Retro Bikes of Quality

[legrandefromage]

Even more bikes of distinction:

Cunninghams.

All this is a blatant rip from the http://www.cunninghambikes.com/ site.

Charlie Cunningham was a very early pioneer of many features that we see on modern mountain bikes. He is sited as one of the first people to actively produce bikes made with sloping top tubes and he actively pushed the production of welded aluminium bikes.
You like the shiny aluminium look on your bike? Most of Charlies were polished alloy mainly as paint on a mountain bike will just get chipped and scratched with use and can cover up fatal cracks and flaws.
You like your cam quick releases, like ringles? Charlie was the man who introduced those back in 79.

He introduced 135mm rear spacing on his bikes when the rest of the world was using 126mm
He invented Grease Guard grease injection system
He created the first cnced magnesium stem 20 odd years before Easton introduced a close copy.
He pioneered the two chainring/wide range cassette 20 years before the racing community and parts manus introduced it again.

And finally (for this list as there are many, many more things that Bushpig or Halaburt could add) he designed the ground control tyre.

Yet you have posted a "Cunningham" in the "Retro Bikes of Quality" with the brake in exactly the same position on the underside of the chainstay

A) pretty sure the Cunningham is not running a Deore U brake
B) I have never been to Marin, so I am going to have to make an assumption that the weather there is a little more clement than Wolverhampton.

Just pointing out that this Specialized has been labelled as "shite" mainly for it's u-brake position, whilst the Cunningham is hailed as "quality".

Both frames would be fine for Marin conditions and both have the mud clogging issues in Wolverhampton.

 

[JustKev]

A Miyata Century. From 1990, the same year as the c-26 if I remember correctly. The later would collapse under the weight of the gold alone.

If only Tomac had ridden a Miyata it could all have been so different.....

 

[Elev12k]

Yes, marketing. Actually a Yeti is more or less the Colnago of mountainbikes, only Ernesto mastered the trick and still masters the trick for over 50 yrs.

Do not get me wrong. Their lousy build quality is part of the legend. The mediocre bikes, the race team, the attempts to innovate and the mellow attitude cultus around them. Price them sky high and they sell like got cakes. Ingenious. If, say, the Toyo Jp shop would have cranked out that quality they would have went belly up for sure. Instead they were building some very nice Ritcheys

 

[pete_mcc]

Just pointing out that this Specialized has been labelled as "shite" mainly for it's u-brake position, whilst the Cunningham is hailed as "quality".

Both frames would be fine for Marin conditions and both have the mud clogging issues in Wolverhampton.

A few key issues:

1) If you are comparing a specialized stumpjumper to a Cunningham then you are a lost cause. It's akin to comparing a Awia walkman to the Maclaren music system you owned.

2) Cunninghams were specifically designed for their customer and custom build accordingly. A majority of Cunninghams customers were West Coast mountain bikers with no experience of mud. The specialized was a mass Market bike with no consiration to it's wider market than the Morgan Hill environs.

3) Every part of the Cunningham could be adapted and tailored to suit your specification, from the brakes and their position to the wheels, forks, tyres and so on. The fact that you see most Cunninghams running WTB/Cunningham roller-cams and not canti-lever was that they were the best brake for the terrain. They are superbly powerful, have great modulation and a superior feel compared to the U brake.

4) A bike of quality and distinction is a sum of all parts. Now as Cunningham was responsible for may key innovations that helped form our sport and his bikes were the test bed for many of those innovations is it not right that his bikes are considered bikes of quality. As compared to the Specialized which was a direct and blatant copy of the original Kelly/Fisher mountainbike that Mike Synard had sent to Taiwan to be copied. I hardly call absolute plagiarism an essential attribute to be classed as a bike of quality.

5) The all alloy, handmade Cunningham WTB roller cam is a million miles away from the plastic coated U-brake feature on the Specialized, I would happily take any amounts of roller cams before I ever touch a u brake again.

6) My feeling regarding that Specialized in ebay watch was that someone was posting that Stumpjumper with an intention to buy it to use in the uk and as such it is a painfully bad choice of bike.
If a Cunningham was to ever become available then the buyer would likely be someone who better understands the nature of the bike, it's rarity and place in MTB history. They are not likely to cover it in salvaged bargain bin parts and 'hit the trails' on a daily basis. To that end it's position of the rear brake is a non-argument.

7) That bike listed in eBay watch is shite. If ever a Cunningham comes up on eBay watch then you will have the right to express your views equally. No amount of skip-diving logic will sway me from my views. But as the chance of a Cunningham ever coming available to the open market are very unlikely then we're good.

 

[Dr S]

Well written Pete.

As the owner of an early Stumpjumper may i confirm that they are indeed 'shite' of the highest order wether compared to a Cunningham or not.

 

[legrandefromage]

A bike that can only be used in the dry dusty conditions of the US limits itself to the dry dusty conditions of the US, no matter how much you throw in grease nipples, rollercams and any other so called innovations.

I write this knowing that some of America's finest was wholly disabled by UK mud - wrong choice of bike for the conditions, none of Cunninghams 'innovations' would have made any difference on this well known bike except maybe the bare aluminium and even this is ball burnished.

I would not buy a Cunningham for use in the UK, except maybe for the one week where conditions may be suitable.


Aiwa won awards for their Walkmans and many other products.

 

[Neil]

Well written Pete.

Just to put that in context, I think it's a cogent and robust defence against what appeared - at least on the surface - to be something of a hubristic contradiction. Where Pete's argument went downhill and lost some of it's teeth, I feel, was the (to all intents and purposes) ad hominem aspects both in that reply, and in others.

It may well be the cut and thrust - and I'm not saying it has no place - I'm just saying it smacks of the defensive, which in turn takes something away from any pretensions of authority.

As the owner of an early Stumpjumper may i confirm that they are indeed 'shite' of the highest order wether compared to a Cunningham or not.

Surely that is somewhat subjective and in context, though? Whether a Stumpjumper of that era qualifies for the subjectiveness of this debate / topic is one thing, but surely there's many bikes from that era where the ubiquitous Stumpie doesn't look quite as 'shite'? In short, it may not be the best representation from that era, but it's sure as hell not the worst.

 

[pete_mcc]

A bike that can only be used in the dry dusty conditions of the US limits itself to the dry dusty conditions of the US, no matter how much you throw in grease nipples, rollercams and any other so called innovations.

As I mentioned, Cunninghams were custom made and as such could have any component choices to suit your environment. Like having cantilever brakes positioned on the chain stays. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, so here's another thousand:

 

[pete_mcc]

..and another thousand:

 

[Dr S]

A bike that can only be used in the dry dusty conditions of the US limits itself to the dry dusty conditions of the US, no matter how much you throw in grease nipples, rollercams and any other so called innovations.

I write this knowing that some of America's finest was wholly disabled by UK mud - wrong choice of bike for the conditions, none of Cunninghams 'innovations' would have made any difference on this well known bike except maybe the bare aluminium and even this is ball burnished.

I would not buy a Cunningham for use in the UK, except maybe for the one week where conditions may be suitable.


Aiwa won awards for their Walkmans and many other products.

You are missing the point somewhat. Cunninghams were individually designed for their purpose- each one different. back then, if you asked Charlie to build you a bike here for the UK with it's mud shedding needs then he would have built you one to do just that. The reason no such Cunninghams were built as such is that we were all still doing skids on our BMXs and watching Tizwas, whilst having no such notion that 'Mountain Bikes' existed.

That bike is exactly what this thread should be about- the innovation and quality are beyond doubt wether you like it personally or not.