So you want a Charlie Cunningham Indian #1

[Drencrom]

Yeah. That diamond weight 40 lbs. Cunningham came up with with shocking 24-ish lbs bike, which is rather great result even by today standards.

Now, try do uphill with Breezer 1-st series and Cunningham bike. I'm not trying depreciate Breezer but this deserves respect in History of MTB along with 1-st series.

Not sure that has much to do with it, a Clunker-style bike and a Cunningham are horses for courses. In the same way that a mid-90s downhill rig could weigh twice that of an XC race bike.

 

[rumpfy]

"need i say more"

"i think you need to say a lot more"

 

[rumpfy]

I hate to say it Dr. S, but I'm starting to like you.

 

[Radoslaw]

Yeah. That diamond weight 40 lbs. Cunningham came up with with shocking 24-ish lbs bike, which is rather great result even by today standards.

Now, try do uphill with Breezer 1-st series and Cunningham bike. I'm not trying depreciate Breezer but this deserves respect in History of MTB along with 1-st series.

Not sure that has much to do with it, a Clunker-style bike and a Cunningham are horses for courses. In the same way that a mid-90s downhill rig could weigh twice that of an XC race bike.

I know what you saying but beetween series-1 and Cunningham is just a year or two difference and mind you, Breezer's bike was designed from scratch as a mountain bike, we're not talking about adapting old Schwinn balooners by adding few shifters. Anyway, wasn’t in my intention to make comparison, I was forced as again discussion comes down to nice or not nice then must be crap.

 

[Dr S]

I hate to say it Dr. S, but I'm starting to like you.

We can't have that. Must think of something to upset you. Back soon.

 

[mrkawasaki]

^ Get a bunker... ;-)

 

[FairfaxPat]

I saw Charlie Cunningham downtown yesterday and we chatted for awhile. He mentioned that he is currently building 3 new bikes for some customers of his, so if you want a new one.....Here is a pic. of myself and Charlie with his everyday rider-note the 29er front wheel.....

 

[ferrus]

Its so much more than the frame material too. Look at a Cunningham compared to other contempory bikes and you will see so much innovation that we now take for granted...

Oversized thin wall tubing.

Geometry to suit off road riding rather than the slack 'Schwinn' inspired geo or geo nabbed from road bikes.

More compact sizings with longer oversized, stronger seatposts (ok this example is a bit of a gate, but most were smaller with generous standover). Most contempory bikes were built big because off the shelf seatposts were for road use and thus rather short.

Wide spaced bottom brackets with sealed bearings. Allowed greater tyre clearances and better chain line.

Grease port hubs and headsets.

Sophisticated braking systems that were far superior to anything else at the time.

135mm rear hub spacings for a stronger rear wheel.

All Cunningham firsts (and I'm sure there are others that I have missed). Look beyond the aesthetics and you will see bikes brimming with innovation. Innovations that shaped the modern mountain bike.

All this and more.

Some shocking comments on here apparently missing the point entirely. If you're remotely interested in MTB evolution and history how can you not be fascinated by these innovations? It looks like shit? -so what!

..If this was an equally relevant early motorbike it wouldn't be getting such facile comments

 

[GearlessinSeattle]

That is effing cool!

 

[klaw71]

Hi, just come across this forum, been joined to retrobike for a while but never got involved, as far as I can see, the only real innovation in cycling seems to be the materials used. I can't believe as retrobikers some of you feel the need to abuse CC,s bicycle. Thought you might be interested that breezer No 1 really wasn't a design built from scratch infact it closely resembles the 1909 Resilient Royal Centaur a Coventry built bicycle, you may agree or not. I'll post links to the bicycle on my next message as i can't yet due to not enough posts.