sd5782 

All this frame material stuff intrigues me. Kinda silly as I’m an old slow guy anyhow, but I enjoy the technical aspects of it all. Tre Tubi was a generalization, although I do have an Aelle Torpado in the lineup for sometime. It seems that most larger manufacturers have some frames with what is considered “good” tubing for the main triangle and lesser tubing for the rest.

It seems from posts that often owners still praise these bikes with “lesser” steel in the forks and rear triangle. So, if geometry and equipment are the same, how much is given up? I would think that there is more penalty than just a half pound of weight. Thoughts?

embankmentlb

I have Tre Tubi , Aelle , 753 framed bikes and everything in between. I am certainly not an expert in any sense of the word. After 40 plus years of riding l do notice some differences.
Manufactures usually pair the component quality to the frame quality to align with a certain price point. The total package may be what I notice. A high quality frame verses a medium quality frame would be hard or impossible for me to feel a difference.

seypat

Added weight is about it. You'll notice more with the saddle, wheelset and tires you put on it.

jdawginsc 

Agreed. I have Cromor, Tange 1/2 mix SL, SL mix (the Faggin I think), ELOS, 531 and a 531 mix.

The only frames I notice a palpable difference on are the ELOS and the Cannondale original run.

Plus we don’t know what the stays are...might be some decent stuff back there.

thinktubes 

I had a TreTubi Faggin and it was great! Smooth and lively ride, great geometry. Sold it because it was too small (note long stem, set-back seatpost).

3alarmer 

.
....sometimes, in the larger size frames I ride (59-60-61cm) , I think I notice that there is less overall flex in the rear triangle (so a stiffer frame). But it's not enough to make a universal statement about these frames. Some of them are pretty nice. I have experimented with a number of them, from the offerings by Follis and Bianchi, to some of the one down from the top of the line from Stella, a Bottecchia, a Faggin, and even a three main tubes butted, early Schwinn Voyageur. They all ride well with decent wheels and tires on them.

52telecaster

I have several full 531 and a few main triangle only. I would say between the two that geometry is bigger than the lack of a super light rear triangle. Having said that and because I tour with front panniers only, I prefer full 531 for long trips. It's not a big difference in comfort but being old and slow, I take whatever comforts are allowed.

Kabuki12

I have a Tre Tubi ItalVega that seems just fine , I don't have the strength to notice any flex variation as opposed to my full Columbus bikes.

himespau 

You can't see the sticker while riding it, right?

seypat

That's the important part. One of these days I'm gonna get a really high end French bike. The reason? All the lower end French bikes I've ridden ride so good. Surely a high end one will ride even better.

Erzulis Boat

Best riding steel bike that I ever owned was a Tretubi Faggin. Granted, it's the sum of the parts, but that ride was magical. I sold it to make room for an SL top of the line Faggin from the same era. Nope, the ride quality was totally inferior on the "fancy" Faggin with the identical components/wheels.

I see a pattern here with the Tretubi Faggins...................................

3alarmer 

Three Main Tubes Bianchi

Three Main Tubes Voyageur

Three Main Tubes Follis

Three Main Tubes Stella

Three Main Tubes Faggin

Andy_K 

I'm not even convinced it's always a downgrade. If the full fancy tubing frame was designed with 160 pound riders in mind, it might be a good thing for a heavy rider like me if the fork and stays are a little stiffer.

The trouble is, there's really no way to analyze this even pseudo-scientifically because you have no idea what you've got. With the main triangle I can look up the alloy blend, the wall thickness, the tubing set weight, and pretty much anything else I want to geek out about. With the forks and stays on a tre tubi bike, you usually don't get any clues as to what it is. Whatever was lying around the shop the day they built it? It might even be full 531 or whatever. That's just not promised.

T-Mar

Using lesser grade material in the stays and fork blades is a cost concession to hit a lower price point. The weight penalty is not as much as most people think.

CrMo’s potential weight savings cannot be fully realized in the stays and forks because the frame would be too whippy, with more flex at the bottom bracket and less predictable steering. Stiffness in a round tube is a function of the material’s modulus of elasticity, its outer diameter and its thickness. In the case of CrMo versus1020 hi-tensile, the differences in the modulus of elastic are negligible and the stiffness becomes primarily a function of diameter and wall thickness.

