# I'm thinking about repoping Elgin Bluebirds.



## cyclingday (Apr 4, 2012)

I'm thinking about repoping Elgin Bluebirds. What do you guys think?

I talked to a rep from Electra Bicycles, and he said they could crank them out by the thousands.


----------



## Freqman1 (Apr 4, 2012)

I'll take five as long as they aren't cheap POS made in China, are exact copies, and less than 1k each --yea right! Lets not mess with the bike gods! v/r Shawn


----------



## kz1000 (Apr 4, 2012)

Reproductions have ruined many hobbies and ruin the value of the few rare originals, You won't get any good words here.


----------



## catfish (Apr 4, 2012)

cyclingday said:


> I'm thinking about repoping Elgin Bluebirds. What do you guys think?
> 
> I talked to a rep from Electra Bicycles, and he said they could crank them out by the thousands.




That would be one way to kill the market..... 1000s and 1000s of them would be a bad thing. 500 of them made exatly the way the should be 100% corect might not be so bad. But most repops only get it about 75% or 80% right. It's that last 20% that makes all the differece. If you don't do it 100% don't do it at all.


----------



## cyclingday (Apr 4, 2012)

Naw!

 I'm just kidding, guys.

This was my belated April fools.

I figured that everyone in Bluebird land would have a coronary.


----------



## Uniblab (Apr 4, 2012)

cyclingday said:


> Naw!
> 
> I'm just kidding, guys.
> 
> ...




And if not a coronary, they might drop an egg (just in time for Easter?)


----------



## catfish (Apr 4, 2012)

cyclingday said:


> Naw!
> 
> I'm just kidding, guys.
> 
> ...




Good thing I didn't start a rant about how the Lawyers from Columbia MFG would be all over this too......


----------



## scrubbinrims (Apr 4, 2012)

I almost removed all my pictures so the folks at Electra would have on less reference....
Chris


----------



## 37fleetwood (Apr 4, 2012)

the insurance companies would crap themselves trying to figure out if they could cover such a poorly built bike!


----------



## catfish (Apr 5, 2012)

37fleetwood said:


> the insurance companies would crap themselves trying to figure out if they could cover such a poorly built bike!




Isn't that what almost killed Dayton.... The "Death Bike" ????


----------



## 37fleetwood (Apr 5, 2012)

that's why I'm building Streamliners


----------



## scrubbinrims (Apr 5, 2012)

37fleetwood said:


> the insurance companies would crap themselves trying to figure out if they could cover such a poorly built bike!




Scott, Why would you say such a silly thing?
Just because the bluebird is revered over just about any classic bike and you don't/can't have one, that's no reason to cast stones.
There are damn good reasons the bluebird is what it is.
Chris


----------



## chitown (Apr 5, 2012)

scrubbinrims said:


> There are damn good reasons the bluebird is what it is.




And it was a short run, quickly abandoned design. Usually there are basic reasons for this. Sales, functionality, performance, ease of production.

Don't get me wrong, esthetically it has some nice lines and has some unusual features,  but so did the Chrysler Prowler... just don't look under the hood.


----------



## chitown (Apr 5, 2012)

catfish said:


> Isn't that what almost killed Dayton.... The "Death Bike" ????




And don't forget about the Elgin Gull.


----------



## slick (Apr 5, 2012)

scrubbinrims said:


> Scott, Why would you say such a silly thing?
> Just because the bluebird is revered over just about any classic bike and you don't/can't have one, that's no reason to cast stones.
> There are damn good reasons the bluebird is what it is.
> Chris




Chris, I think Scott was refering to the fact if the bikes were repoped in China. I don't think he meant any offense to the original Bluebird.


