Talk:Penny-farthing

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

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)

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)

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 Cellist^talk_contribs

Modified to record contributions of penny-farthings to popular culture. -AndrewDressel (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

I still think this needs to be clarified more. An inverted pendulum is "inherently unstable" according to the first paragraph of the Inverted pendulum page. If this is stable because of some effect then it should be explained. Right now it seems similar to saying that something is safe because it's made out of TNT. Barhamd (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Last call for someone to explain this better. I'm going to try and do some research and see if I can find proof of this claim. If I can't soon I'm going to go ahead and remove that it's easy due to the inverted pendulum effect. If anyone opposes let me know. Barhamd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC).

First, the current text actually asserts that penny-farthings are easy to ride slowly because of the inverted pendulum effect. It does not claim that they are more stable.

Second, the article, to which the provided wikilink points, explains:

The equation of motion is similar to that for a uninverted pendulum except that the sign of the angular position as measured from the vertical unstable equilibrium position:

${\ddot {\theta }}-{g \over \ell }\sin \theta$ = 0

When added to both sides, it will have the same sign as the angular acceleration term:

${\ddot {\theta }}={g \over \ell }\sin \theta$

Thus, the inverted pendulum will accelerate away from the vertical unstable equilibrium in the direction initially displaced, and the acceleration is inversely proportional to the length. Tall pendulums fall more slowly than short ones.

Since that appears to be insufficient, perhaps these references will help:

Tall broomsticks fall less quickly than shorter ones (the time it takes an object to fall is proportional to [y_CM/g]^1/2, where y_CM is the height of the COM above the support) and so are easier to balance. - David Wilson (Mechanical Engineering Professor at MIT), Bicycling Science, page 268.

Have you ever noticed that it is easier to balance a long stick in your palm than a short one? This is because the stick tends to fall "faster." Likewise, a short bicycle falls over more quickly than a tall one. So a kid's bike is actually more difficult to balance than an adult bike. Even if the bike is being balanced by some active mechanism, the frequency of oscillations around equilibrium will be slower for a tall bike. And slower is easier to control. So try moving your center of gravity up as high as possible. - Joel Fajans (Professor of Physics at Berkeley), Email Questions and Answers: Robot Bicycles

I've added these references to the article and tweaked the text to included mention of center of mass height. I hope this helps. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That's exactly what I was looking for. Maybe what I really needed was for the Inverted Pendulum article to have this information more so than this article. Thanks again for explaining it. Barhamd (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Found a description of construction at the National Museum of American History's web site and added it with references. -AndrewDressel (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Can't do you to the day, however these coins are of simmilar configuration as those which would have circulated at the time --Delta-NC (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Old British Penny and Farthing (quarter penny) coins which inspired the name of the Penny-Farthing bicycle.

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)

First true bicycle?

I think the line in the first sentence that this is the "first true bicycle" should be deleted. It's a forerunner to the modern bicycle, but no more than the earlier Velocipede, which in many ways has more of a resemblance to a modern bicycle. --Lester 03:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. -AndrewDressel (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Watch out for circular references

The text on the Peugeot Fans Club web site appears to be a word for word copy of an old version of this page. No sense referencing that page for anything. -AndrewDressel (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• This looks like another one. -AndrewDressel (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• And this one, too. -AndrewDressel (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• Of course this one. -AndrewDressel (talk)
• Man, they are everywhere! -AndrewDressel (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• [1] -AndrewDressel (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Only 15 ordinaries left in the world?

Doesn't seem very likely...Snori (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I have a copy of the book and couldn't find that detail, but forgot to ask for the page number. Glad you did. Unfortunately, it was added by an unregistered user, and that appear to be the only contribution from that IP address. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I just finished the "Part Three: The High Wheel Era" in the referenced book and it didn't say anything about there being 15 left. I'm taking the statement out.--Keithonearth (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Feet on handlebars going downhill

In two separate places the article claims that riders would put their feet on the handlebars when going downhill. In the first place it's to ensure that the rider is thrown feet-first, and later it claims that it was for increased speed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.98.171.2 (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Another reference for ya'

The major place I remember seeing this and how I found this page was by trying to figure out what that big bike in Tarzan (the disney movie version) was. Apparently it was this. Can someone officially add it, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.48.122.198 (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Over-referencing

The lede is ridiculously over-referenced. Citations don't even need to be placed here. See WP:LEAD. Hohenloh ⁺ 00:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Those citations are in support of points that have been questioned in the past. WP:LEADCITE specifically states that "the lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That's all very fine. But five citations for one sentence and the same ref appearing five times in the lede is OTT. I'm concerned with readability, and only trying to improve the article. Hohenloh ⁺ 16:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Header Header Header Header

This article mentions the word "header" about four times but never explains what it means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:4100:5C6E:5594:50AD:23A5:E123 (talk) 00:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The word "header" is used as though it were the best way to describe falling off a bicycle head-first, however it's a word with a fairly narrow colloquial meaning, and should be replaced. Landroo (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you are right to clarify it, but that it should stay in. It is the correct term for, well, taking a header from an Ordinary. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Penny-farthing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090527203705/http://www.whpva.org:80/hpva/hpvademph.html to http://www.whpva.org/hpva/hpvademph.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Metric

I'm a little disappointed by the net effect of this. I did think carefully about what figures to keep in Imperial measure; eg, the references to 18-inch wheels and the 64-inch Columbia, which one can reasonably say were actual engineering measures as mentioned in WP:UNIT.

Of the figures reverted by this edit:

The weights are arguable. I suppose they may be manufacturers' listed weights and if so could stay Imperial-first.

Neither the measurement of the saddle's position nor the 60in maximum wheel size are ironclad figures from the 19th century (indeed, I deliberately changed "60in" to "5ft" to estimate this practical maximum was approximate). These figures are not "drawn up" in the sense of WP:UNIT.

We are not interested in the height of the statue from an engineering point of view. There is absolutely no need to mention its height in obsolete units first.

Summerfield's 2008 ride was in no sense "in Imperial".

Hence absent any reply I propose to restore "order=flip" to all but the listed bicycle weights. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Unit system order is often a controversial and sensitive issue on Wikipedia, especially with respect to UK-related subjects, so without an overriding reason to swap them, I think they should be left as they are for now. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't particularly see that as the case (especially with respect to UK-related subjects; it is in my experience Americans who cling to Imperial units, which is peculiar given they can't even get them right). I have listed reasons above; they may not be overriding but they seem better than "no reason" and are based on reading WP:UNIT, so it seems best to put them as I suggest and leave _that_ as it is, absent any actual argument to do otherwise. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Pinkbeast: I've given you a link to read for background info at User talk:Pinkbeast#Penny-farthing discussion. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I trust you also intend to either produce some explanation of why my reasons above are not sensible or to agree that I should proceed. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

As I said, I don't see an overriding reason to change the unit order. Victorian bikes would have been designed and built in imperial and road distances and human heights (even as statues) are generally given in imperial in the UK (and in the US where the statue is). Rather than have some measurements given one way and others another, it's better to be consistent within an article, so let's keep the status quo. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a long way from the earlier reliance on WP:UNIT, which it turned out didn't justify your edit at all. As said, the 60in maximum and 18in from saddle are not exact figures from Victorian engineering; we are describing to a modern worldwide audience approximate dimensions and so should use modern units.

Road distances are indeed given in miles in the UK but the thing about a journey around the world is that Joff would have found it very difficult to do it while remaining in the UK. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Hour record and production

there are new hour records on penny-farthings set very recently and approved by Guinness. 33865km 34547km [2]

Also it seems that pennys are still produced today, but are made with modern materials. It should be included in the article. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)