Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Classic & Vintage
Reload this Page >

I'm convinced - large frame, thinwalled tubeset = plushest ride

Notices
Classic & Vintage This forum is to discuss the many aspects of classic and vintage bicycles, including musclebikes, lightweights, middleweights, hi-wheelers, bone-shakers, safety bikes and much more.

I'm convinced - large frame, thinwalled tubeset = plushest ride

Old 09-19-19, 10:57 AM
  #26  
noglider 
aka Tom Reingold
 
noglider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New York, NY, and High Falls, NY, USA
Posts: 40,691

Bikes: 1962 Rudge Sports, 1971 Raleigh Super Course, 1971 Raleigh Pro Track, 1974 Raleigh International, 1975 Viscount Fixie, 1982 McLean, 1996 Lemond (Ti), 2002 Burley Zydeco tandem

Mentioned: 510 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7287 Post(s)
Liked 2,361 Times in 1,380 Posts
@ascherer, you're describing my feelings for my McLean (analogous to your Mercian) and my International. I've also had my McLean a long time, in my case, 36 years. I feel melded to it when I'm riding, though I admit I get backaches after riding it. Maybe I need the bars higher. Right now, my McLean has 28mm Continental GP4000S-II tires on it, and they are amazing. What's the maximum width your Mercian will take?
__________________
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog

“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author

Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
noglider is offline  
Old 09-19-19, 03:45 PM
  #27  
rhm
multimodal commuter
 
rhm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NJ, NYC, LI
Posts: 19,852

Bikes: 1940s Fothergill, 1959 Allegro Special, 1963? Claud Butler Olympic Sprint, Lambert 'Clubman', 1974 Fuji "the Ace", 1976 Holdsworth 650b conversion rando bike, 1983 Trek 720 tourer, 1984 Counterpoint Opus II, 1993 Basso Gap, 2010 Downtube 8h, and...

Mentioned: 584 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1908 Post(s)
Liked 574 Times in 339 Posts
You guys amaze me. All my bikes feel the same to me, 531, A&P kromo, plain gauge or butted, columbus, tange no 1, whatever. Even aluminum I don't think I notice a difference. I have them all set up more or less the same, but I notice differences in the brakes, gears, etc, and maybe tires, but even then I'm not sure.
rhm is offline  
Old 09-19-19, 04:47 PM
  #28  
horatio 
Hump, what hump?
 
horatio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: SC midlands
Posts: 1,937

Bikes: See signature

Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 337 Post(s)
Liked 227 Times in 145 Posts
I think my 55cm DeRosa SLX is plush, but like @rhm I think all my bikes ride similarly. I’ll have to test your theory on the 60cm Ciocc, also SLX, with my favorite tubular wheels. Actually, my only tubular wheels...
__________________
2010 AB T1X ** 2010 Cannondale SIX-5 ** 1993 Cannondale RS900 ** 1988 Bottecchia Team Record ** 1989 Bianchi Brava ** 1988 Nishiki Olympic ** 1987 Centurion Ironman Expert(2) ** 1985 DeRosa Professional SLX ** 1982 Colnago Super ** 1982 Basso Gap ** 198? Ciocc Competition SL ** 19?? Roberts Audax ** 198? Brian Rourke ** 1982 Mercian Olympic ** 1970 Raleigh Professional MK I ** 1952 Raleigh Sports


horatio is offline  
Old 09-19-19, 07:15 PM
  #29  
noglider 
aka Tom Reingold
 
noglider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New York, NY, and High Falls, NY, USA
Posts: 40,691

Bikes: 1962 Rudge Sports, 1971 Raleigh Super Course, 1971 Raleigh Pro Track, 1974 Raleigh International, 1975 Viscount Fixie, 1982 McLean, 1996 Lemond (Ti), 2002 Burley Zydeco tandem

Mentioned: 510 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7287 Post(s)
Liked 2,361 Times in 1,380 Posts
My bikes ride noticeably differently, but I can't be sure which factors contribute to the differences. And neither can you.
__________________
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog

“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author

Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
noglider is offline  
Likes For noglider:
Old 09-19-19, 10:31 PM
  #30  
ascherer 
Senior Member
 
ascherer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manhattan & Woodstock NY
Posts: 2,767

Bikes: 1987 Mercian Pro, 1985 Shogun 500, early '70s Falcon San Remo, 1972 Peugeot PX-10, 1972 Schwinn Paramount P13-9, 1971 Raleigh International, 1971 Peugeot PX-10, 1970 Raleigh Professional Mk1

