Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Classic & Vintage
Reload this Page >

Columbus EL-OS compared to Columbus MAX?

Classic & Vintage This forum is to discuss the many aspects of classic and vintage bicycles, including musclebikes, lightweights, middleweights, hi-wheelers, bone-shakers, safety bikes and much more.

Columbus EL-OS compared to Columbus MAX?

Old 01-01-19, 01:15 PM
  #1  
shuru421
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 641
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 240 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Columbus EL-OS compared to Columbus MAX?

Ive read many different threads regarding Columbus Steels, the hierarchy, user reviews/opinions, and several different catalog pages describing the plethora of steels unique characteristics and primary use. After all this, what I came up with is that EL-OS is just a lighter version of MAX? But how Columbus describes it is "designed to optimize efficiency under the demands of extreme bads: sprint, time trials, climbing and strong centrifugal acceleration when descending". Why does MAX sound more higher end than EL-OS? Wasn't the EL-OS newer tech than MAX?
shuru421 is offline  
Old 01-01-19, 01:27 PM
  #2  
Bianchigirll 
Bianchi Goddess
 
Bianchigirll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Fort Wayne, In
Posts: 25,632

Bikes: Too many to list here check my signature.

Mentioned: 94 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1264 Post(s)
Liked 38 Times in 29 Posts
I believe MAX came first but some found it too much, although it was a very light tubeset for how large the tubing appears.

There was for a short time a MINI MAX tubeset which I understand was EL drawn to the same profiles as MAX but smaller.

I think it mainly comes down to a personal preference. I had a SL frame that loved but when it broke I had the chance to upgrade to MAX. Being a slightly taller and heavier rider I found the MAX an excellent frame for my style of riding, Lighter riders may may find MAX too stiff.
__________________
Bianchis '87 Sport SX, '90 Proto, '90 Campione del Fausto Giamondi Specialisma Italiano Mundo, '91 Boarala 'cross, '93 Project 3, '86 Volpe, '97 Ti Megatube, , '90 something Vento 603,

Others but still loved,; '80 RIGI, '80 Batavus Professional, '87 Cornelo, '09 Motobecane SOLD, '?? Jane Doe (still on the drawing board), '90ish Haro Escape
Bianchigirll is offline  
Old 01-01-19, 03:33 PM
  #3  
T-Mar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 17,823
Mentioned: 431 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2473 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times in 54 Posts
Columbus EL-OS and MAX use the same alloy but EL-OS uses round tubes that are slightly oversized to achieve stiffness. MAX achieves stiffness by using non-round tubes with oval ends. The orientation of the oval changes, to selectively apply stiffness where needed. For instance, the down tube has the major axis of the oval orientated vertically at the head tube end, for vertical stiffness, but laterally at the other end for bottom bracket stiffness. Similarly the top tube has the oval oriented vertically at the head tube end but laterally at the seat tube end. The seat tube is tapered with a laterally orientated oval for bottom bracket stiffness.

The orientation of MAX tubes provided maximum stiffness in the direction of the maximum force at the end of each tube. With EL-OS, the stiffness was achieved by increasing the diameter but since the tube was round, the stiffness was increased by the same amount in all directions, resulting in a (theoretical) compromise. From this point of view, MAX is more hi-tech, even though it is slightly older. Sometimes you can have too much of a good thing and this seems to be the consensus with MAX's stiffness.

Last edited by T-Mar; 01-01-19 at 03:37 PM.
T-Mar is offline  
Old 01-01-19, 03:40 PM
  #4  
repechage
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 13,341
Mentioned: 77 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 936 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 11 Posts
Manarti built not too long ago with The MAX tube set.

