Some Things Should be Left Alone-Cushman Rebirth?

scooterjon · Post by **scooterjon** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:29 pm

No wonder they look boxy the owner of K Jack also is one of the largest manufactures of these.

http://www.kjack.com/

whelmsworth · Post by **whelmsworth** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:04 pm

scooterjon wrote:No wonder they look boxy the owner of K Jack also is one of the largest manufactures of these.

http://www.kjack.com/

That's really quite ironic!!!

I like to look at them but I wouldn't want to ride on one. The police version is a Barney Fife special.

still shifting · Post by **still shifting** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:17 pm

Damn that newspaper box company already owes me a couple hundred bucks on non oping boxes that won't refund!

neotrotsky · Post by **neotrotsky** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 9:50 pm

scooterjon wrote:No wonder they look boxy the owner of K Jack also is one of the largest manufactures of these.

http://www.kjack.com/

Well, since hard copy publishing is a dead industry, they have to diversify I suppose. But doing so by trying to revive another dead brand? Good luck with that...

whelmsworth · Post by **whelmsworth** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 10:40 pm

neotrotsky wrote:
Well, since hard copy publishing is a dead industry, they have to diversify I suppose. But doing so by trying to revive another dead brand? Good luck with that...

True on the publishing but it's still nice to read an actual paper at the local coffee slangin joint. That is until your girlfriend catches you starring at the cutie pop barista and using the paper as a peek a boo. "Honey, you're holding the paper upside down!" "I know, I'm practicing reading backwards and upside down"

Post by **ericalm** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:19 am

New site for the company, including pics and specs:
http://www.kjackmotors.com/site/index.htm

pcbikedude · Post by **pcbikedude** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:35 am

Thanks for the link. They are certainly unique.

Did you get an invite to visit them yet?

Post by **ericalm** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:57 am

No! They were all chatty on Facebook until I invited myself over.

I'll hit them up in a few weeks.

Syd · Post by **Syd** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 6:16 am

It hurts to admit it but the Step-Thru is starting to grow on me. But really, 14hp out of a 404cc engine? My old 171cc HD was listed at 15hp. Even my lawnmower puts out 4.5

Post by **ericalm** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 6:26 am

Syd wrote:But really, 14hp out of a 404cc engine? My old 171cc HD was listed at 15hp. Even my lawnmower puts out 4.5

Betcha they couldn't pass CARB emissions testing.

jasondavis48108 · Post by **jasondavis48108** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:42 am

My SH150i has 15 HP so the step thru should run about 60-70mph but the Highlander is only 9HP and that's the model I prefer. Wonder what it's top speed will be. My Buddy 50 is about 5HP and it gets to about 45mph so maybe 50-55mph? Anyhoo, if these are reasonably priced I'll have to seriously check them out although I'm still a bit confused as to why they needed a 404cc engine to get 15HP. I am glad to see they are using front & rear disc brakes though.

hardd1 · Post by **hardd1** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:21 pm

need POC Phil to take one on a cross country quest for proper evaluation....maybe LA to Atlantic City

Post by **ericalm** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 5:33 pm

The Step Thru 404cc is about 120lbs. heavier than a Buddy 125/150—340lbs. vs. 223lbs.

The 265cc., 278lbs. Highlander is over 50lbs. heavier.

A 278cc Vespa GTS Super 300 weighs 326lbs., but that's on a broader frame with 12" wheels.

Hm.

jasondavis48108 · Post by **jasondavis48108** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 7:07 pm

ericalm wrote:The Step Thru 404cc is about 120lbs. heavier than a Buddy 125/150—340lbs. vs. 223lbs.

The 265cc., 278lbs. Highlander is over 50lbs. heavier.

A 278cc Vespa GTS Super 300 weighs 326lbs., but that's on a broader frame with 12" wheels.

Hm.

I could understand weight being a factor in top speed but my SH150i weighs ~330lb it's also 15HP and its a 150cc machine. Still not sure what they did to get a mere 15HP out of a 404cc engine. The Burgman 400 has 33HP and its weight is only 40lb heavier than the step thru. Just not sure where all the HP loss is at.

