from a thread about making/tooling new lugs, etcetera...

> Just out of curiosity.... How difficult is it to cast new molds
> of lugs to be used for steel frame construction? I am asking
> because there seems to be a limited amount of 1 1/8" head
> tube lugs that would allow for the greater selection of new
> carbon forks to be used. Thanks.
if you have a design that's finalized in solidworks or similar program,
then consider that it's just shy of 6K to get the three tool molds created,
and then you'd need to order a minimum amount of parts (about 300, at
least) for it to be cost effective.

one thing to consider is this - 1 1/8" is a dimension created by industry
in order to standardize things. it has its roots in the mtb era and it got
that way because mtb-ers were often using road parts (headsets, fork
steerers...) to make their bicycles. growing the spec 1/8" seemed to
shut alotta people up. the spec (1 1/8") further became a norm when
nonferrous materials made their way into the market. it's perfect
for that!

now - most lug folks also feel that the frame and the fork area single
unit, and should be designed in tandem, and even made in total by the
same builder. as such, there is no reason to make1 1/8" steel forks
because by and large they are heavier than need be. so, the same guys
that would think "lugs" would also be thinking "1 inch" and steel, at that!

the only cat that i know who has entered the fray is llewellyn with his
slant 6 lugs. he intro-ed them 2 or so years ago. they are a good design
and i would think that dazza did it more for the money than for a true
conviction that 1 1/8" is better. and good on him for taking the initiative.
i hope he makes a pile!
> In my opinion the 1 1/8" road fork is an answer to a question no one
> asked. There is a strength advantage with 1 1/8" but any 1" road fork,
> properly built, has no strength issue as it stands. The 1 1/8" fork is
> heavier. There is no performance advantage.The real advantage is
> for the manufacturer. They can use one process and one set of tools
> for both road and offroad.
and
> yes, 1-1/8” leads to one process which leads to economy of scale
> which reduces costs for everyone and improves quality. Regarding
> a heavier fork, that would be the manufacturers fault if it's true. The
> larger steerer has an advantage of added stiffness which in turn allows
> for thinner walls without reducing overall strength. Sounds like some
> should take advantage of this basic physics if no one already has.
> I see no downside to the larger fork other than to traditionalists.
> Honestly, I'm not trying to crack on you Dave, or on Richard who
> similarly loves 1" forks. Heck, I like them too. I just don't get the
> banter that larger steerer tubes, much like larger handlebars, are
> bad. I have two different lugged frames that use super OS pipes
> (similar sizes to Slant Six). Had to order the lugs from Peter at
> Ceeway since no one in the US offered lugs that sized at the time.
> Both frames use a carbon fork (sorry) and meet my every expectation
> - noticeably stiffer in the bottom bracket than my regular OS frame
> built with ZeroUno (not the thinnest tubeset around as you know)
> yet the frame is slightly lighter. I say yes to super OS tubes, larger
> steerer tubes. Now if I could only build a frame as nicely as you guys…
ed -
if i could make a fork with 1 1/8" steerer specs and have it weigh
the same or less than what i use now, i would. it would also have
to have the longevity of the forks i make now. the issue of "...stiffer
due to the added 1/8" (on steel units)" is not one i can relate to.
i have spent years riding and racing, and the column diameter
is not a spec where i can discern any changes in how the bicycle
or the fork feels.were this solely about nonferrous materials,
and/or what i would do from an entrepeneurial standpoint had
i the inclination, it'd be another story.
> Richard, Let me say this another way, the larger steerer could
> be made thinner without giving up strength. The thinner tube
> would make the fork no heavier than a 1" steerer. This same
> principle is what allows OS frame tubes to be lighter, than
> regular tubes for any given frame stiffness.There were some
> posts on the Framebuilders list recently where the topic of
> 1-1/8" steerers came up and several people had some good
> information. One person stated that the True Temper MSRDLT1
> steerer was as light as most 1" steerer tubes since it uses a 0.045"
> wall at the top and 0.065" at the bottom. Another guy stated:
> "Howdy Listers,Wondered if anyone had any experience using
> 1-1/8" x 0.049" (1.24mm.) cro-mo tube for steerers? Calcs give
> 17.7% greater moment of inertia and 10.6% less weight than a
> 1" x 1.6mm. steerer and a yield load in excess of thirteen thousand
> pounds. Obviously this begs the question of why most 1-1/8" steerers
> are 2.3mm. wall at the bottom. Thanks for reading."
> http://search.bikelist.org/getmsg.asp?Filename=framebuilders.10702.0035.eml
> Correct me if I'm wrong Richard but don't you use 1.6mm straight
> gauge steerers? Food for thought...
i know all this (and, btw - that was andy newlands' quote at the end).
the point is why re-tool for the steerer and all the adjoining lugs when
what you have now yields the same results? tell me - would a stiffer
or stronger steerer (the 1 1/8" in steel...) solve a particular problem
that we all have now? atmo, no. what it might do is allow for some
builders that build for the market rather than base what they do on
their own learning curve - it would allow them to say, "yes, we offer
a 1 1/8" steel fork in our lugged frames." but then why do they do it?
because the market has drawn them in. capitalism has a way of
drawing the marginal into the mainstream. to wit, there is no issue.
there was an issue back when 1 1/8" started because mtb-ers were
(wrongly) using road spec in their off-road forks and headsets.
ah - the worst of all worlds collide! otoh, for market-driven units that
are sold at the lbs, standardization is a good thing. but just because
the framebuilding community doesn't lie down and embrace it (the
steel folks, that is) doesn't imply we are luddites. we all make frames
that are modern, of 21st iterations of proven materials and
methodologies, and we are not forced to jump through hoops
just because the folks at forks R us are using another dimension
which is only 1/8"different than what most of use.
> I can think of nothing to add to this. Some folks have a way with words
> and some no have way. You have the way. Thanks for putting it into
> good words.

from a thread about waiting lists...

> Builders like Sacha are not doing anything wrong by having
> a long waiting list, rather they are doing something right in
> that they are building frames that people want. In my view
> the long wait is more a reflection on the people waiting; it
> take a special kind of person to wait years for a frame. In the
> end I don't think it's about the metal, it's about the builder.
> Some people place a lot of value on being associated with these
> guys (Sachs, Bayless, Sacha, Weigle, Moon, etc) and again, it
> should not be held against the builders. Truth be known these
> guys are way underpaid for the work they do. Problem is that
> if they raise their prices to where they belong based on supply
> and demand, people will rebel against them and call them greedy
> - thus damaging their reputations. Stuck between a rock and a
> hard place.
this issue seems to have its own life, especially in the past 2-3 years.
there are a small amount of builders who have long lists; mebbe
10 to 15 are past the 2 year mark. none of them (us) are volume
guys. i'm stuck in the 5-6 a month rung. if you added it all up,
it does not total a large amount, demand-wise, despite the fact
that it is a demand. across the hall at the serotta forum*, this
subject boiled over last week. my take is that the makers are simply
"making"; the issues wrt the wait lay at the feet of those propping
all things "handmade frame"on various sites and message boards.
online chat has created a freaking tsunami of a demand that has
never been seen before. i know as recently as 2003, my wait was
less than half what it is now. and this issue is hardly about price
because nearly all of us are not able to lock in a selling price - and
this has not slowed the demand. and again - that demand is incredibly
small, numbers-wise, when you tally up all of our clients-in-waiting.

none of us are milking the system, if you will. we are simply responding
to a small but growing market segment that does not want to shop at
the mall. and i know that each of us is doing what we can to spread
the wealth, for lack of a better term. out of the ashes of prior nahbs,
i decided to always mention/add a list of peers in any email replies
that i send to prospective clients. yes, it is nice to get more work, but
there is no reasonon earth some of us have so much when others are
at 12-14 months. directing traffic and interest at these folks is the
right thing to do. allof us are benefiting from an internet zeitgeist
of sorts; the message boarders essentially helped drive our backlogs
up. now we with the long waits are trying to drive it up for "our pals".
> I just don't see the cost/enjoyment benefit that it would bring me
> compared to a lower cost frame that I waited a shorter amount of
> time that rides and feels close enough that I would never know
> the difference.
well in a perverse way, i don't get the fuss over cavier or g.i.a. diamonds,
or even a birkin bag from hermes, yet folks spend all sorts of money
and throw all sorts of props at such things. so - it all does makes sense,
but only if you get it atmo.
> Once again Richard, you are leading the way. Share the wealth.
right -
you prop us, we prop them.
http://richardsachs.com/nextwave.html
> The other thing that I can't understand, and this is just my
> perspective, is why anyone would pay so much for a frame that
> is substantially heavier than the "cutting edge" materials on the
> market. I mean, I agree that Vanilla's and Sach's ARE beautiful
> frames...but I want a tool that I can ride without worrying about
> and I want a frame that is sub three pounds.
huh?
you're gonna quibble about what is essentially no more than a
6-8 ounce difference? i don't know what you have or have been
lifting, but the true difference between the species is not that
much. a frame is stationary weight, not rotating, and unless you
plan on bench pressing your bicycle 100 times, you wouldn't ever
recognize that 6-8 ounces unless a scale was used.
> My point was that a bike is a tool. The tool performs it's task
> "better" if it is lighter for the some strength and ride quality.
> I, and I'm saying "I" (I'm not claiming others should feel or
> do the same as myself) don't understand the desire for a tool
> that is, in one respect (weight), inferior to others that cost less.
> And I wouldn't want one. I DO think Sachs and Vanillas ARE
> beautiful bicycle frames. I'm just personally not interested in
> owning or riding one.
i feel ya'.
i'm just saying that the difference is weight is one that i'd wager
you'd never discern unless a scale is present. the same difference
in rotating weight is another story. i come from a racing background;
i'm not saying all this just to say it. regardless, i wouldn't wanna
tank a frame that costs alot and was hard to get, and in all my years
of tanking ('cross included),i have never needed to replace a frame,
tweak a dropout, or get a new fork. components - they are another story!

