A fact from Pedersen bicycle appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 September 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the Pedersen bicycle with its unusual cantileverframe, though never hugely popular since its introduction in the 1890s, is still produced today?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CyclingWikipedia:WikiProject CyclingTemplate:WikiProject Cyclingcycling articles
Why is this a "cantilever" frame? The Pedersen is usually described as a "cross-frame" (as a direct comparison to today's more common "diamond frame") and there's some justification for describing it as a truss, but I fail to see what makes it a cantilever? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered that, too. Then I found an explanation on this site: www.pedersenbicycle.dk. The page labeled "Static Theory" shows marketing ephemera that Pederson used to explain his frame design. He, or his marketing minions, wrote "Built on the cantilever principle like [sic] the FORTH BRIDGE" and includes an image of the famous Forth Rail Bridge, a cantilever railway bridge over the Firth of Forth in the east of Scotland. As the bridge demonstrates, cantilevers can be constructed with trusses, and so cantilever does not preclude truss.
However, it is not exactly clear to me, I must admit, what part of his bike he considers cantilevered. Another picture on the site suggests that he viewed the front fork as a cantilever, similar to the bridge. Perhaps the David Evans book has more detail, but I do not have a copy. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointer. I'm now even more convinced that it's not a cantilever, and that Pedersen didn't even fully understand what a cantilever is! However it's also a good ref for the fact he clearly used the term at the time, in relation to the bike. Maybe that's what the article ought to make clear? It's certainly interesting to see that modern wonder of the age, the Forth Bridge, being used in that way. It's just a little surprising he didn't use the Severn Rail Bridge instead. The truss is a closer model to his bike frame, and the bridge was almost on his doorstep in Dursley. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion. How's it look now? As for the bridges, perhaps it is because the Forth is described even today, ... as an engineering marvel, worthy of a marketing tie-in, while the Servern does not appear to enjoy the same regard. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
_pictogram.svg){kind=small}