Those designed and worked over lugs that you 'kof' people spend hours doing, sure seem like ornamentation well beyond structure. The structure aspect is a given, but I thought you were saying that the quality of attractiveness defines their worth, given today's other joining methods that are also available.
Dennis Young
Hotaka, Japan
>
> lugs are not ornamentation; they are structure. they
> are needed to support the tubes during the joining
> process. er, they once were needed. now, there are
> choices. ergo - CR types would hope that the lugs that
> they view on their beloved bicycles are pretty too,
> not simply tube holders.
> e-RICHIE
> chester, ct
>
>
> -- Dennis Young <mail@woodworkingboy.com> wrote:
> If I might try to paraphrase; given today's building methods, lugs are
> ornamentation. Ornamentation satisfies a need too, and like good
> architecture, it is uplifting to the human spirit. Bad ornamentation is
> worse than no ornamentation, eating dinner out of coffee cans is better than
> off of plastic plates with a big sunflower in the middle.
>
> Fillet brazing is also an 'ornamental' method?
>
> Dennis Young
> Hotaka, Japan
>
>
> BobHoveyGa@aol.com wrote:
> "And I have no problem seeing modern technology in this form come together
> with the fine craftsmanship of a lugged frame, even when the guys at my
> local bike shop roll their eyes and repeat their arguments that lugs are not
> necessary to produce a strong and functional frame. I can't agree with
> that..."
>
>
>> don't you mean that only "some lugs..." give you this feeling
>> rather than "all lugs"? since this is a lug-centric issue, i
>> will add that i think the shop rats are correct. i'd rather
>> have a modern tigged frame done well than a modern frame that
>> had pipes joined with lugs if the builder chose lugs just for
>> the sake of it. we don't need more mediocrity just for nostalgia's
>> sake. i see that as the issue. lugs don't equal (i can't say
>> it here) unless the builder pays attention.
>> e-RICHIE
>> chester, ct
>>
>> -