mruiz
I live for the CABE
are these bikes considered Middle weighs, because tires are 175?
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.
Cleveland Welding S/N Project...See Page 58 Post 576 for chart
- Thread starter AntonyR
- Start date
#eBayPartner Most Recent BUY IT NOW Items Listed on eBay
GTs58
I'm the Wiz, and nobody beats me!
No middleweights in the 40's. A standard rim that took the 2.125 tires will take a smaller and larger width tire.
I picked this up a few months ago, no headbadge, lots of mismatched parts but no real numbers either?
I posted some pics in another thread a while back and the general opinion seemed to be that its an early CWC Western Flyer.
After tearing the bike down for some much needed bearing service, I can see the original paint is a dark plum or burgundy color.
The forks seem to match the rest of the frame color wise, as do the fenders.
Previous Post
Here's a shot of the BB shell, the only numbers are crude punch marks. The paint on the frame is pretty heavy but not on the bottom. There's signs of it having a center kickstand at some point, along with the drop stand.
There's a few chips in the repaint that reveal bare metal, so my guess is that this was stripped bare before the repaint so I don't get the impression that the numbers are painted over.
What are the chances it never got stamped with a serial number?
Or maybe its not a CW frame?
I posted some pics in another thread a while back and the general opinion seemed to be that its an early CWC Western Flyer.
After tearing the bike down for some much needed bearing service, I can see the original paint is a dark plum or burgundy color.
The forks seem to match the rest of the frame color wise, as do the fenders.
Previous Post
Here's a shot of the BB shell, the only numbers are crude punch marks. The paint on the frame is pretty heavy but not on the bottom. There's signs of it having a center kickstand at some point, along with the drop stand.
There's a few chips in the repaint that reveal bare metal, so my guess is that this was stripped bare before the repaint so I don't get the impression that the numbers are painted over.
What are the chances it never got stamped with a serial number?
Or maybe its not a CW frame?
Last edited by a moderator:
Jeff54
Cruisin' on my Bluebird
How many "Forks did it come with? But seriously, all that looks like is a Homie's punch marks. I speculate the serial numbers if any, were light so, sanded off and Homie punched in their own 001 or 100 to mark it.
I have a house painted and no original color 40/41 CWC and the few numbers and letter are absolute nonsense. The only reason I know it's CWC: B/C of the frame, Western Flyer badge, rims fenders etc. I.E. If you can match maker's frame and approximate period. , Unless you can find 'Homie' U done. BTW Burgendy was apparently, of CWC's most popular colors.
Last edited:
It came with two forks, those that were on it and another pair in a bucket of spare parts which I believe are from a Colson.
The bike had a Colson chain guard on it, an Elgin rear rack, and pair of newer Schwinn handle bars.
The wheels, frame, fork and fenders all showed the same burgundy paint, but a Roadmaster badge in the same bucket had blue housepaint on it, as did the back of the Colson cg. The wheels were painted to match with white stripes, and there was also a pair of faded WF badges in the bucket too, both in nice shape.
Does anything about this frame show it to be a particular year? The closest I've found to mine in all details so far has been a 1936 WF ad and a bike belonging to 1936PEDALER in my other post.
oldfart36
Riding One Of My Monark Super Deluxe's
Need some help guys
41 CWC Roadmaster!
Question! how tight should the "Lower Main Support Legs Be" ?
Also, it appears the front fender floats with the front end. No mounting hole in fender, just a depression for what looks like some type of snubber. Not a big CWC guy, so I could really use the help.
41 CWC Roadmaster!
Question! how tight should the "Lower Main Support Legs Be" ?
Also, it appears the front fender floats with the front end. No mounting hole in fender, just a depression for what looks like some type of snubber. Not a big CWC guy, so I could really use the help.
Kickstand3
Riding a '38 Autocycle Deluxe
It takes a rubber bumper mounted on the fork
Could probably make one , or find something that keeps your fender from rattling
Archie Sturmer
Riding a '38 Autocycle Deluxe
I believe one would just tighten all the way to the spring ends, but make sure both sides are even (for better balance of the bike!).
No jam nut is used.
The bottom of the truss rods may be slotted where they are fastened to the axle; so the rods may be adjusted to center the slotted holes to where the axle best fits on the fork ends.
An improved version would later (1950) have bolt holes at both ends of lower truss rods.
On the older version (1938-40 Uber patent), the lower truss rods really don’t support the short horizontal struts beneath the springs; (more like the struts supporting the rods, which serve to keep the springs centered?).
Last edited:
oldfart36
Riding One Of My Monark Super Deluxe's
Thanks guys. I noticed what is left of the rubber snubber. I guess what concerns me is, the lower portion of the front end, with fender and wheel removed seems "sloppy" (lack of a better term) as far as movement. Is this normal?
