Doland,
The investment cast lug only allows builders (who choose to use them) to put less time and "actual care and precision" into building a frame. The lug does not hold the frame together and never has. The strength of a bike frame joint is in the material of the tubing and the correctness of the fit and brazeing material used. To cast blanks would be counterproductive to adding "soul" to a frame in that there are plenty of pressed steel blank lugs available if one cares to find them. I have plenty (not for sale) and use them as neccessary. Like Richard says, pressed steel lugs are far more homogenious to the tubing material, especially when using 531 or Columbus SL etc. as opposed to hardened tubing. I have never believed in 753 for the type of frames I build (meant to outlast the original owners) and have never bothered to get the "master framebuilder certification" which is a joke. I find stainless steel cast lugs especially distasteful because they are even harder than regular cast lugs. I swore off of any cast lugs 3 years ago, and have not used Henry James cast lugs in particular in almost 20 years. BTW, I have "inherited" on several occassions in the past (from flash in the pan builders locally) a bunch of HJ lugs, if anyone wants to buy them; they are of no use to me. Also, if anything, investment cast lugs encourage a lack of quality control in framebuilding. The reason is that it allows higher production numbers, less skilled builders, and a false sense of a "stronger frame" on account of them. My feeling is that investment cast lugs allow amatures to have apparent success when in fact the true skills of building exceptional frames are not always present.
Masi and/or Mario Confente are not responsible in particular for the end of the era we are discussing; if it hadn't been them first it would have been someone else at pretty much the same time. These outfits had only increasing production in mind since that is the only way to make framebuilding as a large business profitable. Many of the "issues" between Mario and Masi just prior to his being let go had to do with projected numbers not being met. The management at the time had been somewhat misled as to actual numbers being produced in Italy; because Faliero "forgot" to mention the subcontractors used to build frames in Italy.
Lugless frames are not lighter that lugged frames in any significant way. The primary purpose for fillet brazing come when a builder needs to join tubes that do not conform to standard angles, sizes, or shapes; or when situations arise making lugged assembly difficult, as in the case of a tandem or triplet. There are lugged tandems, but they are inferior to a properly designed fillet brazed counterpart. One can choose to build a lugless frame just because one likes or prefers the look (which I enjoy myself sometimes), but I normally reserve that approach for special circumstances, since there is more "character" in a lugged frame in my experience.
My opinion as to when the pinnicle of the lightweight era was has to do with components more than frames in that once the rear spacing went past 126mm, there was no hope for a return to "practical" standards. It became a marketing war that has ruined the industry in my view, thanks primarily to Shimano, which I refuse to use or recommend to this day.
The pinnicle of framebuilding is still with us to a VERY small degree even today. If I was to determine for myself when my work first began to look like it does today; it would be 1977. I built my first Nervex lugged frame with the lacework cutouts (like the one Dale will take delivery of soon) at that time. I also built my first ornate lugged frame starting from blank lugs that same year. The only improvements since that time have been from many years of experience and a growing determination to preserve the craft of the "pinnicle era" until I pass away. A pinnicle frame can be made by a few builders amongst us and use of vintage parts of French, English, or Italian origin even today, if one is so inclined.
So, depending on how one defines it, the pinnicle was the mid to late seventies; or it is still with us for those interested in persuing it. All one needs is some excellent condition or NOS parts and a wise choice of American framebuilders. I am not excluding builders from anywhere else in the world, as long as they use vintage lugs with the neccessary skill and experience and are silver brazing frames using non heat treated tubesets. But to qualify as pinnicle, my deffinition would also include a frame with high quality "artistic interpitation" (from simple to complex), expert design, proper fit, and excellent ride qualities. And lastly, paint and graphics that are expressive of the individual owner and builder, as well as being artistically concieved and expertly applied. In this day and age, that narrows the field considerably.
That's just my $.02 and I don't have time to debate it right now; have several frames to complete. And yes, evertyhing is modified Nervex or made from blanks and carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey. Got to blast the 70's rock n' roll to get the right feel, too.
Brian (I'm really stuck in the 60' and 70's) Baylis
La Mesa, CA
>
> Richard,
>
> I understand your thoughts wholeheartedly and they make complete sense. I
> actually never thought of seeing it from that perspective.
>
> But doesn't the 'investment cast' era bring in an additional level of
> production enhancement and quality control that outweighs the 'soul' lost
> in a completely handbuilt frame? Or what is to stop a framemaker from
> casting his own lugs so the 'soul' isn't lost (other than cost)?
>
> doland
> "I will own a Sachs one day"
>
>
> Richard M
> Sachs To: Doland.Cheung@sce.com
> <richardsachs cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> @juno.com> Subject: Re: [CR]Pinnicle of the vintage lightweight era?
>
> 03/23/2001
> 10:49 AM
>
>
>
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2001 09:32:39 -0800 Doland.Cheung@sce.com writes:
> What does everybody think the pinnicle of the vintage lightweight
> era might be?
>
> >>>during the mid 70s, as the 'investment cast' era was being
> ushered in, bicycles would begin to lose their soul. under
> the guise of new/improved/better/etc., the frame makers
> sold the bill that cast pieces advanced the quality of the frame.
> in truth, particularly in that era, all that cast lugs, one-piece
> brake briges, plug-in dropouts, and other similar parts did
> was reduce the handwork involved to produce a finely made
> frame. prior to that, it was a thousand little subconscious
> decisions
> that occured by each framebuilder every single time an operation
> or a sequence was carried out. intuition. experience. training. it
> matters not what you call it. it was needed to build frames then.
> when the little parts started coming from foundries and casting
> houses, most of the decisions regarding interfernce fits,
> clearances,
> aesthetics, etc., were taken out of the hands of the framebuilders
> and susequently were made by mold-makers. in time, all one would
> need to build a frame would be tubing and torches. the phenomenom
> of learning 'how to make frames' versus 'assembling frames' would
> spell the end of the classic bike as we CR listmembers define it.
> it might be easier to state that many feel that pre-fab, cast
> pieces
> are 'imitaion art'. i believe this is so. anything that can be
> bought
> by anyone or used by anyone cannot be defined as 'classic'.
> please don't read too much in to this; i'm not comparing eras
> nor saying 'us versus them'. i'm just answering doland's question.
> e-RICHIE