with the explanation that underbones are often referred to, and marketed as, scooters, but are definitively not scooters.

The second argument regards whether the definition of the traditional scooter includes the positioning of the engine/transmission unit on the rear swingarm, as it has always been on the Vespa and had been on the Lambretta from 1957 to the end. Including this in the definition, however, would exclude scooter designs that had their engines fixed in the frame, whether because they had an alternative rear suspension design, e.g. the Heinkel Tourist, or because they had no rear suspension at all, e.g. the Cushmans and the early Lambrettas.

The editors with these opposing ideas are very much fixed in them, and can come to no agreement on their own. The discussion is therefore opened to all editors here.

No signature (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This is an unnecessary problem, brought about by the insistence of some editors that, since some manufacturers advertise under-bones (/step-throughs) as "scooters", therefore we have to cover both in the same article. I allowed myself to be bludgeoned into accepting this, even though it hamstrings writing the article properly. Perhaps we want to be locked into article-fork, the same information appearing in two different articles?

However, aggravating though that it is, I can live with the distortions introduced. It's the second claim made by the owners that renders editing impossible. It is nonsense to claim that scooters necessarily have smaller wheels than regular motorcycles.

Lastly, there are simple errors almost amounting to illiteracy getting in - the T-Max is enormous (500cc) and may look like a Cub step-through, but it's actually Vespa-style. Any editor who can't recognise this needs to stand back and leave others free to do a better job. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The argument about whether a Maxi scooter is an underbone motorcycle really is moot. The biggest definitive difference between a scooter and a motorcycle is whether they have floorboards or footpegs. Scooters have floorboards that are integral to the bodywork, while motorcycles have footpegs or non-integral floorboards. Thus, maxi-scooters are scooters, not underbones. Further, maxi scooters do not have traditional style shifting motorcycle transmissions, which is also listed early in the underbone article as a defining feature. To include Maxi-scooters as underbones means to include all bikes with integral footboards, a tube frame, and a CVT transmission. That would include all of the modern-style scooters, which are certaintly not underbones either! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.214.159 (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It isn't Wikipedia's purpose to resolve issues like this. Reliable sources disagree as to what the definition of a scooter and a motorcycle is. Life is like that; happens all the time. The articles and categories will be based on Wikipedia:Naming conventions and the various definitions offered will reflect the different opinions of respected sources. If people disagree, Wikipedia should say people disagree. Discussions such as this are a complete waste of time if you aren't making points based directly on reliable sources.--Dbratland (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia can and should inform its readers. There are 3 distinct variations amongst modern 2-wheelers - step-over machines (all of these are motorcycles), under-bone machines with engines bolted to the frame (some with small wheels and refered to as scooters, but including big-wheeled Honda Cub-style step-through motorcycles) and under-bone scooters with Vespa-style pivoting engines (including maxi-scooters).

The differences between those 3 types is instantly visible from looking at just the one major component, the frame. The fact that one often can't easily see that component is unfortunate and confuses people, but it's still the first and most important part of the bike.

All references to fuel-tank position, automatic transmission, twist-grip gear-changes, foot-pegs vs boards, leg-shields, under-seat storage, single/double sided suspension etc etc are secondary because they're not definitive (and comprise binary distinctions anyway).

Its a pity that some of the arguments and some of the RS is muddled and contradictory, but lets not allow ourselves to get confused and do the same to the reader. We can't write an informative article if we try and include 52 year-old Lambrettas without suspension as if they were still part of the mainstream, nor must we mistake a maxi-scooter for some new and distinct category. It's simply unhelpful and confusing. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a step-through frame is obvious and definitive to you, but not to me, and not to many others. Consider the Hildebrand & Wolfmüller. The article on Scooters says it is an ancestor of the modern scooter because it has a step through frame, yet it is best known as the first production motorcycle, not scooter. Many reliable sources say the Suzuki Burgman and such do blur the lines between scooter and motorcycle, and the new Honda DN-01 completely muddles the picture, in the considered opinion of many experts (secondary and tertiary sources) whose judgments must dictate the content of Wikipedia.

