Old 03-27-23, 03:15 PM
  #21  
bikingshearer 
Crawlin' up, flyin' down
 
bikingshearer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Democratic Peoples' Republic of Berkeley
Posts: 5,658

Bikes: 1967 Paramount; 1982-ish Ron Cooper; 1978 Eisentraut "A"; two mid-1960s Cinelli Speciale Corsas; and others in various stages of non-rideability.

Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1027 Post(s)
Liked 2,531 Times in 1,059 Posts
Originally Posted by smd4
I bet there were more racing bikies made with Columbus tubing than Reynolds at the time of this article.
Yeah, but Columbus could never say that SL(X) or SP(X) was used to make the engine cradle structure for the Spitfire like Reynolds 531 can.

BTW, I've seen that chart that Andy_K posted before. Look at those numbers for SPX. That beefiness, especially in the forks and stays, is the reason (1) why my large-sized mid-1960s Cinellis weigh a ton and (2) why those bikes feel so wonderful under my 6'3" 260lb. carcass. Your dead-feeling tuna boat is my happy place, and your light, agile, thinner-walled machine probably feels a tad noodly to me. A great deal of this is rider-specific; bigger folks like/need thicker tubing than do you less weight-enhanced folks.

(I was going to call you all "spindly-legged climbing farts" as I was taught in my youth by good sized track sprinter with tree-trunk thighs - and I would have meant it in only the nicest of ways - but I decided to be charitable. Kumbayah, and all that.)
__________________
"I'm in shape -- round is a shape." Andy Rooney
bikingshearer is offline  
Likes For bikingshearer: