As one of many builders that uses IC and pressed lugs, I don't get what all the fuss is about. I don't find either style lug as more efficient than the other. The exception would be if one was to use an IC lug straight out of the box and build a frame with it. But I don't do that and neither do most of the builders on this list. I think people are misinterpreting the use of one form of lugs as better than the other. There's plenty of examples old bikes that used pressed lugs and very little hand work was employed. These are bikes produced in high numbers and I'm sure all of us can think of a few. To me they don't look so great. Today, there's still plenty of bikes being made with IC lugs where very little hand work is employed and these frames don't look any better. Either choice of lug requires a great deal of hand work to take the frame up to the next level of craftsmanship. I think most of the builders on the list are on that level. They (we) just have our own styles. So my point is that one shouldn't make view which lug that has been used as a benchmark for judging quality or amount of hand work involved.
Curt Goodrich
Minneapolis, MN
thesedays?
> Richard M Sachs wrote:
> >
> > this isn't apples and oranges. at the core of the past two day's
> > threads are issues about 1) modern framebuilding versus frame-
> > building that was modern a looong time ago, 2) the virtues of
> > doing something by hand versus designing it by hand and then
> > having it 'produced', either by assistants or mechanically,
> > 3) whether people still do things the 'old' way with sweat equity
> > and the like...
>
> What would I buy if I was in the market for that special hand-built
> steel bike? Not something with investment castings. I would want it to
> have the most sweat equity possible.
>
> Did I just hear someone say, "But that's not modern framebuilding; it's
> inefficient"? Exactamundo!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> And Richie, if you say one more time "Show Me The Money!" I'm gonna
> hurl, Dude.
>
> Chuck Schmidt
> L.A.
>
> .