Bicycle Belle
Wore out three sets of tires already!
BTW Fordsnake? I LOVE your bike and can't wait to see it finished!! May I ask who is doing your tank decal and would they possibly make one to sell to me?
When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
1938 Roadmaster Supreme (4-gill)
- Thread starter fordsnake
- Start date
#eBayPartner Most Recent BUY IT NOW Items Listed on eBay
fordsnake
I live for the CABE
Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto!
Phil, you’re so right about documented evidence on the early RMS’s...there's so little published! Therefore, I looked at the impetus, the undeniable published patent drawing filed May 2, 1936, and I discerned something totally different then you.
Often times, a rendering is a portal into the designer’s imagination…a prelude to the finish piece. And too often the concept piece may never be produced because of cost implications, safety features, machining, availability, management changes, etc? There are too many factors that can occur from the drawing board to the finish result. Similar to concept cars at an Auto Show…the car seen on the stage is rarely produced as seen!
The stem featured in the patent drawing I assumed is the designer's Onnie Mankki concept? He envisioned a uniquely large, “beefy” and bulbous stem...unlike the familiar prevalent stems used on bicycles. You mentioned;“If you compare the patent illustration with the cushion stem and the 1937 Roadmaster bellows stem, you will see the patent illustration clearly shows the bike with the Roadmaster stem". Personally, I don’t see the stem you speak of?
I carefully re-rendered Mankki's patent illustration and the “cushioned” stem (see pic) to get a visual comparison. Please note, the orientation of the bar clamp bolt you referenced, it is apparent on both stems and actually more pronounced on the cushioned stem.
The aesthetics of both stems are more similar then they are different, and especially compared to the art deco "bellow" gooseneck.
I interpreted the patent drawing as a conceptual direction…and if you carefully look at the illustration you’ll see other visual discrepancies that were also never produced; the different design pattern on the chain guard, a different rear carrier design, shallow fenders, different truss rods & mounts, and most significantly the different designed “bug” eye tank. I’d also like to call your attention to the “Bluebird grips” and the absence of the signature RMS curved crank arms!
Theoretically, CWC never produced Mankki's patent illustration...but from a distance it's a close interpretation
Phil, you’re so right about documented evidence on the early RMS’s...there's so little published! Therefore, I looked at the impetus, the undeniable published patent drawing filed May 2, 1936, and I discerned something totally different then you.
Often times, a rendering is a portal into the designer’s imagination…a prelude to the finish piece. And too often the concept piece may never be produced because of cost implications, safety features, machining, availability, management changes, etc? There are too many factors that can occur from the drawing board to the finish result. Similar to concept cars at an Auto Show…the car seen on the stage is rarely produced as seen!
The stem featured in the patent drawing I assumed is the designer's Onnie Mankki concept? He envisioned a uniquely large, “beefy” and bulbous stem...unlike the familiar prevalent stems used on bicycles. You mentioned;“If you compare the patent illustration with the cushion stem and the 1937 Roadmaster bellows stem, you will see the patent illustration clearly shows the bike with the Roadmaster stem". Personally, I don’t see the stem you speak of?
I carefully re-rendered Mankki's patent illustration and the “cushioned” stem (see pic) to get a visual comparison. Please note, the orientation of the bar clamp bolt you referenced, it is apparent on both stems and actually more pronounced on the cushioned stem.
The aesthetics of both stems are more similar then they are different, and especially compared to the art deco "bellow" gooseneck.
I interpreted the patent drawing as a conceptual direction…and if you carefully look at the illustration you’ll see other visual discrepancies that were also never produced; the different design pattern on the chain guard, a different rear carrier design, shallow fenders, different truss rods & mounts, and most significantly the different designed “bug” eye tank. I’d also like to call your attention to the “Bluebird grips” and the absence of the signature RMS curved crank arms!
Theoretically, CWC never produced Mankki's patent illustration...but from a distance it's a close interpretation
Last edited:
scrubbinrims
Riding a '38 Autocycle Deluxe
Nice 4-gill assembly Carlton and interesting information and interpretation on the RMS.
Just one guy's thought here, but the artistic rendering looks more like the bellows ))) stem to me.
No cushioning aspect of that rendering besides the handlebar mount location discrepancy.
Chris
Just one guy's thought here, but the artistic rendering looks more like the bellows ))) stem to me.
No cushioning aspect of that rendering besides the handlebar mount location discrepancy.
Chris
fordsnake
I live for the CABE
Thanks Chris! Regarding the gooseneck...when I lay the patent drawing over a photo of an RMS, it's rather clear there are difference in the outline appearance, the bulbous shock absorber stem is a closer match then the bellow stem in my opinion. But we'll never know since there's no documented evidence or proof?
cyclingday
I'm the Wiz, and nobody beats me!
There is another patent filed by Onnie Mankki on May 29th 1936, that shows a crossbar dashboard similar to the Westfield one that houses what looks like a clock and a speedometer.
It is mounted in a similar manner as the Westfield one, in that the stem quill bolt and the handlebar pinch bolt supports it. The main difference between it and the one Westfield would end up using, is that it also spans out to the handlebars forming a crossbrace. similar to what Schwinn used. As was the case, with the Westfield, the stem would have had a special relationship with the dashboard, so that it sat securely.
I don't know if that dashboard was ever made, but the stem in the dashboard drawing is the same stem in the patent drawing for the 37/38 RMS.
If the bellows stem or the Cushioner stem is that stem, then I find it odd, that they would have produced such a fancy stem for something that was going to be covered by an instrument panel.
It is mounted in a similar manner as the Westfield one, in that the stem quill bolt and the handlebar pinch bolt supports it. The main difference between it and the one Westfield would end up using, is that it also spans out to the handlebars forming a crossbrace. similar to what Schwinn used. As was the case, with the Westfield, the stem would have had a special relationship with the dashboard, so that it sat securely.
I don't know if that dashboard was ever made, but the stem in the dashboard drawing is the same stem in the patent drawing for the 37/38 RMS.
If the bellows stem or the Cushioner stem is that stem, then I find it odd, that they would have produced such a fancy stem for something that was going to be covered by an instrument panel.
Last edited:
W
widpanic02
Guest
!
Check this out! Freshly restored!
Check this out! Freshly restored!
slick
Riding a '38 Autocycle Deluxe
WOW!! That's a great bike. Do you have any before pictures? Would love to see a thread on the whole transformation. Thanks for sharing.
Similar threads
-
- Locked
