Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:50 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Fuji SL v Columbus
PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:53 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:36 am
Posts: 1407
Location: Lincs
Which tubing is regarded as the best of these two? I've recently acquired a Sunn frame and all pics I've seen of the same model year are Fuji SL but mine is made of Columbus tubing. Can anyone shed any light on this please?
Oh, it's a 99 Urge UN by the way.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fuji SL v Columbus
PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 2:06 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:33 am
Posts: 2920
Location: daaan saaaf
I found this, but couldn't find anything by Fuji: http://www.equusbicycle.com/bike/columbus/columbuschart.htm

Shame all the tubing makers don't copy Reynolds which is easy to work out, the bigger the number the better the tubes. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fuji SL v Columbus
PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 2:18 pm 
MacRetro rider
MacRetro rider
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 7:25 pm
Posts: 4977
Location: Edinburgh
xerxes wrote:
I found this, but couldn't find anything by Fuji: http://www.equusbicycle.com/bike/columbus/columbuschart.htm

Shame all the tubing makers don't copy Reynolds which is easy to work out, the bigger the number the better the tubes. :D


The bigger the number the lighter the tubes I thought, not necessarily better. All depends on the job on hand surely?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fuji SL v Columbus
PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 3:35 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider

Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:22 pm
Posts: 7305
Location: Hove
Hotwheels. wrote:
Which tubing is regarded as the best of these two? I've recently acquired a Sunn frame and all pics I've seen of the same model year are Fuji SL but mine is made of Columbus tubing. Can anyone shed any light on this please?
Oh, it's a 99 Urge UN by the way.

It depends which grade of Columbus tubing you're talking about. The high-end Columbus tubesets were more highly rated than Fuji Stout Lite, but I must admit I don't know whether stout Lite was heat-treated as Columbus Cyber and MAX OR were.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fuji SL v Columbus
PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 4:47 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 7:13 pm
Posts: 2574
Location: The Cock Inn, Tillett, Herts
Tazio wrote:
xerxes wrote:
I found this, but couldn't find anything by Fuji: http://www.equusbicycle.com/bike/columbus/columbuschart.htm

Shame all the tubing makers don't copy Reynolds which is easy to work out, the bigger the number the better the tubes. :D


The bigger the number the lighter the tubes I thought, not necessarily better. All depends on the job on hand surely?

Indeed lighter, but not necessarily stiffer, stronger, more ductile or less brittle either. Reynolds do a mind boggling range of tubing with different characteristics for different applications. Don't read too much into the series number as that only denotes a particular production method, not Its awesomeness.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fuji SL v Columbus
PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:16 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:33 am
Posts: 2920
Location: daaan saaaf
Quote:
Reynolds do a mind boggling range of tubing with different characteristics for different applications. Don't read too much into the series number as that only denotes a particular production method, not Its awesomeness.


OK, let me put it another way, the bigger the number, the more expensive it is. :D

I know there were several versions of some of the "numbers", for example 531ST (Special Tourist) and 531C (Competition) which indicated the particular alloy and I'm guessing that versions denoted that tubing was the same basic material, but different guages/thicknesses and perhaps different cross sections and butting to give the finished frame different characteristics - lightness, stiffness, durability etc. In any case, I generally find that Reynolds numbering system is a bit less cryptic than some of the names other manufacturers use which make it a little unclear as to where in the range a particular tube set is.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], james_jc, OllieJones, shed, ti_pin_man and 46 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group