BFisher

I don't know the answers to the questions/issues that Gregory's study presents, and won't pretend to. I wish him luck, though, as he forms this into what he wants it to be, and makes discoveries that bring him the results he seeks. Personally, I have no desire to pursue a custom built frame, and am glad that bicycles are simple enough machines that I can make them work so well with basic skills and a few hand tools. Plenty have already been made that serve their purposes wonderfully, many of which never even got ridden. My motivation is less about the artistry and more about the ride, but I'm just one dude.

As far as the vitriol, well, that's been the slide on this forum for a while now. The regulars (you know who you are) are by and large a great group of people. There have been, however, several who seem hell bent on arguments, negativity, and dragging things down to what is often experienced in the general forum, where mods seem to have to constantly babysit, and threads get locked all the time. I doubt I'm the only one who sees this. It is real, and it is sad.

Kilroy1988 

I think it is. I've got a thick skin, though - part of my real-life responsibilities in land conservation include attending public meetings in an advisory capacity regarding the implementation of California's first statewide regulations for groundwater pumping. Some of the outrageous statements that can trigger literal yelling matches among respected local residents and agency representatives in front of crowds of onlookers at those meetings would be enough to shut down any thread around here in a heartbeat. I think it's a reflection of the state of society today as much as anything else!

-Gregory

Trakhak

From as much of the foregoing as I could stand to read, I got this.

KilroyXXX stipulates that few of the classic steel bike frame companies such as Cinelli, Pogliaghi, etc., are still building such bikes.

Kilroy's hypothesis: the reason for that drop-off in classic steel frame production numbers is as follows:

I. Over recent decades, bike enthusiasts have sought out and bought the original steel frames from the vintage years as they came on the market.

II. Over the same recent decades, the same bike enthusiasts have not bought new steel frames from those same classic companies.

Ergo, (Kilroy reasons), the classic steel frame builders would still be churning them out in substantial numbers if it were not for the shortsightedness of classic bike enthusiasts.

In short, the '57 Chevy Belair argument, sort of.

My take:

Steel frames effectively disappeared from the market because, for better or worse, companies sponsoring pro bike racers moved on to marketing aluminum frames and then carbon frames.

The marque European steel bike builders went with the flow. Racers in the US bought those new frames, and so did non-racer bike enthusiasts, or at least some of them. Those who didn't stuck with their steel frames and/or began buying up older steel frames, believing them to be superior to the new stuff.

From what I gather from working in bike shops and reading cycling magazines during those decades, the infatuation with steel frames was primarily a U.S. phenomenon.

Most of those who became bike enthusiasts here during and after the bike boom years of the mid-1970s hadn't done much riding since they were kids. (When I got my first racing license, in 1964, there were about 1,500 licensed racers in the U.S. in total. Other than the few of us who were racing, you almost never saw an adult riding a bike during the 1960s.)

So those bike-boom-era newcomers to cycling fell in love with their steel bikes, reasonably enough. Hence the resistance to aluminum and carbon. The merits of those new materials are obviously debatable, like the merits of vinyl versus CDs, but the U.S. market clearly spoke, in both cases.

Contrast that with Europe, where the majority grew up riding bikes and continued doing so into adulthood. There seems to have been much less resistance to the idea of switching to aluminum and carbon frames there.

Even now, the one European builder of touring bikes I'm most familiar with (Koga-Miyata) uses aluminum frames and carbon or aluminum forks for almost their entire line of tourers.

Yes, steel has nostalgic appeal in Europe (and Japan), as it does in the U.S. But Europeans were and are also pragmatic enough to go for aluminum and carbon without much fuss.

Here's a book that Kilroy might want to buy. Or anyone following this thread who hasn't already read it, really. The meat of the book consists of interviews conducted during visits to a good number of Italian, French, English, and American frame companies, collected in the mid-to-late 1970s. It's a treasure trove of information.

Kilroy1988 

Thanks for your time and insights, sir. For the most part I think you've correctly understood my assessment, except that I agree with you regarding the actual major cause of the decline in quality steel frame production was the marketing of technologies such as aluminum alloy and carbon fiber frames.

My concern is with the present state of things, which is slightly different. Steel frames being produced by the historic firms are not being advertised to serve riders instead of carbon fiber, aluminum or titanium, but are marketed to fill a holdout niche of enthusiasts who still admire the qualities of steel frames. The argument is that due to the plethora of desirable and serviceable used steel frames that are also of interest to the same niche community (i.e. all of us around here), this may be a difficult tradition to maintain from an economic and cultural perspective.

And, by the way, I may be wrong. But the point of the study will be to find out the answer either way. I am not beholden to my hypothesis but I have to start with some kind of proposal based on basic observations that I can make at the start of the inquiry.

Thank you for linking "The Custom Bicycle." I am sure it will be essential reading before I delve too deeply into this project.

