| |
Main
Date: 20 Aug 2007 15:34:48
From:
Subject: MI5 Persecution: Excellent web page 19/10/96 (6822)
|
From: Chris Lawton <chrisla@ti.com >
Subject: Re: MI5 persecution ;; Cost of the Harassment
Message-ID: <325A3DA6.3447@ti.com >
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 11:40:22 GMT
Reply-To: chrisla@ti.com
DANIEL ROBERT HOLDSWORTH wrote:
>
> In article <3262b4fc.14638885@192.168.2.1>,
> stevea@castlsys.demon.co.uk.no.spam.thanx (Steve A) writes:
> :On 4 Oct 1996 13:19:16 +0100, drh92@aber.ac.uk (DANIEL ROBERT
> :HOLDSWORTH) wrote:
> :
> :>
> :> Oh NO!
> :>
> :> Not here too.
> :>
> :> This MI5 persecution thread's been doing the rounds of UK.MISC for ages;
> :> it concerns some paranoid loony who thinks that MI5 are out to get him.
> :>
> :> They're not; everyone else on that newsgroup IS.
> :>
> :> Killfile the moron NOW!
> :
Bit sad really, the guy (must be the same one) has an excellent web
page. Definite waste of talent.
PS: I am NOT disclosing his URL.
> The man's been changing his anon remailer address periodically, too.
>
> Why on earth he does I don't know; he's in serious danger of creating some
> real enemies, apart from the phantoms his sadly deranged mind has created.
>
........................................................................................
From: nuala@mimir.com (Nuala Fahey)
Subject: Re: MI5 persecution // BBC TV and Radio
Date: 4 Oct 1996 16:03:24 +0100
Message-ID: <5338vs$hrc@freyja.mimir.com >
Simon Lord <simonl@hrmconsult.co.uk > wrote:
>I expect he will soon be seen in uk.out.to.lunch
Considering he spammed it far and wide (well, at least to alt.angst and
alt.folklore.urban which I saw and each of those included other groups
in the Newsgroups line) I doubt he'll be seen anywhere for long. Using
the xs4all remailer doesn't really help if you post the url to a
web site which makes it clear who you are.
Nuala, who thinks that the sad thing is he used frames much better
than many sites done by supposedly 'sane' people.
--
Out of the ash I rise/With my red hair/And I eat men like air - Plath
You were everything to me/For twenty minutes/
Now I'd rather you would leave - Baby Chaos
........................................................................................
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 01:36:26 +0100
From: mike.monty@zetnet.co.uk
To: bu765@torfree.net
Subject: Praise
Hi,
Totally excellent page. Although I am a little confused whi is being
percecuted?
Cheers Michael
mike.monty@zetnet.co.uk
........................................................................................
6822
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------- >>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
|
|
| |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 15:11:57
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Schwinn Superior 1976 marketable?
|
>> tom.doud@gmail.com writes:
>>> I just dusted off my old 1976 Schwinn Superior. It looked so good, I
>>> cleaned it off and had my LBS give it a once over. It has all the
>>> original parts, even the tubes/tires. This is the fillet brazed
>>> model, hand-made in Chicago, according to a site I saw. The frame is a
>>> work of art, narrow metal frame with smooth joints.
>>> I'm just wondering what kind of value this bike has. I mostly
>>> mountain bike, but I thought of using this for some cross training.
>>> So, it there a market out there? If not, I'll just enjoy a few miles
>>> on the road with a nice old road bike.
> Donald Gillies wrote:
>> Parts worth $150 - $200
>> Frame worth $0.
>> Any carbon-steel frame from europe ("Raleigh Record") is lighter than
>> yours.
marcus9000@gmail.com wrote:
> I think you are mixing this up with Schwinn flash welded, seamed tubing
> frames, Continental, Varsity et al.
> While Schwinn fillet brazed lightweights were not particularly light in
> comparison to some bike frames, they are IMO not tanks, ride nicely,
> handle well and are far better quality than the example Raleigh Record.
> The Superior was hand built from seamless straight gauge chrome-moly
> tube (4130) and fillet brazed not welded.
> I think it represents one of the high points in production American
> frames and a construction technique we will probably never see again.
> For more info see: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/schwinn-braze.html
Construction technique is alive and well.
This fillet brazed steel frame was built August 2007:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/JACKHOLN.JPG
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 16:07:22
From: Donald Gillies
Subject: Re: Schwinn Superior 1976 marketable?
|
A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > writes:
>> Donald Gillies wrote:
>>> Parts worth $150 - $200
>>> Frame worth $0.
>>> Any carbon-steel frame from europe ("Raleigh Record") is lighter than
>>> yours.
>Construction technique is alive and well.
>This fillet brazed steel frame was built August 2007:
>http://www.yellowjersey.org/JACKHOLN.JPG
Pardon me, but I really doubt you used 1mm thick tubes, like on a
Schwinn Superior (by comparison, a Raleigh Record used tubes 20%
lighter, 8-8-8 unbutted high-carbon steel vs. 1-1-1 unbutted schwinn
chromoly.) Also, the amount of material you used at the joints was
probably 5% of the amount used by the schwinn brazers.
- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 21:16:42
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Schwinn Superior 1976 marketable?
|
>>> Donald Gillies wrote:
>>>> Parts worth $150 - $200
>>>> Frame worth $0.
>>>> Any carbon-steel frame from europe ("Raleigh Record") is lighter than
>>>> yours.
> A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
>> Construction technique is alive and well.
>> This fillet brazed steel frame was built August 2007:
>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/JACKHOLN.JPG
Donald Gillies wrote:
> Pardon me, but I really doubt you used 1mm thick tubes, like on a
> Schwinn Superior (by comparison, a Raleigh Record used tubes 20%
> lighter, 8-8-8 unbutted high-carbon steel vs. 1-1-1 unbutted schwinn
> chromoly.) Also, the amount of material you used at the joints was
> probably 5% of the amount used by the schwinn brazers.
I'm afraid I do not understand what you wrote. Could you rephrase?
My comments above related to the (snipped) last line of a reply from
marcus9000 about fillet brazing:
"a construction technique we will probably never see again".
I simply referenced a new 2007 fillet brazed bike, no further comment.
p.s. I did not make that Bob Jackson chromed Reynolds 853 frame, nor did
I sell it.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 11:15:37
From: Donald Gillies
Subject: Re: Schwinn Superior 1976 marketable?
|
A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > writes:
>>>> Donald Gillies wrote:
>>>>> Parts worth $150 - $200
>>>>> Frame worth $0.
>>>>> Any carbon-steel frame from europe ("Raleigh Record") is lighter than
>>>>> yours.
>Donald Gillies wrote:
>> Pardon me, but I really doubt you used 1mm thick tubes, like on a
>> Schwinn Superior (by comparison, a Raleigh Record used tubes 20%
>> lighter, 8-8-8 unbutted high-carbon steel vs. 1-1-1 unbutted schwinn
>> chromoly.) Also, the amount of material you used at the joints was
>> probably 5% of the amount used by the schwinn brazers.
>I'm afraid I do not understand what you wrote. Could you rephrase?
Sorry, i quoted the wrong post out of context.
The question at hand was : which is lighter, 1974-era schwinn
superior, or a gaspipe raleigh record ? My theory is that a raleigh
record is lighter; even with straight-gauge tubing, the record is
probably 8-8-8 (meaning 0.8 mm tubing throughout, and no double-butted
tapering), whereas the superior is 10-10-10 (meaning 1.0 mm uniform
chromoly throughout).
In that era, most reynolds 531 db throughout framesets were 8-5-8.
Schwinn put a lot of hand-brazing effort into the Superior, but made
the grievous error of striving to improve on THEIR OWN GASPIPE 37 lbs
varsity and continental models. Compared to a Varsity or Continental,
with a 11 lbs frame/fork, the Superior with a 9 lbs frame/fork looks
GREAT !! But they forgot to COMPETE WITH OTHER MANUFACTURERS, who
made 7-8 lbs lugged low-end bikes out of club-racer thin-wall seamed
steel tubing.
- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA
|
| | | | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 18:00:01
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Schwinn Superior 1976 marketable?
|
"Donald Gillies" <gillies@cs.ubc.ca > wrote in message
news:fahug9$pra$1@cascade.cs.ubc.ca...
> A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
>
> >>>> Donald Gillies wrote:
<snip >
>
> The question at hand was : which is lighter, 1974-era schwinn
> superior, or a gaspipe raleigh record ? My theory is that a raleigh
> record is lighter; even with straight-gauge tubing, the record is
> probably 8-8-8 (meaning 0.8 mm tubing throughout, and no double-butted
> tapering), whereas the superior is 10-10-10 (meaning 1.0 mm uniform
> chromoly throughout).
>
> In that era, most reynolds 531 db throughout framesets were 8-5-8.
>
<snip >
>
> - Don Gillies
> San Diego, CA
Nope... most European production frames made of Reynolds 531 during the
1970s were 1.0-7-1.0 or .9-.6-.9 wall thickness. A frequent blend on the
better bikes was 1.0-.7-1.0 downtubes with .9-.6.-9 top and seat tubes.