Keys · Post by **Keys** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 7:15 pm

jasondavis48108 wrote:I could understand weight being a factor in top speed but my SH150i weighs ~330lb it's also 15HP and its a 150cc machine. Still not sure what they did to get a mere 15HP out of a 404cc engine. The Burgman 400 has 33HP and its weight is only 40lb heavier than the step thru. Just not sure where all the HP loss is at.

Honda and Suzuki also have beaucoup bucks to put into engine development and have the tooling available to put that development into action. Go back even 20 years and see how much horsepower a 150 would put out. To have the expectation that a very small, start-up scooter manufacturer would be able to equal the biggest names in the business is pretty darned unreasonable.

--Keys

jrsjr · Post by **jrsjr** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:11 pm

Syd wrote:It hurts to admit it but the Step-Thru is starting to grow on me. But really, 14hp out of a 404cc engine? My old 171cc HD was listed at 15hp. Even my lawnmower puts out 4.5

It depends on whether the power is measured at the crank or at the rear wheel. The Buddy 125 makes about 6 HP at the rear wheel as measured on a chassis dyno. If the Cushman 404 motor makes 14 HP at the rear wheel, then that would be 2.3 times the power of the Buddy 125 for a motor with 3.2 times the displacement. That sounds about right to me. What remains to be seen is the torque curve and, untimately, whether these things are fun scooters to ride for whatever they cost.

jasondavis48108 · Post by **jasondavis48108** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:36 pm

Keys wrote:
jasondavis48108 wrote:I could understand weight being a factor in top speed but my SH150i weighs ~330lb it's also 15HP and its a 150cc machine. Still not sure what they did to get a mere 15HP out of a 404cc engine. The Burgman 400 has 33HP and its weight is only 40lb heavier than the step thru. Just not sure where all the HP loss is at.
Honda and Suzuki also have beaucoup bucks to put into engine development and have the tooling available to put that development into action. Go back even 20 years and see how much horsepower a 150 would put out. To have the expectation that a very small, start-up scooter manufacturer would be able to equal the biggest names in the business is pretty darned unreasonable.

--Keys

don't get me wrong, I don't expect a 404cc Cushman engine to put out the HP that a Suzuki 400cc engine puts out, I was just shocked at the fact that it barely puts out what my 150cc Honda engine does.

Post by **ericalm** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:47 pm

Tire size on these bad boys: 4.75" x 7.75".

I wouldn't want them to go any faster than the average 150cc on these.

I don't really get the low-hp 400cc either but as I said, it could be due to having to restrict the hell out of it for emissions. I don't know where the engine's from. If they're not sourcing an existing one, the expense has got to be huge.

It's rather ambitious to launch a niche line like this with more than one model. This is clearly a labor of love.

neotrotsky · Post by **neotrotsky** » Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:58 pm

ericalm wrote:Tire size on these bad boys: 4.75" x 7.75".

I wouldn't want them to go any faster than the average 150cc on these.

I don't really get the low-hp 400cc either but as I said, it could be due to having to restrict the hell out of it for emissions. I don't know where the engine's from. If they're not sourcing an existing one, the expense has got to be huge.

It's rather ambitious to launch a niche line like this with more than one model. This is clearly a labor of love.

Or a very stupid investment.

I'm sorry, but a 400cc engine that gets less hp than a 150? That's a TON of wasted effort and probably wasted fuel. And, if they can't get it to pass EPA and DOT regs without going overboard like that, odds are that it's probably a poorly designed engine if that's the best they can do. If Chinese firms can take over-copied GY6 motors, hack them up and still get them to sell in the US (by their own strange means), why can't these Cushman "revivalists"?

And, WHAT THE HELL on the small tires?!?! Those are monkey-bike tires! Those can't be safe by any means, and are hardly a standard size. This will make the rubber for the bikes more expensive and harder to find. And, I don't foresee these bikes having a terribly strong dealer network where they can get such odd sized parts.

