Scottybigs 

I've been digging through the forums trying to determine which production framesets met this criteria. From my own knowledge, most of the frames from the 70's/80's that were made with thinner walled tubing were road bikes with minimal tire clearance. These were built with Tange #1 (or Prestige), Reynolds 531C, sometimes Columbus SL (more likely SLX). But I have also reviewed some Reynolds data sheets that show some standard 531 framesets were built with the .8/.5/.8 toptube in the late 70's/early 80's. I also expect that Miyata's Spline Butted Tubing was made to similarly thin specs, but perhaps only for their top end road bikes.

Were there many production bikes built with this type of tubing, but also with wider tire clearance? An example that comes to mind is the 1985 Trek 720: full Reynolds 531C frameset and cantilever brakes. If converted to 700c from 27 1-1/4, it can run 35c tires and fenders (evidence found here in the forums).

I'm effectively trying to find a frame with the flex characteristics of a road bike, that was maybe intended as a touring bike like said Trek. I love my '83 Schwinn Voyageur SP with Tange 2 -- it's great for touring, but it lacks the lively feel of my Reynolds 725 road bike. I don't expect them to ride the same, but I'm curious to know what C+V frames land somewhere in the middle that I could use for randonneuring.

Yes -- I know that geometry plays just a big a role in ride feel and performance. Step one will be to answer the initial question, step two is comparing geometry charts. For example, the Trek 720 I mentioned has 47cm chainstays, which may eliminate gains from using the 531C tubeset (although if you own this bike, please chime in!)

And what better time to survey the group to satisfy my C+V bike knowledge! If you've got a frame that meets this very specific criteria, please reply and post pics!

Chr0m0ly 

As far as I know, all the Trek 531 frames used 8 5 8 top tubes, so that’s any of the 6xx or 7xx frame sets. Up to ‘82 the 6xx series had Hi Ten fork and stays, in ‘83 they used Tange Mangalloy, and ‘84 and onward chromo.

Keep in mind they also had 10 7 10 down tubes, so they may not be as compliant as a mission specific racing bicycle.

The 610 and 710 bikes are the Sports series, with room for 28mm with fenders, 32mm without, from ‘84 onward.

The 620 and 610 of ‘83 shared the same frame, using 44mm chain stays, and is a pretty awesome tourish biased sports bike, again with Tange Mangalloy fork and stays...

The ‘84 620 actually has a fairly tight fork crown for a cantied touring bike, clearances in that sports bike range of 28mm/32mm depending on gender use.

The ‘83 720 has a TON of clearance, I’m running mine with 27” 1 1/4 tires WITH fenders, and there’s room to spare.

I’m less familiar with post ‘85 Treks, I had a bias against the socket lugs, but I’m coming around. I think they’re pretty sweet looking now, but mechanically they just seem really stout, and I do like that as well. The chain stays from ‘85 and onward are shorter though, 42.5cm and I don’t know about tire clearances.

If you come across an early 5xx series they are a full chromo frame, fork and stays included, built from seamless Ishiwata 022. They are butted at 9 6 9 top tube and down tube, but they are very light and springy. I love mine. It’s absolutely worth a test ride.

Wildwood 

IMHO, if you want to run tires bigger than 27mm at pressures less than 85psi, just about any frameset will do. you have to live with an extra pound or two, but that should not matter as you've added nearly that in the rotating mass of the tire/wheel. Lively feeling frame with 32mm tires is, IMHO, total BS.

Chr0m0ly 

Oh, and here’s my ‘83 720, been using it on fast gravel runs lately, and it’s amazing in that role!

beicster 

Have you tried a Tenax framed Voyageur? I don't know if it would ride different than your current Voyageur, but it might be worth checking out. If you can find an SP from 84 or 85, those were built with Columbus SL and SP.

I have an 85 Voyageur (tenax) and an 85 Paramount touring built with a mix of Columbus tubes. I haven't spent much time on the Voyageur yet but the short rides lead me to believe it has a very nice ride. But, it is not as plush as the Paramount, which is a very nice ride. I am able to get 700x32 and fenders on the Paramount and 35s without fenders. A fender whisperer may be able to get fenders and 35s on the Paramount but it would be too close for me. If you don't need fenders or if you can be happy with 32's, a Paramount Touring bike of that era may be just the ticket.

