Talk:Ferris wheel

See also: Talk:Observation wheel

Minimum height limit for World's tallest Ferris wheels section

60m transportable wheels

The Ferris wheel#World's tallest Ferris wheel installations section lists many 60m transportable wheels, but these are (mostly?) a small number of similar wheels being erected at numerous locationss; and the locations being listed are incomplete. 118.173.5.164 (talk) 08:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think all wheels 60 m or shorter should be removed. This should not be a list of every ferris wheel in the world. On this rationale, I'll limit this list to wheels taller than 60 m. MvjsTalking 08:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

December 2009 64m proposal

I think this should now be revised to 64 m. 60 m diameter installationss are becoming increasingly commonplace, and overall heights slightly over 60 m are to be expected. If we revise the limit to 64 m, the two smallest wheels listed would then be ones with worthwhile notability - "Currently tallest in North America" (Texas Star - 64.6 m) and "World's tallest extant wheel 1920-1985" (Wiener Riesenrad - 64.75 m); and only two wheels will need to be deleted, one a 59 m diameter wheel (Shining Flower Wheel) for which there's no article, and the other (Kobe wheel) a 63.5 m wheel for which there's no article, no reference, and uncertainty as to whether it's been demolished or not. Any objections? 92.3.44.211 (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. [1]. 92.3.44.211 (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

September 2011 80.4m proposal

As there is now a separate List of Ferris wheels article, I suggest the minimum height limit for the section in question (Ferris wheel#World's tallest Ferris wheels) be revised again, this time to 80.4 m, the height of the original 1893 Chicago Ferris Wheel. The 9 smaller wheels (ie 64 m - 80 m), 6 of which don't have articles (two don't even have a reference, and have been {{citation needed}}-tagged since 2008), and which include a transportable wheel, are all already listed at List of Ferris wheels. 92.40.243.109 (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll action this in the next few days. 2.26.128.213 (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC) (previously 92.40.243.109 (talk))

Done. [2] 2.26.132.28 (talk) 04:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC) (previously 2.26.128.213 (talk)

Ferris Wheel at Columbian Exhibition

The 700 ton weight ascribed to the axle does not agree with the description of its dimensions as being 45 feet long by 32 inches in diameter. With a density around .283 pounds/cubic inch, the axle should weigh around 61.5 tons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.40.129 (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Nitpick - "a single 700.000-ton" means seven hundred thousand tons in a lot of countries

It was vandalism: [3]. Now fixed: [4]. 92.3.44.211 (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Different sources give significantly different weights - I've found one stating 42 tons, another 74 tons, and dozens inbetween, with 70 tons probably the most commonly quoted figure.

http://columbus.iit.edu/dreamcity/00024025.html says: The shaft was solid, and forty-five feet long; it was thirty-two inches in diameter, and weighed as much as a heavy locomotive - that is seventy tons. It was and is the heaviest piece of steel ever forged - certainly outside of Krupp's works at Essen.

http://www.hydeparkhistory.org/newsletter.html says: ... the 89,320 pound axle, forged in Pittsburgh by the Bethlehem Iron Company ... the largest hollow forging in the world at the time, it was 45 1/2 feet long, 33 inches in diameter... Four and one-half feet from each end it carried two 16 foot diameter cast-iron spiders weighing 53,031 pounds.

The bold emphasis is mine. This image of the complete axle provides a good view of one end, which is clearly hollow.

89,320 lb = 44.66 short tons
53,031 lb = 26.5155 short tons
Total: 142,351 lb = 71.1755 short tons = 63.5495536 long tons = 64.5693275 tonnes (about the same as a fully loaded Boeing 737-600)

I've reviewed a good number of resources and haven't found anything to cast credible doubt on 71 "US" tons being correct for the complete axle, or the fact that it comprised three parts - a 44.66 ton hollow forging, with two cast-iron "spiders" accounting for the remainder - per the image linked to above. I'm going to remove The axle, a single 70-ton solid hammered steel forging... from the article and add the information from the hydeparkhistory.org / Patrick Meehan synopsis instead. While that source is at odds with others on some other matters, in respect of the axle it provides the most comprehensive details and explanation and I've found nothing more credible or any proof that it's not accurate, plus there's no consensus amongst the other sources (which simply quote a single weight) other than the general "70 tons" approximation. I don't think it's worth mentioning the discrepancies in the article itself, as the differences appear to be misinterpretations and inaccuracies, as opposed to the weight being disputed. 92.3.44.211 (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ferris's Chicago Wheel was steam driven, a fact that perhaps should be given in the article itself. Abenr (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The statement "that they could challenge the magnitude of the Eiffel Tower of France's 1889 Paris Exposition.[7][unreliable source?]" may also be verified in the pages of "The Devil in the White City". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil_in_the_White_City for reference. This book details the efforts behind planning and building the Columbian Exhibition and the Ferris Wheel, though I don't have page numbers and quotes. 173.174.57.39 (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The [unreliable source?] tag was added in reference to first part of the claim "It was Somers' wheel in Atlantic City that George Washington Gale Ferris, Jr. was ordered by the planners of Chicago's World's Columbian Exposition to study, that they could challenge the magnitude of the Eiffel Tower of France's 1889 Paris Exposition."(ref), which Jplyrenm has now corrected (rev) - 92.40.97.87 (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