added:
catching up here...
wrt to these (types of) posts:
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showpost.php?p=966406&postcount=16
i budget 6-7 slots a year for my 'cross team and these slots are
projected forward through all of my forecasted delivery quotes.
it's all part of the whole. the team sponsorship beganin 1982 and
i've never missed a season, thoughit wasn't 'cross-only until five
or six years ago. and a factoid that i often own up to, the 'cross
frames are batch built and carry few, if any, ofthe hand wrought
details that my road frames have. iow, they are truly tools, and i
normally spend no more than a day making each. the race thing is
close to me, and i don't think i'd be able to enjoy the business without
the sport,since i was racing before i built my first frame.racing is
part of who i am and what i do. thanks for listening. seriously.i
would have replied to the generalizations and this specific post
in real time had i read it more carefully.

ps i just saw this one -
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showpost.php?p=966628&postcount=22
many thanks for this.

from a thread about questions to ask a custom builder or maybe to ask yourself...

> The custom bike process is about you and what you want, not
> about what the builder wants to build for you. If the builder tells
> you they won't build something you want, that's when you should
> look somewhere else.
this is news to me.
the custom bike process might involve what you want, but the
custom frame process normally allows for abuilder to get a 'fit'
dialed in, but the resultant measurements that dictate how it all
works are left to the builder, until you have designed bicycles
(for different folks and for a myriad of applications), you're best
to leave it at the door. framebuilders of any degree of experience
know far more about what goes where than the client who is solely
concerned with fit. and if the concern even veers toward how it all
works, the maker still has a better grasp of how it all performs in
a 3d plane.
> Some people want some strange things built, who is the builder
> to disagree with them if that's what they want? Before it's built
> the buyer has to sign off on the build anyway, releasing the builder
> of liability if the buyer doesn't like it.
i know few commercial builders that would build something they
don't believe in and just dismiss it all with a signed release. why
on earth would you make something you couldn't endorse?!
having said that, i expect folks to add a builder's name!
> As for the word “custom”, that can be tricky to define. As far
> as I know, most so-called “custom” builders are not really a
> true custom builder at all. I would call them semi-custom production
> builder. For me, a true custom builder can do a lot more than just
> building the same frame geometry with different dimensions.
> Some favorite builders talked about on this board cannot even
> fulfill a simple request, let alone building a one of the kind custom frame.
ya' got that right atmo!
personally, i don't consider myself a custom maker at all, despite
the fact that all orders precede the build as a matter of fact, the
last time i 'let' a client in on the design process was circa 1978
after a national team rider, club mate, and close personal friend
had one made, and then - despite getting to the top rung here in
the states - had a miserable time of it at the tour del'avenir which,
at the time, was the tdf for international amateurs. it's a true story,
and it's buried in this link:
http://www.richardsachs.com/articles/rsachsriv.html
see the paragraph that starts,
"I think the line in the sand came when one of my clients..."
to wit, the framebuilder adeptly designs a bicycle to suit to particular
fit needs (if any) of a client. otherwise, he makes the frame that he
makes and knows, rather than stand there andbe a welder-for-hire.
that's my professional opinion atmo!
> So essentially buyers should just shut up and let the builder
> build what ever bike he feels like?
no not at all.
quite the contrary -
we listen!
> A custom builder may know how to build a bike, but in reality
> knows nothing about the buyer. The buyer may not even really
> know what they want other than a piece of eye candy that will
> be envious to their peers.
the builds knows about the buyer by asking, taking measurements,
exchanging emails and phone calls, and riding with him/her if he/she
pays a visit.
> However, just because an individual doesn't know how to weld
> a bike or pick the proper tubing doesn't mean they don't know
> what they need in a frame. To assume that all buyers are idiots
> and should bow down to the builders expertiese is egotistical.
i think you are either projecting, or tryng to put words in my mouth.
> As far as getting the "Fit" dialed in, that can be done with a fitting
> at a LHS, or just from riding a lot and making adjustments as you
> go along. The more you ride the more you know. The builder doesn't
> have to be involved in the "Fit" process, in fact some custom builders
> are not involved in it at all because they have a fitting done by somebody
> else and have the dimensions sent into them.Besides "Fit" is a personal
> preference. Some builders like laid back angles, other like steep angles.
> That's part of the process of picking a builder. If you know you need
> steep angles and you go with a builder that likes laid back angles you
> are going to butt heads.
builders don't "choose" angles willy-nilly or for the sake of a
trend; angles are chosen to yield the proper position as well as,
in the case of steering, yield the correct trail and "feel" for the
order at hand.
> If you ask any rider that has been riding for several years they
> can tell you at a minimum, what TT length and STA works best
> for them.
and if that is the case, the builder replicates them. heck, i know i do.
> As a builder you build what "YOU" think will work, howver what
> works is greatly debatable. You have your idea, other builders
> have theirs and customers have theirs. If you don't want to build
> a bike for somebody don't. It's a pretty simple concept, however
> at the same time, I would expect you would be talked about in a
> negative fashion by that prospective customer.You obvioulsy feel
> that you know so much more than the customer that it sounds
> like you don't take much of their wants into consideration. You
> make the bike you "think" they will like, not the bike they are
> asking for. If it works for you, good for you.
i think you've misunderstood my reply, so i apologize for being
so succinct. anyway - i'm off for a ride.
> This is what he said, verbatim:
> "the custom bike process might involve what you want, but
> the custom frame process normally allows for a builder to
> get a 'fit' dialed in, but the resultant measurements that dictate
> how it all works are left to the builder, until you have designed
> bicycles (for different folks and for a myriad of applications),
> you're best to leave it at the door. frame builders of any degree
> of experience know far more about what goes where than the
> client who is solely concerned with fit. and if the concern even
> veers toward how it all works, the maker still has a better grasp
> of how it all performs in a 3d plane."
> You can take it however you want it, but to me that says the buyer
> should give the builder their dimensions and what they want it to
> ride like, then be quiet and let the builder do his thing.
i kinda sorta did say this, but without the hyperbole. and ps -
you kinda sorta said you agreed with it above in post 15...
you: "This I agree with, which is why you don't see many buyers
specifiying tube sets, diameters, etc."
> They know better in every way because the buyer is an ignorant
> dolt that doesn't know anything about the building/fitting process
> of bike building.
but i NEVER said or implied this!
> I see this a lot from "Experts" who deal with hobbyists (not
> just in cycling). The "Experts" feel they are far beyond the
> level of knowledge of the hobbyist and they don't like people
> stepping on their toes. Those at the highest level of anything
> generally have huge egos regardless of how humble they may
> appear.The reality is most serious hobbyists know quite a bit
> about the whole process, from how bikes are built to the fitting
> process and what their needs are. To make the assumption
> at any level that a rider doesn't know what their needs are is
> egotistical because it says "I'm smarter than you are when it
> comes to this so listen to me and not what your body tells you".
as i posted, the decisions i make (wrt rider fit) are based on
a collaboration between the client and myself.
> Regardless of what anybody says, when somebody decides
> to get a custom made bike it's about the "Buyer" and not the "Builder".
actually, it's about the buyer and the builder. that's why, after
what is usually exhaustive research, the buyer commissions
the builder. these are not impulse purchases. there are no surprises.

