Best steel road bike tubing?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

froze

Über Member
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

Veteran
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

Über Member
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.
 

bsteelman

Regular
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.

Froze: the 1769 Valite tubing specs means, that on the lugged ends, the top and down tubes where 1.0mm at the headtube followed by a .07 butt. On the opposite end they were 0.9mm thick followed by a 0.6mm butt. Hence 1769. By design the 1.0mm butting makes the tubes a bit stiffer at the headtube which stiffens the bottom bracket providing an overall stiffer frame which most people who comment notice. I dont think the Valite would be a lighter frame though given its slightly thicker ends.

One the other hand Fuji 9658 is a rebranded quad butted CroMo seamed set ( as opposed to seamless) which is actually Ishiwata EXO-M which has a tubing thickness of 0.9, 0.6, 0.5, 0.8. It would most likely weigh less then the Valite all things being equal. I believe Fuji used it because it was seamed thus cheaper in price and easier to make so they cut cost and lowered prices making them more competitive.

Hope that helps.
 

froze

Über Member
Froze: the 1769 Valite tubing specs means, that on the lugged ends, the top and down tubes where 1.0mm at the headtube followed by a .07 butt. On the opposite end they were 0.9mm thick followed by a 0.6mm butt. Hence 1769. By design the 1.0mm butting makes the tubes a bit stiffer at the headtube which stiffens the bottom bracket providing an overall stiffer frame which most people who comment notice. I dont think the Valite would be a lighter frame though given its slightly thicker ends.

One the other hand Fuji 9658 is a rebranded quad butted CroMo seamed set ( as opposed to seamless) which is actually Ishiwata EXO-M which has a tubing thickness of 0.9, 0.6, 0.5, 0.8. It would most likely weigh less then the Valite all things being equal. I believe Fuji used it because it was seamed thus cheaper in price and easier to make so they cut cost and lowered prices making them more competitive.

Hope that helps.

Great information, thanks for sharing that with me and anyone else who might want to know.

My Fuji weighs according to the scale 20.8 pounds, according to the Fuji Cat it was supposed to weigh 23 pounds. I weighed that bike when it was completely stock, since then I put on all Suntour Superbe Tech components because the Suntour ARX I couldn't get it shift the way I wanted it to, the Superbe stuff shifts much better, I also took the Torelli Master Series rims with DT dble butted competition spokes on the rear and Revolution spokes on the front, with Superbe hubs, off the Trek 660 and put those on it. I'm not sure what the Fuji weighs now.

When I weighed the Trek with Torelli wheels it was 21.1 pounds. The factory specs for that bike would not apply because I got the bike as a frame and fork and had all Superbe stuff put on. The fork on this bike is a bit different than the other 660 bikes I've seen, mine came with a 531cs fork according to the sticker that was once on the fork, but it has since faded away and peeled off along with most of the other decals on the frame, the other 660's I saw back then did not have a Reynolds sticker on the fork, yet the factory specs said they came with a 531cs fork, probably a moot point. Anyway, that bike when scaled came in at 21.1 pounds, a full pound less than the factory-equipped bike in specs. I had Mavic tubular rims on that bike back when it was assembled so that maybe part of it, and the Superbe components could be part of it as well. The other strange thing with my bike, according to the factory specs it came with 700x25c tires, I cannot for the life of me get 25c tires on in the rear, that tire is too wide and won't flatten down flat enough against the seat stay to put it on, so I was stuck with 23c or smaller tires the whole time, and even those had to be smashed tight against the frame to put on and take off; when I ran tubs on it I was running 19's.

The bike frame size I use is the 56 size, so maybe the weights of those bikes were based on the largest frame size? I had a bike shop weigh the bikes some time ago, the shop tech didn't seem surprised by the weight of the Fuji. I don't know, all I can tell you is what the scale said, I could weigh them again but I would have to do it with a home scale, not sure how accurate that would be.
Some waste of time reading for you all!
 

Falsesummat

Active Member
My oldest bike has Reynolds501 tubing , my touring bike Reynolds 725 and finally my newst bike Reynolds 853. The only difference with regard to my riding experience is my level of fitness at any given time, i cannot feel any difference in riding characteristics. Some cycling journalists may comment that the extra 200 grammes of a lesser steel tubing makes itself known on a hill. Dont believe it. Just get fit, get the miles in and even a 12 kilo bike will still shift
 

froze

Über Member
I'm not doubting what your saying, but I had a bike that had 501 and it was on the noodier side vs 531 I got some years later, not as bad though as Vitus steel tubing was, more on that later, but that feeling I felt could be due to different geometry, I wasn't much into cycling back when I had the 501 thus never considered the geometry. The reports do show that 501 was about 10% weaker than 531, and 501 was heavier but not by a lot, only 4 kg diff from 501 to 531 pro! Could a person feel that 10% weakness difference in identically made bikes? I don't know.

I know that 520 and 525 will ride just like 531 if all frame measurements are identical.

But even Reynolds says that 853 is the stiffest steel tubeset they make, and recommend using 720 or 631 for the forks on a bike with 853. If Reynolds says that then I'm sure someone can feel the difference fast between 501 and 853.

I did test ride a Peugeot that had Super Vitus 980, It had the worst frame for flexing of all the bikes I've ever tested. How did it flex? When hammering it, the chainring would strike on both sides of the front derailleur cage from the bottom bracket flex, the rear stays would flex so that the rear brake would rub on each side of the rim, and the bike felt dead and noodly. Some people have said that the 980 was better than the 531, not from my experience.
 

bsteelman

Regular
Great information, thanks for sharing that with me and anyone else who might want to know.

My Fuji weighs according to the scale 20.8 pounds, according to the Fuji Cat it was supposed to weigh 23 pounds. I weighed that bike when it was completely stock, since then I put on all Suntour Superbe Tech components because the Suntour ARX I couldn't get it shift the way I wanted it to, the Superbe stuff shifts much better, I also took the Torelli Master Series rims with DT dble butted competition spokes on the rear and Revolution spokes on the front, with Superbe hubs, off the Trek 660 and put those on it. I'm not sure what the Fuji weighs now.

When I weighed the Trek with Torelli wheels it was 21.1 pounds. The factory specs for that bike would not apply because I got the bike as a frame and fork and had all Superbe stuff put on. The fork on this bike is a bit different than the other 660 bikes I've seen, mine came with a 531cs fork according to the sticker that was once on the fork, but it has since faded away and peeled off along with most of the other decals on the frame, the other 660's I saw back then did not have a Reynolds sticker on the fork, yet the factory specs said they came with a 531cs fork, probably a moot point. Anyway, that bike when scaled came in at 21.1 pounds, a full pound less than the factory-equipped bike in specs. I had Mavic tubular rims on that bike back when it was assembled so that maybe part of it, and the Superbe components could be part of it as well. The other strange thing with my bike, according to the factory specs it came with 700x25c tires, I cannot for the life of me get 25c tires on in the rear, that tire is too wide and won't flatten down flat enough against the seat stay to put it on, so I was stuck with 23c or smaller tires the whole time, and even those had to be smashed tight against the frame to put on and take off; when I ran tubs on it I was running 19's.

The bike frame size I use is the 56 size, so maybe the weights of those bikes were based on the largest frame size? I had a bike shop weigh the bikes some time ago, the shop tech didn't seem surprised by the weight of the Fuji. I don't know, all I can tell you is what the sforkcale said, I could weigh them again but I would have to do it with a home scale, not sure how accurate that would be.
Some waste of time reading for you all!

