Vintage Road Bike I.D. (Campagnolo, Neon Fade)
03-26-20, 03:59 PM
#26
Old fart
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Appleton WI
Posts: 24,786
Bikes: Several, mostly not name brands.
Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3588 Post(s)
Liked 3,400 Times
in
1,934 Posts
03-26-20, 04:15 PM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City of Angels
Posts: 4,870
Bikes: A few too many
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1364 Post(s)
Liked 2,181 Times
in
1,183 Posts
Close, but lugs are different...was that a tape line on the tt?
03-26-20, 05:30 PM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City of Angels
Posts: 4,870
Bikes: A few too many
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1364 Post(s)
Liked 2,181 Times
in
1,183 Posts
Dbl Post.
03-26-20, 06:58 PM
#29
Junior Member
Thread Starter
The M-prefix is consistent with Mercier manufacture. I believe the first numeral is the year of manufacture. However, take the tubing decal in the photo from my previous post with caution. Like I said, this frame design was manufactured with various tubesets. Here's one with with hi-tensile tubing.
The diameter of a proper fitting seat post will be the best indicator of the tubing grade. The post appears undersize because the ears are pressed together. This could just be deformation of the ears, as there appears to be a much wider gap in the cinch slot of the tube itself. For a proper sized post, the cinch slot in the seat tube will be about 0.6mm narrower at the top, than at the bottom.
The diameter of a proper fitting seat post will be the best indicator of the tubing grade. The post appears undersize because the ears are pressed together. This could just be deformation of the ears, as there appears to be a much wider gap in the cinch slot of the tube itself. For a proper sized post, the cinch slot in the seat tube will be about 0.6mm narrower at the top, than at the bottom.
update: I measured the tubes with calipers tonight and the ID is 26.2 and OD is 28.
the serial on bb shell is M28080
and that line on the TT seems like a paint masking line to me, after picking at it.
03-26-20, 07:09 PM
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City of Angels
Posts: 4,870
Bikes: A few too many
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1364 Post(s)
Liked 2,181 Times
in
1,183 Posts
^^^ good news I was concerned it was a crack.
Likes For xiaoman1:
03-27-20, 07:56 AM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 23,223
Mentioned: 654 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4722 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3,036 Times
in
1,874 Posts
I concur with @juvela. Based on the rear (cable) arm that is stamped from flat plate, this is a Nuovo Valentino. While the Valentino and Valentino Extra used push rods, there was an upgrade to a parallelogram mechanism circa 1978 and Nuovo was added to the model name to indicate the change. Here's the page from the Catalog 17a Supplement.
Likes For T-Mar:
03-27-20, 08:26 AM
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 23,223
Mentioned: 654 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4722 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3,036 Times
in
1,874 Posts
The 26.2mm ID indicates a 0.9mm wall thickness, assuming the measurement is accurate and represents the true ID of the tubing. This is thick for a butted tubeset but is typical of a lightweight, plain gauge tubeset. Columbus Zeta did use this wall thickness. If the tube is slightly distorted and/or the cinch slot pinched due to an undersize post, other possibilities include Columbus Aelle (0.8mm) and Vitus 888 (0.8mm). The cinch slot would have to be notably pinched (~2mm) to be getting into the range of a single butted seat tube. Tange did use double butted seat tubes with a 0.9mm top butt but they did not produce metric tubesets.
Again, the serial number is consistent with Mercier manufacture and I believe it represents 1982. Mercier used both Columbus and Vitus in the early 1980s and Mercier remains my leading candidate.
03-27-20, 10:07 AM
#33
Junior Member
Thread Starter
The 28mm OD confirms metric tubing, which would be consistent with French, Spanish, Swiss and some Belgium marques up to about the mid-1980s, when most started switching to imperial diameter tubing.
The 26.2mm ID indicates a 0.9mm wall thickness, assuming the measurement is accurate and represents the true ID of the tubing. This is thick for a butted tubeset but is typical of a lightweight, plain gauge tubeset. Columbus Zeta did use this wall thickness. If the tube is slightly distorted and/or the cinch slot pinched due to an undersize post, other possibilities include Columbus Aelle (0.8mm) and Vitus 888 (0.8mm). The cinch slot would have to be notably pinched (~2mm) to be getting into the range of a single butted seat tube. Tange did use double butted seat tubes with a 0.9mm top butt but they did not produce metric tubesets.
Again, the serial number is consistent with Mercier manufacture and I believe it represents 1982. Mercier used both Columbus and Vitus in the early 1980s and Mercier remains my leading candidate.
The 26.2mm ID indicates a 0.9mm wall thickness, assuming the measurement is accurate and represents the true ID of the tubing. This is thick for a butted tubeset but is typical of a lightweight, plain gauge tubeset. Columbus Zeta did use this wall thickness. If the tube is slightly distorted and/or the cinch slot pinched due to an undersize post, other possibilities include Columbus Aelle (0.8mm) and Vitus 888 (0.8mm). The cinch slot would have to be notably pinched (~2mm) to be getting into the range of a single butted seat tube. Tange did use double butted seat tubes with a 0.9mm top butt but they did not produce metric tubesets.
Again, the serial number is consistent with Mercier manufacture and I believe it represents 1982. Mercier used both Columbus and Vitus in the early 1980s and Mercier remains my leading candidate.
03-28-20, 02:15 PM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Alta California
Posts: 14,267
Mentioned: 415 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3812 Post(s)
Liked 3,341 Times
in
2,180 Posts
I concur with @juvela. Based on the rear (cable) arm that is stamped from flat plate, this is a Nuovo Valentino. While the Valentino and Valentino Extra used push rods, there was an upgrade to a parallelogram mechanism circa 1978 and Nuovo was added to the model name to indicate the change. Here's the page from the Catalog 17a Supplement.
-----
Thanks very much T-Mar!
For readers -
its use in this situation is not a case of frankening
there was no 980 model front mech and the Nuovo Valentino was employed as a companion for the 980 model rear mech in the 980 model gear ensemble
Bianchi fans may be familiar with its use on the ca. 1982 model Bianchi 980 model bicycle
-----
