Is triple butted better than double butted?
07-25-22, 10:38 AM
#51
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 13,445
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4234 Post(s)
Liked 2,949 Times
in
1,808 Posts
There must be significant differences in geometry between the Club Fuji, and the Sagres that I had and restored. The Sagres was classified as a "Sport Touring" bike and was a very nice, compliant and lively triple-butted VALite frame. I sold that bike, but it was a joy to ride. I'm always on the lookout for a Del Rey from that era, made with quad-butted VALite.
Likes For himespau:
07-25-22, 02:00 PM
#52
ambulatory senior
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Peoria Il
Posts: 5,998
Bikes: Austro Daimler modified by Gugie! Raleigh Professional and lots of other bikes.
Mentioned: 76 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1955 Post(s)
Liked 3,661 Times
in
1,679 Posts
In my experience (primarily racing frames). I always found the French frames to be lighter and more flexible. I've always put that down to the metric standard tubing and their affinity for light weight. For a given alloy and gauge, the smaller diameter, metric standard, down and seat tubes are going to be less stiff. That will be compensated somewhat by the slightly larger diameter and stiffer top tube but overall, the main triangle is going to be more flexible and marginally lighter. Pair that with slightly lighter gauge tubes, as the French were prone to, and it resulted in a frame that was notably lighter but also notably more flexible.
Of course, if you didn't push the frames too hard, that increased flexibility could become a positive resiliency. However, for me, the lower weight and increased flexibilty resulted in a frame that was a bit more vague and less precise in handling, slightly less responsive to pedal input and having a higher probability of chain rub on the front derailleur cage. Overall, I preferred the characterisitcs of frames buit with imperial standard tubing. I was willing to sacrifice a bit of weight and comfort for a stiffer, more precise handling frame.
A lot of members comment on the wonderfully comfortable UO8 ride, if that is the characteristic to which you are referring. While the geometry is certianly a factor, I believe that the the French preference for lighter tubing gauges carry over to the UO8 level and that it, combined with the metric standard tubing are significant factors. I'd go so far as to say that entry level, boom era, French bicycles in general (ie. Peugeot, Gitane, Jeunet, Mercier, Motobecane, etc.) provide a plusher ride than their comtemporaries that used imperial standard tubing.
Of course, if you didn't push the frames too hard, that increased flexibility could become a positive resiliency. However, for me, the lower weight and increased flexibilty resulted in a frame that was a bit more vague and less precise in handling, slightly less responsive to pedal input and having a higher probability of chain rub on the front derailleur cage. Overall, I preferred the characterisitcs of frames buit with imperial standard tubing. I was willing to sacrifice a bit of weight and comfort for a stiffer, more precise handling frame.
A lot of members comment on the wonderfully comfortable UO8 ride, if that is the characteristic to which you are referring. While the geometry is certianly a factor, I believe that the the French preference for lighter tubing gauges carry over to the UO8 level and that it, combined with the metric standard tubing are significant factors. I'd go so far as to say that entry level, boom era, French bicycles in general (ie. Peugeot, Gitane, Jeunet, Mercier, Motobecane, etc.) provide a plusher ride than their comtemporaries that used imperial standard tubing.
07-25-22, 03:57 PM
#53
señor miembro
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 6,624
Bikes: '70s - '80s Campagnolo
Mentioned: 92 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3886 Post(s)
Liked 6,482 Times
in
3,206 Posts
Chromoly and VALite are very similar, and if you built two identical frames, you'd have a hard time telling them apart. You could say the same about 4130 and 531.
Likes For SurferRosa:
07-25-22, 07:35 PM
#54
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,874
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: 1856 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
506 Posts
Has no one mentioned the famous "magnificent 7" (Mondonico) blind test yet? IIRC, the Aelle straight gauge frame got positive reviews, some riders preferred it over the sophisticated x-times butted sorts. It also was concluded that the differences were super minor in terms of how the bike felt on the road.
However, I have one Mondo with unidentified (mixed?) tubing and one with ELOS and a monostrut. I think the ELOS rides better and has better performance, but I have not been tested blind.
