Is the Fuji name still the same company that made bikes in the 70's and 80's? I ask because so many makers have gone away since that time though the names live on but only through licensing rights.

I think so (see link). I owned a 1972 Fuji Finest, made in Japan, however, I don't think they are made there anymore.

https://www.fujibikes.com/AboutUs/History.aspx

Oh cool. Thanks for that. And wow, they started in 1899.

If I remember right, they came to this country with the Professional first, to build prestige for the name. They filled out their line from the top down. Other bike companies did the opposite. It worked.

It turns out that the Professional wasn't all that well made a frame, for the price. However, their middle line bikes were an incredible value. Well made, durable, easy to work on, well designed, nice to look at, everything.

Yes, the midline Fuji Finest was a much better bike than the comparably priced European competition from England, Italy and France. The frame was better made and finished, and the Suntour and Sugino components were vastly superior to low end Campy, Stronglight and Simplex. The only thing I hated were those danged Soyo tubular tires with their impossible to inflate/deflate valves. Also, the spokes were too light gage and very prone to breaking.

Oh yeah, SunTour. I loved that Fuji stuck it to the man (Shimano) by avoiding their products wherever possible. I adored everything from the alternative brands, i.e.

SunTour derailleurs
Ukai rims
Sugino
DiaCompe brakes (OK, these weren't great)
Sanshin hubs, I think
SR stems and handlebars

At one point, this group of manufacturers called itself the JEX group, to fight off Shimano, I suppose, but they didn't succeed.

But I don't hate Shimano, really. Their stuff is good, too, especially nowadays.

I never used Soyo tubulars.

The first sealed bearing hub I ever saw came on the Fuji S-12S. I used it as a demonstration to customers of the kind of quality you'd get from Fuji.


I don't remember the brand clincher tires Fujis had. And were the pedals made by MKS?

Good question Tom. I'd take that one step further and ask, how do you determine if a company is still the same company? It certainly looks like Fuji is but there is a wide range of situations between something like Fuji, a 100+ year old company that is still in business, and a name that lives on but only through licensing rights. I know there are some companies (cycling related or otherwise) that are still the "same" company but the founders must be rolling over in their graves and others that were sold or even resurrected that are still fulfilling the original intent of their founders. What criteria do you use to make that decision?

Another look at their history line:

https://www.classicfuji.com/0_FUJI_History.htm

Scott

Kommisar89, interesting points. So if we look more closely, there's no real answer, because "existence" is really hard to define.

Take a look at the wikipedia article about Nintendo. They've been a maker of toys since 1889, and they are still as committed as ever to making high quality toys and ONLY toys. My brother in law is general counsel for the company and adores his company. He says that no matter what anyone outside the company says, they are not the least bit afraid of Sony or Microsoft, because toys are a tiny part of their businesses, where as it's everything at Nintendo.

Still, given the history that Scottryder posted, this Fuji has little to do with the one I remember. The designers are surely gone, simply because it's been too long for them to have stayed, and the corporate culture and philosophy are most probably gone, too. It does look like a licensing rights company, not a company that has its own philosophy of design, manufacturing, and imaging. Fujis were unique. I called them "The Japanese Schwinn" because more emphasis was placed on durability and reliability, compared with other brands, and this was at the expense of ride quality. And it's a philosophy I could respect even if I didn't want to own a Fuji. As a mechanic, I preferred a well made bike to a good-riding bike.

I don't remember the brand of pedals. I sold it around 1975 when I realized that the frame size was much too big for me. The smallest frame size that they offered was 21" (53 cm) and I only have a 27" inseam. The bike store owner pushed the seatpost all the way into the seat tube, and told me it was fine. So much for trusting a bike store to give you good advice on bike fit when there's money to be made from a gullible newbie. Thank god I never had an accidental get-off. I replaced it with a 49 cm Ron Cooper.

Tom, I'm not sure I agree with you on your thought that ride quality was lacking because of their emphasis on durability and reliability. My early '70's Newest, Finest and the later S10-S might want to discuss that with you!

My love of Fuji's started back then when I found that they combined all of the above with a very competitive pricing structure.

Scott

Scottryder, to be fair, it may be a matter of taste, not a matter of better or worse. The S10-S was a fantastic bike and a fantastic value, and I adored working on it. Customers who bought it were elated. There's no arguing with any of that. I happen to like a harder ride. That's not right or wrong. The S10-S was the type of bike to put a smile on your face within the first 30 feet, but I never bought one. I preferred riding Raleighs and Peugeots in the 70's and early 80's, and that was despite that they were not nearly as well made as Fujis.

Not too many of those companies still in business. Thank God the man (Shimano) is still around.

Tom, you're right on all points. Because I'm not a competitive rider, ride quality to me is the closer I can get it to feel like an old familiar couch or leather chair the better. One thing about the S10-S is that I don't notice it while riding ... if that makes any sense.

Scott

One could argue whether Fuji was Fuji, even in the early 1970s, when they started started national distribution in the USA. As some of you may know, I started a Fuji Serial Number Database to decypher the serial number codes. Even during the 1970's boom, there were enough variances in the serial nujmber format to indicate that Fuji was having frames manufactured using a number of different sources.

Tom,
I agree with you about Fujis. They used to remind me of Schwinns in many positive ways. IMHO...they are relatively undervalued right now. It's as if people aren't familiar with how good a bike they are. I've had four Fujis...and still ride one of them.

My Miyata Seven Ten has all those components... and I love the fine riding bike!!! I know what you mean though cs1. Of those companies, who is left other than Sugino?