The more I hear of this "bike", the more it sounds like the pathetic attempt to revive the Lambretta name with crappy Chinese bikes that looked more like Georgia O'Keeffe portraits than bikes

Syd · Post by **Syd** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 12:13 am

Ya, but can't you just see Leeroy Jenkins riding one on the Dragon?

neotrotsky · Post by **neotrotsky** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 3:11 am

Syd wrote:Ya, but can't you just see Leeroy Jenkins riding one on the Dragon?

If I knew who Leeroy Jenkins was, I could say.

Post by **ericalm** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 4:56 am

neotrotsky wrote:
Syd wrote:Ya, but can't you just see Leeroy Jenkins riding one on the Dragon?
If I knew who Leeroy Jenkins was, I could say.

He's crossing the MV/MB forum streams!

Syd · Post by **Syd** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:00 am

I tried to find the pic of helmet mohawk flyin', knee draggin', Dragon ridin' Leeroy, but just couldn't.

Keys · Post by **Keys** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 5:18 pm

neotrotsky wrote:Or a very stupid investment.

I'm sorry, but a 400cc engine that gets less hp than a 150? That's a TON of wasted effort and probably wasted fuel. And, if they can't get it to pass EPA and DOT regs without going overboard like that, odds are that it's probably a poorly designed engine if that's the best they can do. If Chinese firms can take over-copied GY6 motors, hack them up and still get them to sell in the US (by their own strange means), why can't these Cushman "revivalists"?

And, WHAT THE HELL on the small tires?!?! Those are monkey-bike tires! Those can't be safe by any means, and are hardly a standard size. This will make the rubber for the bikes more expensive and harder to find. And, I don't foresee these bikes having a terribly strong dealer network where they can get such odd sized parts.

The more I hear of this "bike", the more it sounds like the pathetic attempt to revive the Lambretta name with crappy Chinese bikes that looked more like Georgia O'Keeffe portraits than bikes

A wee bit critical aren't you? I challenge you to come up with a better one and bring it into production.

...I'm waiting.

--Keys

Post by **ericalm** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 5:49 pm

Hey, folks—check your posts when you quote someone. We had a series of misquotes (which I've fixed) that made it appear as if the wrong person was saying things.

Thanks

neotrotsky · Post by **neotrotsky** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:04 pm

Keys wrote:
neotrotsky wrote:Or a very stupid investment.

I'm sorry, but a 400cc engine that gets less hp than a 150? That's a TON of wasted effort and probably wasted fuel. And, if they can't get it to pass EPA and DOT regs without going overboard like that, odds are that it's probably a poorly designed engine if that's the best they can do. If Chinese firms can take over-copied GY6 motors, hack them up and still get them to sell in the US (by their own strange means), why can't these Cushman "revivalists"?

And, WHAT THE HELL on the small tires?!?! Those are monkey-bike tires! Those can't be safe by any means, and are hardly a standard size. This will make the rubber for the bikes more expensive and harder to find. And, I don't foresee these bikes having a terribly strong dealer network where they can get such odd sized parts.

The more I hear of this "bike", the more it sounds like the pathetic attempt to revive the Lambretta name with crappy Chinese bikes that looked more like Georgia O'Keeffe portraits than bikes
A wee bit critical aren't you? I challenge you to come up with a better one and bring it into production.

...I'm waiting.

--Keys

As a consumer I have a right to point out a design that I don't think is good. Too many consumers accept half-assed products cranked out to make maximum profit with minimum investment. Can you deny that a cheap Chinese scooter can produce more horsepower while still passing DOT and EPA certifications? And they sell those junkers for under a grand. It's simply stupid business practice to build an engine 3 times the size with less hp and that probably uses more fuel.

I don't have to come up with a better design, because others already have.

This is just lazy, ill-conceived marketing from a company that has zero experience in the motorcycle industry. I'll lay 20 buck on the fact that this thing never comes to market for longer than 6 months.

jrsjr · Post by **jrsjr** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:11 pm

neotrotsky wrote:As a consumer I have a right to point out a design that I don't think is good.