----------



## 37fleetwood (Apr 5, 2012)

No, I meant the original Bluebirds. This isn't jealousy, as anyone who's had one or seen one up close can tell you they aren't put together very well.
I do think it's funny that when I said I thought it was ridiculous that someone would pay $6000 for a pre-war Autocycle, the accusation was I was jealous because I couldn't afford one, now the reason I don't like Bluebirds is that I can't afford one.
I have three Huffman Super Streamlines and am in the process of making a deal on my fourth Huffman Champion/Dayton Mainliner, one a 1940 Twin-Flex. If I really wanted an Autocycle or a Bluebird, I'd have one. Along with vintage bicycles I also collect pre-war toy trains and muscle cars among other things, if I sold a car or two, I could easily be in line for a Bluebird.


----------



## chitown (Apr 5, 2012)

37fleetwood said:


> if I sold a car or two, I could easily be in line for a Bluebird.




Or a Prowler!


----------



## cyclingday (Apr 5, 2012)

Since I've never owned one or had the chance to ride one, I wouldn't know about whether or not they were well built.
But, one thought I had, was that If you were going to repop something like the Bluebird, that it would be cool to do more of a tribute bike, and make it out of Carbon fiber.
It could be called the Blackbird, like the SR71 Spyplane.
You could incorporate an in dash I-Phone with the speedometer app.
You could check your e-bay listings and listen to music while you ride.
Sort of a modern day classic, with a nod to the past.
That way no one could accuse you of ruining the value of the originals, and you could boast that your bike was actually better than an original.


----------



## slick (Apr 5, 2012)

cyclingday said:


> Since I've never owned one or had the chance to ride one, I wouldn't know about whether or not they were well built.
> But, one thought I had, was that If you were going to repop something like the Bluebird, that it would be cool to do more of a tribute bike, and make it out of Carbon fiber.
> It could be called the Blackbird, like the SR71 Spyplane.
> You could incorporate an in dash I-Phone with the speedometer app.
> ...




Now this idea I love!!! Very kool!!


----------



## scrubbinrims (Apr 5, 2012)

chitown said:


> And it was a short run, quickly abandoned design. Usually there are basic reasons for this. Sales, functionality, performance, ease of production.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, esthetically it has some nice lines and has some unusual features,  but so did the Chrysler Prowler... just don't look under the hood.




No more of a shorter run than a M037 or M137...also quickly abandoned designs?
Do we really need to compare strength between the bluebird the commonly cracked, indented silver kings?

The best designs are almost always short lived because they are more labor intensive and price reflective...so what?
Makes them more rare and coveted today.
Chris


----------



## scrubbinrims (Apr 5, 2012)

37fleetwood said:


> No, I meant the original Bluebirds. This isn't jealousy, as anyone who's had one or seen one up close can tell you they aren't put together very well.
> I do think it's funny that when I said I thought it was ridiculous that someone would pay $6000 for a pre-war Autocycle, the accusation was I was jealous because I couldn't afford one, now the reason I don't like Bluebirds is that I can't afford one.
> I have three Huffman Super Streamlines and am in the process of making a deal on my fourth Huffman Champion/Dayton Mainliner, one a 1940 Twin-Flex. If I really wanted an Autocycle or a Bluebird, I'd have one. Along with vintage bicycles I also collect pre-war toy trains and muscle cars among other things, if I sold a car or two, I could easily be in line for a Bluebird.




C'mon Scott, it is also funny that the very same, tired argument of Schwinn-centic collectors (that irk us both) make against other manufacturer's durability, you are making about the bluebird.
Splitting hairs of welding to designed to support 100-150 pounds is ridiculous and the bluebird was not designed for a paratrooper.
Also, check yourself...the rear "me too" streamline from early huffman models are a bluebird rip off, nice in their own right, but followed the leader.
I love these huffman models myself (and have them sans the ss), but ever see what a big tank champion looks like without the tank...blah?

The bluebird is unique and creative in just about every component and there is NOTHING that looks like it...except a 38 bluebird.

