Brennan

Indeed, I've seen some of those early cruiser hacks, some of which are now in bicycle museums. They are a really cool example of entrepreneurial spirit transforming an industry.

surreal

Beach cruiser?

RaleighSport

So, can I ask you guys a question without you going further bat**** on me? Here goes.. as Brennan admits the term beach cruiser entered regular cannon in the 1970's and has become an overall catch all term for "cruisers" as you two prefer they be called, so here's the question. If this is an accepted common interchangeable set of terms, cruiser and beach cruiser, and has also become catch all.. why are you two arguing with me over this when you could be promoting this forum, posting how to's, trying to get members from the aforementioned sites to participate here instead?

Brennan

Original post edited to explain.

RaleighSport

There's no explanation there.. just your same post. Please clarify for me.

surreal

I see it like this: despite what wikipedia says, the terms aren't interchangeable. Just as a DH bike is a kind of mtn bike, but a mountain bike is not necessarily a DH bike, we're talking about one sub-genre of cruiser here. As I see it, cruisers can include beach cruisers, newsboys, cycletrucks, boardtrackers, choppers, musclebikes, strandies, BMX w/ 24" or 26" wheels, industrial bikes, klunkers (&their ilk), middleweights, etc... That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Why would we make the "beach cruisers forum" before wemade the "cruisers forum"?

RaleighSport

So let's get at the meat of it, in your mind the term is cruiser, in brennan's mind the term is cruiser, and you've also got other supporters here of the same opinion obviously as expressed in this thread. Now let me ask you this.. what do you think the majority of our fellow cyclists call them? Especially anyone born 1970 or later (yourself as an obvious exception as you stated you are indeed 36). My money's on beach cruiser, the trend in my experience is this the catch all has become beach cruiser, you can end up with a 30's-60's fat tire cruiser (like the one whichever one of you linked in this thread), and guess what the average persons gonna say? Nice beach cruiser. Do you guys understand what I'm saying?

Brennan

What follows the wikipedia intro reveals the term "beach cruiser" as a misnomer as applied to pre-1970s cruisers.

RaleighSport

It's only a misnomer in the same sense as referring to my DH mtb as a mtb is... I get that you two are seriously hung up on the semantics here, but can't you just be glad we finally even got a cruiser forum and maybe you know.. promote it?

Brennan

That's hard to quantify, isn't it? I will say that I've lived in coastal California my entire life and I don't hear "beach cruiser" thrown around much. "Cruiser" is the common term round these parts.

Scotty Bot

This is not a picture of a beach cruiser.... Please leave the forums, and take the other trolls with you. Thx.

Brennan

It would be akin to calling a 1985 Stumpjumper a "DH mountain bike." IOW, using the name of a modern subset to identify an entire category.

Brennan

Also note that the wikipedia entry is titled "Cruiser bicycle," and right under that:

"'Beach cruiser' redirects here."

To me, that's an indication that Cruiser is the more common term.

RaleighSport

Sentence 1, Paragraph 1 the article you first attempted to use to say the opposite of what the article states. I do not disagree that the coined term arrived in the 70's however I disagree with your assessment that the terms are not interchangeable and the article fully supports this position as can be seen in the quoted section.

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruiser_bicycle


So I also decided to give you guys a lot more benefit of the doubt than either of you have given me and started looking into more public opinions.

Reference: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...9134749AA8DcNw


Note: They state also known as.. as in interchangeable. And low and beold, the article also references the actual sub categories of cruisers guys.
Reference: https://www.trails.com/list_29068_typ...-bicycles.html

I also won't stoop to the level of leaving info out just to support my argument further, but the only site so far that agrees with you two is eHow so far and it isn't exactly a very informative article nor does it cover a lot you can find the reference here: https://www.ehow.com/about_6869962_de...iser-bike.html

If you type into google "What is a cruiser bike" you get this..

Brennan

Even among manufacturers, cruiser is the common term:

Schwinn "Cruisers"
Electra "Cruiser" Collection
Raleigh "Cruiser"
Huffy "Cruisers"
Felt "Cruiser"
Diamondback "Cruiser"

etc.

Brennan

Again here is the wikipedia entry for "Beach Cruiser"
First line: "For the type of bicycle, see Cruiser bicycle."

RaleighSport

Wow that was very informative man! I had no idea, did you read the first sentence of the article it links to? I guess you must have missed it, here let me help you out.. again.

surreal

Exactly. In fact, modernity doesn't even enter into it. It'd be akin to calling a Surly Troll a DH bike. Or, really, any mtb that is not a DH bike.

I have a late model Worksman INB, and I just bought a Genuine Bicycle Products Article 1. These are brand new bikes, and they're cruisers, but they're not beach cruisers at all.

