84:
187:, which could only mean that the turning circle distance is the length of the arc that the wheels follow when turning the vehicle 180 degrees around. This is one of those misleading "sounds right but it is wrong" definitions. The distance measurement that this article needs to focus on is the straight-line distance to/through the center of the turning circle, NOT the curved line distance connecting the start and end points of the 180 degree turn.
844:
does a circle represent? It can mean several, i.e. radius, diameter, circumference, all giving different numerical values. Using turning diameter clearly seems like the best option to me, and it seems to be used by at least one reputable source: Audi. Can we have an academic discussion about what the terms represent first? It appears to me that all three terms are used to refer to the turning diameter.
22:
74:
53:
636:– From my understanding, turning diameter seems to be the more mathematically correct term of this measurement according to usage. If this is correct, it makes sense to move the article to Turning diameter. Anyway, I have edited the article to try to highlight the difference between radius and diameter, as well as the apparent confusion within parts of the auto industry.
474:'Turning radius' seems to be a term used but I do not know what it means. My guess would be that it is the radius of a turn or curve and in the case of a vehicle, the distance between the theoretical centre of a curve and a point on the vehicle situated at half the vehicle width and aligned with the rear wheels.
173:
Two different measurements can be quoted for a vehicle. A curb or curb-to-curb turning circle will show the distance traveled by the wheels. The wall or wall-to-wall turning circle will include an allowance for the width of the whole car, including the overhang of the bodywork. For example, a van may
858:
I would add that the turning circle is both the path that is swept in the manoeuvre and when a value is mentioned the size of the path. Generally circles are described by their diameter unless radius is specified. Compare "Cut a 4cm circle in the piece of wood" versus "draw a circle with a radius of
843:
article - many refer to it as a bandwidth gap, but in reality it is the data - not the bandwidth - which is capped, making data gap the correct title. In the same manner, using turning radius as presented in this article is mathematically erroneous, and turning circle is ambiguous - what measurement
282:
However, there may be a place for notable deviations from the norm if it can be referenced - for example, we all know thew cliché that oil tankers have a very large turning radius and I have read that London's Black taxis have a particularly tight turning radius compared to other vehicles on british
233:
If the Car Starts parallel to the right curb, almost touch the curb, and then turns its wheels hard left, it will be able to do ONE U-turn past the 2nd curb, ALTHOUGH if it continues to do a 360 degree turn, then its right front tire will bump the right curb, UNLESS the starting position of the car
1051:
Overwhelmingly many here have defaulted to "oppose" without going into a discussion on technical correctness or ambiguity. The use of either turning radius or turning circle on the basis of being common names are valid responses, but I think is a bit lazy when other points and arguments have been
761:
Turning diameter may also immediately seem to be a more useful measurement. For example it tells how wide a road, parking lot, etc., needs to be in order for a car with a given turning diameter to be able to make a U-turn. Or the other way around: How little turning radius a car needs to have in
384:
If "Turning Circle" is the more accurate nomenclature for
Turning Radius, as is posited by this article (The term turning radius is a misnomer, since the size of a circle is actually its diameter, not its radius. The less ambiguous term turning circle is preferred) why does a Knowledge search on
240:
But in the U Turn, is the
Diameter from the outside right wheel to the outside right wheel? In essence how far apart the curbs would have to be so that you do not hit them? Example, you have a car with a 30" curb to curb diameter and the curbs are 31" apart. If you start flush to the curb on the
1062:
What I ask is: (1) read the article as it stands now (as I assume everyone have done), (2) read the arguments for and against, and (3) please join in a technical discussion so that a common understanding can be reached about the topic. Only then it makes sense to discuss the name. So far, only
502:
Turning radius is an established term within the car world. The radius of a circle is mathematically defined as half its diameter. Radius is also used about the curvature of corners in general (not just circles) in various scientific and technological disciplines, i.e. technical drawings. As I
896:
is the circumference, so it is ambiguous if "turning circle" is used to indicate the diameter. The most important thing we do here on
Knowledge is to disambiguate, so in my opinion we should avoid ambiguous terms. Thus my recommandation to use turning diameter as the primary name, as well as
1055:
Normally
Knowledge should use common names, but not necessarily when common terms in everyday language are technically wrong. For example, weight and mass are used interchangeably by many in everyday talk, but have different technical meanings. That technical difference is important.
324:
In high school, I formulated an equation that relates the distance between the centroids of the front and rear wheels and the "front wheel turning angle" of a bicycle. The equation explicitly gives the radius of the circular path. Should I include a section about regarding this?
838:
This corresponds with the NGRAMS argument as laid out by GraemeLeggett. Turning circle and turning radius indeed are the most used terms, but each have their problems. What do you think about those arguments? I see this as a somewhat similar situation as with for example the
739:, as laid out in the article, is very ambiguous, as it does not indicate whether the measurement is about the radius, diameter, circumference or anything else. Turning diameter seems to be more technically correct in all cases, and the word seems to at least be used by Audi.(
655:
357:
Even when the discussion on cars is "adequate", and even mentioning "airplanes", the article does not contain ANY information on them!. Turning radius is a very important concept in airplanes and other aerial vehicles, specially in combat ones. Amclaussen.
415:
This may also have to do with language differences -- trunk, hood, and gas, vs boot, bonnet, and petrol e.g. Where I live -- western USA, I only have heard turning radius, which is incorrect mathematically, (see above) but is understood as a driver.
166:
For the sake of those
Knowledge readers who come to this page not already knowing the right way to define the technical term "turning radius", please consider the meaning and construction of the second paragraph, copied here:
998:"No one is arguing that turning radius and turning circle aren't the most common names" - then what is the point of this proposal? Article titles must follow the common name as used in reliable sources. From
278:
an indiscriminate collection of information. Besides, such a list would be incredibly long, impossible to maintain and of limited encyclopedic value; and how would you propose providing references for each
683:
687:
1002:: "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject". We cannot simply make up a name because we dislike the names used by reliable sources.
859:
5cm". I would also be aware that limiting your sources to automobiles when "turning circle" is relevant to combat aircraft (eg the
Spitfire having a tighter turn than a Bf 109) and ships.
976:
No one is arguing that turning radius and turning circle aren't the most common names. However, I kindly ask for your input on the other arguments laid out for using turning diameter.
897:
mentioning other terms and their corresponding ambiguous meanings and natural misunderstandings that can arise due to conflict between mathematical definitions and automobile jargons.
400:
It's very confusing that this article is titled "turning radius", when the more common term is "turning circle" and the article goes on to say that "turning circle" is more accurate.
892:
I am not sure if I am understanding you correctly, but are you arguing that a "circular measurement" primarily should mean diameter? In my world and mathematically speaking, the
503:
mentioned above, I think radius is a more precise term than circle. Merely saying circle is ambiguous since since it can refer to for example radius, diameter or circumference.
234:
is not 1 inch from the 1st Curb, but 12 inches for example, and then the Car can do a complete 360 degree turn, with the front right tire being able to pass both curbs.
1042:
When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.
790:
When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.
603:
762:
order to be able to make a U-turn on a given road width (for example 6.5 meter wide road). The turning radius does not immediately seem as useful in practice.
140:
1102:
130:
1059:
It seems like turning radius in the car world is code speak for turning diameter, but I like to "call it what it is", and guess others think so too?
1097:
1066:
The article as it stands now is a bit messy and ambiguous. I've tried to contribute and clear things up, but my knowledge on the topic is limited.
443:
is more ambiguous since it can refer to for example radius (r), diameter (2r) or circumference (2 pi r). What seems to be really important here is
106:
401:
365:
305:
587:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
1036:
In my mind, Knowledge should aim to mention common names, but also to be technically correct and to disambiguate. As I mentioned above,
251:
97:
58:
487:
825:
740:
205:
between these two measurements of turning radius. As it stands, the definition of wall to wall is obscured by weak writing.
