mario confente/masi california is not responsible... that he/they/it had anything to do with the birth of the investment cast era, (my choice of words-birth of...), is irrelevent, and perhaps untrue. no one party is 'responsible', unless you want to 'blame' the industry. it seemed as if overnite, every major frame producer lined up at the doorstep of microfusione italiana with a blueprint and a check for $5000 or something similar. you must realize that the effect of this was not felt by the artisan framebuilder until perhaps 5-8 years later. this is how long it took between the time major frame producers began using cast parts compared to smaller shops. ('cannot define smaller shops, i know one when i see one!). the smaller guys did not have parts made, they bought them from framebuilding parts distributors, a 'link in a chain' which previously didn't exist. you cannot compare the economics of how one has parts cast today with how it was done then. briefly, the costs have skyrocketed downwards. the level of precision casting has grown exponentially. (there. i've done it-i've used 'exponentially' in a sentence. yeah, baby!) initially EVERYTHING was done in italy. then it was done in japan. now it's done it taiwan... what was the question? e-RICHIE
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001 15:28:02 -0800 "stevens" <stevens@veloworks.com>
writes:
>
>
>
>
> So Mario Confente/Masi California is responsible for the downfall
> of the classic lightweight ... right?
>
>
>
>
> >--- Original Message ---
> >From: Richard M Sachs <richardsachs@juno.com>
> >To: stevens@veloworks.com
> >Date: 3/23/01 3:27:48 PM
> >
>
> >the easy answer to steven's query is 'yes'. anybody
> >can do anything to any lug and affect a change in its
> >appearance. my points had nothing to do with aesthetics,
> >'ceptin that ornate cast lugs are the work of the foundry,
> >not the framebuilder...
> >i had failed to make the additional point that the (metal
> >used to make a) cast lug is less equal to the tubing it holds
> >than the type which preceeded it. the quality of a lugged joint
> >comes from the skill of the brazer and the precision of the
> miters,
> >not from what type of material the lug is fabricated from.
> >yes, the cast steel is stronger than the (older) pressed steel.
> >but once the joint is brazed, i feel its integrity is enhanced
> by
> >the pressed steel lug type. similarly, i feel it's integrity
> is NOT
> >ENHANCED by using lugs of cast steel. (i don't want to say it's
> >less enhanced, or weaker, or poorer...).
> >what one does to change a lugs' ornamental details is a seperate
> >issue that does not apply here. however, the original post was
> about
> >vintage/classic...and i feel once the industry embraced pre-fabbed
> >material, (read: cast parts...), it was the end of that era
> doland asked
> >about.
> >e-RICHIE
> >
> >On Fri, 23 Mar 2001 14:11:59 -0800 "stevens"
> <stevens@veloworks.com>
> >writes:
> > But can't an investment cast lugset still be filed and
> indiviualized
> >just as a stamped lugset would be? Couldn't a builder design
> >a blank lugset and have it cast (which is supposed to make for
> >a stronger lugset as well, no?) and then file each individual
> >blank the same way he might file a stamped lugset?