And moreover, I think you are promoting original research here. There is ample evidence that most of the motorcycling and scootering world recognizes maxi-scooters as a distinct category. Wiikpedia policy is to defer to normal usage in that sort of situation, even if, in one editor's opinion, it is unhelpful and confusing. Seems dubious to claim the category is confusing when so many publications use it, and if potential buyers were so confused then marketers from the major brands would call it something else.

And my humble opinion is that WP does readers a service by pointing out that the world is more shades of gray than black and white. And the fact that categories are ever-evolving, appearing and going extinct is an important aspect of the history of motorcycles.

If we did try to decide for ourselves what the "true" categories ought to be, sooner or later somebody will come along, accuse WP:OR and put us back to square one, re-fighting the same fight. Better to adhere to what the sources say and say nothing more. --Dbratland (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The battle over what is a scooter and what is a motorcycle is completely un-solvable. There is no such thing as 'normal useage' nor any agreement in the RS (well, that I've noticed). The article can't be written to a consensus that does not exist.

However, it can be stated that everything step-over is a motorcycle and everything Vespa-style (including all Maxi-scooters as best I can tell) is a scooter. In the middle is Cub-style, a big grey area where marketing decides what is scooter and what is not.

That's quite complex enough without confusing matters trying to include completely obsolete (ie non-suspension) layouts from 52 or 116 years ago. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Scoot Boot and Monogo trailers

I reverted the mention of these trailers, and the claim that they were gaining in popularity. The sentence "Most notably, scooter trailers, which can be attached to a scooter an pulled behind to increase the cargo capability of a scooter," cries out for verification. I found no secondary sources which support the claim that scooter trailers have gained notoriety or have increased in popularity. All we have is self-serving sources which say that these products exist. See Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. --Dbratland (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The only result in Wikimedia Commons when searching for "scooter trailer" as at the typing of this reply

It is interesting to note that the editor who keeps putting that content in this article (most recently without the examples but still without any source much less a reliable one) insists that scooter trailers are the most notable of scooter accessories. As I type this, there is only one result in searching for "scooter trailer" in Wikimedia Commons, and that result is for an old East German scooter and trailer. Meanwhile, searching for "scooter sidecar" yields the following relevant photos:

Vendor's sidecar in Thailand

Vespa with sidecar

Another Vespa with sidecar

Yet another Vespa with sidecar

I'm not advocating adding content to the article about sidecars (unless someone has a reliable source about them), but it does raise the question of just how notable scooter trailers really are. No signature (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me add only that I think both scooter trailers and scooter sidecars are quite interesting subjects and I would love to see more written about them here -- provided everything written is based on reliable sources.--Dbratland (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you missed the point that this is scooter DEVELOPMENTS not scooter ACCESSORIES. Yes sidecars are more prevalent than trailers because they are not DEVELOPMENTS but things that have been around as long as scooters. Things in this category by definition are not ubiquitous or they would no longer be DEVELOPMENTS but just the way things are.

Seriously google LPG scooters or scooters with heated handgrips and see how many you find--but you don't object to those in the section???—Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk • contribs)

If scooter trailers are notable, provide sources demonstrating they are notable. Please do not waste time pointing out that other non-notable stuff exists on Wikipeida. That's not an argument. See WP:OSE--Dbratland (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

See WP:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument why the vendetta against this addition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There's (probably) no vendetta against addition, just a resistance because the burden is on the creator to meet wikipedia's 5 pillars. tedder (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit war in "Scooter developments" section

The introduction to the "scooter developments" section in this article is being repeatedly deleted by User:68.68.107.25 and User:169.252.4.21 and repeatedly restored by User:Tedder and User:Dbratland.

When User:169.252.4.21 initially deleted the introduction, I assumed bad faith and/or retaliation on his part, but upon reading it and trying to justify replacing it, I couldn't find a reason to put it back. His reason for deleting it is valid: None of it is sourced, and sources for it are not at hand.

Until sources can be found to verify the passage, I suggest leaving it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamBlob (talk • contribs)

It was pretty easy to find good sources for the simple claims that scooters are growning in popularity and there are new developments in larger scooters. I just added 3. I moved LPG powered scooters to the See also section, where I also removed links that had already been linked to elsewhere in the article.

This person who keeps deleting parts of the article is throwing a tantrum, and is not interested in making the article better.--Dbratland (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

What is a motor scooter?