Mentioned: 107 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 931 Post(s)
Liked 2,840 Times in 963 Posts
Originally Posted by noglider
@ascherer, you're describing my feelings for my McLean (analogous to your Mercian) and my International. I've also had my McLean a long time, in my case, 36 years. I feel melded to it when I'm riding, though I admit I get backaches after riding it. Maybe I need the bars higher. Right now, my McLean has 28mm Continental GP4000S-II tires on it, and they are amazing. What's the maximum width your Mercian will take?
Tom, I don’t know how wide I could go on the Mercian. I’ve thought about it, and it looks like there’s a fair amount of space available. I have a set of 700c wheels with Pamela 28s from the Peugeot that I could pop in to get a sense of fit. The Michelins have plenty of life left, and even though I love them I’ll almost certainly go a bit wider when it’s time to replace them. But contrary to current trends I still find those skinny high-pressure tires to be quite comfortable to ride, and I have the cushy Compass tires in the International as a comparison. Even further, my Sports has 650A Col de la Vies which are super plush and have very supple casings too.

Have you had a fitting for the Maclean recently? I know how much you love that bike, you might still be comfortable on it. That’s a partnership worth maintaining!

Last edited by ascherer; 09-19-19 at 10:42 PM.
ascherer is offline  
Old 09-19-19, 10:38 PM
  #31  
ascherer 
Senior Member
 
ascherer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manhattan & Woodstock NY
Posts: 2,767

Bikes: 1987 Mercian Pro, 1985 Shogun 500, early '70s Falcon San Remo, 1972 Peugeot PX-10, 1972 Schwinn Paramount P13-9, 1971 Raleigh International, 1971 Peugeot PX-10, 1970 Raleigh Professional Mk1

Mentioned: 107 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 931 Post(s)
Liked 2,840 Times in 963 Posts
Originally Posted by noglider
My bikes ride noticeably differently, but I can't be sure which factors contribute to the differences. And neither can you.
I’ll always remember riding my International at your place upstate the first season I had it, and going right into a pothole because it didn’t just scoot around it like my Mercian would. On that bike a subtle shift of body weight puts it just where I want to to go. The Raleigh needs more input. Not worse, just different. I like that my bikes feel distinct from each other.
ascherer is offline  
Old 09-20-19, 07:01 AM
  #32  
noglider 
aka Tom Reingold
 
noglider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New York, NY, and High Falls, NY, USA
Posts: 40,691

Bikes: 1962 Rudge Sports, 1971 Raleigh Super Course, 1971 Raleigh Pro Track, 1974 Raleigh International, 1975 Viscount Fixie, 1982 McLean, 1996 Lemond (Ti), 2002 Burley Zydeco tandem

Mentioned: 510 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7287 Post(s)
Liked 2,361 Times in 1,380 Posts
@ascherer, I remember that, as I saw your bike jump to the side. In my mind, the International is decidedly less agile than other bikes. Different input doesn't change that. It just can't dart around in certain ways. It's the result of a tradeoff I don't mind making when I ride it. I just don't get into situations where such agility is needed.
__________________
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog

“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author

Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
noglider is offline  
Old 09-20-19, 08:07 AM
  #33  
seypat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,755
Mentioned: 69 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3190 Post(s)
Liked 2,460 Times in 1,489 Posts
Originally Posted by rhm
You guys amaze me. All my bikes feel the same to me, 531, A&P kromo, plain gauge or butted, columbus, tange no 1, whatever. Even aluminum I don't think I notice a difference. I have them all set up more or less the same, but I notice differences in the brakes, gears, etc, and maybe tires, but even then I'm not sure.
This is about my experience as well. The racing bikes will turn in a lot faster and want to dive one way or another. Other than that, take off the tubing stickers and I can't tell a difference. The stiff Miyata I talked about, that could be the saddle I have on it.
seypat is online now  
Old 09-20-19, 10:16 AM
  #34  
Kilroy1988 
Senior Member
 
Kilroy1988's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 2,275
Mentioned: 45 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked 1,838 Times in 608 Posts
I still have the 25.5" Raleigh Super Course 12 frame that was my first road bike, which I have intended on restoring several times but never got around to. The excuse was that it is technically slightly large for me (though with 700c rims and 32mm tires I can just stand over it flat-footed) and a bit whippy, with enough flex to make climbing almost impossible. It had double butted 531 main tubes and unidentified stays and fork blades.

On flat ground it was absolutely the "plushest" ride I've had! I may still re-equip it for a tour of the Sacramento Valley I have planned.