I think EL-OS is decent enough. Kind of the mainstream answer to the Masi Volumetrica.
repechage is offline  
Old 01-01-19, 04:16 PM
  #5  
styggno1
Steel is real
 
styggno1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 685

Bikes: A lot - accumulated over +30 years

Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 198 Post(s)
Liked 10 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by T-Mar View Post
Columbus EL-OS and MAX use the same alloy but EL-OS uses round tubes that are slightly oversized to achieve stiffness. MAX achieves stiffness by using non-round tubes with oval ends. The orientation of the oval changes, to selectively apply stiffness where needed. For instance, the down tube has the major axis of the oval orientated vertically at the head tube end, for vertical stiffness, but laterally at the other end for bottom bracket stiffness. Similarly the top tube has the oval oriented vertically at the head tube end but laterally at the seat tube end. The seat tube is tapered with a laterally orientated oval for bottom bracket stiffness.

The orientation of MAX tubes provided maximum stiffness in the direction of the maximum force at the end of each tube. With EL-OS, the stiffness was achieved by increasing the diameter but since the tube was round, the stiffness was increased by the same amount in all directions, resulting in a (theoretical) compromise. From this point of view, MAX is more hi-tech, even though it is slightly older. Sometimes you can have too much of a good thing and this seems to be the consensus with MAX's stiffness.
Not much to add to T-Mar: s nice write up other than maybe that they are both Nivacrom and that it differs 100 gram between the tubesets 1900g for MAX and 1800 for EL OS.


Last edited by styggno1; 01-01-19 at 04:22 PM.
styggno1 is offline  
Old 01-01-19, 08:52 PM
  #6  
jbchybridrider 
Senior Member
 
jbchybridrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: adelaide, australia
Posts: 2,558
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Liked 24 Times in 13 Posts
Mid 90's Olympia 56x53 only 1510 grams and stiffest steel frame I've ridden .love it
el-os

Last edited by jbchybridrider; 01-01-19 at 08:57 PM.
jbchybridrider is offline  
Old 01-01-19, 09:07 PM
  #7  
jbchybridrider 
Senior Member
 
jbchybridrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: adelaide, australia
Posts: 2,558
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Liked 24 Times in 13 Posts
jbchybridrider is offline  
Old 01-01-19, 09:15 PM
  #8  
clubman
Youngman Grand
 
clubman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 5,485

Bikes: roadsters, club bikes, fixed and classic

Mentioned: 82 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 964 Post(s)
Liked 17 Times in 15 Posts
My EL-OS Cramerotti also had oversize chainstays, making the frame stiff and inflexible. Didn't like it and I'm heavy.
clubman is online now  
Old 01-01-19, 10:51 PM
  #9  
RiddleOfSteel
Lugged, Dura-Ace Glory
 
RiddleOfSteel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,517

Bikes: '87 Schwinn Prologue - '74 Schwinn Paramount P15 - '8X Davidson Impulse - '88 Land Shark Road Shark - '92 Specialized Epic Carbon - '15 Cannondale CAAD10 Disc - '81 Trek 710 - '92? Bushnell Track Bike

Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 796 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 27 Times in 23 Posts
I'd like to try EL-OS or just EL. I've owned and ridden (briefly) both a 61cm MAX and a 65cm MAX bike, both made my Marinoni. I didn't find them to be harsh, and this was before my discovery of Vittoria Open Corsa tires. They were certainly responsive and firm in relaying pavement irregularities (and there are tons here in Seattle's immediate neighborhoods), but really flew when you accelerated. Reminded me of my 2015/6 Trek Emonda ALR (aluminum) frame/bike. Slingshot-esque.
RiddleOfSteel is offline  
Old 01-02-19, 01:09 PM
  #10  
shuru421
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 641
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 240 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by T-Mar View Post
Columbus EL-OS and MAX use the same alloy but EL-OS uses round tubes that are slightly oversized to achieve stiffness. MAX achieves stiffness by using non-round tubes with oval ends. The orientation of the oval changes, to selectively apply stiffness where needed. For instance, the down tube has the major axis of the oval orientated vertically at the head tube end, for vertical stiffness, but laterally at the other end for bottom bracket stiffness. Similarly the top tube has the oval oriented vertically at the head tube end but laterally at the seat tube end. The seat tube is tapered with a laterally orientated oval for bottom bracket stiffness.