The battle over what is a scooter and what is a motorcycle is completely un-solvable. There is no such thing as 'normal useage' nor any agreement in the RS (well, that I've noticed). The article can't be written to a consensus that does not exist. - MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This statement basically says that the term "scooter" cannot be reliably defined.

As far as I know, when one wants definitions, one looks in the dictionary. So I looked for some dictionaries at my employers' library and at the Kingston and St. Andrew Parish Library. Enclosed are definitions in order of increasing recency of publication (i.e., the newer it is, the further down the list it is):

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (third ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 1968 [1956]. pp. 1808–09. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |month= (help) says:

Scooter - 3. A child's toy consisting of a narrow flat piece of wood on low wheels, with a steering handle, propelled by pushing with one foot on the ground; also, a similar machine propelled by a motor (1917)

Gove, Philip Babcock, ed. (1966). Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged. Springfield, Mass. USA: G & C Merriam. p. 1476. ISBN 0713510374. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |month= (help), says:

Motor scooter - A low 2- or 3- wheeled automotive vehicle resembling a child's scooter, having a seat so that the rider does not straddle the engine, sometimes having a parcel compartment, but having smaller wheels and being less powerful than a motorcycle.

Later, on page 2035, the same dictionary says:

Scooter - c. A child's vehicle that consists typically of a narrow footboard mounted between two wheels tandem, with an upright handle attached to the front wheel and that is operated by the child placing one foot on the footboard, pushing with the other foot, and steering with the handle. d. = motor scooter

Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary. Cleveland OH USA: The World Publishing Company. 1970. p. 1625. ISBN 0529048523. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |month= (help) says:

Scooter - 1. A child's vehicle, consisting of a low, narrow footboard with a wheel at each end, the front one attached to a handlebar for steering; it is moved by a series of pushes by one foot against the ground. 2. a somewhat similar vehicle equipped with a seat and propelled by a small internal combustion engine: in full "motor scooter".

The Living Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language. The English Language Institute of America. 1973. p. 629. ISBN 0832600016. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |separator=, |month=, |trans_chapter=, |laysummary=, |chapterurl=, and |lastauthoramp= (help) says:

Motor scooter - A scooterlike vehicle usually having two wheels separated by a low footboard and equipped with a motor and a seat for the driver.

Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus (3rd ed.). Glasgow: Harper Collins Publications. 2004. p. 776. ISBN 0007181396. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |month= (help) says:

Motor scooter - A light motorcycle with small wheels and and enclosed engine, often shortened to "scooter".

Chambers Concise Dictionary. Edinburgh: Chambers Harrup Publishers. 2004. p. 1084. ISBN 0550100725. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |month= (help) says:

Scooter - 2. (in full "motor scooter") a small-wheeled motorcycle with a protective front shield curving back to form a support for the feet.

World Book Dictionary. World Book Inc. 2005. p. 1356. ISBN 0716602993. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |trans_title= (help) says:

Motor scooter - A vehicle like a child's scooter, except that the driver is seated. It is run by a motor.

What this tells me, apart from that there are a lot of different Webster's dictionaries published by a lot of different publishers, is that the common attributes of the definitions include:

• similarity to a child's scooter (kick scooter)
• A motor or engine
• A seat (except the Oxford)
• A floorboard (except the Collins)
• Small or low wheels (Oxford, Merriam-Webster, Collins, Chambers)

Light weight, low power, and an enclosed engine are each mentioned in one or more of the definitions.

Can we conclude from this that the defining feature of the motor scooter is the floorboard, that scooters usually (but not always) have smaller wheels than underbones or conventional motorcycles, and that the method of mounting the engine is as irrelevant to the definition of a motor scooter as it is to the definition of a compact car? Or are we going to ignore these dictionary definitions and claim that scooters cannot be reliably defined because we do not agree with the available definitions?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Need accurate and complete definition in lead.

I wish to change the lead to read as follows - taking out as much of the historical material as I think can be dispensed with. Further restrictions of this section risk allowing significant confusion in the mind of the reader.

A scooter is a motorcycle with a step-through frame. Elements of scooter design were present in some of the earliest motorcycles, and motorcycles identifiable as scooters were produced from 1914 or earlier.

