26” “Stranger Things” Mike’s bike build

Rat Rod Bikes Bicycle Forum

Help Support Rat Rod Bikes Bicycle Forum:

Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
868
Reaction score
2,042
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
My son’s favorite show is Stranger Things, and he’s been bugging the crap out of me about building him “Mike’s bike” - who of course is one of the characters in the show.
Schwinn made a Special Edition version of it in the 20”, but my son is a 5’ 7” tall 13 (just turned 13 too) and if he’s like me, he’s nowhere close to being done, so
we’ve decided to build a larger version of the bike.

This is the bike on the show:
652F16C3-4911-4562-8F93-F221DC51DCE5.jpeg

3487CD25-6C1D-4959-9D44-1C50E38812EB.jpeg


My dilemma is which frame to use. Schwinn makes the special edition bike, but it doesn’t look any of the older Schwinn frames I have.

it actually looks more like a Huffy frame and the chainring looks like a 90’s Huffy as well. I have several frames to choose from, and I’m honestly leaning towards the either the 90’s Huffy or 60’s Huffy.



62015661-E8C6-4DC4-9EDE-FCC7E4657A8B.jpeg


90’s Huffy
7ED54B04-1E5B-4683-9C1A-80EEB19C40C0.jpeg


60’s Huffy
D143600D-1D31-49CE-A1AF-4BB662D88450.jpeg


I’ll also want to find a closed chaingaurd for a 26” bike that looks similar to the one of the Stranger Things bike. Anybody know of something that looks like that?
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
868
Reaction score
2,042
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I think I agree on the 90’s Huffy.

I found a guard that I think I can make work.
 

Attachments

  • 723FBE58-F131-4F7E-BC91-3CF92C4E42C5.jpeg
    723FBE58-F131-4F7E-BC91-3CF92C4E42C5.jpeg
    446.7 KB · Views: 72
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
1,499
Reaction score
2,511
Location
Chicago, IL
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
I actually think the 60s huffy is closer.
The front of the cantilever curves down less and creates a triangle in the "tank area" more similar in shape to Mike's bike.

While the curve on the downtube on the 60s is more pronounced than Mike's it attaches to the headtube at a lower point than the 90s, again making it more similar to Mike's.
The chain stays and seat stays are what let the 60s down.

But maybe the deciding factor should be getting your giant son to ride both and see which is more comfortable for him to ride. They're both pretty close after all.
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
868
Reaction score
2,042
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I actually think the 60s huffy is closer.
The front of the cantilever curves down less and creates a triangle in the "tank area" more similar in shape to Mike's bike.

While the curve on the downtube on the 60s is more pronounced than Mike's it attaches to the headtube at a lower point than the 90s, again making it more similar to Mike's.
The chain stays and seat stays are what let the 60s down.

But maybe the deciding factor should be getting your giant son to ride both and see which is more comfortable for him to ride. They're both pretty close after all.

I think I’m going to mock up all of them and see how they look. I am using the wheelset and springer off of a 90’s Murray cruiser, so I mocked it up last night. It doesn’t look bad, but I’d like to see more separation between the frame and the front tire, and I do believe the 60’s Huffy may look the best in that respect.

Here is the 90’s Murray frame mockup:
3F5EA0B8-2B9C-457D-ABB6-8735AD4EB883.jpeg
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
868
Reaction score
2,042
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
So after mocking up the Murray and the two Huffys, I think Verrt is correct - I believe the 60’s Huffy looks the best. The lower tube is just better looking than the newer frames, IMO. The 90’s Huffy actually looked better without the springer, IMO. Another issue with it is that the fork would have be cut rethreaded or a spacer made to use the springer, because the head tube is 1” shorter than the Schwinn/Murray/60’s Huffy.

Comments/suggestions welcome!
052AFB12-1A7C-499B-B315-AAC670F54074.jpeg
95FE9256-B9C5-4141-B4C4-264EBF7EC986.jpeg
AEBFCAEA-877F-44C4-830B-7ADEE40579F7.jpeg
 
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
6,898
Reaction score
6,568
Location
Isle of Hope, GA
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
I like the 90s Huffy still.
It may be the angle of the photo,but to me,something seems ‘off’ with that springer, it’s too upright and I think it’s the piece that the springer bolt connects too.
The one that’s on there looks like it has a ~90 degree bend, like the ones used on the lowrider ‘bent’ springers. Using the proper ~45 degree one would increase the rake and relax the geometry a bit.

Again, it could just be me or the pic....or both [emoji16]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
868
Reaction score
2,042
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I like the 90s Huffy still.
It may be the angle of the photo,but to me,something seems ‘off’ with that springer, it’s too upright and I think it’s the piece that the springer bolt connects too.
The one that’s on there looks like it has a ~90 degree bend, like the ones used on the lowrider ‘bent’ springers. Using the proper ~45 degree one would increase the rake and relax the geometry a bit.

Again, it could just be me or the pic....or both [emoji16]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you’re right! I just zoomed in on the one I got from you on my Schwinn and it is definitely a different bracket than the one on this one.
D3CE6620-0AF6-407A-A5EC-588C0EDE0E4C.jpeg
 

Captain Awesome

👑 Lord of Irrelevance
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
4,798
Reaction score
8,092
Location
Sunny SC coast
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
I like the 90s Huffy still.
It may be the angle of the photo,but to me,something seems ‘off’ with that springer, it’s too upright and I think it’s the piece that the springer bolt connects too.
The one that’s on there looks like it has a ~90 degree bend, like the ones used on the lowrider ‘bent’ springers. Using the proper ~45 degree one would increase the rake and relax the geometry a bit.

Again, it could just be me or the pic....or both [emoji16]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You're definitely right about the bracket
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
868
Reaction score
2,042
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I never knew there was difference in those. I did always think the front of the Valiant looked a little high though.
01EC9FFF-7ED1-466A-B61C-977EB2DFBCDA.jpeg
 
Joined
Jun 27, 2017
Messages
1,848
Reaction score
4,921
Location
Willow Spring, NC
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
The "wrongness" of the springer is especially evident in the black bike. The angles are all wrong, almost looks like a backwards mounted fork.
Right. Even though I like the lines of the black one best for the project, that fork is wrong. It doesn't seem to look right on any of the frames.

What happens if you crank down the adjustment bolt until there's no more flex in the spring? Does that kick the front wheel forward enough to look right? Probably have t remove the gooseneck so the bolt has enough room.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
868
Reaction score
2,042
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
The "wrongness" of the springer is especially evident in the black bike. The angles are all wrong, almost looks like a backwards mounted fork.
I’m thinking some of that may from the stem hanging out of the head tube.
7C1DF303-CD97-4028-BFCA-FE94B80E0C5A.jpeg


It actually looked better with the slack towards the bottom.
CF184A1F-D976-4A1B-B79C-69D5AB52A554.jpeg

73E8F085-1534-49D9-AE55-CB0D7CE80673.jpeg

The head tube is just so short on this bike that it is going to take some mods to ever use this springer.
 
Top