I agree with Richard’s take on Eli’s work in the UK, even though we differ on some concepts. For me, the bigger question is how to attract new builders while also retaining those who have already invested time and money into starting. I often say that the dream of being a framebuilder ends when all our friends already have bicycles…
5 Likes
You should read up on Jimmy D’Aquisto. He was training as a luthier under John D’Angelico, where guitars were made one at a time, and maybe fifteen per year maximum. The former stayed at the latter’s side for twelve years learning everything he could. It’s a compelling story and one that reshaped my career some forty years ago.
3 Likes
I remember tracking down a dvd of this doco relatively recently, like ~10 years ago.
Great piece. Quite “romantic”.
2 Likes
I agree- what’s a better term to use? Often when someone asks what I’m riding and I respond that I built it, they say “Oh, you’re a framebuilder?” My response is usually, “No, but I build my own frames.”
3 Likes
I agree- what’s a better term to use?
i have no answer, and am admittedly too focused on this for my own good, especially with everything else going on in the real world.
my overarching concern, or preoccupation, is tied to if and when folks who make a frame but are not in the business, let others (through a sale, a barter, or a gift) have it for any reason at all. for me, despite the laws being different for all of us in our own countries, i’m a zealot for that these transactions be covered by liability insurance and conducted under some local or state jurisdiction. a business license. a tax number. or similar. if one lets another on the frame made in-house (regardless of the training or experience) that upsets me, and according to my opinion, lowers the bar for all who are trying to raise it.
i realize my point of view can possibly alienate anyone who’s truly trying hard to figure out the learning curve. but i’m more focused on the trade and its rightful place in the larger community rather than upsetting a few people.
3 Likes
Here’s the revised post:
The elephant in the room that no one wants to address: should framebuilding have some form of voluntary certification that distinguishes commercial practice from hobby building? The French are moving forward with the Association des Artisans du Cycle label, but it addresses a different question than the one Richard raises.
Richard’s point about liability and business structure is fundamentally about commercial accountability. It’s about who carries insurance, operates under regulatory frameworks, and accepts formal responsibility when frames enter commerce. The hobbyist versus professional distinction is purely legal and economic, with nothing inherently to do with craft quality or fabrication authenticity.
The AAC label takes a different approach entirely. It certifies craft authenticity and fabrication process: frames genuinely fabricated by the artisan in their workshop with actual transformation of raw materials, exclusive know-how in fabrication processes, transparency through open workshops, and commitment to durability and repair capability. This distinguishes genuine artisanal fabrication from assembly or large-scale production. It operates on the homo faber versus animal laborans axis, certifying what constitutes artisanal work rather than who accepts commercial liability.
Both questions matter, but they’re distinct. A builder can practice genuine artisanal fabrication without proper liability insurance, just as someone can have all the commercial infrastructure in place while producing work that’s essentially assembly rather than fabrication. The uncomfortable reality is that the industry needs frameworks addressing both axes: one certifying craft authenticity (what the French are building) and another establishing commercial accountability (what Richard advocates for). These shouldn’t be conflated, even though both are essential for protecting customers and advancing the trade.
Richard, being one of the Framebuilders Collective’s founders you have better context: the organization had exactly the structure and credibility to convene the conversation about commercial standards that the AAC label doesn’t address. Perhaps what’s needed isn’t starting from scratch but reactivating frameworks that already exist, focusing them specifically on voluntary professional standards around liability and business infrastructure. The question isn’t whether builders care about raising the bar. It’s whether the mechanisms to do so collectively can be revived before external forces impose standards nobody wants.
2 Likes
The elephant in the room…
The TFC will remain a mystery shrouded in second-guessing. What appeared live (on the internet) was a result of many years of backroom conversations and a complete distillation of what the original purpose was. What began with two of us chatting eventually expanded to a wider email field numbering at least 15 different brands. That conversation eventually narrowed to nine framebuilders who were committed to the task - and at the eleventh hour one (Margo Conover at Luna Cycles) decided to drop out.
The agenda at the front end didn’t include it being an all encompassing group of everyone who ever built frames commercially. In fact, what we all thought was the reason we came together in the first place, was that all of us in the group had already (for years) exhibited a desire and a proactive approach to mentoring and giving back, internet-style. To a maker, each of us was very active in nearly all the forums and list serves that pertained to our trade. We were (each) already exhausted from relying and commenting on threads and subjects that continued to repeat themselves every other month. We decided to group our efforts and try (*) to wring out all our experiences, resources, and opinions, and bury them all on the website we had created but never made live. The goal included stacking the pages and links, have it well-written and even more well-edited, so it could be seen as an academic pursuit; a multifaceted white paper that encompassed all things framebuilding, with the content being provided by the original eight.
