The dictionary and Claud's literature offer conflicting meanings for bi-lamination. Indeed Claud's literature seems self-conflicting. Two distinct models for bi-lam emerge.
The dictionary defines a bi-lamination as two layered. This suggests the tube is one layer the sleeve the other. One model for bi-lamination construction says the frame must be lug-less, any number of sleeves can be added to tube ends, so as to increase it's strength or for appearance. But this view has to ignore some aspects of Claud's own literature.
The Southern view has to ignore the dictionary, despite having produced it to support their case (nice one), because Clauds literature appears to confirm that Claud thought of a single sleeve as a bi-lamination. As far as he was concerned, and he coined the name, if you add these bi-laminations to a frame you have bi-laminated it. But Clauds literature also states that bi-lamination is a world famous construction type which greatly increases frame strength. These two concepts sit uneasily together.
It's like the Southerners have been led by a crackpot "His men would follow him anywhere, but only out of morbid curiosity", but none of them stopped to think. If a single sleeve is a bi-lam how come it's not 2 and it ain't a laminate. So far they are not wrong as such, but they soon go wrong. The problem comes when asked to apply and explain their ideas, here Mick is asked whether a Holdsworth Whirlwind is a bi-lam.
**************** Mick's Answer ************
Bi I always thought meant consisted of two. Bilingual being an example. Now if there was only one fork crown extension on your beloved Whirlwind or Hetchin's Magnum Opus that would clearly not be a Bi-laminate but I should hope there are a matching pair at least (2) so its a bilaminate and we hav'nt even started on the fancy brake bridges or extra add ons attached to the lugs.
A single sleeve can be applied at a tube end, they need not be applied in pairs (cf Peter Browns). Scroll down to 1949.
A frame can have any number of sleeves, Peter's has 5, but it is still a bi-lam. I think if you study the above text, you will have to agree it completely lacks logic. We hear you can cut a single lug extension, which is called a bi-lamination, you apply it to a lug but the frame is not bi-laminated as there are not two of them, and bi means two. But you can apply any number more than two and it is still a bi-laminate, noting that there are loads of other 'bi-lams' on a Whirlwind that need to be considered! This is like saying a figure is a triangle if it has 3 or more sides.
If a single sleeve is called a bi-lamination, why does it take two of them to bi-laminate a frame?? Why is more than 2 still OK, surely 3 is as wrong as 1, as it isn't 2? This crooked thinking is not Clauds, I doubt Claud ever claimed a Hetchins Magnum Opus was of bi-lamination construction.
No, Claud coined this name for a new method/type, to differentiate it from the other prevalent methods/types, welded and lugged. Holdsworth did not use the method or the name. Almost all 1950's Holdsworths have lug extensions, they are classed as brazed in Sandy Holdsworth's 1950's catalogues. Indeed, through the 50's Holdsworths are either classed as welded or brazed (ref: cats on my site).
Had Holdsworth claimed that their lug extended Cyclone De Luxe, which pre-dates Clauds first bi-lam, was in fact a bi-lam type of construction, I think Claud would have pointed out that these purely decorative frillies did not enhance frame strength at all. The Cyclone De Luxe is, to all the world, a lugged, brazed construction with lug frillies. If we think in terms of classes, lugged class, welded class, bi-lam class. Unless we to 'do a Claud' and invent a whole new 'frilly' class, it falls into the lugged class, as it is much nearer that spec than any other.
------------------------ Mick continued ----------------------
>Please don't murder our language... --------------------------- my reponse --------------------------- It is Claud who is murdering our language. In other posts we hear the Southerners talk about "cutting a bi-lam". This does not make sense, bi means two, so how can you cut a single "bi-lam" from a sheet of metal? It is linguistic nonsense, you can cut a lamina and bond it to another lamina to form a bi-lam, but you do not cut a bi-lam. It is like saying you want a vegetarian chilli con carne (a meat free chilli with meat). When cutting these sleeves, you do not cut a bi-lamination, nor even a laminate, you cut a lamina, Claud can call it a duck if he wants to, just don't expect it to quack.
We need to take an overview:
We had lugged construction, the first man to adopt this method does not define every detail for all time. Materials and methods evolve. An 1890 lug-job is quite unlike some 1980's lug-jobs, but they are both classed as lugged. Claud added a new bi-lam class to the existing classes.
In embracing this new class, cycledom also takes ownership of it. If a Ritchey with faux lugs appears cycledom must decide which of the existing classes it falls into. If it is not lugged, that leaves lugless; welded, fillet brazed or bi-lam. If it has sleeves, are they at the tube ends? Do they add strength or add ornamentation? If it cannot fit into any class, then it is a whole new class.
Lug Extensions: In promoting bi-lam Claud was very Claud, but neither Claud nor Paris's were elected as definers for the whole trade or cycledom generally. They had no say at all within other cycle companies and there were loads, some that dwarfed Clauds outfit. They cannot tell Harry Hetchin that his lugged frames with 'tangs' added have been renamed by Claud Butler, who has ruled that Hetchins 'tangs' must now to be called bi-laminations. Sandy Holdsworth called his Cyclone D/L 'brazed with spearpoints'. Cycledom adopts the generic term 'lug extensions'. Paris's can call their own lug frillies bi-lams if they so choose, but they are liable to confuse their lug extensions with their bi-lamination constructions. They will end up all confused like Mick.
As for Cottingham, on 22 May Mick said:
>Just shows you after all this debate most of it falls on deaf ears.
>If the add ons on the fork crowns are not bilaminates on the Cottinghams
>my pricks a bloater as we say in this neck of the woods.
On the assumption that a bloater is quite big, I have good news for his wife.
Norman Kilgariff (Glasgow, Scotland)
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!