# Best steel road bike tubing?



## mr.mtg (7 Dec 2018)

Ive always thought that Columbus made the best tubing for road bikes.
But after chatting with a few pals of mine, I think I might be wrong... Id like to know what everyone thinks!... Have I been duped all these years spending big money on Columbus frames and passing others up?


----------



## mikeymustard (8 Dec 2018)

What a question! I hope you don't take their advice on anything important! Columbus has always made great tubing, and so do one or two other manufacturers so who knows. What makes a great frame is the skill of the builder in choosing the right type of tubes and geometry for its purpose, and then skilfully putting them together. The fact that some very skilful builders have used Columbus over (let's say) Reynolds, has traditionally been as much dependant on geography as any other factor.


----------



## Fab Foodie (8 Dec 2018)

I think you have to define what ‘best’ means to you in terms of bicycle tubing. Racing requires different properties to touring and all the shades of grey in-between.

Also the frame geometry, construction and fork affects how the bike rides and feels.


----------



## Cycleops (8 Dec 2018)

You haven't been duped all these years you've bought what what suited your needs and presumably considered other aspects of the bike's specification. There's no such thing as a 'best' make of tubing although there may be 'better' tubing.


----------



## Drago (8 Dec 2018)

Make 2 identical frames. One with cheap and nasty steel, one with Reynolds 999 super Mango gold myrhh steel. Each frame will...

Weigh the same.

Feel the same to ride.

The difference is the super duper steel is stronger, so in reality less of it needs to be used and the frame can thus be made lighter. This idea that one steel feels nice to ride the another is tosh - that characteristic is all down to the design of the tubes, and the design and construction of the frame.

So it terms of 'better', the finest steel could theoretically make the lightest frame, and that's it. Nothing more. In all other regards, such as 'feel, comfort, springiness, the ability to absorb road buzz, etc, cheap stteel from a 1970s Lancia is every bit as good as a Columbus frame brazed using the Popes tears.

So the only advantage Columbus may or may not have over anything else is weight. How it is ulitised by the tube manufacturer and the frame builder are the two things that define the frame characteristics. Therefore, alas, the question is a pointless one - you may as well ask if the sun is better than the moon, or if Trump is better than Reagan. You've not been duped, but unless your overriding priority when buying a frame is weight, then you may have been chasing a chimaera.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (8 Dec 2018)

I think that this is a good primer, full of common sense:

http://www.bretonbikes.com/homepage/cycling-article-blog/163-steel-tubing-for-cycle-tourists


----------



## raleighnut (8 Dec 2018)

The nicest/ lightest frame I've got is a 653 frameset which is a mix of 531c and 753 tubing


----------



## Drago (8 Dec 2018)

Email Giant snd ask them?


----------



## biggs682 (8 Dec 2018)

[QUOTE 5463977, member: 9609"]How would I find out what my Giant 'speederlite' is - that's been petty good.[/QUOTE]

Either 4130 or Cro mo but they do ride well indeed .

What is best who knows


----------



## Bonefish Blues (8 Dec 2018)

biggs682 said:


> Either 4130 or Cro mo but they do ride well indeed .
> 
> What is best who knows


4130 is Chromo, but not all Chromo is 4130, innit?


----------



## mustang1 (8 Dec 2018)

I like those frames that say Hi Ten on them. They are so cool and pretty good price. 

I have Columbus Spirit. (I just looked it up because I didn't know what it was) .


----------



## Spiderweb (8 Dec 2018)

I have several steel framed bikes with the following tube sets;

Reynolds 531c
Reynolds 531 Millennium
Reynolds 631
Columbus Gara
Tange 5

They are all lovely bikes to ride, the Columbus and Tange are heavier frames but I really couldn’t say which I prefer.
My Friend rides a Bike with a Ritchey Logic tube set and that is his preferred steel frame.

It’s a difficult question to answer


----------



## vickster (8 Dec 2018)

My favourite bike is made from Reynolds 725...


----------



## Bonefish Blues (8 Dec 2018)

Racks brain to think what he has in steel flavour.

Tandem is Reynolds 653, rides nicely. Kona Cinder Cone '95 is Kona's Chromoly IIRC, rides nicely. Kona Sutra is Dedacciai COM 12.5, rides nicely. All different, all well designed, each with different steel, so all are best, obvs.