1084:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
341:
743:) To me it seems common sense to use turning diameter (unless I have misunderstood the technical terms in this article).
662:
33:
385:
Turning Circle redirect to *this* article, Turning Radius? Shouldn't
Turning Radius link back to Turning Circle?
686:
or that if we go back at bit to
English Corpus 2009 then turning radius and turning circle are more or less equal
578:
1037:
999:
785:
369:
555:, and tried to give a short explanation in the introduction about the difference between diameter and radius.
405:
309:
21:
255:
864:
694:
491:
218:
588:
390:
39:
337:
1026:
715:
483:
361:
329:
301:
247:
928:
591:
after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
477:
Figures quoted in the text appear to be turning circle figures (i.e. circle diameter), not radius.
288:
333:
105:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1071:
981:
950:
902:
887:
860:
849:
819:
796:
788:
which may be used to support using turning diameter instead of turning radius or turning circle:
767:
748:
690:
641:
560:
532:
508:
456:
421:
658:
386:
353:
Totally incomplete article, it only talks about cars, and completely ignoring other vehicles
237:
So... does Curb to Curb
Turning Circle allow ONE U-turn, or a complete 360 degree turn ???
1022:
957:
893:
711:
298:
Is it true to suggest that the largest turn radius (on Earth) equals 10 Mm, or 5.400 NM?
214:
1007:
971:
923:
627:
552:
548:
527:, and tried to give a short explanation of the difference between diameter and radius.
524:
520:
284:
710:. The current title of this article is presently the most common name for this topic.
1091:
1067:
993:
977:
964:
898:
845:
815:
792:
763:
744:
657:
I'm guessing that more sources actually do talk about the radius than the diameter. (
637:
556:
528:
504:
452:
417:
275:
682:
While acknowledging that in British English "turning circle" is the dominant term.
608:
943:
667:
547:
Since these two articles were on the same subject I have performed the merge of
89:
519:
Since these two articles are on the same subject I have performed the merge of
270:
would it be useful to start compiling a list of turning radiuses on cars here?
102:
79:
1063:
GraemeLeggett has contributed with technical interpretations on the subject.
181:
My primary objection is to the definition in the second sentence--it is wrong
1003:
73:
52:
654:
radius is the overwhelming COMMONNAME in print sources, according to NGRAMS
174:
have been quoted as having a turning circle (in meters) of 12.1(C)/12.4(W).
1052:
laid out and remain un-answered. It does not move the discussion forward.
840:
1075:
1030:
1011:
985:
935:
906:
868:
853:
829:
800:
771:
752:
719:
698:
673:
645:
618:
564:
536:
512:
495:
460:
425:
409:
394:
373:
345:
313:
292:
259:
222:
241:
right side, you should be able to do U Turn with 1 inch to spare.
15:
471:
I'm not sure there is anything correct in this article.
731:
when the measurement indeed seems to refer to a circle
632:
193:
between curb-to-curb and wall-to-wall turning circles.
1021:. Clear common name, whether it's accurate or not. --
183:--because it defines the turning distance as the one
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
158:
Confused or confusing definitions word choice: "...
727:: Policies aside, I feel it is weird to call it
208:I've made these two changes to the topic text.
8:
1046:the only term which is sourced at the moment
19:
577:The following is a closed discussion of a
481:
47:
1048:, and it is cited from an Audi brochure.
543:Turning circle merged into Turning radius
480:The diagram has a number of issues too.
162:" IS NOT the distance traveled by wheels.
814:. have never heard the target name used
191:My second objection is to the comparison
741:p. 39, "Turning diameter, curb-to-curb"
229:What is Curb to Curb Turning Circle ???
49:
451:, or is there something I am missing?
320:turning radius equation for a bicycle
7:
596:The result of the move request was:
95:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
1103:Low-importance Automobile articles
14:
195:This could be a simple comparison
115:Knowledge:WikiProject Automobiles
1080:The discussion above is closed.
