Re: [Classicrendezvous] Tubing limits (Was: Mexico vs Super (was: Colnago quality))

(Example: Production Builders:Peugeot:PX-10LE)

From: "KCTOMMY" <>
To: <>
References: <> <> <00a301c038a8$481f0eb0$>
Subject: Re: [Classicrendezvous] Tubing limits (Was: Mexico vs Super (was: Colnago quality))
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:28:05 -0500

Bit of anectodal evidence: there is a rumor running around Kansas City that more than one racer had his brazed 853 frame fail at the headtube. I haven't heard whether the failure was tube buckling, lug failure or tube seperation due to inadequate brazing. Anyone heard of 853 frames being prone to head tube failure?

Tom Adams, with cool weather and lovely colors in Kansas City. Where's the cider mill?

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Rose
To: Jerry Moos

<> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 9:08 PM Subject: Re: [Classicrendezvous] Mexico vs Super (was: Colnago quality)

> Two good sources are or Jerry, I wonder
> about your thoughts as stated below. I would really like to hear from the
> framebuilders on the list to see if they agree with your assessment of the
> latest steel offerings. I do think that if one is light enough (under 165
> lbs.?), that many of these modern steels can be not only very durable but
> also be made to ride wonderfully, as well as being very lightweight. In
> particular, I have read some really good things about Columbus Foco tubing.
> Richard? Dale? Brian? Others?
> Richard (swayed by modern steel's), Rose (Toledo, Ohio)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jerry Moos <>
> To: Richard M. Sachs <>
> Cc: <>; <>;
> <>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 9:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [Classicrendezvous] Mexico vs Super (was: Colnago quality)
> > Heat-treated or no, I think 753 and other thin-walled tubeset are just too
> > thin. The simple fact may be that 531 or maybe 531SL along with Columbus
> > SL represented the best compromise between lightness and durability. What
> > we have seen since is tubes that are made too thin, then hardened in some
> > way to try to compensate for being too thin in the first place. I'm not
> > convinced that there has been any real metallurgical advance which has
> > really allowed a lower weight than 531 or Columbus SL without some
> > undesirable tradeoff. To the extent modern steel frames are significantly
> > lighter, it is less because of technical advances than because the public
> > is willing to accept them as a throway item like modern aluminum frames,
> to
> > be used 2 or 3 seasons, then discarded. It's perhaps not surprising that
> a
> > public which trades in automobiles every two or three years will no longer
> > expect that a bicycle last a lifetime. As with many things, British audax
> > bikes seem to represent a small island of sanity in this regard. I was
> > recently reading an online ad for a British audax bike (Thorn perhaps)
> > which stated that they used a Reynolds tubeset which, while a few ounces
> > heavier than some other tubesets, would produce a frame that would last
> > more than a few seasons. Such a statement seems rather bold today, as
> most
> > marketers seem to believe that a weight-obsessed public doesn't give a
> damn
> > about durability. With the proliferation of tubesets recently, I'm not
> > even sure which ones have adopted the thin wall throwaway approach and
> > which if any may have a wall thickness comparable to 531 or Columbus SL.
> > Tubing and frame ads don't typically list wall thickness. Anyone know of
> a
> > listing of wall thickness for most of the current tubesets?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jerry Moos