RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General


Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )


Ciocc Dedacciai EOM 16.5 steel framesets(25 posts)

Ciocc Dedacciai EOM 16.5 steel framesetsKevlar1
Feb 2, 2002 5:46 PM
Anyone have any experience with the Ciocc Dedacciai EOM 16.5 frameset or the Ciocc EOM 16.5/Carbon stay frameset? How does the build/ride quality of these Ciocc frames compare with some of the other top Dedacciai steel bike makers such as Pinarello, Pegoretti, De Rosa?
Dedacciai EOM 16.5 steel tubingNessism
Feb 2, 2002 7:15 PM
I don't have personel experience with this tubing but I receintly talked to one of Dedacciai's main US distributers (Bringheli.com) about it. I was told that this stuff is exceedingly thin and that most builders don't want to mess with it. The surface of the tubes is shot peened to prevent surface crack propagation. Because of this treatment, the tubes can't be sanded or the welds ground for fear of compromising this treatment.

After talking to him it is clear that this stuff is very delicate and best suited to a special event bike.

Unless you posess single digit body fat levels and ride in competition at a high level, a little more beef on the frame is highly recommended.
Dedacciai EOM 16.5 steel tubingtr
Feb 2, 2002 7:52 PM
I ride EOM 16.5 and i disagree with you. It is as solid as my light steel Fondriest (that i like very much) that i have ridden many miles. I am not a small rider by cycling standards and i think it is fine. As for the shot peening comment, i consider that a plus. The next time you are at 30,000 ft be glad that they shot peen the wing surfaces to increase strength and prevent fatigue issues. I think all good aluminum tubes should go thru this process too. There are many european builders using this tubing, just cruise thru Bici Sport and look at all the builders using it. Telekom and some Fassa riders use these tubes on the cobbles in the northern classics with standard seat stays. Just because there are not alot of american builders using it doesn't mean it is not any good. I think Pinarello and De Rosa, to name a few, make good bikes and would not use it if it were trouble.
Well...Nessism
Feb 2, 2002 8:31 PM
It's not that shot peening is bad, just that this tubing is so thin that it is necessary to keep it from cracking. And speaking of cracking, Dedacciai had to develop a special insert that goes into the seat tube to keep it from failing at the bottom bracket junction. They did it and it works. But this is the kind of thinking that goes into this tubeset, completely out of the box and pushing the limit.

If one is looking for the lightest, thinnest steel tubing on the market, go for it. But their is a reason more framebuilders are not using it.
Well...Rusty Coggs
Feb 3, 2002 7:15 AM
Alot of custom builders use it......But, any superlight tubeset has it's potential downsides.The buyer should just be aware.
not using it...merckx56
Feb 3, 2002 7:20 AM
they aren't building with it because it's an expensive tubeset! the fact that they already build with other materials also plays a part. call steve elmes at i.f. and ask him why they don't use it. it's because it's 2x the cost of a 853 set! do you want a $2200 i.f. frame?
if you have no personal experience with it, don't offer an opinion! it rides solidly and has the same tube thicknesses as the new 853 tubing. just because you talked to someone about doesn't indicate experience with a product.
Well...tr
Feb 3, 2002 8:27 AM
I don't think there is an insert in the Opera seat tube and i would suggest that you ride one yourself and experience the bottom bracket stiffness before you make comments and try to scare everyone away. And if you look closely, most frames the tubes are not standard geometries for the obvious reasons. As for lightest and pushing the limit, this could apply to all the nice aluminum (and other material) frames out there and how many of them go thru the shot peen process that should. I don't think it is necessary for everyone to ride a 23 pound bike in order to consider it safe. I think the reason some people don't offer the frame is because the time to build and expense of the tubes. There are many reputable builders using this and it seems that you question them and Dedacciai with your comments.
A couple of comments...Nessism
Feb 3, 2002 2:45 PM
First off I have no doubt that a skilled builder like Don (Anvil) could assemble a set of these tubes into a nice usable frame. But make no mistake, this tubeset is thin and durability IS a factor that should be considered. Does anyone actually think that the lightest tubing on the market (excepting Ultra Foco) will not have trade offs durability wise?

In my discussions with Joe Bringheli about this tubeset, I was told that in-house testing at Dedacciai was showing failures at the seat tube. To counter these failures they developed the insert. Is it needed? Maybe not if the builder is highly skilled. But clearly, Dedacciai's other tubesets do not need an insert. It is based on facts like this, and the overall thin cross-sections, that I stand by my claim that this tubeset IS pushing the limit and CAUTION should be exercised by potentional buyers.

And frankly, this same caution applies for buyers of frames built with Ultra Foco. Super thin stuff.