431:I don't understand why the term
118:Template:WikiProject Automobiles
82:
72:
51:
20:
1098:Start-Class Automobile articles
570:Requested move 15 February 2021
135:This article has been rated as
604:closed by non-admin page mover
426:13:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
1:
1076:16:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
1031:14:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
1012:11:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
986:07:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
936:19:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
907:17:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
869:15:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
854:14:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
830:11:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
801:21:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
772:21:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
753:21:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
720:19:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
699:19:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
674:18:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
646:18:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
619:04:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
565:11:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
537:11:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
513:11:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
461:11:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
260:19:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
223:06:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
109:and see a list of open tasks.
374:17:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
346:03:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
496:00:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
160:curb-to-curb turning circle
1119:
395:04:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
293:16:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
141:project's importance scale
410:09:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
134:
67:
46:
1082:Please do not modify it.
1038:Knowledge:Article titles
1000:Knowledge:Article titles
786:Knowledge:Article titles
584:Please do not modify it.
314:13:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
894:size of a circular path
197:that tells the reader
98:WikiProject Automobiles
784:Here is a policy from
380:Preferred Nomenclature
185:traveled by the wheels
28:This article is rated
1044:Turning diameter is
435:more accurate than
121:Automobile articles
34:content assessment
1040:also states that
607:
498:
486:comment added by
364:comment added by
349:
332:comment added by
304:comment added by
250:comment added by
203:what is different
155:
154:
151:
150:
147:
146:
1110:
997:
975:
968:
961:
954:
947:
932:
926:
922:per common name
891:
670:
635:
633:Turning diameter
616:
601:
586:
376:
348:
326:
316:
276:Knowledge is not
262:
244:- Look for God
199:what is the same
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
85:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1118:
1117:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
991:
969:
962:
955:
948:
941:
930:
924:
885:
668:
631:
609:
582:
572:
545:
469:
439:. If anything,
382:
359:
355:
327:
322:
299:
268:
245:
231:
176:
164:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
88:
83:
81:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
1116:
1114:
1106:
1105:
1100:
1090:
1089:
1079:
1034:
1033:
1015:
1014:
939:
938:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
911:
910:
909:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
833:
832:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
803:
777:
776:
775:
774:
756:
755:
737:turning circle
722:
704:
703:
702:
701:
677:
676:
628:Turning radius
624:
622:
594:
593:
579:requested move
573:
571:
568:
553:Turning radius
549:Turning circle
544:
541:
540:
539:
525:Turning radius
521:Turning circle
516:
515:
468:
465:
464:
463:
413:
412:
402:203.59.152.230
381:
378:
