Chombi1 

Actually, I think lugless construction felt like a step backwards when more and more bike manufacturers started featuring such in the framesets (I suspect, to mainly keep costs down), in lieu of lugged construction in the later 80's, especially after being conditioned for many years that "quality" frames are supposed to have lugs......

Schlafen

Like the cool kids say these days 'quality shlt'.

mstateglfr 

80s bikes are definitely made for slappibg modern components on. 126 or 130mm rear, bsa bb shell, and either a quill stem or innicycle headset will get the job done well. A 00s frame only has a threadless headset as the big difference. Sometimes OS tubing too, but not always.

As for easily getting under 15# on a modern steel road bike if you are a weight weenie...not sure how easy that is. I guess it's perspective on cost whether something is or isn't easy. If you have a steel frame you likely aren't a weight weenie to begin with though.
Under 15# can obviously be accomplished, but it's hardly common even for those trying to cut grams so not sure how easy it is in practice.

mstateglfr 

In c&v land, the pinnacle is a road geometry frame with quality tubing and room to fit 32s. Perfect.

jamesdak 

Yeah, I'm saying not that easy either. Heck, even the Cannondale CAAD8 Optimo I went pretty weight weenie on is still 15 lbs 14 ozs and that frame isn't even the heavier steel.

TugaDude

Props to Wildwood for starting this thread! It has been a great read. And some of the examples are absolutely stunning. Thanks also to those who took the time to show their beauties.

seypat

Those 15lbs and under bikes could have rider weight limits as well. Low spoke count wheelsets might not be for everyone either. I'm a lot closer to Chris Hoy than Chris Froome. I don't want something that could break if ridden hard.

smd4

I think you have those numerals transposed. You really mean 23s.

Charles Wahl

While I much prefer lugged bike frames myself, as an art form, lugless frames (welded or fillet-brazed) are clearly in evidence since the '50s, by many reputable constructors, maybe even throughout triangle frame history. Whether because of component shortages, or just maker or buyer preference, or to save a little coin, it isn't some latter-day phenomenon, or limited to some geographic pocket either. An artisanal constructor like R.O. Harrison, who fabricated his own lugs (usually uniquely profiled) out of sheet metal, built quite a few lugless bikes too.

Chombi1 

Thing that bugged me though was, lugless construction pretty much took over the industry and relegated frame lugs on steel bikes to history. Unless you buy asome sort of "retro special" so now you are paying extra for something that was pretty much standard to bikes from the cheapest to the best one you can get, before the 90's....
Sure, filet brazed construction was impressive when artisans did it with thoughtful care to the build up of very smooth radiuses at the joints, but most of lugless construction available to the cycling public was the slam- bang weld it together and sell it quick variety.

mstateglfr 

Nope- road geometry, quality tubing, room to fit 32s= perfect.

Charles Wahl

The "worm weld" is indeed a telling symbol that no traditional value in the art of making bikes is sacred -- I don't think I've ever seen praise for them as evidence of a constructor's prowess. So agreed -- that's a definite milestone on the road to hell.

Jeff Wills

OT... an interesting intrusion by autocorrect, I'd say.

IMO: Lugged construction was the boon and bane of bicycle frame construction into the '80's. It made for cheap, light frames, but restricted frame design to relatively fixed geometry. For instance, large-scale production of larger frame sizes was compromised by the lack of lugs with the proper angles to accommodate the necessary long top tubes. You'd see 62cm seat tube frames with 58cm top tubes...and tall guys riding in weird positions.

When mountain bikes gained popularity in the '80's, frame designs evolved quickly. A year-to-year frame design change is easy to deal with if your frames are welded, much harder to do if they are lugged.

squirtdad

Miyata team

Reynolds 531 

All of the road bike stuff, or even MTB stuff for that matter is very derivative of something before it. Lugged bikes even moreso.

This was a revolution in bicycling, whether we like it or not.






The geometry has been copied so many times, as well as the revolutionary design of the assemblies, and method of assembly, the 1975 Redline can be considered the pinnacle of bicycle frame design.

AdventureManCO 

Disagree. I think many unicrown forks are smooth, have nice flowing lines, and are a great example of form following function, of which there is an inherent simplistic beauty in. They are probably stronger than most lugged forks as well.

Some of the old quill stems looks good, some are hideous. Most are pretty heavy. Threadless stems are a superior design. Can't remember the last time I had to loosen a frozen threadless stem, or worry about the bottom part of a threadless stem breaking off and losing control of the bike. Can't remember any posts warning against having too little amount of a threadless stem inserted on the steerer.

All of this is probably just a confession. I'm the guy that took a Centurion ironman and put a longer fork on it specifically so I could use a threadless headset and stem on it lol. AND the fork is a unicrown.

Schlafen

I assume most people hate on steel unicrown forks mostly, definitely a function over form design.

There are also aluminium unicrown/aero'ish forks which resemble carbon forks, they look alright in my opinion.

jamesdak 

I've got to admit that as beautiful as all the lugwork is on my Kirk Terraplane I'd consider the fork the least appealing part of the bike.


The fork matches the bike for sure but is boring compared to the rest of the lugwork

You know this may be a "pinnacle" bike too with those quite effective terraplane seat stays.

embankmentlb

The only exception to the ugly uni-crown fork is the Aero fork on a 3rensho. There is probably a proper name for the style? A beautiful thing!

KonAaron Snake 

I can look past it. The rest is beautiful...Love his stuff.

seypat

Why? It's all about contrast. The least appealing area of that bike(to me) is where the seatpost comes out of the seat lug. The reason for that is there's no chrome break at that junction. If you look at the stem/head tube/headset, there's a small area at each end that breaks up the chrome.(even if it's just a shadow) Beautiful bike though. Smoking hot color.

Reynolds 531 

Well I always draw a line with Sharpie pen at my seat post junction for future reference, so I suppose that would be a good habit for this guy too.

Kilroy1988 

My dark passion has been for French randonneuse bicycles for several years, while all the time I've been collecting, restoring and riding mostly vintage English steel... Based on everything I've read and all of the hundreds upon hundreds of bicycles I've admired in photographs and caught rare glimpses of in person, quite some time ago I came to the conclusion that as far as steel frame designs and accompanying components are concerned, a classic randonneuring frame is probably the best bicycle for the kind of middle-to-long distance amateur countryside riding that I enjoy most. The purposeful nature and thoughtful integration of components such as brake calipers, racks, fenders and lighting systems make them incomparable to any "standard" frame style.

I'll finally be able to test my theory soon enough... For now, some other fine examples!

AdventureManCO 

Beautiful!

bargo68 

My favorite rides have 1 1/2 to 3" of daylight between the rear tire and the back of the the seat tube.