DiabloScott

I remember when SLX was introduced and I never heard such a claim. I remember the pitch being that the rifling added stiffness at the joints. I don't think the rifling even goes up the seat tube to the position of the FD braze on. I always considered it to be marketing hype to get people to pay an extra couple hundred for a frame when it was essentially the same thing as SL... most of the reviews I read said pretty much the same thing.

Fred Smedley

I seem to recall seeing the rifling looking down the seat tube on my TSXUL Frameset. So it came up the tube. Not that that proves anything as applied to slx.

spacemanz

Sometimes I think my 63cm SP-framed Bottecchia is gas-pipe, when I'm pedaling uphill, LOL. It's really not too bad, you just need to look ahead, & get a good run for the bigger hills. But it's so fast AND comfortable on the flats & downhills, that you become willing to tolerate the uphills too.

eja_ bottecchia

My 1989 Bottecchia, built with SLX tubing, feels light, lively and more responsive than previous SL bikes I have owned/ridden. The difference may be due, however, to a number of other factors. I have not done a straight up comparison test.

DiabloScott

Right, TSX was essentially SLX but the rifling went end to end. Not that that made it any better - but they could price them even higher!

Barrettscv 

My 64cm Trek 970 is SP and my 65cm Serrota Nova is SPX. Smaller sizes of each were built with SL or SLX

Both frames are stiff and need a larger rider who likes speed. The Trek will start to smooth out at 17 mph, the Serrota feels comfortable at a more moderate speed without ever feeling flexy.

If you are heavier and like a firm and responsive ride, look for SP or SPX.

Scooper

This is an often repeated misperception. Heat treating increases tensile strength and yield strength, but Young's Modulus (a.k.a. modulus of elasticity) is virtually the same for all steels: ~200 GPa. This is true from plain carbon steels to high strength stainless steels, whether in the annealed state or heat treated.

The only ways to make a steel tube stiffer is to increase wall thickness or increase diameter. Heat treated steel tubes have higher strength, and therefore may be drawn thinner, making the tubes lighter, but to increase stiffness the wall thickness and/or diameter have to be increased. That's why we have OS tubing.

Correct, although because of the end-to-end helical reinforcements it could be argued that the increased wall thickness where the reinforcements are do, in fact, increase stiffness to some extent.

SL (no helical reinforcements except in the steerer tube):


SLX (helical reinforcements only in the butts; it's difficult to imagine reinforcements only in the butts will improve stiffness):


TSX (helical reinforcements from one end of the tube to the other. This will improve stiffness somewhat):

himespau 

Ain't that always how things work?

T-Mar

The helical reinforcements were adapted from the steerer column and were definitely added the seat tube to solve the issues with failure at the front derailleur braze-on. There was an SLX seat tube only, for a short period before Columbus decided to apply the technology to the down tube and seat stays and release the SLX tubeset. The spiral reinforcements extend 150mm (6") from the bottom of the seat tube, so they extend slightly beyond the top of the typical braze-on position, unless the builder removes the excess material from the wrong end when sizing the seat tube.

I've got two frames that are the same size and geomtery, from the same year and from the same builder. One is SL and the other is SLX. There is no immediate noticeable difference when going from one bicycle to the other. I've noticed that after a full day in the saddle that I've generally felt fresher on the SL frame and for that reason it's my preferred ride, however there could have been numerous external factors at play. Overall, I'd have to say the difference is neglible.

thinktubes 

SLX and TreTubi (3 main tubes SL) feel pretty much the same to me (as long as I don't have to climb too much).

If I were buying a frame, I would go with the SLX based on the preception that it is "better" and will probably hold more value over the long haul.

DiabloScott

Is this something they maybe only told frame builders about? I'm sure advertising "SLX - IT FAILS LESS" wouldn't have been much of a slogan. And did they also tell frame builders not to put braze on hangers on SL tubes? Seems like a very odd solution to add a bit of rifling on the inside of a tube for prevention of braze on damage. Did the failures occur at the framebuiler shop or after purchase? I've never seen a decent derailleur hanger fail - did they just rip a hole in the tube?

