Don Buska

Thanks. Yes that's what I noticed when I checked out some Opus III images on the web. In 1986 the Opus was still using the above BB method, while the DS line started at day one with below BB runs. By 87 all the higher end Fuji's went below the BB for their runs, but sadly the Opus III was no more! The DS track bike probably looks more like your Opus, at least underneath.

JohnDThompson 

They look like Tange Champion 1803/1823 head lugs. High-quality, investment cast lugs. We used them at Trek on some models.

Don Buska

I agree with you John and that was my primary choice when I first started evaluating this frame before I even bought it. There is a much clearer picture earlier in that same catalog on the Vivalo bike (see below). I stepped away from that in my post as perhaps I was hoping Ishiwata might have made an identical model, since Fuji used Ishiwata parts extensively.



Thanks for sharing the page John amd your probably right they actually used a Tange part.

T-Mar

I agree, it is perplexing. I've been asking myself the same question, for years. Before the Classic Fuji website became available, I ran a Fuji Serial Number Database thread to decrypt the various Fuji formats and the handful of Design Series bicycles that turned up had the 9658 decal, as opposed 019E, as specified in the catalogues. Now, 019E was a higher strength tubeset, so possibly it was a custom version drawn to different gauges? But then, it's not really 019E and why didn't the catalogues simply say something along the lines of "custom drawn 019E"? I would think that would have even more appeal to a potential consumer.

It's worth noting that the catalogues specify a 26.8mm seat post on the Design Series . Allowing for the standard 0.2mm clearance in a imperial seat tube, that calculates to 0.8mm wall thickness and further supports the 9858 designation being representative of the wall thickness. They clearly doesn't use a standard 019E seat tube, which would use a 27.0mm post.

Offhand, I don't recall VALite in these gauges. My recollection is that the quad butted VALite was 1769, which was another standard set of gauges used by Ishiwata. Regardless, if they did produce a VALite set in these gauges, using the same numerical designation for both a CrMo and VALite tubeset could have caused confusion among employees and consumers.

It's worth noting that the claimed weight difference between 019E and EXO-M (9658 gauge) is 195g. Consequently, there is also the possibility that the catalogue weights represent actual 019E and that 019E was only used on the prototypes and/or early production and that the catalogues were never updated. It would be interesting to know the actual bare frame weights of other Design Series frames with 9658 decals.

Regarding the forks, if you check your charts, I believe you'll find that Ishiwata used the same gauge fork blades and steering columns on all the CrMo road tubesets, so there would be no difference in fork weight, regardless of the actual tubeset.

Unfortunately, only the one chainstay end is clearly visible in the picture. If this is the only tube not mitred, then it's most likely a case of worker error. However, if none of the tubes in the BB shell are mitred, then it would appear to be standard production and something other than Design Series,unless Fujicost reduced the design Series by eliminating mitring and didn't update the catalogue. Again, it would be informative to know whether other Design Series frames are mitred or not.

Fuji's literature implies that the Design Series frames were manufactured in-house and that that they did not contract manufacture any bicycles for other companies, so that would seem to limit the options.

Don Buska

Thanks for the very thorough reply TMar. I knew you've been thinking of this stuff for a long time by reading many of your earlier posts on the topic. I guess the bottom line here is if I want to add a tube decal on this old frame I'd best just put on a Fuji 9658 version (after I get Velocal to create one) and call it a day Agreed 019E would make it a 27mm seatpost and there ain't no way on my frame! It's a solid 26.8 with a cleaned-out seat tube and smooth post.

Since it does appear this frame is rather unique with what does appear to be Tange version front lugs. That is unless someone finds a catalog picture showing Ishiwata made the exact same style. Somethings about it may always remain a mystery. I'm sure in the day there was a ledger kept with notes on each of these special serial numbered Fuji's. Most likely that's long gone now or collecting dust on a shelf only known to the books owner.

Oh yeah to address your curiosity on the BB tubes. Both chainstay tubes were straight cut and just set back. The Seat and Down tubes were nicely mitered.

NEW Internal topic: A much belated kudos for the fine Fuji S/N work you did ten years ago. I'm trying to remember did you ever figure out if Fuji's three digit numbered tubing (331/441/661) meant anything? My 1980 Fuji Newest used their 331 tubing (AYK - as did the top half of their bikes in mid-70's through mid-80's). Since that was DB with a 26.6 seatpost I expected it was probably Ishiwata 022. I'm not about to disassemble that bike fully to do some frame weighing I vaguely remember weighing the frame, but can't find any place I recorded it as it was also a frame up build.

T-Mar

Not that I want to introduce any more controversy but the mitred main tubes and non-mitred stays suggest the possibility of a tretubi frame. That might account for some of the weight difference.

No, I never did any investigation into the Fuji 3 digit tubesets. However, I don't think there is any logic to the format, other than establishing a phonetic similarity to 531, to trigger subliminal responses with consumers.

A 26.6mm seat post is not what I would expect for an Ishiwata 022 frame. It should be 27.2mm. I believe there is a general consensus that Fuji used Ishiwata as their primary source. A 26.6mm post would suggest a custom 022 tube, with the most likely scenario being a double butted version. However, it is spooky that a 26.6mm post would also correlate to a Tange Champion seat tube. How appropriate, given that to-morrow night is Halloween.

Don Buska

Thanks TMar. I guess I was reading the tubing wrong. 022 had the 0.9/0.6 spec and I thought the 0.9 was the upper side (seat post side), but it appears that's the BB side. I guess there must be a standard to the size order somewhere, I just haven't found it yet. Always learning.

I'd think that the "tretubi frame" would be unlikely, but not impossible, as the chainstay tubing has the same shape as what I see on the Design Series frames. I am trying to cross-reference between Fuji tubing and other makers standard product, when it may have been a fully custom build only for Fuji. It would be interesting to find out from the Design Series owners to actually see how their tubes are cut within the BB though. The major difference from a frame standpoint is still the different headtube lugs used on mine vs the Design Series. Heck that could have been a "we have one of these sitting here let's use it" decision. As time goes on we'll gather little bits of info, especially when DS frame users start to chime in as to what they actually see on their physical bikes and the deviations (like the chroming above the brake bridge that you observed).

Half the fun is the investigation.

Additional: After thinking about it, sure the BB would be the highest force/stress point on the frame so that's where the thicker tubing side would be on butted tubes. I need to watch and read more about steel bike frame building.

Don Buska

My finished restoration is in this thread.