Could anyone spare some time to answer a few questions?

[Dancingbear]

1.d. Why the resurgence in steel over aluminium or carbon fibre? Do you think this is as much down to the process as the evolution of the material?

Process and accessibility. I may get flamed for this, so I'm going to phrase it carefully. Bicycle specific components for steel frames are more plentiful (thanks to many of the builders on this forum), with greater variety, to folks first starting out than aluminum or carbon fiber. Start-up costs for tools and equipment to make brazed frames is lower than for carbon and aluminum (one can make a "rideable" steel frame with only a torch, vise, straight edge/square, files, and a hacksaw) The learning curve needed to be able to stick together a set of tubes and lugs well enough to avoid catastrophic failure is easier than to produce the same lack of catastrophic failure in carbon, aluminum, or titanium. ( I'm gonna catch it for that one, but note I did not say "build a frame") Steel is strong, more forgiving than aluminum or carbon, can be cold set, does not require heat treating after joining, and is far less likely to fail catastrophically. All reasons that have established it as the go-to material of choice for all but a small fraction of the bikes produced in the world.

Full disclosure about who I am- I've only built perhaps a dozen frames, all lugged steel with the exception of my current ride which I built 5 years ago from carbon fiber. I work with a wide variety of materials at my job; I can tig weld steel and aluminum ( will never have the skills of those whose work you see in F.N.L), and done a fair amount of work with composites.

[Craig Ryan]

Not here - I talked to one the other day here, across the street.
Not only is it alive & well, but it pays amazingly good!
- Garro.

You got that right! Horse people are always looking for a good farrier. Ours used to five about 80 miles to get to the barn. Of course there are the ones that slap on pre made shoes, and ones that forge their own.

[progetto]

Of course there are the ones that slap on pre made shoes, and ones that forge their own.

They must be the one's that consider their work as art.

[jon_norstog]

Doglog,

One reason I started building was it was the only way I could afford a really top-notch bike. And I help and encourage other 'builders because I like ruining lives.

FWIW, mass-produced bikes have really gotten good. The only way I can beat Giant, big "S", etc. is by cutting-edge functional design, bespoke fit, or "soul."

Are people clamoring for custom frames? Not really. The people most likely to buy one of mine are all too broke.

jn

[Mark Kelly]

Of course there are the ones that slap on pre made shoes, and ones that forge their own.

And those that use 3d printed titanium horseshoes.

BTW if anyone can explain why the aluminium ones were so heavy, I'd like to know.

[Will Outlaw]

I'm a total amateur, but I've read this thread and tried to keep my mouth shut but f*** me, I cant anymore.

There seems to be serious emotional baggage around HOW a frame became a frame.

I call bullshit.

The frame is the frame. Period.

If it's good, well, it's good. If it's crap, well, it's crap. HOW it got that way isn't of particular consequence because it's still either good or it's not.

If God himself came down with torch in hand and built a perfect frame people would complain that He didn't spend enough time at a bench, or working in some frozen British workshop or some production house.

Fuck that.

Don't get me wrong: I think experience is invaluable and I wish, desperately, that I was lucky enough to have had it. I wasn't, and I never will be that lucky. I'll take what I can get and keep trying put together as many sources as I can to learn more until I'm comfortable in my own skin.

So maybe I 'don't know what I don't know' but I figure if builder A has a gift and can make a kick-ass product that people buy, good on 'em.

As for art, Steve Jobs was right. Real artists ship. If somebody buys it, you're an artist. If they don't, you're fucked.

FWIW, I think FLW was terrible and utterly useless as an architect. He had zero tolerance for understanding what his clients actually needed in a structure and, sadly, he ruined an entire generation of architects. To apply him to bicycles is insane. I've been through Fallingwater and Taliesen West and they're both crap. They are, in parts, beautiful, but mostly idiotic.

It probably sounds all pissy and drunk, but I'll back it up. A good frame is a good frame. Nothing else matters.

[bencooper]

Yes, I'm leery about statements like "you have to make 100 frames before you're a framebuilder" and stuff like that. Partly because I've seen frames made by people who have made way more than that which are not very good.

The first complete frame I ever built, more than 15 years ago, was for a customer. It's still being ridden as far as I know. The difference between that frame and frames I make now isn't safety - they've always been competently made - it's aesthetics, design, and speed of making them. That first frame was a simple lugged 531 touring bike - hard to go wrong with that.

[Mark Kelly]

And those that use 3d printed titanium horseshoes.

Turns out they do dragons too.

[Mike Mcdermid]

And those that use 3d printed titanium horseshoes.

BTW if anyone can explain why the aluminium ones were so heavy, I'd like to know.

There have been carbon titanium and metal matrix horseshoes made by a company I worked at all 4 weighed less than a kilogram...pretty sure some clown said all horseshoes have to be X and that killed that....same with carbon cricket bats and carbon competition shotguns......spoilsports quite literally

[Too Tall]

V.W., my comment here is not ment to be funny it is to make a point about mastery and the putting forth practical things (houses bikes guitars...) as "art" that functions. In the case of Frank Loyd Wright he in my opinion leveraged clients pocketbooks in order to foist his "philosophy" on the public. Quite Frankly (ok small joke) I bang my head on his interior doorways because many (Oak Park) are built lower than the norm inorder to "enclose and define" the interior space. Bologne indeed bro.

