Re: [CR]Columbus KL tubeset

(Example: Component Manufacturers)

Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 17:06:03 +0100
From: "Freek Faro" <khun.freek@gmail.com>
To: "Angel Garcia" <veronaman@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CR]Columbus KL tubeset
In-Reply-To: <70e14d4c0802180755j666a807cj8b799c00baa6ca6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20080217.231105.15495.0@webmail23.vgs.untd.com> <66431.60313.qm@web30601.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
cc: CLASSIC RENDEZVOUS <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>

>From an undated Columbus catalog (it shows Moser in his record attempt, and has MS and SLX tubesets listed, as 'new'!), the set weight for KL is: 1670 grams.

Freek Faro Rotterdam Netherlands

2008/2/18, Angel Garcia <veronaman@gmail.com>:
>
> The following weights come from a 1989 Colombus catalog for tubeset
> weighs:
>
> EL (not OverSize) tubeset: 1670
> EL-OS: 1800
> PL: 1845
>
> KL not listed....
>
> Angel Garcia
> Verona, IT
>
>
> > There are some listed weight limitations listed for
> > Columbus SL tubes. I believe that recommended weight
> > limit is 70kg IIRC. Around 154 lbs. KL is a lighter
> > tube set and would probably be around the same
> > weight limit under smooth road conditions. PL tubes
> > (the light track stuff) would be even lighter yet
> > and for smooth track use.
>
> So how does KL differ from the non-oversized version of EL?
> The dimentions appear to be the same. In my experience,
> non-oversized EL was just wonderful for a small rider - I weigh
> less than 130 pounds. But it's "crashability" was somewhat
> limited, which is why I suspect my frame was repaired with an
> SL downtube.
> Fred Rednor - Arlington, Virginia (USA)