# alternative schwinn atb view....



## surly357 (Jan 19, 2006)

i don't get the conventional wisdom about how schwinn missed the boat on atbs and that this is what led to their demise. i just read a post about an 82 or 83 sidewinder being a nail in schwinns coffin, how it was JUST a modified cruiser, how they thought atbs were just a fad, etc... in 1982 MOST atbs WERE modified cruisers unless you had big bucks for something from marin or $800 for a stumpjumper! having ANY atb in their lineup showed they were ahead of almost every major manufacturer of the era. a couple years later they produced what i think was the first $350 atb actually worth buying ( the 1984 high sierra- tig welded cromo, mountech components) this co-venture with a taiwanese unknown- giant, was clearly forward thinking and obviously shows they didn't think of atbs as just a fad. only months before the only commonly available atbs cheaper than a $500 stumjumper sport were from ross, including the hideous black and gold mt hood (steel ag tech derailleurs, high ten tubing i think) at the same price point! schwinn continued to have several models in the lineup for years to come that weren't any different than what everybody else was importing. of course they had ned campaigning their high end bikes for several seasons of good press as well. what killed the original schwinn? i don't know, but it's obvious they were one of the first companies that DID grasp the importance of mountain bikes.


----------



## filtersweep (Oct 15, 2004)

I think their "demise" was largely due to using their heavyweight manufacturing processes, poor marketing, and having a product line that was all over the map. With all their low-end offerings, which at the time were considered pricey by those who were used to hardware store bike prices (in the pre-X-mart days), how could they ever sell to the truly high end of the market? They really should have rebranded their high end bikes, their mountain bikes, etc. under different badges-- and kept Schwinn for their cruisers, kids bikes, etc. When you consider a Waterford is basically the same as a Schwinn Paramount, you can see there is no comparison to a Varsity. For most people, brand name is an emotional issue--- people want to feel a connection.

Look at all the subforums right here at mtnbike review---- it really illustrates how important excellence within a niche truly is. Schwinn was trying to be the GM of bikes.

I find it interesting that Campy has no stake in mtn bike components as well.



surly357 said:


> i don't get the conventional wisdom about how schwinn missed the boat on atbs and that this is what led to their demise. i just read a post about an 82 or 83 sidewinder being a nail in schwinns coffin, how it was JUST a modified cruiser, how they thought atbs were just a fad, etc... in 1982 MOST atbs WERE modified cruisers unless you had big bucks for something from marin or $800 for a stumpjumper! having ANY atb in their lineup showed they were ahead of almost every major manufacturer of the era. a couple years later they produced what i think was the first $350 atb actually worth buying ( the 1984 high sierra- tig welded cromo, mountech components) this co-venture with a taiwanese unknown- giant, was clearly forward thinking and obviously shows they didn't think of atbs as just a fad. only months before the only commonly available atbs cheaper than a $500 stumjumper sport were from ross, including the hideous black and gold mt hood (steel ag tech derailleurs, high ten tubing i think) at the same price point! schwinn continued to have several models in the lineup for years to come that weren't any different than what everybody else was importing. of course they had ned campaigning their high end bikes for several seasons of good press as well. what killed the original schwinn? i don't know, but it's obvious they were one of the first companies that DID grasp the importance of mountain bikes.


----------



## surly357 (Jan 19, 2006)

*maybe*

i think you're partly right, in essence i think schwinn was viewed by many as their parents bike brand, no matter how good a job they did with their bikes ( by the way i think i should have referenced the high sierra as an 83 not 84, i think it hit the shops in the fall). i think trek is in the beginning of a similar phase. i see more actual atb riding customers attracted to smaller, 'cooler' lines. with treks ownership of the gary fisher brand maybe they are following your line of thought. gone are the days when i would clearly demonstate the superiority of a competing bike and have the customer respond, "yeah, but i really wanted a trek." i suppose schwinn dealers experienced something similar in the eighties, having bikes that were at least as good as most of the competition ( my main point about 'conventional wisdom'), but seeing folks swarming to other less established brands based on a perception understood only in the deepest, darkest, most mysterious depths of the consumer mind......


----------



## First Flight (Jan 25, 2004)

Schwinn had a ton of problems and the ignorance of mountain bikes was just one of many issues. They had a perfect oportunity to jump in the market in the late 1970s since the early bikes were all modified Schwinn cruisers. Instead, we get almost 5 years of King Stings and Sidewinders with caliper brakes and 10 speeds. They did finally jump on the bandwagon but instead of getting in first, they were just one of many.

There was a book by a couple of Chicago based business writers call "No Hands" that goes throgh all of the reasons. Makes for a good read.


----------



## surly357 (Jan 19, 2006)

*huh?*

there was no market to jump into in the late 70's. sure, there were a handful of pioneering framebuilders in california, but nobody in the mainstream retail world had a mountain bike at that time. even the ground breaking stumpjumpers weren't available until what, '81 or '82? i still contend the venture with giant ( a total unkown to the american consumer at that time) to produce reasonably priced, well spec'd taiwanese tig welded bikes in '83 is evidence schwinn was ahead of most other mass producers of the time, and was quite a bold move for a company of that size and tradition. in time, taiwanese tig welding would destroy the lugged japanese bike industry. the early sidewinders weren't competition for breezers, they were competition for home built clunkers and schwinns own cantilever frame cruisers. i think this shows again schwinn was one of the first companies to realize something was taking shape at the grassroots level and attempt to capitalize on it. they had seen stingrays morph into bmx and i don't think the lesson was lost on them.


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

surly357 said:


> i don't think the lesson was lost on them.


I'm speaking without a particular knowledge on this subject (), but when has that stopped anything? So in some ways I'm asking questions

My first mtn bike was an 84 High Sierra. I was inspired to get it by riding my brothers High Sierra the previous year. I dont' know what went on in managements noggins but perhaps they didn't really realize the scope of the coming market. How many times have the engineers went "This is it!" and management say, 'Eh", think Xerox PARC & graphical interfaces.

