My brother is not kind. He scanned and then e-mailed me a copy of a letter from 1976, in which I was responding to his argument that Reynolds was a better tubing than Columbus. AND, he was so unkind as to e-mail a photo of the two of us riding togther that same year. There we are with our BIG Bell helmets looking like two young bucks with nothing but open roads in front of us. In looking at the photo and remembering the passion with which we debated things like Reynolds or Columbus - Dura Ace or Campy - large flange or small flange hubs - 3 cross or 4 cross spoke patterns etc. I wonder - where does the time go? I feel ancient today. It probably doesn't help that it's Monday, cold, windy, and cloudy outside with a chance of snow.
So, maybe I'll try to dig myself out of this self-pity party by asking the only ones on BikeForms who have a clue what I'm talking about: Reynolds or Columbus? (Actually, anything was was 4130 chromoly was OK in my book.)
Olebiker
03-20-06, 10:53 AM
So, maybe I'll try to dig myself out of this self-pity party by asking the only ones on BikeForms who have a clue what I'm talking about: Reynolds or Columbus? (Actually, anything was was 4130 chromoly was OK in my book.)
My memory from that time in my life is that Reynolds 531 was used to build a wide range of bikes from the Peugeot PX10 upwards. I think that the perception was that Columbus had a bit more of an elite cachet to it than Reynolds. I doubt that any of us could have told the difference if we had been put on bikes with no labels.
Blackberry
03-20-06, 11:40 AM
Well, if it makes you feel any better, those debates still rage on. Must mean something that with all the super materials out there, you can still get bikes made from either material.
berts
03-20-06, 12:29 PM
Had both: Bianchi road bike with Columbus and Allegro and Hetchins with Reynolds 531 .
My subjective opinion at the time was that Reynolds was superior being lighter, just as strong and springy. I currently have a CF which I have been riding for about 2 years ever since I crashed my Hetchins. I still feel that the 531 gives a snappier ride than the CF, although I am relying on memory. One day I'll reconstruct the Hetchins and then I will be able to make a realistic comparison.
wagathon
03-20-06, 09:43 PM
My feeling is, Reynolds 853 steel is to 4130 as a Bell Ghisallo is to the old Bell foam lid with a spandex cover that I'll bet you were wearing in the picture. Just don't know if Columbus is that good but . . . maybe!
nmichell
03-20-06, 10:23 PM
Reynolds over Columbus, not question. Of course, since my current frame is Reynolds 853 it's quite likely I'm not being objective.
backinthesaddle
03-20-06, 11:25 PM
I had 2 Columbus bikes and 1 Reynolds (actually still have 2 of them in storage but partially stripped for parts)
I always thought the Columbus was a little stiffer and a better climber, the Reynolds a little softer ride, but that may have been the frame geometry as the Columbus frames were tight Italian and the Reynolds was more of a touring style French (!) frame.
Anyway I ended up being a Campy/Columbus snob back then
GrannyGear
03-20-06, 11:26 PM
No issue really.....Tange #1 well seasoned, vintage late 80's. Given comparable and equivalent thicknesses, butting and frame construction, probably less difference between makers than between different tubing lines from the same maker. Very noticable difference as I personally recall between old Columbus SL and SP. Maybe not the maker so much as the characteristics of the tube itself that provides a different ride.
P.S. I had one of those foam helmets with spandex cover...they were light but thankfully I never had to try their merits as head protector. After a few drops on the garage floor mine cracked. Anyone remember their white Bell Biker with d-ring chin strap. Some changes are for the good! :D
cyclezen
03-20-06, 11:30 PM
My brother is not kind. He scanned and then e-mailed me a copy of a letter from 1976, in which I was responding to his argument that Reynolds was a better tubing than Columbus....
... In looking at the photo and remembering the passion with which we debated things like Reynolds or Columbus - Dura Ace or Campy - large flange or small flange hubs - 3 cross or 4 cross spoke patterns etc. I wonder - where does the time go? I feel ancient today...