> To an extent I agree and to an extent I disagree.
are you a blonde?
> There seems to be this "Ora" around frame builders that
> they are mythical beings and are the only ones that know
> anything about building bikes. Granted they know a lot more
> than most people and their experience is invaluable, but the
> simple fact is there are a lot of people out there that are quite
> knowledgeable about the process, but don't have the time, too
> ls or facilities to do it themselves and are willing to pay somebody
> to do it for them.
i wasn't gonna go there, but i agree with wookie. we all
have hearts of gold, so it is in fact fair to state that there
is an "Ora" thing going on here atmo.
otoh, mebbe he means "Orca". i do know 2-3 builders that
are real large, as in larger than life...
> In my case, I gave the builder a set of parameters that "I"
> wanted and asked him to build a bike around those, which he
> did a marvelous job of doing. It's very out of the norm and a lot
> of "Established" builders would probably scoff at my bike.
> However, I could give a rats butt about what they think since
> the bike was built for me and what I wanted not for them and
> what they wanted.
i think you're overthinking this - or at least assuming you
know alot about what we all do and will do, and whether it's
the kind of work that'll sustain a commercial enterprise. note:
this is when woody allen grabs marshall macluhan who, in turns
says the the audience:
"you know nothing about my work..."
anyway, we are all professional, despite the aura surrounding
what we do, and can be quite understanding at times. so why
not post a pic of what you ride, and also explain how you articulated
all the info as well as how the chosen one got it all done for you.
> Thank you for your invaluable comments on this discussion.
> I am in fact...Not blonde, but I'm sure that makes little to no
> difference to you. I guess if somebody doesn't think like you
> do or want a bike designed like you design them they are "Blonde"
> or as you were hinting at "Stupid". This coming from one of the
> more esteemed builders out there? BTW...It was supposed to be
> "Aura" but I'm sure you were smart enough to figure that out,
> at least I hope so.
you agreed and disagreed simultaneously (in the post above...)
hence the hair color wild guess. sorry. for a moment there i thought
i sensed some levity. i must be in the wrong room.
> If you did a quick search under my user name you would find
> out plenty about my bike, why I wanted what I did and pictures
> of the bike that I ride. Heck, clicking on my user gallery should
> bring up pictures of my bike.
thanks -
it's all so clandestine! (note: that was levity). i wasn't interested
in jumping through a hoop anddoing the industrial espionage
thang, thus i axed for a pic. now i have to decide whether to
pursue this search stuff...
> As I said to the original poster, and several times in this discussion:
> when going with an independent frame manufacturer if you have
> something out of the norm ask them if they will do it or not. If they
> won't, move on until you find somebody who thinks/builds like you
> want your bike to be.
i'll find a pic somehow, but what did you want that was
out of the norm, and why?
> How about this one:When you first started building frames,
> whose frames were you trying to emulate? At the Handmade
> Bike Show I got answers ranging from "Waterford" to "the
> classic Italian steel frames of the 60's and 70's".
i have had only 2 framebuilders-as-muses in my life. initially
it was bill hurlow, a man that made/sold me 2 frames even
before i worked in a bicycle store. were it not for wb hurlow,
those frames, and the way he seemed to take everything along
the way so personally, i would never have wanted to pursue
all this. he was the original role model.
years later, after i had made waves on my own and felt that
there must be more to all this, i adopted mr nagasawa as a
muse. i already had been drawn in to the japanese culture thing
(apologies for trivializing it. i'm really trying to be concise...) after
seeing a film and reading about how the nation gives certain
craftsman national living treasure status (and i dug that concept),
so i found a place in mylife for a nagasawa and his framebuilding
ways to somehowget into my psyche and allow he (and his ways)
to, er, percolate.
as far as i am concerned, these 2 men were/are framebuilder's
framebuilders, and - in my mind - can do no wrong.
of course, most of this happened before the mtb era, but i am
easily reminded that we all come from something, and we all
copy, steal, and borrow along the way.
i think it's safe to say that, while i have looked at other
bicycles over the years - and very few have i looked at twice,
my only industry role models were the 2 men mentioned here.
> It's that last sentence that perplexes me. Or strikes me as being
> oddly reactionary...or maybe arrogantly ignorant (though I swear
> I'm not saying that just to insult you).If I'm talking to an experienced
> professional in *any* industry, even the same industry that I've
> spent years working in myself, and they tell me that some idea
> of mine "won't work", I am way too curious, way too hungry for
> information & knowledge to simply move along without at least
> engaging in a (perhaps brief) dialog about *WHY* they think it
> won't work. And maybe, just maybe, I'll learn something. But
> you're not even talking about an industry you've worked in
> (framebuilding), you're talking about an industry whose products
> you consume. And while an experienced cyclists, someone who
> has ridden dozens of bicycles in their lifetime, can certainly
> develop a lot of refined information about the type of bicycle
> they prefer (as clearly you have), does it really strike you as
> odd that someone who has built hundreds of bicycles in their
> lifetime might have some insight into the behavior of the materials
> and/or their execution that maybe just might have eluded the
> end user?
this resonates with me.
to wit there is a certain breed of cat that only sees framebuilding
as some craft or trade, and owing to the consumer-goods nature
of the way bicycles are sold, thinks it's more than fine to tell folks
how to make them. i understand the mindset that gets one to this place,
even if i don't endorse it. it's the same reasoning that gets folks alarmed
when i suggest that they, "...wouldn't tell a physician what to prescribe
for what ails them" because they think of us as far less trained than
a person who has a diploma hanging in the office. all professional
f'builders that i know are gracious, accomodating, and quite concilliatory.
but they are also opinionated, and rightfully so; they are the ones
dispensing the goods and (most) have been doing so for decades
and have designed and brazed up thousands of frames. if we ultimately
pull rank on an order, it's not just to hear ourselves bark. people come
to us because we have experience and a body of work. for those
that can't comprehend this, it's a good thing thing there are
entities that will do anything for the money, because that's
what this issue boils down to. as an experienced builder and
also a racer with a cat 2 license, i am not afraid to say that some
designs wrt fit and how a bicycle works are not rationale and i will
not make them,and have had this tact since 1978 - the last year that
i accepted an order designed end-to-end by a client. as dave inferred,
it simply is not worth it to have one's name attached to what we'd
feel is inferior work.

from a thread about why use lugs...

> A large part of the reason that lugged construction became
> the norm was that it was better suited to large scale production
> by semi-skilled labor - not because it was always "better."
since the 80s and the mtb era changed everything and took
any convention that bicycle aesthetics had and tossed them,
tig has became the norm and is better suited to large scale
production by semi-skilled labor. it's an economic issue,and
nothing more. welding is an accepted look, and more folks in
tech schools (and other venues) are trained to weld then are
to braze, this providing a steady labor stream intoany factory
that chooses makes bicycle frames en masse.
> "Still" is not a verb, and thus has no infinitive form. That said,
> no, there's no reason at all still to use lugs. It is so, so much
> easier to make a glue-bike in a mold; even kids can (and do)
do it. Just do that.
uh -
with that logic i can may i deduce that we no longer need
ovens as long as microvaves exist? better yet, why cook
food when we can get the stuff that mixes with water. well,
for that, we'd prolly need military stripes! do we eschew
mechanical watches and all get quartz? that kinda' sums
it up here.
> I read recently that some words and phrases are going away
> because they are used so little. Counter / anti clockwise was
> one.I haven't worn a watch in over 6 years. If I do need accurate
> time I look at my cell phone. But then again I haven't had to do
> that in years either.I no longer have any lugged bikes.I like the
> look of my sloping top tubes, on my smallish frames. No doubt
> different skills are needed to tig rather than braze.I have a lot of
> respect for someone that can lay down a frames worth of tig
> welds as there is no where to hide. Plus the mitres are as tight
> if not tighter than lugged frames.Watching a skilled tig welder is
> amazing. Besides using both hands, they get to use a foot too.
fwiw - i am tig lover, not its anti-christ.
i don't wear a watch, and i don't care who cooks my meals or how!
so this isn't (for me) an issue about if one method is better than another.
as a bicycle maker, ibelieve that design and construction trumps all,
and that material is over-rated. and i'd rather have a nice cannondale
or C-50 than many of the so-called artisan made frames that are
so-called lovingly built with lugs. lugs constitute a joining process,
and their inclusion validates nothing atmo. but when used by a
skilled builder, they can still grab my attention.
> All my bikes are lugged, and I built about half of them myself.
> I couldn't think of a good answer, so I gave a bad one. In truth,
> I have no idea why we still "need" lugs, or why anyone still uses
> them at all. I think they're nice. I like the way my bikes ride, but
> I doubt it has all that much to do with the joinery method. I work
> for a shop that does pretty much exclusively TIG'd frames, and
> they all work pretty well, too.
one reason that some use them is simply that some use them.
it's true - they make no difference at all. they are just a visual
when the frame is built. however, for some (me...), it's not
about lugs, it's about brazing. and i know that as a brazer,
i can make a better frame than if i transferred my skills to tig
welding. when a client orders a frame from me, it's not because
i use lugs, or make my own lug designs, or anything closely
related. a client chooses the entire body of work; design,
execution, history, longevity, etc. not to parrot lance, but it
really isn't about the bike at all. it's more likely about the maker.
and if the maker is a brazer, and a good one,there is no reason
at all to veer simply because the cat across the hall has a
pulse welder.
> I've been around a while and started racing back in the days
> when everyone rode lugged steel frames and everyone knew
> what chromoly meant. That was also back in the day when a
> typical race bike weighed 23 pounds. The steel is real crowd
> forgets that when newer frame materials were being developed
> in the mid-80s, many pro teams actually chose to buy these
> new frames rather than accept a steel frame sponsor...
can we get some examples of teams that bought frames with
"newer frame materials" rather than accept free steel frames?
> That used to be Look's slogan (the only bikes in the peloton teams
> buy...). Like arguing against a creationist, there's no way the steel
> is real crowd will ever be persuaded but there's a reason why
> every pro team rides carbon frames--it's a vastly superior material,
> and getting past traditional lug designs is one of those superior qualities.
i believe the reason "every" pro team rides carbon frame is that
the parties involved cut equitable business deals, and the the
unit cost (not selling price) of an asian made nonferrous material
frame is quite low, and that thesebad boys are practically disposable.
that's quite a good price considering these are just tools.
> The question was, is there a reason to still use lugs. The
> answer, from a performance perspective, is a definite no.
> Non-lugged construction is structurally superior.
be that as it may (even if i don't know how one would quanitify
that non-lugged construction is "structurally superior", the
performance is equal parts design and design, with a small
dose of construction skill thrown in for good measure (and
that good measure will only matter if you desire a frame with
longevity), and the smallest measure of the equation is material
choice. don't get me wrong, it's all good, but pros ride what
they ride because of deals cut for economic reasons. mj coulda'
got it done in cons, but nike paid him more yada yada.
> i'm not denying that if you choose tradition, craftsmanship,
> etc., a steel frame is a fine choice. Just don't pretend steel
> can go toe-to-toe on any performance characteristic of
> newer materials.
i'm not pretending. it can.
> E-Richie, the notion that pro teams ride carbon just
> because it's what their sponsors tell them to ignores
> the history of the development of carbon frames. None
> of these are sponsored frames-simple sponsorship economics
> doesn't explain it. It is because carbon frames have a distinct
> advantage that teams are willing to pay for out of pocket.
> I believe Kelme or Once bought their Look badged frames
> instead of a sponsorship.
here's a little anecdote for you -
in the film sunset boulevard, the william holden character meets the
gloria swanson character at the staircase of her hollywood mansion.
startled, he says -
"you're norma desmond. you were in pictures. you used to be big."
to which she replies -
"i am big; it's the pictures that have gotten smaller."
by and large, the industry has veered away from steel because,
using nonferrous materials, it can eek out higher profits from
better production numbers using more automated processes
and leaving more of what was the skilled work force behind.
listen - i am not anti-profits or anti-progress, but look around
the rose colored glasses and realize that the sport is also
underwritten heavily by industry, and the racers use what
they are paid to be seen with - and i have no issues with
that either.