But as a member of this board, pointing it out at great length eight times in one thread (and counting) is probably enough, doncha think?

neotrotsky · Post by **neotrotsky** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:23 pm

jrsjr wrote:
neotrotsky wrote:As a consumer I have a right to point out a design that I don't think is good.
But as a member of this board, pointing it out at great length eight times in one thread (and counting) is probably enough, doncha think?

There are just so many BAD scooter designs plaguing the market in the US right now, at some point you have to drill the point home. And, it's what drive the quality of the market overall down. Until I see one of these bikes actually match a scooter one third it's displacement in power and handling I may change my tune, but from the numbers, it just looks like another US company playing off of the "vintage/retro" kick to nail consumers in the wallet as quick as possible. This is a corporate move by corporate idiots and it's glaringly obvious and I can't see how someone actually thinks this will end up being a quality bike.

True, they may surprise us all, but by the way they are doing things, it looks pretty pathetic, and people are quite quick to defend them. If this were a Chinese scooter company, would everyone on here be so supportive? No. But, because this is an "American" scooter company, the fact that the engine gets 1/3 the HP it should from 400cc's and the body looks like farm machinery is "ok"? Sorry if I am saying something that you don't like hearing but it's true.

I suppose that's why I "talk too much" about it, because I really don't understand why people are so excited by a company that isn't even putting in the effort.

And I wasn't aware that "as a member of this board" I was only allowed to say something a certain number of times before it was deemed unacceptable. Could you kindly show me in the rules where it says I'm not allowed to bring up the subject of the discussion more than a certain number of times? I must of missed that part.

pcbikedude · Post by **pcbikedude** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:35 pm

Did you know that the Buddy 125 has a smaller engine than smallest Briggs & Stratton lawn mower engine???? The lawn mower probably has more torque too. That doesn't make the Buddy lawn equipment.

Without having ridden a scooter and pass judgement on it just on specs seem rather premature. Let's see what comes to market, test ride them, then get some honest reviews.

Time to lock this thread?

neotrotsky · Post by **neotrotsky** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:40 pm

Fine, I'll shut the hell up since I'm not saying what people want to hear. I get it.

jrsjr · Post by **jrsjr** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 11:48 pm

neotrotsky wrote:Cushman rebirth? So are they going to stick to the engineering ethos of taking weed wacker engines and cobbing them onto frames slapped together from steel conduit pipe and angle iron?

Throw on a coat of "John Deere" Green with a hand brush and throw in a "Good Bless 'Merica!" Sticker and I bet these will sell like hotcakes in the "heartland"!!

I'm sorry, but the Chushman just looks and rides like a monkey bike built in someone's barn. I can NOT understand why some of theses 'collectors' spend over $10k on a bike like that. They just look and ride like crap. Giving this product a "rebirth" is like trying to revive the Chevy Sprint. Just. Don't.

neotrotsky wrote:Sorry for the double posting, but I just checked out the link for their flash "ad"

.... Seriously! Sorry, I had very little respect for Cushmans before. This company's approach, if this is how they start a new "product" is as half assed as the bikes that preceded it.

neotrotsky wrote:
ericalm wrote:AND, photos of the Cushman II here:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/New-Cushm ... 6019169688

Small wheeled. Looks kinda like a Cushman, for better or worse. 400CC in this thing would be insane.

Wow. Can I call 'em or what? This does look like another piece of rejected farm equipment. No thank you.

neotrotsky wrote:
ericalm wrote:Aside for the base costs of labor, insurance, benefits, etc. we hear about driving up the cost of US manufacturing, for a company like this scale is going to be a huge issue as well. Building engines, gauges, brakes and all the other components for scratch would be hugely cost-prohibitive; many of these parts can't even be sourced from another company in the US at this point.

It's good to see small US companies having a (quixotic) go at something like this. I wish some would try to build something more original.