The orientation of MAX tubes provided maximum stiffness in the direction of the maximum force at the end of each tube. With EL-OS, the stiffness was achieved by increasing the diameter but since the tube was round, the stiffness was increased by the same amount in all directions, resulting in a (theoretical) compromise. From this point of view, MAX is more hi-tech, even though it is slightly older. Sometimes you can have too much of a good thing and this seems to be the consensus with MAX's stiffness.
So the only real difference is that Columbus EL-OS has the same amount of stiffness of the MAX but throughout its entire frame as opposed to MAX which is specifically stiff in certain areas.

Question. Why is it a compromise for the stiffness to be increased by the same amount in all directions? Is stiffness a win/lose situation? I thought stiffness was a good attribute?
shuru421 is offline  
Old 01-02-19, 01:16 PM
  #11  
shuru421
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 641
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 240 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by styggno1 View Post
Not much to add to T-Mar: s nice write up other than maybe that they are both Nivacrom and that it differs 100 gram between the tubesets 1900g for MAX and 1800 for EL OS.

Stated for MAX : "..demands of extreme bads: sprints, time trials, climbing and strong centrifugal acceleration when descending"
Stated for EL-OS : "..set in the toughest professional competitions.."

So is EL-OS not good for climbing and strong centrifugal accelerations? Are those not "settings of the toughest professional competitions"?
shuru421 is offline  
Old 01-02-19, 02:38 PM
  #12  
dddd
Ride, Wrench, Swap, Race
 
dddd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern California
Posts: 6,526

Bikes: Cheltenham-Pederson racer, Boulder F/S Paris-Roubaix, Varsity racer, '52 Christophe, '62 Continental, '92 Merckx, '75 Limongi, '76 Presto, '72 Gitane SC, '71 Schwinn SS, etc.

Mentioned: 78 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 533 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 19 Times in 19 Posts
All of these criteria are quantitative and subjective, so might best be thought of as the choices of building blocks that framebuilders can select from while designing a particular frame. They would need experience building with the various tubes to apply the dimensional differences to advantage.

I found this Ciocc made from the MiniMAX tubeset, it's mainly fillet brazed because of the non-round tube ends.
I weigh in the140's (lbs) and the bike's dynamics sustain my hardest efforts for what that's worth (sorry for the poor photographic time/location):


Last edited by dddd; 01-02-19 at 04:01 PM.
dddd is offline  
Old 01-02-19, 03:27 PM
  #13  
himespau 
Senior Member
 
himespau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 10,935
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1332 Post(s)
Liked 21 Times in 14 Posts
Originally Posted by shuru421 View Post
So the only real difference is that Columbus EL-OS has the same amount of stiffness of the MAX but throughout its entire frame as opposed to MAX which is specifically stiff in certain areas.

Question. Why is it a compromise for the stiffness to be increased by the same amount in all directions? Is stiffness a win/lose situation? I thought stiffness was a good attribute?
I think the idea was that it doesn't provide as much stiffness in some directions as the elliptical shape of the MAX and more stiffness in other directions where it isn't needed (and thus is wasted because, if you designed tubing not to be overly stiff there, you might be able to use less steel and make a lighter frame). Also there's that old cliche about how the best frames are laterally stiff but vertically compliant. Too much stiffness results in you bouncing around on the road, making you more tired and potentially losing contact with the road at certain points which decreases speed output for a set amount of power output.
himespau is offline  
Old 01-02-19, 04:36 PM
  #14  
Road Fan
Senior Member
 
Road Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 14,203

Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8

Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 801 Post(s)
Liked 6 Times in 6 Posts
I would have to say that with ELOS, at least my 54 cm Mondonico, you are not overbounced, pogoing around on the road. It rather tracks smoothly over road irregularities. Not as smooth as my 42 mm Hetres at 50 psi, but better than my SL Mondonico with 21 mm 105 psi tires. I think it's a good ride from all respects. I can't speak about the comparison to MAX, only to SL, 531, and the TruTemper version of EL, OX-Plat (both .7/.4/.7 with standard diameters.) A physically similar comparator to ELOS should be 853. Some of our colleagues in BF have talked about how good it feels to ride 853. ELOS is simple to describe, being circular: .7/.4/.7, first oversize.

