Trakhak

In our small local bike racing club in 1964, five were on Columbus SL bikes (four Atalas and one Legnano) and two were on 531 bikes (Peugeot and Helyett).

That mix might have reflected the preferences of the owner of the one local bike shop that catered to racers, but by the 1970s and especially toward the 1980s, bikes with Columbus tubing were beginning to be the cooler choice among U.S. bike racers. 531 bikes were becoming less fashionable, except for touring riders, where Reynolds continued to dominate.

It has just occurred to me that the preferences in tubing among European bike manufacturers in the 1960s and thereafter might have had less to do with performance characteristics than with political affiliations in the 1930s and during and after the war years. That's probably just a wild guess, but it's true that most English and French bikes used English (and French) tubing; most Italian bikes used Italian tubing.

I'd already owned five 531 bikes by the time I bought my Aelle Bianchi Eco Pista in 1983 and my SL/SP Bianchi Specialissima in 1984. The 531 bikes were lighter, but the Columbus bikes felt better at speed. That might have had more to do with the shorter wheelbases of the Bianchi bikes, though.

Tube set weight alone doesn't tell you much about how the bike will ride. The best demonstration of that fact I've ever read was in the Bicycle Guide magazine double-blind test of seven bikes built with seven different Columbus tube sets, from Aelle to EL-OS. (As i recall, a proportion of the test riders chose the Aelle bike as one of the best of the seven.)

Bicycle-Guide-Magnificent-Seven-Test.pdf

smd4

I've only seen one 531 bike in my lifetime, including all the years working in shops 1985 - 1995, in both SoCal and NorCal. It was a neighbor's very used bike. Everything else I encountered for medium to high-end bikes was Columbus or Tange (with other tubes scattered about, I'm sure).

georges1

Aelle, Gara, Brain, Cromor and Thron were entry level to mid range tubing at best and were never high end.I have once weighted an Aelle frame and it was much more heavier than my reynolds 708 classic. Also have riden on a Gara , it was feeling like a dead weight to me. For Columbus, I prefer always the high end with Neuron, EL OS, Genius, Over Max, Minimax, Nemo, Foco, Ultra Foco, Life and Spirit.

Andy_K 

That's one of the most interesting outcomes of the test. I agree that these aren't high end tubes, and yet the author didn't perceive a lot of differences between them and SLX, Neuron, or EL-OS.

I have a Colnago made with Thron tubing, which the author of the article thought absorbed vibrations best. Colnago didn't really make "entry level" bikes, but this bike (a C97, I think) was as close to that as they came. At least it was positioned at the bottom of Colnago's lineup. I think it rides as well as any bike I own.

georges1

I think it is up to the individual , I have been three years into road bike racing and MTB trail riding but for me there is a difference between an entry level mid steel frame and high end steel one. Pedaling with a dead weight is no for me. That is also the same remark for entry level aluminiums like Oria 7020 or Columbus Aluthron or some high end frames made from Easton, Columbus Altec, Altec 2+, Starship, Dedacciai 7003 now Dedacciai Aegis a 7005 and scandium serie or with Alcoa Alcalyte Aluminium found on Cannondales and Giants.

Andy_K 

I'm not going to go so far as to say that tubing choice doesn't matter, because I think it does, but I'm not sure that there is a simple mapping from better to worse once you get beyond a certain point. How lively a frame feels depends on things like construction quality, geometry, and rider weight, in addition to the tubing choice. There's almost certainly a correlation between the selection of "high end" tubing and things like good construction and thoughtfully designed geometry, and especially with mass production frames "low end" tubing is chosen in order to meet a price point, but I think it's equally true with mass production frames that "high end" tubing is often chosen as a marketing bullet point.

The "Magnificent Seven" article ends with a quote from Richard Sachs, which I'll repeat here in a slightly expanded form (the quote can be found here: https://richardsachs.com/framed-art/). “Tubing itself doesn’t have any connotation of quality. At this end of the business, it’s more about construction and perhaps design than materials. I actually think that material is the least consequential choice. When someone is buying a bike from me, they’re buying my design choices and my construction skills. Omitting a tubing decal isn’t an act of defiance, I’m only saying that my bikes are no better or no worse just because I used a particular brand of tubing.”

