Prices then and now

Above is a retail price list for my bikes in 1990. The most expensive is the Fuso Lux which was custom built to order, with chrome plating, and retailed at $3,150 equipped with Campagnolo C Record components. This was probably the most you would pay for any top of the line racing bicycle.

I say this because my competition back then were the Italian imports like Colnago and Pinerello. You would pay a something over $3,000 for one of these lugged steel Italian bikes equipped with the same Campagnolo C Record group.

My production was only a fraction of these much larger companies, they probably each produced far more frames in a month than I did in a year. But I was able to compete because I had a much lower overhead, and I did not need a distributor to sell my frames in the US. It was the shipping and middle man cost that the Italian companies had to deal with that allowed me to compete.

I attended the big bicycle trade shows each year, and gradually built up a network of bicycle dealers all over the US. I could then sell and ship direct to them. My competition, the Italian bike builders, could not do this. The shipping costs alone on individual bikes or frames would have been prohibitive.

They had to ship frames over by the container load to a distributor, who would then market and sell to the individual American bike dealers just as I did. The Italian import frames were mostly built on a system made by a company called “Marchetti and Lange.” This was a conveyer track system, where the frames were completely assembled, front and rear triangle, and “Pinned” together, then placed on the conveyer.

Gas jets pre-heated first the bottom bracket area, the conveyer then moved on, with the bottom bracket and tubes glowing red hot from the pre-heating, and an operator quickly hand brazed the bottom bracket. While this was happening, gas jets were pre-heating the head lugs. Then the conveyor moved on to a second operator who would then braze the already pre-heated head lugs, and so on until a completed frame came off the other end.

By comparison I brazed together batches of 5 frames at a time, using a hand held oxy-acetylene torch with no pre-heating. This meant less heat went into the tubes, so the Columbus tubing retained more of its inherent strength. I don’t mean that the Italian frames were over-heated, but just a larger area of the tube beyond the lugs was heated, due to the use of pre-heaters.

The Italian frames came off the Marchetti and Lange track, were cleaned up and went to be chromed and painted. They mostly left the factory, with the bottom bracket threads not cleaned out, the BB and head tube were un-faced, and the frames were unchecked for alignment.

This work was done after the frames arrived in the US, either by the distributor, but most often by the bicycle shop. Any top of the line bike shop in the 1980s or 1990s had a full Campagnolo tool kit in a wooden case.

By comparison, I would braze 5 bottom brackets, check for alignment. Braze 5 head tubes, check the alignment, and so on. Every frame had the BB thread tapped and faced, and the head tube was reamed and faced ready to accept the head bearings. The seat tube was reamed, so the seat post would slide right in. All this was done before painting, along with a final check for alignment. When a dealer got the frame it was ready for assembly.

What I find interesting is the price comparison from 1990 to now. The most you would pay for a top of the line race bike was a little over $3,000. You might go to $4,000 for something special like Columbus Max tubing. (Picture above.) However, this would be an excaption. Today a top of the line carbon fiber Colnago or Pinerello will set you back $14,000 and up.

The average income in 1990 was $29,000, today it is around $44,300, a 52% increase. A Ford Mustang convertible cost $14,250 in 1990, today it would be not quite twice as much at $27,500. So the cost of a CF bicycle today would buy you a Ford Mustang in 1990.

Back when I built frames, as a small individual builder, I could compete with the larger import companies and still make a fair profit. Today, top of the line bikes are made by large corporations, and prices are not based on what it costs to produce, but rather by what the market will stand. With a consumer, it seems, who would rather pay more, if only for the bragging rights.

 To Share click "Share Article" below 

Everything Clamp-on

The pictures here are of a 1968 Pugliaghi. Everything clamp on even the bottom bracket gear cable guides. Pictures from TheRacingBicycle.com

In the late 1950s through the early 1970s there was a slump in bicycle sales in Europe. In the 1960s the economy was booming and although in many places the bicycle had always been the mode of transport for the working classes; many were now buying cars for the first time. At the same time the fitness craze of the 1970s had not yet begun.

Racing bicycles and framebuilders were also hit by this slump and the price of a frame rose very little in that decade even though inflation did. Framebuilders had to look for ways to cut costs and one of them was to leave off all braze-ons.

