sykerocker 

And that trucked along very nicely until the 1929 Crash. By that point, the Model T had been killing off all the motorcycle manufacturers except for Harley-Davidson (who almost bought out Cleveland but backed out at the last minute), Indian (who bought out Ace), and Henderson/Excelsior (fours and V-twins respectively) because you could buy a Model T for less than $300.00 new by then, but a decent motorcycle cost $350.00 or so. Motorcycles were marginalized out of the transportation market and pushed into being sporting goods. And today's attitude of the sport hobbyist was nowhere near as established.

Ignaz figured out very quickly that the motorcycle side was going to possibly sink the entire company, so by 1931 it was gone. Indian almost went under from bad management (a constant story, unfortunately) until Paul DuPont took over in 1930 giving the company one last decade and a bit more of glory (good management, but very weak finances due to the previous decade). Harley struggled, the founders took massive pay cuts, and it took the Knucklehead to finally save the company. By 1940, motorcycle registrations in the US were slightly less than 100,000 - including police departments. At that point if you saw a motorcycle in your rearview mirror, you took it for granted that it was a cop.

Even after dumping the motorcycle side, Schwinn struggled for about the next half decade until the newly designed middleweights came on-line and sales started to pick up.

Mos6502

And most other manufacturers missed out on this too. Columbia persisted in marketing and making lightweight bikes throughout the 40s and 50s in adult sizes - when there was basically no need for them. The '48-'59 Columbia lightweights are some of the hardest to find Columbias. And when they redesigned their frames in 1961 - Columbia discontinued their larger frames and left only the smaller 21" frame size.
In retrospect you can see they gave up at precisely the wrong moment.

Murray didn't even offer a lightweight bicycle until the 1960s I believe.

I don't think Schwinn really did anything innovative. They "invented" the balloon tire bike - getting the idea from German bikes that already used big tires. This also killed off the American lightweight and reduced the status of the bicycle in the U.S. - even if it was an effective sales gimmick for a few years.

The muscle bike was already happening thing by the time they caught on and mass produced their own version.

They invented a lot of proprietary tire sizes, fittings, etc. Which I think probably also ended up hurting them in the 70s.

The only really innovative thing they did was pick up on derailleur geared bikes. The Varsity was an amazing idea, even if it really just served to get people aware of other foreign companies. I can just imagine a customer who has never seen a 10 speed before walking into the bike shop:

"So what is this crazy bike?"

"That's a 10 speed varsity, but here take a look: brand X makes one that is lighter and cheaper"

etc.

Pretty true, but they still missed the boat on that one...

It also resulted in extremely heavy bicycles. Which was a problem. And it looked "wrong" to buyers in the 70s who believed that good bicycles all had lugged frames. Some of Schwinn's "lightweights" were pushing 40lbs. when their competition from Ross (and Ross bikes were lugged too) and Columbia were weighing in at less than 35lbs.
Columbia BTW also rolled their own tubes, including seamless tubing for the headtube and bottom bracket.

i-timy

so, in the 70's everybody was staring at each others lugs? odd.

tcs

Actually from 1905 to 1925, the trend was that some 95% of American motorcycle manufacturers went out of business as well.

And he paid these automotive and motorcycle design engineers with money he made selling bicycles during an era when his competition was going belly up.

With money he made selling bicycles during an era when his competition was going belly up.

With money he made selling bicycles during an era when his competition was going belly up.

For more on Harley-Davidson, Indian and Excelsior, interested parties will enjoy reading "The Harley-Davidson and Indian Wars".


Best,
tcs

tcs

You make it sound like nobody ever bought one. During the bike boom Schwinn was turning out a new Varsity every 17 seconds, 24/7, and I remember walking into a Schwinn shop in '73 and finding a bare showroom and a waiting list.

Best,
tcs

Mos6502

Replace "really" with "ultimately" - bad wording on my part.

not_jason

I realize I'm dragging up a point from the second page, part of an argument that's hopefully subsided by now, but I couldn't help but find this choice of example a little humorous. Jeep only still exists because Chrysler bought AMC and decided to keep the brand name. And AMC wasn't the original owner either. They came to own Jeep when it's previous owner, Willyz, went under.

sykerocker 

You forgot Kaiser in between Willys and AMC. Jeep is: a. Such a strong brand that they survive every failed owner, or, b. The kiss of death for any automaker that's ever owned them. Oh yeah, Bantam, the company that originally invented the Jeep died shortly afterwards. Then Willys got it.

sykerocker 

To put things in perspective, our shop got (if I still remember correctly) two loads of Schwinn's per month during the Bike Boom. EVERY bike was sold before the order was put in. Nobody bought a Schwinn road bike off the floor of our shop between 1971 and 1974. We were closed on Tuesdays, the day the truck came in. We'd have people waiting for the delivery truck, which off-loaded in the back, and were banging on the front door trying to get us to sell them bikes. Right now.

