Columbus SLX tubing??
 

Would it be OK to make a 62 cm frame out of SLX tubing? I read somewhere that it is mostly for med-sm size frames. Is that right?

Depends on the useage and how strong and heavy the rider is. My opinion is to go for an OS tubeset in a frame that large.

SLX-SP or SPX May Be Better Suited...
 

I ride a large frame size and I've looked at quite a few NOS late 1980s/early 1990s Columbus tubing frames over the past couple years. During all my searching, I don't think I've ever seen an SLX frame larger than 59cm. I beleive the manufacturers in those days used "SLX-SP" or "SPX" for frames 60cm and larger. As I understand it, SLX-SP is/was a standard SLX tubset with SP tubing used for the seat tube. SPX is simply a version of SLX (i.e., with the helical reinforcement), but made with thicker tubing.

What might be the problem with a large SLX frame and a heavy rider? Probably too much flex of the frame.

I ride .9/.6/.9 4130 (SLX by any other name, without the rifling) in a 63 cm. frame. I have even used .8/.6/.8 in some of the main tubes -- and I'm 200 pounds. All of this does result in a flexible frame, which I enjoy. But if I were racing or even "performance" riding -- as opposed to the purely "smell the roses" riding that I do -- I think the flex would be obnoxious.

It would be ok if you can find it. It's been dropped from the Col. catalogue for years. SL 2009, a reintroduced is sold as well as Life, Spirit etc. but no Cyclex types at large. Any frames could use SLX. Some builders chose SP or OR SPX.
Often times SP was used, the frames may or not stated much other than Columbus.
A little later on the same applied to some SPX on "SLX" frames, rarer though.
By the time SLX was popular, it was more common to not "mix" for frames (later 80s) dedicated to the states. Very few companies imported SP,SPX by the '90s.
There are as many exceptions as rules. Europe saw more variations than we.

If you're focusing on SLX, you're focusing on the wrong thing. Better tubes prevail.

I'm not so sure. You can get thinner walled tubes made of heat treated etc. steel, which will be lighter but even more flexible, and probably less dent resistant. Also harder to work with. You can go to OS, which some people think is automatically better in every way because it looks so good on paper, but which has never ridden as well as standard diameter IMO.

I could have built my "no compromise" randonneuring frame out of any steel I wanted. A fourty year old box of Reynolds 531 got the nod, and as far as I am concerned there is and was no better choice for the bike. Except that SL, SLX, Kaisei 022, or True Temper Verus all would have been identical to it.

531 was .8 .5 .8, SL .7 .5 .7, and the others all .9 .6 .9. So no, they are not identical.

SL was .9/.6 and 531 varied somewhat, I'm not positive but I think the SL variant with .8/.5 but there were thicker variants.

According to this table, SL was as I stated, but I have no independent confirmation. Standard 531 was .8 .5 .8. There were variants, such as PRO and ST that were different.

http://www.desperadocycles.com/The_L...per_Tubing.htm

That table shows "Columbus SL" listed two times so not sure what's going on with that, but I do know that .9/.6 was the standard configuration.

As you point out, 531 was available in many variations. I used .9/.6/.9, at least according to the pamphlet in the box. The "new" SL is .7/.5/.7, but that's modern high strength steel. The original versions of SL and SLX were indeed .9/.6/.9, as can be seen on this chart. (As well as in the chart you put up.)

Quibbling aside, the point stands, I believe, that 531, SL, SLX, Kaisei 022, and True Temper Verus are not identical, doesn't it?