For those who have not liked or preferred ELOS or anything based on "oversized chainstays," I think that comment is kind of hard to use since if you don't give tube cross-section dimensions and butting profile information, we don't know what you're talking about. One rider's oversize could be another rider's noodle.

Last edited by Road Fan; 01-02-19 at 04:53 PM.
Road Fan is offline  
Old 01-02-19, 05:14 PM
  #15  
Road Fan
Senior Member
 
Road Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 14,203

Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8

Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 801 Post(s)
Liked 6 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by shuru421 View Post
Stated for MAX : "..demands of extreme bads: sprints, time trials, climbing and strong centrifugal acceleration when descending"
Stated for EL-OS : "..set in the toughest professional competitions.."

So is EL-OS not good for climbing and strong centrifugal accelerations? Are those not "settings of the toughest professional competitions"?
My riding has some climbing and downhill curves ("strong centrifugal accelerations"). But I bet they are quite tame compared to what is experienced in the Giro d'Italia or the Tour de France. Nevertheless, that bike is the best climber and descender I have owned. If Columbus intends to suggest there is anything wrong with ELOS, it must be in comparison with MAX, and probably only experienced at the most rarified levels of performance. In this lifetime I don't have enough years left to build up to that level.

I would say if you are a hors de categorie rider (if such a rating exists), I'd say you should only use the very best tubing, which might be 953 at this moment in the steel universe. If you are merely a mortal bike freak, ELOS just could possibly be satisfactory for 99.7% of your riding -- YMMV.

Now what does beat me up is Brain - thick-walled tubing, first oversize, the standard recipe for an over-stiff bike. Wife's 1997 Terry has that, and while it is quick and smooth it is significantly harsher than my SL bike or my 531 fully db bikes. Ms Terry may have been trying to tame the stiffness when she specified long 43.5 cm chainstays,
Road Fan is offline  
Old 01-02-19, 10:37 PM
  #16  
clubman
Youngman Grand
 
clubman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 5,485

Bikes: roadsters, club bikes, fixed and classic

Mentioned: 82 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 964 Post(s)
Liked 17 Times in 15 Posts
Originally Posted by Road Fan View Post
For those who have not liked or preferred ELOS or anything based on "oversized chainstays," I think that comment is kind of hard to use since if you don't give tube cross-section dimensions and butting profile information, we don't know what you're talking about. One rider's oversize could be another rider's noodle.
Geez, sorry I don't have the dimensions of the chainstays for my 96 Cramerotti but I can reassure you that my 230 lbs couldn't flex that frame out of the saddle. And just to be a real arse about it, I could climb with the best, a legend in my own mind .

When I purchased new from Bicicletta, I was told it had oversized stays. I see from the above chart that the MAX chainstays were straight gauge .06 mm while the EL-OS were butted 0.6 -0.8 mm without giving OD measurements. Nuff said. It wasn't dissimilar to my CAD3 C-dale frame. Jarring.

Last edited by clubman; 01-02-19 at 10:43 PM.
clubman is online now  
Old 01-03-19, 10:22 AM
  #17  
Paletti
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 40

Bikes: 1985 DeRosa SLX, 1994 DeRosa Primato, 2009 DeRosa x-light, 1993 Paletti, 1983 Colnago aero cx, 1984 Colnago Mexico, 1983 Colner strato professional, 2016 Colnago V1-R

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
I have not ridden max but have bikes built from SL, SLX and ELOS. I personally love the ELOS. I have two bikes made from it and those are two of my favorite rides: DeRosa Primato and a Paletti.
Paletti is offline  
Old 01-04-19, 03:27 PM
  #18  
T-Mar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 17,823
Mentioned: 431 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2473 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times in 54 Posts
Originally Posted by shuru421 View Post
So the only real difference is that Columbus EL-OS has the same amount of stiffness of the MAX but throughout its entire frame as opposed to MAX which is specifically stiff in certain areas.