366:192.100.180.19
354:
351:
321:
318:
306:85.164.222.225
296:
295:
280:
267:
264:
230:
227:
178:
177:
171:
163:
156:
153:
152:
149:
148:
145:
144:
137:Low-importance
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
62:Low‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1115:
1104:
1101:
1099:
1096:
1095:
1093:
1083:
1078:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1064:
1060:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1017:
1016:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1001:
995:
990:
989:
988:
987:
983:
979:
973:
966:
959:
952:
951:GraemeLeggett
945:
937:
934:
933:
927:
921:
918:
917:
908:
904:
900:
895:
889:
888:GraemeLeggett
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
870:
866:
862:
861:GraemeLeggett
857:
856:
855:
851:
847:
842:
837:
836:
835:
834:
831:
827:
824:
821:
817:
813:
810:
809:
802:
798:
794:
791:
787:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
773:
769:
765:
760:
759:
758:
757:
754:
750:
746:
742:
738:
734:
730:
726:
723:
721:
717:
713:
709:
706:
705:
700:
696:
692:
691:GraemeLeggett
688:
685:
681:
680:
679:
678:
675:
672:
671:
664:
660:
656:
653:
650:
649:
648:
647:
643:
639:
634:
629:
625:
621:
620:
617:
615:
614:
605:
599:
592:
590:
585:
580:
575:
574:
569:
567:
566:
562:
558:
554:
550:
542:
538:
534:
530:
526:
522:
518:
517:
514:
510:
506:
501:
500:
499:
497:
493:
489:
485:
478:
475:
472:
466:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
430:
429:
428:
427:
423:
419:
411:
407:
403:
399:
398:
397:
396:
392:
388:
379:
377:
375:
371:
367:
363:
352:
350:
347:
343:
339:
335:
331:
319:
317:
315:
311:
307:
303:
294:
290:
286:
281:
277:
273:
272:
271:
265:
263:
261:
257:
253:
252:72.220.62.110
249:
242:
238:
235:
228:
226:
224:
220:
216:
212:
209:
206:
204:
200:
196:
192:
188:
186:
182:
175:
170:
169:
168:
161:
157:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1081:
1065:
1061:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1045:
1041:
1035:
1018:
940:
929:
919:
822:
811:
789:
736:
732:
728:
724:
707:
666:
651:
626:
623:
612:
610:
597:
595:
583:
576:
546:
482:— Preceding
479:
476:
473:
470:
449:wall-to-wall
448:
445:curb-to-curb
444:
440:
436:
432:
414:
383:
360:— Preceding
356:
323:
297:
269:
243:
239:
236:
232:
213:
210:
207:
202:
198:
194:
190:
189:
184:
180:
179:
172:
165:
159:
136:
96:
40:WikiProjects
589:move review
387:Cyphoidbomb
328:—Preceding
300:—Preceding
246:—Preceding
225:writealong
112:Automobiles
103:automobiles
90:Cars portal
59:Automobiles
30:Start-class
1092:Categories
1023:Necrothesp
958:Rreagan007
712:Rreagan007
684:NGRAM here
488:79.64.1.38
215:Writealong
972:Red Slash
816:Cas Liber
598:Not moved
285:Astronaut
1068:Sauer202
994:Sauer202
978:Sauer202
965:Casliber
899:Sauer202
846:Sauer202
841:data cap
826:contribs
793:Sauer202
764:Sauer202
745:Sauer202
733:diameter
638:Sauer202
557:Sauer202
529:Sauer202
505:Sauer202
484:unsigned
453:Sauer202
418:GeeBee60
362:unsigned
342:contribs
330:unsigned
302:unsigned
283:roads.
248:unsigned
725:Comment
613:Calidum
447:versus
334:Yoshi12
266:A list?
139:on the
1019:Oppose
944:Buidhe
920:Oppose
812:Oppose
735:? And
729:radius
708:Oppose
669:buidhe
652:Oppose
467:Errors
441:circle
437:radius
433:circle
279:entry?
36:scale.
931:Slash
551:into
523:into
274:No.
211:Hth,
1072:talk
1027:talk
1008:talk
1004:A7V2
982:talk
903:talk
865:talk
850:talk
820:talk
797:talk
768:talk
749:talk
716:talk
695:talk
642:talk
561:talk
533:talk
509:talk
492:talk
457:talk
422:talk
406:talk
391:talk
370:talk
338:talk
310:talk
289:talk
256:talk
219:talk
201:and
925:Red
611:--
131:Low
1094::
1074:)
1029:)
1010:)
984:)
905:)
867:)
852:)
828:)
799:)
770:)
751:)
718:)
697:)
689:.
665:)
661:·
644:)
630:→
600:.
581:.
563:)
535:)
511:)
494:)
459:)
424:)
408:)
393:)
372:)
344:)
340:•
312:)
291:)
258:)
221:)
1070:(
1025:(
1006:(
996::
992:@
980:(
974::
970:@
967::
963:@
960::
956:@
953::
949:@
946::
942:@
901:(
890::
886:@
863:(
848:(
823:·
818:(
795:(
766:(
747:(
714:(
693:(
663:c
659:t
640:(
606:)
602:(
559:(
531:(
507:(
490:(
455:(
420:(
404:(
389:(
368:(
336:(
308:(
287:(
254:(
217:(
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
