[CR]Reynolds vs. Columbus

(Example: Component Manufacturers)

Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 22:02:44 -0500
From: "The Maaslands" <TheMaaslands@comcast.net>
To: Classic Rendezvous <Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: [CR]Reynolds vs. Columbus

At the time that I built my first frame back in 1981, I was led to believe that Columbus was the 'better' tubing for the stays and forks and Reynolds was 'better' for the main triangle. This seems to correspond to the same thinking used by all those builders that do mix and match tubing. If I remember correctly, the reason had to do with the different composition: Chromoly for Columbus and Manganese Molybdenum for Reynolds. I may be hallucinating, but I seem to recall that it was said that Columbus absorbed shock better because of better memory characteristics of the tubing. Whatever the explanation, I remember looking all over the place to get all the tubes. The frame was built freehand, without a jig. To align it, I used the cracks in a tile floor. I still have it and quite enjoy the ride.

Steven Maasland Moorestown, NJ

---