Hey-
I recently found a Vitus and am in love with it (being repaired haven't rode it yet)- the only issue is that I'm not exactly 'slim' and I've heard that Vitus frames are only good for lighter riders due to a myriad of issues.
(I'm about 165 lbs).
THANKS

I'm 200+ and have had no frame integrity issues with my Vitus Futural. The only issue I've ever had has been with bottom bracket flex, but I attribute that to the 1" diameter aluminum tubes. It's not that big of a problem.

My brother also has a Vitus Futural, and he weighs between 185 & 200, and also has had no issues with his.

Every girl I dated who had one was right around 100#, as long as you don't do stupid stuff, jumps, cyclocross, Mt. Tam downhill runs, should be no problem.

Which tube set are you referring to? Their 980 tubeset is the lightest vintage steel stock that was commercially available (even lighter than 753). Their other sets are also light (983 also weighs less than 753, 181 weighs about the same as 531c, and 888 is comparable in weight to 501).

Zorro, I think he is referring to the Vitus alloy frame, never seen one with 1" diameter tubes though.

980 Super Vitus is indeed light, as my 19lb. 56cm road bike attests, with a reasonable build, light wheels, Campag. black pedals but otherwise reasonable.

Oh

So how does the 980 or the Futural compare with the 979 Vitus Dural tubeset?

The tubeset of the Futural is 1" diameter aluminum and is designated 787 (the forks are designated 707). When I worked for a shop that sold Vitus frames, the Futural frames were less expensive than the 979 frames we sold. I would think that it would therefore be somewhat heavier than a comparable sized 979 frame. The construction was a little different (semi-internal brake cable routing vs. internal brake cable routing), but surely that couldn't account for all the differences.

Not to be too picky, but steel is an alloy.

So, you are describing an aluminum alloy frame with 1" top, down and seat tubes? An alloy Schwinn Varsity essentially?

If said Schwinn Varsity has downtube shifter braze-ons and braze-on cable guides, yes.

Thanks for the reply; was the 979 their top of the line tube set or was there others better?

At 165,I believe you're well within limitations of most bikes that have limits. Stephen Roche rode Vitus. Others too of course. The frames are heartier than one might suspect. Some vitas frames went away more due to problems with the lugs, mainly top-tube to head. They didn't fail in service as far as while ridden, the upper lug at the top tube could shatter when servicing the headset for example.Not to make you fearfull,the mech. doing the bike should succeed,not iffy in the future once he disassembles it,he and the frame are out-of-the-woods so to speak. Such problems have plagued alum.-lugged frames,still do.

979 was the "tubeset" for the frame and the actual or defacto model name, but the tubing was only part of the whole frame package, not avail. in stores or to other makers. It was the top tier for a time, then Peugeot worked with Vitus and offered a Carbon tubed frame, using the same basic assembly technology as the "979" with modifications to make the carbon work.

The Vitus was used by a number of Pros at the time, often with various manufacture graphics applied. The Alan frames had the same fate, but the relabeling was endorsed by the maker in that case.

I did not follow them too closely, but some of the Vitus frames had aluminum steerers, others had steel, don't know if it was size determined and or a rinning change.

I'm fairly certain the Futural has a steel steer tube.

My brother destroyed his ex-girlfriend's 979 when installing the headset.

I need to post some pics of the Futural.

A 1" downtube, seat tube aluminum alloy frame is a bad application of the materal. Aluminum lets you go bigger and keep lighter, the bigger diameter geometrically increasing stiffness.

All the Varsity frames I have had unpainted had the cable stops spot welded in position, only brazed joint was top tube to seat tube. From the electroforged era, no comment on the later reuse of the name.

THANK YOU for answering my question! I really really appreciate it- or at least making me feel a little better about so unabashingly thinking this bike is HOT.

The bike's hot, that's a given.

Resurrecting this ancient thread not because I think OP still needs their question answered, but because this page appears prominently on Google when searching for answers around the max weight a 787 can take.

I just completed a 4 day bikepacking trip in heavy mud and challenging conditions. I was nervous about putting my 787 through it, but when it transpired I had to lend my gf my modern mountain bike for the trip I had no other choice.

I weigh 75kg, and my cargo for the trip (water, camping gear, clothes) weighed 25kg, making the combined load 100kg - or 220lbs in old money. The Vitus did admirably, didn't scare me at any point with flex. In fact it actually survived a very nasty crash while loaded up (crash was in no way the bike's fault) without any kind of structural damage - although to be fair it had a soft landing, in that it fell on me after I was thrown off it!

Not suggesting every existing 787 frame is as robust as my 56cm one, but thought this was useful information for anyone else googling around the subject.

Worth noting I have unusual components on my 787 - 650b wheels, Tektro long drop brakes, quill stem adapter and 46cm Ritchey Venturemax bars.

Pic for loadout

Have any support for that assertion?