Help educate me about springer forks

[drglinski]

Hey guys, I'm toying with the idea of putting a springer fork on my (26") Typhoon. I'd like to learn more about them before looking to make a purchase. How do I know I'm getting an authentic, not a re-pop (although if the re pops are good I'd still consider it) what is there to look for? Anything identifiable that sticks out when buying, etc?

Thanks!

 

[REC]

PM sent - Now edited with photos.

 

[Jeff54]

PM sent - Now edited with photos.

Bicycle spring fork mechanism
US 2160034 A: https://www.google.com/patents/US2160034

How about sharing REC. I've been pondering the same thing. I know, back in 60's which must have been Japanize reproductions, there was something besides good chrome and embossed bolts but can't remember what.

And recently I noticed that the 95+ chrome ones 'New style' don't just have crappy chrome, but the pivot area on fork was pressed un-centered. Just one off center tells me that the whole quality of manufacture is going to have more misfit pieces. And that is, no doubt, going to be true with the repoped 'Old style'

"New Style"

"Old Style"

 

[REC]

jeff54: PM edited and posted:

The easiest key for recognition is the spring yoke. I posted a response to a similar inquiry on the Schwinbikeforum in the middleweight section. There are photos of the forks on both a Typhoon and an American. The Typhoon has a later offering from Schwinn, and the American has the original earlier model fork.

The early middleweight model steering tube has a bottom on it that looks just like the ones seen on original Krates, Sting-Rays and such. The later offering still has the nicely shaped spring yoke, but the bottom of the steering tube is a "pipe" looking affair, not like the other, and harder to distinguish from the aftermarket forks of late. There again it comes to familiarity. Note that the yoke is consistent with all of them.

Orig early style 26" middleweight springer

orig early (Krate, Sting-Ray style) - Photo is from ad from Billy Curtis' on eBay from which I bought that fork

Later Schwinn OE "Tube" type:

As this was an inquiry on the middleweight specifically, I did not include prior forks that were used on ballooners. Those are in another poster's response in the drawings posted as "OLD STYLE SPRING FORK" and "May 30, 1939 Patent drawing" - However. there again the consistency on the spring yoke was present.
Hope this helps!
REC

PS: There is now someone in China making a rather convincing copy of the "OLD STYLE SPRING FORK" as shown in the catalog page posted above. I have not seen a similar middleweight one copied as of yet.

 

[Jeff54]

jeff54: PM edited and posted:

The easiest key for recognition is the spring yoke.
REC.

Ah I see it now but not exactly due to your explanation but because you caused me to look, and look and look again. I have 2 55's a Phantom and deluxe hornet, and both types of the 95 repop 'new and old' cited in photo docs above. . The 55's are Schwinn's "New style forks, perhaps though using 'old style' yoke

So, I guess that's why Schwinn made the repops citing 1954 models then, that's the cut off date for new vs old. Yet those are the only springers I have.

But what I finally noticed is the smoothness of the front of yoke. and maybe it's jogging me old brain's memory, yet it's awfully dark in there. Albeit it seems to me, that, it was probably the smooth yoke we changed out the new styles into. The top area's ovulated yoke front is smooth on the 55's "new style" where as the same area on repop has a very slight, for lack of better word, indentation, on each side of the front top area of yoke.

Yet, realizing this difference and regarding the Schwinn doc photos I'd posted above, in the same area you can see that, the old style appears to be a photograph of it with smooth surface while new is graphic drawing . That graphic shows two lines on each side of top of yoke which is similar to the 95+ repop differences noted. "Similar" but certainly not on the money as 'new style' on my 95's is smooth too without those lines but slightly different and 'similar'. while the 55's yoke is very smooth and much like "old style"

So and but you also brought an photo of another thing which I was commenting about. The red bike, just like the new style 95+ repop; the pressed flat area for the pivot bolt on fork is freaking off center. Recently I browsed several 50-60's springers and none of them had this off center defect. That spot is what I recently noticed and why I was searching the net to discover if it's a tell tail of the repops.

So in the krate photo you got, notice how well centered the pivot bolt, that flat pressed spot is centered, it's on the money. Certainly illustrating that, they could misfire on that flat area but, and, as long as the hole was put correctly it doesn't matter much except appearance, balance or aesthetic appeal. .

Yet, noting my 95 'New style' has the misfire press, then ya gotta wonder, is that red bike's fork also a repop? Or, perhaps as, when me was young, dumber and stupid, (not to imply I got any smarter, but perhaps just wiser, [maybe] ) we kids knew that Schwinn's quality changed quite a bit during late 60's into 70's which was why we were changing out the new parts on our 60's sting rays to older parts that were unique, better metal and chrome, that springer on red bike if it is actually 60's it is illustrating this, and them dar repops screwed the pooch too?

I should add, when the krates came out we, (neighbor kids) were not impressed, 1. was because we'd already, save the 5 speed shifter, freaking built em, but even more importantly, believe it or not, the quality was crap in comparison to what we were used-to. .

 

[REC]

Ah I see it now but not exactly due to your explanation but because you caused me to look, and look and look again. I have 2 55's a Phantom and deluxe hornet, and both types of the 95 repop 'new and old' cited in photo docs above. . The 55's are Schwinn's "New style forks, perhaps though using 'old style' yoke

So, I guess that's why Schwinn made the repops citing 1954 models then, that's the cut off date for new vs old. Yet those are the only springers I have.

