True Temper S3 vs Columbus (SL?)
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,878
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1857 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
506 Posts
#27
blahblahblah chrome moly
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,989
Mentioned: 92 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1176 Post(s)
Liked 2,572 Times
in
1,074 Posts
Is it even still possible to get S3? I would have guessed stocks were depleted by now.
I semi-doubt it's possible to build a frame too flexible for a 115 lb woman, with commercially-available bike frame tubes. I would steer away from anything oversized. Unless you're a believer in "stiffer is better, any flex wastes energy" -- I obviously am not, I think there's a "right" amount of flex for each rider, that you should not go under. Stiffer frames are easy and cheap to make, so they boost the profits of the manufacturers. Then magazines, bloggers and other self-appointed experts repeat the "stiffer is better" mantra because they know which side their bread is buttered on. It's an easy sell to inexperienced cyclists. "17% stiffer than last year's model!" – as if that's a good thing.
My wife weighed 115 when she was racing. Won medals at district championships, road and track, so she definitely pedals hard. I made her frame with trad diameter (1" TT, 1-1/8" DT) and .6/.3/.6 walls. Frame weight a bit under 2.5 lb. She loved it. I tried to get her to complain about the flex but she said she wasn't sure if she was feeling any. When she did notice the flex was when she got on a crabon frame, a Madone -- she definitely noticed and hated the lack of flex on that one.
Back when pros raced on steel, a lot of them rode with a .8/.5/.8 TT in 1", even sometimes lighter, like Reynolds 753. Most of us can hardly imagine how much harder your typical pro can pedal, compared to us mortals. If I listed some of the guys who won TdF, World Championships etc on a frame with 1" .7/.5/.7 TT, you probably wouldn't recognize the names unless you're old like me, but suffice it to say they would have paid the weight penalty for a stiffer frame if they thought it would make them faster.
So basically, at 115 lb, 1" TT *is* oversized. I say just use the smallest thinnest tubes you can find. Of what's still made, I think Reynolds 853 still comes in a 1" TT, 1-1/8" DT and thinwall.
I'm an ex-framebuilder, a bit out of touch with current offerings, but someone here will know what the lightest available small tubes are.
Mark B in Seattle
I semi-doubt it's possible to build a frame too flexible for a 115 lb woman, with commercially-available bike frame tubes. I would steer away from anything oversized. Unless you're a believer in "stiffer is better, any flex wastes energy" -- I obviously am not, I think there's a "right" amount of flex for each rider, that you should not go under. Stiffer frames are easy and cheap to make, so they boost the profits of the manufacturers. Then magazines, bloggers and other self-appointed experts repeat the "stiffer is better" mantra because they know which side their bread is buttered on. It's an easy sell to inexperienced cyclists. "17% stiffer than last year's model!" – as if that's a good thing.
My wife weighed 115 when she was racing. Won medals at district championships, road and track, so she definitely pedals hard. I made her frame with trad diameter (1" TT, 1-1/8" DT) and .6/.3/.6 walls. Frame weight a bit under 2.5 lb. She loved it. I tried to get her to complain about the flex but she said she wasn't sure if she was feeling any. When she did notice the flex was when she got on a crabon frame, a Madone -- she definitely noticed and hated the lack of flex on that one.
Back when pros raced on steel, a lot of them rode with a .8/.5/.8 TT in 1", even sometimes lighter, like Reynolds 753. Most of us can hardly imagine how much harder your typical pro can pedal, compared to us mortals. If I listed some of the guys who won TdF, World Championships etc on a frame with 1" .7/.5/.7 TT, you probably wouldn't recognize the names unless you're old like me, but suffice it to say they would have paid the weight penalty for a stiffer frame if they thought it would make them faster.
So basically, at 115 lb, 1" TT *is* oversized. I say just use the smallest thinnest tubes you can find. Of what's still made, I think Reynolds 853 still comes in a 1" TT, 1-1/8" DT and thinwall.
I'm an ex-framebuilder, a bit out of touch with current offerings, but someone here will know what the lightest available small tubes are.
Mark B in Seattle
Likes For bulgie:
#28
Randomhead
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,397
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 3,698 Times
in
2,518 Posts
I assume people still have S3 because TT gave builders a year to make a last order. But it's in private stashes. I agree though, superlight frames are fine for a 115 pound rider.
I also assume the OP got their bike since it has been 4 years
I also assume the OP got their bike since it has been 4 years
Last edited by unterhausen; 08-31-20 at 06:40 PM.
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: In the south but from North
Posts: 700
Bikes: Turner 5-Spot Burner converted; IBIS Ripley, Specialized Crave, Tommasini Sintesi, Cinelli Superstar, Tommasini X-Fire Gravel
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 406 Post(s)
Liked 389 Times
in
219 Posts
The "new" SL (Niobium alloy instead of Cyclex like the 1980s SL) has 0.8mm/0.5mm/0.8mm walls, while the original 80s Cyclex SL had 0.9mm/0.6mm/0.9mm.
Columbus Spirit, also Niobium alloy, has even thinner walls (0.5mm/0.38mm/0.5mm), but with the OP's intended use on rocky trails even at his weight, Spirit might be pushing it.
Columbus Spirit, also Niobium alloy, has even thinner walls (0.5mm/0.38mm/0.5mm), but with the OP's intended use on rocky trails even at his weight, Spirit might be pushing it.
#30
Randomhead
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,397
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 3,698 Times
in
2,518 Posts
I feel confident the OP has moved on
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: In the south but from North
Posts: 700
Bikes: Turner 5-Spot Burner converted; IBIS Ripley, Specialized Crave, Tommasini Sintesi, Cinelli Superstar, Tommasini X-Fire Gravel
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 406 Post(s)
Liked 389 Times
in
219 Posts
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 956
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 321 Post(s)
Liked 263 Times
in
212 Posts
I semi-doubt it's possible to build a frame too flexible for a 115 lb woman, with commercially-available bike frame tubes. I would steer away from anything oversized. Unless you're a believer in "stiffer is better, any flex wastes energy" -- I obviously am not, I think there's a "right" amount of flex for each rider, that you should not go under. Stiffer frames are easy and cheap to make, so they boost the profits of the manufacturers. Then magazines, bloggers and other self-appointed experts repeat the "stiffer is better" mantra because they know which side their bread is buttered on. It's an easy sell to inexperienced cyclists. "17% stiffer than last year's model!" – as if that's a good thing.
Likes For guy153: