Rolling and tumbling

Bike Frame Design – the influence of tubing diameter

and wall thickness

The usual assumption is that significant part of the ride characteristics of a frame is determined
by its rigidity. An excessively flexible frame feels inefficient for power transmission and can be
more difficult to control on rough surfaces or with a load. On the other hand, an excessively rigid
frame rides harshly, transmits shock and vibration to the rider, and feels less lively.

Custom builders talk about the importance of using the appropriate combinations of wall
thickness and diameters for a particular rider and the use to which the bike will be put (but they
usually keep their design procedures proprietary). Jan Heine advocates for the improved ride
quality and desirable flex in a frame constructed of extra-thin-walled traditional-diameter tubing
(Jan’s blog (h ps://janheine.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/a-journey-of-discovery-part-5-frame-
stiffness/)). On the other hand, some influential figures in the business of building steel bikes
downplay the importance of tube diameter and/or wall thickness to the ride of a bike (Sachs in
forum discussion (h p://www.velocipedesalon.com/forum/f50/ride-quality-trad-vs-oversize-vs-
double-oversize-21480-2.html), Gordon link (h p://www.bgcycles.com/new-page-1/)).

It is difficult to make an objective judgment about the influence of bike tubing. There are design
fashions and fads, the power of suggestion, and the placebo effect. There are also confounding
effects of frame angles, chain stay length, fork design, individual fit, and tire characteristics. And
it is difficult to get a statistically significant sample size, both in the number of human subjects
and the availability of bikes that are identical except for the factor being compared.

Without objective experiment, all we have is experience. For decades, the standard high-quality
bike frame was made of Reynolds 531 tubing. The usual combination was a 1” diameter top tube
with 0.8 mm wall thickness on the ends and 0.5 mm wall thickness in the thinner (bu ed) section
in the middle of the tube (.8/.5/.8) along with a 1 1/8” diameter down tube with .9/.6/.9 wall
thickness and a single-bu ed 1 1/8” .9/.6 seat tube. There might have been millions (I am
completely making up a number here) of frames built with these specifications by Peugeot,
Raleigh, Schwinn, and a host of competitors. A bike built using this tubing was responsive and
reliable, and could win races, tour the world, or get the rider to work in the morning. The
comparable Columbus tubing was a li le heavier. The Columbus SL sticker designated tubing
with .9/.6/.9 top and down tubes, and Columbus SP was 1/.7/1.