One reason for this was that less care needed to be used when brazing the
thicker tubes. Less skilled workers could throw together frames faster.
Raleigh used whatever kind of Reynolds pipe they could get. "Just paint it
and box it up mate, it's goin ter the States".
A lot of Italian frames including many Cinellis were built with 1.0-.7-1.0
Columbus SP tubing, probably for some of the same reasons.
The original Reynolds 531SL tube sets came with .8-.5-.8 seat and top
tubes, .9-.6-.9 downtubes and light gage forks and stays.
I did post mortum autopsies on a lot of trashed frames and measured the
wall thickness of the tubes as well as checking the mitering and brazing.
Chas.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2007 23:36:54
From: Donald Gillies
Subject: Re: Schwinn Superior 1976 marketable?
|
"* * Chas" <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com > writes:
>"Donald Gillies" <gillies@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
>news:fahug9$pra$1@cascade.cs.ubc.ca...
>> A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
>>
>> >>>> Donald Gillies wrote:
><snip>
>>
>> The question at hand was : which is lighter, 1974-era schwinn
>> superior, or a gaspipe raleigh record ? My theory is that a raleigh
>> record is lighter; even with straight-gauge tubing, the record is
>> probably 8-8-8 (meaning 0.8 mm tubing throughout, and no double-butted
>> tapering), whereas the superior is 10-10-10 (meaning 1.0 mm uniform
>> chromoly throughout).
>>
>> In that era, most reynolds 531 db throughout framesets were 8-5-8.
>>
><snip>
>>
>> - Don Gillies
>> San Diego, CA
>Nope... most European production frames made of Reynolds 531 during the
>1970s were 1.0-7-1.0 or .9-.6-.9 wall thickness. A frequent blend on the
>better bikes was 1.0-.7-1.0 downtubes with .9-.6.-9 top and seat tubes.
I think this is a little bit pessimistic. And I'm sorry, I was
quoting top-tube / seat-tube gauge, not downtube gauge, which is
typically 0.1 mm thicker than the top-tube / seat tube.
http://www.desperadocycles.com/The_Lowdown_On_Tubing/Tubing_Properties_For_Non_True_Temper_Tubing.htm
1.0-0.7-1.0 is a really heavy frame.
8-5-8 is Reynolds 531 Competition, equivalent to nearly all the racing
frames made in the 1970's
8-5-8 / 10-7-10 is Reynolds 531 Super Tourist grade of tubing, a very
heavy gauge for loaded touring applications.
7-4-7 is Reynolds 753 and also Reynolds 531 Professional (you pays
your money and takes your jiggles ...)
Ok, I was guessing on the Grand Prix tubing thickness, mea culpa. I
have one in the garage but I don't want to saw it open to find out.
Still, I completely disbelieve its 1.6mm thick, as this is 2x thicker
than Reynolds 531 plain gauge whereas reynolds tubing is not much
stronger than 1020 steel (the tensile strength of 1020 carbon steel is
anywhere from 65 Ksi (annealed) to 90 Ksi (tempered) which is 50-90%
of reynolds 531 (100-130 Ksi), so 1.6mm seems really extreme ...)
I can believe that Schwinns were 1.6mm ; I can even believe they were
2mm thick ...
- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2007 04:49:35
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Schwinn Superior 1976 marketable?
|
"Donald Gillies" <gillies@cs.ubc.ca > wrote in message
news:falua6$eq3$1@cascade.cs.ubc.ca...
> "* * Chas" <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com> writes:
>
>
> >"Donald Gillies" <gillies@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
> >news:fahug9$pra$1@cascade.cs.ubc.ca...
> >> A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:
> >>
> >> >>>> Donald Gillies wrote:
> ><snip>
> >>
> >> The question at hand was : which is lighter, 1974-era schwinn
> >> superior, or a gaspipe raleigh record ? My theory is that a raleigh
> >> record is lighter; even with straight-gauge tubing, the record is
> >> probably 8-8-8 (meaning 0.8 mm tubing throughout, and no
double-butted
> >> tapering), whereas the superior is 10-10-10 (meaning 1.0 mm uniform
> >> chromoly throughout).
> >>
> >> In that era, most reynolds 531 db throughout framesets were 8-5-8.
> >>
> ><snip>
> >>
> >> - Don Gillies
> >> San Diego, CA
>
> >Nope... most European production frames made of Reynolds 531 during the
> >1970s were 1.0-7-1.0 or .9-.6-.9 wall thickness. A frequent blend on
the
> >better bikes was 1.0-.7-1.0 downtubes with .9-.6.-9 top and seat tubes.
>
> I think this is a little bit pessimistic. And I'm sorry, I was
> quoting top-tube / seat-tube gauge, not downtube gauge, which is
> typically 0.1 mm thicker than the top-tube / seat tube.
>
>
http://www.desperadocycles.com/The_Lowdown_On_Tubing/Tubing_Properties_For_Non_True_Temper_Tubing.htm
>
> 1.0-0.7-1.0 is a really heavy frame.
>
> 8-5-8 is Reynolds 531 Competition, equivalent to nearly all the racing
> frames made in the 1970's
>
> 8-5-8 / 10-7-10 is Reynolds 531 Super Tourist grade of tubing, a very
> heavy gauge for loaded touring applications.
>
> 7-4-7 is Reynolds 753 and also Reynolds 531 Professional (you pays
> your money and takes your jiggles ...)
>
> Ok, I was guessing on the Grand Prix tubing thickness, mea culpa. I
> have one in the garage but I don't want to saw it open to find out.
>
> Still, I completely disbelieve its 1.6mm thick, as this is 2x thicker
> than Reynolds 531 plain gauge whereas reynolds tubing is not much
> stronger than 1020 steel (the tensile strength of 1020 carbon steel is
> anywhere from 65 Ksi (annealed) to 90 Ksi (tempered) which is 50-90%
> of reynolds 531 (100-130 Ksi), so 1.6mm seems really extreme ...)
>
> I can believe that Schwinns were 1.6mm ; I can even believe they were
> 2mm thick ...
>
> - Don Gillies
> San Diego, CA
Bleeve - don't bleeve.....
The chart you linked is more up to date than what was available in the
1970s. Reynolds made all kinds of 531 pipe from .7-.5-.7 to 1.2-.9-.1.2mm
main tubes. Columbus had 4 kinds of pipe, Vitus made 3 flavors, Ishiwata,
4-5 thicknesses and Tange 5 or more. The Japanese developed thin wall
tubing for the small, light track bikes used in Kiren racing.
Professional team bikes were frequently built from heavier tubing than one
might expect. I guess the intention was strength and dependability on
rough road surfaces. Sprint track frames were usually made of heavier gage
tubing to stand up to the likes of gorillas like Reg Harris and Trevor
Bull.
I took my 55cm 1974 Raleigh Team frame to a well known local frame builder
to have the alignment checked out. He's built or worked on 1000s of frames
and I was surprised at his comment about how heavy the frame was. I didn't
bother to weigh it but when I finish assembling the bike I bet it will
weigh in around 22.5 to 23 Lbs. with sewups and correct components. My
56cm 1975 Raleigh Pro weighs over 24 Lbs. with correct components except
for MA40 rims and light weight Conti clinchers.
The average 58cm "Pro" bike of that era weighed in at 22 -23 Lbs. with
sewups. You could trim the component weight down a pound or two but you
still had a heavy frame. My 56cm 1975 Cinelli weighed 23 Lbs. with sewups
and NR gear.
Your average 54cm to 58cm 1970s gaspipe European bike with steel rims and
components weighed around 28 Lbs. Switching to alloy rims from that era
knocked off 2 Lbs. and alloy components another pound an a half. You still
had a 24.5 to 25 Lb. bike.
The thickness of the main tubes was 2.0mm or thicker on most of these
beasts. I had a large Rigid tubing cutter that I used for post mortems on
trashed frames. After deburring I measured the wall thickness at different
points with a tubing micrometer.
On real thick tubing like found on Schwinns and some cheap Japanese,
Italian and Taiwanese frames I had to break out the hacksaw because the
tubing was a little too thick for the Rigid to cut freely.
Some of the better Italian bikes were coming in with Columbus SL .9-.6-.9
tubing and some Reynolds frames were made with .9-.6-.9 tubes and .8-.5mm
seat and tops tubes. These bikes weighed 21-22 Lbs. with NR components,
maybe 1/2 Lb. less with SR stuff.
Another point, bike makers were building frames for consumers and they
didn't want a lot of problems with broken frames from rough riding or
heavy riders. The solution was heavier gage tubing.
Back in the day I weighed 175 Lbs. in racing form. I found "Italian" style
frames with 39" wheeelbases and 74° - 75° head and seat tube angles
downright uncomfortable. Thirty years and 50 Lbs. later I have no problems
riding those butt buster frames.
BTW, seatpost size isn't always an accurate measure of tubing wall
thickness because the seat tube are frequently reamed on better quality
frames.
