Just what is "oversized tubing"?

[Michael]

I have heard some say that RBW uses oversized tubing on their bikes.

But their tubes don't look any bigger to me than other steel bikes.

What does this term mean in reference to RBW bikes?

[Eric Daume]

Traditional steel road bikes (ie, through the very early 90s) used a 25.4mm top tube and a 28.6mm down tube. Riv uses a 28.6mm top tube and a 31.8mm down tube (in inches, 1", 1-1/8", and 1-1/4").

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[JL]

AASHTA

From Sheldon Brown's glossary

Larger in diameter than the traditional sizes. This term is commonly used forheadsets and frame tubing. Oversized parts are stiffer, and can be lighter for their weight if the walls are made thin enough. If the walls become too thin, however, they become too easy to damage by denting.

Traditional forks used 1" (25.4 mm) diameter steerers. Oversized steerers are 1 1/8" (28.6 mm) or, less commonly, 1 1/4" (31.8 mm). Details on sizes are listed under headsets.

Traditional frames used 1" (25.4 mm) top tubes, 1 1/8" (28.6 mm) seat tubesand down tubes, and 1 1/4" (31.8 mm) head tubes. When BMX racing became popular, frames built to these old standards couldn't always hold up to the rigors of BMX competition. Since the wide availability of T.I.G. welding freed designers from the need to use tubes that would fit standard-size lugs, oversized tubing became the norm for BMX frames. This design and technology were later adopted by builders of mountain bikes.

In the interest of improved chainwheel/tire clearance, some mountain bikes have "oversized" bottom brackets, with a shell width of 73 mm, rather than the standard 68 mm.

[Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery]

It's been 20+ years since "oversized" tubing became the usual size of tubing. Almost nobody uses the old sizes of tubing anymore. I move that two decades is enough that we can start just referring to the formerly oversized tubing as "tubing" or "standard-size tubing" or whatever term makes it sound like the normal thing, which it is.

[Shaun Meehan]

Agreed. And we might as well start referring to the "traditional" diameter tubung as "undersized" tubing.

 

Shaun Meehan

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery <thil...@gmail.com> wrote:

It's been 20+ years since "oversized" tubing became the usual size of tubing. Almost nobody uses the old sizes of tubing anymore. I move that two decades is enough that we can start just referring to the formerly oversized tubing as "tubing" or "standard-size tubing" or whatever term makes it sound like the normal thing, which it is.

[Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery]

Almost 10 years ago, I bought a 1991 Waterford Paramount frame. Besides the sexy pearly metallic red color, the most noticeable thing about the frame was its True Temper OS stickers. OS was for over-sized. I didn't understand at the time why they made such a big deal out of the OS tubes when the tube diameters seemed to match those of my Atlantis. Now nobody puts OS stickers on a bike, or advertises oversized tubes, because it's more or less the standard (to the extent that there is a standard). Many people who still use the "oversized" term are antiquarians who prefer old technology and use the term somewhat derisively. When discussing this subject, I started using the term "undersized" to turn the tables on the derision ;)

Personally, as a dude who floats between 175-200 lbs, I don't care for the feel of the old skinnier, flexier tubing. I won't say that it's unsafe, exactly, but I do find the flex to be disconcerting at times.

[Pondero]

It seems the key is what 'oversized' is compared against.  Traditional diameter tubing doesn't seem undersized for me.  But I'm smaller and lighter.

60cm frames are 'oversized' frames...for some of us.

So 'over' and 'under' seem to have much to do with rider and purpose.

[Steve Palincsar]

On 02/18/2014 10:13 AM, Shaun Meehan wrote:

Agreed. And we might as well start referring to the "traditional" diameter tubung as "undersized" tubing.

 

Shaun Meehan

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery <thil...@gmail.com> wrote:

It's been 20+ years since "oversized" tubing became the usual size of tubing. Almost nobody uses the old sizes of tubing anymore. I move that two decades is enough that we can start just referring to the formerly oversized tubing as "tubing" or "standard-size tubing" or whatever term makes it sound like the normal thing, which it is.