----------



## Drago (8 Dec 2018)

Bonefish Blues said:


> 4130 is Chromo, but not all Chromo is 4130, innit?



4130 is indeed a cromo. It's have very similar mechanical properties to 531, so is cable of making frames comparable to 531 in weight, design, and therefore feel. It has the advantage of being more amenable to welding than 531, so tends to be the choice for many mass produced bikes vpbecuase it's cheaper to stick together. I like it. 531 is no better, but the brazing is a little more labour intensive to tended to end up on more expensive hi,as, sump,y because it cost more to assemble.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (8 Dec 2018)

Drago said:


> 4130 is indeed a cromo. It's have very similar mechanical properties to 531, so is cable of making frames comparable to 531 in weight, design, and therefore feel. It has the advantage of being more amenable to welding than 531, so tends to be the choice for many mass produced bikes vpbecuase it's cheaper to stick together. I like it. 531 is no better, but the brazing is a little more labour intensive to tended to end up on more expensive hi,as, sump,y because it cost more to assemble.


Because sexier badge, because more expensive, so psychologically 'better'!


----------



## mikeymustard (8 Dec 2018)

Drago said:


> 4130 is indeed a cromo. It's have very similar mechanical properties to 531, so is cable of making frames comparable to 531 in weight, design, and therefore feel. It has the advantage of being more amenable to welding than 531, so tends to be the choice for many mass produced bikes vpbecuase it's cheaper to stick together. I like it. 531 is no better, but the brazing is a little more labour intensive to tended to end up on more expensive hi,as, sump,y because it cost more to assemble.


 which is why 531 has been almost exclusively passed over for 525/520, and similarly 753 (which was always finicky and expensive to work) superceded by 725. Ultimately they're all cro mo but Reynolds - probably for a USP - chose to big up the manganese part of 531


----------



## Ian H (8 Dec 2018)

Apart from aluminium, and two Ti frames, which replaced a 653 and a 531, I have a 531 tandem and a 531c Gazelle AB of a certain vintage – a show special with added chrome and stuff.
I'm in the process of ordering a new frame. Man's coming to measure me next month. Tubing is to be decided, though I fancy stainless.


----------



## Gravity Aided (8 Dec 2018)

I like 531 , but probably only because the frames I have are butted. I think more care was taken with 531 frames due to the cool factor, and better frames were made from it as opposed to 4130, although True Temper was a 4130. I just haven't built up my Trek 950 yet, which has double butted True Temper with oversized lugs. I also had a 1985 Schwinn Traveler in celeste green, which was True Temper also. But Schwinns with that model/year/paint were real rust magnets for some reason.


----------



## biggs682 (8 Dec 2018)

[QUOTE 5464058, member: 9609"]It has this on the frame so I'm thinking Cromoly ? cro mo

It has certainly lasted well and took some amount of abuse, but never really rode any other bike so can't compare
View attachment 441808
[/QUOTE]

I have had a few of them and have always found them to be nice rides


----------



## Ian H (8 Dec 2018)

The quality of design and build will have far more influence on how the bike performs than the material from which it's made.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (8 Dec 2018)

Ian H said:


> The quality of design and build will have far more influence on how the bike performs than the material from which it's made.



That's true, but generally a higher quality frameset will have had more care and thought put into it's design and manufacture than a "cooking" grade hi-tensile one. It comes down to the target audience a manufacturer is aiming their bikes at. Some customers just want something cheap with two wheels, others are much more discerning and are interested in geometry and finished appearance. For example Dawes built a lot of frames in 531 and slightly cheaper 501/500 and their frames are generally well regarded for their build and riding qualities. 
I also have Raleighs with 531, 501, and 18-23 hi-tensile and all are nice riding frames. The 531 and 501 do feel a little more lively, but that is probably mostly down to their slightly lighter weight rather than the metal formulation. The 531 frame has comfortable Touring geometry as well as lightness.


----------



## Ian H (8 Dec 2018)

I have seen good-quality tube-sets turned into iffy frames by a few at the Del-Boy end of the bespoke frame business.