Chas.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 21:17:08
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Schwinn Superior 1976 marketable?
|
> "Donald Gillies" <gillies@cs.ubc.ca> wrote
> <snip>
>> The question at hand was : which is lighter, 1974-era schwinn
>> superior, or a gaspipe raleigh record ? My theory is that a raleigh
>> record is lighter; even with straight-gauge tubing, the record is
>> probably 8-8-8 (meaning 0.8 mm tubing throughout, and no double-butted
>> tapering), whereas the superior is 10-10-10 (meaning 1.0 mm uniform
>> chromoly throughout).
>> In that era, most reynolds 531 db throughout framesets were 8-5-8.
* * Chas wrote:
> Nope... most European production frames made of Reynolds 531 during the
> 1970s were 1.0-7-1.0 or .9-.6-.9 wall thickness. A frequent blend on the
> better bikes was 1.0-.7-1.0 downtubes with .9-.6.-9 top and seat tubes.
>
> One reason for this was that less care needed to be used when brazing the
> thicker tubes. Less skilled workers could throw together frames faster.
>
> Raleigh used whatever kind of Reynolds pipe they could get. "Just paint it
> and box it up mate, it's goin ter the States".
>
> A lot of Italian frames including many Cinellis were built with 1.0-.7-1.0
> Columbus SP tubing, probably for some of the same reasons.
>
> The original Reynolds 531SL tube sets came with .8-.5-.8 seat and top
> tubes, .9-.6-.9 downtubes and light gage forks and stays.
>
> I did post mortum autopsies on a lot of trashed frames and measured the
> wall thickness of the tubes as well as checking the mitering and brazing.
'**Chas' has it right.
Classic 1020 carbon steel Nottingham Raleigh tubes were rounded numbers
in inches. Plain gauge all around 1/16 inch (about 1.6mm) tube which is
very forgiving of braze/machine/finish filing errors. 'Gaspipe' is
uncharitably pejorative.
If a Nottingham frame was brazed at all, it's probably still OK. (Yes,
there were painted-but-not-brazed joints. We've all seen a couple. Those
were not the norm)
Reynolds PG tubes(Super Course) are 19 gauge (BWG 19 = 1.01mm) Race
bikes were usually 19-22-19 BWG or 1.0-0.7-1.0, tourers were built thicker.
Columbus SP tubes are 1.0-0.7-1.0 and SL 0.9-0.6-0.9. SL tubes were
mostly used on sizes 55 and under before the late seventies, hence the
27.0 seat posts in larger frame sizes. Even after, conscientious
builders (can I say that about Italian export product??) used SP down
tubes with SL top tubes on medium sizes.
Tube labels merely said "Reynolds Frame Tube" or "Columbus Special
Steel" until the early seventies when labels added 'butted' or
'rinfozati'. Only after about 1978 did European tube labels reflect the
various gauges. (Ishiwata had been printing "017", "019", "022" etc for
years. Builders mixed tube sets depending on size and intended use
anyway despite labels. c.f. '3Rensho Super Tubes', 'Bianchi Super Set'
et al) The advent of 531SL (22-24ga), 753(22-28ga) and such drove more
attention to tube gauge and material.
Yes, I'm old and fuzzy in the head but I have the early seventies
Reynolds and Columbus tube catalogs handy and just checked the numbers.
I can't recall any plain gauge steel tube 0.8-0.8-0.8. Perhaps you're
thinking of Vitus' model "888" tube?
http://www.yellowjersey.org/vitus4.jpg
('post mortem', 4th declension ablative)
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 20:55:09
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Schwinn Superior 1976 marketable?
|
"A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote in message
news:13cprgl4hcqd497@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Donald Gillies" <gillies@cs.ubc.ca> wrote
> > <snip>
> >> The question at hand was : which is lighter, 1974-era schwinn
> >> superior, or a gaspipe raleigh record ? My theory is that a raleigh
> >> record is lighter; even with straight-gauge tubing, the record is
> >> probably 8-8-8 (meaning 0.8 mm tubing throughout, and no
double-butted
> >> tapering), whereas the superior is 10-10-10 (meaning 1.0 mm uniform
> >> chromoly throughout).
> >> In that era, most reynolds 531 db throughout framesets were 8-5-8.
>
> * * Chas wrote:
> > Nope... most European production frames made of Reynolds 531 during
the
> > 1970s were 1.0-7-1.0 or .9-.6-.9 wall thickness. A frequent blend on
the
> > better bikes was 1.0-.7-1.0 downtubes with .9-.6.-9 top and seat
tubes.
> >
> > One reason for this was that less care needed to be used when brazing
the
> > thicker tubes. Less skilled workers could throw together frames
faster.
> >
> > Raleigh used whatever kind of Reynolds pipe they could get. "Just
paint it
> > and box it up mate, it's goin ter the States".
> >
> > A lot of Italian frames including many Cinellis were built with
1.0-.7-1.0
> > Columbus SP tubing, probably for some of the same reasons.
> >
> > The original Reynolds 531SL tube sets came with .8-.5-.8 seat and top
> > tubes, .9-.6-.9 downtubes and light gage forks and stays.
> >
> > I did post mortum autopsies on a lot of trashed frames and measured
the
> > wall thickness of the tubes as well as checking the mitering and
brazing.
>
> '**Chas' has it right.
>
> Classic 1020 carbon steel Nottingham Raleigh tubes were rounded numbers
> in inches. Plain gauge all around 1/16 inch (about 1.6mm) tube which is
> very forgiving of braze/machine/finish filing errors. 'Gaspipe' is
> uncharitably pejorative.
>
> If a Nottingham frame was brazed at all, it's probably still OK. (Yes,
> there were painted-but-not-brazed joints. We've all seen a couple. Those
> were not the norm)
>
> Reynolds PG tubes(Super Course) are 19 gauge (BWG 19 = 1.01mm) Race
> bikes were usually 19-22-19 BWG or 1.0-0.7-1.0, tourers were built
thicker.
>
> Columbus SP tubes are 1.0-0.7-1.0 and SL 0.9-0.6-0.9. SL tubes were
> mostly used on sizes 55 and under before the late seventies, hence the
> 27.0 seat posts in larger frame sizes. Even after, conscientious
> builders (can I say that about Italian export product??) used SP down
> tubes with SL top tubes on medium sizes.
>
> Tube labels merely said "Reynolds Frame Tube" or "Columbus Special
> Steel" until the early seventies when labels added 'butted' or
> 'rinfozati'. Only after about 1978 did European tube labels reflect the
> various gauges. (Ishiwata had been printing "017", "019", "022" etc for
> years. Builders mixed tube sets depending on size and intended use
> anyway despite labels. c.f. '3Rensho Super Tubes', 'Bianchi Super Set'
> et al) The advent of 531SL (22-24ga), 753(22-28ga) and such drove more
> attention to tube gauge and material.
>
> Yes, I'm old and fuzzy in the head but I have the early seventies
> Reynolds and Columbus tube catalogs handy and just checked the numbers.
>
> I can't recall any plain gauge steel tube 0.8-0.8-0.8. Perhaps you're
> thinking of Vitus' model "888" tube?
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/vitus4.jpg
>
> ('post mortem', 4th declension ablative)
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> www.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Thanks... ;-)
888 was originally a .8mm straight gage set of 3 main tubes produced by
the French tubing maker Ateliers de la Rive using the same steel as in
their Durifort tubes.
The frame sticker was a yellow oval with Rubis 888 on it. Durifort and
Rubis 888 tubing was made from seamed low alloy steel but with a much
higher strength than the carbon steel pipe used in most low end bikes. The
3 main tubes were cold drawn and in the case of Durifort, butted.
A number of French makers such as Stella used 888 & Durifort tubing to
build nice light club racers.
The wall thickness of Durifort was exactly the same as Columbus SP tubing.
I built a few frames from Durifort to get the hang of it. You could use
brass and overheat it and not have to worry about damaging the low allow
steel.
One problem with a lot of mid level European bikes in the 1970s was that
they used brand name tubing like Reynolds, Columbus or Durifort on the 3
main tubes but the forks and stays where made of junk pipe.
This allowed the bike makers to put a fancy tubing sticker on the frame
for marketing purposes but it still rode and handled like crap because of
the poor quality tubing in the forks and stays.
Ateliers de la Rive made 3 quality levels of tubing during the 1970s, each
made from a different type of steel. Durifort/Rubis was made from a
modified low alloy carbon steel.
Vitus 172 used a low alloy silicon steel that got it's strength from heat
treatment. The Vitus 172 tubes had the same wall thickness as
Durifort/Columbus SP tubing -1.0-.7-1.0mm wall thickness. They were made
from seamed steel just like Durifort. The 3 main tubes were drawn and
butted. It was nearly as strong as 531 or Columbus tubing plus it stood up
to overheating during brazing because of the low alloy steel.
