[CR]Columbus KL vs EL

Example: Framebuilders:Chris Pauley
References: <20080217.231105.15495.0@webmail23.vgs.untd.com> <66431.60313.qm@web30601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <70e14d4c0802180755j666a807cj8b799c00baa6ca6@mail.gmail.com> <df813d780802180806k8a15721x8633cacbd4e26c3e@mail.gmail.com>
To: khun.freek@gmail.com, veronaman@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:50:40 -0500
From: "Dale Brown" <oroboyz@aol.com>
cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Subject: [CR]Columbus KL vs EL

These tubing models are in different time frames, the EL came later. IIRC, the EL is made up of "Nivachrome" heat treated alloy, while the KL was made of the original Chromoly later called "Cyclex".? Where the marketing ends and the real difference start, I have no idea.

Dale Brown cycles de ORO Bike Shop 1410 Mill Street Greensboro, North Carolina 27408 USA 336-274-5959 http://cyclesdeoro.com http://www.classicrendezvous.com http://www.carolinacup.com http://www.greensborovelo.com http://www.bikegso.org http://nbda.com

-----Original Message----- From: Freek Faro <khun.freek@gmail.com> To: Angel Garcia <veronaman@gmail.com> Cc: CLASSIC RENDEZVOUS <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org> Sent: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:06 am Subject: Re: [CR]Columbus KL tubeset

>From an undated Columbus catalog (it shows Moser in his record attempt, and has MS and SLX tubesets listed, as 'new'!), the set weight for KL is: 1670 grams.

Freek Faro Rotterdam Netherlands

2008/2/18, Angel Garcia <veronaman@gmail.com>:
> The following weights come from a 1989 Colombus catalog for tubeset
> weighs:
> EL (not OverSize) tubeset: 1670
> EL-OS: 1800
> PL: 1845
> KL not listed....
> Angel Garcia
> Verona, IT
> > There are some listed weight limitations listed for
> > Columbus SL tubes. I believe that recommended weight
> > limit is 70kg IIRC. Around 154 lbs. KL is a lighter
> > tube set and would probably be around the same
> > weight limit under smooth road conditions. PL tubes
> > (the light track stuff) would be even lighter yet
> > and for smooth track use.
> So how does KL differ from the non-oversized version of EL?
> The dimentions appear to be the same. In my experience,
> non-oversized EL was just wonderful for a small rider - I weigh
> less than 130 pounds. But it's "crashability" was somewhat
> limited, which is why I suspect my frame was repaired with an
> SL downtube.
> Fred Rednor - Arlington, Virginia (USA)