# Columbus Nemo tubing?



## Juanmoretime (Nov 24, 2001)

Where does this tubeset fall into the Columbus line up? Does anybody have feedback onn the ride quality of this tubset?

Thanks,


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

Nemo has been around for about 10 years. I don't think that it is an "oversized" tube-set, so it should be fine as long as it doesn't have to carry too much weight. It should be fine for racing for a 165 pound rider, and fine for just riding for a 180 pound rider. I would think that it would be a tad "wippy" for a 200 pound rider.


----------



## HouseMoney (Oct 28, 2002)

My Mondonico Futura Leggero has Nemo tubing. Except for a brief demo on a lower-end Bianchi back in '02, the last steel frame I've ridden was a Puch 20 yrs ago, so I don't have much of a steel reference to go on. The Nemo is more comfortable than my Cannondale CAAD5 (I know, no sh!t). I've noticed a little rear flex when riding (I weigh betw/ 160-165 lbs) as compared to the CAAD5, and I've swapped wheels to eliminate that as a variable. There is a 6.8 mile climb near me where I do a "personal time trial" during training. With the exception of one ride, my best times have usually been on the Cannondale. Wind, how many miles I've put in b4 I get to this climb, & varying fitness levels certainly play a part in this, but it's just an observation I've made. The weights of both bikes are comparable btw.

For an idea of Torelli's take on Nemo tubing, check out this link.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

Yes, the "stone age" steel frames from the past, had the 1" top tube and a 1 1/8 down tube. Early 90's (Nemo) went with a 1 1/8" top tube and a 1 1/4" down tube. Four or so years ago, modern oversize frames came out with a 1 1/4" top tube along with the 1 1/4" down tube. In the last year or so, down tubes have gone to 1 3/8". These "late model" frames are ideal for riders over 200 pounds. 
In the past, heavier riders had to use frames made out of thicker SP tubesets. Imagine 8 to 8 1/2 pound frame and fork weights, instead of the modern 3 1/2 to 4 pound frames.


----------



## rufus (Feb 3, 2004)

i believe it is oversized. it's Nivachrome, basically similar to EL-OS, but differentially butted, rather than symetrically, the butted sections are shorter, and with a slightly thinner tube section at the ends. a rough, and not very well done, explanation

symetrical butts are the same length all around the tube, that is, when a tube is butted with .65mm at the ends, and .4mm in the middle, the butted section, and the tapered section of the butt will be the same length the entire circumference of the tube. 

differential butts vary the length and orientation of the butted sections depending on where the tube is used and the stresses it encounters. a downtube at the bottom bracket, for instance, will have a longer butted section on the underside of the tube which tapers into a shorter section along the top. the tubes, and the butted sections need to be oriented properly before brazing.

this image may help illustrate. 










tube section A is symetrical, tube section B is differential.


----------



## Rusty Coggs (Jan 28, 2004)

*Yeah*



rufus said:


> i believe it is oversized. it's Nivachrome, basically similar to EL-OS, but differentially butted, rather than symetrically, the butted sections are shorter, and with a slightly thinner tube section at the ends. a rough, and not very well done, explanation
> 
> symetrical butts are the same length all around the tube, that is, when a tube is butted with .65mm at the ends, and .4mm in the middle, the butted section, and the tapered section of the butt will be the same length the entire circumference of the tube.
> 
> ...


It is oversize and nivacrom, and very light with agressive butting.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

It depends on your definition of "oversized." I tend to think of a 1" top tube as "stone age", and a 1-1/8" top tube as "old school." 
I'm not sure how a top tube larger than 1 1/4 with thinner walls, would hold up. I'm sure that they said the same thing about 1 1/8 top tubes, when they first came out.


----------



## rufus (Feb 3, 2004)

anything larger than 1" diameter is oversized.


----------



## HeronTodd (Feb 7, 2004)

Ride quality is determined by rider position and frame geometry. The tubing will have no impact on that. The diameter and wall thickness must provide sufficient stiffness for the application. A lightweight racer who carries no gear requires less stiffness than a heavy tourist who carries 60 pounds of gear. 

Many times a particular model of tubing will be available in a variety of thicknesses and diameters. I don't know if that is the case with Nemo or not. If the tubing is a 0.7/0.4 thickness as used by Torelli, consider it a race frame that will be flexible under larger riders and those carrying gear.

Note that "flexible" in this regard does not mean ride quality. It will, however, affect handling and high-speed shimmy.


----------



## Rusty Coggs (Jan 28, 2004)

*Bs*



HeronTodd said:


> Ride quality is determined by rider position and frame geometry. The tubing will have no impact on that. The diameter and wall thickness must provide sufficient stiffness for the application.
> 
> Many times a particular model of tubing will be available in a variety of thicknesses and diameters. I don't know if that is the case with Nemo or not. If the tubing is a 0.7/0.4 thickness as used by Torelli, consider it a race frame that will be flexible under larger riders..............