Froze, just revisited this sight refreshing my memory on Fuji tubing. Next week I'm going to pick up my a Fuji Del Rey, my first Valite bike. Anyways, the only way to really tell weights is to strip the bike down to the frame and weight it without fork. Then weigh the fork for total frame/ fork weight. That way you know what the base frame weight is since all the other components just muddy the waters on weight. If you have a Fuji 9658 next time you strip it to service it weigh the frame and let us know. Then do the same with the Valite frame and compare. I would guess the 9658 frame is lighter by a bit, not much. I would consider a frame between 1800-2000g very light. Anything sub 1800 is extremely light, think very thin heat treated. My guess is the Fuji Valite frame will be heavier somewhere around 2100-2300g depending on size. Most good quality mid tier bikes run in this weight category.
 

froze

Über Member
Froze, just revisited this sight refreshing my memory on Fuji tubing. Next week I'm going to pick up my a Fuji Del Rey, my first Valite bike. Anyways, the only way to really tell weights is to strip the bike down to the frame and weight it without fork. Then weigh the fork for total frame/ fork weight. That way you know what the base frame weight is since all the other components just muddy the waters on weight. If you have a Fuji 9658 next time you strip it to service it weigh the frame and let us know. Then do the same with the Valite frame and compare. I would guess the 9658 frame is lighter by a bit, not much. I would consider a frame between 1800-2000g very light. Anything sub 1800 is extremely light, think very thin heat treated. My guess is the Fuji Valite frame will be heavier somewhere around 2100-2300g depending on size. Most good quality mid tier bikes run in this weight category.

I only have one Fuji bike, not two, I have a 1984 Club size 55. I went by weighing the bike with all the components, the bike was weighed by a bike shop instead of a bathroom scale. I could make the bike lighter because I have an aluminum fork for it, but I never put it on, maybe I'll do that this summer for fun since all this weight stuff got me thinking about it again.

The Del Rey, according to the Fuji Catalog weighs 24.1 pounds, usually they use the middle frame size to get those weights.

The Del Rey is similar in specs to the Club, so not sure why there is an extra pound in weight, the rims on the Del Rey are 27" vs 700c, but that's not enough material to make it weigh a pound more, but the rim, spokes, and hubs were identical, the tires are different too. The only other difference was the brakes, but again I can't see where the combination of those items would make it weigh a pound more. The only thing I can think of is that the tubes on the Del Rey could be thicker?

When you get the bike weigh it with all the components on it, and see what you come out with. All my other steel bikes have always weighed a bit heavier than the catalog specs from what I can remember, so maybe Fuji reported higher weights than they actually were?
 

ColinJ

Puzzle game procrastinator!
It had the worst frame for flexing of all the bikes I've ever tested. How did it flex? When hammering it, the chainring would strike on both sides of the front derailleur cage from the bottom bracket flex...
I got that on my old steel Basso.

One thing I love about my Cannondale CAAD5 (the red bike in my avatar) is that I can stomp on the pedals as hard as I like and all that happens is that the bike shoots forward!
 

froze

Über Member
I got that on my old steel Basso.

One thing I love about my Cannondale CAAD5 (the red bike in my avatar) is that I can stomp on the pedals as hard as I like and all that happens is that the bike shoots forward!

I don't know what year your bike is but a lot of bikes built prior to mid 80s flexed like crazy. I bought a 76 Trek TX900 which was their top-of-the-line bike frame, and that darn thing flexed a lot too, but when I bought it that's all you could buy back then was flexy bikes, some of the bikes kept that type of steel into the '80s like Peugeot did, and I'm sure others. I believe Japanese frame builders were the first ones to reduce the flexing better than what Reynolds and Columbus were doing, I know that Miyata came out with that helical ridged tubing they called splined that stiffened up the tubing quite well. While the Eddy Merckx MX Leader using Columbus Max tubing was stiffer, they accomplished that using oversized tubing. I had a Miyata Team, and I always thought the Fuji Club had a slightly stiffer frame than the Miyata, not sure why because the Fuji was lighter in weight.
 
Top Bottom