Chuck Schmidt wrote:
>
> Years ago I asked a couple of Italian frame builders why they
> used Reynolds back then and they said the concentricity of
> the tubes (consistent wall thickness) and quality control
> (tubes without external flaws when delivered) was why they
> preferred it over Columbus tubing. I think this was only
> true before Antonio Columbo revitalized his father's company
> in the late 1960s - early 1970s. Can anyone confirm?
I didn't know from other builders that Columbus was reputed to have less concentricity; I found it out myself with a micrometer - the wall thickness varied to a somewhat shocking degree as you went around the tube, compared with other tube brands. This was in the 80s. I used to find and mark the thicker and thinner parts, and orient the tube to match the higher stresses with the thicker parts. (Not always - too time-consuming - just for "specials")
Columbus tubes from the 70s (and I assume, further back than that) had such a deeply-stamped "bird in an oval" logo that one was well-advised to take some care not to leave the stamping right at the edge of a lug or other stress-riser. I saw at least one Columbus frame break there, the fatigue crack starting right from the stamping. I believe e-Richie has said he's seen that too.
It seemed to me that Reynolds quality control went down at some point, maybe just outside the CR time frame, but never got as loose as that of Columbus in the 70s and early 80s. Then, also outside the time frame, Columbus improved greatly with the advent of the NivaCrom sets like Max and EL - I think such thin walls just demanded it. I did notice that late 70s - early 80s KL and Record (thin, light) tubesets seemed to be more carefully made than SL and SP (thicker) for the same reason -- so we do know they were capable of it.
I also have reason to believe Reynolds's metallurgy was a little finer, in the CR time frame.
All that said, I have happily used a lot of Columbus tubing from the era when I am ranking them below Reynolds in QC. I even have a few sets from this period carefully hoarded for future KOF projects - I could have hoarded just Reynolds, but where's the fun in that? Gotta have variety.
The differences I'm talking about here are just not that important in the big picture. For a tube of a given diameter and wall thickness, say a 28.6 x 0.9/0.6 DB downtube (Col SL or Reynolds club pattern), the difference in the ride or feel is demonstrably zero (and I don't mean "almost zero"). The difference in the strength and fatigue endurance is so small as to be "lost in the noise" of variations in the skill and care the builder brings to it.
Mark Bulgier
Seattle WA, USA