Bicycles are vehicles and as such must function perfectly, safely and built with purpose. That first and foremost is the freakin' point. The rest, as they say, is window dressing. VERY appreciated window dressing by golly.

Peace, TT

I'm pretty sure we're not on the same page.

Frank Lloyd built more than just "homes." He built with a philosphy, a design, influence, fluidity. His customers didn't come to him because they wanted just a home. They wanted something more. He gave them more.

You can call your bikes whatever you want or build for whatever reasons you desire, but your idea that "we build tools, machines, etc" falls short of the truth. I don't want to be part of that "we." I'm not part of that "we." There is more.

I personally like your bikes. They are clean, simple, and have good lines. You as the artisan, artist, creator, whatever you want to be called had a vision when you built it of what you think it should be. I like to think you pour your all into every bike you build and create a deeper bond with recipient of your bikes.

I don't for one second think I am JUST building machines, tools, vehicles. Yes, sound prinicples, skills, deisgn criteria are a must, but I think at this point in the conversation we are beyond that.

[e-RICHIE]

Great thread, drift or no drift.
The emotion and pride are priceless.
And I mean that in a good way atmo.

[Doug Fattic]

This subject thread has many branches. I’m going to climb out on a couple.

I’m not sure why there is or needs to be tension between art and function in a custom frame. One of my primary motives for becoming a framebuilder in the 1st place was so I could have the ability to make better looking frames than what I could buy. Good function is just a given as a minimum. The 1969 Hetchins I bought was a revelation to me. It was their simplest lug design that wasn’t just a standard spearpoint and had straight stays (they are best known for their curly or “vibrant” rear stays). But I could see straightaway that beauty could be combined with function. The all campy (except brakes) columbus tubed Lazzaretti I bought in Italy earlier (for $112!) had lots of bling (candy or flam orange over chrome) but did not have pleasing aesthetics. It rode well but didn’t make me as happy as my Hetchins on or off of it. But I also realized at this eureka moment (which is when the light comes on) that a Hetchins was not going to be my last frame stop. It just opened the door.

I’m a frame painter as well as builder (another reason I can thank Ellis-Briggs for my start there because at the time they had 2 refinishers) and because of that how a frame looks inside and outside is always on my mind. It is through painting that a frame is primarily presented. So it seems impossible to me to separate looks and function. People with racing backgrounds seem to want to keep them apart more.

Often there are comments that suggest art embellishments on a frame covers up poor workmanship. I don’t think they are necessarily related. It is true that some new builders at shows often do more to make their frames stand out at what is essentially a beauty contest. Somehow they need to get noticed in a crowded field to make their costs to enter worthwhile. Some of these efforts (which is essentially marketing) are going to be more effective than others. They may or may not have built the frame well just like a plain frame may or may not have been built well.

Taking a class is sometimes seen as a shortcut to a career. This is total nonsense. It is the most sensible and effective way to start learning how to build frames. It may or may not be the 1st step to making more but it certainly will give a person an organized picture of what needs to be done and whether they still have the interest or ability to continue. This is a big subject that needs its own subject thread. And by the way there are huge differences between different schools and teachers just like there is in the quality of custom made bicycles.

Doug Fattic
Niles, Michigan

[Will Neide]

V.W., my comment here is not ment to be funny it is to make a point about mastery and the putting forth practical things (houses bikes guitars...) as "art" that functions. In the case of Frank Loyd Wright he in my opinion leveraged clients pocketbooks in order to foist his "philosophy" on the public. Quite Frankly (ok small joke) I bang my head on his interior doorways because many (Oak Park) are built lower than the norm inorder to "enclose and define" the interior space. Bologne indeed bro.

Bicycles are vehicles and as such must function perfectly, safely and built with purpose. That first and foremost is the freakin' point. The rest, as they say, is window dressing. VERY appreciated window dressing by golly.

Peace, TT

Yea, my quote of FLW was more because I like the quote and I can't say I keep up on who's who in the architectural world.

BUT..... Perhaps if he built a custom house for you he would give the Shaq treatment with appropriately sized doorways. Or maybe, he just isn't the right designer for you. That parallels pretty well with some folks philosophies in frame building. There seems to be a back and forth between customer and builder, to see if the the customer is right for the builder or the builder is right for the customer. If FLW thought that maybe you were not a client he could build around, maybe he would have declined......and if you had decided that, despite knowing the "short comings" of FLW, you still insisted on him designing your house, you would have to live with those "short comings."

But yeah, I'm indifferent about FLW. Neat guy and neat houses. Just liked the quote.

[e-RICHIE]

Taking a class is sometimes seen as a shortcut to a career. This is total nonsense.

Agreed atmo. For a career, you need to make a frame, sell it, and continue the pattern. The skill set and product hardly matter. That said, mediocrity and framebuilding rarely are words used in the same conversation. I think of the trade as being at the top of the industry food pyramid. And I also wonder how folks back up work that is still so close to the left hand side of their developmental timeline (or even have such confidence about it). Yeah - anyone can make a frame. I got that.