-Gregory
Kilroy1988 is online now  
Old 09-20-19, 10:33 AM
  #35  
hokiefyd 
Senior Member
 
hokiefyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Northern Shenandoah Valley
Posts: 4,123

Bikes: More bikes than riders

Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1438 Post(s)
Liked 749 Times in 559 Posts
Originally Posted by rhm
You guys amaze me. All my bikes feel the same to me, 531, A&P kromo, plain gauge or butted, columbus, tange no 1, whatever. Even aluminum I don't think I notice a difference. I have them all set up more or less the same, but I notice differences in the brakes, gears, etc, and maybe tires, but even then I'm not sure.
My comment is really toward C&V/steel bikes in general, rather than specific sizes or tubing, but after a period of riding some of my modern bikes a lot, I've got my older steel bikes out and I've been riding them. My "primary" bike has been a fairly new Giant Roam, a hybrid with a suspension fork. It's "smooth" in the sense that the suspension fork takes up larger bumps, but the bike is big, everything is relatively stiff, and the handlebar is wide. Compared to my C&V/steel bikes, it's like riding a motorcycle.

I've recently put that bike away in favor of my old Peugeot and Trek 750. There's a real difference in how much road buzz you can feel in the steel bikes (less). Despite having 50mm tires, the Roam seems to transmit a lot more of the surface to the rider. I imagine this is due to frame material, tubing shapes and sizes, relatively stiff 31.8mm handlebar size, non-compliant fork material (steel stanchions), etc. Compared to the Roam, my Peugeot and Trek just feel...smooth. They have narrower tires, but the ride quality is just...smooth.

With that and the complete lack of noise (the drivetrains on both are nearly completely silent), it's a much more peaceful ride on my old bikes. It feels like a more "elementary" experience -- just me and the outdoors. In some ways, a good bike blends into the background and disappears.
hokiefyd is offline  
Old 09-20-19, 11:40 AM
  #36  
Kilroy1988 
Senior Member
 
Kilroy1988's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Visalia, CA
Posts: 2,275
Mentioned: 45 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 981 Post(s)
Liked 1,838 Times in 608 Posts
Originally Posted by rhm
You guys amaze me. All my bikes feel the same to me, 531, A&P kromo, plain gauge or butted, columbus, tange no 1, whatever. Even aluminum I don't think I notice a difference. I have them all set up more or less the same, but I notice differences in the brakes, gears, etc, and maybe tires, but even then I'm not sure.
The biggest difference between bikes I've owned lately was between the ~1950 Carlton Continental with a full DB 531 frame set, and my 1951 New Hudson Silver Arrow with plain gauge 531 main tubes. Both were 23" frames and had different geometry, and both had 26" steel rims. The Carlton was more nicely equipped and several pounds lighter overall, but when it came to how the frame and wheels responded to pushing hard or going over rough surfaces, the difference was very appreciable! The geometry differences certainly played a factor but I had myself positioned over the frames very similarly.

If such observations weren't grounded in some kind of actual difference, then methinks generations of riders would not have bothered paying extra for the butted tubing and the craftsmen would not have focused on building almost exclusively with the stuff. Weight and technological innovation was certainly motivating factors back in the day, but if all you could say was that your bike weighed a pound or two less for all the extra expense of having a frame made from quality tubing, I think it would not have been held to such high standards.

Come to think of it, I've also noticed rather drastic differences in stiffness between butted and plain gauge 531 tubing on two different 25.5" Raleigh Super Course frames, and both were equipped with rims laced to Weinmann concave rims and similar quality tires.

-Gregory

Last edited by Kilroy1988; 09-20-19 at 11:45 AM.
Kilroy1988 is online now  
Old 09-20-19, 06:03 PM
  #37  
Cl904
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 331
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 106 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 36 Times in 23 Posts
So recently I’ve had two cromor bikes, one a schwinn prelude that was as small as I could comfortably go... maybe a 54-55? Running on semi aero campy rims laces to some suntour hubs. It was stiff and buzzy over rough patches. Traded it for a viner in size 59, and kept the wheel set. The viner accelerates just as quickly, but the ride is smoothed out.

