All: Of course Brian is correct in what he notes.
But then so am I, which is what makes the discussion so good.
The thing none of us should forget is the size and era of the bike industry
on
the bicycles we're discussing.
The tube companies were more sophisticate in their product by far than the
overwhelming majority of "builders" years ago.
Better research and experimenting was probably done in England.
A few French, maybe a German, Italian Belgium or two, but not much.
The tube companies would do stuff for clever builder years ago much easier
than
today because of costs involved, and with computers and engineering are able
to make the tubes in house for uses and the builders can select desired
properties if they know what they want or need.
Years ago builders would think on it, build and have a rider who hung out at
shop test it for better or worse and then go on. There were a lot of old
junky
framesets that got pitched or sold cheap to non racers to jam around on.
Today's builders like Brian are masters at the profession as compared to the
old school with a few exceptions.
Because there was no definitive knowledge, it was almost only through riders
experience and word of mouth that these things were known.
Too many old builders were not much more than very skilled blacksmiths even
into the '40s when it started to change slowly as guys got more education
and studied the art and craft more.
Remember: many of today's riders never knew life without TV let alone a
remote control or cell phone. How about ice-box? Streetcars? Microwave oven?
Etc., Etc.
So what was and what is are vastly different in reality and actuality.
All these nifty design and metallurgical improvements really do make better
framesets and
Bikes.
There was a huge leap forward in technology during the late '50's and '60's
which kept right on going
and hasn't stopped yet.
Jan is right in his memory of Columbus breaking. The reason I was given is
at first the tubes were too
Light and when hard brazed at first got weakened from overheating in too
many cases and they
Snapped, especially the seat tube and down tube.
Then they used the same tubes and silver solder / brazed them. This was too
weak /soft and they
came apart at welds.
Then they got better composition rod, kept tweaking tube chemistry, and
finally it came around.
Eddy Merckx probably did more to put the Italian bikes back on market, and
by ethnic bike
association Columbus tubing got to be hot, and started the overshadowing of
Reynolds.
Accept it or not, there is a noted difference between good sport and touring
vs. hardcore racing.
When a racer says his bike doesn't respond right anymore and needs a new
frame, you can
Study and theorize yourself blue in the face about book fact with lab
studies, but the test of
racing wins every time, especially on the older '40 - '60's type stuff,
which is what I'm
Referring to.
My old Rickert 531 I brought back in '60 was good for about 15 years riding
around here.
I raced it but not that hard , it was only used about a month when I
returned.
I could tell it slowly getting less responsive and the end came when I rode
a hilly race here in
Southern California. I came around a sharp downhill turn doing around 40 mph
and the bike
drifted to the outside and about a 300 foot drop of sand, stones, boulders,
cacti, and other
various shrubs awaited me. I held as tight as possible forced the bike into
the pavement, and
had inches To spare when I finally started to straighten out. It was the
last time I raced on that bike.
Replaced it with a Medici and the next year, same wheels came around the
same turn faster
wth a similar geometry bike.
I don't want to here all kind of expostulations about all variables . The
old Rickert when new,
rode just like the Medici did.
These are not old wive's tales or rider's imagination or hallucination.
You rode it you felt it and you knew it.
Today's stuff is a whole new ball game, and builder's like Brian and all the
others mentioned
along with the crackerjack few of the not so long past, have a place in
cycling's pantheon.
But the old timers that 'felt' the bikes and forged the path also have their
place in the
chronlogical and systematic development of material and ride quality we have
today, with
technique of old and master craftsmen of new.
Ted Ernst
Palos Verdes Estates, CA
>
> Ted,
>
> Just let me interject one thing regarding frames using a mixture of
> Reynolds and Columbus tubing. It is a common thing on many older classic
> Italian bikes from the 50's and 60's, primarily. Reynolds tubing was sort
> of the standard of steel bicycle tubing at that time, and because of it's
> composition it made for a durable and comfortable frame. The reason a
> builder would choose to use Columbus tubing in the forks and stays is
> because Columbus forks and stays are "taper gauge" tubes, meaning that the
> wall thickness of the fork blade is a consistant thickness throughout the
> length of the tube. The way Reynolds tapered their stays resulted in a
> tube with a thin wall at the larger end and a very thick wall at the
> bottom end. The result is a heavier and less resiliant fork blade for
> racing bikes. The Reynolds method was OK for non-racing bikes, generally
> speaking.
>
> With all due respect to you, your epic expierences, and volumes of
> knowledge, and eons on the bike; I have to humbley say that a certain
> amount of what you said about tubing and how it reacts to construction
> techniques and use are typical of many racer's beliefs on these topics. As
> with the explaination above, some of it is not completely accurate.
> Suffice it to say that it's certainly close enough for government work,
> but technically as a framebuilder one has slightly different perspectives
> and understanding of what tubing is like what and why bike frames are
> designed as they are and behave as they do.
