Re: [CR]Now: Bilaminate construction Was: Ritchey with faux lugs?!?

(Example: Racing:Roger de Vlaeminck)

From: "goodrichbikes" <goodrichbikes@netzero.net>
To: <chuckschmidt@earthlink.net>, <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
References: <OF4E955D44.FD2E8255-ON85256E99.006BFEAC-85256E99.006F8F5A@mail.gm.com> <40ABD3EA.CED53F39@earthlink.net> <000001c43de8$165b3680$9fea6ed1@computer> <40ABE3E4.D1D91D86@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [CR]Now: Bilaminate construction Was: Ritchey with faux lugs?!?
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 13:27:03 -0500


Chuck posted- Yes,
> and back in the day (1940s England), it was a shortcut to mass produce.
> Lugless and lugged.

This might be true but since this whole thing started about a Ritchey that wasn't built in the 40's nor mass produced in any era, I don't see how this is applicable. It seems analogous to saying lugged construction is a tool of mass production because of all of the mass produced PX-10's. Sure some lugged bikes were mass produced while some weren't but lugs aren't what defines this. Same for bilaminate construction. Some bikes were mass produced using this technique but bikes that were made this way aren't mass produced by virtue of bilamination. In the case of the Ritchey, you know the topic bike,fillet brazing a frame with the addition of decorative sleeves (bilamination) involves all of the steps to produce a fillet bike PLUS some of the steps used in lug brazing. How does this lend itself to mass production? It doesn't. If steps like we've seen historically were employed then yes some labor can be saved but still it isn't accurate to label bilamination as a way of mass production. It's a method of construction just like lugs or lugless that has been used for mass production and limited production. Certainly Tom Ritchey who was already building fillet bikes decided to add some additional work to his bikes as a method to produce more. Of course, given my criminal background all of this is suspect.

Curt Goodrich Minneapolis, MN

fillet