1960’s Schwinn Deluxe Headset vs. Schwinn Standard Symbol Stamped Headset which was used?

[Schwinn Sales West]

You mention that it's a user error well I think it's both a "user error" and a "parts problem." If Schwinn had made a longer quill stem to begin with (not the gooseneck itself mind you) but the part of the stem that inserted into the steerer tube, had that been made longer like another 6 inches...so if you add how tall it originally the standard stem was plus 6 inches, I'm guessing it would've been like 10 inches overall or even 12 inches, that would've solved the issue. Then those "knucklehead kids" could've raised the quill stem without breaking the weakest point on the fork where the threads ended outside of the fork for the headset. They done that for both the 22.2 mm and the 21.1 mm I would've like I said solved the problem. That's why I'm not putting a standard stem from Schwinn on my stingray I'm putting a longer non-Schwinn stand that way kids can raise it up and lower it as they please and it's not a big deal.

Yup.....We all have a solution.

The basic issue was that Schwinn made a 20" boys' model for decades before the first Sting Ray came along, and never had a problem with consumers breaking fork tubes. The High Riser handlebar was added to the mix in 1963, and the breakage problems began. I say "breakage problems" because it was not just the fork tubes breaking, it was also the frames from jumping and wheelies. Look, I was an "old kid" in 1963, and I can assure you we beat the hell out of those bikes. I can call them Knuckle Heads, because I was one!

Schwinn always used the short frame head tube on the 20" and 24" boys model frames. In retrospect (with 60+ years of crystal-clear hind sight) they should have changed the boys frame design to the taller head tube used on the girl's model frames. Then they could have used "your suggestion" of a longer stem. The 1939-1967 Schwinn Cycle Truck used exactly the 12" forged stem you are suggesting (Superior Stem), so the parts were already "on the shelf". But I do not believe the taller stem would have solved any problems without having a taller fork tube for better insertion below the threaded "weak point".

Please remember, these bikes were able "to be retailed" for $39.95, because they just used "off the shelf parts" that already existed. It was only after everyone had a clear picture of the high-volume demand that Schwinn, and other companies (vendors) like Ashtabula, Good Year, Uni Royal, Carlisle, etc. had the balls to spend $$$ and gear up production and invest into new unique parts like "Slick" tires, and later MX tread tires for the BMX. In the beginning, the Sting Ray was a very simple model. Just a basic bicycle with a few deletions and additions to the build sheet.

John

 

[Schwinn Sales West]

I'm not currently a kid from the 1960s, nor have I ever been...but I believe the logic back then would have been following the trend of having high rise handlebars to be a "rebel" and because the taller they were, the easier it was to pop wheelies....which may have led to conversations such as "my handlebars are higher than yours." Which would have led to raising stems in a form of "knucklehead kid" competition. If you gave them taller stems, they would have just raised them to the point of breaking too. There wasn't a stop to keep you from raising beyond a safe point, but the MAX HT mark was there to make it obvious that you were doing something wrong. It probably let Schwinn off the hook for liability and part replacement of a fork that was obviously abused.
Also, if you add even 3 inches to a stem, it's going to bottom out in the short steer tube on a boy's 20" bike. There's only so much adjustability to a quill stem.

Will, you got it 100% correct, AGAIN!

John

 

[Schwinn Sales West]

Great info, I thought it was 68. Do you have anything that pertains to what I call "safety forks", ones with a 3/8 axle hole and 5/16 slot? I've found this on 68 models.

@Rusty Klunker I believe you are referring to the Schwinn designed Safety axle retention that used the cone shaped washers to lock into the larger hole. It worked well, held up through many wheel changes without damage. Ashtabula used a similar retention system, but the washer had tangs that stuck out from the washer and the quickly got twisted off or mangled into the fork end.

In the Bike Shop we used the front axle retention cone washer to mount the Wald #535 large rear baskets on to the fender hole of a Schwinn stamped fork end. The safety washer reduced the 3.8" basket leg hole to 5/16" and then we used a longer 1/4" Pan Head bolt.

Schwinn also designed a good working safety retention for the front Quick Release hubs on the lightweight models that "Knuckle Heads" could never understand they worked on a "Cam Principle" and was not a WING NUT.

All of this new safety stuff was to comply with the new CPSC bicycle regulations.

John

 

[Rusty Klunker]

@Rusty Klunker I believe you are referring to the Schwinn designed Safety axle retention that used the cone shaped washers to lock into the larger hole. It worked well, held up through many wheel changes without damage. Ashtabula used a similar retention system, but the washer had tangs that stuck out from the washer and the quickly got twisted off or mangled into the fork end.