I do agree that Schwinn had lost some it's cachet of the earlier years and also, Schwinn wasn't the sort of company that you thought of when the words, "nimble innovator' were mentioned. They High Sierra wasn't a bad bike at all, but maybe like most other companies, didn't surivve the changes in the industry. Given enough time, most companies fall by the wayside.

Yeah, this is an interesting subject.

'Guin


----------



## 82Sidewinder (Jun 28, 2006)

Schwinn definitely missed the boat on mountain bikes. In 1983, their top of the line mountain bike was the Sierra, which had a heavy flash welded frame, cantilever brakes, Ukai alloy rims, and Suntour AG components. I have one of these and it weighs close to 40 pounds. Their other offering in '83 was the Sidewinder, which had the same frame but with sidepull caliper brakes and heavy steel rims. Ritchey/Mountainbikes was already in their 4th year of production by this time, and companies like Ross, Diamondback and Raleigh had already brought good quality mountain bikes into the market.
Prior to this, Schwinn had a 5 speed King Sting in 1981, and 1982 saw the introduction of the Sidewinder and a 10 speed King Sting, both with Suntour Alpine Gear components.
It wasn't until 1984 that Schwinn began selling anything that resembled a real mountain bike. The High Sierra was their top line bike in '84, followed by the Sierra. Both were made in Taiwan, and were decent quality bikes. I have both bikes, and they are great riders. 
However, by '84 many companies had jumped on the ATB bandwagon, so Schwinn lost the opportunity to take the lead in the market. It's ironic, considering Schwinn balloon tire bikes were ridden by the pioneers of the sport.
By the mid 80's, Schwinn had some great bikes in their lineup, including the fillet-brazed Cimmaron and the top line Paramountain, but it was too little too late. Schwinn continued to play second fiddle to companies like Fisher, Ross, Specialized and Ritchey.

Missing the boat on ATB's was not the sole cause of Schwinn's bankruptcy, but it was another nail in the coffin. Poor management decisions and outsourcing of production to Hungary were other factors, and Schwinn's heavy investment in obsolete flash welding equipment made it a dinosaur.

Schwinn did experience a renaissance after it was moved to Boulder, Co. The Moab and Homegrown bikes are legendary for their quality. However, Schwinn went bankrupt again in 2001, was bought by Pacific Bicycles, and is now a Walmart brand.


Craig


----------



## Repack Rider (Oct 22, 2005)

The first mass manufacturers to get into the MTB market were Specialized and Univega, both based in California where they had a good view of the nascent MTB activity. Both of these companies did little more than mass produce Ritchey bikes, and for the first five or six years that mountain bikes were on the market, EVERYTHING was copied from Ritchey.

Based in Chicago, Schwinn only knew what they read in the trade magazines about MTBs, and the King Sting was an oversized BMX bike with gears and caliper brakes added. It was heavy and performed like a slug. Picture a MTB made like a Schwinn Varsity. You couldn't give one away in California.

Jeff mentioned the Judith Crown book, "No Hands," which details problems with Schwinn that were institutional, primarily a third-generation owner who had grown up rich, with a passion for money but not for bikes. He made some poor decisions, based on money alone.

The short version is this. In order to reduce costs and compete with other importers, Schwinn sent their manufacturing to Taiwan. Once you hand off your manufacturing, the factory controls you, and by putting Giant into the big time bicycle business with million-unit orders, Schwinn created their own competitor, which began selling the same bikes without bothering to send them to Schwinn.

Oops.


----------



## surly357 (Jan 19, 2006)

*there you go!*

now here's response i can get on board with! all along i've just been saying that it's too easy to say they missed out on mtbs and that's what ruined the company. it's one of those things that if it gets repeated enough it becomes a 'truth'. now back to something more in the vintage forum comfort zone: which is cooler- a purple skewer or a blue stem?


----------



## 82Sidewinder (Jun 28, 2006)

Repack Rider said:


> Based in Chicago, Schwinn only knew what they read in the trade magazines about MTBs, and the King Sting was an oversized BMX bike with gears and caliper brakes added. It was heavy and performed like a slug. Picture a MTB made like a Schwinn Varsity. You couldn't give one away in California..


Good post, except that I disagree with your characterization of the King Sting. While the Sidewinder was clunky and built like a Varsity, the King Sting's frame was handmade in the Paramount factory. Combined with lightweight alloy components, it was a respectable bike. It wasn't a real mountainbike, but it was not a low end cruiser either.


----------



## 82Sidewinder (Jun 28, 2006)

surly357 said:


> now here's response i can get on board with! all along i've just been saying that it's too easy to say they missed out on mtbs and that's what ruined the company.


Of course it isn't one factor that caused the company's fall, but it's a fact that Schwinn considered mtbs a fad early on, and their line of bikes reflected this attitude.

Schwinn wanted no part of the BMX movement either in the early 70's, even when kids were racing modified Stingrays in the early going. Schwinn left the market to small companies like Redline, GT and Mongoose, much like they did 10 years later with mountain bikes. Even though Schwinn did introduce a line of high quality BMX bikes later on, the small garage companies already owned the industry.

Schwinn missed two huge opportunities to innovate and lead the industry in the way they had done countless times during the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's.


----------



## First Flight (Jan 25, 2004)

I never meant to imply that the failure to act on mountain bikes was the sole reason for their demise but just one of many issues and indicative of the other problems them suffered.

If you look back in the history of Schwinn, there are many examples of being at the fore front of development: spring forks, locking forks, accessories, double wall rims, styling, colors, models (such as Phantoms, Panthers), Krates and Stingrays, Varsitys and Continentals......right up until the 1970's Schwinn was driving all of these trends.

