Re: [CR] Vitus 172


Example: Framebuilders:Jack Taylor

References: <212488F36B144F6B90F130A9A152BCF5@PeterPC> <9327C3B25BD3C34A8DBC26145D88A9071732C3@hippy.home.here> <3E02E8EA4EB1470EA74FEF6A03994073@PeterPC>
In-Reply-To: <3E02E8EA4EB1470EA74FEF6A03994073@PeterPC>
Sensitivity: Normal
To: "Peter Rogers" <pjrogers@rogers.com>, classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org, "Mark Bulgier" <Mark@bulgier.net>, classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
From: joeb-z@comcast.net
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2010 23:01:58 +0000
Subject: Re: [CR] Vitus 172


Motobecane used a lot of this tubing. It was all to easy to set or straighten the frames and forks. The flimsy Motobecane boxes meant that at least half of these required a bit of aligning. It always scared me how flimsy the tubing seemed but I don't remember any warrantee issues.

Joe Bender-Zanoni Whitneyville, CT Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message----- From: Peter Rogers <pjrogers@rogers.com> Sender: classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2010 17:52:52 To: Mark Bulgier<Mark@bulgier.net>; <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org> Subject: Re: [CR] Vitus 172

Dear Mark, Many thanks for your help.

Reading the archived posts, Vitus 172 tubes seem to have been used on many French bikes of various levels of quality.

I assume that, if the sticker on the frame does not state otherwise, just the three main tubes would be made of 172 and the rest is probably gas pipe. This seems to have been the usual format for mid-level French frames during the seventies.

I do not have the frame yet, so I cannot do a more thorough examination.

All the best, Peter Rogers

Barrie, Ontario, Canada

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Mark Bulgier" <Mark@bulgier.net>
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2010 5:21 PM
To: "Peter Rogers" <pjrogers@rogers.com>; <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: RE: [CR] Vitus 172


>

> Peter Rogers asked:

>

>> Was the Vitus 172 series a good tube set?

>> Was it available in double-butted and plain gauge?

>> Is it seamless?

>

> My recollection (must be considered unreliable until you get

> confirmation) is that 172 was DB 1.0/0.7mm (same weight as Columbus SP),

> seamless, and some alloy, probably normalized 4130 or similar. It was a

> step up from their Durifort line. I doubt they would have made a

> plain-gauge 172 variant under the same name, but it would be hard to

> prove they never did.

>

> Mark Bulgier

> Seattle, WA USA