Super Vitus 971 was made from a seamless alloy steel developed for bicycle
tubing. It was drawn and the 3 main tubes were butted. The wall thickness
on the original SV 971 was the same as Columbus SL -.9-.6-.9. I've seen
specs that listed the strength as being higher than 531 or Columbus
tubing. YMMV
Later came Vitus 171 and 181. I've seen a lot of claims about what kind of
steel these tubes were made of. Motobecane made a lot of bikes with a
revised 888 sticker which was probably made from one of these kinds of
tubes.
Ateliers de la Rive played around with the alloys in Super Vitus a lot. I
have an early 80s Andre Bertin built with SV 971 and SV 980 main tubes. I
also have a 1984 Gitane made from SV 983 tubing.
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/France/Vitus_history.htm
(The author has Vitus 172 mixed up with Vitus 171 which came out later)
Chas.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2007 16:17:01
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Schwinn Superior 1976 marketable?
|
>>> "Donald Gillies" <gillies@cs.ubc.ca> wrote
>>> <snip>
>>>> The question at hand was : which is lighter, 1974-era schwinn
>>>> superior, or a gaspipe raleigh record ? My theory is that a raleigh
>>>> record is lighter; even with straight-gauge tubing, the record is
>>>> probably 8-8-8 (meaning 0.8 mm tubing throughout, and no
> double-butted
>>>> tapering), whereas the superior is 10-10-10 (meaning 1.0 mm uniform
>>>> chromoly throughout).
>>>> In that era, most reynolds 531 db throughout framesets were 8-5-8.
>> * * Chas wrote:
>>> Nope... most European production frames made of Reynolds 531 during
> the
>>> 1970s were 1.0-7-1.0 or .9-.6-.9 wall thickness. A frequent blend on
> the
>>> better bikes was 1.0-.7-1.0 downtubes with .9-.6.-9 top and seat
> tubes.
>>> One reason for this was that less care needed to be used when brazing
> the
>>> thicker tubes. Less skilled workers could throw together frames
> faster.
>>> Raleigh used whatever kind of Reynolds pipe they could get. "Just
> paint it
>>> and box it up mate, it's goin ter the States".
>>> A lot of Italian frames including many Cinellis were built with
> 1.0-.7-1.0
>>> Columbus SP tubing, probably for some of the same reasons.
>>> The original Reynolds 531SL tube sets came with .8-.5-.8 seat and top
>>> tubes, .9-.6-.9 downtubes and light gage forks and stays.
>>> I did post mortum autopsies on a lot of trashed frames and measured
> the
>>> wall thickness of the tubes as well as checking the mitering and
> brazing.
> "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote
>> '**Chas' has it right.
>> Classic 1020 carbon steel Nottingham Raleigh tubes were rounded numbers
>> in inches. Plain gauge all around 1/16 inch (about 1.6mm) tube which is
>> very forgiving of braze/machine/finish filing errors. 'Gaspipe' is
>> uncharitably pejorative.
>> If a Nottingham frame was brazed at all, it's probably still OK. (Yes,
>> there were painted-but-not-brazed joints. We've all seen a couple. Those
>> were not the norm)
>> Reynolds PG tubes(Super Course) are 19 gauge (BWG 19 = 1.01mm) Race
>> bikes were usually 19-22-19 BWG or 1.0-0.7-1.0, tourers were built
> thicker.
>> Columbus SP tubes are 1.0-0.7-1.0 and SL 0.9-0.6-0.9. SL tubes were
>> mostly used on sizes 55 and under before the late seventies, hence the
>> 27.0 seat posts in larger frame sizes. Even after, conscientious
>> builders (can I say that about Italian export product??) used SP down
>> tubes with SL top tubes on medium sizes.
>> Tube labels merely said "Reynolds Frame Tube" or "Columbus Special
>> Steel" until the early seventies when labels added 'butted' or
>> 'rinfozati'. Only after about 1978 did European tube labels reflect the
>> various gauges. (Ishiwata had been printing "017", "019", "022" etc for
>> years. Builders mixed tube sets depending on size and intended use
>> anyway despite labels. c.f. '3Rensho Super Tubes', 'Bianchi Super Set'
>> et al) The advent of 531SL (22-24ga), 753(22-28ga) and such drove more
>> attention to tube gauge and material.
>> Yes, I'm old and fuzzy in the head but I have the early seventies
>> Reynolds and Columbus tube catalogs handy and just checked the numbers.
>> I can't recall any plain gauge steel tube 0.8-0.8-0.8. Perhaps you're
>> thinking of Vitus' model "888" tube?
>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/vitus4.jpg
>> ('post mortem', 4th declension ablative)
* * Chas wrote:
> 888 was originally a .8mm straight gage set of 3 main tubes produced by
> the French tubing maker Ateliers de la Rive using the same steel as in
> their Durifort tubes.
>
> The frame sticker was a yellow oval with Rubis 888 on it. Durifort and
> Rubis 888 tubing was made from seamed low alloy steel but with a much
> higher strength than the carbon steel pipe used in most low end bikes. The
> 3 main tubes were cold drawn and in the case of Durifort, butted.
>
> A number of French makers such as Stella used 888 & Durifort tubing to
> build nice light club racers.
>
> The wall thickness of Durifort was exactly the same as Columbus SP tubing.
> I built a few frames from Durifort to get the hang of it. You could use
> brass and overheat it and not have to worry about damaging the low allow
> steel.
> One problem with a lot of mid level European bikes in the 1970s was that
> they used brand name tubing like Reynolds, Columbus or Durifort on the 3
> main tubes but the forks and stays where made of junk pipe.
> This allowed the bike makers to put a fancy tubing sticker on the frame
> for marketing purposes but it still rode and handled like crap because of
> the poor quality tubing in the forks and stays.
> Ateliers de la Rive made 3 quality levels of tubing during the 1970s, each
> made from a different type of steel. Durifort/Rubis was made from a
> modified low alloy carbon steel.
> Vitus 172 used a low alloy silicon steel that got it's strength from heat
> treatment. The Vitus 172 tubes had the same wall thickness as
> Durifort/Columbus SP tubing -1.0-.7-1.0mm wall thickness. They were made
> from seamed steel just like Durifort. The 3 main tubes were drawn and
> butted. It was nearly as strong as 531 or Columbus tubing plus it stood up
> to overheating during brazing because of the low alloy steel.
> Super Vitus 971 was made from a seamless alloy steel developed for bicycle
> tubing. It was drawn and the 3 main tubes were butted. The wall thickness
> on the original SV 971 was the same as Columbus SL -.9-.6-.9. I've seen
> specs that listed the strength as being higher than 531 or Columbus
> tubing. YMMV
> Later came Vitus 171 and 181. I've seen a lot of claims about what kind of
> steel these tubes were made of. Motobecane made a lot of bikes with a
> revised 888 sticker which was probably made from one of these kinds of
> tubes.
> Ateliers de la Rive played around with the alloys in Super Vitus a lot. I
> have an early 80s Andre Bertin built with SV 971 and SV 980 main tubes. I
> also have a 1984 Gitane made from SV 983 tubing.
>
> http://www.classicrendezvous.com/France/Vitus_history.htm
> (The author has Vitus 172 mixed up with Vitus 171 which came out later)
Vitus seems to think their 888 Durifort tubes are 1.0-0.8-1.0:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/vitus4.jpg
0.8 straight in that material? Wouldn't appeal to me anyway - who knows?
I've built with SV 971 which was generally underappreciated; good tube.
other Vitus minutiae here:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/vitus.html
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2007 22:38:17
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Schwinn Superior 1976 marketable?
|
"A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote in message
news:13cru97n0dm82ee@corp.supernews.com...
> >>> "Donald Gillies" <gillies@cs.ubc.ca> wrote
> >>> <snip>
> >>>> The question at hand was : which is lighter, 1974-era schwinn
> >>>> superior, or a gaspipe raleigh record ? My theory is that a
raleigh
> >>>> record is lighter; even with straight-gauge tubing, the record is
> >>>> probably 8-8-8 (meaning 0.8 mm tubing throughout, and no
> > double-butted
> >>>> tapering), whereas the superior is 10-10-10 (meaning 1.0 mm uniform
> >>>> chromoly throughout).
> >>>> In that era, most reynolds 531 db throughout framesets were 8-5-8.
>
> >> * * Chas wrote:
> >>> Nope... most European production frames made of Reynolds 531 during
> > the
> >>> 1970s were 1.0-7-1.0 or .9-.6-.9 wall thickness. A frequent blend on
> > the
> >>> better bikes was 1.0-.7-1.0 downtubes with .9-.6.-9 top and seat
> > tubes.
> >>> One reason for this was that less care needed to be used when
brazing
> > the
> >>> thicker tubes. Less skilled workers could throw together frames
> > faster.
> >>> Raleigh used whatever kind of Reynolds pipe they could get. "Just
> > paint it
> >>> and box it up mate, it's goin ter the States".
> >>> A lot of Italian frames including many Cinellis were built with
> > 1.0-.7-1.0
> >>> Columbus SP tubing, probably for some of the same reasons.