Chombi

I still swear that my modded up Peugeot PH10S felt faster/stiffer than my PSV.... That Carbolite framed bike literally whooshed forward when I mashed on the pedals....
Only time the PSV beats it is climbing, where the PSV's lighter weight becomes a factor....

bibliobob

I've come to realize that I love SL. I recently sold my TSX Merckx Century, as it rattled my teeth and felt like it was working against me (though it really came alive when you were mashing and traveling above 20 mph). Great resale value on that TSX though

I'm a big guy, but like to spin, and much prefer a bike with some flex. But, I don't do much sprinting or climbing here in Chicago.

I just finished building up an SL De Rosa '57 Replica, which is really nice. It's not quite as plush as my Merckx Pro, but it's close. And, when I trade in the 22 tubulars for some 25s, it's going to be pretty spectacular.... It just had its first ride yesterday, and I'm riding it home from work right now... Photos to come in another thread

gomango

I can't wait to see your De Rosa.

noglider 

I haven't done a side by side comparison, but I will be able to do so soon. I have a 1971 or 1972 Raleigh Super Course with plain gauge 531 main tubes. I'm building up a 1974 Raleigh International with pretty much the same geometry but butted and therefore lighter tubing. Workmanship appears to be about the same. They are both pretty good specimens, as luck would have it. My International is taking forever to get together, since I'm painting it over the course of months. I just moved house today, so I'm not sure I'll work on it at all soon.

noglider 

The Super Course seems to be a very eager climbing. It doesn't fight me to climb, and stepping on it hard is rewarding, not punishing. If anything, it ought to be stiffer than the International. What that stiffness means as a rider, I don't know, at least not yet.

buldogge

I have no data, no numbers, no proof...but...

-I prefer the ride of EL-OS to SLX...it has a lightness of character and transmits power well.
-I prefer the ride of SLX to SL...it has a spring that I find absent in SL frames.
-I did not prefer the ride of SP/SPX at all, when I had the '88 Greg Lemond (although my '85 Spectrum is a nice solid cruiser/tourer with a very smooth ride)...it felt heavy/dead.
-My MAX frame feels heavy from starts (it is) but comes alive as the speed increases, and really puts the power down (if you can put the power in!), and is dead stable.

-Mark in St. Louis

verktyg 

YES! Absolutely correct!

Stan, where did you find those great Columbus spec charts? I've never seen them before.

Bruce Gordon worked with Albert Eisentraut. So did a number of other well known frame builders. Two little known facts:

1. All of those builders used tubes based on what they designed a frame to do regardless of the brands; they did a lot of mix and match to achieve their desired results.

2. The general view among those builders was that all things being equal, most premium tubing performed the same e.g. wall thickness, tube diameter and so on. They also tended to use certain brands based on cost: i.e. when they got good deals on tube sets.

verktyg

Zinger

The '83 Trek Brochure lists the 970s at 60, 62 and 64 (doesn't specify c/c or c/t). I think mine was the 62 as yours looks just a bit taller. I can vouch for the stiff part. I kicked it out from under me on a wet road once. I never really knew what the tubing was (or don't remember) other than Columbus.

Great informative thread, btw.

verktyg 

Mark, don't take this as an attack... There are so many variable involved with how a bike rides and how it handles - pretty much mutually exclusive properties.

Back in the mid 70s, we explored going into the bike building business a la Trek and Specialized. I had a background in metallurgy, metal working, welding, brazing and so on. I spent a year studying bike design and construction including doing post mortem autopsies on crashed frames from gas pipe junkers to some of the top Italian marks.

I came to the conclusion that discussions of bicycle ride and handling were completely subjective and like 5 blind men describing an elephant by feel!

I built enough frames to figure out what influences the differences in geometry and tubing made on ride and handling. In the end we picked out a niche - extra large and extra small frames and had them built to our specs in France and the UK.

Some of the variables:

Frame size - large frames ride and handle completely different from small frames.
Intended use - commuting, day tours, loaded touring, road racing, criterium, track, cyclocross and so on (this was before MTBs).
Frame geometry - stand-over height, head tube angle, seat tube angle, seat tube length, top tube length, wheelbase, chainstay length, fork rake and trail etc.
Tubing - outside diameters including OS tubing, fork and rear stay tapers and diameters, wall thickness.
Rider body style and size - inseam, torso length, arm length, neck length, foot size, height, weight and so on.
Wheels and tires - size, clincher or tubular tires, spoke count, rim design (note, tires pumped to high pressure feel "faster" because more vibrations are transmitted to the rider).
Seats, bars and stems - adjustments to those components can make a major difference in ride.

That's just a few of the variables. I've built frames for "racers" who wanted 38" wheelbases and 75° head and seat tubes; I guaranteed they would like their new frames. I used ~73° angles with 39" to 40" wheelbases. They loved them and told me how "stiff" their new frames were.

As I mentioned all of the above variables are very subjective. Many riders adapt to and end up liking bikes that are far from what fit "experts" would recommend.

If you like the way a bike handles and fits, it's great!

Back to your comments about frame tubing, in 2007, I bought a 1988 Bianchi Giro on eBay (just because I wanted a Bianchi in the collection).

The bike probably had less than 100 mikes on it and it fits me perfectly. The handling is great too! But... it's made of Columbus Formula 2 tubing, weighs a ton and rides like a truck. Formula 2 was probably Columbus SP tubing plus any gas pipe Bianchi had laying around the shop! :-(

A year later I bought a 1981 Bianchi Campione Del Mondo with Columbus Tretubi. It probably has SL main tubes with Falck forks and stays. It also fits me perfectly and the ride and handling are wonderful.

At the end 2008 I bought an NOS 1990 Bianchi Mondial frame made of Columbus SLX. I mentioned the details above but it has the same great fit and handling as my 88 Giro but a smoother ride. It's nowhere as comfortable as my 81 Bianchi or my SL framed bikes.

I have an early 90s French Gitane Team bike made of Columbus EL-OS tubing. It definitely has a livelier feel than my SL bikes but the over size tubes tend to be quite a bit stiffer, especially in the rear triangle. The over-sized chainstays probably contribute a lot to that.

Back in early to mid 70s most Columbus production frames no matter the size were made of SP tubing. We sold Cinelli bikes along with a lot of other Italian and British frames.

Someone walked into our shop one afternoon with an almost new looking 56cm Cinelli frame he wanted to sell. I started throwing a Campy NR gruppo on it before he was out the door! I rode it home after work. It was so stiff that in the morning I put a price tag on it and hung it up in the showroom.

Up through the mid 80s, many French and Italian production frames came with heavy gage Reynolds 531 or Columbus SP tubing. The wall thickness for both were 1.0mm x .70mm main tubes and the forks and stay were about the same too.

This was a good choice for bikes over 59cm-60cm (23"=23 1/2") and riders over ~170 lbs.

Again it comes down to riding style and usage. Stiffer frames are great for larger frames and heavy loaded touring, climbing and so on but riding all day on flat courses can tear you up.

BTW, All of my bikes discussed above are 55cm-56cm with 54cm-56cm top tubes and 39"-40" wheel bases.

I hope that I made so sense.

verktyg

Road Fan

I just got a Mondonico EL-OS frame with the monostrut rear fork, and I'm really looking forward to riding it. Right now it needs some of the cables replaced, they were damaged in shipping. I have an older Mondo with what may be SL tubing. It's hard to tell because the sticker is pre-SL - it does not have a tubing identifier on it. I ride small frames (52 for the older one, 54 for the newer), so it's not likely the old one is stiffer than SL.

The older one is very responsive to pedal power, somewhat good in shock absorption over our nasty Michigan road pavements (I have 27 mm P-R tubulars on it), and seems faster than my other bikes. It's not as good at shock absorption as my old 531 Woodrup was, nor my 1980 California Masi GC or the Terraferma Super Randonneur. The Masi planes very well and is a smaller frame. My GUESS is that it is tubing mix, with perhaps some 753 thin wall, considering when it was made.