Last edited by Road Fan; 07-25-22 at 07:43 PM.
07-25-22, 07:52 PM
#55
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,874
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: 1856 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
506 Posts
Nothing secret, just plain seamed carbon steel tubing. See below for more details....
The geometry of entry level and lower priced French bikes during the early 70's was pretty much the same as that used for road racing bikes from the 30's through the late 60's. They were designed for use on poorly paved roads to absorb shock and vibration. By the early 70's many road racing bikes were following the Italian model: shorter wheelbases and fork rakes plus steeper angles. By the mid to late 70's the lower price French bikes followed suit. UO-8s never changed that much.
Those geometry specs applied to mid size frames - 55-60cm. Smaller and larger frame sizes handled differently.
I'm tired and it's late... To be continued...
verktyg
The geometry of entry level and lower priced French bikes during the early 70's was pretty much the same as that used for road racing bikes from the 30's through the late 60's. They were designed for use on poorly paved roads to absorb shock and vibration. By the early 70's many road racing bikes were following the Italian model: shorter wheelbases and fork rakes plus steeper angles. By the mid to late 70's the lower price French bikes followed suit. UO-8s never changed that much.
Those geometry specs applied to mid size frames - 55-60cm. Smaller and larger frame sizes handled differently.
I'm tired and it's late... To be continued...
verktyg
07-25-22, 08:11 PM
#56
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,489
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1083 Post(s)
Liked 686 Times
in
440 Posts
The '85 Sagres came to me by circumstance and I ended up selling it, but not before restoring and upgrading it a little, and riding it for a summer. All I can tell you is that despite it's humble pedigree in the Fuji lineup, that frame was very nice and the bike rode fantastic. It soaked up bumps and handled like a champ, very confidence-inspiring and actually a very fun bike to ride. I was impressed with my one experience with a VALite frame.
Last edited by Jeff Neese; 07-25-22 at 08:15 PM.
07-25-22, 10:30 PM
#57
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Humboldt County, CA
Posts: 832
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 405 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 430 Times
in
286 Posts
I find that, even at my ~200 pounds weight, my League is a bit on the "dead" side when climbing out of the saddle... no "twang." Seated, it's just fine. Also, it rides better with some stuff in the bags. All this tells me that the frame is just a bit too stiff for a race bike, but pretty good for a sport-tourer.
Which is really what it is anyway. Mine's got a rack, bags, fenders, and a triple. (45/42/30 x 14-26) Set up like that, and ridden like that, it's a darned good bike.
--Shannon
07-26-22, 02:02 AM
#58
Strong Walker
Hello Marti, that article has been brought up by numerous people from time to time on BF. I'm not too sure what it's bottom line is or shows, other than there was not much difference noticed between them.
However, I have one Mondo with unidentified (mixed?) tubing and one with ELOS and a monostrut. I think the ELOS rides better and has better performance, but I have not been tested blind.
However, I have one Mondo with unidentified (mixed?) tubing and one with ELOS and a monostrut. I think the ELOS rides better and has better performance, but I have not been tested blind.
I got the impression from the blind test article that a very thin walled frame may not give a nicer ride automatically. Also rider weight is an often underrated factor. I used a 1950ies Giradengo as a randonneur and it rode *alot* different when bags carrying 20+kg hang on its rear and front racks, than when it was just burdened with my skinny self. This makes me wonder if a 60kg jockey stature rider may experience a frame made from 753 or SLX way different, than joe average weighting 85kg.
07-26-22, 10:30 AM
#59
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,874
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: 1856 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
506 Posts
So, is my impression that the ELOS rides a little better (easier, more efficient, better climbing) than my more-standard tubed 1984 Mondonico, real or just my feelings? I don't know and either will anybody else. Does climbing hills I know in an area I know just suddenly get better because one bike has 20 mm tubulars and the other bike has 20 mm clinchers? I don't know.