Question. Why is it a compromise for the stiffness to be increased by the same amount in all directions? Is stiffness a win/lose situation? I thought stiffness was a good attribute?


Stated for MAX : "..demands of extreme bads: sprints, time trials, climbing and strong centrifugal acceleration when descending"

Stated for EL-OS : "..set in the toughest professional competitions.."


So is EL-OS not good for climbing and strong centrifugal accelerations? Are those not "settings of the toughest professional competitions"?

While a stiffer frame is desirable in terms of efficient power transmission, it is not more desirable in terms of comfort, as it transmits more road shock and is more fatiguing Like all things in life, there is compromise between the two and the desired balance will vary depending on the individual, road conditions, terrain and length of rides. To cover the conceivable range, manufacturers offer a variety of tubesets.


EL-OS was intended as a general purpose road tubeset, similar to Columbus' venerable SL. Improvements in alloy (and road conditions) allowed for thinner and lighter tubes, resulting in EL. However, this resulted in loss of stiffness and EL was recommended only for very light riders, those with very smooth cadence or where light weight was the priority. EL-OS recovered the lost stiffness by increasing tubing diameter. This also resulted in some weight gain, though it was still significantly lighter than SL, while having comparable stiffness.


MAX on the other hand is a specific purpose tubeset and this is indicted in the brochure by "extreme loads" ( I think the typesetter mistook " loads" as "bads" by reading the 'l" plus "o" as a "b"). Comparatively, it is stiffer and better than EL-OS in these conditions, provided fatigue is not an issue and weight is not the main priority. It is better suited for rides of shorter duration and/or on smoother surfaces. Personally, I always thought that MAX made an excellent track frame and it's worth noting that MAX appeared at the same time that Columbus' dedicated track tubesets disappeared.


Of course, the above assumes that everything other than the tubeset are equal. Frame builders can notably alter the ride characteristics of a frame via various methods. .
T-Mar is offline  
Old 01-05-19, 10:34 AM
  #19  
shuru421
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 641
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 240 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by T-Mar View Post
While a stiffer frame is desirable in terms of efficient power transmission, it is not more desirable in terms of comfort, as it transmits more road shock and is more fatiguing Like all things in life, there is compromise between the two and the desired balance will vary depending on the individual, road conditions, terrain and length of rides. To cover the conceivable range, manufacturers offer a variety of tubesets.


EL-OS was intended as a general purpose road tubeset, similar to Columbus' venerable SL. Improvements in alloy (and road conditions) allowed for thinner and lighter tubes, resulting in EL. However, this resulted in loss of stiffness and EL was recommended only for very light riders, those with very smooth cadence or where light weight was the priority. EL-OS recovered the lost stiffness by increasing tubing diameter. This also resulted in some weight gain, though it was still significantly lighter than SL, while having comparable stiffness.


MAX on the other hand is a specific purpose tubeset and this is indicted in the brochure by "extreme loads" ( I think the typesetter mistook " loads" as "bads" by reading the 'l" plus "o" as a "b"). Comparatively, it is stiffer and better than EL-OS in these conditions, provided fatigue is not an issue and weight is not the main priority. It is better suited for rides of shorter duration and/or on smoother surfaces. Personally, I always thought that MAX made an excellent track frame and it's worth noting that MAX appeared at the same time that Columbus' dedicated track tubesets disappeared.


Of course, the above assumes that everything other than the tubeset are equal. Frame builders can notably alter the ride characteristics of a frame via various methods. .
Interesting! I do like how MAX rides, just thought that EL-OS was a 'refined' version of MAX (given its lighter but with same tubing diameters)...but it seems as though MAX has its set of 'upper hand' in certain criterias'. I guess there isnt much difference between MAX and EL-OS at the end of the day..