from a thread about the handmade show...

> I am a bit confused about some cities qualifying as "East Coast".
> For example, I know Philly is in Eastern PA and is within a hundred
> miles or so of the ocean, so thats "east coast", however, Pittsburgh
> is still in the same state but is a few hundred miles away from the
> Atlantic, so is that more "midwest" or is it still east?Where, geograph-
> ically speaking, is the cutoff of "east coast" versus "midwest"? I am
> sending out my "feelers" for 09 and beyond.I like the possibilities
> in a few cities in PA, Maryland and NY, although I think a virtual
> central point in VA might be the way to go...anyone have any feedback
> on the VA idea (ONLY)?
after one trip to the midwest followed by three to the far west,
it'll be a pleasure to stay in the east for at least three contiguous
shows. atmo east is anywhere i can drive in less than eight hours,
even though i might fly.
> When did we go to the Midwest?
er houston is geographically nearer the atlantic than the pacific atmo.
> Oh, but its so far South, I thought it was "the south"
ct to houston = 1758 mi
sj to houston = 1888 mi
four years out there is plenty;
i say 3 years in the east min atmo.
well, you asked. hey - thanks for asking.
> Denver is my vote.
> Plus the added bonus of combining bikes with the fledgling
> North American Handmade Whisky show.And it is far enough
> away that the hangover has gone by the time I get off the plane.
i heart this cat.
so - after 3 years in the east, i vote for denver atmo.
dee-dub in 04 when we all began chatting about the show,
a mission statement, and what would be ideal, some of the
discussion touched on what my wife, aka the lovely deb,
had encountered in her life as a craftsperson attending similar
shows. here is one venue where thingswere perfect, and went
off without one hitch:
http://www.vfconventioncenter.com/
the promoter's site is here:
http://www.goodrichpromotions.com/designer_craftsmen/index.html
> See, thats what I am trying to avoid. Any other type of tradeshow
> would pay the big bucks, but framebuilders are always crying poormouth
> when it comes to hotels. I have to keep it "on the cheap" or risk
> losing some budget minded exhibitors and attendee's.
[Rant]read: the builders will come, no matter. the consumers
will come, no matter. after four years, nahbs is a brand, and in
and of itself, a draw. this is not about money or location. it is
the only place inthe world that folks like us can kibbitz. it is the
only place in theworld that message boarders can kibbitz with
the kibbitzers. so stop worrying about what a room costs; we
are not talking about the carlisle or the pierre, or even about
manhattan atmo. are you feeling me?
the only real consideration is whether (or not) you can reasonably
ask a large contingent of your booth takers to continue getting
on planes and supporting a fedex habit. [/Rant]
> Come to think of it, velodrome vicinity should be a strong
> consideration. PA would get my nod in that case.
thusfar, the vicinity has not been local-rider-body-count
specific.this is a show that folks travel to. it's not about
the weather, or the area's riding features, or the like. it's
all about what happens at the venue, and especially at the
anvil booth atmo.
> Theres a buttload of builders back east who havent gotten
> involved yet...I think they will be on this like a dog on a bone
> when we move east...but they will be missing out on Portland,
> which is going to be the best exposure yet!
it'll be even more enticing for the easterners that you are
citing (above) when you keep it in the east for at least three
successive years. ps why are there not parallel threads on
the listserve, frameforum,and on the nahbs website? it's a
shame to leave the exhibitors out of the discussion atmo. banana.
> I'm lost. Shouldn't the show be for potential or repeat buyers?
> I realize that without builders there would be no builders show,
> but isn't the objective of the meeting to attract people to buy
> frames from the builders? Or is this just a builders get-together?
> If the show is for the builders then it might make sense to consider
> cheap hotels, bars, a remote location, or who knows what (although
> I'm sure this is the case for all makers.) If it is for those interested
> in buying fine hand-built frames, then accesibility and a copious
> cycling community would make sense.
the show is for the builders; it was conceived on the listserve
as well as on frameforum dot net as a vehicle with which the
buiders would converge and spend a weekend sharing resources,
telling stories, and generally do whatever happens so that everybody
left smarter and more enthusiastic on monday morning. it was
conceived as a show at which there was (to be) no industrial-made
stuff, and no vendors who made frames before there were clients
for said frames,and certainly no one would be allowed to show if
their stuff bordered on being made in a subcontacting arena.
oh - and of course - it was for builders, not clothing makers, or
brake makers, derailleur makers, yada blah blah. oh, to have a
time capsule in houston atmo. atmo, that show, though small,
was the ideal. but what happened? well, it made no sense to
not let folks in, so the show was also open to the public, and
the rest is history.

the issue here is how does don walker, saint-in-residence
that he is, make money now that the original mission statement
has jumped the shark? heck, i certainly don't know. but the odds
have grown,the light shining on all this is brighter than ever, ya'
have corporate entities that wanna glom off of what seems like
a success story and even offer to sponsor it if we jump through
a few of their unreasonable hoops. hey - shut me up already.

the show is now its own brand. atmo, as i wrote already, it can
and will be a success no matter where it's held. i would even
place a wager on that fact.

but at the core of all this is that the show is of the builders,
not of the consumers. any builder that misses it will be missing
a possible chance to book most of the year's order from the press
and goodwill that comes from these 3 winter days. ironic, it is to
me, that folks are somehow worried about room rates and locations.
atmo, what walker has done is mapped out a formula in which mebbe
80% of the booth takers are either fledgling newbies (5-10 years or
less) or part timers, and his retreats have allowed these cats the
publicity machinery to become cults of personality if you will. as
noted on another thread, the message boarders, in turn, take all
the flicker sites and the youtubes, combine these with their own
accounts, and viola, guys are backed up 1-3 years without ever
having bought an ad anywhere or even having what some would
consider a business plan. no real harm, i s'pose.