All of this described above took several years - and the website and its content was still hidden. Ultimately the eight members thought taking it live made sense because, otherwise why keep adding content that no one could yet see. I was against it. But a vote taken among the eight drove he bus, and at NAHBS 5.0 in Indianapolis, the TFC went live. The immediate reaction was mixed. While the press and public lauded the efforts to date, an entire segment of the small trade were like, “Who the eff are these guys to declare themselves as spokesmen, leaders, an trendsetters for the framebuilding community?” I personally expected that to happen, and it did. We made as many or more adversaries as we did allies. Be careful what you wish for, etc etc etc.
Ultimately and after two years (or so) of being a public group, the internal conversations started lingering and there was an element of what do we do now to it all. Human nature being what it is, the majority of eight members, already exhausted from well over 3-4 years of TFC-ness, thought that casting out the net to other makers would be a good thing. So, we concluded that each of us could “nominate” one maker on whom all of us would vote in or out, based on gut feel. I personally thought that was the beginning of the end.
We (the eight) became fourteen. The new recruits weren’t all fully versed on the history and travails that the original group labored through to get to this point. Factions developed. Personality conflicts became a thing. And, sadly, the balloon started to lose air.
I should add that, my inspiration for the group was the AHCI - a collective of independent watchmakers that I had followed since its inception. https://www.ahci.ch . I wanted a framebuilding equivalent of what these cats were doing. A self-selected group of like-minded, uncompromising independent makers who could, over time (no pun intended) put (or better yet - keep) framebuilding at the top of our industry’s food pyramid. Sadly, I failed.
This ^ is the Cliff’s Notes version, and my first-person account as one of the original two who tried to plant the seeds.
I’ve got to get back to the torch, and have already typed too much. I’m aware that I’ve left some of Pedro’s questions unanswered.
2 Likes
I’m quite wary of regulations and frameworks. They might start out being designed to protect the consumer but can often end up protecting manufacturers instead, or just adding a lot of paperwork that doesn’t benefit anyone.
Case in point: it’s very hard for a small builder (let alone a hobbyist) to make an e-bike with a Bosch or Shimano motor. It’s heavily regulated and only available to large OEMs. It’s quite likely government regulations are involved there too. (Reynolds have designed a solution for the small builder however involving Mahle motors and that is a very smart move).
I love making bikes but would also quite like to make a car 
In UK the regulatory hurdles you need to jump to do that are daunting. Obviously safety of other road users is important so you do need something– I’m not arguing for a total free for all in that case. But I wouldn’t like framebuilding to end up like that!
A product liability policy is a good first step. Accountability is paramount.
3 Likes
… It’s heavily regulated and only available to large OEMs. It’s quite likely government regulations are involved there too.
That’s not really true. But if it was, I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing. There are quite a few brands out there that are protective of their products and how they are perceived, and I think that’s a good thing generally. The bicycle consumer landscape is fairly unique in that (some, not all) end users are exposed to (and interested in) the various components/brands/companies that make up the bicycle. You don’t really get that in a lot of other fields, I don’t think.
I have years of experience building bikes, it’s how I pay my bills, and I don’t really want my Shimano e-bike, sitting alongside Bob’s Shimano e-bike, the one that he built in his shed and is the 2nd bike he’s ever built. I don’t want the consumer to see the Shimano sticker on mine and the Shimano sticker on his and think they’re the same, or have been designed and built to the same standards.
I think if a product is unique enough and requires installation or maintenance that’s beyond what most people with basic tools can achieve, then restricting the supply to those who can demonstrate they are able to look after the end-user is a good thing.
Accountability is important not only when you are building or selling the bike but also in how you are able to support your customer in the longer term.
4 Likes
The consumer needs to know what he’s getting. But anyone should be able to build an e-bike in his shed if he wants to. If it’s his 2nd bike and it’s for a mate, he just needs to be clear about that. Caveat emptor.
I suspect the reason for the regulations is legal requirements around speed limiters (which I think is a good thing– if something has motorbike performance, it shouldn’t be on bike lanes).
But it’s already illegal to ride an illegal e-bike (and you can easily buy conversion kits to make a completely illegal one).
I don’t know if it’s coming from manufacturers or governments. The reason I suspected the latter is that it seems to be the same for all of them.
1 Like
But anyone should be able to build an e-bike in his shed if he wants to. If it’s his 2nd bike and it’s for a mate, he just needs to be clear about that.
I don’t really disagree with that, but I also think that I should be able to limit what you can buy from me (if I’m a parts supplier) if you can’t demonstrate that you are able to support my product. I’m not stopping you from building an e-bike in your shed, I’d just like you not to use my product because it could reflect badly on me and damage my reputation.
(I don’t know why I’m talking like I’m the motor manufacturer!)
I suspect the reason for the regulations is legal requirements around speed limiters (which I think is a good thing– if something has motorbike performance, it shouldn’t be on bike lanes).
This may play into it. BS EN 15194, which covers e-bikes, has a pretty robust section on how the motor system must be able to withstand attempts to modify output beyond those laid out in the standard (for a particular geographic region).