Could you possible shed some light on NEMO tubing? It seems most of NEMO frames are filet brazed, not as many around like MAX, EL-OS, SLX etc albeit newer tubing. Ive seen bikes made of Nemo but never heard people talk/rave about it. No bueno perhaps?
shuru421 is offline  
Old 01-05-19, 12:10 PM
  #20  
Road Fan
Senior Member
 
Road Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 14,203

Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8

Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 801 Post(s)
Liked 6 Times in 6 Posts
Shuru, I think you can look at the Columbus site and see what they have to say about Nemo. I recall (I think) Nemo, Brain, and Neuron were more or less contemporary. Both Reynolds and Columbus brought out some tubing products designed primarily for TIG and perhaps other lug-free joining techniques. As I mentioned in the thread, My wife has a bike with Brain (no lugs) and it is stiff and sharp.

I would not say ELOS was a refined version of MAX, rather a refined version of SL - perhaps the final feasible refinement, since both are circular tubes. MAX deviates by jumping off into oval cross-sections and by orienting the long axis of the oval (essentially rotating the oval) to compensate tor the greater bending stress at certain parts of the frame.
Road Fan is offline  
Old 01-05-19, 12:51 PM
  #21  
Nessism
Senior Member
 
Nessism's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 2,725

Bikes: Homebuilt steel

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked 9 Times in 9 Posts
ELOS uses what's termed "oversize tubes". This means a 28.6mm top tube and seat tube, and a 31.75mm down tube. The chain stays were also ovalized 24mm. Because the tubes were larger diameter than "standard" sized tubes, which were 25.4mm top and 28.6mm down and seat tubes, along with 22.2mm chain stays, the ELOS tubes could be made thinner to save a little weight while not giving up any stiffness as compared to a "standard" set like SL.

Max on the other hand uses what would be termed XL OS tubes: 31.75 top and seat, and 35mm down tube. The chain stays are larger too. Basically, the Max tubes were both larger and as noted earlier, shaped more to resist deflection. Top of the heap for strong riders, but the larger tubes were heavier so only the strongest of riders typically chose it for their frames.
Nessism is offline  
Old 01-06-19, 06:41 AM
  #22  
Bianchigirll 
Bianchi Goddess
 
Bianchigirll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Fort Wayne, In
Posts: 25,632

Bikes: Too many to list here check my signature.

Mentioned: 94 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1264 Post(s)
Liked 38 Times in 29 Posts
Originally Posted by shuru421 View Post
So the only real difference is that Columbus EL-OS has the same amount of stiffness of the MAX but throughout its entire frame as opposed to MAX which is specifically stiff in certain areas.

Question. Why is it a compromise for the stiffness to be increased by the same amount in all directions? Is stiffness a win/lose situation? I thought stiffness was a good attribute?
the idea behind the ovalizec profiles on the MAX tubeset as well as Mini MAX was to make the frame laterally stiff to resist flexing from climbing
and sprinting but still have some vertical give to soften road shock. Using the oversized EL OS tubes achieves IMHO a compromise of the two. You get better performance than you would from say a SLX frame but perhaps not as good as MAX might achieve but you have a softer ride.

Bianchi has long sought this sweet spot in reducing BB flex without ride quality suffering. First through their SuperSet frame design using slightly heavier gauge DT and CS tubes and SuperSet II with slightly larger DT ovalized at the BB shell. Then came the Mega Pro frame which seem to have borrowed heavily on MAX influences
__________________
Bianchis '87 Sport SX, '90 Proto, '90 Campione del Fausto Giamondi Specialisma Italiano Mundo, '91 Boarala 'cross, '93 Project 3, '86 Volpe, '97 Ti Megatube, , '90 something Vento 603,

Others but still loved,; '80 RIGI, '80 Batavus Professional, '87 Cornelo, '09 Motobecane SOLD, '?? Jane Doe (still on the drawing board), '90ish Haro Escape
Bianchigirll is offline  
Old 01-06-19, 06:46 AM
  #23  
Bianchigirll 
Bianchi Goddess
 
Bianchigirll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Fort Wayne, In
Posts: 25,632

Bikes: Too many to list here check my signature.

