Sometime around 1960, I acquired a penny farthing bicycle which had for a long time been up on the roof of a toy shop as an advertising "sign".
A while later I restored it to rideable condition and rode in a few parades which was a lot of fun.
Original components are frame, saddle, handlebars, brake lever, forks and hubs.
Remainder namely spokes, rims, tyres, front brake, handgrips, cranks and pedals were either remanufactured or standard parts used. The only significant departure from the original design was to use nipples on the spokes rather than rivetting them in the rim. This makes it a lot easier to get the spoke tension right.
Wheel diameter is 48 inches.

I found it surprisingly easy to learn to ride. To get started, you just walk the bike forward and step on the mounting peg (just above the rear wheel), and straight away get up into the saddle just as the right pedal comes around ready for a good firm push (you have to time it just right)

To dismount, after slowing almost to a stop you either step back down onto the mounting peg or I found it easier just to jump off backwards and land with both feet on the ground at once.

If you do fall over sideways, it is easy to extend one leg to break the fall. The trick is to make sure that the other foot does not hit the spokes as the wheel is probably still rotating.

The hazard of going over the handlebars will probably remain one of the worlds great unsolved problems.

One technique which I never really mastered but which all the books say was common practice was to descend hills by getting out of the saddle and standing on the mounting peg. As you no longer have control of the pedals, the only means of slowing is the brake at the top of the front wheel. Unfortunately this is totally inneffective.

Another aspect I found interesting is that even though the saddle is mounted on a leaf spring, a lot of the "suspension" to aborb bumps comes from the front wheel itself.

I do not ride the machine much these days so it just sits in my garage.

Now for the question:
I always found that at speeds of more than about 10 mph, severe wheel wobble would set in due to the dynamic out of balance of the cranks and pedals. What was the solution to this? I have examined penny farthings in museums but have never seen any sign of counterweights to dynamically balance the front wheel and crank assembly.

joe

I honestly cant help you with your problem, but i would like to ask for some pictures of your bike. Those bikes are so cool in my opinion.
Brew

Joe, if you can ride one of those infernal contraptions safely, you are a better man than I am. However, I do admit they are a very important part of bicycle evolution, and they live today in children's Big Wheels and other direct front drive tricycles, which I guess one could consider the recumbent trike versions.

Hi Brew, I have attached a photo of the bike as requested...

If you look closely, you can see that it is fitted with toe clips. I found these made an enormous difference to my ability to climb hills when taking part in parades. I have never seen any other penny farthings so fitted, possibly because they make a dangerous machine even more so.

Around 1970 when I was using it most, I do not know if bicycle helmets even existed. If they did, nobody ever told me about them. Of course the "correct" headgear would have to be a broad brimmed straw hat, sometimes known as a "boater".

I must confess that I never performed a spectacular high speed header, but at low speeds there was a technique that sometimes worked.

As the rear wheel starts to rise, it may tend to swing to one side. Assuming it swings to the right, my procedure was to use the inner left thigh to encourage it to swing more. Then turn the handle bars to the left so that the bike is pointing almost at right angles to its original direction. At this point extend the right leg, allowing the knee to bend as the foot hits the ground. At this time you still have some forward momentum so the idea is to use the right leg to rebound into the air, parting company with the machine and landing neatly on both feet a short distance away. The final step is to stand up trying to appear as nonchalant as possible.

I have also attached a scan of the first couple of paragraphs of an article about "velocipedes". Unfortunately I only have a photocopy so I do not know the date or even the name of the publication so I unable to give the author, A Stephenson, proper acknowledgement. I find the language quite delightful and it is possible to read the extract without it being immediately obvious what the author means by "modern bicycle".

Needless to say, my favorite movie is "Around the World in 80 Days"

joe

wow, just, wow. that thing is insane. i think it would scare the crap out of me.