I actually think the reason that it’s not straightforward for a hobby builder to purchase an e-bike drivetrain system is that it just doesn’t make financial sense for them. If you look at Shimano or Bosch and see what’s needed to setup, install and maintain an e-bike system, it’s not straightforward and if I was them, I’d have no interest in providing support to a thousand builders in their sheds.
2 Likes
You’re absolutely right about the economics. Shimano and Bosch are optimized for volume manufacturing with dealer networks, not for supporting distributed builders. The overhead of technical support and warranty management across thousands of small operations just doesn’t work for them.
What we’ve arranged in Reynolds with MAHLE essentially creates that missing support layer. We aggregate the builders, handle the technical support that understands both the component technology and framebuilding context, and MAHLE reaches a market they couldn’t efficiently serve directly. The locked X20/X30 systems meet BS EN 15194 tamper-resistance requirements for regulatory compliance, while the S versions give design freedom to maintain proper steel bike geometry and handling. Since we’re already supporting framebuilders and OEMs, we can provide the kind of guidance that helps builders navigate these new grounds.
Our arrangement extends that approved network to serious framebuilders who can demonstrate competence, which seems like a sensible middle ground between “anyone can buy anything” and “only enterprise-scale manufacturers need apply.”
4 Likes
All great points. But the Tong Sheng system I used on the two e-bikes I made last year was very straightforward to install. As for maintenance, there’s even an open source firmware available, which I didn’t bother with, but it is a concept I highly approve of.
That’s sold as a conversion kit and that seems to be a free-for-all. You can just buy a 1000W motor with a hand throttle if you want.
Lots of growth in e-bikes and it’s a huge boon for manufacturers like Bosch and big bike brands.Tech gives them a lot of options to lock people in and out of things to force us all to be consumers not makers or repairers. Even if I didn’t want to weld entire bicycles I would be pretty annoyed if I’d bought a Gazelle (or whatever) e-bike and found that when my Bosch motor packed up the only option was to take it to a Bosch service centre. You can’t even replace a motor. Even a bike shop can’t. That just seems alien to the freedom and simplicity that cycling is supposed to be all about. If I wanted that kind of nonsense I would have bought a BMW car
All great points. But the Tong Sheng system I used on the two e-bikes I made last year was very straightforward to install. As for maintenance, there’s even an open source firmware available, which I didn’t bother with, but it is a concept I highly approve of.
That’s sold as a conversion kit and that seems to be a free-for-all. You can just buy a 1000W motor with a hand throttle if you want.
That’s kinda my point. For the shed-tinkerers (and I’m not being disrespectful to shed-tinkerers), there are a thousand other motor/battery/controller options out there. For the resellers and consumer brands, having access to a robust service infrastructure is mega-important. And (maybe unfortunately) there’s going to be a barrier to entry there because it’s not free.
Even if I didn’t want to weld entire bicycles I would be pretty annoyed if I’d bought a Gazelle (or whatever) e-bike and found that when my Bosch motor packed up the only option was to take it to a Bosch service centre.
I don’t know. I think there are a couple of ways to look at that. If my Bosch motor packs in, I’m pretty sure I can jump online and find someone that’s going to be able to take care of me. If my Tong Shen system fails, then I don’t know what I’d do. Find a bike shop that would take it on?
In fact, let’s ask Google……
While the manufacturer Suzhou Tongsheng Electric Appliances Co., Ltd offers online support, actual repairs often rely on community resources (forums, videos) for detailed guides on replacing parts like gears or motor cores, or finding local bike shops that service them.
ok, that might work for you or me, but it’s certainly not going to work for my 80-year-old dad.
That just seems alien to the freedom and simplicity that cycling is supposed to be all about. If I wanted that kind of nonsense I would have bought a BMW car
Well, that’s a whole other conversation, and we’re already straying well off-topic!
2 Likes
I don’t know. I think there are a couple of ways to look at that. If my Bosch motor packs in, I’m pretty sure I can jump online and find someone that’s going to be able to take care of me. If my Tong Shen system fails, then I don’t know what I’d do. Find a bike shop that would take it on?
Yes getting your Bosch fixed will be no trouble and easier than the Tong Sheng. It’s also probably better engineered and less likely to go wrong in the first place. The consumer has little to complain about. But I still want to be able to fix my own stuff if I want to (even if that voids the warranty).
The updated Bafang M510 RS is an option for a mid-drive that is on par with the Bosch and Shimano units. The new RS units are supposed to have updated torque sensors and software that makes them ride more like a Bosch. A bit of a drift here from the earlier discussion in this thread.
1 Like
Thanks, that’s useful information! Maybe I should start another thread with some thoughts on the Tong Sheng TZDS2 I ended up using.
MAHLE had introduced their M40 mid motor. If there is interest, you can get it from REYNOLDS directly.
1 Like
I’ve been looking at this with interest recently, do you know anything about the bolt mounting patterns? Is anyone making a steel motor mount?
1 Like