Mentioned: 94 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1264 Post(s)
Liked 38 Times in 29 Posts
Originally Posted by dddd View Post
All of these criteria are quantitative and subjective, so might best be thought of as the choices of building blocks that framebuilders can select from while designing a particular frame. They would need experience building with the various tubes to apply the dimensional differences to advantage.

I found this Ciocc made from the MiniMAX tubeset, it's mainly fillet brazed because of the non-round tube ends.
I weigh in the140's (lbs) and the bike's dynamics sustain my hardest efforts for what that's worth (sorry for the poor photographic time/location):

That is beautiful. The Nivachrome tubing was intended to be fillet brazed. I think I only ever saw one Mini MAX in person when I sold a Bianchi built with it. I was surprised more builders didnít use it but sadly for steel the cycling public was being conned into believing carbon fiber was better for them, so I think it just got lost in the dustbin of cycling history.

That is beautiful Coicc, are there more pics elsewhere?
__________________
Bianchis '87 Sport SX, '90 Proto, '90 Campione del Fausto Giamondi Specialisma Italiano Mundo, '91 Boarala 'cross, '93 Project 3, '86 Volpe, '97 Ti Megatube, , '90 something Vento 603,

Others but still loved,; '80 RIGI, '80 Batavus Professional, '87 Cornelo, '09 Motobecane SOLD, '?? Jane Doe (still on the drawing board), '90ish Haro Escape
Bianchigirll is offline  
Old 01-07-19, 12:50 PM
  #24  
shuru421
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 641
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 240 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by T-Mar View Post
While a stiffer frame is desirable in terms of efficient power transmission, it is not more desirable in terms of comfort, as it transmits more road shock and is more fatiguing Like all things in life, there is compromise between the two and the desired balance will vary depending on the individual, road conditions, terrain and length of rides. To cover the conceivable range, manufacturers offer a variety of tubesets.


EL-OS was intended as a general purpose road tubeset, similar to Columbus' venerable SL. Improvements in alloy (and road conditions) allowed for thinner and lighter tubes, resulting in EL. However, this resulted in loss of stiffness and EL was recommended only for very light riders, those with very smooth cadence or where light weight was the priority. EL-OS recovered the lost stiffness by increasing tubing diameter. This also resulted in some weight gain, though it was still significantly lighter than SL, while having comparable stiffness.


MAX on the other hand is a specific purpose tubeset and this is indicted in the brochure by "extreme loads" ( I think the typesetter mistook " loads" as "bads" by reading the 'l" plus "o" as a "b"). Comparatively, it is stiffer and better than EL-OS in these conditions, provided fatigue is not an issue and weight is not the main priority. It is better suited for rides of shorter duration and/or on smoother surfaces. Personally, I always thought that MAX made an excellent track frame and it's worth noting that MAX appeared at the same time that Columbus' dedicated track tubesets disappeared.


Of course, the above assumes that everything other than the tubeset are equal. Frame builders can notably alter the ride characteristics of a frame via various methods. .
Was EL-OS only recommended for ''light riders'' as well? And what is considered 'light' in this regard? 160-170< or...?
shuru421 is offline  
Old 01-07-19, 01:34 PM
  #25  
Nessism
Senior Member
 
Nessism's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Posts: 2,725

Bikes: Homebuilt steel

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked 9 Times in 9 Posts
Originally Posted by shuru421 View Post
Was EL-OS only recommended for ''light riders'' as well? And what is considered 'light' in this regard? 160-170< or...?
ELOS is fine for most riders. I wouldn't be concerned unless under 130 or over 200 (and a masher).
Nessism is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.