I have high hopes for the EL-OS. The tubing walls are 0.4 mm versus 0.6 for the SL, and the diameter is the next size up. I think that translates to a technically stiffer set of tubes. The few discussions of the frame are that it's nice and lively. Magnificent 7 liked the EL-OS, but it was not the leading performer. Of the more $$ tube sets, the Neuron bike was marginally better.

Oh yeah -- this one came with a Reynolds Ouzo Pro fork repainted to match the frame - the seller said the original owner (his friend and client) had that done at purchase. The original Mondonico fork is not available. In any case, it will be my first carbon piece.

This Mondo is probably off-topic, being Ergo-10, 2005, and having a carbon fork, but ... some people think vintage is 5 years old, we don't have an endorsed definition here, and being a pinned, lugged steel Mondonico, it is certainly KOF and classic! Too bad I can't talk about it on CR.

Oh yeah again: the EL-OS is a 54, and has at least 1 cm more TT than the 52 cm, and the seat tube angle is 0.5 degree more laid back. It also has a 12 cm stem with a much shorter-reach modern bar, for a reach that is about 2 cm longer than the older Mondo. In a test sitting, it was really comfortable despite being more stretched out. So with this bike I'm dealing with geometry differences as well as materials.

verktyg 

[QUOTE=verktyg;15987028]Mark, don't take this as an attack... There are so many variable involved with how a bike rides and how it handles - pretty much mutually exclusive properties.

Back in the mid 70s, we explored going into the bike building business a la Trek and Specialized. I had a background in metallurgy, metal working, welding, brazing and so on. I spent a year studying bike design and construction including doing post mortem autopsies on crashed frames from gas pipe junkers to some of the top Italian marks.

I came to the conclusion that discussions of bicycle ride and handling were completely subjective and like 5 blind men describing an elephant by feel!

I built enough frames to figure out what influences the differences in geometry and tubing made on ride and handling. In the end we picked out a niche - extra large and extra small frames and had them built to our specs in France and the UK.

Some of the variables:

Frame size - large frames ride and handle completely different from small frames.

Intended use - commuting, day tours, loaded touring, road racing, criterium, track, cyclocross and so on (this was before MTBs).

Frame geometry - stand-over height, head tube angle, seat tube angle, seat tube length, top tube length, wheelbase, chainstay length, fork rake and trail etc.

Tubing - outside diameters including OS tubing, fork and rear stay tapers and diameters, wall thickness.

Rider body style and size - inseam, torso length, arm length, neck length, foot size, height, weight and so on.

Wheels and tires - size, clincher or tubular tires, spoke count, rim design (note, tires pumped to high pressure feel "faster" because more vibrations are transmitted to the rider).

Seats, bars and stems - adjustments to those components can make a major difference in ride.

That's just a few of the variables.


I've built frames for "racers" who wanted 38" wheelbases and 75° head and seat tubes; I guaranteed they would like their new frames and used ~73° angles with 39" to 40" wheelbases. They loved them and told me how "stiff" their new frames were.


As I mentioned all of the above variables are very subjective. Many riders adapt to and end up liking bikes that are far from what fit "experts" would recommend.

If you like the way a bike handles and fits, it's great!


Back to your comments about frame tubing, in 2007, I bought a 1988 Bianchi Giro on eBay (just because I wanted a Bianchi in the collection).

The bike probably had less than 100 mikes on it and it fits me perfectly. The handling is great too! But... it's made of Columbus Formula 2 tubing, weighs a ton and rides like a truck. Formula 2 was probably Columbus SP tubing plus any gas pipe Bianchi had laying around the shop! :-(

A year later I bought a 1981 Bianchi Campione Del Mondo with Columbus Tretubi. It probably has SL main tubes with Falck forks and stays. It also fits me perfectly and the ride and handling are wonderful.