Now, the difference between the two bikes I think actually comes down to the seat stays. The viner stays are pencil thin, where the schwinn were a bit larger diameter thru the entire length. The fork on the prelude was hi ten compared to the viners cromor, but sitting is where I notice the most difference, not in my hands.
Cl904 is offline  
Old 09-20-19, 09:05 PM
  #38  
Ronsonic 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Sunny Tampa, Florida
Posts: 1,546
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Liked 49 Times in 41 Posts
Originally Posted by noglider
My bikes ride noticeably differently, but I can't be sure which factors contribute to the differences. And neither can you.

https://www.habcycles.com/m7.html
Ronsonic is offline  
Old 09-21-19, 06:51 AM
  #39  
OldsCOOL
Senior Member
 
OldsCOOL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: northern michigan
Posts: 13,317

Bikes: '77 Colnago Super, '76 Fuji The Finest, '88 Cannondale Criterium, '86 Trek 760, '87 Miyata 712

Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 659 Post(s)
Liked 595 Times in 313 Posts
The smoothest ride in my little fleet is the ‘87 Miyata 712 Comp. though it is a triple butted frame it’s probably the heavier rear stays and such for the tri-athlete that lends to the smoothness. At 23.5 pounds it is also my heaviest in this fleet of racers.
OldsCOOL is offline  
Old 09-21-19, 09:33 PM
  #40  
Lascauxcaveman 
Senior Member
 
Lascauxcaveman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Posts: 8,016

Bikes: A green one, "Ragleigh," or something.

Mentioned: 194 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1627 Post(s)
Liked 629 Times in 355 Posts
I'm convinced, too. The Grandis - supposedly made from SL main tubes, at least - is a "soft" ride no matter what wheel set I put on it. And I've tried at least a half dozen. Not really "whippy," though; just a compliant, forgiving, all-day comfortable ride. Whenever I take this thing through a really bumpy, pounding, gravel-crushing ride, I feel like I'm going to break it (I weigh 200 lbs). But far, so good.



You want whippy? My relatively small (59cm square) Raleigh Technium Pro was whippy as hell under all but the most leisurely riding conditions. This was with a good, solid wheel set that felt really hard on other bikes. Not sure what to make of the tube set; aluminum main tubes glued to cro-mo everything else. I guess that's the culprit; who else to blame?



And of course the tube set makes a difference. Longer and probably slacker than any of my other bikes, my '90 Cannondale is also notably stiffer (regardless of the wheel set). Plush it is not. But the right saddle and fat tires make it plenty comfortable.

__________________
● 1971 Grandis SL ● 1972 Lambert Grand Prix frankenbike ● 1972 Raleigh Super Course fixie ● 1973 Nishiki Semi-Pro ● 1979 Motobecane Grand Jubile ●1980 Apollo "Legnano" ● 1984 Peugeot Vagabond ● 1985 Shogun Prairie Breaker ● 1986 Merckx Super Corsa ● 1987 Schwinn Tempo ● 1988 Schwinn Voyageur ● 1989 Bottechia Team ADR replica ● 1990 Cannondale ST600 ● 1993 Technium RT600 ● 1996 Kona Lava Dome ●


Last edited by Lascauxcaveman; 09-21-19 at 10:10 PM.
Lascauxcaveman is offline  
Old 09-22-19, 02:37 PM
  #41  
martl
Strong Walker
 
martl's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 1,316

Bikes: too many

Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 332 Post(s)
Liked 481 Times in 252 Posts
Originally Posted by Wildwood
I have only a few data points, and also only my touch points to prove me accurate.

61 cm all SLX with light internally lugged sloping crown fork.
62 cm R531 db f+f.

Not saying that it's a better or faster ride.
Not discounting drivetrain stiffness as a good thing.
Not against mixing tubesets for size and ride tuning.
But all tubes thin means 'Cloud-like' rides. even with 22mm tires.

yeah, yeah... geometry makes a big diff. But 73deg parallel seems a good common point of beginning, for discussion purposes.

ANYONE ELSE AGREE?
YMMV


will update with pics.

It only makes sense, a tube that's longer and a rider that's bigger makes for a more compliant ride.
in short, i don't agree. at the same force applied, a diamond frame - any frame- will give about 1/10th of what the handlebars (26mm) do, 1/5th of stem and seatpost, any amount of the fork, wheels, saddle and tires do. physics formula of any combination of springs in "serial" says the softest in the chain has the most impact, and the stiffest one the least. the frame is the stiffest part of the equation.
so, you *may* feel a difference in the "plushness" of the ride of two different bikes, but its not because of the stiffness of the frame.
martl is offline  
Old 09-22-19, 09:21 PM
  #42  
Wildwood 
Veteran, Pacifist
Thread Starter
 
Wildwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Seattle area
Posts: 13,303

Bikes: Bikes??? Thought this was social media?!?

