Besides Jerry's points, I would think the best apples-to-apples weight comparison would be on unbuilt tubesets. I'm sure that the tubesets are close enough that all the variances in the lugs, fittings, dropouts, frame size, etc. could swing it either way.
According to a Columbus tubing spec chart that I have, SL is spec'd at 1925g.
Doland Cheung SoCal
-----Original Message----- From: classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org [mailto:classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org] On Behalf Of Jerome & Elizabeth Moos Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 1:47 PM To: jeff-arg@bizwi.rr.com; classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Subject: Re: [CR]Reynolds 531 vs. Columbus SL
I don't think one can really answer that, since 531 itself varied. In the 60's and 70's, Reynolds made both metric and English 531 tubesets, with different dimensions - pretty sure the metric gauge was lighter. They also drew custom tubing for bikes like Bates and issued special decals for Jack Taylor, Schwinn and Raleigh among other, which might have implied some customization of the tubesets themselves. Later, there were such variations as 531 SL, 531 Pro, 531c and 531 ST (Special Tourist). So to compare Columbus to 531 you have to say "which 531".
Regards,
Jerry Moos Big Spring, TX
jeff-arg@bizwi.rr.com wrote: An friend of mine and I were talking about bikes last night and he asked, "wasn't the Columbus SL tubing allways lighter than Reynolds 531?" I couldn't give a definitive answer. My inclination was to agree. However, I have a digital scale that is on my bike stand and thought about some of the bare frames (sans forks) that I have weighed. The Colnagos built with SL are typically around 1900 grams but so are the Masi's built with 531. A Windsor I just bought made of SL is actually heavier than a Raysport I have made of 531.
Does anyone know of standardized tubing weight measures between 531 and SL for comparison?
Jeff Pyzyk
Milwaukee, WI