Well, there's some merit on both sides. I think we're missing Steven's main point, which is that first and foremost the bike is a tool, and better function makes a better tool. Steve points out that modern steels should permit building a lighter, stiffer but just as comfortable and durable a frame, but to do so requires using bigger tubes, modern lugs and giving up Nervex and 531. However, I don't think Steve is saying old frames are bad or useless, but on an empirical level, in his eyes, aren't quite as "good". So if one want's the ultimate frame, one must first use the best materials that have the highest level of function.
Focusing in a different direction, Brian is pointing out that there is art and merit in the subtle refinements in a Johnson, Moon or (I will add) a Baylis frame, that, beyond the regulation details of geometry, correct materials, mitering and brass penetration, take any frame to another level. Education is needed for the consumer to appreciate, for example, how the builder chose to file the seat stay caps. I know I am woefully ignorant of the details. I have an MKM frame at the painters now, and it's my first fastback frame. I sat there, looking at the stays melting into the seat lug and tube, and sat there wondering "how did they do it?"
Which guy is right, and which guy is wrong? They're both "right" in setting their criteria of what makes a great bike. However, I might point out that there are some basic requirements for bikes before we apply either standard. First, the frame has to have functional geometry, use proper materials and be assembled competently. We've probably all had frames that failed one or the other test, and the resulting bike just isn't worth your time. As a famous outdoor writer wrote, "only accurate rifles are interesting", dismissing a lovely creation of walnut, wood carving and steel engraving that couldn't hit the side of a barn. I had a pretty Trek 720, made shortly after the Issacs cast lugs came into use. But it was a 25.5 frame using 531c tubing, 18 inch stays and a 42.5 inch wheel base. The frame was comfortable, but so whippy you couldn't stand up to climb. Although lovely to look at, and, I presume, assembled competently, it wasn't "interesting".
Steven (I make bold to speak for him) is calling on us to push lugged steel construction to better things, to demand better functioning bike that will help ensure the continuation of a craft we all admire by making steel lugged bikes "state of the art". In fact, Steve points out you can have the latest and greatest tubing with Pacenti or Sachs lugs, and be true to the spirit of the list. This is more important than pretty lugs by themselves for Steve. Brian is focused on admiring and pointing out the subtle details in master built frames, regardless of age, sharing his deep and subtle knowledge and helping us appreciate fine workmanship.
I sit here with fingers bleeding from cable stab wounds to all ten thumbs, trying to do a simple center pull brake set up, and enjoy both view points. Keep on writing.
Tom Adams, Shrewsbury NJ
------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------
Want to check if your PC is virus-infected? Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee.