The "ride" of differnet tubesets?
 

As I look and learn about steel frames obviously people tend to like the lighter Reyonlds/Columbus/Tange tubesets...lighter tubeset, lighter bike. But, in the end, does the lightness (and by extension, cost) of the tubeset make for a better riding bike? Don't get me wrong, I understand that "better riding" is a totally subjective thing to try to quantify....but in general, do people believe that the more expensive tubesets make for a better "riding" bike. That being "ride" beyond the fact that the bike is lighter by comparison.

Yes, people do generally believe that. But no, it's not necessarily true. The "ride" of a bike depends on a lot of factors, of which the tubing is probably the least important.

I think the geometry of a particular frame is more important than the tubing.

But if you take the same frame geometry and make 2 frames; one with, say, Reynolds 531 and the other with the cheapest gas-pipe you can find, I'd venture to say that most of us here could feel the difference.

I could be wrong, though.

My '72 Triumph Roadster with VERY relaxed geometry, but cheap straight gauge tubing, does not feel as nice as my Basso (w/ Columbus SL/SP), or my Specialized Sirrus (w/ Tange 2 [popular concensus]). All 3 are lugged steel frames.

I mostly agree with Jon, but the facts remain that thinner-walled tubes have a little more flexiness than thicker walls, so they are both lighter and more flexy. They have a greater tendency to filter road vibrations from the rider than do heavier thicker-walled tubesets.

All things being equal (identical geometry, joining quality, tire pressure, and equipment), the thinner-walled tubes should be more comfortable. But if you try to compare any two bikes and predict the results of the comparison, there are a lot of other factors, and they are almost never equal.

I learn to spin more than stomp on my Supervitus framed Peugeot, but when the hills come I have to just cancel out of my head the FD rubbing noises I hear on the way up, otherwise the bike climbs real good with it's admittedly "wispy" frame. I used to keep up and sometimes even leave behind my younger brother who prides himself as a good climber on his Cannondale in real steep climbs. So A "whippy" steel frame with super thin walled lightweight tubing like Supervitus 980 is not always considered a disadvantage for "mortal" riders like most of us........but I do suspect that a mondo pro champion sprinter like Mark Cavendish can snap my Peugeot's frame in half in an instant if he ever tries it out!:eek:
I'm still trying to figure out what my Carbone's frame is all about, but so far It defintely feels much stiffer than my PSV's frame Haven't heard any compalints so far from my FD, but it is a slightly smaller sized frame. I was surprised though how the aluminum forked front end seems to be less nervous handling, despite the frame's steeper geometry, but I now think that may be a symptom of the whole PSV frame being much more flexy....the amazing things you learn when you try out different bikes made from different materials...

Chombi

My 1960 road bikes are superbly comfortable on a long ride, but my 20-year-newer Bianchi is the weapon of choice for sprints and climbs. It's all in the frame geometry, not in the myth that Columbus is "stiffer" than Reynolds 531.

In general, the frames with the high zoot frame tubes were the most expensive models in their day, so they remain coveted and their resale value is commensurate.

I think there is also a correlation between great riding frames and high end tubing because the best builders obviously built with the 'best' materials available at the time (there are exceptions of course). So the performance of these frames probably had more to do with the builder than the material, but the material is a good indication that any particular frame may have come from the hands of a master.

I really enjoy the ride of my low end Lotus. It has tange 5 main tubes and hi-ten forks, I think the 32mm Pasela tires are probably a big part of why it feels so nice. On the other hand, my Reynolds 531 gran sport is just so/so, and I think the cheap knoby Kenda tires are a big part of that.

I have heard that a heavier frame will soak up the road vibration better than a lighter frame, kind of like a heavy rifle is supposed to absorb the recoil better than a lighter one (I think-- but I'm not a gun guy). I'm trying to remember the ride of my Schwinn Continental, and I think it was pretty nice if I was just coasting along and didn't have to pedal it up a hill or anything.

The absolute best and most memorable ride of my life was on an entry level sixties or seventies something Legnano.

I sell lots of vintage road bicycles and the most common question I get asked is what kind of tubing or how light is the bicycle. So, in direct answer to the question, yes many people do equate quality of ride with the tube set of a bicycle. But those people are not necessarily the ones who know what they are talking about. Just my opinion.

+1 Some of my best rides were on my slightly modded up Peugeot PH10S with it's high tensile, carbon steel, Carbolite 103 tubing and lugless construction frame. It actually had a lot of spring and liveliness that made it very responsive. If it was just not as heavy as it was, I think it could be even better than my present bikes.