Mentioned: 284 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3874 Post(s)
Liked 4,779 Times in 2,204 Posts
Originally Posted by martl
in short, i don't agree. at the same force applied, a diamond frame - any frame- will give about 1/10th of what the handlebars (26mm) do, 1/5th of stem and seatpost, any amount of the fork, wheels, saddle and tires do. physics formula of any combination of springs in "serial" says the softest in the chain has the most impact, and the stiffest one the least. the frame is the stiffest part of the equation.
so, you *may* feel a difference in the "plushness" of the ride of two different bikes, but its not because of the stiffness of the frame.
i can agree with that.

does a 56cm frame possess the same ride characteristics as a 62cm - given identical components?
I don't know the answer.
__________________
Vintage, modern, e-road. It is a big cycling universe.
Wildwood is offline  
Old 09-23-19, 05:37 AM
  #43  
jethin
Senior Member
 
jethin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,108
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 286 Post(s)
Liked 314 Times in 155 Posts
Originally Posted by Wildwood
does a 56cm frame possess the same ride characteristics as a 62cm - given identical components?
I don't know the answer.
I doubt it. Aside from handling, my guess is that a larger frame has longer tubes and “more metal” to distribute road shocks. Therefore a larger frame would generally have a more compliant ride. Of course if it doesn’t fit you well you may be giving up comfort in other ways.
jethin is offline  
Old 10-26-19, 11:36 AM
  #44  
Mr. 66
Senior Member
 
Mr. 66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 3,438
Mentioned: 39 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1124 Post(s)
Liked 1,704 Times in 941 Posts
The bees' knees, 24.1 lbs of Nishiki.
Mr. 66 is online now  
Old 10-26-19, 12:11 PM
  #45  
merziac
Senior Member
 
merziac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: PDX
Posts: 14,099

Bikes: Merz x 5 + Specialized Merz Allez x 2, Strawberry/Newlands/DiNucci/Ti x3, Gordon, Fuso/Moulton x2, Bornstein, Paisley,1958-74 Paramounts x3, 3rensho, 74 Moto TC, 73-78 Raleigh Pro's x5, Marinoni x2, 1960 Cinelli SC, 1980 Bianchi SC, PX-10 X 2

Mentioned: 267 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4493 Post(s)
Liked 6,297 Times in 3,632 Posts
Originally Posted by Wildwood
i can agree with that.

does a 56cm frame possess the same ride characteristics as a 62cm - given identical components?
I don't know the answer.
I don't see how it could, it's all about leverage. A longer lever has more so longer tubes should have more especially if the wall thickness is the same. That has to be why bigger lightweight frames are often noodly which can be a good thing if it's endearing to you. Thicker tubes may change that but still won't be the same.

Totally agree with the opening statement and adding that the builder and the build can be just as important.

Many bikes ride well but it can be very special when a bike really works for you, I always equate it to vinyl and digital, vinyl has soul, digital does not.
merziac is offline  
Old 10-26-19, 12:48 PM
  #46  
63rickert
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,068
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1090 Post(s)
Liked 329 Times in 245 Posts
In olden times - and I don't know when the change occurred - the most common Reynolds 531 tube was 'Club Special' butted to 21/24 British Wire Gauge. That worked out to 0.81/0.56 in metric measure or 0.032"'0.022" proper Imperial measure. All three main tubes. So a good touch lighter than Columbus SL and very close to the 0.8 that would be considered an extralight tube. Combine that with pencil stays and the frames were plush. The Super Resilient fork was mostly for Froggy, some English builders had them.

Lots of basic slightly better French bikes were built with Vitus 888 which simply meant all three main tubes were 0.8mm straight gauge. Rides about same as a 0.8/0.5 tube only heavier. In larger frame sizes this meant Motobecane Grand Touring or any similar could be quite springy.
63rickert is offline  
Old 10-26-19, 03:15 PM
  #47  
BFisher
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,336
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 767 Post(s)
Liked 1,897 Times in 889 Posts
Originally Posted by 63rickert
In olden times - and I don't know when the change occurred - the most common Reynolds 531 tube was 'Club Special' butted to 21/24 British Wire Gauge. That worked out to 0.81/0.56 in metric measure or 0.032"'0.022" proper Imperial measure. All three main tubes. So a good touch lighter than Columbus SL and very close to the 0.8 that would be considered an extralight tube. Combine that with pencil stays and the frames were plush. The Super Resilient fork was mostly for Froggy, some English builders had them.