Scottybigs 

All great info -- got me looking into the '83 and '84 Trek catalog. Interesting how for the 720 they used 531C in '83, then 531ST in '84, then back to 531C in '85. How do you find your 720 rides unloaded compared to other road bikes?

Scottybigs 

Agree to disagree on that. My Reynolds 725 Wabi running 28c or 32c rides lively and makes all of my other steel bikes feel dead. But I'll agree that defining "lively" is a super subjective exercise.

I can't find a Paramount in the Schwinn catalogs -- were these custom ordered from Waterford, and not a production run model?

Dylansbob 

Just do a 650b conversion on a racing frame. My Novara Strada is tange 1, clears a 700-28 and 650b-42 on the right rims. It's a pretty lively tube spec too.

Chr0m0ly 

Yeah somethings fishy about that, Trek didn’t make any 720’s in ‘85, they’re all leftover from ‘84.

AeroGut

If you're not wedded to C&V, some SOMA frames use 8/5/8 Tange Prestige and have wide clearance and rack mounts, eg the Grand Randonneur, Double Cross and Wolverine.

beicster 

I mistyped the year. It is an 84 Paramount touring. There isn't much in the catalog, but you can see it here. https://waterfordbikes.com/SchwinnCa...984Ltwt04.html You could request the touring model with or without cantilever bosses and mid fork mounts. The fork mounts are on the back of the fork.

Pic of mine (though it is not in this configuration currently)
Untitled by Andy Beichler, on Flickr

madpogue 

Which site are you looking at?

Dfrost 

Another disagreement here, and I often find that you and I have different perspectives, Stuart.

The weight difference between my previous wheels with Open Pro rims, and current wheels with tb14’s is 90gm (about 3 oz.) total for both wheels. My current28-32mm Compass/Rene Herse tires are similar weight and much more supple than the 25gm Conti Gran Prix I used back then. The ride and liveliness have improved, IMHO, with the newer fatter tires. I would never go back.

Piff 

Lots of good reading here:

https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-v...ds-models.html

I also think that converting a 27" racer to 700c, or a 700c to 650b is probably easiest. Something like this would be pretty nice converted to 700c: Motobecane bike

Yes, it lacks fender eyelets but I live in Southern California

Classtime 

I think the point made about the difficulty of comparing the liveliness of two steel frames when they are wearing 32mm tires inflated for a plush ride is valid. There is a great deal of squishiness between the bike and the road which won't allow the frame to "come alive".

Wildwood 

i hear you and Scottybigs.

And I always submit there are exceptions. 1st on my exceptions list might be = Very Expensive Supple Tires. 2nd. Maybe large riders who ride Supple Tires @ 28mm and 30mm near max inflation. I have been 15+stone as a rider, and over 17 with bike/water/tools weight.

i am reminded of the 7 steel bikes built and painted identically from 7 different tubesets. Experienced riders were stumped to match bike to tubeset.

My advice is to find the chromoly or higher tubeset ( possibly dependent upon your weight and usage of the bike) that Fits Perfectly. Next. Get excellent ($$$) tires on good lightweight wheels ($$), the right saddle, narrow bars, nice shoes, nice gloves —-
Bob’s yer Uncle
Out the door
Pick your components
For the routes you adore.

Chr0m0ly 

And livelyness will be different for different sizes of the same model bike, for the same sized bike with different weight riders, or even the same size bike with the same weight riders. If you and I both weigh 190 lbs on the same model and size bike, but you have a 32” waist and 9% bodyfat while I live on my couch and use my bike to get more nachos when I run low, then the livelyness quality will still feel different for us.

Shoot, EXPERIANCE will give us differing opinions!

mstateglfr 

The modern OS steel bike i built in a class a couple years ago sure feels lively and it has effective 31mm tires. They are size 28 Conti GP 4k.
It feels quick, lively, and stiff.

