Yep, I noticed he said it looked like an OS top tube, but that wouldn't give him any indication of the tubeset used. These are all Columbus Life top tubes (below). This link is all the tubes with the Thron sticker https://www.framebuilding.com/Thron.htmNow, if they knew Alan Cote was a certain weight, build, rider type, did they spec this top tube on #6 in this Mondonico for that reason, or randomly?
Notice how Thron can be standard or OS? What led Mondonico to use one over the other?

The tubeset is highly dependent on the size of bike, the weight of the rider for how it will react under pedaling, and over road undulations. For that reason, if I say to a builder, "I'm obsessed with Columbus Life tubes. I need that in my life." Builder asks me how much I weigh, and how strong a rider. "I'm 148lbs, 168cm, have a fast cadence, and an FTP below 200- not a crit racer, long rides for enjoyment."

No way that builder is going to spec any OS Life tubes in my bike. They will choose the standard tubes and probably use the shortest possible butt lengths to get the bike comfortable, because it will be plenty stiff for me.

You build a 52cm and a 62cm and get a very different "feel." Same tube diameter and thickness, the longer tube will be flexier. Bueno for me, bad for wattage bazooka 225lb rider. Different rider, different feel. As others have said here, regarding production bikes: one person's favorite, is another's least favorite. That doesn't mean we can't find a bike built to exactly the same geo out of Columbus Max that OldPotatoe doesn't like :rolleyes:



I tell another builder the exact opposite. Same Life tubeset, different approach.

Maybe because these were thinner tubing models, the thinner tubing produced a similar feeling frame, but at a lighter weight. Strength increases with higher tensile strength alloy, but stiffness of the tube does not without an increase in diameter. (?) I'm genuinely not sure. A thinner tube with a higher modulus should be easier to flex, yet the same force or load to break.

Isn't that why they are making the tubing thinner--lighter but with the same strength? I don't believe it's because they think it will provide a different ride "feel." To mirror others' commentary, it may have a different "resonance" that transmits feedback differently, like a buzz, hum, whisper, etc.

Modulus of elasticity is pretty much equal in all steels.
It,s all in the diameters and wall thickness after that.

I'm a believer in the differences both between tubesets and the role of design. Some steel (and ti) bikes have a magic for me and some don't.
It can be a lot of component factors as folks point out, but even accounting for those, there seem to be real differences including at the tubing level.
What strikes me as hard is that unless I share some comps with a builder, I would be afraid I might miscommunicate what it is I want.

Some examples of tubing: I have a 55CM Bridgestone MB4 made of Triple Butted Ishiwata tubing. I've had a chance to ride a couple earlier MB1s in smaller sizes. Those MB1 felt like a magic spring in a way my MB4 doesn't. The tubing really does seem to matter.

Likewise, I built up a 1991 RB2 for my son and then after a couple year and a couple thousand miles round a 1991 RB1 and did a total transfer. The RB1 seemed a bit stiffer yet livelier, but not wildly different. Then again, RB1s seem relatively stiff to me (despite some lore aligning them with more of a Ritchey Road Logic feel) and MB1s seem super springy in their category.

Here's where design seems to matter (vs tubing): I have a Platinum OX Salsa Ala Carte that's pure magic. I have it set up as a single speed and just blasted a cold 12 mile loop today. I had a Platinum OX Salsa El Mariachi that was within a year or two (or the same year) that felt entirely dead to me. Was it the overbuilt eccentric bottom bracket? Did they overbuild it elsewhere since it was just their second or third year making a rigid 29er? All I know is that when I found a rigid Wily 29er, it was easy to pass the El Mar on because the Wily has the magic the El Mar lacked. And folks swear by the El Mars.

I had a Foco Strong with very short chainstays that rode quite similarly to the Vamoots that replaced it. But the Vamoots could fit a 28 in bike vs the 25 and needed less love. I replaced the Vamoots with a Seven Alaris in order to get a 1.5cm shorter top tube. Both straight gauge ti, both beautiful bikes. I wasn't expecting it, but for me the Alaris is just a bit softer and springer in a magical way. I transferred the build over each time so it was apples to apples (with the exception of a 28mm rear tire post Strong). I wouldn't have known the difference until I tried it. I loved the Vamoots, but prefer the Seven 12k miles in a bit more.

I bought it from the original owner. I have the geometry tag but not the stiffness preferences. I've heard Seven doesn't like to build from their old frames but wants you to go through their process. That terrifies me, because if something happened to the Alaris, I have no idea if it's a 6 or 7 or 8 on their stiffness chart. I just know that I'd ask for everything to be the same with perhaps a shift to a switch to Velo Orange brakes and a room for a bit more tire.

I have loved the custom frames I have, but I would be terrified of successfully communication my version of stiff and compliant to a builder. I'm not disrespecting them, but I'm worried about communicating my preferences unless we shared a language of some common production frames.
For example, I had an Indy Fab club racer that was a bit stiffer than I liked... but it was another custom so how stiff was it on any neutral scale. And I'm not sure my love of early 80s Trek 710s would translate into meaningful data for any builder under 50.

This is a long way of saying, I think the differences in tubing and design are real, but our experiences of them our somewhat subjective... and that makes communicating what one wants difficult but also makes room for lots of different builders.