well, what now? this thing (i can hear kate calling it this sicilian thing...)
is huge, but it really is no bigger nor more important than a trekie
convention. i'm a believer. i have been since we started talking about
a show on neil's site in 2004. my primary interests are that it not get
(too) commercial and hence lose its roots, and i also want to see don
be able to make a salary from it. but the minute it becomes
interbike-esque, or if some cat offers to buy the property and
don leaves the helm, that interest will waiver atmo.
> I'm not saying that the original idea doesn't have merit, just
> that it never happened.
it did happen atmo.
> So what happened between Houston and San Jose, other than
> the event growing larger? (asking, not arguing) To me, they appear
> the same. But I wasn't at either so maybe I'm missing some nuance?
1) the need to make $$$
2) standards are lowered (or changed) for the sake of 1 above.
3) folks that have invested in this emotionally and intellectually
from day 1 start rethinking their priorities.

oh - and i am not refering to (only) myself atmo. btw, as i wrote
above, we (the constituants) have a listserve, a website, and a
forum on that website, and the show itself has a website. there
is also 1) a full cc email address field that often receives emails,
and 2) an inner circle of about 12 builders that routinely discusses
and er, shapes, some of the show's more in-your-face features.
so, my puzzlement is about why this message board is (now)
being used to table a discussion about something that is a year
away from a show that will occur in the winter of 2008. while it
puzzles me on several layers, one that is prominant is that through
several pms exchanged with a mod here, i was informed that the
board (and/or its host) did not see the value of this show and
would not attend.
mp atmo.
> thanks for the perspective... i've checked out the framebuilders
> listserv, but i don't post because i have nothing to contribute.
> That's your (meaning *all* the framebuilders, not just atmo)
> world and I just look through the window.
of course. it's business mike, nothing personal.
hyman roth always made money for his partners atmo.

from a thread about steel as a material of choice in the current market...

> I would say that it could be that steel still has its limitations,
> whereas a ti, carbon or ti/carbon mix can give you a similar
> ride quality without the limitations of steel.
there is only one limitation with steel: since it lost its cache as
the go-to material in the manufacturing sector, most factories
and folks have moved away from it. the industry has concluded
that more units can be made for less money, and can extract a
higher profit, when nonferrous materials are used. when the
market forces are at work, ultimately an entire way of doing
something can be lost. it's no real bigee atmo since most industrial
made frames are higher quality than those made by hand even
as recently as 10 years ago. no matter. the material itself is not
what is limited. what we have here is a Sunset Boulevard situation:
JOE GILLES - "You're Norma Desmond, you used to be in pictures.
You used to be big."
NORMA - "I am big, it's the pictures that got small."
> I envy you, atmo. I wish that I could be that eloquent when I write.
thanks -
it's easy - parrot popular culture as often as possible atmo.
plus, i lived through all of this and watched the industry
deconstruct all through the embers of the mtb era years.
deconstruction works in fashion houses, but not always
in the sporting goods industry.
> well, I would have to add that it's hard to get sub 2.5lb frames
> with steel, afaik. with ti, alu and plastic, you can get 2lbs or less
> (although the 2lb ti frames are noodly). plus there's very little aero
> tubing available in steel (and only a bit more in ti), which is a
> disadvantage for TT bikes. those are the only two disadvantages
> I can think of, though. and with the right components, you can
> still get a 3lb steel frame down to the UCI limit. now, all that might
> change with more research.
and why is this 1+ pound differnce thing a disadvantage? are
you benchpressing the bicycle? a frame is stationary weight
and, assuch, is not subject to the same arguments that come
when we discuss wheel goods, or cranks, shoes, or anything
that rotates.and as far a shapes go, that is a mill spec, not one
that is determined by a material. and then there was alison steele ,
aka the night bird. she was hot, and a seminal voice in fm radio's
history. she'd havenever reached that level had she been called
alison titanium atmo.
> if you're in the TDF, it is a potential disadvantage (assuming
> your total bike weight is 15.9 and your nearest competitor's
> is 14.9). every second and every watt does count. yes, for the
> hoi polloi, it doesn't matter in an objective sense, but the
> question was asked.
and in a grand prix race, my outback wagon would be a
disadvantage atmo. using the tdf, to me, is not a valid
qualifier wrt this material discussion, but that's just me.
the folks who ride and/or supply these frames that yield
14.9 or 15.9 pound bicycles have no expectations of them
other than to get to a finish line. even what happens the
next day hardly matters since the team (and supplier) most
likely has a tree in asia where all the frames are harvested.
note: this is not a political statement. it's just my pov about
why the nonferrous material are now (andhave been for a
while) the go-to material in the manufacturing sector atmo.

anyway, it's casual friday so cheers and bananas m'kay?
it' be an interesting exercise in its own right to find out if
the tdf "winners" are always the cats on the lightest bicycles
or if even watts call the shots. bicycle racing is a team sport,
and not just man against man or man against the clock atmo.
> Hypothetically speaking here - lets suppose pro cyclists
> could ride anything they wanted to - what would they choose?
therein lies the rub -
they are paid, salaried workers.in essense, they have (and there
is) no choice.in my personal jesus moments, i fantasize about
larry bird in braggards, not hi top cons. ymmv.
> ... and steel will be redisovered at some point.
cool atmo -

> Grant, isn't the negative image based largely on weight? If you
> could make a 1-pound steel frame it would put other materials
> out of business IMO.Relative weight on an MTB is more important
> than on a road bike, hence why the demise of steel there first.
> Just my opinion.
cliffnotes -
it was the down-and-outers from the mtb era that,in their last gasp
for air, decided to take a chance by diversifying into the road market,
something they knew nothing about, that set some of this into action.
they took their nonferrous baggage and their forks-R-us mentality,
and the road segment hasn't been the samesince atmo. hey - no bigee.
those of us in the margins survive. what's lost (if lost is really even the
correctword) is that the demand for steel, the material, has a ripple
effect far past the orignal reasons it's not used in the first place atmo.
iow, when the big guys cease buying it for production work, the little
guys have less of a menu to feed off of. howard beele moment atmo.

from a thread about what's for dinner...

may i visit your lunchtable atmo?
my wife, aka the lovely deb, mentioned the word tofu
in a sentence today wrt dinner. that is not good atmo.
help.

update -
there is talk of a bed of arugula with the unmentionable
food item atmo. i have stocked up on some sam adams
and a double bag of party mix atmo.
see example:

i have decided to be the fu and study with my new pals atmo -

> "Men who ate the most tofu during their mid-40s to mid-60s showed
> the most signs of mental deterioration in their mid-70s to early 90s.
> The consumption of tofu two or more times per week was detrimental
> to brain function, according to a study published in the April issue of
> the Journal of the American College of Nutrition. The new tofu study
> finds that poor cognitive test performance, and two measures of brain
> atrophy or shrinkage were associated with higher midlife tofu consumption
> among men. The cognitive tests measure attention, concentration,
> memory, judgement and several other indicators of brain function.
> "Makes you stupid. Take me to Smith & Wollensky. Open a nice
> bottle of Klinker Brick. Salute.
let's meet (meat) at peter luger's atmo.
> Brooklyn or Great Neck? Last time up to the city had an excellent
> piece of almost raw meat (yummmmmm - just show it the fire,
> don't actually put it on) at Michael Jordan's in the train station.
> Excellent cab to help it go down. Just tell me when. We'll ask
> for some small amout of tofu on our Ceasar salad to keep the
> wife happy.
i've only been to the great neck one atmo.
i have a bb and a seat lug to braze and then it's a wrap for
the night. if you don't hear from me,no worries - click here
atmo.
> Oh no...I'm sure you've been through this with Adam right.
> If not I'm sure he can give you some great cooking tips.
beautiful meat dishes make me cry atmo.
> I say make a strong stand and nip this in the bud...you let
> the tofu in now and fast forward 2 weeks you'll be strapped
> down getting a green tea high-colonic cleansing from some
> guy named Sanjaya.
hey i can dig that atmo.
but seriously -
i survived atmo. i mean i did call 911 and let them stay on
hold while i had dinner, but at the end of it all i took my
bowl to the sink like i do each night and i became the greek
god i am known as (say it fast): dodishes. and i used extra
ivory soap just in case...the meal itself was quite enjoyable.
my wife, aka the lovely deb, made a separate rice dish,
and the unmentionable food was prepared with garlic and
spinach, with some sorta sesame jizz atop. when i prepared
my bowl, all food items were assembled vertically because
i was not interested in actually seeing the you-know-what
in my favorite wooden bowl. add some kikoman and a pile
of pulverated party mix, and - viola, i created my own middle
eastern slash asian tailgate party. as heck the taste wasn't
so bad once all the items had a chance to do the meet and
greet in the bowl. someof it even grazed the roof of my mouth
as it went throatward. at the end of the day, it was much ado
about nothing; 'just mebeing a weenie. as she is known to be,
deb was right. the meal was enjoyable atmo.

tomorrow i get in touch with my inner sinatra atmo -

this a post from a thread about whether it's important
for a framebuilder to ride (a bicycle). more here.