And more modern!!! I'm sorry But I wouldn't pay $1500 for THAT! No Disc brakes, primitive suspension and tube chassis only with nary a bit of controls aside from the basics? They *may* sell to collectors who are used to overpaying a few hipsters, but this thing is dead in the water.

Yes, I thought Cushmans were crap compared to the competition 60 years ago. These? They're a joke. I really wish an American company can make a success in the motorscooter market with only-US made bikes, but these guys are showing us how they plan to fail at it, not succeed.

neotrotsky wrote:
ericalm wrote:Now if they did one of these, I might be more interested…

img of retro cushman 1
img of retro cushman 2

These are both Cushman Allstates, which would further confuse the trademark issues.

Now, honestly these do look better than 90% of the Cushmans I see. Probably because they're made by Allstate. Normally I can't stand to even put those in the same category as Vespa, Lambretta or Honda of the era much less ride them.

Why not take something with a bit more substance and style and improve on the tech just a *little*? I mean, the suspension on the "new" version looks weaker than on the 60 year old bikes! I didn't see any disc brakes... I just don't get them

neotrotsky wrote:
Silver Streak wrote:
neotrotsky wrote:
Now, honestly these do look better than 90% of the Cushmans I see. Probably because they're made by Allstate.

NOTHING was "made by Allstate." Allstate was simply a Sears Roebuck & Co. house brand that they slapped on anything vehicular that was made by somebody else to be marketed by Sears.

Allstate Vespas, for example, were made by Piaggio and sold through Sears catalogs and outlets.

Let me rephrase: "Enhanced and licensed" by Allstate. Better?

neotrotsky wrote:
Skootz Kabootz wrote:All I know is that if they put a modern engine in these neo-Cushman's I will be first in line to buy one of each. I just love their uber-dorkiness. And if someone will start remaking the old Salisbury's I'll line up for them too... and the Heinkle Tourist's... Fuji's... what can I say, I LOVE old dorky scooters! Bring 'em on! So long as they are suitably powered for the modern world. That's what got me so excited about the Genuine Cruiser, the style guidelines it is rumored to draw its inspiration from.

Now, if the new Genuine crusier looked like a Heinkle Tourist, I'd buy THAT in a heartbeat!!!

neotrotsky wrote:
scooterjon wrote:No wonder they look boxy the owner of K Jack also is one of the largest manufactures of these.

http://www.kjack.com/

Well, since hard copy publishing is a dead industry, they have to diversify I suppose. But doing so by trying to revive another dead brand? Good luck with that...

neotrotsky wrote:
ericalm wrote:Tire size on these bad boys: 4.75" x 7.75".

I wouldn't want them to go any faster than the average 150cc on these.

I don't really get the low-hp 400cc either but as I said, it could be due to having to restrict the hell out of it for emissions. I don't know where the engine's from. If they're not sourcing an existing one, the expense has got to be huge.

It's rather ambitious to launch a niche line like this with more than one model. This is clearly a labor of love.

Or a very stupid investment.

I'm sorry, but a 400cc engine that gets less hp than a 150? That's a TON of wasted effort and probably wasted fuel. And, if they can't get it to pass EPA and DOT regs without going overboard like that, odds are that it's probably a poorly designed engine if that's the best they can do. If Chinese firms can take over-copied GY6 motors, hack them up and still get them to sell in the US (by their own strange means), why can't these Cushman "revivalists"?

And, WHAT THE HELL on the small tires?!?! Those are monkey-bike tires! Those can't be safe by any means, and are hardly a standard size. This will make the rubber for the bikes more expensive and harder to find. And, I don't foresee these bikes having a terribly strong dealer network where they can get such odd sized parts.

The more I hear of this "bike", the more it sounds like the pathetic attempt to revive the Lambretta name with crappy Chinese bikes that looked more like Georgia O'Keeffe portraits than bikes

neotrotsky wrote:
Syd wrote:Ya, but can't you just see Leeroy Jenkins riding one on the Dragon?

