[CR]lugs, not so retro anymore


Example: Production Builders:Tonard
Content-return: allowed
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 12:22:47 -0500
From: "Grant McLean" <Grant.McLean@SportingLife.ca>
To: "Classic Rendezvous Mail List (E-mail)" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: [CR]lugs, not so retro anymore

Team CR,

If it's just "lugs" they want, the market is full of examples of current lugged bikes.

I think more teams rode lugged bikes in '04 (and will likely do so in 2005) than any other method of construction. (protour has 20 teams, at least half are riding stuff on this list)

Colango C50 (rabobank, navigators, landbouwkrediet) Time VXR (Quick-Step Davitamon, Brioches la Boulangère) Cervelo 2.5 (CSC) Bianchi 928 (Liquigas) Trek OCLV (US postal) Look 585 (credit agricole, Kelme) BMC (Phonak) Cannondale Six13 (saeco)

Not to mention all the boutique brands doing the Ti lug/carbon tube thing like Merlin, Seven, Serotta, etc...

If lugs is your gig, you've got options!

Grant McLean toronto, canada

Subject: [CR]Re: lug question again

i am not sure what i was saying, and i'm not even a blond. but what i think needs to be said, and this is my personal opinion, is that most folks get wet and sticky over l-u-g-s without have a baseline of aesthetic, structural, or historical criteria with which to discern good from bad. if you simply want to say, "all that matters is i like it...", i'm okay with that. but i sense some folks are so caught up in the vintage thing that - and this is an exaggeration to make a point - they'll accept and pine for a bad lug job over a fine(r) version of another technique. to me, that is narrow-minded. otoh, the so-named kof's produce in such small numbers that it almost doesn't matter what they/we do because it's off the chart. needless to say, they/we would want our bicycles to exhibit a certain degree of fine metalwork aesthetics or they'd/we'd have bailed a while back - when we had
the chance!!
e-RICHIE
chester, ct


-- Dennis Young wrote:


Those designed and worked over lugs that you 'kof' people spend hours doing, sure seem like ornamentation well beyond structure. The structure aspect is a given, but I thought you were saying that the quality of attractiveness defines their worth, given today's other joining methods that are also available.

Dennis Young Hotaka, Japan
>
> lugs are not ornamentation; they are structure. they
> are needed to support the tubes during the joining
> process. er, they once were needed. now, there are
> choices. ergo - CR types would hope that the lugs that
> they view on their beloved bicycles are pretty too,
> not simply tube holders.
> e-RICHIE
> chester, ct
>
>
> -- Dennis Young <mail@woodworkingboy.com> wrote:
> If I might try to paraphrase; given today's building methods, lugs are
> ornamentation. Ornamentation satisfies a need too, and like good
> architecture, it is uplifting to the human spirit. Bad ornamentation is
> worse than no ornamentation, eating dinner out of coffee cans is better than
> off of plastic plates with a big sunflower in the middle.
>
> Fillet brazing is also an 'ornamental' method?
>
> Dennis Young
> Hotaka, Japan
>
>
> BobHoveyGa@aol.com wrote:
> "And I have no problem seeing modern technology in this form come together
> with the fine craftsmanship of a lugged frame, even when the guys at my
> local bike shop roll their eyes and repeat their arguments that lugs are not
> necessary to produce a strong and functional frame. I can't agree with
> that..."
>
>
>> don't you mean that only "some lugs..." give you this feeling
>> rather than "all lugs"? since this is a lug-centric issue, i
>> will add that i think the shop rats are correct. i'd rather
>> have a modern tigged frame done well than a modern frame that
>> had pipes joined with lugs if the builder chose lugs just for
>> the sake of it. we don't need more mediocrity just for nostalgia's
>> sake. i see that as the issue. lugs don't equal (i can't say
>> it here) unless the builder pays attention.
>> e-RICHIE
>> chester, ct

>>

>> -