...So, maybe I'll try to dig myself out of this self-pity party by asking the only ones on BikeForms who have a clue what I'm talking about: Reynolds or Columbus? (Actually, anything was was 4130 chromoly was OK in my book.)
It seems just like yesterday, doesn't it?
Oh well. But we're still kickin around, and also ridin.
Best cure is = goin for a ride. Even better is doin it on your machine from '76...
Not knockin CF, TI or any Lawn Furniture, but there's hardly anything that makes me feel more "Super Record" than doin a fast group ride on my 30 year old Ferrous Flyer - Reynolds, Columbus, Tange, Ishiwata or whatever.
Get out there, Put it in the Big Ring, and GO !!!
ok, go 40 yds, then drop back into the reality of the small ring and thank the cycle gods for granny rings and 'compact' cranks ;)
NOS88
03-21-06, 06:25 AM
Anyone remember their white Bell Biker with d-ring chin strap. Some changes are for the good! :D
Oh, heavens! This is what we were wearing... You couldn't damage those this with a hammer!
howsteepisit
03-21-06, 11:42 AM
I have ridden them both, plus super vitus (remember that one), cannot really tell any difference. I always thought that columbus was a little stiffer, but the reality is its the frame design that really makes the difference. I was a campy guy back then, and to be honest I miss the old days. Biking back then was about long rides on comfortable bikes. And I raced too. (too slowly). But biking seems to have changed, with a lot of wanna be racers on frames that are clearly too small, and the manufacturers advertising bikes too small. (Look at most ads and do a couple of quick scaled measurements, most seats are 4-6 inches below the seat.) All of the emphasis seems to be on aero this and lighter that. An I do feel old and grumpy about it. Oh My God, I am a retrogrouch!!. But just try to buy a proper fitting bike. And if you tell the guy at the LBS you want your bars to be no more than 1-2 inches below the seat they seem to think thats about the right fit(classic standard fitting advice), then try to sell you a bike that's 3" too small. Oh Well, done ranting for now.
jim-bob
03-21-06, 11:58 AM
The guy joining the tubes makes about 3x as much difference as what the tubes are, in my experience.
trackhub
03-21-06, 05:27 PM
I live in the 'burbs west of Boston. To this day, you still see a few old hippie types riding around cambridge with those enormous white Bell helmets, that resemble salad bowls. Professors of social theory at Harvard, I guess. (Cynical comment, made on purpose. )
If it makes you feel any better at all: I think my mother still has a polaroid photograph of me on my Raleigh Record, circa 1971. In that photo,,
Helmet? Nope.
Toe clips? No, not yet.
Shorts? Yes, cutoff levi's.
Riding shoes? Yes, a pair of white/black stripe athletic shoes, of generic manufacture.
Riding Jersey? Yes, a t-shirt.
Hair? Oh yes, lots of it.
roccobike
03-21-06, 08:06 PM
. Anyone remember their white Bell Biker with d-ring chin strap. Some changes are for the good! :D
I remember them, I also remember that I was one of those 'No Way is anyone gonna tell me to wear some #*&@# helmet.' Amazing, now I won't ride in the parking lot without one.
I never had a Reynolds 531 bike, but I remember wanting a Raleigh Competition so bad. I was ready to sell my Record when along came that cute little blonde, then the house, then the kids, then change jobs, and no time for bikes. I still have the blonde and the Record, but I never got the Reynolds 531 Super Course.
Wildwood
03-21-06, 09:01 PM
So, maybe I'll try to dig myself out of this self-pity party by asking the only ones on BikeForms who have a clue what I'm talking about: Reynolds or Columbus?
If you want to end the self pity then get yourself a bike with each tubing, ride the heck out of them and give us the answer - Reynolds or Columbus? If you want to do something right, sometimes you just have to do it yourself. And enjoy the investigation.
PS - I agree that coldy, windy, rainy (or snowy) Mondays SUCK.
GrannyGear
03-21-06, 09:48 PM
A nice, knowledgable guy who posted here until a few months ago was "oldcrank". He was having a "Croll" custom bike made out of Reynolds 531. You might do a search and relive those old 531 hankerings.
onbike 1939
03-22-06, 04:32 AM
Most of my bikes over the years have been Renyolds 531 but I believe that Columbus was of equal quality.
Having a custom-built frame made by a top builder (George Longstaff in the case of my wife's frame) you will find that they did "Designer select", which means that after ascertaining exactly the weight and other physical characteristics of the rider they will ask the intended use.
Only when they have all this info will they select the grade of tubing required. This will pivot upon the strength and stiffness required for each section of the frame.
You can imagine that this was not cheap but the frame was a delight in every way.
In the end my wife gave up cycling and now it's now mine.
It was too good for her anyway. ;)
rfctx
03-22-06, 07:17 AM
I rode Reynolds 853 thought it was far-out! Hey .. scan in the pic so that we all can see the young bucks!
NOS88
03-22-06, 07:57 AM
I rode Reynolds 853 thought it was far-out! Hey .. scan in the pic so that we all can see the young bucks!
No can do. I promptly shredded it so my wife wouldn't see it and find out what a complete dork (or as my kids would say "dweeb") I was!
Artmo
03-26-06, 03:26 PM
My memory from that time in my life is that Reynolds 531 was used to build a wide range of bikes from the Peugeot PX10 upwards. I think that the perception was that Columbus had a bit more of an elite cachet to it than Reynolds. I doubt that any of us could have told the difference if we had been put on bikes with no labels.
And then there was Accles & Pollock (UK) chrom moly, double-butted, from which my 1957 Maclean is made.
I really must get it renovated and back on the road.
John E
03-26-06, 05:19 PM
Read Sheldon's website, which concludes that steel is steel. The myth that Columbus is stiffer than Reynolds 531 probably arose because the Italian (usually Columbus) frames often felt stiffer than the English or French (usually 531), but this was primarily a function of frame geometry. My Bianchi, with typical 1980 geometry and a double butted Columbus main triangle, feels alot stiffer than my Capo, with typical 1960 geometry and Reynolds 531. In 1960, much of the Tour de France was still raced over cobblestones, and frames had to be resilient and forgiving. As road surfaces improved, frames got tighter and stiffer. I would rather climb or sprint on the Bianchi, but I would rather ride a century on the Capo; does that make Columbus stiffer than 531?
This debate reminds me of the hydrogen-powered car demo at UCLA in 1974. To prove that his hydrogen-powered AMC Gremlin (!) was superior to a gasoline-powered car, the project engineer staged a race against a 1901 Cadillac and won easily.
John E
03-26-06, 05:22 PM
And then there was Accles & Pollock (UK) chrom moly, double-butted, from which my 1957 Maclean is made.
I really must get it renovated and back on the road. Nice bike! Yes, you really should get it renovated; I am having a blast with my 1959 Capo.
Deanster04
03-28-06, 11:55 PM
The choice of tubing really made no difference. Back in the 50s and 60s there was a large difference between the english and italian style forks. The english made a more compliant fork whereas the italians made a straighter fork with less compliance. I bought and Allegro Special made with 531 tubing and the slacker fork and being a sprinter type when I raced I hated the "springyness" of the bike. I switched to and Ideor Asso (Ita) and the bike felt "stiffer" which was right up my alley. Have ridden Columbus ever since. BUT, my assessment was wrong when I recently tried a Reynolds frame Hetchins with a Cinelli fork and found the riding characteristics swapped with the fork. In any case bikes are and always will be about design and the total bike not just materials. At one time Aluminum and Ti frames were terrible. One felt like riding a telephone pole and the other felt like spagetti. New designs today make quite a difference with Aluminum frames and Ti went to the alloy 3/2.5% and the bikes are wonderful.
The argument is moot and remember opinions are like the part of the anatomy closest to the saddle, everyone has one.