-Gregory

chain_whipped

Light your blow torch and rewind to producing 'custom' steel fine racing lightweights. What exactly is the continuity of tradition? Learning to use various hand tools or learning to use a more productive widget machine? There is no right, nor is there wrong. Man evolves, becomes bigger, fatter, and smarter. Who's the god to determine custom bike frame tradition?

Kilroy1988 

​​​​​​You're right, there is no right and wrong, but there is perspective and respect for particular forms of a tradition and the associated heritage. No matter how good I get at building frames, I can never build myself a Mercian, a Cinelli or a Pegoretti. The people associated with the craft define the heritage and the tradition that I am framing for the case study being made. Not the general craft of frame building.

-Gregory

chain_whipped

Paul Brodie would be another great source for the OP. Example is to see him custom produce or replicate from the past. And of course through his years has the tools and means from old to contemporary used in accomplishing the end result. (Side note: What a hoot too, as rather than buy a pneumatic hand held mini belt sander, he'll make his own.... and into a beautiful artistic tool.)

chain_whipped

I see tradition as one carry from a past. When you open the request and yet narrow to a custom bike frame makers, are you seeking to know their technique? Pick any era, the makers had their own ways about getting to the end result. Much of course, tried and proven successful means yet some stay comfortable within their old worn method and other custom makers step out of that and find a more efficient way.

Example, during the infancy of the modern mountain bike Joe Breeze made some dandy few but Tom Ritchey could whip up custom fillet braze frames 50:1 ratio.

The only thing I get out of this is maybe the 'soul' some custom frame maker is best putting their hallmark on it. There's no tradition unless that very singular builder stays with their exact method and then that is exactly transferred onto the next maker.

As mentioned earlier, the Renzo Formigli talks of his time with Cino Cinelli and proclaims to carry that soul of producing a bike. Nothing to do with technique. It's all what you might want to believe and in the end, our nature to appreciate and enjoy. His gesture to personally make a bike and send to Serrotta apparently transferred the meaning of soul.

daka

I think that the word that's being lost in some of the responses to Gregory's query is "intangible". To me, that directs us away from the bicycle itself towards the cultural phenomena that happened around it. The English club bike scene in the wake of WW2 for example. The fabrication techniques given the materials of the time like pinning and hearth brazing. The racing legends of Western Europe - all of this and more is to me the "intangible cultural heritage".
As to how to capture that for posterity, that is something for Gregory to work on in his thesis........

Kilroy1988 

daka Thanks for your discerning response. It's about the bicycle frames... And it's not. The real subject of the study is the people behind the machines, from the business owners to the fabricators to the riders, and the intangible values that are associated by that recognized community with the tradition of classic frame building. It is this intangible cultural heritage which the study will attempt to evaluate the past, present and possibly the future status of. Almost all recognized forms of ICH must undergo rigorous assessments regarding their historical and contemporary status in order to understand what forms of safeguarding (whether those are internal and natural functions of the tradition or external support offered to maintain the tradition) are practical for sustaining the traditions. This study will essentially be akin to one of those "risk assessments" commonly conducted by ICH professionals.

-Gregory

79pmooney

No opinion here but here is what I do: (In order of my aquiring.)

1979 Peter Mooney custom built for me - the bike was built with a specific goal: to be a link to sanity in the years after my head injury. Bike was spec'd to be able to do basically everything but race. It has toured, done hundreds of day rides, gravel, rain ... (Requirement - to be able to ride 12 months of the year in the lower 48 states. So it has clearances to fun fat 27" tires in case I was living in Maine which looked like a real possibility while it was being built.)

Now? A new, snazzy paint job. A triple chainring, triple drivetrain fix gear that can go into the mountains ridden by a soon to be 70 yo. Yes, old-school. Stop and pull out the wrench. Flip the wheel of high gear. Tubulars are back on it. (GP4s and VItt G+ currently - the ride! Hooray!) As it stands, it is one of the most elegant road fix gears in the old English tradition that you will ever see. (No, I don't think any Brit ever went to my triple chainring but if they rode with me in the mountains, they might consider it.)

Bike sports two custom steel parts - a TiCycles stem (155mm) and a Nitto lugged seatpost. Brakes are cheap and work very well. Shimano cantis lifted off a Miyata 610 with Tektro V-brake levers. Wonderful for high speed mountain descents! And my hands love those hoods.

So the Mooney (Pete - edit: I typoed/misspelled my bike's name! - not Peter like the builder, my brother or uncle, just Pete) is in a configuration Peter Mooney never dreamed of but pretty sure he'd approve.

1983 Trek 4something - picked up as frame #5 for my ongoing workhorse fix gear that started as a beat up Peugeot UO-8 in 1976. The parts were just lifted off my crashed Miyata 610 (the Mooney brake donor) and tossed on. All decals were removed before I saw it. Just the head badge remained. It has served me well, but it had a construction flaw. Around year 5 I saw the crack running through the R of "TREK" on the chainstay. Called TiCycles. Dave Levy had never seen the frame but knew exactly what was happening and quoted a price over the phone. Told me he'd do both sides; that there was cracking on the other side as well! (Yup, He was right!) So the Trek got repaired and powder coat. No decals. Not nearly as egregious as Raleigh's oversight. But still, a half grand spent to compensate for poor manufacturing decisions.