If I knew who Leeroy Jenkins was, I could say.

neotrotsky wrote:
Keys wrote:
neotrotsky wrote:Or a very stupid investment.

And, WHAT THE HELL on the small tires?!?! Those are monkey-bike tires! Those can't be safe by any means, and are hardly a standard size. This will make the rubber for the bikes more expensive and harder to find. And, I don't foresee these bikes having a terribly strong dealer network where they can get such odd sized parts.

The more I hear of this "bike", the more it sounds like the pathetic attempt to revive the Lambretta name with crappy Chinese bikes that looked more like Georgia O'Keeffe portraits than bikes

A wee bit critical aren't you? I challenge you to come up with a better one and bring it into production.

...I'm waiting.

--Keys

As a consumer I have a right to point out a design that I don't think is good. Too many consumers accept half-assed products cranked out to make maximum profit with minimum investment. Can you deny that a cheap Chinese scooter can produce more horsepower while still passing DOT and EPA certifications? And they sell those junkers for under a grand. It's simply stupid business practice to build an engine 3 times the size with less hp and that probably uses more fuel.

I don't have to come up with a better design, because others already have.

This is just lazy, ill-conceived marketing from a company that has zero experience in the motorcycle industry. I'll lay 20 buck on the fact that this thing never comes to market for longer than 6 months.

neotrotsky wrote:
jrsjr wrote:
neotrotsky wrote:As a consumer I have a right to point out a design that I don't think is good.

But as a member of this board, pointing it out at great length eight times in one thread (and counting) is probably enough, doncha think?

There are just so many BAD scooter designs plaguing the market in the US right now, at some point you have to drill the point home. And, it's what drive the quality of the market overall down. Until I see one of these bikes actually match a scooter one third it's displacement in power and handling I may change my tune, but from the numbers, it just looks like another US company playing off of the "vintage/retro" kick to nail consumers in the wallet as quick as possible. This is a corporate move by corporate idiots and it's glaringly obvious and I can't see how someone actually thinks this will end up being a quality bike.

True, they may surprise us all, but by the way they are doing things, it looks pretty pathetic, and people are quite quick to defend them. If this were a Chinese scooter company, would everyone on here be so supportive? No. But, because this is an "American" scooter company, the fact that the engine gets 1/3 the HP it should from 400cc's and the body looks like farm machinery is "ok"? Sorry if I am saying something that you don't like hearing but it's true.

I suppose that's why I "talk too much" about it, because I really don't understand why people are so excited by a company that isn't even putting in the effort.

And I wasn't aware that "as a member of this board" I was only allowed to say something a certain number of times before it was deemed unacceptable. Could you kindly show me in the rules where it says I'm not allowed to bring up the subject of the discussion more than a certain number of times? I must of missed that part.

neotrotsky wrote:Fine, I'll shut the hell up since I'm not saying what people want to hear. I get it.

Fair enough.

Post by **ericalm** » Sat Aug 06, 2011 4:37 am

Okay, that's enough of that. I don't want to lock this thread, but there's not much more to say about these now.

Post by **ericalm** » Sun Oct 02, 2011 12:57 am

I had a look at the insides of a vintage Cushman with the bodywork off up on the lift at NoHo Scooters last night.

No one in their right mind would design a scooter like that now. Kind of surprised anyone ever did. Every piece of the scooter, from the (lawnmower) engine to the clutch, shifter, starter, gas tank, brakes and what little suspension it has is just freakin' goofy. The tires are made for airplane landing gears. It seriously looks like a mail order kit some kid in an early '60s shop class put together. (Such kits did exist at the time…)

This particular Cushman, btw, is beautiful for what it is. Well kept, nice accessories. Still, what a kooky way to build a scooter!

Pics from Manny at NoHo:

BlueMark · Post by **BlueMark** » Sun Oct 02, 2011 1:14 am

Looks to me like this is the height of 1950s agricultural engineering. Bent tubes, flat panels and simple single radius curves.

They are obviously not using a scooter engine ... do you suppose it is an off the shelf American small engine made for lawn tractors or generators - perhaps Briggs & Stratton or Tecumseh?

