avhed

When in the 1960s was it?

unworthy1

Bit hard to nail down an exact date. The Columbus tubing that was first drawn in 1930 for bicycle frame building was probably close to the same alloy and dimensions as what would later be called "SL", but from 1972 thru about 1977 at the earliest, there was no SL on the tubing decals, just gold foil and later (about 1978 thru 1984) the blue bordered decal which also would be used on SP tubing frames.
It was probably noted as SL in Columbus catalogs, and so spec'd as such by builders, but I can't find the earliest mention of that in print.
Magazine ad in 1975 mentions the 5 tubing sets that were in the market that year (still using just a gold foil decal for all 5 AFAIK): SL, SP, PL, PS and Rekord.

Pic of the earliest gold foil decal that Robt. Broderick says was in use from 1972 to 1974, the next 2 iterations look about the same except the dove eventually got printed in white ink.

repechage

In 1974 the shop for which I worked ordered some Columbus, SL, SP, PL, PS. Rubber stamped on the ends of the boxes along with the tube lengths, A, B or C for the various size ranges of bikes the sets were designed for. A builder could order crates of the stuff, there, tubes were bagged and tagged. Along with boxed sets such as RECORD. The frame labels were the same for all.

PL and PS were the track sets, round fork blades. The PS had 24 mm diameter blades, the PL, 22 mm. The PS chain stays were super sized and swaged down to 22 mm to accept the bottom bracket spigots.

unworthy1

So maybe we can deduce that by '72 Columbo was labeling the tubesets (that is, including the foil stickers with the package) and so probably using the SL designation.
Maybe somebody can further refine the History...what Columbo/Columbus has published themselves kind of glosses over the period from 1930 to the early '70s, but we know they were cold-drawing seamless reinforced (double-butted) chrome-moly tubing for bicycles in those years, and it was being built into (mainly Italian) frames.

repechage

I recall a full page advert. in Bicycling! I think it was where Columbus using an image of Eddy holding up his bike had the tag line; America Discovers Columbus.
But they did not promote the gauges of tubing, just the brand.

To the typical consumer Columbus was seen on Bianchi and Ital-Vega bikes at least out on the West Coast. Almost forgot, Windsor too. The racers liked it for the beefier road fork blades.

JohnDThompson 

AFAIK, Columbus decals did not distinguish between the various tube gauges until SLX/SPX hit the market in the mid-80s.

"American Discovers Columbus..." I still have one of those bumper stickers from the trade shows:

Citoyen du Monde

Columbus was drawing different gauges already in the 40's at least. I am told that in the Bianchi Reparto Corse logbooks from the 40's there are indications of various frames being built using special lightweight tubing (it doesn't say who the supplier is). I have original envelopes with a 1953 date code on them that contains instructions on how to use the butted tubing and contains a Columbus decal.

unworthy1

^what did that decal look like in '53?
Same as the "'72" gold foil that Mr. Broderick has published?

iab

Earliest ad I have for Columbus butted tubing is from 1935.

1935 Giro 014

Road Fan

I have a Mondonico that I bought used around 1986. A few years back I spoke at length with Chairman Bill (formerly) of Torino about this frame, and he thought it was around 1984. It has the Columbus decal with no tubing letters on it. Based on weight (light but not extremely light) and ride quality (supple but snappy and responsive) my GUESS is that its tubing is similar to SL, or is a mix of Columbus types. One tube has the dove imprint. The others could have been lost in the building process.

So the older decal style was in limited use most likely up to 1984. I would not be surprised if Antonio Mondonico built this one out of a mix of tubes or even old tubes, and had an old Columbus decal which he attached to my frame.

Road Fan

I doubt the actual debut, if there was one, was in the 60s though I don't doubt the tech existed to make tubes of the appropriate buttings and bellies; after all, Reynolds were doing it. In the late 60s I haunted the top Chicago shops such as the early Turin Co-op, and nearly everything was Reynolds or not marked. 751 appeared from time to time as did French, obscure Italian, and German tubings. Columbus became more common a few years later, and definitely represented an upcharge. When SL became more common it was billed as new and better.

repechage

My referencing shows single color orange red over gold, gold producing the line work and typography.
I am not sure if it is gold foil or metallic ink.

repechage

I have read elsewhere in was in the mid 30's but this does help confirm it was an ongoing product at that time.

confente

Shown in the 1963 combined Cinelli/Columbus catalog...
Columbus butted frame tubes for road races:
-No. 1 - Type "SP" butted 0.7/1.0 - weight kg. 2,375 per set - Strada Pesante (Road Heavy)
-No. 2 - Type "SL" butted 0.6/0.9 - weight kg. 2,065 per set - Strada Leggera (Road Light)
Columbus frame tubes for track races:
-No. 3 - Type "PS" for Sprint and 6-days-races - weight kg. 2,435 per set - Pista Spiccato (Track Strong)
-No. 4 - Type "PL" for pursuit or record-races - weight kg. 1,830 per set - Pista Leggera (Track Light)

Cinelli & C. S.r.l. was the sole sales representative worldwide for Columbus tubing starting in the early 1950s.

~ Chuck

iab

Acquired an earlier ad, March 1934

1934 Avventimenti 028 by iabisdb, on Flickr

avhed

The SL tubeset drop 140 grams to 1925 grams. My guess for the year of that was around ~1978?

verktyg 

The published weights of tube sets were a bit of smoke and mirrors... Here's why:

1974 Spec Sheet from "DeLongs Guide To Bicycles And Bicycling". The weight for a set of Columbus SL tubes is listed as 2065 g... Note the wall thickness for both the seat stays and chain stays is 0.7mm.


Jump ahead to 1978. This Columbus Spec Sheet still lists SL at 2065 g and the seat stays and chain stays at 0.7mm wall thickness.



Here's where "Truth In Advertising" comes into play. This late 70's Italian Spec Sheet shows the main tubes in 3 different lengths 600mm, 620mm and 650mm, the seat stays in 3 different lengths 500mm, 550mm and 580mm and the weight is listed as 1925 g. The chain stays are still 0.7mm thick.

The longer tubes have to add weight to the set???

In 1980 Columbus increased the wall thickness of the chain stays from 0.7mm to 0.8mm because of cracking issues.. The weight was still listed at 1925 g. (the arrow pointing to 0.9mm is the fork wall thickness)



In addition to published weights being misleading, when tubes are cut to length the weights will vary depending on the frame size....

verktyg

T-Mar

Columbus' claimed weights are for a tubeset comprised of the shortest length tubes. They didn't provide weights for their medium and long sets. In the early 1970s Columbus only provided one stock length which was equivalent to the short 1980s' tubeset. If you wanted longer tubes, they were special order.

In the early 1980s, Columbus shortened the stock chain stay length by 5mm.This would have compensated for the weight increase due to the 0.1mm increase in wall thickness.

As for the 140g weight loss, according to claimed weights in catalogues, the savings were: seat tube (-20g), top tube (-40g), down tube (-40g), fork blades (-40g). Tube diameters, lengths and wall thickness were the same, so presumibly the change came through modification of butt length. This would explain why the weight savings on the seat tube was 1/2 that of the top and down tubes, as it was only single butted. A change in butt length may have been the result of widespread use of lower brazing temperatures, as the properties of their CrMo alloy remained unchanged from before the weight reduction.