i'm coming it to this party late, since i just returned from nambla. atmo
we are all different. i got into bicycle making after i started racing; it was
the sport that got me interested, not technology, or engineering, or craft,
or saving the world from motor vehicles blah blah. racing and being of the
sport has definately made be more confident wrt what i do. it accelerated
the learning curve. it forced the epiphanies to come sooner (some in
three minutes or less...). it gave me the platform from which to make
decisions with more chutzpah and be able to stand behind them. when
we (my peer group) began, it was in an era that still had a place for
framebuilders to get the feedback that was necessary in order to use
the sport as a laboratory.through my earliest years, i could count as
many as 2 dozen national (and olympic) team riders (from here and
canada) among my client list. that all changed when the uscf got (too)
big and mandated that those chosen to represent must use the official
federation bicycle, whatever it happened to be in a given year. ironically,
the olympics in 1984 wasthe pivotal era after which it became near impossible
to see your stuff used from development through to the international arena,
but those were good times nonetheless, and much good came from cycling's
growth even if the feds took the sport away from the the clubs and their
sponsors and gave it to the corporate world. hey - shut me up already.
anyway, for me racing and the sport are inseparable from framebuiding
and other's mileage may vary. here in episcoville we remain tethered in
one way shape or form, and still chase stars and stripes jersies with
'cross now being our center of attention. we've got nine since 1997,
and hope a tenth comes along soon. add these/this experience to the
building process and it'd be foolish to overlook the sport's impact atmo.
oh -and yeah, i still race and dig racing. it's a way to remain in a state
of arrested development, and that matters to me atmo.

here's a cool thread about waiting lists and it lives
in its entirety here.

> So what's the goal of these "one-bike-per month" builders?
> Is it pure exclusivity? Is it to exemplify the finest spirit of
> craftsmanship? Surely there's a better balance between
> Trek's "buy all you want we'll make more" heartless capitalism
> and 47mo wait-times for a bike.Are they trying to re-create the
> Confente scenario, whereby they think exclusivity and craftsmanship
> automatically create a classic? I gotta believe there's a better way,
> because eventually the pendulum is going to swing back and then
> the train has passed them by instead of vice versa.
who are these one-bike-a-month cats? i happen to know that sasha
is way more productive that that? myself - i'm generally at 5-7 a month.
the confente reference is completely wrong. i'd wager in his short stint
working his eponymous firm, he did at least 12-15 a month. heck, back
in those early years i was a 4 frame a week guy, and that number slowed
down by the mid-late 80s when i began to realize how much longer it was
taking to build once the improvements in design and manufacture were
(more) known and hence incorporated into the gig atmo. the learning
curve doesn't always breed efficiency; when you finally find out what you
didn't know and bring it to all frames there after, it adds time to the build.
if it didn't, we all might be making the same thing we did when we started.
> It just seems really odd, this massive backlog thing. If the orders
> are coming in faster than they are going out, then something seems
> out of balance. I'm sure someone who knows more about business
> than me will tell us something about market price and supply and demand...
this came up at the show. this backlog thing is not an issue.you all
here are making it an issue. if you added up all of us who had a long
backlog (say - more than 2 years), there really would not be that many
people in the scheme of things. maybe 12 to 20, give or take. if you
added up the annual output of all of us in that group, the frames may
total about 1,000 or 1,500 a year (and that's a stretch) at most. in the
industry economy, these numbers are too small to matter. we/these
numbers live outside the lines of any economic or market trend. the
builders are making frames as fast as they can, and tending to their
businesses equally as fast atmo. if the long waits get under your
(whoever the you is), the blame must rest on the those feeding the
machine, not us on the other side of the counter atmo. we can't make
them any faster, and hiring folks to do our work would be self-defeating.
atmo good for the sasha's and the jonny's and all the others that are
getting long lines from the zeitgeists that are message board aided.
none of these issues would occur without the internet atmo.
> This forum, with it's collective knowledge, constantly "Promotes"
> certain brands which in and of itself "creates" demand.
and on other forums (http://www.frameforum.net/ for example)
i began promoting others after nahbs 1.0 when i realized we are
in a great time for framebuilding, and making waves is effin cool
atmo. to wit, there is no freaking reason on earth that some builders
are busy and others aren't, especially with message boards and viral
marketing being so ubiquitous.
> i've said this to richie in the past: i wish he had an apprentice so
> his knowledge would be passed on.
spend time on the framebuilder listserve or frameforum.net and
you will see that i do more than my share of mentoring as well as
keeping it all in the public eye atmo!
> richie, i hope you didn't feel my comments were a criticism. i know
> you share info freely.
not at all - really! it's just that, especially after a long weekend at
nahbs,i realize fully the magnitude of the virtual word, and a gazilliion
folks read posts and threads and often have no idea past one sentence
or one thought atmo. i figured i'd punctuate yours with mine atmo.
> Sacha will run his business any way he wants to, but the market
> is telling him to raise prices.
you may be misconstruing the situation; there are no prices. what
is being charged today, in mar 07, for frames ordered ?? years ago
is not what the guys will pay in ??? years after queueing up this week.
you can use the 07 price as a barometer, but rest assured that there
is no way that anyone can lock ina price a year out, much less several.
sacha and i, and others, talk about this often. he's likely still asleep, so
i'll take the heat for this information atmo.
> I have a dozen knives on order with Tony and Reese Bose (3-5yrs),
> knives on order with Horn (who knows), Phil Boguszewski (4yrs),
> Kit Carson (who knows), Tom Overeynder, Bill Ruple, Ryuichi Kawamura,
> PJ Tomes. I've ordered knives from 29 makers in the past two years
> without ever paying a deposit.
curious in chester -
would you have still queued up for these if there was a required
deposit of, say - ten percent atmo?
> In response to climb's request to E-richie...
> I asked the same of him. Would you ever take on an apprentice
> to pass on your skills. He voiced that he was of the opinion that taking
> on an apprentice would not work. His feeling is that one needs to be
> involved in production bicycles first. That way, one could learn the skill
> of each individual operation by performing it hundreds of times in a short
> time frame, rather than once every couple of weeks as it would be done
> in his shop. I pointed out to him that there were no production facilities
> building lugged steel frames. His response, with a rather wry smile,
> was the builders like himself were a dying breed. He voiced only a
> few extremely gifted individuals would be able to learn the craft from
> a limited mentorship or a course at UBI. So, I guess the answer is
> to get yourself on the list for the old masters before they are gone.
> Then, as someone else stated, get yourself on the list for the next
> Sacha White. I so lucked out in finding him before the rest of you did.
> I've got my eye on who might be the next one.
stackie - great meeting you atmo. i think you may have misinterpreted
the conversation. my point was that framebuilding, per se was not
relevant (anymore) when juxtaposed with earlier eras. the mtb and
its ilk turned industry upside down, netting mega-huuuuuuuuuuge
improvements across the board in terms of material, design, and
manufacturing quality. industrial made bicycles are quite good these
days; i think i noted that i believe many are better than those that
(may) come from hand-builders. anyway, the history lesson is/was
that the need to go to a frame-builder to get high quality is far less
than it was back then. inthe wake of all this, the, er, craft, has lost
market share, and breed reference may have been part of that
thought atmo.
> And besides, if not wanting to wait so long encourages potential
> customers to look elsewhere, to patronize the newer framebuilders,
> that wouldn't be such a bad trickle-down effect, eh?
no, it wouldn't atmo.
> I do not understand this "numbers game" at all.
> I presume that guys like atmo, Sacha, etc. are building, at their
> capacity, +/- 6 or so frames a months, +/- 60/70 a year, so +/-
> 240 in 4 years. Is it so unreasonable to think that 240 other people
> have the same desire for one of these bikes? Hell, there are probably
> 240 on this board alone, so I think not; in fact I bet these wait lists will
> either go up or orders will not be taken.
agreed atmo -
> i wonder how much of long waiting lists is caused by the "tulip" effect.
> ever-longer wait times create almost a bubble of (slightly) irrational
> exhuberance. i'm not saying that the bikes aren't worth waiting for but
> the wait creates an aura of self-generating desire.interesting to note that
> someone like carl strong has a wait measured in weeks, not months,
> let alone years. skill-wise, carl sure is up there. but for whatever reason
> there's no carl-mania. this observation is not meant as an sort of judgement
> on anyone. just an interesting insight into what makes something/someone "hot".
the wait list thing isn't a thing.the thing about the wait list not
being a thing is the thing. if you added up all the builders with
wait lists that exceed two years (as an example) there might be
12-20. if you totaled their annual output, there might be 500-800
frames. these numbers don't matter. what seems to matter is that
folks like making them matter. there are many more folks that want
than can make. the issue, if there is one, is that folks want. mebbe
focus on that. you're in marketing; there is perception and there is
reality. as we once discussed wrt the new balance account, some
product lines are easy to prop simply because the goods are top
shelf. the better framebuilders who have lists are all good makers.
but they are also small producers. what else can they do except
ask folks to wait? uh - they use their tulips and say wait atmo!
> If 60 read this thread and decide to pull the trigger on bike from a
> maker, the wait goes up another year. We kinda make our own
> market for these things.
this cat gets it atmo.
> Hopefully this show and all the great things to publicize what these
> last independent or non-OTS makers are doing will only spread the
> love around.
veer -
if nothing else, please thank don walker atmo. he brought you
this show, and the previous two. he deserves major-league props,
as well as a really big reward atmo. if there is a future for the current
and next wave, it'll be due largely to nahbs.
> Jean Baudrillard, one of his generation's most outspoken cultural critics,
> died on Tuesday. Here's a quote from one of his obits: He [Baudrillard]
> was also a fierce critic of consumer culture in which people bought objects
> not out of genuine need but because of the status and meaning they
> bestowed. If the shoe fits...
i love the, er, logo on his shirt atmo...
> In certain circles it's called logocentrism.
> p.s. hey, at least it's not screwed on.
seriously, doesn't the pose and the apparel contrast with his
statement? i realize it could possibly be a press pic, but still
atmo. thoughts?
> For me, it depends on how you're interpreting the meaning/status of t
> he pose, the logo on the shirt (which I don't recognize), the brand of cigarette,
> the book-lined background, etc. And I don't ask this as a rhetorical question,
> but out of genuine interest in how you interpret these symbols. There is no
> possible photo of him that would be devoid of meaning. Were he dressed in
> Carhartt overalls and a Mogen-David stained t-shirt, smoking a Swisher
> Sweet and sitting in front of a '72 Pinto up on blocks behind his double-wide,
> this photo would be equally pregnant with potential signals of status. How
> could his statement not contrast with his photo? That's the interesting
> question.
the gist of my earlier post had to do with the juxtaposition (atmo)
of his comment about objects bought for status versus need with
the fact that he appears to have given some serious thought to his
sartorial choices atmo. i do that, but i am vain. and i do buy objects
for more reasons than simply that i have a need for them atmo. and
i suspect archibald and jmewkill do as well.
> Well, I guess you're gistified in pointing out a potential contradiction
> between his words and how he's dressed/posed in that photo. However,
> I'm not so sure that he's trying to dress to impress in that photo. Doesn't
> look that fancy or vain to me. Can you describe how he'd need to be dressed
> so that you wouldn't sense a contradiction? So that you wouldn't feel that the
> photo belies his hypocrisy (which I think was your original impulse). But
> regardless of his personal pose, the idea that many people buy objects for
> reasons of status and not need is so obviously true that it's sometimes
> forgotten. I don't know, but it struck a chord with me in the context of
> this thread. It might be uncomfortable for us to think about this possibility
> with something like a bicycle that radiates an aura of relative innocence
> and downright goodness -- but hey, who of us doesn't lust after a handmade
> object from many of the artisans, toolmakers, and bike builders in this
> neighborhood? However, at what point does a lust for a certain object --
> based on it's perceived status -- become a type of hyper-consumptive,
> ruinous desire that Baudrillard is justly criticizing (regardless of his threads).
this is unreal. on a message board about fancy bicycles, there's
not a single post-er among us that buys out of need. we each may
attach a certain cache to a favorite brand, but we buy out of want.
i guess my original point in replying to you (about the obit quote)
is that i often tire when folks (often from the intellectual elite) pass
sweeping judgements in the fashion that i feel is represented
by this:
He [Baudrillard] was also a fierce critic of consumer culture in which
people bought objects not out of genuine need but because of the status
and meaning they bestowed.
i am not that well educated, but i do think my elevator goes to
the top floor. his statement is one in which we,as a demographic,
are asked to justify our existence.why do i/should i have to that?
i am a middle class male born into a consumer driven world. i feel
capable of making my own choices re what i can do with my money,
and i don't buy much. but often i buy more than i need, and much of
it makes me feel good atmo.
> Apparently you don't question the underpinnings of a consumer-driven
> world, but are made very uncomfortable by those that do. I just thought
> it was an idea worth discussing. And no, I don't consider myself above
> the influence of the culture we live in, but I don't feel threatened by ideas
> that undermine it.You have self-described your location as "out of the box."
> Sometimes we need to be prodded to move from an overly comfortable
> location. It doesn't hurt. Look, merely pointing out that he was photgraphed
> wearing a shirt with a (to me) undercipherable logo should not by itself cause
> us to dismiss his ideas out of hand. That's a short-cut that leads nowhere.
this is a message board, not life. and i post mostly while on the phone.
for you to infer that i "don't question the underpinnings of a consumer
driven society, but are made very uncomfortable by those that do...",
makes me think we need an annie hall marshall macluhan moment here.
"you know nothing about my work," he was heard saying. i'm not
threatened by any of this. if in fact the guy was "also a fierce critic
of consumer culture in which people bought objects not out of genuine
need but because of the status and meaning they bestowed", then part
of that means,to me, that he is judging everyone that buys anything
they don't need, no matter what the reason. that is what i have a
hard time with atmo.