R66 Bussink wheel "The eye"

This ferris wheel is NOT the talles transportable ferris wheel in the world. Bussink never built a 66-metres high wheel (check the official website). The article (deaths shot the eye) is completely wrong! The wheel itself is not higher then 60 metres!!! The Steiger-60-metres ferris wheel is still the tallest transportable ferris wheel in the world (for example check the newest Guinnes world records). It is interesting, no one cares about the official information, like the Bussink website, the Guinnes world records, etc, BUT everyone believes in an article, which is completely wrong. Rest in peace Wikipedia :-( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.201.184.161 (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have talked with someone at the Bussink Company. He told me, that the Giant Wheel (Deaths shot the Eye) is not the tallest transpiortable ferris wheel in the world. The wheel itself is only 52 metres high. But the have reached the hight of 66 metres with extra long pillars (correct word???). So, the Steiger-60-metres wheel is still the talles transportable ferris wheel in the world. Even the EXPO Star wheel of Hablützel belongs to the 60-metres-class, but you can read in the official construction plans, that the wheel itself is only around 57 metres high. BUT the Steiger wheel itself is exectly 60 metres high. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.201.245.88 (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Submerged wheel

I removed this recently added section as this is not a notable type of Ferris wheel. It appears to describe the sole example of a minor variation, a picture of which can be found here. 86.173.125.104 (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The London Eye *isn’t* a Ferris Wheel!

This article is very confused, as it insists on calling all observation wheels “Ferris Wheels”, or using one as a synonym for the other, when that just isn’t the case; it muddies the water even further by throwing in details on the London Eye, which is an observation wheel, but isn’t a Ferris Wheel (using a citation to general media use of the term “Ferris Wheel” to describe the London Eye doesn’t make it so – at best the citation should be to show that the press often call it such, when it isn’t), even going as far as to include the (correct) objections from the owners which show that it isn’t a Ferris Wheel, but totally ignoring the validity of their objection. Either this article should be changed to “Observation Wheel(s)”, and make the distinction to wheels supported on both sides which follow the Ferris design, and other wheels, such as the London Eye, or it should be a disambiguation page, with links to separate articles, with cross-linking between them. As it stands it’s just wrong. Jock123 (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

While you are entitled to your opinion here, you haven't given us any reason take your word for these claims rather than following usage in reliable sources. For starters, if you could provide a reliable source that identifies the London Eye specifically as not a Ferris wheel... Powers ^T 18:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The trend among educated reporters is to refer to the newer, large wheels as observation wheels. See http://www.melbournestar.com/plan-your-visit/giant-observation-wheels.html—JlACEer (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Having built a Ferris wheel, you can state that you don't want it to be referred to as a Ferris wheel, but that doesn't stop it from being a Ferris wheel. Absolutely anyone can call 'their' wheel an observation wheel - but at the end of the day, even if it's a really big Ferris wheel, or a really modern Ferris wheel, or a Ferris wheel with externally mounted motorised capsules, or even if it's all three, it's still a Ferris wheel. At best, an observation wheel is a type of Ferris wheel, although in reality there are almost as many distinct types of supposed observation wheel as there are wheels that claim to be observation wheels. There clearly is no definitive definition (the Star's PR 'opinion' certainly isn't it, neither is the Eye's). 183.89.118.75 (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Orlando Eye

I saw a newspaper article that suggested this was a done deal, but then when I went searching I couldn't find much and what I did find was older than the deletion discussion (so obviously irrelevant to creating the new one). I'll keep looking.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Why change the reference?

I'm curious as to why the reference in the Observation wheels section (third last paragraph) of this article has been changed (at 19:52, 7 April 2013). The edit summary comment: "Observation wheels: condense" doesn't refer to this change.

The reference that was there is a mainstream reference, (The Age newspaper, 22 January 2013), whereas the one now used is a personal 'blog' type entry in what is a privately owned local area newspaper. I am familiar with Docklands & the Docklands News as I am in that area regularly. The author of the local reference, the Docklands News, states: "David Sibenaler is a Docklands resident and a budding science communicator." I don't see how that makes the reference better than the one that was there.

I propose that it be reverted to the mainstream reference and seek comments/input. Melbourne3163 (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Feast of Biram

Wondering what is 'Biram', I couldn't find any reference to it. It looks like similar books from those ages uses same words or 'Bairam'. Having Turkish as mother tongue, I strongly believe this actually means "Bayram" probably a reference to Eid_ul-Fitr. Searching for "corban biram" hits similar aged books, which sounds as "Kurban Bayrami" Eid_al-Adha in Turkish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.209.45.98 (talk) 07:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)