Building a frame without braze-ons does save a considerable amount of time and therefore labor costs. The only braze-ons seen in this era was a chainstay stop and sometimes a little stop under the down tube to prevent the gear lever clamp from sliding down the tube. 

Having done that framebuilders could not tell their customers they were doing this to cut costs, hence the story that braze-ons weaken the frame. I think Cinelli started it; framebuilding was never their main source of income (Handlebars and stems were.) so the price of a Cinelli frame was always high. Everyone’s thinking was if Cinelli can get away with it so can we, and most framebuilders followed suit.

Do braze-ons weaken the frame? Maybe very marginally but it is part of the framebuilding process. I have seen down tubes break right at the clamp on gear lever. Imagine a shock wave from hitting a bump in the road, or the twisting forces on a down tube.

Normally these stresses would be dispersed around the frame, but instead are stopped rather abruptly by a solid clamp around the tube. Clamps require more maintenance they collect moisture under them and if over tightened can dig into the tube and start a stress riser.

Prior to the “No Braze-ons” craze, all the various derailleur manufacturers provided clamp-on fittings because there was no standardization in gear lever design, for example, and clamp-on gear lever had already been standard practice for the most part.

By the 1970s, when braze-ons made a return, Campagnolo so dominated the market that most frames (Especially Italian.) came with a Campagnolo brazed on lever boss. Other manufacturers (Shimano for example.) were forced to design their gear levers to fit the Campagnolo lever boss. 

I do feel if anyone is restoring a bike with a “No braze-ons frame” from this era should keep the cable clamps because they are authentic for that period.

Footnote: Re-posted from March 2006 with aditional content added.

                          

Old "Cycling" article from 1976

A friend came across an old copy of the British “Cycling” weekly magazine from 1976 offered for sale on eBay. It contained an article I had written about frame design. He bought it and sent me a PDF copy.

It seemed strange to read the words I had written almost 37 years ago, and I could not help but wonder what some of the older established framebuilders of that time thought of me. Many had been in business a lot longer than me.

But to me the proof of the bike was in the riding. So often when riding a new bike a rider needs a week or two to get used to it, but so many times I had riders take delivery of a bike on Saturday, and do a personal best ride or even win a race the following day on the new bike. I felt confident that I was doing something right.

I had been questioning conventional frame design since the 1950s, and had been experimenting with my own frames since the early 1960s. I was a rider of somewhat short stature, 5’ 6” (168cm.) and I always felt that because all racing bicycles have the same size wheels, my bikes were a cut down version of a larger frame. Cut down rather than scaled down.

It also did not go unnoticed that the top riders in the world were between 5’ 8” and just under 6 feet. In other words the ones who would fit on the mid-size frame around 56cm to 58cm. When I think about it, it is not much different than today. There are always exceptions of course, and the average range today is probably something like 5’ 10” to 6’ 1”.

It has always been the case throughout history that the people who build bikes do not race them, and top riders who race do not build them. One exception I can think of is Eddy Merckx, who went on to open a successful frame building business after he retired. But even Eddy Merckx fits neatly into that mid size range riding a medium size frame, so can he appreciate the needs of someone much shorter, or indeed taller.

Framebuilders in the past have always done what suited them, lugs somewhat dictated the angles, rather than the angles being altered to suit the rider. And carbon fiber frames built today from what I have noticed seem to follow the tried and tested geometry of the old lugged steel frames that preceded them.

I can fully appreciate that it is a costly proposition to make a mold for a frame just to experiment; one would need to make a welded steel or some other metal prototype fist. And where can such a prototype be tested under race conditions when the UCI now bans the pros from riding prototypes,

One area that could be looked at is fork rake (Offset) which seems to have increased in recent years to around 45mm. A shorter rake, as much as a centimeter, bringing it down to 35mm would increase the amount of trail and would make the bike more stable, and hold a tighter line when cornering.

I notice what seems to be an awful lot of crashes in races, and wonder why this is. Are bikes today more skittish, or it could be we are now seeing more videos of the complete race, and we just didn’t see some of these crashes before?