A main triangle can maintain good stiffness, primarily due to the larger diameter tubes. In order to maintain the necessary rigidity, CrMo stays and blades are typically about 80% the thickness of hi-tensile stays. You lose about ½ the potential weight savings of CrMo, to maintain adequate stiffness. This is why designers often substitute lesser grade material in the stays and forks. It saves money without affecting the weight as much.

In some cases. the added stiffness can be desirable, especially with very heavy or powerful riders or in certain types of bicycles, such as a grand touring bicycles which carry heavy loads in addition to the rider.

sd5782 

So, is it assumed that the cheaper steel fork and stay tubes will be thicker and stiffer, or do the factories try to somewhat match the properties of the higher grades by not going too thick in some cases? All kinda interesting as many seemingly lesser frames are well praised.

The Golden Boy 

Generally- a "cheaper" tube will be weaker, and thus need to be thicker to maintain the same strength- so therefore heavier.

I look at the Trek catalogs- The 600 series bikes have the main frame of 531 and the fork and stays of other material- CMn or CrMo. Looking at the purposes for those bikes gives you an idea of what the design process was. It wasn't "whatever was leftover in the barn," it wasn't entirely for cutting costs: the alloy used for more strength was often the alloy used for "cutting costs."

ShannonM

A lot of those Columbus "tre-tubi" frames were made with sticker-worthy main tubes, and taper-gauge 4130 stays and fork blades. Often True Temper, Ishiwata, or Tange.

In other words, equal quality, less bread, no bragging rights.

--Shannon

BFisher

Too much!

Those extra few ounces aren't just destroying our ride times, hauling all that extra weight may even be shortening our lives. I mean, think about the strain not only on our vascular systems, but also on our mental states, spinning and spinning to propel the excess further and further, only to be crushed at the end of a long ride when we see that we're up a whole twelve seconds or more from the last ride on the top tier bike. Who among us can stomach results like that? A time drop like that can and must only be attributed to the lesser frame, and the dejection is enough to erase any benefit the exercise may have given us. 3,000+ calories and hours burned with nothing but the sad taste of failure sullying our dry, empty mouths. If we didn't drink heavily before, we sure will now, and would only have ourselves to blame.

And don't dare combine a "main tubes only" frameset with those old, terribly slow, dauntingly sluggish Campagnolo derailleurs. Good God No! You'll sweat more. You'll wither faster. Your poor fingers will swell and blister as you throw the levers further just to try and find the next gear, and then you'll cringe and wince at the abominable transitions, thinking "How did I get here? What have I done?!" You'll grunt. You'll curse. You might even cry a little. Kids will point and laugh. And the neighbors, what will they think?

Do yourselves a favor. Just say no to tre-tubi and Campagnolo!

repechage

Bicycle guide did a shootout of identical geometry frames made with various tube sets.
the budget tube set did too well.

it's the gauge for stiffness when the diameters are the same

The Golden Boy 

Are you talking about the Bruce Gordon frames- or was there another one?

krakhaus 

I had that same frameset with the same paint scheme. Great bike. I probably couldn't feel the difference between than and any of my SLX frames.

mstateglfr 

It shouldn't be assumed that less expensive tubes will be thicker.
Modern 853 tubing comes in all sorts of profiles. Some are the same as 631 tubing and 520 tubing.

My grabel bike has an 853 main triangle and 4130 generic stays. This isn't a cost savings from a tubing perspective though. The stays are shaped(curved) a couple times and 4130 tubing is more easily and consistently manipulated. The thickness of the stays matches higher level branded tubing.

Insidious C. 

Anyone know- during which years did Columbus employ the triangular tretubi sticker? See Kabuki12's Italvega and (I think) 3Alarmer's Stella above.

Kabuki12

The ItalVega is a September 1972 mfg. date.

Hondo6

If this is the article @repechage is referencing, they were all Mondonicos with identical geometry and components that were ridden over the same or similar routes by the same rider. The rider didn't know which frame was made from which tubing.

https://www.habcycles.com/m7.html