This is interesting. BikePedia is the site I'd currently go to for stuff like this. And at least for the bikes I have direct knowledge of, BikePedia has more of the bikes and fewer errors. For example, in 2005 we have the Trek 2100 WSD which you say has 700/650x25c tires (correct) but 650b wheels (incorrect). The 1500 WSD in the same year lists 700x25c tires only, despite that the smallest versions came with 650x25c instead--a critical distinction. And the derailleur specs are wrong too (BikePedia has the right ones).
I'd contribute corrections if it were right there on the page like Wikipedia, but probably not if I have to go dig for something to edit in GitHub. And I'm less motivated to contribute to a project which for some reason has worse initial data than the existing sites. I wonder where the errors came from.
Similarly, does the site simply rely on people adding whatever bikes they feel like? It seems odd that Detroit Bikes is a listed manufacturer but LeMond is not. LeMond was a fairly significant brand until a few years ago, and there are lots of used ones on the market--unlike Detroit Bikes which I imagine most people have never seen before.
Yeah, but bikepedia is ugly and isn't useable on mobile. It also, most importantly, doesn't have an API.
We actually asked bikepedia multiple times if they had an API, or if we could help build one and were told they weren't interested. So we built a prettier, more useable, open source solution. The kinks will work themselves out.
Respectfully, your site is not as usable as BikePedia on a laptop computer. Here are some suggestions:
Let me change the model year without having to select the model again. BikePedia has quick links for this, so I know right away what other years there are.
Have the comparison tool default to something smart, such as the same year and manufacturer, rather than starting the second bike totally blank.
Add some sort of filtering to help people find bikes they might want ("about three years old, MTB, Shimano XT or similar").
I'd contribute corrections if it were right there on the page like Wikipedia, but probably not if I have to go dig for something to edit in GitHub. And I'm less motivated to contribute to a project which for some reason has worse initial data than the existing sites. I wonder where the errors came from.
Similarly, does the site simply rely on people adding whatever bikes they feel like? It seems odd that Detroit Bikes is a listed manufacturer but LeMond is not. LeMond was a fairly significant brand until a few years ago, and there are lots of used ones on the market--unlike Detroit Bikes which I imagine most people have never seen before.