USAZorro

Nine is the sweet spot. Easier to find components because 9 was "top dog" for longer - hence more available.

gugie 

If you ignore indexing, 8 speed cog sets and chains are readily availabe and less expensive

Steel Charlie

Does anyone have any information on the Moron tube sets that I believe were used by Kona?

SurferRosa

In '84, Fuji marketed several mid-level VALite models as quad-butted. I had one, a Club Fuji. I wasn't impressed. Felt dead to me. Their really nice bikes that year (Opus, Pro, Team) were also considered quad-butted, but they were Chromoly.

Cynikal 

If memory serves, Ibis used "Moron" tubing which was a jab at the Columbus "Genius" tubing of the time. Their tubing had slightly longer butting for the MTB's or rougher applications. Ibis always had fun names for things like their hand job cable stop.

52telecaster

Valite was pretty pointless to me.

Jeff Neese

Interesting. I had an '85 Fuji Sagress that was "only" triple-butted VALite, and I thought it was a very lively yet comfortable ride.

mstateglfr 

I have read about tubesets where the triple butted tubing is heavier than double butted due to one of the ends of the triple butted tubing being thicker. So .9/.5/.8 vs .8/.5/.8 for example.



On a related note, my modern steel 853 gravel frame has a downtube that uses 853 DZB which stands for 'double zonal butted' and it is, ironically, quad butted since there are 3 different measurements. But its 2 zones of butting so double zonal. 2x2 apparently doesnt equal 4 for Reynolds. Its 1/.8/.5/.8 and allows the elimination of a gusset at the head tube since it is effectively internally gusseted with that beefy end butted against the head tube.
Super nice bike and indestructible, given the tubing hardness and thickness. Also not the lightest thing ever made as a result.

T-Mar

VALite (and the other carbon-manganese steels) were far from pointless. It was almost as strong as chromium-molybdenum, so the main tubes could be butted and produce tubesets that were much lighter than hi-tensile steel and only slightly heavier than chromium-molybedenum alloys. Yet it was more tolerant of brazing temperatures, so it was suitable for automated mass production, resulting in a substantial reduction of frame manufacturing costs over chromium-molybedenum. Carbon-manganese steels were instrumental in allowing manufacturers introduce lightweight frames at a lower price point.

bikingshearer 

Yeah, Ibis folks had fun naming things. The other part of the "Moron" tubing was that it had "more on" the ends (i.e. double-butted),

Also, don't forget the toe jam pump peg (a miniature foot with a slightly exaggerated big toe) or the Hakkalugi frame (say it out loud).

verktyg 

"You people are so superstitious... I don't know why you people seem to think this is magic. It's just this little chromium switch here."



In the original sense of the term "Double Butted" only 2 tubes were butted at both ends: the top tube and the down tube. In the early 70's marketoids got carried away with the Double Butted concept leaving many to believe that all the tubes on a frame were butted at both ends. For whatever reason, the Japanese tube makers started providing seat tubes that were Double Butted - maybe because they figured they could lower costs by using the same tube for the seat and down tubes???

From a 1980 Reynolds brochure. Red text is my comments.


Reynolds wasn't truthful about their fork blades - they made them BOTH ways with a thicker "Taper Gauge" bottom section and with a uniform thickness! (Columbus & Super Vitus blades were uniform thickness)This production drawing shows these fork blades were made from 18/21 Gauge - 1.25mm x 0.8mm thick drawn to a uniform wall thickness! Later high performance Reynolds blades like 753, 653, 531C & 531P were 1.0mm x 0.5mm thick.



This shows the Taper Gauge Wall thicknesses of older blades.

The process of producing internal butted ends uses mandrels with gradual tapers rather than abrupt changes in angles. The mandrels last longer that way. Reynolds' butting process.





Marketing games aside, there becomes a point of declining returns! MORE IS NOT ALWAYS BETTER! In the words of P.T. Barnum "There's a sucker born every minute"


verktyg

52telecaster

I should not have been so harsh I suppose, the 1 Fuji valite frame I set up for my son when he was young was quite uninspiring. A sekai 500 felt better. Maybe we just didn't know what we were playing with.

RustyJames 

Is chocolate ice cream better than vanilla? Is “sparkling wine” better than Champagne?

Hopefully you get the jib of my jab….

52telecaster

That was our take on it.

Jeff Neese

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.

Chromium-molybdenum and chromium-vanadium (VALite) are very similar in properties and if you built two identical frames, you'd have a hard time telling them apart in a double-blind test. You could say the same about frames made with 4130 chromoly vs Reynolds 531, or most of the high-end tubing. It's as much about geometry and tube configuration (thickness, butting) as it is the specific alloy.

Road Fan

All this tubing insight is very interesting, but does anyone know the tubing secrets of the Peugeot UO-8? Published data seem to be missing, and it looks like perhaps nobody has tried to reverse engineer it and lived. A Mafia Francois?

The one I built up is a nice-riding frame with decent handling if not pushed too hard I do know they could not take much gravel-pit jumping, but seen to have been stable and reliable when used to ride from place to place, even if sometimes loaded down with racks fenders, and full panniers and a handlebar bag.

We tend to say derisively “it’s just gaspipe,” and that may be because the tubing details seen to hide in the words “tubing allege,” but they seem certainly to be lighter then contemporary Schwinn Varsities, Continentals, Raleigh Grand Prix, and even lower Carlton frames like the straight 531 Super Courses of the late ‘60s and early ‘70s.

martl

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.

verktyg 

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

vespasianus

Moron was used by Ibis, to make fun of the tubing names and marketing.

vespasianus

But I don't think it is as simple as that. In the 80's and 90s's, the difference between a steel and aluminum bike was major. Aluminum got its reputation as being harsh and stiff because the bikes of those day were harsh and stiff.

Today, aluminum has gotten much closer to the ride of steel or other bikes. Honestly, the ride of most bikes today are similar - in part driven by the move to 28+ tires and carbon seat posts and handlebars- but also because people have figured out how to make any bike feel similar (or the way they want).

I think the key thing with that test, and which is noted in that article and highlighted by the person who first uploaded it, is that the builder has the biggest impact on any bike, even more than the material.

jdawginsc 

Amen. I’m not good enough to adjust to the subtleties of 11 speeds...

martl

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.

T-Mar

It was your/your son's bicycle and therefore a valid opinion. It just didn't suit what he was looking for, in a bicycle, at that time. A lot of that will come to the designer's intent and extends beyond the tubeset, particularly to the geometry and wheeset. So don't be so harsh on yourself. However, while your particular experience with VALite wasn't positive, it (and its carbon-manganese brethen) had an important impact on the bicycle industry in the early 1980s.

T-Mar

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.

Jeff Neese

All of my bikes are high-end steel frames. We take our bikes with us when we travel by car, but if we fly somewhere we just rent something. I've never met an aluminum bike that I liked. Then I get back home and ride one of my bikes, and think "Ahh. Home sweet home." There is no way any aluminum frame feels as nice to ride as a high-end, lightweight, lugged steel frame. I agree that geometry is a huge part of it, but I've been on different types and flavors of aluminum bikes, and like I said, I never met one I liked.

That's not to say there's anything wrong with aluminum bikes. They're far cheaper to produce which brings the price down and lets more people get into cycling. And the average consumer is not sensitive to the nuances of ride quality or handling - they consider it a "good bike" if the brakes work and the tires hold air. Aluminum is good enough for the mass market. And of course, in the high-performance category aluminum is the "poor man's carbon", right? There are some decently high-end bikes that have aluminum frames.