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

(Example: Framebuilders:Rene Herse)

Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 12:03:27 -0600
From: "PeterGrenader" <>
To: Richard Rose <>
CC: Jerry Moos <>, "Richard M. Sachs" <>,,,
Subject: Re: [Classicrendezvous] Mexico vs Super (was: Colnago quality)
References: <> <> <00a301c038a8$481f0eb0$>

Regarding latest steel offerings and people's rightful paranoia of wall thickness, I humbly submit the following knowning there are framebuilders amongst us:

A couple of years ago, a woman racer I know had a 'not yet at high speed, not a prime or bell lap' women's senior cat 4 crash in a local crit. She tee boned another who had laid her bike down before her. My friend was on a steel Coppi made of Columbus Genius tubing. Not only did the frame fail, but the front end actually separated from the rest of the bike right at the top/down tube butts. Kinda weird considering they were going relatively slow.

On closer expection, I realized that the top tube wall thickness of the Genius was so thin you could peel the edges with your fingers like a coke can. That got me right in the 'stary as hell' bone.

respectfully submitted,

Peeeeeeter (Santa Monica)

Richard Rose wrote:
> 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