Three days after delivering the contents of the truck (and I was often tipped $10 to $20 to put the assembly of a customer's bike at the front of the list) we were back to selling Astra's, Roger Riviere's, and whatever Raleigh's were left - and there weren't many of the latter, definitely no Records or Gran Prixs.

We were converting brand new Sprint 10's at extra cost to put on drop bars and levers, and remove the mudguards. Ditto Suburbans.

The only thing I've ever seen that equalled it was Harley Davidson mania during the mid-90's, when you put your name on a year long waiting list, specified which model you hoped to get, and when the shipment came in the dealer went down the list. The first customers got (almost) exactly what they wanted. Those at the tail end were offered 883 Sportsters, take it or leave it.

At full list, of course - if you were lucky.

Mos6502

Don't forget that through Kaiser, Mistubishi acquired the rights to build Jeeps - and were still building the Korean War era designs into the 1980s.

The difference between Jeep and Schwinn though, is that when Chrysler took on Jeep - they kept making Jeep designs. When Pacific took on the Schwinn name - they didn't.

not_jason

Perhaps so, but (as has been discussed) was that even a viable possibility?

jhefner

I remember from being there at the time that Schwinn's lugless frames were confusing to buyers. If you picked up many bike books at the time, they told you that the two types of frames available were "good" lugged frames and "bad" welded frames, as found on cheap bikes. Seeing no lugs, many people thought they were welded frames, and were cheap bikes.

I knew better, but thought they were internally lugged frames, like on the Viscount. It wasn't until I read the following article on Sheldon Brown's website this year that I realized they were something entirely different:

https://sheldonbrown.com/varsity.html

Like the author, Marc S. Muller said, it was too bad Schwinn did not last long enough to take advantage of the HSLA (high strength, low alloy) steels developed by the automotive industry. It may have been possible to develop a lighter weigh frame that with aluminum components, may have made a good middle-of-the-road bike. But, as mentioned by others; Schwinn had other problems as well.

-James

bikerosity57

Absolute pure greed on the part of the younger family members. They want more and more money for less and less investment, and eventually the bottom falls out. This has happened in many industries around the country. Things made by American workers, are simply not valued anymore, unless the owners of the factory can get their labor impossibly cheaply.
The "Schwinn" bicycles available today are realy not Schwinns at all. Their made OEM by bike works in China, and Taiwan, and "branded" as Schwinns.

sykerocker 

Amen, I cannot agree with that statement highly enough. The author has a wonderful writing style, more like sitting at granpa's feet and listening to stories about the old days. It's a wonderful book for someone who is mildly interested in old motorcycles, and doesn't want to get bogged down into minutiae like Bosch vs. Splitdorf magnetos. It's as much a social history as a history of the motorcycle companies.

crazyed27

Schwinn Bicycles is part of the Cannondale Sports Group Division of Dorel Industries....as of sometime in 2008.

Grillparzer

An interesting link page for those who might be interested, it includes a picture of the Chicago Schwinn factory and old home movie stills of the interior:

https://www.techeinsteins.com/bikes/miscpage.htm

bikerosity57

They refused to make real bicycles after people realized the bikes they were making were junk. There really is no difference between the average Schwinn of the late fifties, sixties, and seventies and the cheaply made department store junkers. The quality bikes they did make were way too expensive for the people they should have been targeting.
Then a total moron took over the company, and for political reasons, because he believed the BS, he tried to destroy the union that operated in the company, and did so. Of course he also destroyed the total company.
If they had started making bikes similar to the relatively well made, but inexpensive french, and english bikes in the late fifties, and they could easily have done so, and worked with the union they'd still be around today.
I worked for a glass company in the seventies, through the early 2000's and we went through the exact thing. Almost the entire company is gone today, and we were one of the largest specialty glass makers in the world just twenty or thirty years ago.

Geo Cruise

Here in Canada it is the same thing with CCM (Canadian Cycle and Motor) they built high quality bikes for several decades but in 1983 the went bankrupt, their Hockey division was sold off and the CCM bike division was bought up and started producing mass lower quality bikes sold in large chain stores. It is a shame to see happen but that doesn't mean the vintage bikes are low quality they are great bikes and worthy of saving as a Canadian icon.