As mentioned, BMX was next and Schwinn missed badly. They took big heavy Stingray frames and put on knobby tires and a Varsity saddle and tried to sell it against GT, Mongoose, Haro, Redline.......and lost badly. By the time the Sting came out, the other guys had established themselves and Schwinn was left behind. The exact same scenario played out again with mountain bikes. Schwinns initial response was a luke warm modification of the current product lines. Again, by the time they got serious, there were too many people who had established themselves.

Schwinn got fat and sloppy in similar way to GM and Sears. Being born with a particular last name didn't make you capable of running a company and Schwinn had dominated so long they couldn't imagine it any other way. If you read up on it, you'll see that is was a combination of family, Hungary, BMX, Teamsters, Chicago, Mississippi, Giant, mountain bikes.......that made them go down.


----------



## azjeff (Jun 3, 2006)

My first MTB was a red Sierra with white grips, seat, and hubs. Anyone remember it? Either an 84 or 85 that I bought as a leftover. Thought it was great but what did I know back then? Started riding with guys on Stumps and Ritcheys and found out what I didn't know! Traded it for a Trek 7000 with the bonded aluminum frame that rode like lead pipe. Yuck. A few years ago I found (and bought) a Sierra that was exactly like mine but with the dark chrome frame and black seat & grips. In a couple of weeks I'm going back to Pa, gonna try to reclaim it from the shop it's being displayed at. It deserves to retire to Arizona. I kept wanting to buy Schwinn back then but it always seemed they were a step behind the other brands.


----------



## bikerboy (Jan 13, 2004)

surly357 said:


> i don't get the conventional wisdom about how schwinn missed the boat on atbs and that this is what led to their demise. i just read a post about an 82 or 83 sidewinder being a nail in schwinns coffin, how it was JUST a modified cruiser, how they thought atbs were just a fad, etc... in 1982 MOST atbs WERE modified cruisers unless you had big bucks for something from marin or $800 for a stumpjumper! having ANY atb in their lineup showed they were ahead of almost every major manufacturer of the era. a couple years later they produced what i think was the first $350 atb actually worth buying ( the 1984 high sierra- tig welded cromo, mountech components) this co-venture with a taiwanese unknown- giant, was clearly forward thinking and obviously shows they didn't think of atbs as just a fad. only months before the only commonly available atbs cheaper than a $500 stumjumper sport were from ross, including the hideous black and gold mt hood (steel ag tech derailleurs, high ten tubing i think) at the same price point! schwinn continued to have several models in the lineup for years to come that weren't any different than what everybody else was importing. of course they had ned campaigning their high end bikes for several seasons of good press as well. what killed the original schwinn? i don't know, but it's obvious they were one of the first companies that DID grasp the importance of mountain bikes.


It sounds like you are quoting me from another thread. It looks like everybody has pretty much covered my sentiments. I did not mean to imply that their delayed entry into the serious mtb market was their sole reason for failure. It was just one of the nails in their coffin. Their road bikes were responsible too. Their "lightweight" road bike were nothing of the sort. When you have a Varsity or Continental road bike that weights 35-37 lbs, you can see why many people would eventually be attacted to much lighter Japanese imports.

Corporations get complacent by falling into the status-quo. For many years, Schwinn enjoyed being the number one position in the American bicycle industry. After many years, Schwinn executives felt that their position was a constant. The same thing has happened to Firestone in the 70s, the Big 3 in the 90s, and now Dell Computer has begun to loose market share because it is a One Trick Pony.


----------



## 82Sidewinder (Jun 28, 2006)

azjeff said:


> My first MTB was a red Sierra with white grips, seat, and hubs. Anyone remember it? Either an 84 or 85 that I bought as a leftover.


 Red with white grips/seat/hubs would make it most likely a 1986 model. I have the '86 Schwinn atb catalog and that is the exact description of the bike pictured. Does yours have a regular bar/stem or bullmoose bars? The '84 & '85 Sierras came with bullmoose bars.

Craig


----------



## azjeff (Jun 3, 2006)

82Sidewinder said:


> Red with white grips/seat/hubs would make it most likely a 1986 model. I have the '86 Schwinn atb catalog and that is the exact description of the bike pictured. Does yours have a regular bar/stem or bullmoose bars? The '84 & '85 Sierras came with bullmoose bars. Craig


(sorry to semi-hijack the thread!) They both have steel bars and the 2 clamp Y stem. I'm surprised it was an 86.


----------



## ScottyMTB (Oct 26, 2005)

*2 versions of King Sting*



82Sidewinder said:


> Good post, except that I disagree with your characterization of the King Sting. While the Sidewinder was clunky and built like a Varsity, the King Sting's frame was handmade in the Paramount factory. Combined with lightweight alloy components, it was a respectable bike. It wasn't a real mountainbike, but it was not a low end cruiser either.


I think the BMX version of the King Sting with rear facing dropouts is different in construction than the mountain bike version with forward facing drop outs.


----------



## eastcoaststeve (Sep 19, 2007)

ScottyMTB,

Looks like you dug up quite an old thread. Good timing though, as I've been poking around trying to get info on Schwinn's early MTB stuff.

Looks like they knew there was going to be a market for off-road riding at least back as far as 1978:










Granted it wasn't a custom built MTB, but it was a step in the right direction 30 years ago.

Check the first bikes on the MOMBAT timeline too.

https://mombat.org/Timeline.htm

It's a shame they didn't follow through and stay on top of the growing market. I think they may have had the same problem so many large companies have when the market shifts...it's a lot easier to change directions to catch the tide in a tiny little boat than it is in an ocean liner.

