55/Rad

Been researching the idea of building a vintage bike. A lot of the nicer frames I've been seeing from the 80's are Columbus SLX - which I understand was very high on the list of available steel tubing back then.

What other grades of steel were considered the best during this era? Why? How do they compare to todays' 853 or equivalent?

55/Rad

duane041

I don't know much about the differences, but I can say this:

YAY!!! You're going vintage!! There are many different types. The guys with all of the knowledge will be here soon enough to answer. But during this break in the action, I can tell you this: I ride two Raleighs built out of double-butted 555SL (which I believe is Reynolds 501, just rebadged), and a Ross made from Ishiwata triple-butted 024, which is a wonderful ride.

bigbossman 

I've got a late 70's Swiss Mondia made out of Reynolds 531, and it is light, lively, smooth riding bike. Easily better ride quality than alloy (even with carbon stays/fork) and at least equal to carbon.

It is a snappy little ride, and I can buzz all day on it.

I also have a 1988 Miyata made from Miyata's own triple butted CrMo tubing. It is a touring bike, and was a joy to ride for 9 centuries last year. Much heavier than 531, though. The bike weighs in at 27lbs.

In the back of my mind for some time is a project I'd like to do someday. Take a nice vintage 531 frameset, spread the rear to 130mm, and deck it out in full 9 or 10 speed running gear. I think the marriage of classic 531 ride qualities and a modern drivetrain would be a beautiful thing.

Some day I will - just haven't had the right frame drop into my lap yet.

leunkstar

My lightest vintage bike is actually a Peugeot made of their own Vitus tubing.
I think that riding on a vintage bike ain't about beating record times. But that doesnt mean you can go for the most decent tubing of its age of course.

SoreFeet

I can compare it to a Reynolds 853 Lemond with a carbon fork. I give the 853 a big thumbs up but the OEM lemond fork was so damn flexy. Reynolds 853 is great but I wouldn't say it is overly superior to low end Tenax. Yes it rides better. It costs much more. When I say better I mean it absorbs the bumps much better. In the Tenax Super Sport from the early 80's I am blessed with experiencing a steel bike that rides incredibly comfortable. I would even go so far as to put a modern groupo on it. Right now it is setup as a single speed but I think it might be turned into a touring bike. As far as I know Tenax was comparable to SL/SLX tubing in terms of weight but was more cheaply prepared and more corrosive. You will enjoy the feel of an SL/SLX bike. Dont worry about the differences in tubing it is all relative. Vintage steel is a far superior value than any modern bicycle manufacture today produces. I think you will enjoy the ride quality as much as a modern bike. Compromising weight for comfort is a completely good deal if you ask me. Also it holds value even if slightly scratched and weathered. To put it into full perspective. If I powdered coated my rusty Schwinn and had a full ultegra I think people would mistake it for a much higher end bike.

MichaelW

The best tubeset of the 1980s was Reynolds 753. This was the original heat treated steel for bikes and had to be silver soldered to prevent heat damage. You needed certification from Reynolds to use the stuff. It was mainly used by custom builders for road or ultralight touring bikes.
Earlier tubesets were beer-can thin and ultra-light. They suffered from dents and I believe that later versions wer a tad thicker.

Barnaby

I have a fixation as well about the qualities of the various lugged steel from the 80's. I currently ride a Concorde with Colubus SL, and a Miyata 1000 with Miyata CroMo. I have just ordered a Giordana SLX full frame and fork which I intend to outfit with sew-ups, as well as a Colnago Trebuti complete bike, indexed shifting, and a Marinoni SL, sew-ups. Not bragging, I just went nuts on e-bay. I am interested to feel the quality of the SLX with a light wheel set, to see how in compares to the Concorde.

Barnaby

I wonder if you should consider "liberating" the Miyata first by stripping it down to fixed-gear? I did that to my Miyata 1000. My starting weight must have been somewhere close to your current weight for your bike. I put a vintage track crank on it and stripped off the a bit clumbsy SR triple, thereby shortening the "Q" and taking off much weight. I will weigh it again, I bought an expensive scale that is acurate to 1/10 lb., but from memory I think it now comes in at 22.5 lbs with a Team Pro saddle. I run a 50/19, which I think is around 70". That may be an alternative to consider, rather than buying a 531 frame and spreading it to accomodate a modern drive train. The "soul" of the Miyata will really come through, as it did on mine, and it is now a joy to ride. I remember walking past it everyday on the way to the other bike, and feeling a bit unfaithful sometimes. It is not a lot slower now than the Condorde which is fixed as well and comes in 1.25 lbs. lighter than the Miyata, and you can always convert back when you need the gears for touring, or for climbing centuries.