[Too Tall]

LMAOROTFF Doug F. I had a custom Hetchins made when I was in High School because it was purty and never once considered function. FWIIW that bike was a real POS. Seriously. That made me laugh like heck. I'd like to think I've learned my lession ;)

[Doug Fattic]

LMAOROTFF Doug F. I had a custom Hetchins made when I was in High School because it was purty and never once considered function. FWIIW that bike was a real POS. Seriously. That made me laugh like heck. I'd like to think I've learned my lession ;)

Yes agreed about Hetchins quality – although almost all British frames made in that era were about the same. You probably would not have found much difference with one made by his British contemporaries either. There were exceptions of course. And when you went to get one they weren’t much help to guide you towards making it fit well either. My point wasn’t to say Hetchins were well made but that it served me as inspiration that all frames don’t need to be ugly either. It wasn’t their cut lugs that was the problem.

This brings me back to Simon’s original question. I’m pretty sure the cultural and economic background of where custom frames are being made would be something his professors will want to see in his dissertation. British guys (whose names were not on the down tube) built them faster than one a day for very little money. The seller seldom dirtied his hands in the workshop.

When I was learning in England, I was surprised at how my very modest $8,000 a year American high school teacher’s salary was quite a lot more than those I got to know. That is why a custom frame in England at that time cost less than $150 (40£ to 50£). This is reflected in how fast they had to be made to be profitable. Harry Quinn in Liverpool told me he did 2 a day.

By contrast back then (early 70’s) American bicycling magazines showed Albert Eisentraut frames with thinned lugs and a Jim Recay (from Lambertville, New Jersey) with a beautifully filed chain stay to dropout treatment. This media presentation became our standard of quality where visibly we had to show why our frames were at least as good if not superior to our European competition. Of course that extra work meant a frame took longer to make so they had to cost more. However the typical US white collar middle class (at the very least) desk worker (whose values included improving themselves through exercise on a very good bike) could also afford to pay more than the working class blue collar guy that most often bought a frame in GB.

These cultural and class differences create the market in which custom frames were/are built. The bicycling culture in both countries has changed over the years but the residue of its origins still influence how we make them today.

[e-RICHIE]

This is reflected in how fast they had to be made to be profitable. Harry Quinn in Liverpool told me he did 2 a day.

He could do that if his staff did all the prep work that allowed him the free time to braze them. These weren't 1/2 day frames without some serious support system work occurring. Same deal in London SE at Witcomb Lightweight Cycles atmo.

This media presentation became our standard of quality <cut>

And back to the OP - it's the viral activity surrounding the trade that makes it appear larger, or growing. Take away the bloggers and internet cut and pasting journalists if you want to take an accurate measurement.

[Simon Taylor]

What a response!
Thank you so much to everyone for your interesting answers and valuable opinions.
I will attempt to reply personally to you all when I have the time.
Thanks again, the information gathered from this thread so far has been insightful and really useful.
Keep it coming!

i have dozens of relevant quotes from my research that would no-doubt fuel some interesting debates
But for now, I'll just leave this one.

"Throughout history, production craftsmen have faced the challenge of producing functional ware to serve and grace man's life.
The work from this tradition is understated rather than luxurious.
Work from the use tradition has a dignity and restraint that comes from honest service.
The best use crafts have always reflected a perfect balance between the useful and the beautiful.
In the twentieth century efficient machines cheaply produce most of the things that traditionally were made by the craftsman's hand.
The...consumer, after half a century of fascination with the products of machines, has finally begun to desire handmade goods.
This demand has lifted production crafts out of competition with machine-made products.
The new use craftsman asks us to consider the 'quality of life' as something quite different from the 'necessities of living.' "

Paul Greenhalgh. The Persistance of Craft

[e-RICHIE]

i have dozens of relevant quotes from my research that would no-doubt fuel some interesting debates
But for now, I'll just leave this one.

atmo -

Tradition is sometimes confused with transmission. Copying Momoyama pieces is transmission. Producing contemporary pieces incorporating Momoyama period techniques is tradition. Tradition consists of retaining transmitted forms and techniques in one's mind when producing a contemporary piece. Tradition is always changing. A mere copy of an old piece has not changed; it is nearly the same as its prototype of four hundred years ago. Tradition consists of creating something new with what one has inherited.

[GrantM]

1.a. Why do you think that there is a resurgence of interest in the handmade bicycle and an increased fascination in its design & construction?

The search for authenticity. (see andrew potter's book "the authenticity hoax")
His theory is that the search for authentic turns out to be just another way for people to display
their status as separate from mass culture, ie: we're special individuals, so we buy or commission
to have special, individual things hand made for us.
But it's a false promise, thus, 'the authenticity hoax'.

Desire for the authentic is well motivated, but misplaced.
The bottom line is status seeking, (not just superior status, but also 'apart')
and while seemingly progressive, it's reactive.
You don't find authenticity where you're looking for it in 'stuff'.

-g