All of this new safety stuff was to comply with the new CPSC bicycle regulations.

John

Exactly, I just assumed the two safety features came out at the same time.
And yes, I was one if the ones that had the front wheel come flying off while popin a wheelie on my stingray.

I can remember where and still see it happening and somehow came out almost scratch free.

 

[Rusty Klunker]

Wasn't it a law in states (maybe California) that the handlebar height could not be above the shoulder?

 

[SirMike1983]

Yup.....We all have a solution.

The basic issue was that Schwinn made a 20" boys' model for decades before the first Sting Ray came along, and never had a problem with consumers breaking fork tubes. The High Riser handlebar was added to the mix in 1963, and the breakage problems began. I say "breakage problems" because it was not just the fork tubes breaking, it was also the frames from jumping and wheelies. Look, I was an "old kid" in 1963, and I can assure you we beat the hell out of those bikes. I can call them Knuckle Heads, because I was one!

Schwinn always used the short frame head tube on the 20" and 24" boys model frames. In retrospect (with 60+ years of crystal-clear hind sight) they should have changed the boys frame design to the taller head tube used on the girl's model frames. Then they could have used "your suggestion" of a longer stem. The 1939-1967 Schwinn Cycle Truck used exactly the 12" forged stem you are suggesting (Superior Stem), so the parts were already "on the shelf". But I do not believe the taller stem would have solved any problems without having a taller fork tube for better insertion below the threaded "weak point".

Please remember, these bikes were able "to be retailed" for $39.95, because they just used "off the shelf parts" that already existed. It was only after everyone had a clear picture of the high-volume demand that Schwinn, and other companies (vendors) like Ashtabula, Good Year, Uni Royal, Carlisle, etc. had the balls to spend $$$ and gear up production and invest into new unique parts like "Slick" tires, and later MX tread tires for the BMX. In the beginning, the Sting Ray was a very simple model. Just a basic bicycle with a few deletions and additions to the build sheet.

John

All very true. If your frame and head tube are small, you only have so much adjustment for the stem. Then you have to price it right... A big part of the issue is that you had older kids riding an undersized frame and wheel set. Kids who should have been on a 24 inch wheel or even 26 inch wheel bike were on a 20 inch wheel bike with small frame. So the bars, stem, and saddle all get raised way up. Then if they're doing wheelies, it's putting strain on the whole front of the bike more than usual. And then you have to price all this reasonably so dad is willing to pay for it the week before Christmas. The ironic thing is that in the 1940s and 50s Schwinn made some of the most beautiful, durable stems in a variety of sizes. The old parts books had several lengths of double-adjustable stems and razorback stems...

 

[Schwinn Sales West]

Wasn't it a law in states (maybe California) that the handlebar height could not be above the shoulder?

Federal Law, CPSC standards. Not higher than the shoulder height, OR wider than the safe reach in width. That is why the High Risers changed from the original wider "Y" type, the narrower "H" type.

The biggest thing that changed with the handlebar width/height regulations was it KILLED THE STING RAY WINDSHIELD. This new accessory was made for the wider riser bar.

John

 

[Marshall Waha]

I'm not currently a kid from the 1960s, nor have I ever been...but I believe the logic back then would have been following the trend of having high rise handlebars to be a "rebel" and because the taller they were, the easier it was to pop wheelies....which may have led to conversations such as "my handlebars are higher than yours." Which would have led to raising stems in a form of "knucklehead kid" competition. If you gave them taller stems, they would have just raised them to the point of breaking too. There wasn't a stop to keep you from raising beyond a safe point, but the MAX HT mark was there to make it obvious that you were doing something wrong. It probably let Schwinn off the hook for liability and part replacement of a fork that was obviously abused.
Also, if you add even 3 inches to a stem, it's going to bottom out in the short steer tube on a boy's 20" bike. There's only so much adjustability to a quill stem.