The answer to your '10mph speed wobble' is probably 'shorter cranks and wider handlebars'. It seems as tho' the cranks on your machine are 'modern' replacements of possibly 6 1/2 or 6 3/4 inch c-c length? Most cranks on these machines 'in the day' were much shorter - often no more than 4 1/2 inches, and seldom much longer than 5 inches. Shorter cranks will greatly reduce the tendency to 'wobble', especially at a speed as 'slow' as 10 mph, and also enable you to increase your 'cadences' (not a word much used by the original riders of these things) without ' losing the pedals'. It's not easy to assess the width of the 'bars from the photo-angle, but I'd doubt if they're as much as 24 inches, or even 26 inches - which would probably be about right for a rather 'clunky', heavyweight example, such as yours.
So far as descending hills 'on the peg' is concerned, this should really be no problem. The brake should be efficient enough to slow you down significantly (and, if not, should be 'modified' to make sure that it does!), and, as all your weight is over the back wheel, you'll have no need to fear 'taking a header'. Additionally, the judicious use of the sole of your shoe will give you a very effective back brake. No worries!

The answer to your '10mph speed wobble' is probably 'shorter cranks and wider handlebars'. It seems as tho' the cranks on your machine are 'modern' replacements of possibly 6 1/2 or 6 3/4 inch c-c length? Most cranks on these machines 'in the day' were much shorter - often no more than 4 1/2 inches, and seldom much longer than 5 inches. Shorter cranks will greatly reduce the tendency to 'wobble', especially at a speed as 'slow' as 10 mph, and also enable you to increase your 'cadences' (not a word much used by the original riders of these things) without ' losing the pedals'. It's not easy to assess the width of the 'bars from the photo-angle, but I'd doubt if they're as much as 24 inches, or even 26 inches - which would probably be about right for a rather 'clunky', heavyweight example, such as yours.
So far as descending hills 'on the peg' is concerned, this should really be no problem. The brake should be efficient enough to slow you down significantly (and, if not, should be 'modified' to make sure that it does!), and, as all your weight is over the back wheel, you'll have no need to fear 'taking a header'. Additionally, the judicious use of the sole of your shoe will give you a very effective back brake. No worries!

What a cool "ordinary" I'd love to have one, but I would of course be afraid of a "cropper". I'll stick to my rather un-manly safety for now I suppose.

I just measured the cranks and they are 5.5". I cannot actually recall doing it, but I think I probably chose the longest crank which still enabled me to reach the pedal at the bottom of its stroke. The width across the ends of the handlebars measures 27 inches.

I agree Tony that "riding the peg" should not be a problem, but in practice it did now work very well for me. Part of the trouble is that the back wheel is extremely rigid. Even keeping ones knee slightly bent to provide some "suspension", it still tended to skitter about over any irregularities in the road surface.

Another technique I never mastered, (not that I seriously tried) is that according to the books, skilled riders would reduce friction by leaning forward sufficently to lift the rear wheel just clear of the ground, effectively riding it as a large unicycle. Now that has to be crazy!!


As far as the "scariness" factor is concerned, I am rather amazed at the things that I actually used to get up to. Like riding quite happily around the suburbs and in parades through city streets - and all with absolutely no safety gear.

This is all the more remarkable in that before getting the penny farthing going, I was not into cycling much as a child. I did not even own a bike of my own so that overall, the penny farthing would represent the bulk of my cycling experience.

In fact I have only just recently purchased my first ever brand new bike, mainly as a way of getting a bit more exercise. These days I am much more cautious and avoid riding on roads. I just transport my bike on the back of a pickup down to the local park with a cycle track. The new machine, (I am almost embarrassed to admit) is a "Townie" so now I am at the other end of the comfort scale

Most cranks were in the 6.5 to 7" range. Probably the wheel is out of true

When I raced a highwheeler, the natural effect of leaning forward (reducing wind resistance) unloaded the rear wheel. It would happily bounce along behind you, lightly touching every 1-3 seconds or so, encouraging you to keep pedaling hard to avoid a header. I can ride a unicycle (not too well though) and can't imagine that it is easier/ more energy efficient to try to stay on one wheel compared with just letting the rear wheel bounce along.

Leaning against the backbone tends to stabilise things (adding mass reduces frequency) but generally found it better to descend in the saddle. That said, I am fairly cautious on most downhills. There are more vehicles on the road nowadays than back then.