Harvey,
There is no question that an experienced builder can build a great frame using investment cast lugs; I've done it myself many times in the past. Also, the same framebuilder can take some real crap for lugs and make a great frame; done that myself also in the past. The deffinition of pinnacle that I use goes like this; the highest point of development or achievement. Therefore, I would consider it a greater accomplishment in terms of framebuilding to make a great frame from something requiring more skill and ability that that which requires less. That is to say nothing of the fact I still maintain that a pressed steel lug is superior to an investment cast one, all else being equal. It is still not the "pinnacle" of framebuilding to use a fitting that is inhearently inferior. That is actually just a matter of "practical" in most cases. Only a very few intend to build frames regardless of how impractical or unprofitable it is to maintain standards that would be representative of "the pinnacle" of framebuilding. The rest must attend to producing extremely good down to absolute crap because the market demands it, and it is practical in terms of making a living. But if we adhear to the deffinition of pinnacle, only a few will qualify, everything else is less than the absolute highest point in question. That should be fine with everybody. I enjoy the pinnacle of drums (early 60's to early 70's), but I can't afford the pinnacle of shoes. Most have no interest in the pinnacle of bicycles either; it is most deffinitely not neccessary in order to enjoy cycling or bicycle collecting. I assume we're only discussing the issue in responce to the original question, which was a matter of curiosity for Doland. If one was to ask then, when were there the most frames built that are within the deffinition of the "pinnicle of framebuilding"; the answer would be just before the introduction of the investment cast lug in the mid seventies. It goes downhill from there in most, but obviously not all cases. Some continued to learn and progress while the rest of the industry followed the natural path towards what we have today.
Also, I think the topic is more pertinent to components than frames, since the pinnacle of framebuilding is still with us, but component wars have long since removed most of the options for my diffinition of pinnacle components. Believe it or not, I consider the pinnacle of components to be 1993, the only year Campy made the 7 sp cassette. Still 126mm spacing, the convience of a cassette over a FW, and an 11 tooth cog available which are all better in my opinion than the previous options. I can go either way with indexing (as long as it works) or friction shifting. Also, since I have feet like a duck, clipless pedals are superior to toeclips, for me anyway. All the rest of the stuff I have no real use for. When I outfit a bike for myself, I go for that which I describe. I ordered my Hetchins Millinium frame with 126mm spacing. I'd rather hunt for parts than have frames spaced 130mm; after giving it a try in the interest of learning and experiencing it myself just to be sure. Did the same with ti frames. Didn't do it for me, but I gave it a try just to be sure.
Brian Baylis
>
> At 10:11 3/24/2001 -0800, Brian Baylis wrote:
> >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.
>
> <snip>
>
> >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.
>
> <snip>
>
> I'm not a frame builder, and have enormous respect for the wonderful
> artisans who build The Right Stuff. But, Brian's comment got me to
> thinking (not always a good thing!) and sent me browsing in the Rivendell
> lugs calendar... I may not have kept good count, since I kept getting
> diverted by the beauty of the pieces and the photography, but about 1/2 of
> the lugs illustrated in the 2-year monthly calendar are cast. One or two
> are old sand castings, but the rest of investment cast lugs used by serious
> builders. Richard "no relation" Sachs contributed to some of the designs,
> and obviously uses them himself. Good enough for me. Clearly, one can
> build a "pinnacle" frame with investment cast lugs.
>
> Harvey "no relation" Sachs