Lots of basic slightly better French bikes were built with Vitus 888 which simply meant all three main tubes were 0.8mm straight gauge. Rides about same as a 0.8/0.5 tube only heavier. In larger frame sizes this meant Motobecane Grand Touring or any similar could be quite springy.
Thanks for sharing this info.

Just wanted to share my liking for my Vitus 888-tubed Motobecane Grand Sprint. Mine's a 23" frame, so not the largest, but it is a very comfortable bike. The fit probably has a lot to do with that in my case, but I really love the way it rides. I would call it plush compared to my Ironman, or my Columbus Cromor Puch, although the geometry is also different between the three. I'm not experienced enough to really understand the subtle differences between tube sets. I have mine setup with Campy NR shifters and derailleurs. I would encourage anyone to give a Vitus 888-tubed bike a good ride. Mine's a keeper.
BFisher is offline  
Old 10-27-19, 01:52 AM
  #48  
Kuromori
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 528
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 237 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 83 Times in 64 Posts
Originally Posted by 63rickert
In olden times - and I don't know when the change occurred - the most common Reynolds 531 tube was 'Club Special' butted to 21/24 British Wire Gauge. That worked out to 0.81/0.56 in metric measure or 0.032"'0.022" proper Imperial measure. All three main tubes. So a good touch lighter than Columbus SL and very close to the 0.8 that would be considered an extralight tube. Combine that with pencil stays and the frames were plush. The Super Resilient fork was mostly for Froggy, some English builders had them.
Go back to at least the 40's, the standard downtube was 9/6/9, and SR fork blades were thicker than standard.
Kuromori is offline  
Old 10-27-19, 04:39 AM
  #49  
63rickert
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,068
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1090 Post(s)
Liked 329 Times in 245 Posts
Originally Posted by Kuromori
Go back to at least the 40's, the standard downtube was 9/6/9, and SR fork blades were thicker than standard.
Reynolds still issued Wire Gauge specs for their tubing at least until late 60s. In 40s Britannia still ruled the waves, or thought they did, why would they be metric?

I've no idea how thick the walls of a Super Resilient blade might be The outer diameter is sharply reduced and that is plainly visible. Riding the SR blades there is no question they are plush.
63rickert is offline  
Old 10-27-19, 01:00 PM
  #50  
Kuromori
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 528
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 237 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 83 Times in 64 Posts
Originally Posted by 63rickert
Reynolds still issued Wire Gauge specs for their tubing at least until late 60s. In 40s Britannia still ruled the waves, or thought they did, why would they be metric?

I've no idea how thick the walls of a Super Resilient blade might be The outer diameter is sharply reduced and that is plainly visible. Riding the SR blades there is no question they are plush.
0.91/0.61./0.91 if you want to be pedantic. The point is that the downtube on most older Reynolds tubesets was drawn thicker than the top tube. Reynolds sometimes used metric nomenclature in their later marketing material even if the tubes were actually drawn to SWG, which is why Reynolds marketing material often says 0.3mm or 3/10 mes in French for 753 even when it's actually 0.38mm.

S.R. fork blades are plusher than plain gauge fork blades because they were still butted, but they were thicker than some taper gauge fork blades, which were offered in a variety of tip diameters. Resilient means able to spring back after being bent, not the ability to be bent more (in plain English, stronger) and that's what S.R. blades appear to be designed to do. They took a butted fork blade on the thicker side, then made it even thicker at the moment of bending. As far as I can tell, S.R. blades were designed by Ernest Russ (who also designed the rapid taper chainstay), for the purpose of being being stronger and being able to survive things like head of collisions with a car (Russ' claims, not mine).

I can only assume that the idea that S.R. was extra plush was started because S.R. blades are more expensive, and lighter tubes are more expensive, therefore S.R. blades must be lighter. S.R. blades were indeed higher cost and a premium option, but this is because the pre-tapered blanks were triple butted (1.2/1.4/0.9) instead of single butted like normal fork blades (1.2/0.8 or 1.2/0.9). You could make the argument that they're technically lighter than the 1.4/0.9 heavy duty (track) blades but if S.R. is supposed to be extra plush it only makes sense to compare it to the normal light blade. The New continental blades were drawn out even thinner to 1.02/0.56.

If you have any primary or even secondary source that can authoritatively state that S.R. blades are indeed of lighter gauge or thinner or magically somehow more plush, I'd love to see it, but as far as I can tell they're actually heavier, stronger fork blades than regular 531 taper gauge (albeit with thinner gauge tips than non-531 PG fork blades).
Kuromori is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.