I have no idea where Jim gets the idea that there's any derision in the term "oversize" never mind why derision should be directed at traditional diameter tubing.  But there's an excellent reason to leave things as they are: if you shift everything down one, then what some are calling "over-oversize" or "Uber-oversize" would be come "oversize" as "oversize" becomes "standard" and you and Jim would still sense derision when the term "oversize" is used and nobody would have any idea whether you were talking about OS or UOS.

[Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery]

As long as we use terms like "standard" and "oversize", there's bound to be confusion and mistaken ideas. With the sheer variety of not only tubing diameters, but also wall thicknesses, butting, cross-section shapes, heat treating options, etc, not to mention a lot of different frame designs, trying to differentiate one bike from another based on tubing diameter seems pretty arbitrary to me. The idea that we can know anything about the performance or feel of a bike based on this one factor is pretty far-fetched.

[Mike Schiller]

Oversize tubing adds stiffness given comparable wall thickness.  So depending on your size and planned loads you choose the appropriate stiffness desired.  

at 6' and  195ish I find standard diameter  8/5/8 tubing the best for unloaded riding on the road and smooth dirt trails.  For touring I have bike with the same wall thickness using OS tubes even though it's a front loading bike.

Production bike have to be stiffer as they have to fit a wider range of riders.  When you get a custom you can pick tubing that fits your size and riding style.

~mike

Carlsbad Ca

[Steve Palincsar]

On 02/18/2014 12:54 PM, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote:
> As long as we use terms like "standard" and "oversize", there's bound to be confusion and mistaken ideas. With the sheer variety of not only tubing diameters, but also wall thicknesses, butting, cross-section shapes, heat treating options, etc, not to mention a lot of different frame designs, trying to differentiate one bike from another based on tubing diameter seems pretty arbitrary to me. The idea that we can know anything about the performance or feel of a bike based on this one factor is pretty far-fetched.
>

Maybe so, but for typical butted steel alloy tubing, wall thickness and
tubing diameter will tell you an awful lot about frame stiffness, and if
you already know from your prior experience that standard diameter 8/5/8
or 7/4/7 give you the degree of flexibility you want, you can be pretty
damned certain that oversize 8/5/8 or 9/6/9 is going to be too stiff.
And there's absolutely NOTHING far-fetched about that.

After all, you yourself have said in this thread you are already certain
that standard diameter tubing (and since you don't specify wall thicness
we can assume you mean anything from 9/6/9 on down) is too flexible for you.

[Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery]

I meant derision in the sense that retro-grouches always resist new things, even when the "new" things have been common and widely accepted for a decade or two or three. The word "oversize" in this context is almost never used by somebody who doesn't have a bias toward older bikes.

[Steve Palincsar]

On 02/18/2014 01:34 PM, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote:
> I meant derision in the sense that retro-grouches always resist new things, even when the "new" things have been common and widely accepted for a decade or two or three. The word "oversize" in this context is almost never used by somebody who doesn't have a bias toward older bikes.
>

You mean, in addition to framebuilders who work with all diameters of
steel tubing?

[Shaun Meehan]

"Oversized" tubing isn't oversized at all to anyone who hasn't been around bikes for 25-or-so years. To those newer to cycling "oversized tubing" and "clipless pedals" are equally bizarre terms. Both refer to what they've always seen as the norm.

 

Anyway, my comment about referring to "traditional" size tuding as "undersized" was meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.

[Bill Lindsay]

This response is also tongue-in-cheek.  tongue in cheek, tongue in cheek.

Since the new fad is for super flexy bikes made from undersized skinny tubes, who is the retrogrouch in this picture?  The young kid who is trying this new flexible frame idea, having ridden stiff road bikes for the last 10 years?  Is that kid the retrogrouch?  Or is the retrogrouch the person who refuses to be open minded about the new fad for more flexible bikes, because he (or she) is programmed with the sales pitch "you don't want a bike that rides like a wet noodle" that they first heard 30 years ago?  