Chombi

You also need to consider your bodyweight. I rode a Follis with Reynolds 531 tubing for years and when I bought a new Trek in '85 I intentionally bought the model with the cheaper 501 grade of tubing. I am much happier with that because the 501 tubing is stiffer and, since my best lean weight is 215 lbs, it was less bouncy when I was pedaling hard. There is only about 8 ounces of weight difference in the framesets.

Geometry.
Fit.
Wheelset/tires.
Tubeset.

in that order.

I would put tires first, then in order:

fit
geometry
how much I paid for the bike (which vastly colors my experience of the ride)
tubeset

jim

The fork probably makes a bigger difference than the frame because it's not triangulated.

I think someone extrapolated the wrong concept. Heavy bikes are usually so because of a fairly thick frame which will transmit every vibe very well right to the palms of your hands.

A continental had pretty large tires and the frame tubing did not have a high diameter even though the walls of the tubes were on the thick side.

back in the mid '80s the now-defunct "Bicycle Guide" magazine (IMO the best of the domestic cycling mags of the day) did a blind study on tubesets vs. ride.

they commissioned a builder to create a handful of identical bikes using a range of steel tubesets. i think they used a range of reynolds, from 501 to 531 to 753. otherwise the bikes were identical -- identical lugs, identical geometry, identical wheelsets, identical components, etc.

i dont recall them doing any extended mountain climbing, so figure the test was on flat-to-rolling terrain. my recollection is that the frame using heaviest and beefiest tubeset, 501, felt the stiffest of the lot and had the most preferred subjective ride quality.

Thanks as always... :)

An honest man amongst us! Bravo!

Hadn't thought of the frame/fork difference in those terms. Technically though it is trangulated: leg - axle - leg....but not in the plane that matters. :)

And ultimately this is what I was hoping had been done, thanks. And wallyman, that's an impressive lineup!

Thanks all for the replies. The biggest part of my becoming interesting in C&V, and to be more specific steel bikes, has been the subjective ride quality. My CAAD9 is stiff, responsive, light, rides like it's on rails, all those things. But I always read about how harsh (whatever that means) aluminum is...so I wanted to try steel.

The Schwinn Traveler girls bike I just sold-27" tires -1984 vintage-4130 straight gauge tubing with 35mm tires-60 psi- had a really nice forgiving ride.It had a "softer" ride than a Trek 820 -Chrome Moly frame-with 50 mm tires and just 40 psi in the tires. I suspect it was the longer wheelbase, and thinne tubing (diameter and literal thickness of steel ). Normally I find that the tires I prefer-fat low pressure-overwhelm the tubeset and the geometry, but not in this case- not really sure why. It did have a nice curve to the fork-the MTB had a more or less straight fork.

I kinda regret selling that bike.
Charlie

Weight is a factor in the quality of ride that a frame offers to the bike, so two tubesets of different brands of the same weight probably ride different from a third set of a different weight.

Back when most bikes were still made of steel there was a great deal of discussion about the properties of the various tubing sets and which was stiffest, most comfortable, most resilient, etc. The idea that there were substantial differences was put to a test by, I believe, Bicycle Guide, which hired a good framebuilder to construct 7 or 8 bicycles that were identical in size, geometry, and design, but made with various types of tubing: 531, Columbus, True Temper, etc.
They then gave the bikes to a group of bike reviewers who had previously espoused their views on the different characteristics of the various steels and let them go on extended rides, but without the opportunity to weigh the bikes.

The result was that the reviewers were unable to distinguish the type of steel tubing in this 'blind' test.

I'm glad to hear that story, Prathmann. It confirms our collective theory.

There was an article in the February, 1996 issue of Bicycle Guide comparing framesets made from seven different Columbus tubesets (Aelle, Cromor, Thron, Brain, SLX, Neuron, and EL-OS). Is this the article you guys are referring to? I'm not aware of a similar article comparing Reynolds tubesets.

The Magnificent 7: The Ultimate Blind Test?

That was a very informative and interesting article, thanks!

I'm no great expert, but the only real changes that I notice big differences between are material, ie aluminum to steel, or ti to aluminum (I know you asked about steel, sorry), tire psi and size, and geometry. I also think I'm not sensitive enough to notice much else yet!

Yes, because I think all grades of steel have similar stiffnesses.