The point about design choices ties this back to what I was trying to say earlier about the mix of SPX and SLX tubes used in the Bianchi reviewed above. You might see SPX as a low quality tube set because it's heavy. I think MAX, TSX, and EL/EL-OS were available in 1989, but they were relatively new. So, Bianchi is producing this frame. They have a choice of tubing. The engineers would consider which tubing would provide the characteristics they wanted, and the marketing department would tell them the price point they needed to hit. Since this tubing mix was used on Bianchi's top-of-the-line models, I would conclude that either (a) the engineers didn't think that more expensive tubing would provide significant performance differentiation, or (b) the marketing department wasn't interested in offering anything better than this. The latter is a real possibility as manufacturers don't like to have too many different options available and they wouldn't want to undercut a model that would appeal to most performance-oriented customers by offering something which would have a more limited market and positioning it as "better". But I think there's also a real possibility that the engineers didn't think more expensive tubing would significantly improve the bike.

Jjbailey930

I had an early 80s Bianchi Sprint like the one in this catalog. https://i0.wp.com/2velo.com/wp-conte...794,1024&ssl=1
Red/maroon with yellow lettering. Definitely, Columbus. Gave that to local kid who needed ride to community college in 2002. I keep searching for on on CL and FB.

joesch

I really enjoy reading these bike review road tests and comparing the spec's and ofcourse the list prices.

What would be really cool would be to compare the rides for the 1989 reviews.
This would of course be diff for riders, sizes, styles, and preferences and the bikes would need wheels that were similar.

This would probably reveal more of what Andy quoted from Richard Sachs above about the design choices and builders construction skills. Still would be cool to have an apples to apples compare for these reviews. Im a bigger rider and really like the stiffer and slightly heavier frames like the gilco master profile provided

(1989) BASSO Ascot
(1989) BIANCHI Giro
(1989) MASI Gran Criterium
(1989) CINELLI Supercorsa
(1989) COLNAGO Master

gkamieneski

My recollection is that one of the Bianchis that I raced was Columbus SBX. This was a beautiful Celeste frame that I built up with Chorus.

Where did SBX fit in (not SLX or SPX). Sadly, I snapped a chainstay on this beautiful frame.

georges1

From what I know the most reknown french builders were reknowned for their frames using only high end steels but not midrange or entry level steels.I don't know your bike builds so I can't say anything about your bikes. Behind a tube label,there is more than marketing ,there are mechanical properties,fatigue resistance, resistance to corrosoion, brazability/weldability and more.The bike decal for me has an importance because it defines a lot of the caracteristics that makes how your bike rides.The day of steel frames reemerged in the late 90's early 00's but now you rarely see high end steel framed mass produced bikes but custom made ones.At a certain price point, midrange tubing isn't acceptable.

Andy_K 

It occurs to me that I'm settling into the role of retro-grouch here. I guess I'm looking at top quality bikes from the 70's and 80's and saying that the tubes they used were good enough, so why do we need new tubing?

But reflecting on it today I can appreciate your enthusiasm for the improved tubing of the late 80's and beyond, even if it's not my thing. As someone who is constantly putting indexed shifters on bikes from an earlier period, it's kind of ironic that I'm taking the skeptical position on the tubing. To each his own, I suppose.

For the sake of continuing the conversation, I'll tell you what's in my garage currently. I've got five bikes with Columbus SL, four with full double-butted Reynolds 531, two with Reynolds 531 main triangle, one with Reynolds 853, one with Specialized "Special Series Touring" (a mix of Tange 1 and Tange 2), one with Specialized's "Special Series Racing" (on a 3Rensho-built Allez, so I think maybe Ishiwata), one Columbus SLX/SPX mix (the Bianchi reviewed here), one Columbus SLX, one Columbus Thron, one Columbus Genius, one 3/2.5 titanium, and three aluminum (two 6061 and whatever Cannondale used in the late 80's. There is a lot of correlation between the age of these bikes and the tubing they used. All of the ones from the 70's have either Reynolds 531 or Columbus SL. The ones with Reynolds 853, Columbus Thron, Columbus Genius and Titanium are from the late 90's or early 2000's. The ones with 6061 aluminum are mid 2010's. Everything else is from the 80's. I'm not sure there's much correlation between tubing and which ones I enjoy riding the most.