I have a Gunner Roadie that has that springy feel (at least for me). I'm not sure of the tube set. I really like it. I also have a Pinarello with a sticker that reads SLX but I'm sure that there's some SPX in there. The ride of this bike is like a Cadillac. It is so smooth and stable that I don't really care that the bike is a little heavier than the Gunnar. My Ti bike is nice but these steel bikes have something going on that makes them special.

Let me get to the punch line immediately, As a frame builder I prefer the ride of thin walled tubing in standard diameters. By that I mean what kind of frame I prefer to ride myself. Thin walled can be defined as a 1" top tube and a 1 1/8" down tube having 0.7/0.4/0.7mm wall thickness. These are frames I have made to the geometry I prefer for myself. I can definitely tell the difference between those frames and ones that has slightly heavier 0.9/0.6/0.9 wall thicknesses (that would be the dimensions of old Columbus SL tubing) or light tubing that is over sized. Of course the rear triangles have seat and chain stays with varying wall thickness too. The frames I made for myself are somewhere in the 57 to 58 cm seat tube size. I'm positive I can tell the difference between tubing types if I was blindfolded.

I've always been a decent but not exceptional rider. I'm 5'8" (well at least I was) and used to weigh nothing but I'm probably in the 150 lb range now. I used to ride with the big boys on training rides and could hang. I didn't often get dropped but neither was I animating any action at the front. Now that I'm past the average age of death of an American male, I'm a lot slower.

It is hard to describe the difference because it is about how the ride feels. I say it is more "lively".

I actually made myself a frame in 1978 out of Ishiwata 015 tubing with 0.6/0.3/0.6 wall thickness. I expected it to be too flexible or something and to my surprise it was not. I loved the ride. That bike weighed under 16 pounds and is right now on display at the Three Oaks Michigan bicycle museum. One of my cat 2 riding buddies wanted to try it out and went sprinting up a hill with it and came back and declared it was too flexible for him. And I'm sure it was but I wasn't him. The problem with tubing that light is that it is more fragile that 7/4/7 tubing and much more likely to not survive hitting a pot hole for example.

There is a good reason production and even custom builders avoid using light tubing. The reputation and financial damage can be significant if it breaks or gets damaged when someone too big and strong rides it. And light tubing is usually heat treated tubing and can't tolerate common production methods. They require special care and knowledge to keep it straight. The result is that very few of you have ever ridden tubing that light because there are very few examples of it ever being made. Bill Davidson when he was doing volume with 6 workers made some out of Tange Prestige. There were the 753 Raleigh's and a few Japanese made frames. Even many custom builders might not use it because of their philosophy of desiring "stiffness" supersedes other considerations. And not wanting a frame to break is highly motivational.

I'm not an evangelist trying to convert the heathen to use light tubing. I can testify it is best for me. I don't know about you. Years ago when I made frames for bigger-than-me people I often used heavier or larger ø tubing. Each person has their variable which is the right combination of stiffness and flexible. If you can find the right combination it is magical.

I also know not all custom frames are made as well as others. This is another tangent that can be a deep rabbit hole to explore. Customers can confuse bedside manner with quality building.

Last year I made a couple of bikes for my wife and I that had upright handlebars for more casual bike trail riding. The one I made for my self was an example of how-to-braze for my frame building class students. It had standard size 9/6/9 tubing. My wife's was similar except with Kasai 7/4/7. While both frames are light, the parts I put on to assemble them into compete bicycles were not particularly light. Ring locks with special braze-ons and rear racks added significant overall weight. Even so when I jump on and ride these bikes with regular shoes and jeans, I can immediately tell my wife's bike rides differently than mine. It's like "oh yea!", this is how a bicycle should ride!

While I made many racing frames in the 70's and early 80's, my emphasis ever since is to find the bicycle position and frame geometry and tubing selection that works best for normal (but probably fairly fit) recreational riders. People that have gained body fat and lost the flexibility of their youth. The goal is comfort and enjoyment over saving a few seconds on their century rides.

Thanks, Doug. Appreciate when experts weigh in. I was reading an article from BikeRumor! in which they ask Ira Ryan (Breadwinner), Alan Finlay (Pipedream), and Joe McEwan (Starling Cycles) some of these same types of questions. https://bikerumor.com/aasq-124-whats...ation-and-why/ This is what Joe had to say:

I think it is safe for us to assume that advances in alloying of steel and heat treating processes has made them stronger since the 80s, but they have similar wall thicknesses as the thinnest tubesets you speak of from that time period (e.g. Tangle Prestige SL 6/4/6/ and Ishiwata 015 6/3/6). If what this Starling guy says is true, then if you built a Columbus Spirit set into your preferred geometry (assuming they had 1" TT, 1.125" DT available, which they don't appear to), could we also assume the stiffness and weight would be about the same? Assuming we were using a traditional level-top-tube design similar to those bikes, wouldn't one say the Spirit frame would be stronger, about the same weight, and about the same stiffness?

A lot of people generalize lightweights of that era to be "noodly" or "whippy" but others say they are perfect. Is a 1.125" TT and 1.25" DT the answer to this in the modern era?

So maybe someone coming from a carbon 'Trekcannonlized' thinks the OS tubeset feels more "lively" but the person coming from a bike like you are referring to (standard tubeset/thin gauge tubes) might think it feels dead/stiff? Or a more powerful/larger rider says an OS modern bike feels lively, and the smaller/lower-watt-producing rider says it is too stiff, "less springy?"

Thanks for that informative response!