Steve


----------



## kb11 (Mar 29, 2004)

The Schwinn marketing/managment totally blew it. By the mid 80's when ATB's were taking off Schwinn did take things more seriously. They had one of the strongest MTB teams and sponcered many races. In '86 Schwinn had there high end Paramount division design and build the Paramountian for Ned who went on to win the unofficial World Championships in Durango. The Paramountians were as nice a frame that could be built at the time. Silver brazed lugged Tange Prestige, made in the US. At that time the Paramount division was having great success with there custom road bikes and probably not too happy to have to mess with this new fad. Ned left Schwinn for Speciallized for the '87 season and I think that pretty much killed selling the Paramountian's for '87 . I think if Schwinn had marketed there high end MTB's as Paramounts form the get go things would have been different. They finally tried that in the early 90's but it was too late.


----------



## cegrover (Oct 17, 2004)

kb11 said:


> I think if Schwinn had marketed there high end MTB's as Paramounts form the get go things would have been different. They finally tried that in the early 90's but it was too late.


I tend to agree. The fact is they tried different strategies over the years and lacked consistency:

1986 Model: High Sierra was top of the line and badged a Schwinn
1987: Paramountain was top of the line and said Schwinn nowhere on it
1988-mid 90s: Paramount MTBs were top of the line, but there were many choices and you had to go to the 'team' level to get the best (in at least some years). Most I can think of didn't say Schwinn on them, or it was small (?)
mid-90s -2000 or so: Homegrown took over as top, but badging didn't seem fully consistent and bikes carried Schwinn name
Early 2000s: Basically out of high-end (new management obviously didn't support)

There were some VERY nice bikes in there, but no consistent message and I agree with others that the mid-level enthusiasts associated Schwinn with family or kids' bikes. Had Paramount come out earlier and been consistent, they might have been able to market it separately enough to attract consistent attention. Oh well, we, as collectors and enthusiasts, are left with some very interesting Schwinn ATBs, generally without crazy prices (though I've never seen a Paramountain on Ebay, for example).

I might just have to take my Paramountain for a spin!


----------



## ScottyMTB (Oct 26, 2005)

eastcoaststeve said:


> ScottyMTB,
> 
> Looks like you dug up quite an old thread. Good timing though, as I've been poking around trying to get info on Schwinn's early MTB stuff.
> 
> ...


Yeah, the Schwinn gods are either smiling down at me or cursing me. I have picked up 5 schwinns in the last month, 2 King Stings, 2 Sidewinders and 1 cruiser five. Picked up that red sidewinder on CL yesterday. A Schwinn collector out here told me that the King Sting mtb frame is to the King Sting BMX frame as the Schwinn Sting Competition frame is to the Schwinn Sting frame. They look the same, but the Sting used variable walled tubing and flared the ends, where the sting competition had flared ends as well, but they started with regular tubing, i.e. same thickness the length of the tube until they flared it. I would love to compare the king sting mtb and king sting bmx frames side by side.


----------



## EJ (Aug 29, 2005)

As others have said, go to your local library and ask them to get you a copy of the book - "No Hands: The Rise and Fall of the Schwinn Bicycle Company, an American Institution" by Judith Crown, Glenn Coleman # ISBN-10: 0805035532
# ISBN-13: 978-0805035537

Although it's written as a business study, I found it fascinating. They made just about every mistake and bad choice they could. If I remember correctly, when they were negotiating the Giant deal, they hired someone from the Shimano family to be their interpreter - they launched Shimano as well as Giant.

Much of the book reads like an episode of "Dallas" or some other soap opera.


----------



## -Anomie- (Jan 16, 2005)

They hired a Japanese person to translate Mandarin for them? :shocked: Like my girlfriend says, it's all "Chireapanese" to us silly honkys :lol: .

Anyway, one thing I didn't see mentioned above is that at the time, Schwinn was a company with huge production numbers and was heavily invested in the machinery to produce bike frames in a specific way. To make a large "left turn" into a totally new and unproven (business-wise) market and manufacturing process was a LOT more than an old, very conservative company was willing or able to do. They were the Titanic of bike companies at the time, and with that kind of inertia it HAD to take a long time for them to change direction. That's assuming they even wanted to. A company that old is so deep in their rut that they would have a hard time even intellectually coming around to something so radically different as BMX or mountain biking, much less re-tooling factories and sourcing components for them.

That said, I just saw on Cyclingnews.com that there is a new series of Paramount frames coming out for '09, including a lugged steel model made in Waterloo (presumably by Richard Schwinn). At least they never give up.


----------



## eastcoaststeve (Sep 19, 2007)

-Anomie- said:


> Anyway, one thing I didn't see mentioned above is that at the time, Schwinn was a company with huge production numbers and was heavily invested in the machinery to produce bike frames in a specific way. To make a large "left turn" into a totally new and unproven (business-wise) market and manufacturing process was a LOT more than an old, very conservative company was willing or able to do. They were the Titanic of bike companies at the time, and with that kind of inertia it HAD to take a long time for them to change direction. That's assuming they even wanted to. A company that old is so deep in their rut that they would have a hard time even intellectually coming around to something so radically different as BMX or mountain biking, much less re-tooling factories and sourcing components for them.
> 
> Anomie,
> 
> ...


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

eastcoaststeve said:


> I think they may have had the same problem so many large companies have when the market shifts...it's a lot easier to change directions to catch the tide in a tiny little boat than it is in an ocean liner.


A bit like GM saying, "what you don't want 5,000 pound SUVs anymore? You want want what? Small efficient cars? We'll need to study this for a few years."

Being able to react to market conditions can be tough. Schwinn used a production method that was top of the line in 1930, but by by 1980 is wasn't the "best" way anymore. Making the decision to dump 50 years of history and knowledge has to be tough, but Schwinn needed to do it to survive.