I don't know the answer to that tongue in cheek question.  I own two bikes with 'undersized' 28.6mm diameter downtubes.  They were both made recently.  I bought them because I wanted to try out this new flexy thing.  I like them both.  I also like my other bikes that have 31.8mm diameter downtubes.  Am I a retrogrouch because flexiness is the exclusive domain of old bikes, even if they were manufactured recently?  Or, since I haven't made up my mind, am I not a retrogrouch?  Or, since I call a 31.8mm downtube "OS", am I a retrogrouch, derisively insulting my own bikes?

[Shaun Meehan]

I get it. Everything old is new again, to the point where the "retrogrouch" is the guy/girl that's refusing to try the new old stuff because the old stuff is too new-fangled for him or her. Plus ça change and so forth...

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.

[Steve Palincsar]

I think it's long past time to retire "retrogrouch."  All it ever was was a term of derision directed at those who were too independent-minded to fall into a swoon at the mention of any gimcrack marketed as "something new" (in a field where little, if anything hasn't already been tried before at least once, if not many times over, most likely more than a lifetime ago). 

On 02/18/2014 03:44 PM, Shaun Meehan wrote:

[Patrick Moore]

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Steve Palincsar <pali...@his.com> wrote:

I think it's long past time to retire "retrogrouch."  All it ever was was a term of derision directed at those who were too independent-minded to fall into a swoon at the mention of any gimcrack marketed as "something new"

Such as skinny tubes, low trail, 650B, front loads, rando bikes for every day short distance pavement riding, etc etc etc.

I am mostly kidding -- I can't notice any difference in ride feel in "old standard" diameter, light gauge 531 and Rivendell's "new standard" tubing (with frames noticeably heavier when I heft frame and fork alone) and I have no particular interest in low trail, 650B, or front loads, though I truly believe that these things really work better for some preferences. (Which seems to parse out: "Some people really prefer these things".)

Patrick "prefer the term 'grouch' myself" Moore, grumbling away in 65*, light-breezes only, ABQ, NM.

 

--

Albuquerque, NM, USA

 

Resumes, LinkedIn profiles, and letters that get interviews.

By-the-hour resume and LinkedIn coaching.

Other professional writing services.

http://www.resumespecialties.com/

[Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery]

I agree and apologize about using the R-word. I don't have anything against tubing of any diameter. I guess I would caution people not to think it's more important than it is, but if you can find a frame that meets all your other targets and also uses smaller size tubing, then go for it, if you want to. Personally, I value sturdy ruggedness more than I value a 'lively' ride. But to each his own.

[Christopher Chen]

I'm not old enough to be a grouch.

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery <thil...@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree and apologize about using the R-word. I don't have anything against tubing of any diameter. I guess I would caution people not to think it's more important than it is, but if you can find a frame that meets all your other targets and also uses smaller size tubing, then go for it, if you want to. Personally, I value sturdy ruggedness more than I value a 'lively' ride. But to each his own.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
"I want the kind of six pack you can't drink." -- Micah

[Deacon Patrick]

Our 1 year old is a grouch right now. Grouchiness is ageless. Hhhhhrrrrummmmph! Grin.

With abandon,

Patrick

[Shaun Meehan]

I'm on board with doing away with the "retrogrouch" label. The only drawback is that it would eliminate an easy way of categorizing myself when trying to relate my preferences to someone who's enthusiastic about a lot of the "whizbang" advancements that I have no interest in.

[Steve Palincsar]

On 02/18/2014 05:02 PM, Christopher Chen wrote:

I'm not old enough to be a grouch.

http://www.tubechop.com/watch/2048789   :-)

[Mike Schiller]

I would certainly agree on the sturdiness of oversize tubing.... ruggedness is a function of material properties... usually meaning heat treated tubing which has 3 times the dent resistance of plain CroMo used on most production bikes. 