 Try one made out of Hi-ten. There is plenty of tubing of .4 in the middle that is suitable for bigger heavier riders. EOM 16.5 gets as thin as .31.


----------



## HeronTodd (Feb 7, 2004)

Rusty Coggs said:


> Try one made out of Hi-ten. There is plenty of tubing of .4 in the middle that is suitable for bigger heavier riders. EOM 16.5 gets as thin as .31.


I'm not sure what you mean about hi-ten. If it is the same diameter and wall thickness as cro-mo, 853, OX Platinum, EOM 16.5, or any other steel bicycle tubing, it will ride the same. The difference in steel alloys is not stiffness but tensile strength. A weaker alloy used in a thinwall application will be more likely to fail. Otherwise, performance is the same.

Regarding tubing that is 0.4 thick, the only way that would provide sufficient stiffness for a heavy rider is if the tubing was a very large diameter. Of course, there are plenty of riders on frames that are whippy and flexible. They just learn to deal with the awkward handling and shimmy issues.


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

How thin can steel tubes get before they start failing from denting ? Are there any frame makers that use a 1 1/2" down tube ?? A very good test of math skills would be to determine the weight of a 1 1/4" top tube compared to a 1 1/2 top tube, if both had .4mm center butts.


----------



## HeronTodd (Feb 7, 2004)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> How thin can steel tubes get before they start failing from denting ? Are there any frame makers that use a 1 1/2" down tube ??


True Temper offers their S3 tubing in a 1.5" diameter. Resistance to denting gets progressively worse as the tube wall gets thinner. Still, you can dent a 1.0 tube with a strong enough blow.


----------



## PdxMark (Feb 3, 2004)

HeronTodd said:


> True Temper offers their S3 tubing in a 1.5" diameter. Resistance to denting gets progressively worse as the tube wall gets thinner. Still, you can dent a 1.0 tube with a strong enough blow.


An LBS had a gorgeous Waterford S3 with a dented top tube from the bike falling over against... something. The shop owner said one of his employees did the deed... I don't know what it hit, but it was about as big a dent as you'd want before you start questioning the top tube.


----------



## Nessism (Feb 6, 2004)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> Yes, the "stone age" steel frames from the past, had the 1" top tube and a 1 1/8 down tube. Early 90's (Nemo) went with a 1 1/8" top tube and a 1 1/4" down tube. Four or so years ago, modern oversize frames came out with a 1 1/4" top tube along with the 1 1/4" down tube. In the last year or so, down tubes have gone to 1 3/8". These "late model" frames are ideal for riders over 200 pounds.
> In the past, heavier riders had to use frames made out of thicker SP tubesets. Imagine 8 to 8 1/2 pound frame and fork weights, instead of the modern 3 1/2 to 4 pound frames.



Common tube diameters:

Standard - 1" top, 1-1/8" seat and down tubes, 14mm seat stays, 22.2mm chainstays. Common tube sets include Columbus SL, SP, SLX, TSX, SPX, EL, Neuron; Reynolds 531, 753, 853; Dedacciai ZeroUno, ZeroTre; True Temper Versus, Versus HT, Platinum

Oversize - 1-1/8" top and seat tube, 1-1/4" down tube, 16mm seat stays, 24mm ovalized chain stays. Columbus ELOS, Neuron, Nemo, Foco, Brain, Thorn, Zona; Reynolds 853, 725; Dedacciai Zero, ZeroUno, ZeroTre; True Temper Platinum, Versus, Versus HT

Super Oversize - anything larger than OS. Columbus Foco, Zona, Sprit; Reynolds 853; Dedacciai Zero, EOM16.5; True Temper Platinum, S3

Of course, this list is incomplete. Also, note that many tubesets come in various diameters.

Ed


----------



## racerx (Jan 29, 2004)

*I have the chart, but...*



Juanmoretime said:


> Where does this tubeset fall into the Columbus line up? Does anybody have feedback onn the ride quality of this tubset?
> 
> Thanks,


I couldn't find Nemo


Sorry, slow day.


----------



## rufus (Feb 3, 2004)

did it have Genius? pretty similar, if not almost identical.


----------



## cannibal (Dec 3, 2004)

*dented top tube...not as bad as it looks!*



PdxMark said:


> An LBS had a gorgeous Waterford S3 with a dented top tube from the bike falling over against... something. The shop owner said one of his employees did the deed... I don't know what it hit, but it was about as big a dent as you'd want before you start questioning the top tube.


I can relate to the dented top tube incident. I inadvertantly knocked over my '95 Merckx MX Leader frame against my coffee table and caused a nasty, unacceptable size dent in the middle of my top tube. Based on the extent of the damage, I assumed the integrity of the frame was history, but that wasn't the case. The frame is intact, no noticable performance flaws, especially on high speed descents. The top tube looks deplorable after the accident, but it still measures up when it comes to performance.


----------