----------



## toddz69 (Apr 8, 2005)

azjeff said:


> My first MTB was a red Sierra with white grips, seat, and hubs. Anyone remember it? Either an 84 or 85 that I bought as a leftover. Thought it was great but what did I know back then? Started riding with guys on Stumps and Ritcheys and found out what I didn't know! Traded it for a Trek 7000 with the bonded aluminum frame that rode like lead pipe. Yuck. A few years ago I found (and bought) a Sierra that was exactly like mine but with the dark chrome frame and black seat & grips. In a couple of weeks I'm going back to Pa, gonna try to reclaim it from the shop it's being displayed at. It deserves to retire to Arizona. I kept wanting to buy Schwinn back then but it always seemed they were a step behind the other brands.


Yep, it was an '86. That was my first mountain bike too. Red/white and the white got dirty in a hurry. They did a ride test of it in the very first issue of Mountain Bike Action (which I read and re-read 50 times) so I bought one. I had it about a year.

Todd Z.


----------



## 446670h (Oct 9, 2005)

SCHWINN SHOULD HAVE INTRODUCED THE WORLD TO MTBs. BUT I DONT THINK THEY DIDN'T TAKE MTB PRODUCTION SERIOUSLY. Cimmarons were nice. Schwinn could have caused the MTB fad and made the founders look like the me too companies.
When they started having problems MTBs were becoming common as peoples first adult bikes. Mountain biking caused Schwinn to have competition. 

In the 70s Schwinn had an advantage in that they could make their own tubing and rims for their common electroforged heavy bikes at the Chicago plant. They were also the American brand name.
When Edward Schwinn took over he moved Schwinn to Greenville MS around 81 . The handmade plant in Chicago that made Paramounts, Superiors/Sports Tourers, and Super Sports closed and Paramount production moved to Waterford. 
At the same time lugged entry level road bikes started being made in Japan by Bridgestone. 
I thought the King sting was elecroforged in Chicago. It had Cromoly tubing so I assume It was either lighter, or stronger than a Varsity/King Sting.
Chicago closed in 83.
By 83 Giant made some bikes that were Schwinn approved; the seat tube badge stated that it was made in Tiawan for Schwinn. I have a used mesa runner as an example(It looks like a 94 giant but with Wide chromed steel rizer bars, wide ratio 10 speed).
The "Schwinn approved/made in Tiawan for Schwinn" decal is in plain sight and has lasted 25 years, unlike the easily removed stickers that are hidden on the bottom brackets.

By the late 80s when the Schwinn dealers were selling Treks and Fishers, mountain bikes started becoming peoples first adult sized bike. Greenville Schwinn luged Cromoly LeTours and Travelers sold well to working adults. The Greenville Cimmaron, Paramountain, and Aluminum Pro were expensive and had the most expensive jap shifting: XT, or XCpro/XC 9000. I saw Trek/Fisher as fad companies my dealer also carried Cannondale , which I Liked. So at the dealer you could pay a lot for a real Schwinn mountain bike, buy a road bike, or buy a cheaper US made Trek/Fisher which Schwinn dealers carried. 
Most people I new who had an asian schwinn, their parent picked it out and bought it. Most high schoolers buying bike went for a trek or cannondale and didn't look at US made Schwinns after seeing only asian schwinns in their price range. I got accused of riding an asian bike more than once. My first adult sized bike was was a Greenvile brazed luged Cromo; My Brother's was an Aluminum pro. I bought my 83' giant schwinn mesa runner for later for 5 dollars.
By '91The MTB lineup was cheap giant made bikes, $400-500 Greenville Braze lugged, or Aluminum High Plains with low end 200gs components, some other more expensive steel frames that I didn't look at (that may have been un-american), and Paramount series bikes that were mostly jap panasonics with available expensive components. The low end and high end were mostly outsourced. Real Schwinns were mid range and at least the MTBs had lower end components. Many people started judging bikes for component group rather than brand, so the last Greenville Schwinn MTBs didn't sell well. The Greenville plant closed in '91 leaving left over brazed lugged high plains. The catalogue '92 singled out the High planes as hand brazed, but didn't mention Made in USA. 
Real paramounts were still made in Waterford, and eather had expensive components or were sold frame and fork. At the time Schwinn had been a legend and most people looking at Waterford Paramounts knew what they had been the top American Bicycle since before they were born. 
I got a new '91 High Plains Aluminum had to replace the shifting after abuse to XT. Years later the bike was stolen and I was able to buy a new '91 High Plains AL that still hadn't sold years after Schwinn gone under. I was an Identical frame to the Pro aluminums of 89 and 90, but the welds weren't smooth. The first two years the aluminum frames looked like the filet brazed head tube of the Cimmaron. Schwinns AL MTB were mildly heavier than some of the other AL Bikes but stronger according to my dealer's waranty exchange experience. The cromo stem and bars were ridiculously strong and heavy. 

Ive heard that peak profits were made in the 80s. by the end '92-'93 Schwinn had bought a plant in Hungary, and had bought 51% Kestrel by the time of bankruptcy. 
I don't think they jumped on the MTB thing to late, they nation wide they didn't have trouble till they after they had been making MTB for years. They sold expensive bikes that were outsourced while partnering with Trek/Fisher to be sold along side more expensive outsourced schwinns. It just took a while for people to realize they could buy American cheaper. They didn't market mountain bikes well early ;SCHWINN SHOULD HAVE INTRODUCED THE WORLD TO MTBs. I didn't learn from Schwinn there was another ATB catagory other than BMX from Schwinn. Maybe Schwinn wasn't used to having to advertise. 
My second kids bike was an 85/86? Schwinn Enduro (jap. panasonic or bridgestone?) which I chose over the Predator because it had "speeds" (5). I hadn't head the word mountain bike so with flat bars and 22" knobbys I thought it was a BMX/touring mix. Other kids didn't recognize the shape. 

They should have never outsourced or stop as soon as they had competition. They could have made only high to mid ranged bikes US made bikes that were light weight, continued to make electroforged heavy bikes for children and wives (many his hers bikes Ive seen have been a Cromo lugged Greenville mens and a giant made heavy womens bike). My father has Sports Tourer, and he bought my mother a Suburban.

I don't know about missing out on BMX, They had some nice Cromo BMX bikes, but my BMX friends said Schwinn was to expensive. When my friends started puting money into money into US made free style bikes Greenville was Closed. I thought adult BMX/Freestyle trend hit after '91; 
Schwinn was totally gone by mid 1993 with only the Waterford plant open. That plant was bought by Richard Schwinn, Marc Muler the plant manager and others and is now Waterford precision cycles, and Gunnar.

Kestrel was an unfortunate victim. when Schwinn went under a Japanese company became the major share holder. they shut the Kestral plant down but in 1994 the former management bought it back and resumed US Kestrel production again in the US. 
I think Kestrel failed again and is now asian?


----------



## sho220 (Aug 3, 2005)

wow...that looks like it took some effort. I hope someone reads it.


----------



## ScottyMTB (Oct 26, 2005)

When you only post 2 times in 3 years, you gotta make em count.


----------



## chefmiguel (Dec 22, 2007)

Fact checking can take awhile.


----------



## haaki (Sep 15, 2008)

*Schwinn first released an MTB frame*

in 1980 or 81. Brazed Cro-Mo with an oversized tubular unicrown BMX fork. was not sold as a bike but frameset only. Problem was fork was too stiff and would cause the welds to fail at the HT. Bikes were blue-ish silver flake, with white and blue stickers. They replaced it (and mine which broke in the above fashion) with a newer version with a more roadbike, more Ritchey-esque fork. This was 1981 pushing to 82. I cannot remember if it was lugged or brazed, had the same paint scheme and again was sold only as a frame set. These were really nice frames, pretty much a knock off of Ritchey's early geometry.

If anyone ever finds one (XL sized) in So-Cal, T/A Cranks, Campy Deraileurs, Bull Moose Bars and Mafac Cantis, Blue Ano Wheels, it is mine and it was stolen from me. sniff sniff

the Sierra was Schwinns first complete bike of memory serves me right. the sidewinder as well, which was a take-off on the early frameset


----------



## Repack Rider (Oct 22, 2005)

Even that detailed post only scratched the surface. Along with the rest of the bike industry, I watched Schwinn go down in the early '80s. Too bad. I used up a lot of their products. Of course, I didn't buy them from Schwinn...

The demise of Schwinn was described in excruciating detail in the book, "No Hands: The Rise and Fall of the Schwinn Bicycle Company, an American Institution," by Judith Crown and Glenn Coleman.

I get a nice mention, but I didn't really mean to bring them down.


----------



## haaki (Sep 15, 2008)

*well put*



filtersweep said:


> I think their "demise" was largely due to using their heavyweight manufacturing processes, poor marketing, and having a product line that was all over the map. With all their low-end offerings, which at the time were considered pricey by those who were used to hardware store bike prices (in the pre-X-mart days), how could they ever sell to the truly high end of the market? They really should have rebranded their high end bikes, their mountain bikes, etc. under different badges-- and kept Schwinn for their cruisers, kids bikes, etc. When you consider a Waterford is basically the same as a Schwinn Paramount, you can see there is no comparison to a Varsity. For most people, brand name is an emotional issue--- people want to feel a connection.
> 
> Look at all the subforums right here at mtnbike review---- it really illustrates how important excellence within a niche truly is. Schwinn was trying to be the GM of bikes.
> .


and notice that Lexus is just rebranded Toyotas (in Japan Toyota was not a 'cheap' brand and had high end offerings like "The President" which became a Lexus here.
Honda has Acura and Nissan has Infiniti


----------



## 446670h (Oct 9, 2005)

As far as I know the first Schwinn"cruiser" to be marketed by for off road was the King Sting. I have not heard of a separate frame for sale. As far as I know the King Sting was "electroforged" not brazed, and had Cro-Mo tubes a Schwinn stamped/electroforged steel head tube. 
I have heard people claim that they were made in Waterford, but the electroforged construction makes me think Chicago is more likely.
Is the geometry any different for the King Sting, Varsity, and Sidewinder?


----------



## threebikes (Aug 27, 2007)

The demise of Schwinn was described in excruciating detail in the book, "No Hands: The Rise and Fall of the Schwinn Bicycle Company, an American Institution," by Judith Crown and Glenn Coleman.

Sounds like a great book, I would like to read it.


----------



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

filtersweep said:


> I think their "demise" was largely due to using their heavyweight manufacturing processes


Electroforging was ahead of it's time. Schwinn used heavy straight guage steel to make their frames. That's the reason they were boat anchors. Had they used aluminum, they might have made some really nice bikes. Too bad the tooling is all gone.



filtersweep said:


> I find it interesting that Campy has no stake in mtn bike components as well.


They tried but the parts were expensive and overweight. Now their just really expensive on the used market.


----------



## Fillet-brazed (Jan 13, 2004)

CS2 said:


> They tried but the parts were expensive and overweight. Now their just really expensive on the used market.


expensive, overweight, _and_ worked like crappola compared to the very refined Shimano Deore XT of the day. And then M900 put the last nail in the coffin. And it was a big nail.

I think in the late 80s, early 90s Shimano had a better shifting setup than Campy (on the road and dirt), but Campy had a legacy, tradition and history to carry it through those years. In the dirt it didnt have those things and it quickly failed. Dont get me wrong though, Campy's other stuff like hubs, pedals, brakes etc were beautiful, smooth, and elegant.


----------



## CS2 (Jul 24, 2007)

Fillet-brazed said:


> expensive, overweight, _and_ worked like crappola compared to the very refined Shimano Deore XT of the day. And then M900 put the last nail in the coffin. And it was a big nail.
> 
> I think in the late 80s, early 90s Shimano had a better shifting setup than Campy (on the road and dirt), but Campy had a legacy, tradition and history to carry it through those years. In the dirt it didnt have those things and it quickly failed. Dont get me wrong though, Campy's other stuff like hubs, pedals, brakes etc were beautiful, smooth, and elegant.