It'd be like calling the CV forum "sports-touring bikes".

To sum it up: beach cruisers are a kind of cruiser... and if we had a forum called "cruisers", ppl could discuss beach cruisers as well as other bikes that fall roughly into the very broad "cruiser" category.

surreal

I've been trying to support the forum, insofar as I've been giving some tech information, advice, etc. Posting pictures. Trying to get the hype up. But, things are slow here. I'm not saying that a name change would save it, but it may help...

Especially considering that some of the existing members here are displeased with the name, and those of you who disagree with us are saying that the distinction is insignificant.

surreal

True dat.

RaleighSport

It's not insignificant, the younger generations IMO will be able to identify more easily with "Beach Cruiser" as it's the more relative common term they're used to as it became the major term from the 70's and after, and if we really want to get technical you two are referring to "Tank cruisers" or "Classic cruisers" when calling them "cruisers". I have rather patiently sifted through what little info you two have provided and read your opinions on the matter while also doing research and setting aside my own personal opinions as best I can to objectively evaluate your input, however the stubbornness and resistance you both have shown to even considering what the web evidence shows makes this a pointless conversation since only I seem to actually be listening to you two and you two are most definitely not even willing to consider that you may be wrong or that it may just be your own opinions or even to meet in the middle.

Brennan

AKA does not mean the terms are equivalent.

As an example, searching "rap music" on wikipedia will bring you to the page "Hip Hop Music" explained thusly:

"The term hip hop music is sometimes used synonymously with the term rap music, though rapping is not a required component of hip hop music."

"Hip Hop" is more a accurate title of that category of music than "rap" is, just as "cruiser" is more accurate to describe this type of bicycle than "beach cruiser" is.

surreal

I disagree. I've referred to several different sub-genres of cruisers; you have chosen to ignore those posts. Your belief that the term "beach cruisers" means more to younger cyclists may be true, but these are primarily negative connotations, and will not benefit a fledgling sub-forum.

I am not wrong when I tell you that an S&M Dirtbike 24 is a cruiser, but not a Beach cruiser (BMX cruiser)
I am not wrong when I tell you that a custom chop-n-drop or stretched bike is a cruiser, but is not a Beach Cruiser (it's a chopper)
I am not wrong when I tell you that a Huffy Rail is a cruiser, but not a beach cruiser (it's a musclebike.)
I am not wrong when I tell you that a Worksman INB is a cruiser, but it's not a beach cruiser. (It's an industrial bike.)
I am not wrong when I tell you that a CCM Flyte is a cruiser, but it's not a beach cruiser. (It's just awesome.)
I am not wrong when I tell you that a Schwinn Cycletruck is a cruiser, but it's not a beach cruiser. (It's a cargo bike, with a decidedly cruiser flair.)
I am not wrong when I tell you that a Cook Bros Racing 26" is a cruiser, but not a beach cruiser. (It's a 26" BMX cruiser, of the SoCal variant sometimes referred to as a "strandie", which is kind of like the place where beach cruisers and BMX cruisers intersect.)
I am not wrong when I tell you that when some guy takes a cruiser frame, puts a negative-rise stem on it, flips the bars, adds a springer fork, and acts really proud of it online, he's built a cruiser, but not a beach cruiser. (It's a fake boardtrack bike).

I could go on, but why? You've got your mind made up, and you're not wrong, you're just limited. The term "beach cruiser", while popular with ppl who know little or nothing about bikes in general, holds little appeal to the cycling enthusiast, even those of us who actually dig cruisers. Even to those of us who dig beach cruisers! Because, frankly, that's a very limited sub-section of what cruisers have to offer.

If an online discussion forum is going to survive, it will need topics broad enough to discuss.

To put it more simply for you: when something is too small, it makes sense to make it bigger. "Beach Cruisers" is a small topic, and this forum gets small amounts of traffic. Why not broaden the topic, and enlarge the appeal?

Brennan

Dude, it's the first line, just like in the Cruiser bike entry.

"Hip hop music, also called hip-hop, rap music, or hip-hop music"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip_hop_music

Now my question to you is this. If "beach cruiser" is the common term, why do the manufacturers identify the category as "cruisers"?

Seriously, I think we have provided ample evidence for our case here.

RaleighSport

Oh I guess I must apologize for your misquote of the article you referenced.. I had the gall to assume you were quoting directly and took you at face value rather than digging through the article myself.. my bad I'll remember that one.
Why I answered the way I did
Sorry that you quoted it as saying synonymously rather than also known as, that left the window open for "similar" You haven't provided anything yourself.. and only just now has Surreal begun to actually support his own argument well, which I will be replying to shortly.