Talk:Penny-farthing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cycling Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling. WikiProject Cycling is an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] A Wager, Good Chap

I say, my good fellow, would thou wager a shinny dime against my penny-farthing in a gentleman game of change? -Alfred Nickleworth

[edit] Requested move

Sorry to be anal-retentive, but this article is at penny-farthing with a redirect from ordinary_bicycle; this is the wrong way round. As the article says, penny-farthing is a colloquialism - and in any case applies mainly to the racing high-wheeler with a particularly large front wheel. Just zis Guy, you know? 15:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia policy for article titles to be at the most common name for the thing, even if it is not the most formal / official / original name. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Anyway, what makes ordinary bicycle the "offical" name? Who is in charge of offically naming bicycles? --Vclaw 21:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
What makes it right is history. Read any history of the development of the bicycle and you will see that in 1885 Starley invented the Rover Safety bicycle, the safety bicycle being a much safer alternative to the ordinary. Penny-farthing was already a term in use at that time to describe the most extreme high-wheelers, used for racing. Among cyclists in my experience the accepted terms are "ordinary", "safety" (or "upright" or "diamond frame" depdneing on context) or "recumbent". Normal might be used for a diamond frame , but ordinary always means a high-wheeler. Like I said, it's anal-retentive, but it does actually say in the article that "ordinary" is the correct term. - Just zis Guy, you know? 22:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Descision

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 12:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia???

Why is there a trivia section in this article? The "trivia" should either be removed or integrated into the article, in my opinion. Encyclopedic articles do not have trivia sections. If information is not important enough to be integrated into the article, then it has no place in the article. Heavy Metal Cellisttalkcontribs

[edit] Pendulum Effect?

"Although very stable because of the pendulum effect..." huh? This needs clarification. Is perhaps gyroscopic effect what is meant? Pjbflynn 06:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Bad science. I've made the change. -Rolypolyman 22:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
When balancing a bike you are sitting on an inverted pendulum. An ordinary is a longer pendulum than a safety, so has a longer period of swing and gives the rider more time to correct their balance. Ordinaries can be ridden very slowly with ease by experienced riders, at speeds where gyroscopic effect has little influence. I think there is room for both pendulum and gyroscopic effects to be mentioned here. Nick1961 18:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)



[edit] A broken chair is not a chair

A broken chord is not a chord. An inverted pendulum is not a pendulum. Never leave out the the "inverted" in "inverted pendulum".


The problem with small wheeels and no castor is that the rider had to ride a combined inverted pendulum with gyroscopic forces that inhibit steering, and then feed back into "speed wobble" ..instability at speed.

So riding slowly, one can ride the inverted pendulum . When riding the penny farthing, one had to slow down to inverted pendulum speeds to turn, and then one had to be a master at inverted pendulum riding to achieve the turn.


Attempting to overcome gyrscopic force of the penny farthing front wheel while moving at speed was not possible, as the small and lightly loaded rear wheel would not grip and so would not provide enough torque. The small wheel would bounce along and provide very little torque.


The penny farthing got the large front wheel because the older castor deficient design did not have signficant castor, and were hard to pedal as the pedal 'plane' rotated compared to the rider (a real pain in the legs !)


The safety bike gave the much more leg friendly pedal arrangement , plus the castor on the front wheel removed the problems with turning , stability at speed and feed back to the rider. The better pedal arrangement of the safety bike gave the rider better ability to do the "inverted pendulum" control at slow speeds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.92.40.8 (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. I have changed the article to read "Although very stable at low speed because of the inverted pendulum effect". I think some of the points made by the unsigned contributor above could do with incorporating in the article. It sounds like he has actually ridden one of the things. I haven't.Nick1961 (talk) 11:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's it made of?

I was curious to know what materials the ordinary was made of, especially the tires, but there doesn't appear to be any info about design and manufacturing. Can anyone fill in the blanks? (no account) 19:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

According to Wiebe Bijkers Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs Dunlop reinvented the air-tyre, and fited it to a bike, in 1888. Before this, from 1870s onward a noninflated rubber tire was ‘the state of the art in bicycle construction’ . The Ariel (1870), on of the early high wheeled bicycles, seems (looking at a picture) to be riding on it’s rims —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mach10 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photo of coins?

It would be nice to have a photo of a penny and a farthing of the day to get a sense of how accurate the name is. —Ben FrantzDale 02:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fixie

this is pretty much the original fixie. hell yes. Littlewing0906 (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wheel size and stability

"Given the absence of a stabilising steering system, larger and larger wheels were built with the intention of increasing stability at speed. The classically oversized penny-farthing wheel, which measured 1.5m (60") in diameter resulted in such large gyroscopic force that it was stable without a caster steering system."

I cannot find a source for this claim. I have seen the counter claim that the drive wheel was enlarged simply to gain a faster cruising speed. For example,
  • The Wheelman, an orgianization "Dedicated To The Enjoyment And Preservation Of Our Bicycling Heritage", says on their FAQ "Why did they make the wheel so big? The short answer is to go faster! The larger the wheel the more ground covered with each rotation. A taller person had an advantage over a shorter person simply because the taller person could ride a larger wheel and outpace his counterpart."
  • Britannica Online says "The ordinary’s cranks were directly connected to the front wheel, and its speed was limited by pedaling cadence and wheel diameter. Larger front wheels went faster and handled better on bad roads."
  • Exploratorium says "The pedals were attached directly to the front wheel of the high-wheelers. The larger the front wheel on an "Ordinary," the farther the cyclist would travel with each turn of the pedals."
  • Sheldon Brown says "Before the use of chain drive, bicycles had direct drive. The cranks were directly attached to the hub of the drive wheel. The larger the wheel, the farther the bicycle would move with each turn of the pedals. The diameter of the drive wheel determined the gear of the bicycle. The larger the wheel, the higher the gear. With a chain-driven "safety" bicycle, you can have any gear you want by selecting appropriate sprockets. With a high-wheel bicycle, the limiting factor is how long your legs are, because you can only pedal a wheel that is small enough for your legs to straddle and reach the pedals throughout the pedal revolution." And "back in the high-wheeler era (1870s through early '90s) long legged riders had an advantage, because they could straddle a larger diameter wheel, effectively giving them a higher "gear." By pedaling on the balls of their feet, they could get a bit more leg extension, permitting a given rider to straddle a larger, faster machine. The development of the safety bicycle rendered this concern obsolete, but the habit (and advice) persisted."
Anyone have anything definitive one way or the other? -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Guess not. Okay, out it comes. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)