SpeedofLite 

Bianchigirll 

While the setting is great, that pic doesn’t do this fabulous bike justice. It has a beautiful matte black paint with a not to shiny clear coat and lots of Celeste



FWIW you may want to check the date, I believe this was written in ‘89 about the ‘90 Giro.

SpeedofLite 

Thanks for the assist!
I've been a bit disappointed in the quality of the photographs in this Classico Italiano series from the Bicycle Guide Oct 1989 issue.
The date information I have is only as good as what the magazine provides unless I know differently, and most times I don't.
Why do you believe this is a 1990 model? The photos, the specs, article text, or personal observations?

Bianchigirll 

SpeedofLite I misspoke. on one page the Bianchi USA shows the '89 as being Celeste and on the specs page it shows Celeste and Matte Black Still a fabulous bike and great color.

Andy_K 

That's a cool review, but it leaves me wondering what Thoreau would think of the bike. Here's what I imagine.

If friction is part of the shifting machinery of the Bianchi, let it go, let it go: perchance you will find it smooth. But if the shifting is of such a nature that it requires you to use Syncro then I say, replace the shifters!

Andy_K 

On a more serious note, did they use the SLX/SPX mix on all sizes? I think all the tubing decals I've seen on these just say SLX. Maybe that's normal?

I have what I think is an '89 Mondiale. The trame weighs a few ounces less than stated in the review, but it's a smaller size (57) so I guess that's about right.

georges1

Interesting bike, but I would have hoped for a more high end tubing than slx/spx.

SurferRosa

Even at 59cm, why is an SLX bike 24 lbs?

thinktubes 

Got a blue one moldering away

joesch

1989 BIANCHI Giro was a great deal compared to the 89 Master (1250 vs 3000).
What were some of the other list prices for the 89 Bianchi bikes?

joesch

Would be awesome to get both of those classics back on the road

thinktubes 

The Vette apparently went to a good home.

Spaghetti Legs 

The plush ride of those wide 22 mm tires. how times change! Thanks for posting this, as well as others. As it happens I have owned the last two you posted.

PilotFishBob 

I have a lovely '89 that graces my office wall. Just a little too small for me to ride comfortably and one day soon i will let it go, but for now it's a nice piece of eye candy to look up at every now and then.


​​​​​​​

Andy_K 

Is it the SPX that you're not liking. I'm not sure when the more exotic Columbus stuff started to come out, but SLX was king of the lineup for a while. I think mixing in the SPX is a design decision. Reynolds 531 had thicker down tubes, but the Columbus tubes didn't do that. As he mentions in the review, the theory is that a beefier downtube improves the ride. A similar choice was made with the Specialized Sequoia (Tange 2 downtube with everything else Tange 1, I believe). It may be a placebo effect, but I think it works.


I think it's got to be the wheels. I've got one of these built up with a 3x10 Daytona gruppo and it weighs just a hair over 23 pounds. Any remotely weight-conscious build should bring it in around 22 pounds or less.

georges1

Very hardly since the531 existed in various versions:

The 531 professional and 531 competition being much lighter than the slx and sl ditto with the 531 speed stream.

Andy_K 

Yes, but my point was that Reynolds (usually) used thicker tubes for the down tube than they did for the top tube while Columbus didn't. I don't know if this chart is accurate, and it certainly isn't complete, but it illustrates what I'm talking about.



Apart from the Super Tourist tubes, the Reynolds tube sets generally used relatively thicker tubes for the down tube than they did for the top tube and seat tube. The Columbus tubes, while thicker than the Reynolds tubes across the board, used consistent thickness for the down tube. (I believe SLX has the same thickness as SL, the difference being the added coils.) Without any first hand knowledge, I can see from looking at this chart why a builder who was using Columbus tubing might choose to mix Columbus tube sets to get characteristics that mimic that of the Reynolds tube sets.

So, if you're saying that Bianchi should have used Reynolds tubing to make a better bike, I can't argue with that except to say an Italian frame maker would have been less likely to do such a thing. But if you start from the assumption that they're going to use something from Columbus, then SLX/SPX isn't such a bad choice. As an aside, I think SLX was generally viewed as being better than SL, even though it's slightly heavier because of the coils, so it seems the Italians were generally willing to accept a minor weight penalty for stiffness, at least. I think SLX is roughly 150 grams heavier than an average 531 frame, but that's a relatively insignificant difference on the road. I'm not a frame builder, so I can only offer second hand opinions about the tradeoffs in choosing between the various tubing. My personal opinion is that 531 (in any variety), SL, SLX, and so on are all good starting points and from there I judge a frame based on how it rides with me on top of it, which is likely different from how it would ride with you on top of it.

smd4

Yep. SLX/SPX were pretty much top of the line tubing back then...

georges1

Interesting response but the 531 has been favored over years when it apppeared in the professional roadbike racing cicuit. Also the columbus sl and slx are more prone to rust than the 531. I will always prefer a 531 professional frame or 531 competition over a columbus slx, sl, sp,tsx, brain, thron.This is just my personal preference but for high end to very high end steels,I do like Columbus and Dedacciai.

smd4

I bet there were more racing bikies made with Columbus tubing than Reynolds at the time of this article.

georges1

Columbus started to be popular after 1987 when Stephen Roche won the Tour de France,the Giro and the Vuelta on a Columbus El OS made bike and in 1992 when Gianni Bugno won his first world title on a Columbus Genius framed bike,Reynolds was found among many frame builders till late 00's even today and brands including manufacturers Gitane and Peugeot till late 80's early 90's used Reynolds but also Jamis, GT, Gazelle and several others used Reynolds in the early 00's.

bikingshearer 

Yeah, but Columbus could never say that SL(X) or SP(X) was used to make the engine cradle structure for the Spitfire like Reynolds 531 can.

BTW, I've seen that chart that Andy_K posted before. Look at those numbers for SPX. That beefiness, especially in the forks and stays, is the reason (1) why my large-sized mid-1960s Cinellis weigh a ton and (2) why those bikes feel so wonderful under my 6'3" 260lb. carcass. Your dead-feeling tuna boat is my happy place, and your light, agile, thinner-walled machine probably feels a tad noodly to me. A great deal of this is rider-specific; bigger folks like/need thicker tubing than do you less weight-enhanced folks.

(I was going to call you all "spindly-legged climbing farts" as I was taught in my youth by good sized track sprinter with tree-trunk thighs - and I would have meant it in only the nicest of ways - but I decided to be charitable. Kumbayah, and all that.)

smd4

Oh, Columbus was popular long before 1987…

smd4

I don’t know what the Italian version of the Spitfire is, but Columbus started out as an aircraft tubing manufacturer in the 1920s.

steelbikeguy

wandering a bit off topic... the only Italian WW II fighter that I know of is the Macchi MC.200 Saetta.
This is the example on display in the Museum of the USAF in Dayton, OH.





Kinda cool looking aircraft!
No idea what sort of structural tubing it uses, though.

Steve in Peoria