Re: [CR]Re: lug question again

(Example: Framebuilders:Pino Morroni)

Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:10:50 -0500
From: Marcus Coles <marcoles@ody.ca>
To: Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Subject: Re: [CR]Re: lug question again
References: <20041130.161047.26252.23694@webmail18.nyc.untd.com>
In-Reply-To: <20041130.161047.26252.23694@webmail18.nyc.untd.com>


richardsachs@juno.com wrote:
>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
>
>
>

I agree that lugs are indeed structure, but this often goes well beyond tubing support at the time of fabrication.

People, especially if only exposed to the cream of the crop, often forget the other side of lugs and what kept them popular for so long. If one looks a many lower end frames and not just bike boom, lugs enabled the masking of many evils including but not limited to non-existent mitres, poor braze penetration and short tubes. It is actually amazing that some even support a rider let alone last for well over quarter of a century in some cases.

It seems to me that at the low end, today's mass production techniques at least offer the promise of more consistency and possibly honesty in the "what you see is what you get" sense.

Marcus Coles
London, Ontario, Canada.