The global popularity of scooters and their contribution to mass-transportation really dates from the post-World War II introductions of the Vespa and the Lambretta. Low-cost (or austerity) personal transportation, they had engines from 50 to 250 cc. This original layout is still widely used for the same application - it can be recognised by the small wheels, usually made of pressed-steel (not spoked) and bolted in place from one side. Maxi-scooters of this form (engines from 250 to 800 cc) are now marketed largely for leisure use in Western markets. The original hand-controlled gear-change has been superseded by automatic gear-boxes, while electrics etc have improved out of all recognition.

Underbones are commonly known as scooters in the West. Successors of an even more popular design, the 1958 Honda Super Cub, they have step-through architecture but in almost all important respects are similar to motorcycles, having large-ish spoked (and hence axle-mounted) wheels chain-driven by an engine fixed to the frame in the usual manner. Most modern underbones have foot platforms similar to those of traditional scooters (though with a more defined central "hump" to clear the more forward mounted engine) but the original Cub (50 to 90 cc) and many of its small clones had (and have) regular motorcycle footrests. The original underbones all had foot-operated semi-automatic gearboxes but many are now automatic transmission too. Underbones tend to have better handling and braking than traditional scooters.

A further confusing sub-division of the scooter is that of the pedal-equipped moped, which at one time was treated differently from scooters and motorcycles. True mopeds (both scooter and motorcycle form) have vanished but 50 cc scooter/motorcycles of restricted power often have less restrictive licensing requirements eg 16 year-olds can ride "mopeds" in jurisdictions such as the UK where the rider must otherwise be 17 year old.

Scooters are popular for personal transport, partly based on their low cost of purchase and operation and on benefits that include convenience in parking and storage. Licensing requirements for scooters are identical to those of motrocycles almost everywhere in the world, normally less restrictive and cheaper than those for cars. Insurance is required almost everywhere, but this is also generally cheaper than that required for a car.

As has been argued elsewhere, the only way to be more concise would be to define large-wheel underbones as motorcycles, mentioning them in the article but putting all substantive discussion of them into their own article. As long as we stick to our current definition, we need to write the lead somewhat like the above to avoid further exacerbating the widespread confusion over foot-pegs/platform, gear-changing methods and wheel-type. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

In case you have forgotten, WP:LEAD requires the lead section of an article to be a summary of the article. There is rather extensive coverage of the history of the scooter in the article. Removing what little mention of it there is in the lead section would be ridiculous.

The one redeeming feature of your proposal is the mention of the development of the transmissions and electronics in scooters. Otherwise, it is rather badly written, with poor grammar and informal tone. Further to this, it keeps referring to underbones as being "closer to motorcycles", as if scooters and underbones are not already motorcycles by definition.

Far from attempting to clarify matters, you then confuse matters further by including mopeds in the lead. The only instances where mopeds are mentioned in the body of the article are in "Regulatory classification":

Most jurisdictions have no legal definition for scooters, instead regulating scooters as motorcycles or mopeds depending on their engine characteristics and sitting configuration.

and in "Three-wheeled scooters", where someone included the Ariel 3 moped even though it is not a scooter. Many governments have legal definitions for mopeds and, in some cases, certain scooters fall within these definitions. This is the only instance in which scooters and mopeds overlap. The difference is otherwise quite clear.

Underbones *are* defined as motorcycles, and so are scooters. They are different types of motorcycles. However, I would agree with you in mentioning them in this article but putting all substantive discussion of them into their own article. Contrary to your assertion that the term "scooter" cannot be defined adequately, there are several quite clear definitions of the term which, when analysed and condensed, come to this:

A motor scooter is a motorcycle similar to a kick scooter with a seat, a floorboard, and small or low wheels.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I was not going to harp on the definition of "scooter" in case there was some undocumented agreement to ignore it but I am happy to accept what you're saying, that the article in its current form is simply wrong. All attempts to include the Honda Cub and its myriad clones within the category of "scooters" are pointless since they are not scooters. The article should be restricted to the small-wheeled powered two-wheeler (or "motorcycle") with a swinging engine, with a note that underbones, though easily mistaken for scooters, are a different category entirely. And another note that scooter-like "mopeds" may or may not be scooters within the accepted definition. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I had always thought that the engine's location was key in determining whether it was a scooter. Certainly most scooters have swinging engines, but I also think anything that has an engine under or behind the rider is a scooter. Underbones (including models like the Honda Super Cub) have the engine mounted forward on the frame. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Swinging engines are the most usual scooter drivetrain layout, just as transverse front engine/front drive is the most usual drivetrain layout for a subcompact/supermini. However, the swinging engine doesn't define the scooter any more than the FF layout defines the supermini. A definition including the swinging engine will exclude all Cushman scooters, Lambrettas up to 1957, and the Heinkel Tourist, all of which are notable scooters.