Chris


----------



## kz1000 (Apr 5, 2012)

doesn't Walmart sell the 100% correct, exact  reproduction of the Huffman


----------



## 37fleetwood (Apr 5, 2012)

scrubbinrims said:


> C'mon Scott, it is also funny that the very same, tired argument of Schwinn-centic collectors (that irk us both) make against other manufacturer's durability, you are making about the bluebird.
> Splitting hairs of welding to designed to support 100-150 pounds is ridiculous and the bluebird was not designed for a paratrooper.
> Also, check yourself...the rear "me too" streamline from early huffman models are a bluebird rip off, nice in their own right, but followed the leader.
> I love these huffman models myself (and have them sans the ss), but ever see what a big tank champion looks like without the tank...blah?
> ...




Sorry, nothing personal, just never liked them and never wanted one. the welds are crappy and the overall design looks like several people were locked in separate rooms and told to come up with different parts of the bike. then someone was told to put the pieces they came up with together...with playdoh. the head light looks like a street lamp, the fenders are garish and ugly. Huffman's version was much more tastefully executed in much higher quality materials and workmanship.
the Super-Streamlines are rare because they were expensive and the company was small, the Bluebirds are rare because the bike was ugly and poorly built, and nobody bought them. do you really think that sears didn't have the ability to build as many of these as the market would bear? I know Huffman didn't.
and you're right, take the tank off of the Champions and they are rather plain looking, but what a tank that is!
this may be the chance to reproduce the Bluebird with enough changes to make it better looking and improve the build quality at the same time.
your argument about the Schwinn vs. others,  quality issue doesn't hold in this case, the Huffmans are well built and so are the Schwinns, the Bluebird, for all it's fame, is a roughly finished bike and looks cheap viewed up close, there's no comparison. I didn't make Sears overlook these flaws.
I don't know why, but it seems to only be the Bluebirds, the Robins I've seen look great, as do the Twins. does no one else agree with me that the Bluebirds look like a cobbled together mess?


----------



## chitown (Apr 5, 2012)

scrubbinrims said:


> The best designs are almost always short lived because they are more labor intensive and price reflective...so what?
> Makes them more rare and coveted today.
> Chris




But it doesn't make them any less ugly... ok ugly is a bit much but my point is I'm talking about personal taste.





scrubbinrims said:


> No more of a shorter run than a M037 or M137...also quickly abandoned designs?
> Do we really need to compare strength between the bluebird the commonly cracked, indented silver kings?





Just for the record, I'm not a fan of the M037(flo-cycle) or M137(wingbar)... especially the M137...  Glad they abandoned those! Ugly SOB's. You can add the "Hex-Tube" post war Silver Kings to my list of Silver Kings I'm not a fan of too. I'm a base model Silver King guy. I'm a fan of these base models because of their innovative method of weldless joints. Lugs bored 1/100-1/1000" smaller than the tubes, lugs placed in 300 degree oil (so as to not ruin the heat treated duralium), tubes placed in dry ice, slide together... wait... 10,000 lbs of pressure can't pull it apart. Designed by George Lewis, a true bicycle maverick. He was the sales manager at Mead Cycle Co at the turn of the century. He formed Mead Motor Co and imported the 1st Mercedes Benz in 1902. Went on to patent several designs while at Mead while being the General Manager for most of Meads heyday. Partnered with Metal Specialties and made the Speed-O-Byke. Invented the Silver King, then didn't appear on any SK patents after 1936. He patented a few designs (one for a rear hub) then he disappeared from bike world??? Why not compare Kelvin Booty to George Lewis... because there is no comparison to me.

Why I like base model SK's: The long wheel base, smooth ride, durability (that's why there are still a bunch out there), basic moto-bike design, lighter than any other frames out there, Made in Chicago.

Why I am not a fan of the Bluebird, who can tell. Someones taste is just that. Not trying to force my taste on others, just stating what my tastes are, and Bluebirds don't do it for me. Would I be happy if I found one in a barn or some basement estate sale??? heck ye$! Happy because I know it would go to a good home and a well de$erving home as well. Just not my home.