Among these, the one with the most comfortable ride and yet still sporty is the Special Series Touring tubes (1983 Specialized Sequoia). I'm happy with them all, though the SLX (1987 Pinarello Montello) is probably my least favorite. The Columbus Genius and the Reynolds 853 are probably the ones that are most up to your standards in terms of technology. They're both great, but as a heavy rider (~250 pounds) I'm a little nervous about the Genius and the skinny 22-year old carbon fork paired with the 853 (LeMond) seems like a time bomb waiting to got off. They're both very light though.

georges1

I think we have our prefrences, I have one reynolds 708 classic and one reynolds 753 as road bikes , 6 road bike projects, two deda 18MCDV6 frames,one overmax,one genius, one reynolds 731 os race and a custom aluminium made by Daccordi. For mountain bikes,1 Deda 18MCDV6HT bike,1 Reynolds 631 bike, 1 Aluminium and 4130 bonded bike, next MTB Jamis Dragon Reynolds 853 as project. I have seen once a genius broken in a MTB race as for road bikes never seen one breaking, a good quality carbon fork won't break, I have on old time carbon fork which is almost two decades old and which is rock solid.

smd4

You’re not suggesting SPX was “midrange?” That would be pretty far from the truth.

My 1986 Paramount—an exceedingly high end frame at the time— used an SPX down tube because of the 60 cm frame size.

georges1

753 was high end so was 653 and 531 pro and 531c , SLX was midrange and so was TSX and SL. If the SPX is from the same family than those, it can't be considered as high end. Rather consider Excell tubing available on Billato made Giordanas or True Temper as better bikes. columbus tubes frameset weights at 2,325 kilos frame alone, the SPX frame is on the heavy side, definitely not what a high end frame should weight. If you want to speak of high end frames then EL, EL OS, Max (include Minimax and Overmax), Neuron, Genius, Nemo, Foco ,Ultrafoco, Spirit and XCR are the answer.

smd4

Maybe not today, but in the 1980s, Columbus SL/SP and SLX/SPX was absolutely considered top of the line tubing.

georges1

In the 80's the lightest and most high end steels were the Supervitus, 753, 653 and the Excell Podium , Columbus didn't offer a steel of the 4/10th of thickness until the apparition of EL in 1988-1989.Columbus SL/SP and SLX/SPX were 6/10th of thickness steels and they weren't nivacrom steels, they were comfy steels but nothing extraordinary light.The 531C and 531 Pro were 5/10th of thickness weighting less than Columbus SL/SP and SLX/SPX.

Trakhak

If your criterion for "high end" is weight and nothing else (except price), then the accuracy of your ranking of frames is indisputable.

The weight of a frame doesn't reliably tell you anything about its ride quality, though, as demonstrated by the Magnificent Seven double-blind test results. Everyone who participated undoubtedly expected to be able to distinguish easily the frames built with cheaper tubing from the ones built with expensive tubing and to be able to rank them confidently, but you know how that turned out.

Of all the bikes I've owned since the mid-1960s, and that's a lot of top-of-the-line steel bikes, my favorite was an Aelle Bianchi Eco Pista. It remained my favorite until I bought my first aluminum bike, a Specialized Langster.

It's true that I never owned a bike built with 753, EL, Excell, etc. But, as amply demonstrated in that double-blind test, my favorite two bikes would almost certainly still have been those two.

georges1

I have never ridden an aelle,a sl,a slx, a spx, but ridden a brain framed bike and a thron framed bike,I didn't have the same comfort, nervosity and rigidity than my Reynolds 708 framed bike classic or my Reynolds 753 framed bike.Yet when I see +600$ for basic columbus sl or slx frame, I am somewhat astounded. Maybe I have a totally and completely different understanding of quality and responsiveness of ride than you. Also a roadbike in high end steel weighting more than 10 kilos,I am sorry but this is not what a high end bike should weight, just my personal opinion.

smd4

I’m only referring to Columbus tubes.

