Has this limitation of the materials been the biggest learning and take away so far? Has the collaborative thought about how this limitation could be overcome on a larger scale? In other words, how could you create the materials you need to make lugged bikes that are as custom as the tig welded bikes you make?

In terms of you thinking that the Collaborative is using the “wrong tool for the job,” a very large part of this project is about R&D—research and development. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary partly defines the word research as: “revision of accepted theories”. In other words, taking the existing “tools”—“accepted theories”—and using them in “wrong” ways—“revision”.

That’s what I call fun, learning, and research; all aspects of the Collaborative. I’ll post more complete thoughts about your comments in the journal itself.

While seven sees this project bike as “standard” the lack of adequate supplies to accommodate its creation as a lugged frame surely suggests what you are trying to do
1. is not a standard project for which one would/should employ lugs
2. is probably not best achieved with lugs (or else others would have done it and would be supplying the materials to do it again)

While I applaud the ingenuity and willingness of your team to create your own solution, I can’t help but think you are using the wrong tool for the job, or choosing the wrong job for the tool you have.

For the Shop bike we’re making the lugs in the fashion you mentioned–using “oversized” tubes to carve into lugs. Good times. They are definitely labor intensive but a lot of lugged frame constructors use this method–or a modified version of this method.

Thanks for reading. – Rob V.

I’ve tried to get information from EFB, but as you say, “gleen” is about the best I’ve been able to do. At least we’re now starting to generate some fatigue data of our own–the tester is working as I type.