Hea, I'm all for light bikes. I've spent more than my share of money on light weight parts and such. But at some point reality must enter the equation. After all, it is the combined weight of bike + RIDER that effects the bottom line. If a rider is carrying several lbs. of extra weight as many of us are, why go for a frame that is pushing the technological limits? For 1/2 lbs. more, a significant amount of durability can be added.

Lastly, I'm not saying don't buy a frame made from this stuff. Just that you should not expect it to be as long lasting and durable as most other steel tubesets. And yes, their are some Al tubesets that are just as delicate. But that is another matter.

Ed
A couple of comments...tr
Feb 3, 2002 9:59 PM
Sure, weight and durability are trade offs, i think most of us know this. But, i don't think a 3.5 lb 58 EOM is pushing the limits, if it was under 3 i might agree with you. I have been riding a fondriest just as light since 97 so where are you drawing the line on reliability 5,10, or 15 years. It appears that Joe doesn't carry the tubes anymore for one reason or the other. I still think you should ride one for a while before you talk about the durability issue. I don't think either one of us knows for a fact whether an insert is used on the other tubes of Deda. I think we all know that the weight of the frame is a small percentage of the total weight of rider and bike. If i was a gram hunter i wouldn't be riding a steel frame.
A couple of comments...River Flyer
Feb 3, 2002 10:54 PM
I remember when people said carbon fiber frames should not be bought because they were not durable. I know guys with Calfees who have 40K + miles on them with no problems. I'd be a lot more worried about buying an Ultra Foco frame than an EOM 16.5 frame. Every fabricator I have talked to has said that EOM framesets are fine for riders up to 190 lbs typically. Most of the Ultra Foco frames I see being built strongly suggest rider weight limits of about 140lbs maximum.

Just because a particular builder does not use a tubeset does not mean they are not durable. I too have heard about the seatpost insert and my understanding was it had nothing to do with providing long term support to the frame, but rather was used as an aid during the TIG welding process.

I have been riding a Pinarello Opera exclusively for everyday training (5-6 days a week) for 15 months now. It uses EOM 16.5 tubes and rear carbon seatstays and I typically run it with stiff Zipp 303 clinchers. I average about 200-300 miles per week and the frame is holding up great. If I get at least 30K miles from this frame, which I think I will, I'll be very happy. Most framesets are today are at least in theory designed for fatigue failure at around the 35K mark. So if I only get 30K, which i am about halfway to, will I be mad? Not really, the ride is superb and I for one have experienced no durability issues yet.

Show me some real proof that this tubeset is not durable and I'll listen. However, try to tell me it's not gonna be durable simply because its lighter than its predecessors and more technologically advanced and I don't give that much credence without some real proof or empirical evidence, and 1 builder stating why he doesn't use the tubesets I would hardly call that proof. If you always bought into the philosophy that the current lightest frames are not durable without proof, we'd all be riding 6 lb steel frames using decades old technology.
A couple MORE comments...and then I'll shut-upNessism
Feb 4, 2002 8:13 AM
Their is more to durability than just preventing fatigue failure. Impact resistance is also a factor. Ever have your bike fall down in the garage? I have, just after my son piled into it with his Razor scooter. With tubes as thin as those on the EOM 16.5 tubeset, just having your bike fall over and strike something on the way down can dent a tube.

And then there is the '$hit Happens' type of problem. Not too long back I must have done something stupid shifting wise because my chain sucked between the stay and small ring tweaking the crap out of my rear derailleur. After all was said and done I had a nice gouge on my RH chainstay. Boy am I glad the chainstay had a little meat there, if the tube was thinner, the frame might be junk.

My personel background is in mechanical engineering. For fun I build steel bike frames in my garage. I'm NO Don Ferris in my understanding of framebuilding. But I do have just about every bit of information available regarding tube dimensions, alloys, ect. My wife thinks I'm nuts for the way I pour over these technical details, crunch moment of inertia equations so can compare the stiffness of different tubes, and measure butt lengths and thicknesses in the tubes I'm about to build with. It is with this hobbiest level of knowledge I feel I can make at least an informed opinion regarding topics such as we are discussing here.

Receintly, I've dove back into my frame tubing catalogs while planning my latest creation (think Dextor's Laboratory). Joe Bringheli lives local to me (US Dedacciai distributer) and god bless him, he puts up with all my picking and proding over the tubes he sells. This winter I really wanted to build something different, and lighter, from the my usual ZeroUno tubed frames. I even went so far as to buy some Zero tubes with the Low Torsion downtube (baseball bat shaped tube which flares at the bottom bracket). I weighed all the tubes, measured all the butt lengths and thicknesses, and planned where all the butts would fall on my 53.5cm frame size. As Don mentioned mentioned in his discussion of the EOM 16.5 tubes, some of them do not even have true butted sections on the ends so as to save weight. I found this also true on the L.T. Zero downtube. In effect what you get is a straight gauge tube with a little extra meat on the ends to aid welding. On the downtube at the bottom bracket shell the tube was only 0.47mm thick. Now I can understand thinning the tubes in low stress areas, but a tube this thin at this location worries me.