Why do you think so many high-end racing frames from the 1980s used SLX/SPX? Cinelli, Paramount, Bottecchia, Bianchi, Basso? If you think they were using “mid-grade” tubing for their top of the line frames, then you’re sorely mistaken, and your credibility is diminished.

georges1

EL was used by Stephen roche for his triple win and more than 27 Tour de France were won by Reynolds with the 531 (mostly) and 753. How many Tour de France have SLX and SPX won? I am curious to know. Fignon won his tours on a Raleigh Reynolds 753 and Hinault on a Look Reynolds 753, then a look carbon.Gianni Bugno won the world road championship with a Genius frame in 1992.Indurain won his tours on an oria steel made Pinarello.

Andy_K 

How would you even find that out? This link (https://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/v...an-steel-giant) claims that Columbus tubes were ridden to TdF victory by Eddy Merckx, Bernard Hinault, Fausto Coppi, Jacques Anquetil and Greg LeMond. No details are provided about the tube sets or the years. Hinault is the one that surprises me, as Gitane generally used Reynolds 531. In general, I'm skeptical that pro tour bikes are what they appear to be -- often custom-made bikes are re-branded -- but I think it's a reasonable base assumption that riders using Italian brands were using Columbus tubing and before the mid 80's were using SL. The window of time between the introduction of SLX and the proliferation of more advanced Columbus tube sets is kind of small and dominated by Hinault, Fignon, and LeMond, so I think it's possible there haven't been any tour wins on SLX. I'm sure there are other major pro wins though.

Andy_K 

I was bored during my lunch break, so I was trying to find any info about major wins on SLX frames. It seems that Battaglin is claiming that Roche's wins were on SLX.

https://officinabattaglin.com/produc...ditions/roche/

I'm really not trying to turn this into a slap fight, just sharing what I found.

georges1

ok if they claim so, here is an interesting link about Tour de France Winning bikes ,most of the French bike manufacturers like Peugeot and Gitane used the Reynolds 531

georges1

You have got a point but in Europe,Reynolds was the mostly dominant manufacturer in the70's 80's early 90's, Columbus andTange were just in 2nd and 3rd positions , Tange was very short lived from mid 90's till early 00's in the MTB scene and non existant on the roadbike scene or professional pelotons. In1992 a 3rd important tube manufacturer appeared,it was Dedacciai with the will of creating a new standard in the high performance cycling tubesets engeneering and manufacturing, Dedacciai Technology has accompany cycling success of Indurain, Pantani, Cipollini, Petacchi, Rijs, increasing the use of metallic alloy, from tempered steel to aluminum alloy, from magnesium alloy, to titanium till recent carbon composite material. Many Italian bike manufacturers use Dedacciai tubes.

Andy_K 

Yeah, I did see that article. I'd love to see something with a table showing more details about things like tubing and components for the winning bikes, but I guess the tubing information isn't necessarily available. For instance, I think Pedro Delgado's bike in 1988 was sometimes reported as being a Pinarello Montello, but as the article mentioned it was actually custom-built by TVT so who knows what tubing they might have used. I know when Eddy Merckx was racing he had a lot of input on the builds of his bikes, and I would guess this is true of most top riders. The paint and decals say what the sponsors want them to say, but the rider might convince the team to do something else with the build. And, of course, they might use different bikes on different stages.

Regarding the use of Reynolds 531 by Peugeot and Gitane, it's also worth noting that those would have been the metric-sized Reynolds 531 tubes. I would expect that makes at least a minor difference, but it's mostly just prevailing national preference. I have a Stella that used metric-sized Columbus tubing. You don't see many of those. I think I said before in this thread that it's a fairly good generalization to say that English and French builders used Reynolds tubing (the Stella not withstanding) while Italian builders used Columbus. I've seen it suggested that this is a carryover from WW2 allegiances. Regardless, I think it's more of a cultural norm than a reflection of the builder's assessment of the relative quality.

Before the mid-80's when you were basically choosing between Columbus SL and Reynolds 531, these two framesets very similar weights. It's also worth taking note of the fact that SLX was introduced as an upgrade over SL but it was slightly heavier. Weight isn't everything.