> >>> The original Reynolds 531SL tube sets came with .8-.5-.8 seat and
top
> >>> tubes, .9-.6-.9 downtubes and light gage forks and stays.
> >>> I did post mortum autopsies on a lot of trashed frames and measured
> > the
> >>> wall thickness of the tubes as well as checking the mitering and
> > brazing.
>
> > "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote
> >> '**Chas' has it right.
> >> Classic 1020 carbon steel Nottingham Raleigh tubes were rounded
numbers
> >> in inches. Plain gauge all around 1/16 inch (about 1.6mm) tube which
is
> >> very forgiving of braze/machine/finish filing errors. 'Gaspipe' is
> >> uncharitably pejorative.
> >> If a Nottingham frame was brazed at all, it's probably still OK.
(Yes,
> >> there were painted-but-not-brazed joints. We've all seen a couple.
Those
> >> were not the norm)
> >> Reynolds PG tubes(Super Course) are 19 gauge (BWG 19 = 1.01mm) Race
> >> bikes were usually 19-22-19 BWG or 1.0-0.7-1.0, tourers were built
> > thicker.
> >> Columbus SP tubes are 1.0-0.7-1.0 and SL 0.9-0.6-0.9. SL tubes were
> >> mostly used on sizes 55 and under before the late seventies, hence
the
> >> 27.0 seat posts in larger frame sizes. Even after, conscientious
> >> builders (can I say that about Italian export product??) used SP down
> >> tubes with SL top tubes on medium sizes.
> >> Tube labels merely said "Reynolds Frame Tube" or "Columbus Special
> >> Steel" until the early seventies when labels added 'butted' or
> >> 'rinfozati'. Only after about 1978 did European tube labels reflect
the
> >> various gauges. (Ishiwata had been printing "017", "019", "022" etc
for
> >> years. Builders mixed tube sets depending on size and intended use
> >> anyway despite labels. c.f. '3Rensho Super Tubes', 'Bianchi Super
Set'
> >> et al) The advent of 531SL (22-24ga), 753(22-28ga) and such drove
more
> >> attention to tube gauge and material.
> >> Yes, I'm old and fuzzy in the head but I have the early seventies
> >> Reynolds and Columbus tube catalogs handy and just checked the
numbers.
> >> I can't recall any plain gauge steel tube 0.8-0.8-0.8. Perhaps you're
> >> thinking of Vitus' model "888" tube?
> >> http://www.yellowjersey.org/vitus4.jpg
> >> ('post mortem', 4th declension ablative)
>
> * * Chas wrote:
> > 888 was originally a .8mm straight gage set of 3 main tubes produced
by
> > the French tubing maker Ateliers de la Rive using the same steel as in
> > their Durifort tubes.
> >
> > The frame sticker was a yellow oval with Rubis 888 on it. Durifort and
> > Rubis 888 tubing was made from seamed low alloy steel but with a much
> > higher strength than the carbon steel pipe used in most low end bikes.
The
> > 3 main tubes were cold drawn and in the case of Durifort, butted.
> >
> > A number of French makers such as Stella used 888 & Durifort tubing to
> > build nice light club racers.
> >
> > The wall thickness of Durifort was exactly the same as Columbus SP
tubing.
> > I built a few frames from Durifort to get the hang of it. You could
use
> > brass and overheat it and not have to worry about damaging the low
allow
> > steel.
> > One problem with a lot of mid level European bikes in the 1970s was
that
> > they used brand name tubing like Reynolds, Columbus or Durifort on
the 3
> > main tubes but the forks and stays where made of junk pipe.
> > This allowed the bike makers to put a fancy tubing sticker on the
frame
> > for marketing purposes but it still rode and handled like crap because
of
> > the poor quality tubing in the forks and stays.
> > Ateliers de la Rive made 3 quality levels of tubing during the 1970s,
each
> > made from a different type of steel. Durifort/Rubis was made from a
> > modified low alloy carbon steel.
> > Vitus 172 used a low alloy silicon steel that got it's strength from
heat
> > treatment. The Vitus 172 tubes had the same wall thickness as
> > Durifort/Columbus SP tubing -1.0-.7-1.0mm wall thickness. They were
made
> > from seamed steel just like Durifort. The 3 main tubes were drawn and
> > butted. It was nearly as strong as 531 or Columbus tubing plus it
stood up
> > to overheating during brazing because of the low alloy steel.
> > Super Vitus 971 was made from a seamless alloy steel developed for
bicycle
> > tubing. It was drawn and the 3 main tubes were butted. The wall
thickness
> > on the original SV 971 was the same as Columbus SL -.9-.6-.9. I've
seen
> > specs that listed the strength as being higher than 531 or Columbus
> > tubing. YMMV
> > Later came Vitus 171 and 181. I've seen a lot of claims about what
kind of
> > steel these tubes were made of. Motobecane made a lot of bikes with a
> > revised 888 sticker which was probably made from one of these kinds of
> > tubes.
> > Ateliers de la Rive played around with the alloys in Super Vitus a
lot. I
> > have an early 80s Andre Bertin built with SV 971 and SV 980 main
tubes. I
> > also have a 1984 Gitane made from SV 983 tubing.
> >
> > http://www.classicrendezvous.com/France/Vitus_history.htm
> > (The author has Vitus 172 mixed up with Vitus 171 which came out
later)
>
> Vitus seems to think their 888 Durifort tubes are 1.0-0.8-1.0:
>
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/vitus4.jpg
>
> 0.8 straight in that material? Wouldn't appeal to me anyway - who knows?
>
> I've built with SV 971 which was generally underappreciated; good tube.
> other Vitus minutiae here:
>
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/vitus.html
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> www.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
I have a copy of that Vitus flyer packed away somewhere with all my bike
books and literature.
I used to go by the 1974 edition of Fred DeLong's "Guide to Bicycles and
Bicycling" for info on early frame tubes. He seemed to be the source that
a number of writers used for tubing info. It all checked out at the time.
The Vitus folks must have used 5-10 different steel alloys over the past
30 years and every spec I've seen is different.
I liked Vitus 172 for a strong cheap frame. It was the poor man's Columbus
SP. I think I was paying ~$14 USD for a set of tubes. I could use brass
instead of silver without worry of overheating. I put together my 1st 700c
MTB with lugged Vitus 172 one Saturday afternoon in 1976. The brown primer
was still tacky when we went out riding the next morning.
Chas.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 23:14:13
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Schwinn Superior 1976 marketable?
|
* * Chas wrote:
> ...
> One problem with a lot of mid level European bikes in the 1970s was that
> they used brand name tubing like Reynolds, Columbus or Durifort on the 3
> main tubes but the forks and stays where made of junk pipe.
>
> This allowed the bike makers to put a fancy tubing sticker on the frame
> for marketing purposes but it still rode and handled like crap because of
> the poor quality tubing in the forks and stays....
Why would the lower quality steel affect ride and handling? The parts
made from the lower strength steel could be expected to be stiffer due
to greater wall thickness. However, this would only affect the stiffness
of the fork significantly, since the rear triangle of a diamond frame
has no vertical compliance to speak of, even with very thin wall tubing.
It would seem more likely that the bikes had poor handling due to
unrefined geometry and harsher ride due to heavier stems, handlebars and
saddles made out of lower strength materials.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2007 00:02:23
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Schwinn Superior 1976 marketable?
|
"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com > wrote in message
news:46ccfd86$0$16306$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> * * Chas wrote:
> > ...
> > One problem with a lot of mid level European bikes in the 1970s was
that
> > they used brand name tubing like Reynolds, Columbus or Durifort on
the 3
> > main tubes but the forks and stays where made of junk pipe.
> >
> > This allowed the bike makers to put a fancy tubing sticker on the
frame
> > for marketing purposes but it still rode and handled like crap because
of
> > the poor quality tubing in the forks and stays....
>
> Why would the lower quality steel affect ride and handling? The parts
> made from the lower strength steel could be expected to be stiffer due
> to greater wall thickness. However, this would only affect the stiffness
> of the fork significantly, since the rear triangle of a diamond frame
> has no vertical compliance to speak of, even with very thin wall tubing.
>
> It would seem more likely that the bikes had poor handling due to
> unrefined geometry and harsher ride due to heavier stems, handlebars and
> saddles made out of lower strength materials.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
>
The wall thickness of forks made of better quality alloy steels range form
.7mm to 1.2mm; seat stays .5mm to .9mm and chainstays from .6mm to 1.1mm.
Unalloyed carbon steel forks and stays were usually twice as thick giving
a dead ride. There's only a few areas in a bike frame where stiffness is
of any benefit and that lateral stiffness at the head tube bottom bracket
and rear triangle.
It's hard to appreciate the difference between a clunker and an alloy
steel frame if you've never ridden them in a comparison ride. We used to
keep 1 or 2 clunkers on our showroom floor equipped with sewups or alloy
rims for customers to get a comparison. Some people couldn't tell any
difference but then.....
Chas.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 19:44:19
From: G.T.