----------



## Gravity Aided (9 Dec 2018)

Ian H said:


> I have seen good-quality tube-sets turned into iffy frames by a few at the Del-Boy end of the bespoke frame business.


Derek Trotter really can do anything! and I thought he was just a blow-hard. I had no idea he made bike frames.


----------



## Ajax Bay (9 Dec 2018)

Worth a read:
https://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-materials.html


----------



## Fab Foodie (9 Dec 2018)

My late 50s Holdsworth 531 Plain gauge is comfy like an armchair but bendy as anything.
My 1982 531db Holdsworth is stiffer, still comfortable, but gets very scary and out of shape over 35mph if you need to change direction like a downhill sweeper.
My circa 1985 Evans/Saracen 531 mtb tubed mountain bike will rattle your teeth loose even on big fat tyres.
The 1990s Colombus Nivachrome (reasonably stiff for steel - state of the art for road-racing) Omega, I sold would also rattle your fillings over every piece of grit in the roads.
My 853 Rourke custom 'Audax' is stiff and reasonably comfortable with 853 forks (may replace fork for something softer) solid as a rock at any speed BUT has 'Audax' geometry and 28c tryes where other roadies had 23c. A different beast.

But, my 2004 Giant TCR1 (last of the triple-butted Aluminium) was also pretty damn stiff, but fairly comfortable as well on 23c.

So, there's more to a bicycle performance/comfort than its tubing. But all tubesets and bicycle designs have their pro's and cons.


----------



## Ian H (9 Dec 2018)

Ajax Bay said:


> Worth a read:
> https://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-materials.html



Good debunkery.


----------



## mikeymustard (14 Dec 2018)

Bit late but i finally found where I'd put it:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=1Uf5JKEIVwFW1gamy2diOcpwUwMc6wGbw
Hope you can access it @mr.mtg


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (14 Dec 2018)

Fab Foodie said:


> So, there's more to a bicycle performance/comfort than its tubing. But all tubesets and bicycle designs have their pro's and cons.



Wheelbase seems to make a lot of difference. The longer the more predictable & comfortable on poor surfaces.


----------



## Alan O (14 Dec 2018)

For what it's worth, I have three steel-framed bikes...

Falcon 531 plain
Orbit Gold Medal 531c
Raleigh Royal 531ST

The Royal uses the (allegedly) stiffest and heaviest tubing, but its my favourite of the three in terms of feel and long-distance comfort.

I've always fancied trying a Columbus frame too - after all, it's what Colnago used. But I have to agree with those who say it's the build quality that counts more than anything - I'd rather have a frame made of modest steel by a top builder than one made of "the best steel" by a muppet.


----------



## froze (15 Dec 2018)

Supposedly a couple of frame builders/riders test rode two bikes built by another steel frame builder to be exactly identical in appearance, components, paint, wheels, tires, both were butted the same, both had the same geometry, in other words identical twin bikes the only thing missing, was the tubing stickers, but one was made of high end Columbus and the other with the equivalent Reynolds. They rode these bikes for several days trading off with each other, neither knew which tubeset they were riding, in the end neither could tell the difference.

