Sonofapup

Columbus air frame, built by de rosa factory in 1980. Not original paintwork.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/133257...57654166163488

jiangshi

Link no work.

Sonofapup

Link fixed sorry

jet sanchEz

Neato. Do you have any photos of the bike before it was painted? And built up?

icepick_trotsky 

Pic assist:

Bianchigirll 

Very Nice

gomango

Haven't seen one of these before.

Really a beauty.

icepick_trotsky 

Plans for the build?

KonAaron Snake 

I haven't either...it's not the aero model they used to sell (dt boss). The markings on the fork also look odd. If it didn't have the drop outs I would think it wasn't a de rosa.

gomango

Can't decide what I would build it with other than the standard Campy default.

Any thoughts Aaron?

Build plans op?

We all want to know.

KonAaron Snake 

I don't know...campy SR I guess?

Did you ever see Stefano's AX Picchio? One of the coolest bikes I've ever seen.

gomango

SR is a good choice I'd reckon.

No I have not seen Stefano's AX Picchio, but I would surely like to someday.

parken

This is a very unusual frame and I would also be careful on its authenticity: what do you know of the history of this frame? Is it a prototipe built for some special reason?
There is also a De Rosa frame builder based in Pozzuoli (near Naples) that had the questionable habit of using markings similar to those of the most famous De Rosa based in Milan.

parken

concerning a coherent built up:

"mostframes built with this tubing were outfitted with Shimano Dura Ace AX, or less likely,600AX. Campagnolo did not have an aero group at the time and the Italian farme builders did not want to miss out on the aero bandwagon, in the event it turned out tobe the latest craze."




(found here)

KonAaron Snake 

I disagree. The ax group uses a different, shaped seatpost as well as the single center mounted dt shifters. So the more interesting AX bits won't work. VERY few italians took advantage of AX to my memory...it wasn't popular and it didn't work very well. That's what makes the above mentioned Picchio so interestng. The cranks/pedals also end up longer as I recall, making fot wonky on bikes not designed for it. You almost never see this tubeset period.
I considered that too, but I THINK he used different markinga on the drop outs...the bb shell and brake bridge also look right for an Ugo of the period. The fork strikes me as off. I'm not certain.

The "other" De Rosa was actually first, and logos are different. He uses a wheel in the o in the bikes I've seen.

parken

I take your word, I'm reporting what I read and I have no experience whatsoever on Shimano groups (I should have mentioned that).

I agree that the bb shell and brake bridge look (almost) right but the frame in the whole seems odd and Columbus Air tubing wasn't standard construction material for Ugo (they embraced the "aerodynamics" concept only later). Could still be that this particular frame was custom made.

KonAaron Snake 

It's definitely odd...and I'm wondering the same things that you are. I'm hoping citoyen du monde checks in (I might send him a note). I'm a long way from an expert.

KonAaron Snake 

Spoke with him...he's seen these before, though they are unusual. The odd fork tange was necessitated by the fork blades.

Citoyen du Monde

This frame is legitimate De Rosa (Ugo and sons). I have seen at least two others. The decals do not correspond to the other ones that I have seen. I also don't recognize the little braze-on that appears just in front of the BB shell on the down tube. Perhaps an additional photo can be provided of this. The Columbus air tubeset came with a Columbus seatpost. If you don't have one of those seatposts a frameset like this is useless. Personally, I find the frame to be an unfortunate misstep on the part of Ugo and sons. They must have thought the same as they did not make many of these frames. I do however think that frames like this, as well as another questionable design, the De Rosa Tango, are important to show the path taken by the brand over the years.

KonAaron Snake 

I think Columbus may have produced two version of the seat post...one that was shaped using a proprietary seatpost (like the tange tubes using the AX post), and the other used a conventional, round post. I believe this is the later of the two. I went through this confusion on an Air frame I briefly had.

parken

Thanks, good to know!
What about the fork?

KonAaron Snake 

It's correct apparently.

JohnDThompson 

The "aerodynamic" post was actually made by Sakae Ringyo for Columbus and shipped with the tube set. I don't recall a round post being used, but it's possible the builder may have brazed in a round insert to use a standard post. We built a number of team frames using those tubes; my recollection is that while the tubes fit nicely into the bottom bracket, the lugs provided with the tube set were quite a sloppy fit and required a lot of re-working to fit properly.

KonAaron Snake 

Interesting! I wonder how it compares to the Tange version. Kind of odd that they wouldn't contract the post to campagnolo, ITM, or Cinelli...must be price related.

I bought a columbus air frame at an auction a while back (it had no decals, I think maybe Daccordi)...assuming the columbus aero post would fit. It didn't...post was round. I don't remember diameter. I researched and found it came in both variants.

JohnDThompson 

We also built some frames using the Tange "aero" tubing. My recollection is that it was better finished and fit the lugs much better than the Columbus tubing.