But what I finally noticed is the smoothness of the front of yoke. and maybe it's jogging me old brain's memory, yet it's awfully dark in there. Albeit it seems to me, that, it was probably the smooth yoke we changed out the new styles into. The top area's ovulated yoke front is smooth on the 55's "new style" where as the same area on repop has a very slight, for lack of better word, indentation, on each side of the front top area of yoke.

Yet, realizing this difference and regarding the Schwinn doc photos I'd posted above, in the same area you can see that, the old style appears to be a photograph of it with smooth surface while new is graphic drawing . That graphic shows two lines on each side of top of yoke which is similar to the 95+ repop differences noted. "Similar" but certainly not on the money as 'new style' on my 95's is smooth too without those lines but slightly different and 'similar'. while the 55's yoke is very smooth and much like "old style"

So and but you also brought an photo of another thing which I was commenting about. The red bike, just like the new style 95+ repop; the pressed flat area for the pivot bolt on fork is freaking off center. Recently I browsed several 50-60's springers and none of them had this off center defect. That spot is what I recently noticed and why I was searching the net to discover if it's a tell tail of the repops.

So in the krate photo you got, notice how well centered the pivot bolt, that flat pressed spot is centered, it's on the money. Certainly illustrating that, they could misfire on that flat area but, and, as long as the hole was put correctly it doesn't matter much except appearance, balance or aesthetic appeal. .

Yet, noting my 95 'New style' has the misfire press, then ya gotta wonder, is that red bike's fork also a repop? Or, perhaps as, when me was young, dumber and stupid, (not to imply I got any smarter, but perhaps just wiser, [maybe] ) we kids knew that Schwinn's quality changed quite a bit during late 60's into 70's which was why we were changing out the new parts on our 60's sting rays to older parts that were unique, better metal and chrome, that springer on red bike if it is actually 60's it is illustrating this, and them dar repops screwed the pooch too?

To clarify - The photos of all three forks I posted are NOT reproduction parts. The 65 American came with the fork, The Krate fork is also original, though it now lives on a different bike, and the "tube" type was a later OEM fork purchased still in the box about 12 years ago.

Thank you.
REC

 

[Jeff54]

To clarify - The photos of all three forks I posted are NOT reproduction parts. The 65 American came with the fork, The Krate fork is also original, though it now lives on a different bike, and the "tube" type was a later OEM fork purchased still in the box about 12 years ago.

Thank you.
REC

Yeah, I'm not seeing your point yet. And surely no get this "Tube type" as they're all tube types. When I get some time, I'll make photos of my 95's and 55, that oughta do it.

 

[REC]

What is your point? I was answering a question asked about a middleweight spring fork.
REC

 

[Jeff54]

What is your point? I was answering a question asked about a middleweight spring fork.
REC

I think the OP made that clear as, while the Schwinn docs illustrate certin differences we've yet to establish what difference there are between Schwinn's 95+ repops.

And therein with what I've said about, some, misaligned fork press for pivot, ya gotta wonder about the red one you posted for the same: 'Did Schwinn actually screw that one up prior to making the repops, or is that actually a repop?'

So, while what's been established helps discern difference between actual Schwinn parts, it doesn't set the record strait on Schwinn's repop deal.

Haven't the time yet, but I will post photos of 55 and 95 springers. maybe they enlighten and we can kick em around and establish something relevant as an aide..

And but, there would be no difference between Schwinn's middleweights and balloon except the width of fork crown, yoke and length of pivot bolt. Regardless, their shape/style or design will be the same too.

And yet, I remain confused as to why you refer, as some type of difference in that black bike's springer as 'Tube type' yet, as if the red and yellow are different, not 'tube types'? .

Of course, perhaps you wonder 'What does it matter" even if the repops are identical there is a huge difference between older Schwinn and repop: the crappy-est chrome that's ever had a Schwinn label . Hence anybody could flip crap chrome on an old bike and say it's original, until it begins, and it no doubt will if left for a short time in the elements, pealing off. Plus, the metal its self is inferior to 60's, 70's and maybe 80's. .

 

[REC]

Wow.

Good luck with furthering your "relevance" on this.
I was not trying to establish anything, I was responding to a post about does this fork fit/work on a specific bike, and have done so.
I see no relevance to "55" and "95 Repops" when we were looking at original stuff made in the 60s through the early 80's. Other than the fact the design of the 60's fork is the same as the switch from the "behind the legs" to the "through the legs" pivot, there isn't a lot of difference. The "Tube Type" is a reference to the cross support for the pivot. The Red American and the Yellow Krate both have "cast metal pivot" centerpieces, while the black on has one that is made of "WELDED TUBES" - that is pretty simple to see. The actual yoke is pretty much the same from the inception of the forks through the reproductions. I didn't design them, I had nothing to do with their manufacture, and find little difference in them from the late 30s one in a box here to the one on the black Typhoon. Machining quality varies with everything, so yes, there could be a difference. As far as the metallurgy involved, I'm not a metallurgist and don't proclaim any knowledge in that area, though I do weld and have a basic understanding of the materials involved. Thanks for taking this all to task, and all the best to ya - carry on!

Oh, and I RESTATE the following - All three of the forks in my photos posted ARE ORIGINAL PARTS - The one on the black Typhoon was made later, but was still (and IS still) an original Schwinn fork. No Reproductions there. Yes I do have some of the repro forks, but "these three ain't them."

REC
Good evening