Bike is a decent looking workhorse. Another 100-74 BCD crank, a blue (Haro?) 1/8" 44 tooth chainring. Sky blue powder coat. Fun coincidence - blue 3M reflecting tape is almost exactly the same color. Bike wears a full roll of tape and it barely shows except at night. White fenders, LowRoder, custom steel stem, a less than snazzy Chorus aero post, same mixed brakes as the Competition.

1973 Raleigh Competition - This bike missed QC entirely. The lugs were missing most or all of their braze. Lugs were instead filled with paint. I had no clue. First ride - fun on the roughest stuff on the road! I started seeking out potholes. Took it onto the gravel. Well, the local rides here have very steep descents into harsh washboard at the bottom. No way to hit the washboard slow. Frame stressing stuff. And this bike was fun on it! But I saw the gap under the DT shift clamp stop and wondered what else might have been poorly done. I've lived through one big frame failure already. So I took it to the guy who'd built me two bikes and asked him to have it stripped and inspect it. When it came back, he told me that paint had vbeen holding it together, that the lugs took braze like a new build.

OK, Raleigh. I have zero allegiance to your name. So it got powder coat, no decals. Built up early '80s 110-74 BCD triple, SunTour derailleurs, workhorse Mafac Racer front, Weinmann centerpull rear, Tektro levers, a nice Pearl stem!, SR 100 something MTB post (that super adjustable setback deal), Phil hubs, 7-speed FW, rear rack and lowrider. Farmer's market, limited gravel, rain, snow ... The cost to make the bike safe to ride, most of a grand. Raleigh deserves no advertising on this bike.

1983 Pro Miyata - picked up last summer. It had been left outside so a lot of rust. To make it a gem would cost big bucks, but at its heart., it is one of the best race bikes of its day; very close to the best of the best of small diameter steel. Completely dialed in and it fits! With my usual enormous stem, like a dream. Rides like a dream.

This bike should be Superbe. The derailleurs came with it but too rusty to use without more work. But I have Cyclones, calipers and derailleurs. Perfect fit and plenty close enough heart-wise. Stem is another 155 but! I landed a Pearl 14. Those Pearls are measured like threadless stems. A 14 is 155! And it looks completely like it belongs. Class-wise? That frame's never going to complain about being burdened with a Pearl!

Wheels will be GP4 with 23c Vitt G+ if I can find them and "race wheels" of GL330s and Veloflex 23c. (Like I said, frame is pure 1983 race. 24c max. 25s don't even turn.) I will make some small sacrileges on the wheels. Rear hub may well be a generic Taiwan 7-speed FW. It seems they pretty much figured out how to minimize axle breakage and there are quite a few out there with low miles as they got supplanted by cassettes very quickly. I have a bunch of nice LF front hubs so I'll just pick one that matches the rear in appearance.

Paint came to me as a mess. (No surprise; seller's photos were excellent and plentiful) I am prettying it up and protecting the frame from further damage/rust with fingernail polish but it will never look great until I am ready to spend the next grand. It is metal flake paint. So is the fingernail polish but I know from my years of boatbuilding - you cannot do a metal flake paint repair that doesn't look very, very obvious in bright sunlight unless you enlist all the gods to pull all their tricks. (The new paint flakes will almost certainly lie as at a different angle. One cockeyed mirror in a bank of aligned mirrors will be as obvious as an elephant in a herd of sheep.) So, it will never be a looker. But I will treat it as the worthy race bike it is.

So vintage and classic? My fleet is a very mixed bag. Bur ridable? Yes! And they get ridden. In descending order: the Mooney - 50k, the Trek - 22k, the Competition - 4k and the Miyate - just a few hundred so far but its gonna get a lot more!

Trakhak

A friend of mine had a Weimaraner that had a beloved tennis ball. It began as a "Fetch!" object but eventually was tooth-worn to the point where it became a single shred of fabric---but the dog still carried it around carefully.

I still have my first-edition copy of The Custom Bicycle---all seven pieces of it.

Senrab62 

I used to try to do "period appropriate" or "period correct" but anymore, I think I am going to do whatever I want.

I can appreciate the past, but as a Clyde who is built like a linebacker (a fat retired linebacker, but none the less &#128514, some modern items are just more ergo.

I recently acquired a Paramount track frame, and had a vendor criticize, then ghost me when I told him I planned to get PC instead of wet paint! I can see having a differing opinion, but unless someone is paying for my build I am going to do what I want anymore. If snobs dislike it, they can always make an offer to buy it from me and "do right" by it.

Bike are meant to be ridden. And customization has always been a part of it. Ride what you want, and how you want, as long as you ride it. For me, that's making some concessions to components that make it fit me and my body best. With a nod to the past when possible.