T-Mar

Which tubeset was best will depend of the specific application, however most people equate "best" to "lightest", so let's go with that, as it is simple. The lightest 1980 tubests from each of the major mnaufacturers were:

Columbus: KL or Max
Excell: 203
Ishiwata: Nicrmo
Miyata: STB
Oria: GM 0.0
Reynolds: 753R
Tange: Prestige SuperLight
True Temper: RCX
Vitus: Super Vitus GTI

So how do these compare with Reynolds 853? There is no definitive answer. One cannot even directly compare the weight, as many manufacturers stopped giving out the data and even when they did supply it, it was not directly comparable, as things like standard tube length varied from one manufacturer to the other.

Reynolds 853 is produced with a central wall thickness as thin as 0.4mm. The above Excell, Ishiwata and Tange tubesets all had thinner walls and the Columbus sets had 0.4mm walls on some tubes. So, in all probability, these tubesets built frames that were lighter or close to 853.

But were they stronger? Most steels are weaker after joining, but Reynolds 853 air hardens and gets stronger. This is one of it's main advantages, as the strength is not as dependent on the skills of the builder. They also claim a higher fatigue strength/endurance limit. The endurance limit increases proportional to the ultimate tensile strength but starts falling off after about 150ksi. If Reynolds has somehow managed to increase the endurance limit relative to the ultimate tansile strength, then this is another significant adavantage. However, due to the thinner tubes it's sustainable load should still be less than an SLX frame which would only weigh about 1.5 lb. more.

In the end, a lot of this becomes a mute point. The ultimate ride characteristics of a frame are more often a result of the framebuilders' skills and preferences, than the tubing. Builders develop familiarity with a particular tubeset and are often resistant to build with others. So unless you are a diehard weight-weenie, there's a lot more to consider than the tubeset.

lotek 

Rad,

Welcome to Cranky & Vintage, I think you'll find this a friendlier
place than say the road forum since many of our younger
and less knowledgable members look down on vintage steel with disdain
( if they only knew) and don't venture in here.

You have any specific bike in mind?
and I can recommend a good painter, had my Pog back in less than a
month (and he was painting Don Walkers bikes for NAHBS at the same time).

marty

Don Cook

By comparison, my 1999 Reynolds 853 bike is about 1.75 lbs lighter than my 1988 lugged Benotto. The 853has larger tubes to compensate for the thinner walls of the 853 tubes. And of course the larger tube diameters are accompanied by greater ride stiffness. The 88' lugged frame is more comfortable to ride. Road vibration and bumps don't feel as "sharp" as they do on the 853.

TMB

You cannot say that 753 was the "best".

It was the lightest, however, it rides a bit harsher than did 531. I have a 753, love the bike.

All of the premium tubesets were roughly the same in terms of material and at comparable quality levels, in terms of weight.

The Columbus SL family were fine tubes, the three primary sets were SL, SLX and SPX.

SL was the butted premium race set. SLX was lighter, thinner and smaller butted sections. SPX was a heavier version of SLX made for the heavy riders and the Classics such as Paris-Roubaix.

Though SLX was lighter than SL it was at least as strong due to the Helical reinforcing spirals on the insides of the tubes through the butted sections. SPX also had these.

I have bikes in SL and SLX. They are both full Super Record. The only real difference I feel between them, to be honest, is that the SLX is lighter. Noticeably.

I cannot say though that the SL or SLX ride any better, or differently, than the bikes I own made of 531 or 531C or even 753.

The ride qualities were determined more by the framebuilder than the tubeset.

853 while lighter will not offer a significantly different ride than SLX or 531. What difference there is will wheels, tires, geometry, etc. 853 being an air-hardening alloy lends itself better to the mass production techniques used today.

As said, I do not expect you will notice a difference in ride between the SLX and 853, due to the tubeset - other than the fact that 853 will be lighter by probably as much as 3/4 of a pound. If you can notie that difference.

bigbossman 

What, and ruin a perfectly good bike?

cyclotoine

You might call that "liberating" but I'd call it "limiting" it's usefullness, one of the greatest touring frames of all time is best used as a touring bike, even cyclocross if it is a cantilever model.

bigbossman 

Hey, if you want to get rid of that clumsy SR triple crank, I could use it!