~mike

[dougP]

I just tell 'em "...the 20th century was good to me so that's where I'm staying..."  Provides ample wiggle room on lots of issues. 

dougP

[RonaTD]

Back to the thread topic … "oversize" vs "standard" or "skinny" tubes …

I have a variety of mostly Rivendell bikes (Herons, Riv Road, Riv MTB, Quickbeam, Bleriot Protovelo) generally built with plus-sized tubes, though the Riv Road has identical 28.6 top and down tubes.  And I have a Terraferma 650B skinny light tube brevet bike. 

FWIW… I can feel the obvious differences between them, but tires make far more difference than the frames make. That said, my favorite ride, in terms of performance and comfort, is the original Heron prototype road, built with "OS" 531 and the heavy seat and chain stays from the touring frame 'cuz that's what Waterford had available. The rear of the bike is noticeably heavy when you pick it up. But when riding, it's like a magic carpet. I weigh all of 125-130 pounds. On paper, the Terraferma should be the clear winner. In practice, it hasn't worked out that way. 

My conclusion is that your mileage WILL vary.

Oh, and does this thread remind anyone else of the "standard reach brake" controversy, or does that just show how old I am?

Ted Durant

[justin...@gmail.com]

Oscar the Retrogrouch only lives in steel trashcans. No plastic stuff for him!

-Justin

[Montclair BobbyB]

Bravo, Doug! 

That's my story and I'm stickin to it... 

I can't wait for someone to adopt the term "neo-grouch"... (that is, if it ain't the latest, it sucks)...

All in good fun :)

Peace to all grouches worldwide!,
BB

[grant]

Yep, the "oversized" description doesn't work anymore these days, when most bike frames have tube proportions that make them look drawn by a toddler with a fistful of dull fat crayon. That's why the headsets have disappeared, too. (I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that..don't get me wrong..) 

On Monday, February 17, 2014 5:22:17 PM UTC-8, Michael wrote:

I have heard some say that RBW uses oversized tubing on their bikes.

But their tubes don't look any bigger to me than other steel bikes.

What does this term mean in reference to RBW bikes?

[Shaun Meehan]

Yeah, that's a good point too. If you were to refer to an "oversized" steel-tubed frame as oversized when it's sitting next to a "modern" carbon fiber bike with 3" deep by 1" wided bladed tubes, it REALLY starts to sound silly. Especially if your audience is a group of 20-something-year-old "roadies".

--

[Steve Palincsar]

On 02/19/2014 11:40 AM, grant wrote:
> Yep, the "oversized" description doesn't work anymore these days, when
> most bike frames have tube proportions that make them look drawn by a
> toddler with a fistful of dull fat crayon. That's why the headsets
> have disappeared, too. (I'm not saying there's anything wrong with
> that..don't get me wrong..)

Which headsets have disappeared?

[Peter Morgano]

Don't the new CF bikes have hidden internal headsets? I think that is one of the things they do to increase aerodynamics or some crap like that, haha.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.

[Shoji Takahashi]

Integrated headsets-- e.g.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/photos/sneak-peek-colnagos-new-epq/159960

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/photos/pro-bike-dominik-roels-team-milram-focus-izalco-team/105472

[Shaun Meehan]

I think Grant was referring to the fact that most modern bikes' headsets have "disappeared" (been moved to inside the headtube) because of the largeness of current frame "tubes". If it were even possible to put a headtube for a 1" or 9/8" external headset on a bike with enormous tubes, it would look completely absurd.  

[Steve Palincsar]

Thanks for the clarification.

[davidmcc]

Being tall, 6'6" and under 200 lbs, Oversize tubing is normal for me. The larger diameter tubing in my bikes makes for a nice ride compared to my now long gone old Peugeot that was too small for me.When frames get big there is more flex and that can make for front end shimmy and other riding weirdness. Front end shimmy is another topic all on it's own. My past A Homer Hilsen was a nice mix of flexibility and stiffness, hope you are enjoying it Curtiss!

David

[Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery]

I confess to being a bit of a grouch about this kind of thing. Can you tell? But it's not about neo/retro grouchiness. To me, working at a bike shop is a balance between giving my customers what they want and not letting them do something that is a bad idea or more trouble than it's worth.

