Yuku free message boards

On the planet of the ape hangers

I was away at the big kustom bike meet in Holland for a while, but now I'm back.

I'm working hard at getting the articles finished off, I still have to do a number of color illustrations.

I think I mentioned in my '62 page that Bob Persons went to Holland or Sweden in the late 50's and found the Polo styled seats. I have heard mention of other people owning early Polo style seats that came from Holland. A few distribution firms marketed non Persons Polo style seats in 63 -64 on the aftermarket because of the tremendous interest, but these are very rare. I used to buy banana seats in the early 70's that were made in Holland. I have a picture of a very early Polo style seat made by a company named "United". Yes, although Al Fritz mentions "Sweden" in the Fried book as the place that Persons found the long seats, I thought Holland was the more likely place they came from, and that's why I mentioned it in the '62 page.

There is a Photo of Persons on the 1960 page with one of his earliest seats, the kind with rivets on the sides. I sure the "Persons" seats were the most widely available, but other seats in the same style were also sold for a short time - near perfect copies. Lawsuits may have stopped them. I believe that Persons had a lawsuit with Troxel or Messinger over seat patent infringements in 1964.

I knew that if I didn't come up with some pretty convincing evidence on the first bike question the arguments would go on forever. I think I have achieved this, and can't think of anything more I could have found to clear up the question. I knew that it would be useless if it was just "Brain" talking and not giving the goods to back it up. I have the goods and it's not just me blowing hot air. You can surmise that since the 1962 page didn't have any factory made bikes on it, then it must be 1963 that had the first. But there is quite a story to go with this that will be told in detail. A bike would have been made in '62, but for various annoying reasons. it didn't get made. Everything is chronological, and first is first.

Al Fritz mentions in the Fried book that he didn't know anything about the tall handlebars till he got the call from California, even though the handlebars had been available for years. California's 20 inch high-handlebar/Polo seat bike craze was already going strong when the Schwinn company heard about it. The question is, what was going on in California that was supporting all this growth? I will answer this.

I can tell you that the The Huffy "Dragster" was the 4th high rise bike assembled by the Huffman corporation. The Dragsters probably started being produced late in '63 for their '64 release. 3 other bikes with different names were made by Huffy before the Dragster came out -interesting eh?

Schwinn had the first high-rise style bike that most Americans (outside of California) had ever seen, this is why most people think of it as the first (and maybe it is ?) The Schwinn company has never said it was the first, only overzealous fans of the Sting Ray.

I really am working hard at getting all the articles done, I'm sorry for the delays.

sincerely

John Brain
BR&K

Huffman Manufacturing did not come up with the idea to make the first factory high rise bike, but!......?

NickD wrote:

---

What has been the response to this revelation from the Schwinn "community"?? Sorry if this has been discussed before. I read thru lots of older threads and haven't found much.

Nick

I'm sure for most Schwinn collectors it just helped them understand the real history behind the high rise bike phenomenon. Most had hoped the StingRay was first, but it didn't come as a shock that it wasn't.

For some of course it was a big disappointment to find out that the StingRay introduced nothing new to the market. Many die-hard Schwinn guys were startled to learn that the StingRay looked nearly identical to the earlier Huffy Penguin - which in turn caused them to question certain longstanding beliefs they had, about whether the StingRay had really introduced anything new.

There was a certain amount of Schwinn mythology that had built up over the years, many believed that the StingRay was the first muscle bike, and that Schwinns Al Fritz had pioneered the style. Neither of these assumptions turned out to be true. The StingRay was derivative of an already pre-existing trend in both homemade and commercial bikes. I think many were startled and disappointed when these facts were uncovered. 

When all the outstanding myths surrounding the StingRay were laid to rest it caused some to question whether other  aspects of the Schwinn story were untrue as well.

The old Schwinn company built frames like tanks -with old technology in leaky old factories. The parts that went on these frames were often the same parts that went onto other high rise bikes made by other companies. Schwinn tried to sell the idea that an outsourced part mounted on a Schwinn frame somehow made it more durable or better than similar part mounted on another brand. All Schwinn marketing ploys of course, to mold their buying public into unquestioning believers. And some still believe it.

Of course Bendix (or Sturmey or Mattatuck) hubs were better if they were mounted on a Schwinn. Wald handlebars were better if they were mounted on a Schwinn too. Ashtabula cranks and stems were better too -if they came on a Schwinn. Same with tires, "Persons" seats or Union pedals. If they came on a Schwinn they must be better quality, right?  

A bike is the sum of its parts, Schwinn had a bullet proof frame they made to last last 200 years - as opposed to a Huffy frame that will last maybe 140 years, this attribute no longer impresses me like it used to.

Sorry for the rant Nick, I got carried away on a tangent, take care man 

John B.