Geometry has a lot to do with if a frame feels lively. How long the stays are, how steep the head tube is, fork trail, bottom bracket drop- all that plays into if a bike feels lively. Tubing plays a factor and obviously tire size does too.

Can't agree that tire width is the one thing that determines if a frame feels lively or not, and that the determining width is 32.
everyone perceives things differently though and we all have different preferences for how a bike should handle. good thing goemetry and tire widths vary so much in this hobby.

scarlson 

Extrapolating from the calculations in this google groups thread, a 10/7/10 standard sized downtube should be comparable in torsional flex to a 7/5/7 oversize downtube like on Jan Heine's mule. Of course there are other variables like butt length and total tube length that will affect flex as well.

These are all made from oversize tubing, so they will be less flexible than a frame made from standard tubing. An 8/5/8 oversize tube will be something like 30% less torsionally flexible than a standard size tube in the same gauges. It's interesting that in Bicycle Quarterly, the review of the Wolverine praised its flex characteristics, but the review of the Grand Randonneur called its frame too stiff.

AeroGut

For what it's worth, the SOMA website describes the Grand Randonneur specifically as non-oversized: "Tange Prestige CrMo tubes, double-butted, non-oversized". They don't give an actual diameter, though.

Wildwood 

+1
I totally agree, it's not tires that make a frame feel lively.

But wide, softer tires with all the cushioning they provide negate (eliminate?) any effects of the frame.

Funny story -- my non-cycling brother upon retirement decided he wanted to exercise more and bought a Spesh ebike with 2.5" tires and suspension. I asked why he popped for the carbon frame over a less expensive aluminum frame. He replied, "the sales guy said carbon would be lighter and have a livelier feel". Fat tires, suspension - but Everyone wants a livelier frame, and Marketing delivers. End of story.

Chr0m0ly 

I really like Cannondale ST’s with fattish tires. The old cannonball frames have no flex, but a 32mm tire gives some nice suspension effect. A light weight zero flex frame with fattys feels (gives the illusion?) of lively-ness. When you stomp the pedals all the input goes right to the chain and wheel, no frame give or return, but the smoothed our ride of the tire means you don’t get a lot of chatter introduced into the frame.

I think you can have two kinds of lively, one is about frame flex and rebound, and the other is about geometry and steering response. I have a ‘79 Trek 514 with 44.5cm chain stays. When I bought it I thought it would feel very tourister. Turns out it’s surprisingly responsive, and the ride is really sporty! I think it comes down to steering and fork geometry. Although the frame doooes have some spring to it, too.

I don’t know, ride a bunch, ride some more, try all the bikes you can and decide what feels best to you.

Scottybigs 

I think we're all in agreement about which variables can affect our interpretation of ride quality, and we could probably forever disagree about which are most important because we all experience them differently. Mutual respect across the board for understanding what bikes fit your body and pedal stroke best (other forums are less respectful at times).

After a few years of riding different steel frames, landing on ".8/.5/.8 toptube and tire clearance" is really just a simplified version of what I'm looking for. Tires, wheels, saddles, component xyz -- I've found what works for me in those categories. In a frame, I've learned that road geometry OS Reynolds 725 syncs with my weight (175lbs) and power output. So, is there a vintage frame out there that comes somewhat close, where I can transfer the components from my Tange #2 Voyageur and get a little more of a responsive ride? This is the destination I'm seeking.

And ya, 35c Bon Jon Pass tires on the Voyageur ride amazing. Would love to keep on riding at this tire size for randonneuring/light touring.

Scottybigs 

Also of interest was one commentators own findings:"Thanks John. I made a similar spreadsheet 10ish years ago when we did the planing tests for BQ, but have since lost it. Your numbers match what the two rules of thumb that I put into my head:

• 7/4/7 OS rides like 9/6/9 standard, but is about 100 grams lighter
• 7/4/7 standard is about 150 grams lighter and almost twice as flexible
• 8/5/8 standard is about 80 grams lighter and somewhat more flexible"

Chr0m0ly 

Here are the tubing dimensions from Reynolds