Frame Builders and Frame Designers

[mrkawasaki]

As far as our offroad history is concerned, what are our experiences and opinions on the diffferences between a frame builder and a frame designer?

Are they necessarily the same thing or is there a shared space in the Venn diagram of skillsets?

Our dusty treasures often represent the best and worst of great/poor design meets great/poor execution - so who is more important in the mix: the great designer or the great builder?

Mr K

 

[pete_mcc]

I alway think that a great builder is the key, custom builders like Chas Roberts, Potts, Yates, Sachs et al have a wealth of experience built up over many years and tend to be unswayed by fashion and trends and know what works and what works well by a series of small, incremental steps. If something doesn't work on one frame they don't have to sell 20 containers full of them that have just landed from China. These are the guys that listen to your needs and can intepret them perfectly.

Designers on the other hand are often younger and less experienced, more fashion or trend driven and have the desire to make a name for themselves quickly, which often leads to 'interesting designs' being forced on a public. But they often have the backing of big companies, have lower cost per unit and are the innovators, taking on board new materials readily, so if they get it right, they really get it right. Just think about designers like Jon Whyte who has designed some exceptional bikes (although that example is slightly flawed as he can build himself), or (an I know some may shoot me down) Brant Richards who has built up a rep for producing mass built niche bikes that answer a need at an attractive price.

Personallty if I wanted a bike for a season I'd go the designer route, if I wanted a bike for life its the builder every time

 

[cchris2lou]

+ 1

 

[TheGreenRabbit]

+ 2

 

[yo-eddy]

+3, very good statement, for most designers a good R&D proces is just too time consuming and costly. A good builder with a long history and experience is of sooo much value to any designer and customer imho.

 

[sq225917]

builders typically build bikes from other peoples parts and tubesets.

Designers design bikes from the ground up generating their own tubesets and parts.

I don't think age has anything to do with it, other than you don't find many good young builders, there are talented young and old designers.

 

[Phil_Beds]

for most designers a good R&D proces is just too time consuming and costly.

Id have to disagree with that, the likes of Specialized, Canondale, Trek and even onto the bigger European manufacturers like Colnago, Pinarello etc all have R&D departments the likes of which Chas Roberts et-al could only dream of.
Whilst I agree that frame builders do tend to have a mass of experience, that experience more than likely comes from trial and error, where the designers have the clout and the backing to be able to test tube profiles, lug designs and materials etc before they even get welded/glued/moulded into anything resembling a bike frame.

 

[Anthony]

I haven't bought a bike off a small builder, but if I did I would be more likely to tap Rody Walter than Chas Roberts. This is specifically because Rody combines an outstanding design flair all of his own with excellent welding skills learned from a great master. On the design side, it shouldn't be forgotten that a mountain bike isn't just about the tubeset and geometry, it's also about the paint design, which is another area where Rody is oustanding.

But this isn't meant as an advert for Rody, but rather as an argument that we can't afford for this to be an either/or - for a good bike, you need both a good designer and a good builder, and Chris de Kerf, Karl Strong etc are other examples of combining the two. Paul Brodie was an artist, then he started painting bikes, then he started brazing frames, then he started designing frames. Rocky Mountain, Kona and Brodie Bikes (with which I think he is barely involved now) are still guided by his influence. That's the kind of guy you want.

 

[elite504]

Tricky one this. . . As an industrial designer/ chartered engineer, I'd like to think despite being young, I can still cut the mustard. You need design to evolve the breed, solve problems and move forwards. Some of the finest cycle designs, Answer Hyperlites, Easton varilite/ taperwall (lets not get bogged down with manitou) and the moby post came about as Easton listened to the designers needs to have the tuves with metal where they wanted it, not where the tube manufacturers put it. Same with the likes of Chance and others with the True Temper relationship.
Course it all goes to sh!t if the thing isn't stuck together properly. But John parker and chris chance could all weld. . ..

One of the greatest frustrations of dealing with trying to get Naieve design into manufacture comes from designers who have no practical experiance, designing in 90 degree bends at the bottom of blind holes. Blind holes with square corners, and 'captured parts1. All examples of parts that can not be made. I think to be a great designer, you NEED an appreciation of how stuff is made. But to be exceptional you need to think out the box.

"Some men see the world and ask why. I dream of things and ask "Why not?"" George Bernard Shaw. . .

 

[Phil_Beds]

One of the greatest frustrations of dealing with trying to get Naieve design into manufacture comes from designers who have no practical experiance, designing in 90 degree bends at the bottom of blind holes. Blind holes with square corners, and 'captured parts1. All examples of parts that can not be made. I think to be a great designer, you NEED an appreciation of how stuff is made. But to be exceptional you need to think out the box.

Slightly off topic I know, but never a truer word said.
We get graduate engineers coming into the Refinery who think they are going to change the way we boil oil in 10 minutes without any consideration to the practicalities or an ounce of common sense.
Personally, I believe an engineer who has been "in the field" so to speak (ie done an apprenticeship and has some site experience) and then done the studying to become an engineer makes for a better, more rounded engineer. On the flip side of this, it also makes for an older engineer who has (in my case ) lost a certain amount of flare and imagination and cant necessarily think "out of the box" to the same degree as a spotty* 22yr old graduate.





*spots may not be required.