Besides, America wasn't ready for aluminum bikes then. They had to use all that technology, machining, machinists and metal for whipping the Axis in WWII.  There was a point in post-depression - pre-war where there was true innovation in design and it gave us all the wild designs of the pre-war era. These machines are coveted _because_ most designs were outlandish and changed year to year, sometimes abandoned, but always pushing the limits of form/function with design for design sake. This allows a great pool of collectable bikes that each one of us like for whatever reasons. There's room in here for all us wacko's and our eccentric tastes.


----------



## cyclingday (Apr 5, 2012)

The saying, that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, was never more evident than in this thread.

It is no secret to the guys that know me, that I find the Shelby Airflo to be a styling abomination.

I really liked the 1936 model, but after that, it just got rediculous. 

I did have a chance to ride one and give it a good looking over, and I've got to say, that it is probably the beefiest bike ever made, and it rode like a dream.

It's just too bad that it looks like a nightmare!

In the Silver King line up, I love the Flo Cycle best. I don't know much about the quality of them. I hear they're prone to breaking at the rear leaf spring, and I've never had a chance to ride one. But, for styling, I love them!

I really like the looks of the Elgin Bluebird. To me, it just oozez Art Nouveau France. Call me strange, but I just like that.

I also love the look of the Huffman built Super Streamlines. They just ooze Art Deco America, and It doesn't get any better than that. I've recently purchased a Firestone Fleetwood Supreme version of this bike and I love both the ride and the build. You do have to deflate the rear tire to pull the wheel off, which is a bit annoying, but hey! I guess they figured that the only reason to remove the rear wheel was because you suffered a flat tire.

My first and lifelong love will always be the Schwinns. They really had it all. Quality, styling, and a lifetime guarantee. What more do you want?

But, to be fair, all of the bikes had their shortfalls, and it just boils down to what you like. And the first and most important rule about collecting anything, is to buy what you like. That way if you get stuck with it, you'll still be a happy camper.


----------



## dungo (Apr 5, 2012)

37fleetwood said:


> the welds are crappy and the overall design looks like several people were locked in separate rooms and told to come up with different parts of the bike. then someone was told to put the pieces they came up with together...with playdoh. the head light looks like a street lamp, the fenders are garish and ugly. Huffman's version was much more tastefully executed in much higher quality materials and workmanship.:




Well I Scott, I think Bluebirds are one of the nicest looking bikes around, and Super-Streamliners are ugly... 
Actually i don't think Super-Streamliners are ugly, but what i am saying is you cant say the bluebird shouldnt be as highly regarded as it is, because its ugly.. Because thats all personal preference.  But to the point of the Bluebirds being poorly built, i cant chime in cause i have never seen one up close or rode one.
Thanks


----------



## scrubbinrims (Apr 6, 2012)

There was this episode of the Twilight Zone where the focus was on a female Patient who had bandages around her head after undergoing surgery to transform her ugliness.
At the conclusion when the dressing were removed, she was a beautiful woman (from most standards) and her surrounding Doctors and Nurses all had distorted faces..the surgery was unsuccessful.

The point I am trying to make is that some bicycles are accused as being ugly because they are so ahead of their time or pushed the envelope so far in design, they look quite different that their other 2 wheeled counterparts.
Why is it ugly because it is different?  
It should be celebrated...and it is in buttons and T-shirts and by those that are fortunate.

The bluebird joined an integrated hull as a top tube to a round vertical seat tube and it is that joint that tends to get the criticism, but for me is evidence of the industrial techniques of the time and not a point of weakness....better have pioneering architecture than another hanging tank.

Don't repop  a masterpiece, and for my money the flo-cycle, speedline airflow, and safety streamlines are right up there with the bluebird.. of which they are anything but ugly.