Subject: Re: Schwinn Superior 1976 marketable?
|
"A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote in message
news:13cprgl4hcqd497@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>
> I can't recall any plain gauge steel tube 0.8-0.8-0.8. Perhaps you're
> thinking of Vitus' model "888" tube?
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/vitus4.jpg
>
I have a Vitus 888 bike:
http://www.2fortheroad.net/bikes.html
What kind of steel is it? 1020 carbon steel? Or chromoly?
Greg
--
Ticketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that:
http://ticketmastersucks.org
Dethink to survive - Mclusky
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2007 12:31:04
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Schwinn Superior 1976 marketable?
|
> "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
> news:13cprgl4hcqd497@corp.supernews.com...
>> I can't recall any plain gauge steel tube 0.8-0.8-0.8. Perhaps you're
>> thinking of Vitus' model "888" tube?
>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/vitus4.jpg
G.T. wrote:
> I have a Vitus 888 bike:
> http://www.2fortheroad.net/bikes.html
> What kind of steel is it? 1020 carbon steel? Or chromoly?
Seamed/redrawn manganese molybdenum as I recall. By the way here's
everything you need to know about buying a custom bike:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/vitus6.jpg
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2007 10:38:49
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Schwinn Superior 1976 marketable?
|
In article <13crh2043ed8j8f@corp.supernews.com >,
A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> > "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
> > news:13cprgl4hcqd497@corp.supernews.com...
> >> I can't recall any plain gauge steel tube 0.8-0.8-0.8. Perhaps you're
> >> thinking of Vitus' model "888" tube?
> >> http://www.yellowjersey.org/vitus4.jpg
>
> G.T. wrote:
> > I have a Vitus 888 bike:
> > http://www.2fortheroad.net/bikes.html
> > What kind of steel is it? 1020 carbon steel? Or chromoly?
>
> Seamed/redrawn manganese molybdenum as I recall. By the way here's
> everything you need to know about buying a custom bike:
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/vitus6.jpg
I didn't know it was so easy. Thanks.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 23:47:25
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Schwinn Superior 1976 marketable?
|
"G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com > wrote in message
news:13cpt458mt2e56d@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
> news:13cprgl4hcqd497@corp.supernews.com...
> >>
> >
> > I can't recall any plain gauge steel tube 0.8-0.8-0.8. Perhaps you're
> > thinking of Vitus' model "888" tube?
> > http://www.yellowjersey.org/vitus4.jpg
> >
>
> I have a Vitus 888 bike:
> http://www.2fortheroad.net/bikes.html
>
> What kind of steel is it? 1020 carbon steel? Or chromoly?
>
> Greg
Probably neither but something in between. Maybe a low alloy silicon
steel.
The amount of alloying elements in most low alloy steels used in
fabrication is usually far less than 5% by weight. This includes 4130 and
tubing from Reynolds and Columbus.
For example 4130 contains 0.28% - 0.33% Carbon, 0.7% - 0.9% Manganese,
0.8% - 1.1% Chromium and 0.15% - 0.25% Molybdenum by weight.
Plain Carbon steels only contain small amounts of Carbon, Manganese and
sometimes Silicon as alloying elements.
The addition of small amounts of Chromium, Molybdenum, Nickel, Vanadium
and other metals to steel costs very little but can more than double the
strength and increase the fatigue resistance by over 10 times.
Chas.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 13:46:41
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Schwinn Superior 1976 marketable?
|
A Muzi wrote:
> Construction technique is alive and well.
> This fillet brazed steel frame was built August 2007:
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/JACKHOLN.JPG
OMG, Andrew posted a pic without a hot babe in it!
Bill "let it not be a trend, friend" S.
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 16:32:06
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Schwinn Superior 1976 marketable?
|
> A Muzi wrote:
>> Construction technique is alive and well.
>> This fillet brazed steel frame was built August 2007:
>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/JACKHOLN.JPG
Bill Sornson wrote:
> OMG, Andrew posted a pic without a hot babe in it!
> Bill "let it not be a trend, friend" S.
Yes, I have a propensity to ask any woman standing around, "Hey hold
this bike a second! [snap camera]". One of my better bad habits.
heck I just shoot snapshots:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/WFDJHZ.JPG
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/CANDYMUM.JPG
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/ITALGIRL.JPG
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/PEUGIRL.JPG
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/ORDNARI.JPG
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/FIXMIMI.JPG
if you have time to kill, our photo library is once more perusable:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 15:07:19
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Schwinn Superior 1976 marketable?
|
A Muzi wrote:
> if you have time to kill, our photo library is once more perusable:
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/
Oh-oh. Expect to be picketed by (The Most Reverend) Al Sharpton!
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/%231pmp_ho.jpg
Bill "what's in a /name/?" S.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 17:14:51
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Schwinn Superior 1976 marketable?
|
> A Muzi wrote:
>> if you have time to kill, our photo library is once more perusable:
>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Oh-oh. Expect to be picketed by (The Most Reverend) Al Sharpton!
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/%231pmp_ho.jpg
> Bill "what's in a /name/?" S.
I uploaded that for someone here on r.b.t. by request. Didn't even
notice the name in the halcyon pre-Imus days.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 15:30:53
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Schwinn Superior 1976 marketable?
|
A Muzi wrote:
>> A Muzi wrote:
>>> if you have time to kill, our photo library is once more perusable:
>>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/
>
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Oh-oh. Expect to be picketed by (The Most Reverend) Al Sharpton!
>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/%231pmp_ho.jpg
>> Bill "what's in a /name/?" S.
>
> I uploaded that for someone here on r.b.t. by request. Didn't even
> notice the name in the halcyon pre-Imus days.
We won't mention your "upskirt" file, either.
Bill "research purposes only" S.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 19:42:54
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Schwinn Superior 1976 marketable?
|
>>> A Muzi wrote:
>>>> if you have time to kill, our photo library is once more perusable:
>>>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>> Oh-oh. Expect to be picketed by (The Most Reverend) Al Sharpton!
>>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/%231pmp_ho.jpg
>>> Bill "what's in a /name/?" S.
> A Muzi wrote:
>> I uploaded that for someone here on r.b.t. by request. Didn't even
>> notice the name in the halcyon pre-Imus days.
Bill Sornson wrote:
> We won't mention your "upskirt" file, either.
> Bill "research purposes only" S.
We have many interests, what can I say?
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 22:52:19
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Schwinn Superior 1976 marketable?
|
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:42:54 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
>>>> A Muzi wrote:
>>>>> if you have time to kill, our photo library is once more perusable:
>>>>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/
>
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>> Oh-oh. Expect to be picketed by (The Most Reverend) Al Sharpton!
>>>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/%231pmp_ho.jpg
>>>> Bill "what's in a /name/?" S.
>
>> A Muzi wrote:
>>> I uploaded that for someone here on r.b.t. by request. Didn't even
>>> notice the name in the halcyon pre-Imus days.
>
>Bill Sornson wrote:
>> We won't mention your "upskirt" file, either.
>> Bill "research purposes only" S.
>
>We have many interests, what can I say?
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/WFD&ZEF1.JPG
Ouch.
Ron
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 23:51:23
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Schwinn Superior 1976 marketable?
|
-crop photos-
RonSonic wrote:
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/WFD&ZEF1.JPG
> Ouch.
Stored in a damp shed for over a year. Needed a new top tube & paint
(It's not his only Waterford)
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 14:59:19
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Schwinn Superior 1976 marketable?
|
A Muzi wrote:
>> A Muzi wrote:
>>> Construction technique is alive and well.
>>> This fillet brazed steel frame was built August 2007:
>>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/JACKHOLN.JPG
>
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> OMG, Andrew posted a pic without a hot babe in it!
>> Bill "let it not be a trend, friend" S.
> Yes, I have a propensity to ask any woman standing around, "Hey hold
> this bike a second! [snap camera]". One of my better bad habits.
Don't ever change! (However, I preferred thinking that they rode and/or
owned the bikes pictured; made 'em -- the women, that is -- that much more
attractive.)
> heck I just shoot snapshots:
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/WFDJHZ.JPG
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/CANDYMUM.JPG
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/ITALGIRL.JPG
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/PEUGIRL.JPG
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/ORDNARI.JPG
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/FIXMIMI.JPG
All very cool.
> if you have time to kill, our photo library is once more perusable:
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/
Consider it clicked.
|
| |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 10:23:12
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Schwinn Superior 1976 marketable?
|
<marcus9000@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:46c9b5e8$0$23559$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> Donald Gillies wrote:
> > tom.doud@gmail.com writes:
> >
> >> I just dusted off my old 1976 Schwinn Superior. It looked so good, I
> >> cleaned it off and had my LBS give it a once over. It has all the
> >> original parts, even the tubes/tires. This is the fillet brazed
> >> model, hand-made in Chicago, according to a site I saw. The frame is
a
> >> work of art, narrow metal frame with smooth joints.
> >
> >> I'm just wondering what kind of value this bike has. I mostly
> >> mountain bike, but I thought of using this for some cross training.
