aprieto28

My 83 Univega has a sticker on the seat tube and no where else indicating Tange Champion Tubes. Does that mean that only the 3 main tubes are Cromo and not the entire bike?

treal512

Good question. I'd like to know this as well. Is the entire tube set butted?

zukahn1 

If it is a double butted level bike it is likely has a full chromo frame but only the main tubes are butted and the rear is only basic tange level 2 tubing Chromo.

WNG

Here ya go....

No chainstays or seat stays are DB for these popular tube sets.

Barrettscv 

That's a great chart!

zukahn1 

Based on this chart which is just great there is 3-5lbs difference between a top of the line and a good high ten. Seems a little depressing that my rider is one of the heaviest at 2700.

Barrettscv 

I have Columbus SPX on my Serotta and I really like the added stiffness of the tubeset. Lighter is not always better.

3speedslow

Pic so the thread will be...My 83 Univega Sportour. Love the ride ! Getting a little change out this winter.

oddjob2

Nice chart, thanks WNG.

but where is True Temper and Carbolite?

bikemig 

No. 1. I have an older custom racing bike made out of SP; I like the stiffness. My favorite racing bike was my team miyata and that bike was not light esp. with a full set of investment cast lugs, BB, and crown.

RobbieTunes

If I like the frame, I like the frame.
Geometry, balance, precision: these things are done after the tubing is selected.

Some things, like if your girlfriend is really your cousin, you don't need to know.

jimmuller 

I've often pondered the true meaning of a chart like this vs. real bike weights. First, the true weight depends on the size. A larger frame will not only be heavier obviously but will also benefit more from lighter tubing simply because there is more of it. And as Barrettscv says, lighter isn't necessarily the best thing.

I used not be a weight weenie. Lately I've begun to be a believer (because now I can afford lighter bikes!), but you have to keep a sense of perspective about where extra weight comes from. A quick tour through velobase's FW listings for example show that tiny corncob units could be half a pound lighter than a big 32T touring FW. Hard to believe but that's what the numbers say. Add in, say, 2oz (1/8lb) for a heavier RD, 4oz (100+g) per tire, another 4oz per rim, more for lights, more for a heavier stem, and pretty soon you've added 2lbs to that extra 1.5lbs in the frame. You have a 26+lbs bike instead of 23lbs. On the other hand, you have that big FW because you want it. That heavier frame also handles your weight in hard acceleration better. Those tires flat less often and take bumps better.

Which is to say you pick your tradeoffs. I can feel some of the differences between my bikes, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't include an extra half a pound. If you like that frame with the extra 2700 grams, just enjoy it for its benefits.

zukahn1 

Well I have always preferred slightly longer frames even when I road BMX back in the 80's and was willing to give up a couple of lbs or more in wieght to get the extra 1-2 inchs to fit my long arms. I think trading off few lbs of static none drivetrain or wheel wieght to get a bike that fits is no big deal. I would much rather ride a 26llb bike that fits than 20lb bike that doesn't.

Barrettscv 

Many framebuilders, including Trek and Serotta, back in the '70 and '80, would use Columbus SL on the midrange and smaller frame sizes and SP on the larger frame sizes. Also, some would blend SP and SL, such as using SP on the downtube and chainstays and SL everywhere else.

The reason for thicker tube walls on the larger frame sizes is that larger frames are far flexier than smaller frames of the same design. A second reason is that larger frames often have larger, heavier and stronger riders, so any added stiffness is a benefit.

A good quality custom builder will consider the size of the frame, the geometry of the frame and the size of the rider and the strength of the rider before selecting the tubeset.

noglider 

According to WNG's very nice chart, chain stays, seat stays, and fork blades are not butted. Only three main tubes and steering columns are.

The Golden Boy 

Thanks for that chart WNG!

I used to have a 1984 Trek 420. It was really pretty, it rode really well. It was comfortable for long stretches. It was made of Tange Mangalloy. In terms the hierarchy of things, the 420 was towards the lower end, and Mangalloy has a reputation of being towards the lower end. Looking at the weight, and what I experienced of the ride properties... that should be a much more respected and desired bike. If only it had 2 bottle mounts.







Dang I forgot how classy this bike looked.





Sorry for dragging the thread way off topic...

aprieto28

Here is my Sportour. Can anyone tell me what the G stands for on the bottom bracket?. Also, I don't see many Sportours for sale on ebay. I did see a frame that someone was asking for $295. Don't know if it ever sold.

WNG

A couple more with Tange's updated stickers in the late 90s.

And an Ishiwata EX data sheet.






As for True Temper and Columbus, I recall having those, but you'll have to ask my ex-wife for them since she has my HDDs.

The Golden Boy 

Why is Ishiwata not mentioned with Columbus and Reynolds?

Just from what you read about the tube set weights, hear about the ride properties from those who own them and then see where it seems to rank in the grand scheme of things- and Ishiwata is WAY down the list from middle and even lower class Reynolds and Columbus frames.

zukahn1 

Heres something to pounder all high quality steel is basically the same weight. The significant weight difference on better quality frames is gained by using thinner higher quality IE less steel to accomplish the same task butting basically means the tubing is siginficantely thinner in the center than the ends to reduce weight while maintaining the majority of the strength.

eastcoaststeve

WNG,

any chance you could ask the mods to make your tubing charts a sticky...it's great info everyone should be able to find, (and appreciate).


Steve

Paramount1973 

It says that the data was compiled from manufacturer literature for 'tube sets'. Were the lengths of tubing in tube sets uniform from manufacturer to manufacturer?

OK, read some of the above and it does not appear that the lengths were exactly the same in the tube lengths offered from manufacturer to manufacturer, so tube set weight would appear to be a bit of apples to oranges.

Also, the weights in the chart in Table 4 at this site are different than the weights listed in the table in post #4 .
https://desperadocycles.com/Lowdown_On_Tubing.html