RE: [CR]My 1972 Cinelli

(Example: Framebuilding)

Subject: RE: [CR]My 1972 Cinelli
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 15:28:58 -0800
In-Reply-To: <70e14d4c0612171405i3c3e0ed1w6d4450d04d2b63e@mail.gmail.com>
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Thread-Topic: [CR]My 1972 Cinelli
Thread-Index: AcciJ4Gg9na4449rQXW5ZOfOzkwQLgACoAaw
From: "Mark Bulgier" <Mark@bulgier.net>
To: "Angel Garcia" <veronaman@gmail.com>, "CLASSIC RENDEZVOUS" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>


Angel Garcia wrote:
> http://www.wooljersey.com/gallery/veronaman/
>
> Out of curiosity I'd like some of the framebuilders to
> comment on the lugwork. Not being an expert in what
> represents the best in workmanship, the front ones seem much
> better finished while the seatlug seems to float a lot higher
> on the top tube.

Wonderful bike, very interesting, thanks for sharing.

You're right, the seat lug is very thick, not sure why. I have a couple sets of these lugs in the variant they sold to other framebuilders; all three lugs are thin, made from sheet metal that is wrapped around and welded. But the Cinelli seat lugs that I have used have normal seatpost binder "ears", different from the idiosyncratic way Cinelli did it on their own frames. Maybe the Cinelli-Cinelli seat lug was a casting?

I'm sure someone who has handled these with the paint off can tell us if the seat lug was cast. (You refinishers among us chime in here)

I think I remember hearing that the Brugelmann's model was lighter-weight than a standard Cinelli of the day. Not just the drilled BB shell, but lighter tubing as well? Anyone know?

Mark Bulgier
Seattle WA USA