Post by **ericalm** » Sun Oct 02, 2011 1:24 am

BlueMark wrote:Looks to me like this is the height of 1950s agricultural engineering. Bent tubes, flat panels and simple single radius curves.

Yep. Exactly the evolution of this thing and it shows. I'm not knocking it; it's a cool scoot but it is what it is.

They are obviously not using a scooter engine ... do you suppose it is an off the shelf American small engine made for lawn tractors or generators - perhaps Briggs & Stratton or Tecumseh?

It's a Briggs & Stratton or one just like it.

scootavaran · Post by **scootavaran** » Sun Oct 02, 2011 2:44 am

It looks like something I would take to a car/bike show or something just to see if it wins anything, but I cant say I would actually ride it around town.

viney266 · Post by **viney266** » Sun Oct 02, 2011 2:47 am

Yup, things were crude...Fun for something vintage to ride once or twice a year, but it would get old. Bet the suspension is the bomb. LOL...

I remember my police Dept, where I grew up had the enclosed 3 wheelers for the meter cops.

Amazing what passed as decent back then. I have worked on cars and bikes as far back a stuff from the 20's. Some are decent, and some are downright scary...Brakes? what are those...And that clutch set-up on the cushman? I"ll bet it didn't move then just took off...It moved under its own power so people bought it

Thanks for the cool pics!

Post by **ericalm** » Sun Oct 02, 2011 4:42 am

scootavaran wrote:It looks like something I would take to a car/bike show or something just to see if it wins anything, but I cant say I would actually ride it around town.

A far cry from an SH150!

I've seen a few being ridden out in the wild. Someone near me has a one I've spotted a couple of times. There's a pretty active Cushman community and they even have an annual Cushman rally.

The Cushman Eagle—more like a mini motorcycle like the Mustang that was recreated by California Scooter Co—is a much different and more engineered machine from what I can tell.

laxer · Post by **laxer** » Sun Oct 02, 2011 5:16 am

I would ride it. Hell, I threw all notions of being "cool" out the window when I became a teacher and started riding a scooter. These new suckers are powerful, uniquely vintage, and would be a boatload of fun (like most 2 wheelers). Different strokes for different folks, I guess, but I think they're fun.

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Sun Oct 02, 2011 5:34 am

BlueMark wrote: They are obviously not using a scooter engine ... do you suppose it is an off the shelf American small engine made for lawn tractors or generators - perhaps Briggs & Stratton or Tecumseh?

Robins Subaru with a Comet "Torq A Verter":
http://robinamerica.com/pspecs.aspx?pid=13

Its similar to a Honda GX390. Both rated at about 13hp with the governor still installed. Take the governor off (and install stiffer valve springs) and its a night and day difference. Briggs also makes a similar engine. All have a SAE sized output shaft. Very durable engines, used for generators, water/trash pumps, rental go-karts, etc...

The Suby engine was also used in the short-lived Zini buggy:
http://www.ziniamerica.com/

illnoise · Post by **illnoise** » Sun Oct 02, 2011 5:35 am

ericalm wrote:The tires are made for airplane landing gears.

The Vespa was mostly built out of leftover airplane parts, but they managed to do a much better job with it.

(That's not entirely true of course, but true enough to make the joke/point.)

Bb.

bigbropgo · Post by **bigbropgo** » Sun Oct 02, 2011 5:58 am

i think they are pretty cool. you know what your getting into looks wise. either you want one or not.

Post by **ericalm** » Sun Oct 02, 2011 7:31 am

Gitcher vintage Cushman here:
http://www.dennis-carpenter.com/stepthru.php

illnoise wrote:
ericalm wrote:The tires are made for airplane landing gears.
The Vespa was mostly built out of leftover airplane parts, but they managed to do a much better job with it.

(That's not entirely true of course, but true enough to make the joke/point.)

Bb.

The Goodyears on this baby are actually labeled "for aviation" or something like that.