from a cool discussion about machine vs eyeball fitting.
the thread lives here.

>I've noticed that fiters that work with a computer tend to provide
>you with measurements and then tell you that you must adapt to
>the new position. On the other hand, builders that mostly fit you
>without the aid of a computer, tend to build a bicycle where you'll
>feel comfortable from the get go, except if he/she notices something
>that you may be doing which is flat wrong. Question: Which would
>you prefer? Question: Who creates the all-knowing computer fit
>programs? As always, thank you for reading, and thank you for
>your comments.
fitters might be in a more dominant role if they could look
past the fit part of the equation and also speak to how the
bicycle will/might work once you're atop. fit is only part
of the equation. it has to be part of a larger equation atmo.
your fit (contact points) only works superbly if it is properly
placed above and between the wheels, and if all the
dimensions of the frame overlap with its intended use.
ps -the that 70s show rocks.
>Er, what if you don't qualify as an athlete, atmo...?
>What's there for the Wild Turkey and Four Roses types...?
>Maybe I should be asking Bostondrunk, shouldn't I...?
>Hey, thank you for your thoughtful responses. And I
>apologize for initially writing "fiter" instead of "fitter".
>Uhhh... Oh well, thank you...
ya' see - that's the thing.
on a message board on which high end bicycles are discussed,
fitting usually pertains to what you'd assimilate for road riding
or even for racing. otoh, if you're talking about fitting for a mtb,
or a comfort bike, or even a normal road bike on which you have
absolutely no illusions of using for - well, for going fast enough
to need a heart monitor or 'puter - that's another story. i don't
think it's easy to have a discussion on how-to wrt fitting unless
we know what we are fitting to what atmo.

tell me ya' feel me catulle-issimo atmo.
>note: the next post to which i reply lives here
>and is too long to paste!!!!!!!!
rs-issimo
the issue is not "do you assimilate their position or their frame
geometry", it's "does a fitter design the fit or does he design the
frame?" at least ithink that is what catulle is getting at. atmo
most fitters don't understand all the nuances of what happens
to the general layout of the bicycle, its characteristics, how it
handles (etc), once the contact points are established. and to
cite grant and mebbe obtuse too (hopefully i am not not putting
words in their mouths), some fitters don't even get fit because it
is an ever-evolving thing. what works when your static on a
bicycle one hour may not work that (or as) well once you've
gone out on the finished product and gotten fitter, more flexible,
and are pushing it all with a sidewind atmo. so - euro trends aside,
mebbe consider that a frame be designed by someone who makes
them and - if need be - have a fitter tell you where your saddle should
be and leave it at that. personally, and i hate using terms like that
since it's all first person text anyway, i never understood why folks
that spend so much time riding to begin with are second guessing
themselves anyway atmo!
>...He was saying, I think, that the Euro-pro geometry that has
>evolved over the years (although it has changed quite a bit
>between, say, the '60s and '90s if I'm not mistaken - I'm listening
>to DBRK on this one) is the best almost universally for anyone
>who rides for more than an hour or two at a time.
it's not productive to have a fit thread when there is no such thing
as a baseline client. but as i said earlier, one assumes (i do, at least)
that on a message board on which cost-no-object bicycles are the
raison d'etre (that's french forreason d'etre), most folks wanna look
like like a pro when atop a bicycle; the shades, the tan lines, the assos,
the lycra booties...
well, again to side with obtuse, grant, and atmo atmo, it's that
the position has to be client specific, but the general layout of
those stage-race type bicycles is the best thing for most folks atmo.
someone asked circa what era. atmo the only clear answer is the era
prior to the americanization of the industry, that one before product
designers convinced european icons with decades of insight to tweak
their frames for the north american cat 3 and comfort market. when
that change fully permeated the industry, most bicycles had to be
re-thunk before a rider could possibly assimilate a rational position.
fast forward - get a fitter that understands all this, not simply one
schooled in laser beams and bar graphs. bicycle design (and history)
is part of the equation.
>Well, I got Stevep on the side I agree with and obtuse,
>richie-issimo, and Saab on the other and these guys are
>ALL due a great deal of respect. So, perhaps I should let it
>go, but what fun would that be, so I'll try it from a slightly
>different perspective.
i'm not on the other side.
we agree - let a fitter fit, assuming you trust him and all that.
but muzzle him once he tries to also design your frame unless
he makes them too atmo. fit and frame design are separate issues
atmo and i thought that was catulle's point.

from yet another cool thread about the line between inspiration and swiping.
it lives here.