>
> The "riders point of view" and the general impressions of consumers and
> fans of the high end bicycle are valid and interesting. Ted's account is
> priceless in that way. Also, his impressions come from partly before my
> time, and public (rider) opinion are probably exactly as he says, giving
> it historical value. Perhaps in the early days of lightweight tubing and
> construction methods there were more pitfalls. Also, bikes built just for
> racing are rough and tumble, but only a small segment of bicycles within
> our topic. Constructuer type framebuilders and certain British framemakers
> made frames for performance AND pride of ownership, and intended that
> these machines last a long time while still being as light as possible.
> During these times builders even had special tubes made by Reynolds or
> Vitus,(which by the way did make a high quality tube, Cro-Mo, and I've
> seen Cinillis built with it, not to mention all the exotic Frenchies) and
> the builders took full advantage of the charactistics of these tubes.
>
> Anyway, not to critize, but only to tidy up a few things about tubing and
> frames. Thanks Ted for the original post and the great insight from your
> perspective.
>
> Brian Baylis
> La Mesa, CA
> Speaking of FORK BLADES!! I need a never ending supply of the Columbus
> cross-section (can be Reynolds or Columbus) fork blades for fork repairs
> and building spare forks. Anyone know of a stash of (old useless, antique,
> CHEAP) fork blades? Everyone seems to be chaseing parked cars or riding
> their bike into a well. I need fork blades.
>
>
>
> -- "ternst" <ternst1@cox.net> wrote:
> Allow me to ding your tubes a little and see / hear if it resonates. I'll
> relate what was talked about years ago in the trade
> If you know / heard different please chime in and we'll see if we can
> harmonize and not get sharp.
> I'll try to economize on diatribe and give measure, cut, braze.
> Let me first preface that ALL the pro bikes were really only meant to last
> a
> season at best. They were ridden so hard in such conditions that the pros
> felt and knew they were not up to demands they needed.
> I'm also mindful that we're talking older vintage steel production and
> some
> classic makes, collected, revered and in the proper timeline.
> Remember also that the old steel tubes looked alike when painted, and they
> put on what they needed to do the job and covered it with paint and lied
> like hell in the advertising.
> Who of you will strip a classic frame of '60's to see if you can identify
> the tubing and then repaint?
> Once shaped tubes and old Zeros were sent back to the US for frames and
> then
> cans were recycled and sent back over the international date line was it
> more difficult to disguise the original maker as the metallurgy shapes
> determined brands easy to identify.
> Vitus: Top French tubing. Best DB on par with Reynolds, but 'fatigued'
> much
> sooner, and therefore was used mostly on French bikes some first line or
> some second line after same company used Reynolds as first line. Heard of
> some fork blades 'softening' and bent away towards front as they weakened.
> Reynolds: Tubing of choice for many years. The manganese moly made it
> tough,durable, and more shock absorbing. Many builders used Reynolds 3
> main
> tubes and Columbus forks and stays for stiffness. Some preferred Reynolds
> forks and stays in different gauges but it got heavier for same stiffness.
> Frejus is a good example of known and decal shown three main tubes
> Reynolds
> frames.
> Keep in mind we're talking pro use, and weight and strength were
> considered
> for a season only, not us on timeline.
> Libelulla / Columbus: Chrome moly. Stiffer but more brittle. It fatigued
> sooner and had a harsher ride. Thus the blend of tubes on the bikes.At
> first, Columbus had a hell of a time competing with Reynolds. Too light,
> it
> broke , too heavy , not competitive. Many were the reports of early light
> Columbus tubes silver brazed and coming apart on the rough roads. They
> worked like hell to get the rifling, gauges, and metallurgy correct. But
> it
> still rode somewhat harder and it could be felt by riders, making the
> choice
> definitive, and the subterfuge a predictable happening. Once they got back
> to better reinforced tubes and harder brass the difficulty was overcome.
> Then with the advent of the Swiss Eutectic silver / brass composition,
> lower
> heat, etc., all the steel tubes got happier and longer lives.
> I've pulled the field long enough now, it's your turn to keep the jam
> going
> while I sit in. But be on guard, I might jump you when you least expect
> it.
> Jump being the vintage word of the week. Meaning to attack to get away off
> he front when it's unsuspected, catching the field by surprise while
> 'breaking away'.
> Ted Ernst
> Palos Verdes Estates, CA
>
>
> .
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chuck Schmidt" <chuckschmidt@earthlink.net>
> To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 3:48 PM
> Subject: [CR]Italian use of Reynolds tubes Was: Gitane vs Peugeot
>
>
>> Peter Kohler wrote:
>>>
>> (snip)
>>> Of course some Italian machines did have Reynolds tubing. But how many??
>>> Cinellis with Reynolds are considered unusual if not exceptional are
>>> they
>>> not?
>>
>>
>> Yes, some Italians used Reynolds. How many bikes? That would be
>> impossible to say.
>>
>> Cinellis built with Reynolds being inusual and exceptional? I don't
>> believe so. My 1960 Cinelli SC (thanx Brian B) is made from Reynolds.
>> Also my early '60s Masi Special is made with Reynolds, along with my '71
>> (Milano) and '73 (Verona) Masi GC's.
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> Chuck Schmidt
>> South Pasadena, Southern California
>>
>> .