fc7

Hi there,

I'm new to the forum and after doing a lot of web and forum search I'm still asking myself this question. Where Pinarello Montello SLX only or they were also SL?
I recently got this frame that I'm planing to restore and all the evidence until today pointed it to be a Pinarello Montello from around 1985-1987. But today I removed the bottom bracket and to my surprise I found no helicoidal reinforcements in the seat tube nor the down tube.

My findings so far:

• No chainstay bridge.
• Internal rear break cable routing.
• No seat tube bottle cage mount.
• Frame size: 54.
• Frame weight (no fork): 1896g
• Fork weight: 635g.
• Serial number for the frame and fork match: NN177.
• Chromed and painted frame. Both chainstays, deraileur hangers, fork and dropouts are chromed.
• Dropouts spacing 130mm.
• Tiny GPT logo at the seat post insert.
• GPT logos in the fork, seat stays.
• Pinarello badge (not a decal) at the head tube.
• Helicoidal reinforcements in the steerer tube.
• Reinforced bottom bracket shell.
• No helicoidal reinforcements for the down tube nor the seat tube at the bottom bracket shell.
• Original Columbus decal at the seat tube is still visible in part and it seems to be blue and gold, not red and gold as the SLX decals pictures I found in the catalogs and everywhere else.
• All dropouts (frame and fork) are Campagnolo, and not Pinarello as I understood the late 80's frame had.

I wish I can share some pictures but since I'm new to the forum I need to have at least 10 post to be able to post images or links.
Is there any chance that this is a Montello but with SL tubing instead of SLX???

Chombi1 

Look really close at the ends of the seat and down tubes as the reinforcing ribs are not that easy to see/not very obvious.
SL frames have reinforcing ribs on their steerer tubes, so seeing it in there does not mean it's an SLX frameset.

fc7

Thanks for your reply. I checked with my fingers and a good light, several times and couldn't find any signs of the reinforcements.

About the reinforcing of the steerer tubes on SL frames I was aware of that but just wanted to add more data to thread.

One more thing I forgot to mention in my first post (yet not sure it's meaningful), all the dropouts (frame and fork) are Campagnolo, not Pinarello as I understood the late 80's model had.

texaspandj

Reportedly, some of the Montellos were made with SL tubing, specifically the smaller frames.

fc7

Thanks! These are good news indeed.

I’m wondering if I missed to check any other detail that can confirm if this is a Montello frame.

@T-Mar maybe you share your thoughts?

P!N20

Sounds like you have a Columbus SL Montello.

This is an ad from a German cycling magazine circa '85, as you can see the tubing options for the Montello were SL or SLX:



This is alleged to be a Columbus SL Montello: https://www.pedalroom.com/bike/pinar...e-custom-12587

Does it have seat tube bottle cage mounts?

Your serial number falls into the mid-80's bracket (84-86 roughly) and during that period the dropout stamps were still Campagnolo. From 87 the dropouts were stamped Pinarello and the serial number format changed to 1X###, eg 1N520.

This is excellent information. While I knew there were a few SL Montellos around, I didn't know if their bottom bracket shells were 'reinforced' or not. Sounds like they were!

Keep posting because we want to see some photos!

P!N20

Thanks!

Definitely a Montello.

Chombi1 

Sounds like you now have very good information from other BF members pointing to the frameset being an SL Montello.
The differences between the two should be imperceptible to most mortal, non pro level cyclists, in terms of feel, ride and handling. Not sure, but I even suspect that the SL version might even be a tad lighter. SLX just gets its boost from mostly the wow factor the label gives a bike being a later tubing design that was marketed as top of the line "pro level" tubing.
The SL tubed bikes I have ride just as nice as my SLX Montello and in some conditions I actually prefer them (rough road compliance).
The Campagnolo dropouts were used up to the 88 model year Montellos which mine is and still has the Campagnolo engraved dropouts. Some models might have switched to the Pinarello DO's earlier, but it seems like that the Montellos did not have those till after 88....

P!N20

Correct. 41 grams lighter.

https://www.equusbicycle.com/bike/col...umbuschart.htm

fc7

Wow, this is great information.

I updated the information in the first post:

• No seat tube bottle cage mount.
• Internal rear brake cable routing.

I also added the frame and fork weights.

fc7

Thanks for adding this. I was able to upload pictures last night but the forum gave me an error about posting them since I'm new.

So I guess all the important details are in those pictures but if you need more, I can take them today as the frame is still with me, but now clean and ready to go to the paintshop.

T-Mar

To the best of my knowledge the SL version of the Montello was never marketed in the USA. It certainly isn't in any on my late 1980s catalogues. We often run across variations between American and European market models. American consumers seem to be more amenity oriented that the Europeans. I suspect that Giorgio Andretta of Gita simply didn't think thatt there was a substantial market for this model in the USA. It split the different between the Montello (SLX) and Treviso in terms of features and cost and would have increased his logistics. Given the relatively small difference, he probably figured that most American consumers would simply step up to the SLX version. The other possibility is that it was created at the request of a specific European distrubutor and was not widely availble, even in Europe.

Given the remnants of the Columbus decal, which show a blue border, the OP's bicycle is definitely not SLX, while the presence of helical reinforcements in the steerer tube confirm SL. Also, it has the investment cast, bridgeless BB shell, which was unique to the Montello, at least until the Gavia was released. The palmares decal reference Grewal's Olympic victory in 1984 which, in conjunction with the Campagnolo dropouts, indicates 1985-1986 model year.

fc7

Sorry for the late reply (I was not able to post for 24hrs due to forum restrictions for new users) and thanks everyone for the value you added to the discussion. I learnt a few things from your posts and really appreciate it.

The frame and fork are now at the chrome shop for a full chrome restoration before going to the paintshop to finish the job.

Thanks again!

fc7

Thanks @T-Mar. Just for the record I live in Spain, and the bike was originally bought here as well so it's clear that this model was sold not only in Germany but at least in Spain as well.

Dave Mayer

I have a smaller-size '86 Montello hanging up somewhere. SL (not SLX) tubing.

Old Fireleg

This italian catalog has long been copied to my PC, but I just noticed that the Montello SL version is included here. Accordingly, this was a standard option in Europe. Although likely, buyers rarely used this opportunity.

P!N20

Do you know what year that is? It looks like it could have come out of the 1990 catalog: www.bulgier.net - /pics/bike/Catalogs/Pinarello90/

Do you have the rest of the catalog?

Love the colour scheme of that Montello. Strange that they didn’t have seat tube bottle mounts in 1990. Even the Croce D’Aune model which has the split decals doesn’t appear to have the mounts. I wonder if that was just an aesthetic choice for the catalog.

QuikRick

I know this is an old thread @fc7 but I have the same frame. I discussed it in this thread: Odd Ball Vintage Pinarello Montello.
I don't know how to attach a link so you'll have to dig around for it.

P!N20

It's here: https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-v...-montello.html

fc7

Sorry for the late reply. I just visited the link and saw the beautiful Montello you built and indeed seems to be the same frame.
I finished mine by Xmas 2019 and I can't be happier with it except for a small accident while at the chrome shop where they lost the rear break cable guide from the frame......fortunately I could workaround the problem, not in the most beautiful way but in one that just works.
I think I don't have enough posts yet, but I will try to attach some pictures.