>Beauty, Truth, Goodness, Love, etc........
>Originality? The question still stands; how would you define the
>quality of "original", and is "original" even possible?
unless i'm mistaking all the big words here, as far as the recent
unpleasantness goes, there is a certain "originalness" that is a
pegoretti, despite the fact that he, too, is the sum total of his
experiences, muses, and inspirations. atmo, a peg is undeniably
a peg because i (read: all of us) know (or think we know) what
some of those experiences, muses, and inspirations of his are.
but at the end of the day, dario pegoretti is the one creating the
assemblage, and 3 decades of doing the assembling, i believe,
allows for him to be considered an original even though, like
others, he once looked around.

and ps that is about the worst constructed stream of consciousness
i can imagine streaming, but it makessense to me atmo...
>Yes, but when an idea is truly original, it has value and is treated like
>property. And people don't normally share their valuable property
>with others. We don’t usually give away our bikes, houses, land, or
>original ideas.
i'm using RPS's post to dovetail my thoughts on all this, because it is
very sensitive and extemely personal.

okay. here are my 2 cents...
atmo dario is one of the few originals, despite the fact that - as has
been noted - we're all the sum of our experiences. in the bicycle
industry, going back at least to the early 70s, dario is a one-hander;
the number of folks that have made the impact on the trade that dario
has can be counted on one hand. atmo, dario has earned his stripes.
here's a text i emailed dario last year in the midst of the tubing project
we were collaborating on. note: i had met dario several years prior
when he came to visit chester. whoa. so, there already was some
history between us before the project began. but in the middle of it
i pinched myself because i realized that i was working with an icon.
i wrote this:

hey dario-issimo...
i just wanted to add a note of thanks to all these emails, and the
phone calls too. the thought of us being "pals"fills me with good feelings.
i first heard your name in the early 90s. i believe it was either from
storino or tim maloney (maloney is an old, old pal of mine from new
jersey). regardless, whoever of the two mentioned your name informed
me that in italy, which was then still the bastion of all great framebuilding
ideas, this man "dario" was the next in line to all the famous tailors who
made the great bicycles through the eras.
since i consider myself an armchair student of these "great men", i
watched throughout the decade and into this century as you have
proven true what my pal (which one, i forget!) predicted would happen.
i watched all the frames that georgio imported, first as giordanas,
and later as pegorettis, and knew that mister dario truly is the best
of all builders.
i often wish i had other skills and more of a curiousity about what is
there in addition to steel. i believe it takes a craftsman with no self-
imposed bounderies to really know what the limits are. i have stayed
safely within the cocoon of steel, and you have tried and succeeded
with so many other material combinations.
as you know from some of our exchanges and the posts i make online,
i am not too impressed from within our industry; i haven't had much
inspiration come from bicycles since the 70s, despite still trying to forge
ahead. but you, dario, are one of the true geniuses of the craft, and i
admire you like you cannot believe. it is my pleasure to call you a friend,
and an honor to be making some of these decisions with you regarding
the future of quality steel tubing.
i want to thank you for all your dedication, for being the oneat the
vanguard, and for being the leader of an industry that should always
have italian roots. the bicycle is a beautiful object, and often the
americans can complicate its beauty. it's because of geniuses like
you that the beauty remains.
as we say here, "you are the man!"ciao, bro'.
e-RICHIE©™®

i s'pose my only point in posting this is to support any notions
that dario's body of work stands on its own, despite the jazz, and
the clapton, and the basquiet, and all the other influences some
of you see in it. he has taken all of his racing, and his art, and his
life experiences, and created something from scratch. that should
be respected atmo.
>let me reiterate what i pm-ed to s------- and he pasted in a recent post:
>thanks - before 78, mr masi accused derosa of copying him (nervex ref. 32
>lugs, fisher fork parts, etc...) and before masi, i guarantee you that someone
>accused him similarly. the public has to look past, WAY PAST, the part where
>all of us use a finite supply of similar looking parts and materials in order to
>make what looks (from 10 paces, at least) like a frame. to me, as a builder,
>it's like accusing guitar makers of all copying one another since they all use
>wood. i know you feel me on this!
you wanna know who's copying, or stealing, or rearranging, or
co-opting? well don't look nowand opine. that's shallow imo. wait
a generation, or mebbe 30 years atmo. it kinda sorta takes awhile to
distill it all. in the meanwhile, if you're basing your thoughts on a color
scheme, or a lug window, or a font, that is incredibly superficial atmo.
>actually, I was thinking of comments that you've made about that whole
>issue -- that on one hand, you've chosen to go one-man, one-shop, because
>its the choice that was right and fulfilling for you, but that you didn't think
>any less of the italian masters -- like colnago or pinarello -- who decided on
>the other route. I hope I'm not remembering and re-stating way out of context.
>we've been here before, but heck, let's go there again...better to be a design
>house that outsources, or to be the artist-craftsman flying solo? we have
>both on the board...hampsten and >pacenti in one camp, sachs and kirk in
>another. discuss....
discuss?
that's too civil.
hey only kidding.
as far as all this goes, i'm solo because i don't want the shackles
that come with the alternative. as far as framebuilding goes, it
depends on the definition of the term. ever since the mtb era, bicycles
in general have been such a well manufactured consumer good. the mtb
makers and market really upped the bar wrt what comes on a decent,
price-point type bicycle. heck, the stepchild to all this is that the role
that builders once filled is/was replaced by the so-called factory bike
with ultegra, or somesuch creature. don't laugh; it was once unthinkable
that you could race on a store-bought bicycle. and man has that changed.
framebuilders didn't/don't exist for the hard-to-fit crowd (although they
are served, too),they were/are laboratories where the timeclock is not
the issue, nor is the price. most of the builders i know and admire are
the ones that simply want to keep the bar high, rather than the price
low, or the volume growing. blah blah i gotta go ride soon.

so to concise-a-lize all this, in the 21st century a builder that wants to
forge ahead either has to have a good base to trade on,or else better
glom on to the entrepeneurial train asap atmo. it'd be real tough to make
it as a loner if you're starting now.

from a cool thread about the line between inspiration and swiping.
it's all here.

>And yes, it matters to me, there is a line that shouldn't be
>crossed,but it gets fuzzy until you cross it. There is a "club" and
>a "heart" inatmo's fork, but nobody thinks it's ripping off Colnago
>or DeRosa.The windows in atmo's frames are very masi-esque.
>But a Sachs is a Sachs.
re the boldface -
well that's not kinda sorta what is going on here.
in the 50s and 60s, nervex had a workbook that hadscores of models
and combos, as well as a long listof stock cutouts. many, many
bicycle companies tappedin to these and other combos. any CR
devotee can tell you that masi, paletti, patelli, serena, tomasinni,
derosa, gartner select (austria), nagasawa, me, and any number
of builders all used the same parts. just sayin' atmo.
>As usual, you make my point more clearly than I do.
>Certain "traits" get associated with certain people, and
>those ideas or details get forever tied to one guys image.
>Even when lots of other people did the same thing at the
>same time, and it goes unrecognized or under appreciated.
and you can attribute the mental imprint to the 70s bike boom.
it's been discussed on the vintage list (but few there get it) that
italy had dozens, if not scores of high end builders that could have
filled roland salm's mission statement, but only one caved.

from a thread about fitting entitled
"framebuilder IQ: 30 years in about 3 minutes"
the thread lives here.

>...in the end, isn't that what we're really buying, their lifetime of knowledge?
yes - you are getting their next frame, not their last one atmo.
>english subtitle, please.
i guess it means that one is only as good as their next effort and
should not rely on the past. as amatter of fact, the next one should
redeem all the prior mistakes, if you will. and so it goes. to your
point though - it does take a body of work to get to a place in all
this that one recognizes that whatworked then must be tweaked
to remain relevant now.in a way, that is why the thread about
gothard's rs framewent off course. remember that one?
>a question: when you're fitting someone/looking at them on their
bike, do you talk about what you see or just silently file away the details
you notice?
i talk if asked, but i never articulate it well.i feel it. it's like alvy and
annie discussing b/w photography in annie hall atmo: "hey listen to me
i sound like fm radio."
it's difficult to put it all into fitspeak because it has become a language
in and of itself. have fun - i'm on call at the local tap room atmo.
back at 1am...