> >> So, it there a market out there? If not, I'll just enjoy a few miles
> >> on the road with a nice old road bike.
> >
> >
> > Parts worth $150 - $200
> > Frame worth $0.
> > Any carbon-steel frame from europe ("Raleigh Record") is lighter than
yours.
> >
> > - Don Gillies
> > San Diego, CA
>
> I think you are mixing this up with Schwinn flash welded, seamed tubing
> frames, Continental, Varsity et al.
>
> While Schwinn fillet brazed lightweights were not particularly light in
> comparison to some bike frames, they are IMO not tanks, ride nicely,
> handle well and are far better quality than the example Raleigh Record.
>
> The Superior was hand built from seamless straight gauge chrome-moly
> tube (4130) and fillet brazed not welded.
> I think it represents one of the high points in production American
> frames and a construction technique we will probably never see again.
>
> For more info see: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/schwinn-braze.html
>
>
> Marcus
>
Yes but..... They still used heavier wall thickness tubing than comparable
mid range European bikes of that era.
How much did Schwinn Superiors weigh? European bikes with 3 main tubes
made of straight gage or butted alloy steel tubes and equipped with alloy
components weighed in at 24-26 Lbs. with clinchers - ~ 2Lbs. less with
sewups.
I'm not sure what the marketoid term "flash welding" means. Were Pipa de
Schwinn bikes arc, TIG or MIG welded? To me flash welding would seem to
mean spot welded which is a process usually used for welding sheet metal.
I remember seeing several Varsity style Schwinns with fillet brazing that
failed at the head tube. They were fillet brazed not welded. Customers
brought them into our shop with the fork, bars and head tube in one hand
and the rest of the bike in the other. The brazing material remained on
the top and down tubes but there was a very poor bond to the head tube.
The seamed pipe that the lower priced Schwinns were made of had a wall
thickness of 2.5mm to 3mm. These bikes weighed in at 38-40 Lbs. Similar
quality lugged European bikes weighed in around 28-32 Lbs.
Most of the Japanese bikes from the early 1970s were made from the same
kind of pipe as the low end Schwinns and weighed up to 36 Lbs. with steel
components. The importers started having some of these bikes made from
heavy wall 4130 alloy steel tubing - total marketing BS. They were still
heavy clunkers that rode and handled like a wheel barrow.
One reason for using thick wall tubing is to overcome the low strength and
fatigue resistance of cheap carbon steel. Alloy steels like Reynolds,
Columbus and the different brands made from 4130 steel are 2 to 3 times
stronger and have much higher fatigue resistance that plain carbon steel
pipe.
The cost difference between 1018 carbon steel and 4130 alloy steel tubing
in 1976 was less than $5.00 USD for a set of frame tubes. This was the
cost to a manufacture not the price custom builders paid for tube sets
from Reynolds, Columbus etc.
Chas.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 15:23:23
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Schwinn Superior 1976 marketable?
|
>>> tom.doud@gmail.com writes:
>>>> I just dusted off my old 1976 Schwinn Superior. It looked so good, I
>>>> cleaned it off and had my LBS give it a once over. It has all the
>>>> original parts, even the tubes/tires. This is the fillet brazed
>>>> model, hand-made in Chicago, according to a site I saw. The frame is
> a
>>>> work of art, narrow metal frame with smooth joints.
>>>> I'm just wondering what kind of value this bike has. I mostly
>>>> mountain bike, but I thought of using this for some cross training.
>>>> So, it there a market out there? If not, I'll just enjoy a few miles
>>>> on the road with a nice old road bike.
>> Donald Gillies wrote:
>>> Parts worth $150 - $200
>>> Frame worth $0.
>>> Any carbon-steel frame from europe ("Raleigh Record") is lighter than
> yours.
> <marcus9000@gmail.com> wrote
>> I think you are mixing this up with Schwinn flash welded, seamed tubing
>> frames, Continental, Varsity et al.
>> While Schwinn fillet brazed lightweights were not particularly light in
>> comparison to some bike frames, they are IMO not tanks, ride nicely,
>> handle well and are far better quality than the example Raleigh Record.
>> The Superior was hand built from seamless straight gauge chrome-moly
>> tube (4130) and fillet brazed not welded.
>> I think it represents one of the high points in production American
>> frames and a construction technique we will probably never see again.
>> For more info see: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/schwinn-braze.html
* * Chas wrote:
> Yes but..... They still used heavier wall thickness tubing than comparable
> mid range European bikes of that era.
>
> How much did Schwinn Superiors weigh? European bikes with 3 main tubes
> made of straight gage or butted alloy steel tubes and equipped with alloy
> components weighed in at 24-26 Lbs. with clinchers - ~ 2Lbs. less with
> sewups.
>
> I'm not sure what the marketoid term "flash welding" means. Were Pipa de
> Schwinn bikes arc, TIG or MIG welded? To me flash welding would seem to
> mean spot welded which is a process usually used for welding sheet metal.
>
> I remember seeing several Varsity style Schwinns with fillet brazing that
> failed at the head tube. They were fillet brazed not welded. Customers
> brought them into our shop with the fork, bars and head tube in one hand
> and the rest of the bike in the other. The brazing material remained on
> the top and down tubes but there was a very poor bond to the head tube.
>
> The seamed pipe that the lower priced Schwinns were made of had a wall
> thickness of 2.5mm to 3mm. These bikes weighed in at 38-40 Lbs. Similar
> quality lugged European bikes weighed in around 28-32 Lbs.
>
> Most of the Japanese bikes from the early 1970s were made from the same
> kind of pipe as the low end Schwinns and weighed up to 36 Lbs. with steel
> components. The importers started having some of these bikes made from
> heavy wall 4130 alloy steel tubing - total marketing BS. They were still
> heavy clunkers that rode and handled like a wheel barrow.
>
> One reason for using thick wall tubing is to overcome the low strength and
> fatigue resistance of cheap carbon steel. Alloy steels like Reynolds,
> Columbus and the different brands made from 4130 steel are 2 to 3 times
> stronger and have much higher fatigue resistance that plain carbon steel
> pipe.
>
> The cost difference between 1018 carbon steel and 4130 alloy steel tubing
> in 1976 was less than $5.00 USD for a set of frame tubes. This was the
> cost to a manufacture not the price custom builders paid for tube sets
> from Reynolds, Columbus etc.
The classic Chicago Varsity is seamed with an interlocking 'rabbet'
notched joint well behind the head tube and that is a flash welded
joint. No brass. You may very well have seen a Murray or a Rollfast
break like that but not a Varsity. The head tube starts 60mm back into
the top tube and ends 60mm into the downtube, all one piece of thick USA
steel.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 01:02:13
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Schwinn Superior 1976 marketable?
|
"A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote in message
news:13cju174oku5td0@corp.supernews.com...
<snip >
> * * Chas wrote:
> > Yes but..... They still used heavier wall thickness tubing than
comparable
> > mid range European bikes of that era.
> >
> > How much did Schwinn Superiors weigh? European bikes with 3 main tubes
> > made of straight gage or butted alloy steel tubes and equipped with
alloy
> > components weighed in at 24-26 Lbs. with clinchers - ~ 2Lbs. less with
> > sewups.
> >
> > I'm not sure what the marketoid term "flash welding" means. Were Pipa
de
> > Schwinn bikes arc, TIG or MIG welded? To me flash welding would seem
to
> > mean spot welded which is a process usually used for welding sheet
metal.
> >
> > I remember seeing several Varsity style Schwinns with fillet brazing
that
> > failed at the head tube. They were fillet brazed not welded. Customers
> > brought them into our shop with the fork, bars and head tube in one
hand
> > and the rest of the bike in the other. The brazing material remained
on
> > the top and down tubes but there was a very poor bond to the head
tube.
> >
> > The seamed pipe that the lower priced Schwinns were made of had a wall
> > thickness of 2.5mm to 3mm. These bikes weighed in at 38-40 Lbs.
Similar
> > quality lugged European bikes weighed in around 28-32 Lbs.
> >
<snip >
>
> The classic Chicago Varsity is seamed with an interlocking 'rabbet'
> notched joint well behind the head tube and that is a flash welded
> joint. No brass. You may very well have seen a Murray or a Rollfast
> break like that but not a Varsity. The head tube starts 60mm back into
> the top tube and ends 60mm into the downtube, all one piece of thick USA
> steel.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
Au contraire...
I was talking about this with a local frame builder this afternoon about
fillet brazed Schwinns. He does restorations and repairs on bikes from
around the country. He agrees with me.
There was a point when the Varsity style frames were assembled with fillet
brazing - at least the head, down and top tube joints.
"Before the E/F frames, Schwinn was fillet-brazing and welding joints by
hand, then grinding and polishing them until the frame seemed carved from
a block of steel. The E/F frame sought to mimic a handbuilt, fillet-brazed
frame while dramatically reducing manufacturing costs. To achieve this
look Schwinn engineers actually moved the "joints" from their typical
locations at the ends of the mitered tubes to a circumferential butt joint
around the tube about 1 1/2" from the typical joint locations: the "head
tube" actually extends out to the joint on the top tube and down tube."