See the PDF file here The first 2 1/2 pages are written by me, the rest are from other contributors.

                         

Vent Holes

I am sometimes asked, why are there tiny holes drilled in certain parts of a bicycle frame, like the ones shown on the left?

These are vent holes. During the brazing process the air inside the tube expands as it is heated. The vent hole allows the air to escape as it warms up and also allows for air to enter as it cools.

If the tube is totally enclosed, on cooling the air contracts sucking the molten brass inside the tube leaving a pin hole that is almost impossible to fill.

Worse still pressure can build up in an un-vented tube and hot brass can blow back in your face. Anyone not knowing this will soon learn the importance of vent holes after picking little globules of brass embedded in their face or finds little brass balls hanging like tiny Christmas Tree decorations from eyebrows, mustache or other facial hair

Vent holes are only needed when a tube is closed both ends like the example shown above. The top tube is closed at both ends and is usually vented with holes into the seat tube and head tube. (When the bike is assembled these holes are hidden.)

Seatstays are enclosed with a fork dropout one end and the seatstay cap at the top. The front fork blades are also  enclosed both ends between the fork crown and the fork tip or dropout.

Other tubes like the seat tube, down tube and the chainstays are open inside the bottom bracket shell. These tubes are not totally enclosed so do not need any additional vent holes; neither does the brake bridge because it has a brake bolt hole.

On some of my custom frames you won't see holes in the chainstay bridge like the one in the picture. They are hidden inside the bridge tube by drilling holes sideways through the left and right chainstay tube, before the bridge tube was put into place. Only one hole is needed for venting but often two holes are drilled for better drainage of moisture later.

The vent hole in the seatstays on my frames is on the inside up near the seat lug. You might have to turn the bike upside down to see it.

On my front fork blades I drilled one vent hole in each fork blade near the bottom, but after the fork was fully brazed and had cooled I went back and filled it by brazing a piece of wire in the hole. The heat generated in doing this was so small and the air space inside the fork blade was big enough that it did not cause a problem. This whole process only took a minute to complete.

I did this for two reasons. Front fork blades are highly stressed, so filling the hole eliminated a potential weakness at that point. Also rust needs oxygen, and with the fork blades completely enclosed and airtight, no corrosion inside is possible, even years down the road.

A small and probably unnecessary precaution, but one that took such a small amount of time, I always fugured, why not?

                       

Russ Denny builds a Ritte

The above video is pretty much self explanatory; but let me explain how Russ Denny came to be building frames like the Ritte.

People who were not in the bike business in the late 1980s, early 1990s will not realize what a huge impact the mountain bike had. Within a few short years bicycle stores nationwide, switched over completely to selling only MTBs.

This killed the road bike market, and switching my production to mountain bikes would not have been easy even if I had the desire, which I did not. There were already established companies building MTBs, each with their own following of a whole new clientele of mountain bike enthusiasts.

I remember in the year or so before I quit the business completely, my accountant told me, “I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that you didn’t make enough to pay taxes this year. The bad news is that your employee made more than you did.”

I had to tell Russ that I could no longer afford to pay him. He stayed on and survived by building his own mountain bikes, and he also contracted to build frames for Quintana Roo, a company that specialized in bikes for triathletes.  

Since that time Russ Denny has made subcontract building for other companies part of his business. It has not only allowed him to survive, but has given him experience building with other materials such as, aluminum, carbon fiber, and stainless steel.

Over the years Russ has built for, Abici, Action Tech, Avent, Beyond Fabrications, Burro Bikes, Dagger Mountian Bikes, Elite Bicycles, Forzza, Griffen, Haro, Javilen, Lab X, Masi, Pharo Bikes, Predator, Quintano Roo, Simonitti, Titan Flex, Tsunami, Voodoo Cycles, and William Lewis Imports.

I would also like to point out that in order to become a really good framebuilder it is necessary to build a lot of frames. Subcontracting has enabled Russ to do just that; build a lot of frames. More recently he has been building Ritte frames and the video above shows Russ building a carbon tube frame with stainless steel lugs.

Early on in the video there is a shot of some of my ‘dave moulton’ frames, probably repaints; the video then cuts to someone called “Dave,” but it is not me. Just to make that clear.