Yeah, I see your point and It makes perfect sense to me. I never really thought about it that way. However, I would like to counter this argument, that if Schwinn had made a taller stem to begin with kids might not have raised it all the way because you're right it's a problem if kids are raising a quill stem to the max height marking. But I truly do believe that a longer stem would've prevented them from wanting to do that in the first place. And it might've avoided a lot of accidents as well as damage to forks. Kids might've taken better care not to do that. But that's just my thought and speculation, but I could be wrong too. Besides, I don't like the short standard quill stems Schwinn made, because the bolts on them require using American/SAE, screwdrivers, wrenches, sockets, etc. Besides I don't care for that I mean everything on bikes nowadays has either metric Allen keys or Torx bolts and fasteners. That's what I work with mostly, and what I feel the most comfortable working with. I don't work with American fasteners unless it's a vintage American power tool or I am repairing wood furniture etc. Sure you can torque a ½ hex bolt with a torque wrench, but it's too easy to strip the bolt. Also, have you ever tried torques phillps 4-sided or flat head screw(s) with a torque wrench? Well, I have, and believe me, it doesn't work, it's impossible at least with hand tools or a manual torque wrench anyway. It's far easier to use an Allen key or Torx bolts with Allen and Torx bits with a Torque wrench.

 

[Marshall Waha]

Yup.....We all have a solution.

The basic issue was that Schwinn made a 20" boys' model for decades before the first Sting Ray came along, and never had a problem with consumers breaking fork tubes. The High Riser handlebar was added to the mix in 1963, and the breakage problems began. I say "breakage problems" because it was not just the fork tubes breaking, it was also the frames from jumping and wheelies. Look, I was an "old kid" in 1963, and I can assure you we beat the hell out of those bikes. I can call them Knuckle Heads, because I was one!

Schwinn always used the short frame head tube on the 20" and 24" boys model frames. In retrospect (with 60+ years of crystal-clear hind sight) they should have changed the boys frame design to the taller head tube used on the girl's model frames. Then they could have used "your suggestion" of a longer stem. The 1939-1967 Schwinn Cycle Truck used exactly the 12" forged stem you are suggesting (Superior Stem), so the parts were already "on the shelf". But I do not believe the taller stem would have solved any problems without having a taller fork tube for better insertion below the threaded "weak point".

Please remember, these bikes were able "to be retailed" for $39.95, because they just used "off the shelf parts" that already existed. It was only after everyone had a clear picture of the high-volume demand that Schwinn, and other companies (vendors) like Ashtabula, Good Year, Uni Royal, Carlisle, etc. had the balls to spend $$$ and gear up production and invest into new unique parts like "Slick" tires, and later MX tread tires for the BMX. In the beginning, the Sting Ray was a very simple model. Just a basic bicycle with a few deletions and additions to the build sheet.

John

Interesting I never knew that. However, in retrospect that actually makes perfect sense because then it would give the frame and fork a lot more strength and be able to take a lot more abuse. Am I right? Correct me if I'm wrong. But I can see your point, It makes perfect sense.

 

[WillWork4Parts]

Sorry, @Schwinn Sales West , I didn't forget about your stack height question. I got wrapped up in trying to compile info for a post about differences throughout the years and quickly realized there are too many to list in one post and maintain any train of thought that a reader would want to follow, so I'll stick to direct questions one at a time and not have to worry about taking a bunch of bikes apart all at once either. I had some headsets separated in an organizer and found they didn't have date stamps on the 64 and 65 ones I set aside. Here's the next best thing to a complete bike, forks that I left the headsets on after stripping the bike, they have the date codes to keep things relevant to this thread.

July 65 26" middleweight fork for the Standard headset.

December 65 26" lightweight fork for the Deluxe Headset.

Trying to get the parts in focus with the caliper in shot just wasn't happening, plus there's Always a critic concerned about how to use a measuring device...so I figure simple side by side representations are the best. Straight edge used to better represent the height differences. Bearings are installed in the correct direction here, but the crown race is omitted because it's not important for what we are looking to measure.

The insertion depth of the top cup and top cone looked different at first, but you can see the tiniest gap when put end to end, so small it's not worth measuring.

Everything else is identical, so no need to measure any of that. Here is where the first difference is obvious, the standard headset is taller.

These are the depths of the assemblies from top rim of threads to the flat surface of the table below. I'd say a +/- of .3mm is plenty of accuracy for what we are looking for. 23.6mm and 22.0mm respectively, that makes the Deluxe Headset stack height 1.6mm shorter.

Next we measure the depth of the threaded area of the cup and cone only, in the same way.

11.5mm and 6.8mm respectively. So we have 4.7mm less threaded area to grip with and support the fork steer tube from bulging. Do the math and draw imaginary lines on the fork where the bottoms of the threaded parts stop and they will be 3.1mm apart, or roughly an 1/8" higher for the Deluxe Headset. It's less than I thought after finding that the stack height of the Deluxe is shorter, but I still think that's significant if you were to go about a serious stress test on these parts. It's not going to make me stop riding a bike with a Deluxe Headset, because I don't put these original bikes through that kind of stress or abuse...but now we know something that we didn't before! Ha