Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

Wrong about MS tube

Started by A Muzi · · Last activity · 3 posts · 957 views

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
10 January 2004
Last activity
12 January 2004
Original author
A Muzi
Posts
3
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
957
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–3 of 3
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. I wrote some snitty comments about Columbus MS tube, based on my Columbus book of the era - I
    has always noticed it listed there as significantly lighter but at thicker gauge than the
    nearby SL tube.

    Thanks to a link provided here I, for the first time, understood that MS tube is smaller diameter
    and so might indeed be both thicker and lighter (I've never seen, sold or ridden one) I assumed
    incorrectly and jumped to conclusions.

    --
    Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971

  2. A Muzi [email hidden] wrote: << I wrote some snitty comments about Columbus MS tube, based on
    my Columbus book of the era - I has always noticed it listed there as significantly lighter but at
    thicker gauge than the nearby SL tube.

    Thanks to a link provided here I, for the first time, understood that MS tube is smaller diameter
    and so might indeed be both thicker and lighter (I've never seen, sold or ridden one) I assumed
    incorrectly and jumped to conclusions. >>

    Wouldn't characterize your comments as snitty; I doubt anyone here was offended. MS is one of the
    more esoteric and misunderstood Columbus tubesets. I never rode it, but I recall a friend's
    Tommasini from around 1990. It was a bizarro frame, with one triangular chainstay and one round one,
    sort of a mishmash of pulled and squeezed tubes. Of course, this kind of thing is common today.
    Probably never caught on with builders because the bottom bracket, lugs, etc. were proprietary to
    the tubeset. Basso made a cool-looking frame from it, though (the Ascot?), the one that was painted
    two-tone mint green and blood orange.

  3. [email hidden] (Mike Krueger) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    A Muzi [email hidden] wrote: << I wrote some snitty comments about Columbus MS tube, based on
    my Columbus book of the era - I has always noticed it listed there as significantly lighter but at
    thicker gauge than the nearby SL tube.

    Thanks to a link provided here I, for the first time, understood that MS tube is smaller diameter
    and so might indeed be both thicker and lighter (I've never seen, sold or ridden one) I assumed
    incorrectly and jumped to conclusions. >>

    Wouldn't characterize your comments as snitty; I doubt anyone here was offended. MS is one of the
    more esoteric and misunderstood Columbus tubesets. I never rode it, but I recall a friend's
    Tommasini from around 1990. It was a bizarro frame, with one triangular chainstay and one round
    one, sort of a mishmash of pulled and squeezed tubes. Of course, this kind of thing is common
    today. Probably never caught on with builders because the bottom bracket, lugs, etc. were
    proprietary to the tubeset. Basso made a cool-looking frame from it, though (the Ascot?), the one
    that was painted two-tone mint green and blood orange.

    I had an Ascot in white and neon orange. It was heavy but stylish...definitely not the sort of thing
    you see every day. Wish I could have it back. -Dietrich

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.