Chris


----------



## Larmo63 (Apr 6, 2012)

*The "Switzerland" of Vintage Bicyles*

There are reasons that Bluebirds, Autocycles, Rare Silver Kings, and Safety Streamliners, etc. 

are much sought after. The beauty of these machines to some, may be in the eye of the beholder, but 

their rarity is beyond dispute. I think petty squabbling about them is much ado about nothing. If

it weren't for an online group such as ours, many of us wouldn't really know much about all of

these wondrous American bicycles. I enjoy them all, and they are all fabulous in my opinion. There 

are many bikes shown here and that pop up at the local rides that I think are hideous. Some are

restored so incorrectly, or just not my thing, some too new, but I smile and keep my (strong) 

opinions to myself.


----------



## Uniblab (Apr 6, 2012)

Just because something is rare doesn't guarantee that it has a high market value. There's a saying in the old car hobby as to why something is rare: "No one wanted it back then and fewer want it now" Not always true but I think you get the gist of it.


----------



## redline1968 (Apr 6, 2012)

i haven't seen another bike that has leaded seam work for the body finish on a product.  also the work involved to build one bird would take more time than 2 or 3 streamliners side by side.  that would say something about the bird. sears would not have spent the money on the best design of the time if they did not want to be the top retail store in the usa. its not hard to bend metal tubes and form a tank that is screwed on. the bb tank is all hands on. this is a extra cost i dont see in a huffman or any other bike in that era.


----------



## militarymonark (Apr 6, 2012)

scrubbinrims said:


> There was this episode of the Twilight Zone where the focus was on a female Patient who had bandages around her head after undergoing surgery to transform her ugliness.
> At the conclusion when the dressing were removed, she was a beautiful woman (from most standards) and her surrounding Doctors and Nurses all had distorted faces..the surgery was unsuccessful.




but then there was the SNL episode where the surgery wasn't successful but she was HOTT!


----------



## cyclingday (Apr 6, 2012)

At least for me, Elgin definitely had some of the coolest designs of the Balloon Tire era.

But, I was always puzzled by the lack of a chainguard on the first generation Bluebird. With all of that ground breaking styling, and then to just omit the chainguard was bizarre.

That bike just cries out for an amazing chainguard.

Then on the other side of the spectrum was the model dubbed by collectors. "The Miss America." The most phenominal Skirtguard/chainguard combo that was ever done, and then just a Plain Jane tank up front.

That bike just cries out for an amazing front end.

It's like Scott said. The design team must have been locked up in seperate rooms.


----------



## 37fleetwood (Apr 6, 2012)

to put this on a more productive and constructive path let me just say, from experience, if you want to repop any of this stuff, you absolutely need to have at least one to go by, and it also helps if you have had your hands on several others. I could never have correctly reproduced a Super Streamline frame without having had several and having one on hand.


----------



## Uniblab (Apr 9, 2012)

37fleetwood said:


> to put this on a more productive and constructive path let me just say, from experience, if you want to repop any of this stuff, you absolutely need to have at least one to go by, and it also helps if you have had your hands on several others. I could never have correctly reproduced a Super Streamline frame without having had several and having one on hand.




Aye, truer words have seldom been spoken when it comes to reverse engineering something without any blueprints or original tooling. By measuring several examples of the same model you will very likely encounter dimensional variances. The key question is what were the tolerances which the blueprints allowed for? This being an unknown one must then calculate from the sample group what the nominal dimensions appear to be (this is the middle of the extremes). This isn't nearly so cut and dry and educated assumptions must be made.

I've been down this bumpy road and continue on it so I speak from experience. Even with using state of the art laser scan tools and CMM you still know the dims of only the samples you've measured, in other words maybe your sample group is itself at either extreme of the range (large or small). 

Consider that before the widespread use of CNC machine tools the variances in manufacturing were far greater (the exception being those things made with super accurate tooling AND psychotic level of inspection).


----------