Phil_gretz

In addition, during the 1970s a lot of people rolled their own.

RobbieTunes

Schwinn is a lot like GM.

Failure to listen to consumers.
Failure to listen to dealers.
Failure to change corporate culture.
Failure to adopt new technology on a timely basis.
Labor that priced itself out of the market.

Fail to plan. Plan to fail.

Mike Mills

The Demise Of Schwinn - One Consumer's Perspective On Schwinn Ten Speeds

When I knew nothing about bikes and had junk bikes, Schwinn bikes were "the best". The problem was, I couldn't afford one.

When I learned more about bikes and was doing serious bike riding, the Schwinns were heavy, the frames were "dead", the components were mediocre to poor and they shifted poorly. I still could not afford one.

By the time I could have afforded a Schwinn, I was so far beyond them (technologically and performance-wise), I no longer wanted one. In fact, I looked down on them.

The only positive thing I can say about a Schwinn is they are all but bullet-proof.


The best thing Schwinn ever did in the ten speed arena was introduce the LeTour tire. When these came out they were a revolution and a revelation to me and my riding.

Sprint75

A little revisionist history going on here. Maybe you forget just how truly awful department store bikes were in the 60' and 70's. Can you really compare a Schwinn of that time to a Murray? Because that's about all you could get in a department store. The only real quality competition available in the American market was Raleigh and Motobecane. Everyone knew those bikes were as good or better, but they were also more expensive. And Japanese bikes were true junk until Schwinn went over there and showed them how to do it better. Same goes for Taiwan and Giant. Giant owes their prosperity to Schwinn in a big way, and in some sense Giant is the new Schwinn. Surely, Schwinn was way too slow to adapt to the market in the late 70's and through the 80's. They rested on their laurels and that never works.

BigPolishJimmy

I think the main difference in the Schwinn of yesteryear and the dept store bike of the time was the robustness of the frame welds and wheels. I base that conclusion on the number of classic schwinn I see around today vs. the number of huffy's and murrays of the same vintage. I know several people who had old huffys and rode them around town in the 90's until the frame broke or pedal broke off. I've not heard the same stories from schwinn owners, however I don't know as many schwinn owners. I will also temper this by saying I've not been all that impressed with the "schwinn approved" material qualities of brake components and derailleurs. Too many of these things have crumbled in my hands, but the electo-forged frames, man those are tough. Also anecdotally a friend of mine bought a Kent bike from a big box retailer a few years ago, rode it for a few months and ditched it right away. He is a metalurgist and was telling me about how badly the metals were in the dept store frame vs. what you would find in a nicer bike. The stuff they use in clips, nuts, bolts & etc. were just complete garbage. The bike looked cool, but mechanically it was a toy. If I were to guess what the difference in dept. store schwinn vs. bike store schwinn, I'd guess this is where the 'savings' really lie. As always, take this all with a grain of salt, I am not a metalurgist, nor do I play one on tv. It will be interesting to see how our throw-away society values longevity in the next few years. With a down economy--measured in job loss and reduced wages, not GDP--people might start looking for durability and value vs. whatever is cheapest. You're not saving money if you have to keep buying the same thing over and over again. I learned that lesson the hard way after the 3rd cheap chain tool I bought, I kept thinking I wouldn't need the tool very much, but then I'd need it again. I have a good one now, we'll see how it holds up, so far so good as it's a pleasure to use.

Mike Mills

You must be thinking about graphite frames.

My daughter has a modern, welded aluminum-framed bike made by TREK. It is every bit as well made and probably better made than any Schwinn ever was. The paint job is superior to anything Schwinn ever used. Unless it is immersed in water (Katrina-induced galvanic corrosion) , it will easily still be around 100 years from now.

Rabid Koala

As I understood it, there was no union at Schwinn in Chicago until things were already going down the crapper. The move to Greenville was an attempt to start over with a more efficient line and without the union. Apparently in the later days working conditions at Schwinn had changed greatly from their glory days.

Working with the union has to be a two way street. The company I now own was union up until the economy crashed in 1980. Had the union worked in a spirit of co-operation, it would have been good for both parties but that is seldom how it works.

Personally, Schwinn's failure to recognize the changes that were coming in the market, i.e. lightweight, high quality lugged frames with decent components, was the first step toward their demise. The 40 lb Varsity may have played well in 1965, but not in the early 70's. Also, they totally blew it on BMX bikes too, another fad missed.