Defining the scooter as having an engine under or behind the rider will widen the scope and include all of the examples I have stated. Below, I will illustrate how our definitions affect the classification of the pictured vehicles:

• 
  Meets none of our definitions, can be mentioned as an early development, and probably as a motorized scooter.
• 
  A version of the previous. Addition of the seat makes it meet my dictionary-based definition, but the front-mounted engine means it meets no-one else's.
• 
  Floorboard, engine under seat; it meets my definition and Biker Biker's. Spoked wheels and obvious swingarm with chain enclosure means it doesn't meet MalcolmMcDonald's.
• 
  Under the enclosure is a frame-mounted engine and a frame-mounted rear axle with no suspension. A scooter by my definition and Biker Biker's, not by MalcolmMcDonald's.
• 
  Under the enclosure is a frame-mounted engine and a swingarm with an integral chain enclosure. A scooter by my definition and Biker Biker's, not by MalcolmMcDonald's.

Are they scooters, or are they not scooters?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the question - three of them would have to be classified with whatever definitions were in use at the time. They cannot be forced to fit any modern category for many reasons (in particular because they have no suspension). If they were called scooters back then you're in luck.

Two are virtually modern-style underbones without any qualifications that I can tell. However, the designs are forgotten and even the manufacturers are defunct so it would be ridiculous to write the article around them. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Take a close look at the Heinkel Tourist in the last picture. Where is the downtube connecting the steering head to the rest of the frame? Where are the tall, spoked wheels? Which part of that machine is related to an underbone? Clearly not the spare tyre under the trunk...

The Jawa in the third picture doesn't have an underbone frame either. It looks like it is made with structural pressed steel body panels, like Vespas and Heinkels, but unlike Lambrettas, which had frames made from steel tubes.

Swinging engines do not define scooters any more than turbojet engines define fighter aircraft or nuclear power defines military submarines. Ignoring Cushman in an article on scooters is a bit like ignoring the Albatros or the Spitfire in an article on fighter aircraft and beginning the article with the deHavilland Vampire and the F-80 Shooting Star.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right, the Heinkel and the Jawa probably cannot be classified as underbones since the frame is not a formed tube in the modern sense, they're built on an assembly of parts (including portions of cut sheet?). This only further emphasises the danger of attempting to apply a modern definition to 60 year old designs which do not seem to have led anywhere. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

@Biker Biker - I think you're correct with your definition of modern machines, engine/suspension arrangement is key. I don't know how to fix the glaring error in the first line, however, I'd be inclined to exclude the Honda Cub from this article and just add a note somewhere that some underbones are marketed as "scooters" though they don't really fit the definition. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

All I can say is, my approach is typically to "embrace the ambiguity" rather than try to resolve it. If WP editors invent their own definition of "scooter", that is a creative act of original research, which is not what WP is for. I would place a higher priority on making sure readers are aware that there are several different definitions from leading authorities, and each definition has advantages and defects. The end, full stop. Telling the reader which of these definitions is the best -- arbitrarily -- is not what WP does. It might in some cases be possible to verify that a particular definition has a wider following, but that's about as far as you can go.

It's like the CB750: in 1969 it was a "superbike". In 2010, it's a "standard". Same bike, but perceptions change over time; because a lot of this stuff is relative. --Dbratland (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source anywhere that includes a swinging engine in the definition of a scooter? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Does it matter? We seem to have stripped the underbone machine out of the article and self-restricted to scooters along the pattern of the Vespa/Lambretta, so we've chosen the small-wheeled type. I dislike the foot-platform (floor-board?!) mention but if it's in the dictionary definition I suppose I'll have to live with it. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

So verifiability does not matter... This is an interesting view for an editor of Wikipedia to have. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well then, ban me. It's not very obvious that people who know about the subject are wanted. Though it does seem as if the article now looks much more like I wanted it to look in the first place. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)