# Columbus SLX and the big guy



## elvisVerde (Jul 17, 2005)

I have a chance to buy an old Italian frame, 60 cm size, from a local shop. The bike is a "trade-in" or something at the LBS. It is made from Columbus SLX, so that dates the frame, and brings up the question. As it is a frame and I can't ride it to see how it goes, I need to ask people...How will an SLX frame, on average, do with a 6' 2" 215 lb. rider?

I have heard nice things about SLX frames, and I would like to see what they are like, but I am wondering if I would overwhelm the frame. Worse, I worry that I will find that it is only "pretty good", and that it is nothing special when compared with some of its mid-level Columbus descendants of today. Along those lines, a friend says that I should look for a recent bike made of Zona tubes. 

I think of my Bridgestone RB-2, a bike that is well regarded by many people, but which--in terms of the tubing--is nothing special at all. It is fun on fast curvy roads, but that is geometry, not tubing. Any and all comments welcome. TIA


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Ahhh, SLX!*

The tubing of choice for elite racers in the 80s. It came about because SL tubing, its predecessor, tended to be a bit flippy under high torsional loads, such as at the bottom bracket. So Columbus put the rifling along the butts where the seat tube and down tube joined the bb lug. Otherwise, the tubes were the same thickness, 1.0 mm at the butted ends, and 0.6 in the middle. SLX rode stiffer than SL, noticeable when climbing or sprinting, but also a little harsher. Whether that's significant by today's standards may not be important, but some riders felt SLX frames transmitted a bit more road buzz than SL.

Beefier SP and SPX tubing was available for frames over 58 cm. This tubing was a little (0.1 mm?) thicker than SL or SLX, to compensate for the larger frames' tendencies to flex more under hard torsional forces. Chances are, if you're looking at a 60 cm. or larger hand made frame, it'll be SPX, not SLX. Either tubing will handle pretty well though, if the joints are well brazed and stiff. Tubes flexing along their mid-sections is what gives steel that magical resilient ride quality.

The geometry on your RB-2 does define the ride, for sure, but badly brazed, stovepipe tubes would certainly ruin it. If the frame flexes at the joints or the tubes don't absorb shocks along their lengths, you'll have an un-inspiring ride, that the geometry might mask, but not overcome.


----------



## The Carlster (Sep 16, 2005)

I doubt that you'll notice any difference in frame flex w/ the SLX frame vs. your RB2. 

Steel is inherently more 'flexy' than AL or most carbon bikes nowdays - not to say that is a bad thing as I also ride a 60 and, back in the day, won plenty of races on an SLX frame (183 race weight). 

The frame will "do" just fine. Personally I think that people worry a lot (too much) about frame flex. I rode an AL bianchi for many years that flexed zero - and after 5 hours on it, I felt like I went a few rounds w/ Tyson. I borrowed a Lemond 853 and put 200 miles on it over a weekend 2 summers ago and loved the ride (and now I weigh 210-15 myself - not fat mind you, I've been lifting)


----------



## botto (Jul 22, 2005)

*slx vs sl*

can't really speak about slx specifically, but one thing to note is that back in the day, the pro's used SL frames for paris-roubaix because SL was more durable than the the SLX


----------



## Max-Q (Feb 6, 2004)

I've still got a Columbus SLX frame made by Scapin from 1987. The ride is very smooth and solid but not as stiff as my Colnago C-50 or Scott CR-1. I would imagine a lot of the ride characteristics with your bike will have to do with the manufacturer and the geometry.

When I started back into cycling several years ago I weighed 247 lbs (spent many years lifting weights) and the old Scapin never had any problems with my weight. I rode the bike almost daily for a year until I bought a new bike. In the process I lost over 25 lbs. 
I now use my Scapin as a bad weather bike and I use it on a gravel trail. It still is in great condition and even over the roughest surfaces the ride never becomes unpleasant or harsh.


----------



## bigbill (Feb 15, 2005)

I have a Merckx SLX track bike that I used for years for match sprints, kilos, etc. I never had any issues with it, it was stiff enough without causing any wheelskip coming down the banking, and felt nice in an all-out effort. You don't really get a feel for a frame on a track, even in a points race. When I was sprinting, I went about 230# and rode a 60cm frame. I still have it and my superbe pro bag.


----------



## Juanmoretime (Nov 24, 2001)

*Not to rain on your parade.*

I had always heard the Nivacrom SLX was for the lighter rider, as in sub 185 lbs. Over that weight SL tubing was recommended. I had a Bianchi Rearto Corse made of SLX and it was a great frame although I only weight 155 lbs.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*You mean TSX?*



Juanmoretime said:


> I had always heard the Nivacrom SLX was for the lighter rider, as in sub 185 lbs. Over that weight SL tubing was recommended. I had a Bianchi Rearto Corse made of SLX and it was a great frame although I only weight 155 lbs.


I seem to remember Nivachrome coming in slightly later than SLX. When SLX came out, it was described as chromium molybdenum, the same formula as SL. The first nivachrome was TSX, I think, a straight gauge tubing with rifling all along the inside lengths. It was lighter than SL or SLX, and may have been intended for lightweight riders.