Barnaby

I don't think it is a travesty to make it into a convertible bike-and I don't mean top down. I can't envision when my next tour will be with child, business et all. Keeping it orthodox for that purpose is a waste in my opinion, at least for me. Not necessarily for others who are doing brevets and maybe hilly centuries however, especially if they prefer a triple. If I do get the occasion to tour, it won't be alot of work to put on a different back wheel, chain and revert to the old crankset, or to a reserved double I have on hand. My life seems to allow me 4 rides of about 11/2 hours per week, and for that I don't need the heavier touring setup, and I appreciate the direct drive train and the more efficeint pedaling of the track type setup.

As for cyclocross, I have this in mind as well for the Miyata. It has cantilever braze-ons, good clearance for wider tires, and with the Phil double fixed, I think I will run two gears fixed or one fixed and one free on the park trails. I live next to a national park and this will be my vehicle of choice for cutting into it.

Barnaby

Sorry Bigbossman, didn't mean to slag the Miyata in its touring form, but we may be venturing into a classic case of role reversal. My conversion involved the changing of the crankset and rear wheel temporarily. Your proposed converion envisions spreading the rear end of a classic 531 lugged steel frame to accomodate a modern road crank. Italiens cross yourselves four times. Your proposal is more Tom Cruise than mine, just joking!

bigbossman 

No problem. That's why the smiley face.....

While I have no issue with fixies in principle, I have little to no use for one where I live. I do not live in a city, and there is not much flat ground around here. I need my gears. Besides, converting the Miyata back and forth once a month would get tiresome, even if it is fairly simple.

You're right - my proposed conversion would be a lot of work, not to mention fairly expensive. That's why I've never acted on it. The only reason I entertain the notion is because I'd like a bike that retains the sweet ride of 531 (or equivalent) steel that I've come to know and love, while gaining the advantages of a modern drivetrain. STI 9/10 speed has a ton of advantages on long rides, and steel is a comfortable ride for extended distances - far and away better than alloy, and at least as good as carbon for less money.

Still - I think fixies are asthetically pleasing, and may yet build one - just because.

55/Rad

Well, I bit the bullet on this Montello - I believe it's an '88 with Columbus SLX. I won't have it for a few weeks as it is coming from Poland - then I'll probably start on getting it painted.

cyclotoine

55/rad, nice bike! paint doesn't even look too bad as is.


Bigbossman, I did just this though I had all the parts prior to finding the frame. I had everything hung on an 88 scwhinn the 128mm spacing meant no spreading... then by chance mostly I scored a 531 raleigh frame and was going to put it all on that.... then I got a chance to buy a '93 lugged steel Marinoni... well I bought the Marinoni and now there is about 1500 total into it.... full 2005 unused campy centaur grey group with black ambrosio wheels... the frame was 320 so I don't think I did that bad. I certainly could not have a modern frame with those components at that price and then it would be some alluminum frame with little character. It's was cheeper then buying a new bike and I have all the advantages of modern technology. Oh an I did build a fixie just for fun, I hardly ever ride it...

teambhultima

WOW! Very nice Pinarello frame!
Great selection to build a vintage steel bike. You won't be disappointed at all.
Enjoy...

Barnaby

55/RAD
Love the bike, the name and the colour

astrodaimler

As I recall, the SLX had a spiralling extra material in certain spots to make it stronger. Of all the steel bikes I've ridden, I think I remember the Columbus SL had a stiffer, livelier ride (I've ridden Daimlers, Viners, Somecs, Colnagos, Cannondales, Vitus, Gios all during the 80's).

cyclotoine

there was a recent post in here with an old article of a blind test of 7 types of Columbus tubing... it was interesting... it's worth looking up..
also some time ago there was this link: https://www.desperadocycles.com/Editorial_Articles.htm
refer to tables 1-4.

What I find interesting is SL comes in 2 thicknesses and SL is lighter than SLX in similar diameter. SP (and I have heard people refer to SPX does it exist?) is thicker and presumably meant for larger frames. My 63cm frame is SP (main tubes, other parts SLX or SPX) which I presume is for stiffness at the cost of some extra weight (notice SL and SPX are rated up to just 150lbs!). The composition of all Columbus tubing is the same so there should be little noticable difference between SL and SLX (unless only SLX has the helical ridges thus in theory being stiffer). Differences would have to be in geometry and builder.

frank121

My favorite riding bikes ever have been built with Columbus SLX tubing.

BTW, someone in a posting mentioned SLX being noticably lighter on comparably equipped bikes. If it was the same size and designed bike, one built with SL and one with SLX, the SL bike should have been the lighter bike.

https://mywebpages.comcast.net/bobequ...mbus-tubes.jpg