At the end 2008 I bought an NOS 1990 Bianchi Mondial frame made of Columbus SLX. I mentioned the details above but it has the same great fit and handling as my 88 Giro but a smoother ride. It's nowhere as comfortable as my 81 Bianchi or my SL framed bikes.

I have an early 90s French Gitane Team bike made of Columbus EL-OS tubing. It definitely has a livelier feel than my SL bikes but the over size tubes tend to be quite a bit stiffer, especially in the rear triangle. The over-sized chainstays probably contribute a lot to that.

Back in early to mid 70s most Columbus production frames no matter the size were made of SP tubing. We sold Cinelli bikes along with a lot of other Italian and British frames.

Someone walked into our shop one afternoon with an almost new looking 56cm Cinelli frame he wanted to sell. I started throwing a Campy NR gruppo on it before he was out the door! I rode it home after work. It was so stiff that in the morning I put a price tag on it and hung it up in the showroom.


Up through the mid 80s, many French and Italian production frames came with heavy gage Reynolds 531 or Columbus SP tubing. The wall thickness for both were 1.0mm x .70mm main tubes and the forks and stay were about the same too.

This was a good choice for bikes over 59cm-60cm (23"=23 1/2") and riders over ~170 lbs.

NOTE: By 1976 or so a lot of the "hot" Italian racing frames started coming in with Columbus SL tubing. The British specialty builders had used lighter gage Reynolds 531 for many years. Some of the Reynolds 531 tubing was lighter than Columbus SL.


Again it comes down to riding style and usage. Stiffer frames are great for larger frames and heavy loaded touring, climbing and so on but riding one all day on flat course can beat you up.

BTW, All of my bikes discussed above are 55cm-56cm with 54cm-56cm top tubes and 39"-40" wheel bases. My personal preference is for smooth riding, responsive frames that are comfortable for all day riding.

I hope that I made some sense.

verktyg

gomango

This sounds like a beautiful bicycle, full of potential for great rides.

I have several friends assert that their favorite "all-time" frame material is EL-OS.

I still have three EL-OS framed bicycles and I would be hard pressed to tell the difference between them, other than the minor way the bicycle is set up.

For example:

My John Hollands has a head tube extension added so the rider has a little more upright riding position. This is perfect for riding distances on asphalt. The ride is all day comfortable, performance is uncommon. I can fit Challenge PRs on this bike and I have had great luck with these so far.

The other two are a Colnago Elegant and a De Rosa Giro 'd Italia. Both are fantastic high performance bicycles and many riders would be very "pressed" to tell the difference in a blind comparison. I have Veloflex Arenberg tubs on both bicycles.

That's why I smile when folks make generalizations about brands of bicycles.

It just isn't that easy sometimes.

Road Fan

I'm very interested in this comparison. I have a 53 cm S/C 1973 waiting for time to be given some love, and I wonder the same thing - how well does the frame work, being straight gauge? Back when it was new I hung around bike shops a lot, and most shop guys did not respect the Super Course, calling it the Super Horse and not in a good way. But I'm also interested in the laid-back geometry. I've never owned a late '60s/early '70s International, but I think I might like it.

I'm also interested in some discussion about why PX-10s, especially with the earlier geometry 1968 or so, are good riders. I have one of them, too, pining for some love.

jimmuller 

V, interesting discussion. Thank you.

Here's another thought on "flex" that never gets mentioned here. Crank Q-factor likely plays a part. The higher Q-factor the more lateral torque the cranks put on the BB. One might choose a particular crank because of one's hip width. Or here in C&V because that's the gruppo that the manufacturer chose for financial or marketing reasons. I'd bet if you swapped out BB and crank for a smaller Q-factor the frame would feel stiffer under power.

As for fit and handling, ummmm, all my bikes feel different. No, I haven't measured them carefully. I've just tried to adjust saddle and stem positions, and swapped stems to a different reach in order to get them all feeling right. Yet their balance is different. I could probably identify each from riding them blindfolded. Until I ran into something.