Don,
I would in fact expect some backlash from a statement such as you mentioned. But you are reading too much into what I said. I didn't say modern framebuilders didn't care about their craft. I said very few modern framebuilders care about building frames "old school". Those are two very different things.
A little advice first, before I go any further. As we have discussed before, it is wise to not make proclaimations about egocentric statements, etc. without meeting me in person and getting a feel for what kind of person I am. Making such a judgement based strictly upon how I write is most likely a mistake. I have found it's best to reserve ones' opinion until you at least talk on the phone. I have experienced this several times since I started using the internet and pretty much every time my previous impressions have changed. All humans have an ego for sure, but in this case, if you really get to know me you will find my contributions are not for the purpose of feeding my ego. My primary purpose is to inform and educate. Much of what people want to know about framebuilding subjects and various historical details are within my experience. It is my responsibility to those who seek honest and direct answers to contribute what I know. The reason is that in the future, when we are all gone, there will still be people interested in facts and details that are no longer available. It is important to gather and collect all the important stuff before the opportunity is lost. The tragic loss of a fountain of early racing history and Schwinn information happened when Dave Staub passed away far too early. Facts should come directly from the source whenever possible. I am not in any way offended by your suggestion that some of my writings are egocentric; I'm sure you are not the first or only person to feel that way. I'm OK with that. I would get worried if someone who actually knows me well said that. In person I'm rather quiet and don't talk much unless the topic is within my expertise.
I don't know what kind of frames you build, but my references are related to "old school" framebuilding. No doubt your heart is in your work and you do care about "OUR" craft. What I'm saying is that those who are taking 40 to 60 or more hours to make custom frames are not doing the same kind of framebuilding as one who is within the norm of 12 to 20 hours per frame. If you are in the business of building frames you quite simply cannot take 60 hours to build a frame. You may be thinking, what could one possibly be doing that would take 60 hours to accomplish when most everyone else can make an excellent frame in 1/4 the time? When was the last time you took a sand cast Fischer BB shell and filed it smooth and paper thin AFTER you added some brass to the junctions of the casting and blended it all in, just for the effect? And all this knowing that the paint will cover everything and 99% of people who see the bike will never know what they are looking at. Fewer still will really appreciate the effort it took to accomplish. Peter Johnson just finished such a project (including doing the same effect on all the lugs as well) and I'm rather sure that no one who is building for a living can afford to make such a frame, regardless of what the customer pays for it. I can also assure you that as a physical effort, one can only do things like this a few times per year. What I'm saying is that this is a different type of framebuilding; just as building recumbents, tig welding aluminium frames, or building Alex Moulton-type space frames are all framebuilding; but each is quite different and involves various amounts of work. Right now the "standard" for a basic road bike is tig welding whatever material you choose. That's fine. But it's not the same as what I described earlier. Nor is building a standard lugged steel frame with plug in dropouts and stay caps and untouched or barely touched IC lugs, etc. It requires the same skills as a framebuilder either way up until there is some real hand labor involved. I'm not saying the frames are neccessarily "better", I'm saying they are deffinitely more work. I'm requesting that people recognize and respect that and take note of the difference. That's all. If you want to understand my point better perhaps a shot at an "old school" frame, going all the way, will illistrate my point. I haven't seen your work or know what you do; it may be that you already know what I'm saying. The few who produce alarmingly small numbers of labor intensive frames (and nothing but that) are rare. All of these people make their money from other sources. The frames are for the point of espressing their talents and presumeably that satifies a need within them. I certainly don't know everyone who does this, but I REALLY want to see and hear from those who do. One can use IC lugs and still file the heck out of them as Richard Moon or myself will do when the project calls for it. The work ends up being the same. If you leave the parts as cast the labor disappears. Then it's just assembly and brazing for the most part.
If we were furniture builders I think there would not be an issue and a certain "phobia" against artistic frames would not exist. A table or a couch is a "tool" also, in that it's primary function and purpose is to sit on or lay your crap on. (I suppose most people eat from the table, for me tables are for laying crap on). It does not neccessarily have to look beautiful to function in your home. But most people would rather present something that is pleasing to look at and is harmouious with it's surroundings, sometimes even if it ISN'T comfortable to sit on. We accept the fine furniture builder/designer as an artist and craftsman, yet some have trouble when it comes to their bike. I don't think too many people with ratty crappy couches would be willing to show up at a couch convention and be proud of a piece of crap. Some people feel the same way about their bikes. Most of us have to operate within a certain budget for a bike and we have different taste in couches; but to not recognize the efforts and accomlishments of those who put in extra time, for a lot less money per hour than you make, is all I'm trying to prevent. In this day and age of bikes as they are, it's important to know that framebuilding was a different scene 30 years ago and beyond. Some like to work in that style. I prefer it to building in what I would call the "modern" style.
BTW, I do read the framebuilders list and I do pay attention. No one ever asks about old school framebuilding there. And why should they? Old school framebuilding is a money looser. I would not reccommend it as an approach to framebuilding if you need to make money doing it. Old school is for those who simply don't want the beauty of classic frames to die, which it will eventually. In the meantime, let's not fight about what's this or that. Just make the distinction so that the two maintain seperate identities. I don't have any problem with people who build recumbents or whatever; don't hate me on account of the fact that I like the abuse of old school framebuilding.
Call me on the phone so we can get to know each other a little better. I'm sure we have lots in common. I certainly don't mean to offend or alienate you. That goes for anyone who wants to know if I'm full of crap or not. I may be, ya never know from the internet.
Brian Baylis
La Mesa, CA
(619)463-8611
Brian, while I admire your dedication to "OUR" craft, your comments seem very egocentric and frankly, I agree with Mr. Goodrich: if you continue with the line that only you and a few select others care about building fine bicycles, of any form, you have to expect some backlash.
Personally, I don't discriminate against any form of building style or joining method. Why should I? I fully understand that each method requires its own commitment, dedication, and craftsmanship to reach the pinnacle of their application. They may be as different as Cubism is from Ashcan, but each has its own merit, followers, and those who see it and appreciate it as art. If you truly believe that those on the "framebuilders" list and most "modern" builders have no interest in perfecting their craft, old school or no, then you simply haven't been paying attention either through oversight or intent. I know many younger builders who work daily at achieving perfection in "old school" lugged frames.
Cheers! Don Ferris Littleton, Colorado
-----Original Message----- From: classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org [mailto:classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org] On Behalf Of Brian Baylis Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 10:09 AM To: OROBOYZ@aol.com Cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Subject: Re: [CR]Re: Changing the definitions of being on-topic
Dale and all.
Obviously most want to keep the "Keepers". I can live with that also. As Raoul mentioned to me, don't make the proclaimation so quickly. I soon realized that the type of discussions that take place on the framebuilders list are quite different than the ones we have related to frames on the CR list. The primary difference is that the framebuilders list is mainly technical stuff. Very few if any are seeking information on the artistic aspects of the bike frame. This perspective is most approiate on this list, since the concepts related to artistic framebuilding were born amongst the bikes and frames we are interested in here. Ironically most "modern" framebuilders have no interest in doing frames "old school" with very few exceptions.
Brian Baylis
La Mesa, CA