"The chainstay and seat stay to dropout joint posed a unique challenge to
Schwinn engineers. A typical chainstay-seatstay-dropout joint requires
slotting the tube ends and inserting the ends of a dropout into the tube
and brazing them together."
This web page shows how the later welded Schwinn frames were built:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/varsity.html
At one point in the mid 1970s All-State Welding Alloys claimed that
Schwinn used their # 13 Nickel brazing alloy. It's much tougher and
stronger than brass.
http://products.esabna.com/EN/home/filler_metals_catalog/filler_metals_product_detail/q/display_id.id4367f2a968efd9.38518686/category_id.935
I agree about the CPSC approved kid killer department store bikes failing
at the head tube from poor arc welding. I saw a lot of them that came
apart but I also saw a number of early 70s "dip brazed" Raleigh Records
that failed at the head tube joints.
The one Schwinn bike that I distinctly remember with head tube braze
failure was painted Schwinn metallic blue. I was really surprised to see
how it cleanly it came apart. There was almost no brazing material
sticking to the head tube. I sent the customer off to a local Schwinn
dealer.
Chas.
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 19:31:36
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Schwinn Superior 1976 marketable?
|
* * Chas wrote:
> <snip>
>> * * Chas wrote:
>>> Yes but..... They still used heavier wall thickness tubing than
> comparable
>>> mid range European bikes of that era.
>>> How much did Schwinn Superiors weigh? European bikes with 3 main tubes
>>> made of straight gage or butted alloy steel tubes and equipped with
> alloy
>>> components weighed in at 24-26 Lbs. with clinchers - ~ 2Lbs. less with
>>> sewups.
>>> I'm not sure what the marketoid term "flash welding" means. Were Pipa
> de
>>> Schwinn bikes arc, TIG or MIG welded? To me flash welding would seem
> to
>>> mean spot welded which is a process usually used for welding sheet
> metal.
>>> I remember seeing several Varsity style Schwinns with fillet brazing
> that
>>> failed at the head tube. They were fillet brazed not welded. Customers
>>> brought them into our shop with the fork, bars and head tube in one
> hand
>>> and the rest of the bike in the other. The brazing material remained
> on
>>> the top and down tubes but there was a very poor bond to the head
> tube.
>>> The seamed pipe that the lower priced Schwinns were made of had a wall
>>> thickness of 2.5mm to 3mm. These bikes weighed in at 38-40 Lbs.
> Similar
>>> quality lugged European bikes weighed in around 28-32 Lbs.
> "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote
> <snip>
>> The classic Chicago Varsity is seamed with an interlocking 'rabbet'
>> notched joint well behind the head tube and that is a flash welded
>> joint. No brass. You may very well have seen a Murray or a Rollfast
>> break like that but not a Varsity. The head tube starts 60mm back into
>> the top tube and ends 60mm into the downtube, all one piece of thick USA
>> steel.
> Au contraire...
> I was talking about this with a local frame builder this afternoon about
> fillet brazed Schwinns. He does restorations and repairs on bikes from
> around the country. He agrees with me.
> There was a point when the Varsity style frames were assembled with fillet
> brazing - at least the head, down and top tube joints.
> "Before the E/F frames, Schwinn was fillet-brazing and welding joints by
> hand, then grinding and polishing them until the frame seemed carved from
> a block of steel. The E/F frame sought to mimic a handbuilt, fillet-brazed
> frame while dramatically reducing manufacturing costs. To achieve this
> look Schwinn engineers actually moved the "joints" from their typical
> locations at the ends of the mitered tubes to a circumferential butt joint
> around the tube about 1 1/2" from the typical joint locations: the "head
> tube" actually extends out to the joint on the top tube and down tube."
> "The chainstay and seat stay to dropout joint posed a unique challenge to
> Schwinn engineers. A typical chainstay-seatstay-dropout joint requires
> slotting the tube ends and inserting the ends of a dropout into the tube
> and brazing them together."
> This web page shows how the later welded Schwinn frames were built:
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/varsity.html
> At one point in the mid 1970s All-State Welding Alloys claimed that
> Schwinn used their # 13 Nickel brazing alloy. It's much tougher and
> stronger than brass.
> http://products.esabna.com/EN/home/filler_metals_catalog/filler_metals_product_detail/q/display_id.id4367f2a968efd9.38518686/category_id.935
> I agree about the CPSC approved kid killer department store bikes failing
> at the head tube from poor arc welding. I saw a lot of them that came
> apart but I also saw a number of early 70s "dip brazed" Raleigh Records
> that failed at the head tube joints.
> The one Schwinn bike that I distinctly remember with head tube braze
> failure was painted Schwinn metallic blue. I was really surprised to see
> how it cleanly it came apart. There was almost no brazing material
> sticking to the head tube. I sent the customer off to a local Schwinn
> dealer.
We're off on slightly different tangents, sorry. We do not disagree.
Yes, you're right in that many Schwinn products were fillet brazed, such
as Superiors, Sports Tourer, Super Sport, Paramount Tandem, etc besides
some parts of the classic Varsity.
I can't say much about early models such as the Varsity-8, but by the
middle sixties, when Varsity was a popular high-volume bicycle (I wrote
'classic Varsity') its front end was all steel. A quick peek at the
inside faces of the back end of a Varsity's chainstays and seatstays
shows the technique well.
I don't have a paint-free Varsity handy to show the front end but here's
the welded lower seatstay joint, not where you expect it:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/VARSWELD.JPG
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 16:17:43
From:
Subject: Re: Schwinn Superior 1976 marketable?
|
<Content snipped >
* * Chas wrote:
>
> Yes but..... They still used heavier wall thickness tubing than comparable
> mid range European bikes of that era.
>
> How much did Schwinn Superiors weigh? European bikes with 3 main tubes
> made of straight gage or butted alloy steel tubes and equipped with alloy
> components weighed in at 24-26 Lbs. with clinchers - ~ 2Lbs. less with
> sewups.
>
I would guess around the 30lb mark, they were sport tourers not racers,
the term lightweight was relative.
> I'm not sure what the marketoid term "flash welding" means. Were Pipa de
> Schwinn bikes arc, TIG or MIG welded? To me flash welding would seem to
> mean spot welded which is a process usually used for welding sheet metal.
>
Actually I think the marketoid term was electro-forging or some such.
Much like spot welding on a bigger scale.
See: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/varsity.html
> I remember seeing several Varsity style Schwinns with fillet brazing that
> failed at the head tube. They were fillet brazed not welded. Customers
> brought them into our shop with the fork, bars and head tube in one hand
> and the rest of the bike in the other. The brazing material remained on
> the top and down tubes but there was a very poor bond to the head tube.
>
It looked like fillet brazing but was welding (see above reference).
The joining method does seem scary to me, but it must have worked well
enough.
> The seamed pipe that the lower priced Schwinns were made of had a wall
> thickness of 2.5mm to 3mm.
I thought 1/16" wall was the traditional thickness for the beasts.
These bikes weighed in at 38-40 Lbs. Similar
> quality lugged European bikes weighed in around 28-32 Lbs.
>
> Most of the Japanese bikes from the early 1970s were made from the same
> kind of pipe as the low end Schwinns and weighed up to 36 Lbs. with steel
> components. The importers started having some of these bikes made from
> heavy wall 4130 alloy steel tubing - total marketing BS. They were still
> heavy clunkers that rode and handled like a wheel barrow.
>
> One reason for using thick wall tubing is to overcome the low strength and
> fatigue resistance of cheap carbon steel. Alloy steels like Reynolds,
> Columbus and the different brands made from 4130 steel are 2 to 3 times
> stronger and have much higher fatigue resistance that plain carbon steel
> pipe.
>
> The cost difference between 1018 carbon steel and 4130 alloy steel tubing
> in 1976 was less than $5.00 USD for a set of frame tubes. This was the
> cost to a manufacture not the price custom builders paid for tube sets
> from Reynolds, Columbus etc.
I'm sure at the time that $5 was a heap of money to somebody selling
tens of thousands of bikes. It would also help differentiate differing
levels of product.
>
> Chas.
>
A slightly different market, but I remember the early low cost Japanese
"10 speed" offerings here in Canada being in the 32 to 34lb range. IIRC
and it's been a while since I cut one apart, the tubing was usually
1 mm wall, seamed, plain gauge high carbon steel.
At the time my Raleigh Grand Prix seemed quite light compared to most of
the offerings of the very early '70's. At 29lbs or so it seems pretty
heavy now.
It didn't take long for the Japanese to clue into the situation and blow
everyone one away at the weight/price/quality game.
In Canada the original CCM was comparable to Schwinn in the US, equally
slow to adapt and faced a similar eventual demise.
Marcus
One of my all time favorite bicycle decals found on a department store
bike proudly proclaimed "Cro-Mo Tubing" and then in tiny letters at the
bottom "Seat Post".
|
|