Was it ever possible to make any definitive comparisons between bikes in the Magnificent 7 test? I don't think so. Is it conclusive that the tester preferred Aelle to ELOS? No. It's just an opinion after a day or so of riding, trying to keep it all straight in his head and notes, between 7 different bikes. But yes, this aspect of value is subjective, because we really don't have a way to measure it. To be fair Bicycling Magazine had a device called the Tarantula designed for frame evaluation of some sort, but I haven't heard of any test results for at least 20 years.
Tubing, Stress, and Edges:
Any non-engineer can Google "stress riser" and find out that it is a concentration of stress at a location on an object which has sharp steps or transitions where the slope changes within a very small distance. At such points or areas of a tube or other part the stresses in case the part is given a bending stress or other stress, the local stress at the step can be far higher than it would be far from the step. If the bending or twisting stress (these "objects" are mostly bicycle tubes after all) exceeds a limit, the tube may start to break where the stress over time was greatest. If there was a step or other discontinuity, a break would develop at that location.
It would follow that if there is a transition between a thinwall section of a tube and a thickwall section of tube, the transition should have a conical profile perhaps with radiuses at the transitions, to enable it to withstand many more cases of applied stress - the bicycle would offer longer useful life, perhaps even with a reduction in weight! This also suggests a reason for lugs to have points, and for the lugs to be thinned by filing as you look farther from the end of the tube. Ideally some kind of trumpet-like tapering is probably the best possible way to handle stress.
When I went to Uni the Tech Institute had a laboratory for metals and stress/strain (stress is pulling on the part, strain is if it starts to stretch and finally breaks into 2 or many more parts. Theirs were built to pull apart large I-beams intended for bridge construction or salvaged from bridge failures, and they supported ship building as well. Cyclists do not have means to examine frame quality from this point of view, either. (Well, a local guy who builds wheels and is also a machinist can do that, but that isn't really his livelihood...)
We did have some clever lab exercises to show us what happens to an objects under stress - using weights to stress and stretch a rubber sample, shaped like a ruler, to watch it thin down dramatically forming beautiful curves as it got longer (we weren't given enough weights to actually fracture the little gadget - keep tuition within limits, you know!). It is fun to realize that the steel in bicycle tubing and to some degree the carbon composites in modern frames deform according to the same set of physical principles, but with different appearance because the two material systems have very different properties. The bits should look different when you have to sweep them up from the laboratory floor.
Was it ever possible to make any definitive comparisons between bikes in the Magnificent 7 test? I don't think so. Is it conclusive that the tester preferred Aelle to ELOS? No. It's just an opinion after a day or so of riding, trying to keep it all straight in his head and notes, between 7 different bikes. But yes, this aspect of value is subjective, because we really don't have a way to measure it. To be fair Bicycling Magazine had a device called the Tarantula designed for frame evaluation of some sort, but I haven't heard of any test results for at least 20 years.
Tubing, Stress, and Edges:
Any non-engineer can Google "stress riser" and find out that it is a concentration of stress at a location on an object which has sharp steps or transitions where the slope changes within a very small distance. At such points or areas of a tube or other part the stresses in case the part is given a bending stress or other stress, the local stress at the step can be far higher than it would be far from the step. If the bending or twisting stress (these "objects" are mostly bicycle tubes after all) exceeds a limit, the tube may start to break where the stress over time was greatest. If there was a step or other discontinuity, a break would develop at that location.
It would follow that if there is a transition between a thinwall section of a tube and a thickwall section of tube, the transition should have a conical profile perhaps with radiuses at the transitions, to enable it to withstand many more cases of applied stress - the bicycle would offer longer useful life, perhaps even with a reduction in weight! This also suggests a reason for lugs to have points, and for the lugs to be thinned by filing as you look farther from the end of the tube. Ideally some kind of trumpet-like tapering is probably the best possible way to handle stress.
When I went to Uni the Tech Institute had a laboratory for metals and stress/strain (stress is pulling on the part, strain is if it starts to stretch and finally breaks into 2 or many more parts. Theirs were built to pull apart large I-beams intended for bridge construction or salvaged from bridge failures, and they supported ship building as well. Cyclists do not have means to examine frame quality from this point of view, either. (Well, a local guy who builds wheels and is also a machinist can do that, but that isn't really his livelihood...)
