26” “Stranger Things” Mike’s bike build

[Rat Pilot]

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:

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.

90’s Huffy

60’s Huffy

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?

 

[handyandy1100]

The '90's Huffy looks more like the bike in the pictures, at least to my nearsighted eyes.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[Captain Awesome]

90's Huffy fo sho

 

[Rat Pilot]

I think I agree on the 90’s Huffy.

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

 

[wheelbender6]

There are a lot of adults watching Stranger Things, too. I agree that its a Huffy.

 

[Verrt]

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.

 

[Rat Pilot]

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:

 

[Rat Pilot]

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!

 

[Dr. Tankenstein]

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

 

[Rat Pilot]

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.

 

[Captain Awesome]

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

 

[Rat Pilot]

I never knew there was difference in those. I did always think the front of the Valiant looked a little high though.

 

[MattiThundrrr]

The "wrongness" of the springer is especially evident in the black bike. The angles are all wrong, almost looks like a backwards mounted fork.

 

[handyandy1100]

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

 

[Verrt]

The source material springer has an extra bend at the bottom of the fork moving the wheel forward

 

[handyandy1100]

Ah ha! I see said the blind man.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

 

[Verrt]

Ah ha! I see said the blind man.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk

Even if you had that extra bend though, you'd still end up with the bracket at a funny angle, right?

It's like the top half of the fork is too long. I'm trying to adjust it in my mind
I'm e-wrenching

 

[Rat Pilot]

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.

It actually looked better with the slack towards the bottom.

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

 

[Starnger]

Maybe keep the fork for another project? I constantly have the opposite problem, the springer being too short for my bikes head tubes

 

[Verrt]

Maybe keep the fork for another project? I constantly have the opposite problem, the springer being too short for my bikes head tubes

You should make a "Starnger Things" bike!


Sorry @Rat Pilot I'm ruining your thread. I'll keep quiet for a while now. Promise