I've been riding an SL bike since 1984 and an SLX bike since 1985. The SLX is stiffer and a bit harsher riding than the SL bike. It's also a few grams heavier, which I have always believed was because it is the same gauge and formula as SL, with added weight from the rifling, the selling point being that it added strength and stiffness superior to SL.


----------



## Max-Q (Feb 6, 2004)

When I ordered my Scapin in 1987 it was supposed to use SL tubing. When it finally arrived it was SLX. Scapin explained that due to the size of the bike (61cm) they built it with SLX tubing so it would be stiffer. 

My teammates on the other hand all had Scapins with SL tubing as their frames were smaller than mine.


----------



## Road cyclist (Jan 15, 2005)

How will an SLX frame, on average, do with a 6' 2" 215 lb. rider?

From your post I assume 215 lb is your normal weight? Well anyway I have 
had a DeRosa SLX 55 cm frame since 1986, no problems, just a relatively
heavy frame by todays standards.


----------



## Zampano (Aug 7, 2005)

If I'm not mistaken, SP/SPX was the heavier tubeset for the same time period, and was also often substituted for fork tubes and chainstays.


----------



## Henry Chinaski (Feb 3, 2004)

SLX was just SL with gimmicky "helical reinforcements" at the ends of the tubes. As far as I'm concerned SL and SLX are about the same (but SL is a tad lighter). I had a 57 cm SLX Guerchiotti and it was kind of flexy, so then I had a custom frame built with SL but used a SP downtube and it's solid as a rock (though much of this has to do with the builder and other choices on how the frame was built--stays and fork). A SP or SPX downtube definitely stiffens things up and was used by many builders on frames 58cm and bigger. But it all really depends on the builder, not the tubing...


----------



## Max-Q (Feb 6, 2004)

Henry Chinaski said:


> SLX was just SL with gimmicky "helical reinforcements" at the ends of the tubes. As far as I'm concerned SL and SLX are about the same (but SL is a tad lighter). I had a 57 cm SLX Guerchiotti and it was kind of flexy, so then I had a custom frame built with SL but used a SP downtube and it's solid as a rock (though much of this has to do with the builder and other choices on how the frame was built--stays and fork). A SP or SPX downtube definitely stiffens things up and was used by many builders on frames 58cm and bigger. But it all really depends on the builder, not the tubing...


I agree. It all depends on the frame builder not the material or tubing. Just like all carbon frames are not equal, not all SLX frames are equal either. My frame comes from a company that is noted for their quality and craftsmanship and it shows in the performance of the bike.


----------



## fastfullback (Feb 9, 2005)

Fredrico said:


> I seem to remember Nivachrome coming in slightly later than SLX. When SLX came out, it was described as chromium molybdenum, the same formula as SL. The first nivachrome was TSX, I think, a straight gauge tubing with rifling all along the inside lengths. It was lighter than SL or SLX, and may have been intended for lightweight riders.


I rode a TSX fork for a very short while that a friend pulled off his 80's Bianchi. At the time I was about 163 pounds and that fork was a noodle. Definitely weight weenie tubing, emphasis on weenie.


----------



## the seamus (Apr 12, 2004)

I grew up riding Columbus SL, SLX and TSX frames in the mid to late 80's and I still ride steel. The SLX frames, given you're talking about a quality builder were nice in their day, and are still quite cool, but by modern standards the newer generation steels from Reynolds, Dedacciai and Columbus will offer a better ride, especially for a bigger dude like yourself. 

Reason: Most SLX tubes were of a diameter that's considered thin by today's standards, partially because there weren't many options in oversized lugs until Waterford/Schwinn, Serotta and a few others offered them. Nowdays you can get steel in a variety of standard and oversized diameters, butting dimensions and wall thicknesses, and your average custom builder has more to work with in terms of tuning the ride quality of a steel frame to suit your needs. 

Get an SLX frame out of nostalgia, or the fact that they're relatively affordable these days, but don't expect the ride quality to be better than a modern high-end steel frame from a reputable builder.


----------



## tube_ee (Aug 25, 2003)

The Carlster said:


> I doubt that you'll notice any difference in frame flex w/ the SLX frame vs. your RB2.
> 
> Steel is inherently more 'flexy' than AL or most carbon bikes nowdays - not to say that is a bad thing as I also ride a 60 and, back in the day, won plenty of races on an SLX frame (183 race weight).


Note that the difference if stiffness is NOT a function of materials... Steel is 3x stiffer than aluminum. It's also 3x as dense.

Modern AL bikes are stiff because their tubes are very large. Stiffness in a circular tube increases linearly with wall thickness, but as the square of diameter.

If you built a frame out of steel tubing with Cannondale dimensions (diameter, wall thickness) it'd be roughly 3x stiffer and 3x heavier.

As to whether stiffness is even important for bicycles, that's another thread.

--Shannon


----------



## gabeti (Dec 20, 2005)

That's cool, but I would prefer a modern bike...


----------