We did have some clever lab exercises to show us what happens to an objects under stress - using weights to stress and stretch a rubber sample, shaped like a ruler, to watch it thin down dramatically forming beautiful curves as it got longer (we weren't given enough weights to actually fracture the little gadget - keep tuition within limits, you know!). It is fun to realize that the steel in bicycle tubing and to some degree the carbon composites in modern frames deform according to the same set of physical principles, but with different appearance because the two material systems have very different properties. The bits should look different when you have to sweep them up from the laboratory floor.
07-26-22, 10:54 AM
#60
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,874
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: 1856 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
506 Posts
i think the bottom line is that customers credit sophisticated tube sets with more benefits than they actually can deliver. Which is ok, we all like to get the nicest bike possible even thogh we may not really benefit from the technolog<, whether we admit that to ourselves or not
I got the impression from the blind test article that a very thin walled frame may not give a nicer ride automatically. Also rider weight is an often underrated factor. I used a 1950ies Giradengo as a randonneur and it rode *alot* different when bags carrying 20+kg hang on its rear and front racks, than when it was just burdened with my skinny self. This makes me wonder if a 60kg jockey stature rider may experience a frame made from 753 or SLX way different, than joe average weighting 85kg.
I got the impression from the blind test article that a very thin walled frame may not give a nicer ride automatically. Also rider weight is an often underrated factor. I used a 1950ies Giradengo as a randonneur and it rode *alot* different when bags carrying 20+kg hang on its rear and front racks, than when it was just burdened with my skinny self. This makes me wonder if a 60kg jockey stature rider may experience a frame made from 753 or SLX way different, than joe average weighting 85kg.
Sometimes riders who need a lot of flex will exceed what a given steel alloy (531 versus 753, Cyclex versus Nivachrom, plain carbon steel versus 4130 as examples of less strength versus more strength) can offer, and a frame can be built with a higher-strength steel alloy which will withstand the thinner walls and cross-section needed to let the frame flex more. The 55 cm frame built with 0.6 mm Cyclex might need to have 0.4 mm Nivachrom to be made for a rider who wants more flex, or wants a riding feel which can only be given with tubes with thinner walls. If the more flexy frame is not implemented with the stronger but more costly Nivachrom grade of steel, it might not be as durable as the rider expects, but it would be cheaper.
The choice of tube material trades off strength versus cost. Flexibility is a result of tube geometry. The frame design chooses tube diameter, wall thickness, butting profile, material, length, and joining technique to determine how the bike will ride, handle, and carry a load. These riding attributes are the results of tube strength and geometry, and the rest of the parameters already mentioned.
I do think that riders can notice differences in frame stiffness/flexibility. I don't think riders can say "Hmm that must be a 7 4 7 TT paired with a first-oversize 9/6/9 DT," for example.
Likes For Road Fan:
07-27-22, 06:45 AM
#61
curmudgineer
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago SW burbs
Posts: 4,417
Bikes: 2 many 2 fit here
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 263 Post(s)
Liked 112 Times
in
70 Posts
Yep Aluminum lost a lot of its E Module over the years 
The reason Aluminum frames were perceived to be stiff was that everyone looked at them and said "thats gotta be stiff". Also, they came with Cosmic style wheels and 10 bar 20mm tires, and people hopped on them coming from a lugged steel frame with 32 spoke tubulars. That steel frame, of course, possibly ridden soft by countless hours of relentless pedal stomping.
The reason Aluminum frames were perceived to be stiff was that everyone looked at them and said "thats gotta be stiff". Also, they came with Cosmic style wheels and 10 bar 20mm tires, and people hopped on them coming from a lugged steel frame with 32 spoke tubulars. That steel frame, of course, possibly ridden soft by countless hours of relentless pedal stomping.
Likes For old's'cool:
07-27-22, 07:19 AM
#62
Palmer
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 8,625
Bikes: Mike Melton custom, Alex Moulton AM, Dahon Curl
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1667 Post(s)
Liked 1,820 Times
in
1,058 Posts
Likes For tcs:
