Originally Posted by
Silverbraze
the vintage forum is a very very small group of enthusiastic people inside the greater cycling world, and seem to be the only ones who I know of in 30 years that make the claims of std is better than the now 20 year old standard "Over Size" tubes, and how many of them have really ridden a loaded std touring frame and then an OS frame with a DT and TT up 1/8" on an inch over the old standard
I was talking about modern metal vs. vintage metal, not OS vs. standard diameter.
Originally Posted by
Silverbraze
hold on, 20% increase of rigidity in the bending and twisting of the DT and TT can not be called "Extreme stiffness, but it can help the handling the frame and if the rider is a fit solid tall person they can load the pedals up with lots of torque in the 34 inner and 28-32 rear sprocket when grinding a steep pinch, avoids derailluer rubbing and the bike tracks straighter, and the plane of wheels stays straighter rather than swapping as the frame twists on each pedal thrust/load.
Well, I'm not as big as Schnee, and I have a hard time keeping up with cat. 2s these days, but I personally find .9/.6/.9 standard diameter a little too heavy. I like the flexibility of .8/.5/.8, even in my >60 cm rando frames. I've ridden one built with OS tubing and found it extremely stiff, relatively speaking. I strongly disliked it and found that it made my legs build up with lactic acid -- before Jan ever used the word "planing".
Originally Posted by
Silverbraze
I have a 17 year old fixie I ride three times a week for 50 kms, on 43 x 17. It is made of SP what was lying around. Yeah it works fine. But there is no way I would dig around for an old tube set laying under a bench to make my new bike, as the new materials have a better grain structure post braze and welding which improves fatigue life of the tubes. {all dimensions the same the tube rides the same}
I bolded the key part, which is really my whole point. The guy apparently already has the SLX and is already having the frame built. As for fatigue life and grain structure, that's really what I mean when I talk about benefits that don't transition well from paper to reality. I mean, you're riding a 17 year old frame. I have a 30 year old SL frame. People ride frames even older than that on a daily basis. How much more fatigue life do we need?
Originally Posted by
Silverbraze
The new 531 tubes available now are not to the old recipe, they are just rebadged tubes in the current material to appeal to the nostalgic market, they want to sell tubes to punters and Columbus Cyclex tubes {SL, SPX etc} has not been made for many years.
I didn't even know Reynolds had reintroduced 531. The 531 I have been using has been between 30 and 40 years old.
Originally Posted by
Silverbraze
Some people claim they have a bike made of 531 etc in circa1950 and it has lasted and is still ridden, but it is not daily for 50 years under some who leans on the pedals hard, on their commute or training.
We obviously don't know the same people.
FWIW, I'm not really trying to start a fight or anything. I just think the argument that OS and/or modern steel is automatically better for everything and everyone is too broad, and I think the OP will find SLX as good today as we all did decades ago - as long as he's not 280 pounds, or intending to have a 63 cm loaded touring frame built with it.