All I can say is that I've had lots of steel bikes and I could tell the difference between them all...BUT they weren't all created equal either. The list of frame types I had or have was: Trek Reynolds 531cs double butted, Trek Columbus sp/sl, Miyata spiral triple butted, Ishiwata 022 double butted, Fuji VaLite quad butted, Schwinn Tenax (Columbus) double butted, Schwinn Champion double butted, Reynolds 531st (this one I haven't built up to ride yet). All of these are different, the Tenax and the Champion (and the 531st but I haven't rode this) are both touring frames and both ride really nice when loaded, sort of like riding in a Cadillac if a comparison could be made, but when unloaded they ride like trucks! The lightest and most responsive frame I have which also is the stiffest is the Fuji VaLite followed by the Miyata tubsets. The flexist bike I had was he Columbus sp/sl, but that one was built in 1976 and I don't think the metallurgy was as good as they got it in the 80's. I had rode worse bikes than the Columbus sp/sl, in particular the Peugeot PX10 that I think used Vitus steel tubing but don't recall much more than that, I test rode over the years back in the late 70's and into the 80's three of those top of line Px10 series and my god the amount of flex was insane which is why I never bought one, but those Nervex lugs were just the coolest. The Reynolds 531cs is the bike I raced on, I test rode a Trek that had the 531c and it was too flexy for my taste, not as bad as the Columbus sp/sl but it didn't float my boat either plus it had a rider weight limit which got me worried about long term survival, but the 531cs was both comfortable and stiff enough. But again keep in mind that all those bikes had different geometries, different wheels, different tires, etc, etc, so to make blanket statement that one tubeset was the best of all would be dependent upon all those factors. Some of those bikes I bought used after my racing days were over, if I had all those bikes back when I raced the Fuji would have been my go to bike instead of the Trek. Touring wise I can't really tell the difference between the Tenax and the Champion, I'm sure there's something but it's so minute I can't determine what that might be; the Champion is about a pound lighter but I don't notice that weight when loaded. The Miyata (which I owned 3 of them but now only have 1) those frames were very responsive due to the spiral but they were also the heaviest of the racing bikes (not as heavy as the two touring bikes), I had one of them (which I sold last spring) while I was racing as a backup bike that I rarely rode because I got use to the way the Trek rode and handled so I just never bothered to train or race with with the Miyata.

Kind of a lot a blah blah blah, but those are my takes on those frames. But my most comfortable frame (non touring) isn't steel at all, it's my titanium Lynskey.


----------



## mikeymustard (16 Dec 2018)

Like @froze in my head I've been going through the different steel frames I've ridden recently, trying to work out which ones I enjoyed riding the most and why. The frames have all been Reynolds of various types (all 531, 531 main triangle, 531ST and plain gauge, 501, 708, 653 and my Equilibrium in 725), apart from a Carlton in Truwel. Styles range from short wheelbase, steep angled "racer" to relaxed and stretched tourer, but most somewhere between.
I think the geometry/wheels/tyres and build quality (and probably placebo) have had more effect on the ride than what they were made of. Case in point is two 501-framed raleighs I've had: The first one a "hand-built" (it says in the catalogue) budget racer Sirocco and a cheaper, Pro Race from around the same era (late 80s). The Sirocco felt like a pocket rocket, while the Pro Race, seemed a little more sedate. Only difference was the angles.
The one that really stands out as different is the equibrium. This I suspect is due to the oversize tubes making it much stiffer (coupled with H Plus Archetype rimmed wheels which are also very stiff). By different, I mean it feels like a a modern ally frame


----------



## froze (16 Dec 2018)

The one thing I forgot to mention about my bikes, the Trek 660 with the 531cs tubing is my tightest geometry bike, I have to flatten the tire to get it to squish past the seat tube, and this a 700x23 tire! After making sure as much air as possible is out I had to really smash the tire hard against the seat tube when I was using a 25 tire! That tight rear triangle is why the bike has very little flex in that region, but I think even though the 84 Fuji Club with the VaLite quad tubing isn't quite that tight, though close, I think the Fuji tube set is actually a bit better than the famous Reynolds or Columbus! It seems stiffer yet lighter in weight, not sure how they accomplished that but I would dare say that Fuji had best tubesets (the VaLite only, they made lessor grade tube sets but I've never rode those). I know that saying that about Fuji is probably highly controversial because it takes away from the famed tube sets that were used exclusively in racing back in those days, but it is what I've experienced in my opinion of course. 

This next info is somewhat difficult to find so thought it may be wise to post it: I also forgot that the VaLite tubing does have a number on the sticker 1769 which I found out sometime back stood for the tube thickness in MM, not sure how that worked because they don't seem to be in order, but assuming the 4 numbers are related to the quad butted which would mean the thinnest section of the tubing was 1mm thick while the thickest would be 9mm. Which their top of the line Professional used VaLite 9658 which obviously had thinner walls than my Club. 

The really odd thing about my Fuji Club is that it only came with one set of water bottle brazeon's, not sure why they did that.

On a forum about the Valite a poster said that he was trying to coldset a Fuji VaLite frame and found the tubeset to take more force than usual to coldset of any frame material he ever had to coldset. Another poster on the same forum said that he considered Fuji VaLite to be very similar to Tange Infinity, I've never rode a Tange Infinity bike because they were impossible to find where I lived.


----------

