Ungaro

Can anyone assist me in identifying this frame through the BB markings?

John E

Integral derailleur hanger; no chrome on the stays; under-BB/stay cable routing.

1. BB shell width = 68 (Japanese) or 70mm (Italian)?
2. or BB shell diameter = 35mm/1.375" (Japanese) or 36mm (Italian)?

3. Braze-ons: pump peg? water bottle bosses? downtube shift bosses?

I am guessing 1987 from what I can see, but can't help you much beyond that without a more comprehensive picture and answers to some basic questions.

T-Mar

Based on the serial number in conjunction with the cable routing, it's's a 1989 model manufactured in 1988. But that is all it tells us.

Ungaro

1. Italian
2. See above
3. Pump peg braze on on head tube; water bottle bosses on seat tube & down tube; shifter bosses on down tube

Yes, integral derailleur hanger, and no chrome. Also be advised that this frame was repainted, though by a professional shop (Cat 1 Cycle Art, San Diego CA). Frame owner at the time may have chosen white lettering, which is painted - not a decal.
ALSO, the “B” on the lower head tube lug, where the down tube joins, is a raised letter, instead of cut out, and is block shape.

The bigger question, aside from year and model is: Does having the Head tube crack repaired ($150) make sense, or is this a scrapper?

John E

Yup -- I read the 8.L upside down as 7.8. The late 1988 production is consistent with my own Bianchi (1.M xxxx, reportedly a 1982 model with the frame built toward the end of 1981).

Regarding the head tube repair --
1. Are they simply re-brazing the downtube lug to the head tube? That may be all it needs.
2. Does $150 include paint-and-decal restoration?
3. Does it take as 27.2mm seat post (almost guaranteed, but make sure). If it does take a smaller seat post, it is plain gauge, rather than butted, Columbus (unlikely, since this is probably either a tre tubi frame or, if the decal is correct, a more valuable full Columbus model).
4. Even if it is a mere "tre tubi" frame, the ride will be awesome, and I would inclined to fix it and ride it, but I am biased.

Ungaro

John, the $150 is a quote from Yellow Jersey. For that price, they will remove the cracked tube, replace with new steel, paint the repaired area and use their Campagnolo cutters to mill the head set recesses.
It is a 27.2 seat tube, and yes, since it’s a repaint, there is no guarantee of the Columbus tubing....unless the serial number bears that out.

T-Mar

Based on the additional photos it is a 1989 Bianchi Campione d'Italia, which used the mid-range Columbus Cromor tubeset. It does not have the chromed dropout flats, investment cast seat lug or chain stay bridge of the higher models. The Campione d'Italia was the only mid-range 1989 model to be manufactured in Italy, with the Limited and Brava being sourced from Asia. The Cromor tubeset used seamed billet technology to hit a lower price point and is similar to an SL/SP Superest combination in that it used heavier a gauge down tube and chain stays and weighed between SL and SP.

Ungaro

What type of seat lug would you say this has?

3speedslow

Q? I have an 89 CDI in black but the rear brake bridge is not the same as the one shown. Factory irregularities?

Ungaro

Good question!

John E

Interesting -- when did they change to seamed tubing on the C d'I? (If the forks and stays of my 1982 are seamed, they did a very good job of finishing, unlike my 1980 Peugeot PKN-10, which had big ugly seams down the backs of the fork blades.) I liked my Peugeot in many ways, and my son enjoys it now, but the Bianchi had far better-looking metalwork, including a lack of visible brazing voids.

T-Mar

It appears to be a pressed steel lug.

T-Mar

The bridge used on the OP's bicycle is the same as that used on the 1988 model. Since it was built in very late 1988, I suspect they simply used up excess stock until they transitioned to the new bridge. IIRC, yours was built quite a while after the OP's.

T-Mar

John, that's an interesting question for which I have no definitive answer.

We know the main triangle of the Cd'I was seamless SL/SP through 1984. Then things get murky with the introduction of Bianchi Special tubing for 1985 and the Formula tubesets for 1986-1987. Very little is known about these tubesets other than that they were butted CrMo sets manufactured by Columbus for Bianchi. The timing of the introduction of the Formula tubesets coincides with Matrix/Columbus and there are many, myself included, who believe they may be rebranded derivations.
Then there was also that short mid-1980s hiatus, when there was no Cd'I, at least in the USA market.

Then there is the question of stay/fork material, which was typically spec'd as Columbus Aelle, through to the introduction of the 1989 Cromor Cd'I. Was Aelle seamed? I've got a non-sanctioned tubing chart published by Bicycling magazine that indicates it was. If so, then depending on how you want to define it, even your Cd'I could be considered to be (partially) seamed.

The problem is that seamed tubing technology had improved immensely by the mid 1980s introduction of the Special and Formula tubesets. Seams were hard to detect, especially those produced with Columbus' seamed billet technology. I suspect the only way you could make a definitive statement would be to section a tube and look at the grain structure under the a microscope.

Edit: Then there was also that short mid-1980s hiatus when there was no Cd'I, at least in the USA market.