TiHabanero

I have the main tubes from an SP tube set sitting around and am thinking of building a 59cm touring frame from it. My thoughts are that it will certainly be beefy enough, but it may be a bit harsh if the bike is not loaded with gear. Any input from you all will be appreciated.

Cynikal 

I think that adding the tubing diameter and wall thickness would really help in determining this.

unterhausen

classic SP from BITD? 1 1/8" down tube? If you are going for fully loaded touring, I think OS or 2OS tubing will work better, at least on the down tube. I'm pretty sure I saw that Jan Heine has an OS DT on his "mule" touring bike. In any event, I don't think it will be too harsh. I would definitely make it to fit larger tires, 38mm at a minimum.

I'm not really the one to opine on these things though, I went from a classic SL racing bike to a Spirit for Lugs bike (OS) and really can't tell the difference in the tubing.

TiHabanero

The down tube is indeed 1-1/8. They tube set is from around 1983. The fork blades are round and my brother originally intended to build a track frame as that was his interest then. I believe the tube walls are .7/1mm. They are certainly heavier than the 531 tubes I have from the same time period. I like a soft frame, so my concern is with riding too stiff without a load on it. Likely the concern is for naught, but the experts here may know better than myself!

duanedr 

Here are some potential problems I see:

• Finding a crown for round blades wide enough for 32-38mm tires may be impossible.
• Those blades could be shorter and/or stiffer - further adding to a harsh ride.
• A track tubeset may have short rear stays - touring bikes like long stays for heal clearance and stability.

If it was mine, after verifying the above, I might build a touring bike from a different tubeset and sell the SP set to fund the right tubeset for the touring bike. Or keep it and build a track bike later.

If you're 130lbs, it might be harsher than you like. .7/1mm is fairly stout.

Fat tires and nice curved fork with thin blades will do wonders for the ride.

Barrettscv 

Your weight, the frame size and the geometry will influence the result. SP was produced for larger frame sizes and bigger, heavier cyclists.

I've had two Treks with SP and I have a Serotta with SPX. I did consider the 1978ish Trek TX900 and the 1983 970 to be harsh. These were race bikes and ride quality was not a characteristic Trek cared about.

However the 1985ish Serotta Nova X is one of my best riding bikes on 700x27 Vittoria Pave tires at 100psi. In theory, this SPX tubeset is the stiffest of all the non-oversized tubesets made by Columbus. SPX is based on SP with the addition of helical inserts. However, I really like the ride. I'm a 220 lbs cyclist so most of my bikes are made of SLX, TSX or SPX. If you are lighter than 175 lbs, you're might not like the stiffer tubesets as much as I do.

It really will depend on geometry and your weight. The size 64cm Serotta is a century bike with short reach brakes. It's not the more aggressive factory race model that the size 63cm Trek 970 was.

By the way, I have a SP fork that will fit 700x32 tires from the Trek TX900, it uses medium (45-57mm) reach caliper brakes, but you could weld cantilever studs on it. It's available.

The Surley Cross Check fork is available with a 1 inch steerer, it can fit a 700x45 WTB Riddler if you want big tires.

JohnDThompson 

With the round blades, this may be a track PS tube set rather than a road SP tube set. PS sets came with 24mm chain stays swagged down to 22mm to insert into a standard BB shell. But the main tubes were 1.0/0.7mm just as were SP main tubes.

https://www.os2.dhs.org/~john/catalog...mbus-tubes.pdf

At Trek, we built frames larger than larger than 58cm with SP tubes. But if you prefer a less stiff frame, you may wish to use a lighter gauge tube set.

fietsbob

My Specialized Expedition , circa 86, used a 1,125 TOP tube and seat tube, a 1.25" Downtube..
it was still a little flexy with a 4 pannier load.. but not un control ably so..

fietsbob

My round blade fork on my heavier touring bike was fabricated , biplane type , from 1/4" steel plate..
1 piece butted the ends of the blades or steerer, the other they passed thru, the plate.

TiHabanero

Bingo! It is the PS not SP tubes! I have the chainstays, three main tubes, and fork blades plus steerer. Only one chain stay is there.


Is there anyone out there that will use the tubes that are there? I have decided to go with a lighter tube set (yes, I like a flexible frame!) You pay shipping and this is yours: TT, DT, ST, Fork Blades (round, very cool), Chain Stays (as described by JohnDThompson). If you will use them and not stash them on a shelf, let me know before someone else claims them.

Barrettscv 

Dibs!

Andrew R Stewart 

I'll mimic the replies above for the most part. Tubing diameter is a far more effective path to a bike that is stiff enough to resist shimmy better then a skinny tubed bike will.


Having just returned from a 2000 mile loaded tour on what's my 4th self made touring frame I think I have a perspective that worth reading. I started building my touring frames over 30 years ago using the then common (as in traditional tube diameters and walls) tube sets. Only geometry was really different from my "Sunday club" bikes. As time and tours went by I became more and more unhappy with the bike's handling when loaded. Shimmy and brake induced "inch worming" being the two biggies.


So over the years I built another frame (and another, and another) changing aspects to try to find the best result. First came tweaking the geometry to influence the shimmy. This had a minor effect at best. When you have 75+ lbs of load on the bike (the ACA, in Missoula, weighed my recent tourer at 112lbs bike and load) the frame sees a lot of lengthwise twisting and the frame acts like a spring in that it will return most all the force back. leading to that wobble/shimmy we want to avoid.


Next came changing to thicker walls but retaining the 1" steerer and traditional diameters elsewhere. This resulted in a more solid bike that still moved about under load more then i wanted. Finally I decided to invest in tooling to be able to use a 1 1/8" steerer. The rest of the frame's tubing increased in diameter. I also used a crown that was very stiff as well as being wide enough to run 40mm tire widths. With the geometry I like I decided to fillet the frame, lugs and shells weren't available in the right specs without major mods and i didn't want to build two frames (essentially what one does when making their own lugs and shells).


This 4th frame is FAR better riding when loaded then any before it. Vastly more solid under load, out of the saddle climbing was more controled, the front braking induced fork flex (inch worming) much less. And with the 1.5" wide tires I ran (at 70psi) gave me more road surface comfort that any of the previous bikes had (with their 700x32s at 105psi).


When I ride this bike unloaded (and even with 1.25 tires) the ride is firm but not what I would call harsh.


There's a lot more thoughts I have about what makes a better touring bike but they are for other threads as they involve the braze ons and equipment, not the frame tubes.


I'd offer to take the tubes but they would just sit on a shelf till the right project came along. Andy.

walt thiznney

just buy bigger tires, wont make muhc a different

bunkerman

How big are you and how hard do you ride. If your 6:2 and 130 it will be harsh. If your 6:2 and 180 and up and can put out some power then SP might be the ticket. If you like riding the flats on the big chain ring for a coupla hours at a time then SP will do you proud.

Andrew R Stewart 

I don't agree with this if the touring will require a large load. My 3rd touring frame was built with the True Temper equivalent of SP (1x.7 main tube walls with traditional diameters). With a credit card/motel load it was OK at most. With the load I carry when camping, not stiff enough to resist the problems that excessive flexibility causes.


I'm about 150lbs, my motel tour load is around 35lbs and a camping, including cooking gear, load can be 60-80lbs (clothing, food and water dependent). Andy.

TiHabanero

Thank you to everyone expressing interest in the tubes. I was contacted by a hobby builder who has a knack for track frames. He's been around for quite a while and actually has the SP seat stays. Thus the set is complete and correct. He is building a proper track frame from the set and will name it "Jared" after my brother. How delightful is that? I am excited to see it finished and on the road. PS> He says a friend of his has a Suntour Superbe track kit that he MIGHT be talked into letting go of. That will be icing on the cake for this project. Either way, the tubes will be brazed up in a month and the build complete with the correct era kit in Suntour or Campy, and my brother will be happy to know the bike that never was, is and on the road.

TiHabanero

Note to Andy: Good info in your post. I have never done a 2000 mile tour, my rides only go for a week at most due to work obligations, however if I retire, then the ride bucket list gets pulled out and a sea to sea "self supported" tour is on it(my wife says she will idle along behind me in a car because she says it is crazy to do it on my own). Then a frame and racks that handle 80 lbs or more of gear will be necessary, however for now 45 lbs is the most I allow on a week ride, hence standard tubes have always done fine.