At the moment, the skinnier tube, low-trail bikes are mostly the domain of custom framebuilders. For most people, a custom frame is not a realistic option. From that perspective, the formerly standard diameter tubing doesn't really exist. So I have a customer come in bursting with ideas out of the latest BQ, and I have to be the bad guy and say, "sorry, that stuff isn't real." But now their current bike, which was great last week, is unsatisfactory on account of the "oversized tubing". As if the formerly standard diameter tubing, by itself, determines whether a bike is any good or not. We all know it's not that simple.

I'm all for experimenting and for mixing old/new ideas. If Surly had a skinnier/flexier tubing road frame for $400, I'd be happy to sell them and facilitate such experiments. But I'm never going to encourage someone to sink thousands into the skinny tube dream, when, IMO, tubing diameter is so far down the list of important factors.

[ascpgh]

"Oversized" implies that, whatever the paradigm is, this one is different. A single scalar unjustly obsessed upon as if increasing it opened the door to greatness and performance known only to the gods of Olympus.

Bike frames seem to me (my personal disclaimer and demonstrated respect for those who design and build the frames I desire) to be a solution of enough variables that one should recognize the narrow mindedness of isolating one as the panacea. The negative implication of not being "oversized" rubs me wrong; I trust the designer/builder to resolve the design and size issues to optimize my results with the built bike.

I applaud every company who's integrity is to the bikes and less about their platoon of MBAs trying to realize bullet points for their CVs with market share et al (sorry Patrick). I get building your business and growth, I just hate seeing it go all wrong "to meet a greater marketshare" or other such brand management gyrations.

Andy Cheatham

Pittsburgh

[Bruce Herbitter]

Classic 531 tubing grew out of 1930's airplane frame construction material. It was strong and light. For that reason it was good for bikes too. Thinner wall tubing came along that needed larger diameter to resist bending.  Each tubeset has qualities that make it a better/poorer choice for a particular application.

I personally like a bike with a lively feel, others prefer light stiff response. I'm not very heavy, others weigh more. Our "ideal" tube sets are probably not the same. I find myself very happy on more than one kind of tubing though. My old Maruishi has skinny ones and I love it, and the Riv Road has larger ones and I love it.  If I were getting a custom, I'd ask about skinny tubes, but I would pay attention to the builder's suggestions based on me and how I ride too.

My own "retro" reputation locally is becuase i wear wool and sit on leather. No one cares a bit about my bike frames. They're not carbon.

bruce

[Steve Palincsar]

On 02/20/2014 07:10 AM, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote:
> At the moment, the skinnier tube, low-trail bikes are mostly the domain of custom framebuilders. For most people, a custom frame is not a realistic option. From that perspective, the formerly standard diameter tubing doesn't really exist. So I have a customer come in bursting with ideas out of the latest BQ, and I have to be the bad guy and say, "sorry, that stuff isn't real." But now their current bike, which was great last week, is unsatisfactory on account of the "oversized tubing". As if the formerly standard diameter tubing, by itself, determines whether a bike is any good or not. We all know it's not that simple.

I don't know about "most people" but looking around me at bike club
rides, it seems to me most of the carbon road bikes I see go for
somewhere in the $3000 - $6000 range. The stock geometry Boulder frames
-- Allroad 650B, Brevet 700C and Road Sport 700C -- all of which are
available with thin wall "non-oversize" tubing run roughly $1300-1500,
and it wouldn't be very difficult to source a decent $1500 build kit.
That says to me a nice standard diameter tubing framed bike is available
for those who wish it for the same money as they'd spend for a carbon
road bike at their LBS. So how is that "not real"?

I can understand how someone might come to the conclusion that a bike
that was perfectly satisfactory last week is now less than optimal: they
might have experienced something better since last week. One dimension
of "better" might be a more appropriate amount of stiffness.

This is not to say stiffness is the only dimension; but it is to say the
old adage that you can never have too much stiffness is just not so.

[Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery]

I'm sure Boulder is fine, but it's just one option, and it may or may not be somebody's ideal frame for other reasons. I have encouraged people to look at the Boulder as an option when they want those features, even though I don't sell that brand.