Originally Posted by 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?

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Brennan

Look man, I'm not trying to pull a fast one on you here. I'm just supporting surreal's original premise, which you are attacking with a remarkable amount of disdain for some reason, and I believe that attack is unwarranted. I addressed your AKA reference with a comparative example. Sorry if I didn't post it to your satisfaction, but I think I made my point. Now will you do me the courtesy of answering my question: If "beach cruiser" is the common term, why do the manufacturers identify the category as "cruisers"?

Originally Posted by RaleighSport

So, can I ask you guys a question without you going further bat**** on me?

Originally Posted by Brennan

Seriously dude, I only see one person going bat**** in here, and it's not me or surreal. I've already addressed the points you raised. Won't go further until you answer mine.

Originally Posted by surreal

RaleighSport, I really don't think I've insulted you. Saying that you're "limited" is not an insult; you are, in fact, advocating that we limit this forum to beach cruisers, while I am hoping we can broaden it. Two different approaches, sure, but it's not an insult to point out where we differ, is it?

Your ideas about where the various "other" cruisers would go makes some sense, but there are some issues. If we're talking about a CCM Flyer or Club Racer, the C&V guys would adore it. But a Flyte or even that moto-style bike that 65er recently posted are cruisers. Yes, they are classic and vintage in the real-world sense of those terms, but they're cruisers. And C&V doesn't show a lot of love for the cruisers. Some of y'all do, but maybe they can hang out in the Cruisers forum as well....

If I really but a 1950s-era Schwinn Cycle truck (or even my own late-model Worksman LGB, once I finish it) in the Utility/Cargo forum, they would possibly think it was cool, but they'd likely dis it as an actual cargo bike b/c it's like 80lbs, from the 50s, with OPCs: in short, it's a cruiser. And something like an INB or a husky? I can guarantee you that those brands have been mentioned on this forum more times than they have on the utility forum. Why? Because most industrial bikes are cruisers to a T, with all the hallmarks mentioned in that Wikipedia article we've quoted so much today.

If I put a Laguna or a CBR or a Bassett's in the BMX forum here, they'd never stop laughing, and wouldn't recognize these BMX cruisers as BMX bikes.

The alternative, utililty/cargo, and even the BMX forums are struggling. As I type this, there are 6 ppl viewing the alt and the ute forums, and 16 viewing the BMX forum. For comparison, we got 199 on CV, 284 on B.Mechs, and 296 on the Road forum. I think some of these less-busy forums need to be reassessed, b/c their original intent was too narrow from the get-go. With the Beach Cruiser forum still in its infancy, it may not be too late to broaden its appeal a bit and (hopefully) build something.

Originally Posted by surreal

PS- to answer your question: While I understand that roadies/modern mtb folks/non-cycling ppl/etc might view the terms as being interchangeable, I believe that actual cruiser ppl-- the sort of ppl who build and own and study cruisers-- do not feel that these are interchangeable. I feel that the sort of ppl who might actually post here see a very obvious distinction between the two.

And that may not apply to all of us, but it clearly does apply TO SOME. And to those who don't see a distinction, they'd theoretically come on here anyway, right?

Originally Posted by surreal

OK, let's just shoot down some strawmen here-- You may not be limited as a human being, as a cyclist, as a forum member, etc... it is more accurate to say that your position on the nomenclature being used on this forum is limited. I apologize if you took offense to any of that.

Originally Posted by Brennan

@scottybot: I'm pretty sure that if there's a "Crusier" forum on a bicycling website, people are going to know it's not referring to weapons of mass destruction. Is that what you expect on the "Cruiser" section of the Schwinn website?