I think they are made in Asia now....

Sugino is still around; SR and Suntour merged and were bought out, and SR-Suntour components are still being made (but are now pretty junky); the Dia Compe brand name is now owned by the same company as Cane Creek and Tektro, and stuff still gets made under that name too.

"The Man" always seems to be around in the form of Shimano, Microsoft, GM (or Mercedes, if you prefer), whatever. It's a moot point whether we'd all be in a better place if they hadn't dominated their industries in the same way. The reason that most of their competitors aren't around is not that they made inferior products, primarily -- it's marketing (at every level) and the herd instinct of the consumers. I'm thankful that we still have Apple and Campagnolo and the other smaller companies around to leave a bit of choice. Shimano's path has been one of increasing (and unnecessary) complication, designs without replaceable parts, with a high obsolesence, and incompatibilities that cause dizziness and despond. I don't agree that this is where cycling should be; that's no fun for me, anyway.

Amen. Many times the small defunct companies were the real inovators, and the giant monolithes eventually adopted their ideas in a far less efficient manner many years later. Who invented the GUI; it wasn't Microsoft. Who invented the slant parallelogram derailleur, indexed shifting and clipless pedals; it wasn't Shimano. If companies like Suntour were still around today, I think we might have seen more significant advancements and inovations. Instead, we just see a continuing trend towards intellectual mediocrity, and an indifferent and uninformed consuming public that passively accepts it all.

That's what makes me appreciate what companies like Phil Wood have done and are able to do.

Neal

I prefer to think of Shimano as the saviour of cycling. Many people are intimidated by derailleurs and Shimano's perfection of indexing opened the door to our great sport to many who would have sought other paths. In addition to indexing, Shimano has brought us many other notable improvements including freehubs, Hyperglide, STI and dual pivot brakes.

Both Campagnolo and SunTour suffered from the faults for which you malign Shimano. Campagnolo's first derailleur system was complex and difficult to operate. Anybody seen any brake system more complex that Delta? Syncro was complex and never performed well. How about SunTour's BEAST front derailleur!

SunTour's demise was, frankly, long overdue. The company had lost it's drive and was surviving primarily on the reputation of the slant parallelogram. Sure they had indexing and freehubs prior to Shimano but failed to develop and market them properly. Their MounTech derailleurs were failure prone and not serviceable. The initial AccuShift performed poorly and required different chains depending on the model range. Eventually, they stopped developing their own products, prefering to license from others, such as Browning, Pederson and WTB.

Campagnolo just abandoned the entry level and ATBs after dismal failures, and ever since has sat back, watched Shimano's introductions, saw what caught on and developed their own versions.

I'm not saying Shimano is perfect, far from it. But Campagnolo and SunTour suffered from the same imperfections. In the end, they both gave up, leaving the innovation to Shimano. While not all of Shimano's ideas may be earthshakers, some certainly are. Without Shimano the entry level would become the domain solely of the Taiwanese component manufacturers, most of which leave a lot to be desired, compared to Shimano. Shimano rightfully deserves the position of industry leader.

Here is the manufacturer's decal, and headbadge decal from my 1976? Fuji Feather track bike, made in Japan for Japan as far as I can tell:

My complaint with companies like Shimano and Microsoft is that they work on the basis of creating obsolescense in both their products and also interrelated products. Microsoft not only ensures that we have to buy a new more powerful PC every 5 years, but also must at least upgrade most of our software as well. When Shimano introduced 10-speed STI, they made all 9-speed and earlier drivetrain parts obsolete. At least Suntour had the decency to provide a knob on their Sprint 9000 indexed shifter, which allowed you to select between ultra (narrow) 7-speed, regular 6-speed or even non-indexed mode so you could use different freewheels. More than one time I've seen situations where racers have flatted, and have had to wait, losing precious time as the support vehicle fumbles around looking for a wheel with the correct brand and cassette type to work with their particular version of shifter. Since there is no way to disable the index mode, often times they are stuck in one gear for the remainder of the race.

Competition in the marketplace is always a good thing, and monopolies are bad. The most sophisticated innovation always comes from smaller companies with smarter people who understand that the best advances are the simplest ones. Large companies do design by commitee, where they simply throw everthing they know into the mix, and end up with complex, unserviceable and inefficient designs. Unfortunately, these small companies lack the large marketting and sales departments necessary to fend off the behemoths like Microsoft and Shimano.

It's ironic that the example you should use is 10 speed, as Shimano was not responsible for it. Campagnolo introduced 10 speed in 2000. Shimano felt the disadvantage outweighed the advantages and did not follow Campagnolo's lead until 2004, due to market pressure.

In fact, when you look back at the growth in the number of cogs and the incompatibility it caused, it was all started by SunTour and their 1977 6 speed Ultra freewheel which required a special, narrower chain. Then SunTour increased the ante with Ultra 7 in 1979. Shimano introduced 8 cogs in 1989 and 9 speed was introduced simultaneously by Campagnolo and Shimano in 1997. Overall, Shimano was a minor player, relative to Campagnolo and SunTour when it came to cog growth.

Shimano is far from a monopoly, but the position they hold is because they are giving the general public what they want or need. That's how you succeed in business.

BTW, any racer who flats and loses the pack should not be cursing the support van or number of cogs, but himself. He's the one who sacrificed durability for lightweight, fragile tires. If you don't want to blame the yourself, then blame the tire manufacturers, but don't fault the manufacturer of the shifting system. It worked perfectly and didn't cause the flat.