[CR]Re: Lugless

(Example: Framebuilding:Norris Lockley)

Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 17:01:16 -0800
From: "Brian Baylis" <rocklube@adnc.com>
To: Harvey M Sachs <sachs@erols.com>
Cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
References: <OF5BFE14A6.FA354E20-ON88256A18.008026CF@sce.com> <5.0.2.1.1.20010324145524.00a71520@pop.erols.com>
Subject: [CR]Re: Lugless

Harvey,

The Rene Herse tandem you mention was indeed lugged, including the oval boob tube. The one I saw was by far the most beautiful tandem I've ever seen. It was built about 1963. The problem is though, a tandem properly designed and built really can't be quite right without oversized tubes and a long rear position which requires oversized tubing and well placed lateral tubes. Lugged construction is impossible for this. Also lugged tandems are sometimes not all that well aligned, although not as critical because of the long wheelbase. The best way to build a tandem is by "piercing" the top tube and lateral tube with the seat tubes. It automatically holds the frame in alignment while using the neccessary oversized tubing for proper performence and minimal weight.

I have seen some beautiful lugged tandems including a Bruce Gordon, but in terms of performence compared to fillet brazed I consider them second best. I personally own one of the very few Hetchins Magnum Opus tandems built since WWII which I ordered custom. I love the bike and am very proud to own it, but I do not consider it the "pinnacle" of design and performence. For that I have my other tandem, and a triplet(still under construction) that fill the bill.

Brian Baylis
>
> At 10:11 3/24/2001 -0800, Brian Baylis wrote:
>
> <snip, dealing with investment cast lugs>
>
> >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.
> <snip>
>
> Again, I'm not a builder, but I'm sure that Brian won't mind if I "nuance"
> his remarks above. It is certainly true that lugless has most commonly
> been used for Odd Jobs, like tandems. There, the problem is not just
> unusual angles, but oversized tubes for which lugs were not big sellers in
> the commercial market. Particularly for builders who used jigs (which I
> would guess included Jack Taylor and Schwinn Paramounts for the tandem
> lines), lugless meant doing good fishmouthing (easy with a mill or lathe),
> but no hassle in holding things together, and the freedom to use proper
> (large) tubes. Remember, this was an era in which lots and lots of stuff
> was built freehand with pins holding the lugs to the tubes while brazing.
>
> On the other hand, I think of at least two classes of tandem builders who
> painstakingly did build lugged frames. The first is not unexpected, Rene
> Herse, including a wonderful lugged set of bottom brackets. What I can't
> remember is whether they compromised and went to fillet brazing for the
> oval bracket connector tube, or if that was lugged, too. Then, Bill
> Boston, a quirky and wonderful builder in South (New) Jersey, used
> more-or-less standard tubing and modified lugs as needed. Wonderful
> craftsmanship, and very happy owners. In their own way, these were not
> inferior bikes. On the other hand, I've seen some pretty curde lugged
> Italian tandems from the low end...

>

> harvey sachs