(Damn, Cushman tires are expensive. $80-$150 each!)

Southerner · Post by **Southerner** » Sun Oct 02, 2011 12:02 pm

Sorry about starting a parallel thread. Didn't know about this one.

Re: the 400cc motor. I don't know if you've seen from the photos available, but I've seen others and the engine is a Briggs & Stratton-type, like used in lawn mowers and such. I think that would be pretty much true to the original. Anyway, they can have large displacements but are pretty low-compression so while 400cc sounds huge for such a scoot, it really isn't.

As to its agricultural design, bear in mind that these things were built for utilitarian purposes and weren't really style objects. Note that most Cushman products were built and used for purposes like commercial delivery, meter maids, etc.

I would second the vote of those who would prefer to see an Eagle. And I would prefer something truer to the original. The Cali thing looks pretty cool but is lacking the front sheet metal piece and looks more like somebody customized an original.

Southerner · Post by **Southerner** » Sun Oct 02, 2011 10:34 pm

I'm not surprised that the tires are expensive if they are aircraft-grade. If you've ever been at an airport and watched planes land, you'll know what I mean. Doesn't mean it's a perfect scooter tire, though. Gosh, they are surprisingly small.

Talked to my Dad today. When he was in high school in the '50s, several of his friends had these and one guy had an Eagle, which he said was pretty darned fast (Dad had an Enfield-Villiers). Anyway, to the best of his recollection, these things had torque converters so I guess that means they were twist & go.

I would be interested in knowing more about these, like reading a review or something.

I read through this thread and, not to re-start an old argument, it has to be remembered that this is a reproduction of '50s technology and it's really unfair to compare them to anything remotely modern. Would it be a suitable everyday driver? I guess it depends on the conditions under which you would be driving it.

I imagine that the owners of original Cushmans would welcome it because they can cane the crap out of it in a way they wouldn't do with their collectors' items. Many others might buy it because it's undeniably funky and should be ridiculously easy to maintain.

Post by **ericalm** » Sun Oct 02, 2011 11:58 pm

Southerner wrote:I read through this thread and, not to re-start an old argument, it has to be remembered that this is a reproduction of '50s technology and it's really unfair to compare them to anything remotely modern. Would it be a suitable everyday driver? I guess it depends on the conditions under which you would be driving it.

I get the feeling that these are being produced as collectibles more than as competition for modern daily riders—even more than the a Stella 4T or an Enfield, which are updated and produced in quantities for global sales. Even the California Scooter Co. bikes have a number of upgrades. The Cushmans will probably have low production and relatively high prices for their features and performance.

Southerner · Post by **Southerner** » Mon Oct 03, 2011 8:16 pm

I sent an inquiry this morning just for the heck of it.

If anybody's interested, the first two are already on the market and the guy said the Eagle will be out in six months.

Speakin' of which:

k1dude · Post by **k1dude** » Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:59 am

I want that exhaust manifold and pipe for my Buddy!

Southerner · Post by **Southerner** » Tue Oct 04, 2011 2:54 am

Cool, isn't it?

I would ride that sucker like a rented mule!

The Eagle represents, in one vehicle, why it's sometimes so difficult to distinguish between a motorcycle and a scooter. It has floorboards, but no step-through because of the tank. The engine is set back like a scooter as well. But the steering head and frame are like a motorcycle. It has no bodywork outside of that unusual shroud covering the forks.

Post by **ericalm** » Tue Oct 04, 2011 5:43 am

Eagle pretty clearly a motorcycle in my book.

The definitions I prefer are Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards §571.123, S4:

Scooter means a motorcycle that:
(1) Has a platform for the operator’s feet or has integrated footrests, and
(2) Has a step-through architecture, meaning that the part of the vehicle forward of the operator's seat and between the legs of an operator seated in the riding position, is lower in height than the operator’s seat.

…and FMVSS §571.3:

Motorcycle means a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.

Yes, there are many anomalies, outliers, exceptions, etc.: Vespa SS90, Honda Cub, etc. But the Eagle—motorcycle.