I have to agree. Plain old Deore II worked and didn't cost a fortune. I have to admit that nothing in my MTB stable approaches my Daytona 10 sp equipped Waterford in looks. Problem is the bike will never see the trails. I was thinking about making a Campy cross bike but it seems like too much money to dump in a bike I'd be afraid of taking off road.


----------



## haaki (Sep 15, 2008)

*I had a friend who worked in a Scwhinn Dealership*



446670h said:


> As far as I know the first Schwinn"cruiser" to be marketed by for off road was the King Sting. I have not heard of a separate frame for sale. As far as I know the King Sting was "electroforged" not brazed, and had Cro-Mo tubes a Schwinn stamped/electroforged steel head tube.
> I have heard people claim that they were made in Waterford, but the electroforged construction makes me think Chicago is more likely.
> Is the geometry any different for the King Sting, Varsity, and Sidewinder?


and he got me deals on bikes. I had the first version (the one that looked more like the later sidewinder) and we took the drive train (campy touring ders and TA crank from my Schwinn Touring bike) and built up the rest from parts laying around or purchase. I broke that frame at the HT on the Marsh Trail in Annadel, was quite painful and I had to hike many miles with a 2 piece bicycle all bloodied and bruised. Anyhow Schwinn warrantied it with the newer model with a not-so-stiff fork. This was all 1980 to 81 to early 82. From my memory later in 82 they released the sidewinder and high sierra. I still have one of those (is my dads, I got him a good deal. we painted it camo later on as it got some use doing hunting recon)

again this is all from personal memory. this was my experience. Both bikes had block letter SCHWINN on the DT, light blue with a white stroke.


----------



## bicycleguy111 (Jan 23, 2010)

surly357 said:


> i don't get the conventional wisdom about how schwinn missed the boat on atbs and that this is what led to their demise. i just read a post about an 82 or 83 sidewinder being a nail in schwinns coffin, how it was JUST a modified cruiser, how they thought atbs were just a fad, etc... in 1982 MOST atbs WERE modified cruisers unless you had big bucks for something from marin or $800 for a stumpjumper! having ANY atb in their lineup showed they were ahead of almost every major manufacturer of the era. a couple years later they produced what i think was the first $350 atb actually worth buying ( the 1984 high sierra- tig welded cromo, mountech components) this co-venture with a taiwanese unknown- giant, was clearly forward thinking and obviously shows they didn't think of atbs as just a fad. only months before the only commonly available atbs cheaper than a $500 stumjumper sport were from ross, including the hideous black and gold mt hood (steel ag tech derailleurs, high ten tubing i think) at the same price point! schwinn continued to have several models in the lineup for years to come that weren't any different than what everybody else was importing. of course they had ned campaigning their high end bikes for several seasons of good press as well. what killed the original schwinn? i don't know, but it's obvious they were one of the first companies that DID grasp the importance of mountain bikes.


I think it was the not so smart decision to move all the factories to japan in 82 and then to taiwan in 84. schwinn did make atbs, the king sting 5 and sting speed, both great bikes. I've seen broken stuntjumpers (cracked bottom bracket shells), but never have seen a broken king sting. i ride my 5 speed everywhere and the thing is great. it'll past up road bikes on a good day


----------



## H_Tuttle (Feb 27, 2007)

A cool old thread that returns like a clockwork zombie

I was selling Schwinn High Sierras, Cimarons & Impacts in my shop back in 1990

Schwinn was still in the ATB/MTB game back then. That was about the time the Giant Iguana appeared and my shop was embargoed from selling them.


----------



## jeff (Jan 13, 2004)

The Dead Thread Of The Week award goes to Bikeguy11111111111. :thumbsup:


----------



## one less (Nov 17, 2014)

Haaki above refers to a 1980-81 Schwinn chomoly ATB sold as a frame set only, not the normal built up bike. I have just purchased a Feb 81 frame by the frame number beginning bs. The frame is lugged and a silver colour smaller size (not XL). Does any body know any more about these frames,
Did it have model name, any idea of the availability time span or numbers made
Thanks
one less


----------



## one less (Nov 17, 2014)

I have added to a forum page about my frame, a 1981 Schwinn Japanese built MTB frame
ID-Lugged, Schwinn mtb frame - Page 3
oneless


----------



## Repack Rider (Oct 22, 2005)

Where did you get that date for the bike? I don't believe that Tange fork came on the market before 1982. A date of 1980 or '81 would pre-date Specialized and Univega for getting a bike like that on the market, and if that Tange fork had been available it seems certain it would have appeared on such early entries.

I say 1982 is the EARLIEST that bike could be, but what do I know?


----------



## one less (Nov 17, 2014)

Hi
From the Schwinn serial number lookup tool. The other bike with the prefix cs is listed as March 1981. I do not say the forks are Tange make as I do not know who the maker is and that is one of my questions. Ishiwhati is stamped into the steerer tube. Only Shimano on two cable guides.
I see in a Tange catalogue refuted to be a 1981 edition http://www.os2.dhs.org/~john/catalogs/tange-catalog.pdf
Tange where making forks and lugs of there own Chromoly tube. 
These frames are said to have been made in Japan and other comments say Schwinn were making other frames in Japan in the Late 1970s. 
Even 1982 could predate other MTB manufacturers.
I do not know for certain myself but there is nothing to say 1982. I 1983 the BMX type forks are shown in the Schwinn BMX catalogue and the frame I have seems to predate that.
one less


----------



## one less (Nov 17, 2014)

I have come across a dating page for trek components 
Date of Manufacture of Bicycle Components can be used to date a bike: component dating 
that one mentioned is Tange Forks. The the numeral and letter under the word Ishiwata are 3.B. In terms the Tange manufacture of the forks from 1980 to 1990 would indicate 1983 February. 
As I said the forks are not named Tange, therefore they are not Tange forks and the 3.B do not indicate 1983 February. 
one less


----------



## one less (Nov 17, 2014)

Repack Rider said:


> Where did you get that date for the bike? I don't believe that Tange fork came on the market before 1982. A date of 1980 or '81 would pre-date Specialized and Univega for getting a bike like that on the market, and if that Tange fork had been available it seems certain it would have appeared on such early entries.
> 
> I say 1982 is the EARLIEST that bike could be, but what do I know?


Repack Rider
I have taken some time to look at 1983 Trek and other bikes with Tange forks with a fork crown and, well almost i am, convinced the Ishwata 3.B could be a Tange fork set or has a Tange crown. I have seen in 1988 the CR-MO MT-2 crown was available, was there an MT-1 made The major difference is the stamping and the axle spacing of 95mm and 21.15 bore to the steerer tube albeit 1" threading to suit the BMX approach that Schwinn where taking. I have seen reference to one of the Tange type being named Tange and dated 8.C (1988 March) on a Schwinn MTB frame the same as mine
I am still wanting to clarify the comments made by Haaki above, and others the frames sold as a frame /fork set only came out in 1981/2. These frames suffered from HT failure and the forks where replaced by Schwinn under warrantee. If the forks where replaced that we are seeing exactly what age was the original commented to be BMX type. 
I have seen a submitter to a MTBR forum with an original BMX type forks but he has not been submitting for a while.
I find it difficult to question the Schwinn serial number lookup tool web site as no links are given and the present Schwinn say they cannot help with early bike. Can you recommend a contact for early Schwinn. 
If in fact the frame serial number is doubtful ( the lookup will still process it), the Ishiwata number 3.B may be the only link to age, but even so it is an early MTB frame.

one less


----------



## one less (Nov 17, 2014)

My search has moved on having come across in a forum other notes regarding Ishiwata tubing.
Of great interest is the Ishiwata tubing catalogues 1979 and 1980 versions.
These catalogues can be found on Index of /bike/ishiwata

The 5 pages of the 1979 catalogue, although small, contains 1 page that is of great help and confidence to this search. This is the MTB frame page 5, containing all the tubing used to build my frame as an MTB.
All tubing is O/S, top tube 28.6mm, down tube 31.8mm, seat tube 31.6mm and head tube 33mm. The fork blades are 30.6 x20 x13mm. The only confirmation to find is what type of Ishiwata tubing is used being either M.T.B-D CROMO, M.T.B.-C CROMO+HT or M.T.B.-V MAGNY+HT. When the frame is stripped for a repaint I will have a good look for identification stamps/markings. I have removed the Schwinn head badge to check if any other number exists under it and nothing was found.

The catalogue does not contain details of lugs or other brackets etc. Although the exact date of the catalogue would help greatly, after 1979 this tubing could have sat in storage for use into the `80`s but it does show an interest by Ishiwata in the supply designated MTB tubing. There is also a page dedicated to BMX frames, thus the opportunity for a BMX style forks to be developed for MTB use by Ishiwata.

Still do not know if Ishwata built frames or just sold tubing. The maker of the Lugs has not come to light except the Fork Crown that could possibly be Tange.

The 1980 catalogue version is not dated exactly either. This version is some 38 small pages long but does not include an MTB tubing section and any of the tube sizes do not match that of the 1979 catalogue MTB frames. The catalogue contains a lot more detail of lugs, brackets and fork crowns. In particular the fork crowns do not match the type used on my frame, as I have said before it is very close to the Tange type.
2 conclusions I have made, the tubing existed from 1979, the Schwinn Chicago numbering system run on until 1982. 
Albeit the frames are said to be made in Japan and thus commentators expect 2 things, either the number should be on the steering head and the number setout should be to a Japanese convention. As these do not happen the Schwinn the frame cannot be as it says made in 1981 February. The dating on the steerer tube must be correct but this does not date the frame. I had not noticed earlier but the head set is of Specialized manufacture. Thus the frame/forks may not be an original match pair that could be a result of the failure that Haaki mentions above. I do not have enough credits to be able to PM him to get his attention
one less


----------



## Repack Rider (Oct 22, 2005)

Ran across this one-owner 1983 Schwinn Cimmaron today. Really a blue collar classic, but appropriate here also.


----------



## one less (Nov 17, 2014)

Thanks
That is another one, certainly the same fork crown and frame.
Did you get the serial number or any history of the bike. Did you tell the owner to look at the forum. Was it named as a Cimmaron. 
Kind Regards
Les


----------



## one less (Nov 17, 2014)

Repak Rider
Thanks for that.
That makes 3. Same frame and forks. Did you speak to the owner and see to Serial number under the BB?. The Cimmaron name is shown else where to be from 1985 but we know how dates change. Do not see the name on the bike. Did you speak to the owner, presume you did to get it was one owner and the date. Hope fully he can add to the forum,
Thanks again
Kind regards
one less


----------



## pinguwin (Aug 20, 2004)

The Cimarron came out in 85 and had externally butted main top and down tubes in the front (external link here). It was considered a higher end model at the time having nicer parts than the other MTB's that they made. I remember looking at this bike and thinking, "Could I..." (looked at the price tag). "Nope."

That bike pictured is an 84 High Sierra which is the year it came out. Had a nice metallic gray called "smoked pearl"

Source: I had the 84 model and my brother had one in 83 but he had industry connections and got a preview model, which I rode the tar out of that year and he got me one at cost for '84.


----------



## one less (Nov 17, 2014)

pinguwin
Just a little sideways thought. Your brother had industry connections back in 83, does he still know those involved and if so could they know about the the frame being discussed on this forum. As I said a side way thought.
Everybody, have a good Christmas and holiday break if you get one. All the best for the new year.
My Christmas cake is crumbling


----------