I calculated that if one was to use the full Zero tubeset compared to the ZeroUno, a weight savings of approximately 5 oz. could be realized. But for that weight savings I also get less durability (impact durability and dumb $hit durability) and a fair bit more flexability. One look at the extra 5 lbs. I'm carrying on my body convinced me to opt for the stiffer and more durable tubeset. In the end Joe let me trade the tubes for the more standard stuff.


Considering that EOM 16.5 is lighter still than Zero, just remember that their is no such thing as a free lunch. Don't even consider a builder unless they have a solid track record working with thin walled steel. And make sure they back purge all the tubes while welding.

If one wants a EOM 16.5 frame, get one.

Ok, done now.

Ed
A couple MORE comments...and then I'll shut-uptr
Feb 4, 2002 6:18 PM
Yes, impact resistance is a concern. We have all seen this before. This is exactly why my frame is not in the gargage. This is not limited to any one bike or material, i have seen this with many alum as well as other light bikes. Somewhat common. It is not limited to EOM 16.5. If you want your bike frame to include this in the design, fine. It is your frame and you can do what you want. Just because you want that in your design does not mean others do. This not being in the design is more common than your statements would suggest. I mean, a tube can be replaced. Sounds like you could replace your own.
You talk of personel background. I am a aerospace / mech engineer working in aeroelasticity for 20 years. I crunch numbers for a living too but i don't think that gives me the right to tell others what is acceptable and what isn't, that is everyone's own choice. I think this is especially true in the case were one has not ridden the material. Yeah, we can crunch equations all day, but i prefer real life experience with the material as well. Whether you want to believe it or not there are plenty of guys out there with big number miles on this material. Some of your comments would suggest that De Rosa, Pegoretti, and Pinarello are not making solid bikes with this material and i think they are. I think they know where to draw the line maybe better than you or me. Go ride a Pegoretti EOM 16.5 and tell me it is not as solid as what you end up building. I for one think they know what they are doing based on years and years of experience. Pegoretti was using EOM 16.5 before everyone else.
Question for tr...Nessism
Feb 4, 2002 6:59 PM
A couple of posts back in this thread you made reference to a 3.5 lb. 58 cm Pegoretti frame. Just curious but how did you come by that weight number? Actually, a 3.5 lb. frame that size sounds like a nice figure. The standard spec. EOM 16.5 tubeset builds into a sub 3.0 lb framset in a 55 cm size as noted by Mr. Anvil, Don Ferris so a 58 should only come in a few oz. more. Maybe Pegoretti is using a propritary configuration of EOM 16.5 that's a little stouter? Just wondering.

Also, to check my sanity I did a search on EOM 16.5 tubing and found this little tidbit on Carl Strongs web site.

Dedaccici EOM 16.5:
"Dedacciai's lightest steel tubeset (among the lightest steel available). Not for the faint at heart; a true 'raceday-only' tubeset. Extremely difficult to work with and even harder to get."
http://www.strongracing.com/

It seems that I'm not the only person to feel this way about this tubeset.

Ed
Question for tr...tr
Feb 4, 2002 7:20 PM
Easy, i weighed my Opera. The pinarello opera is not as light as they were when they first came out. Thanks for reference but i read that over a year ago. Also take a look at the numbers for EOM 16.5. I bought my Opera over a year ago and did my homework. My Opera is 17.5 complete with time pedals and i don't consider that a real low number by today's standards. I consider sub 17 to be moving toward questionable. I will tell you again that my Fondriest frame is lighter or just as light as the Opera and i have been riding it since 97'. That is my sanity check. I don't consider combing the internet to be a sanity check. I think alot of builders want to pump frames out fast and i don't think you can necessarily do that with this tube. If you want a 4 pound frame that's your business, but i don't think you need one.
Funny you should mention FondriestNessism
Feb 4, 2002 8:15 PM
I don't understand your point. You keep referencing your Fondriest but this discussion is not about Fondriest unless yours is an EOM 16.5 frame. And regarding Fondriest frames in general, check the Velonews forum and a lot of people will tell you about how their Fondriest frames were cracking.

http://www.velonews.com/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=23027&t=23024

Your comment:
"The pinarello opera is not as light as they were when they first came out."

Now why would a Pinarello spend money redesigning this frame to add weight if they didn't have to?
Funny you should mention Fondriesttr
Feb 4, 2002 8:42 PM
That was the first two years of production. Do your homework? I have been to Podova at his shop. My point is that there is no talking sense to someone who reads anything on the internet and believes it all. You are a self proclaimed expert on a material you have never ridden and probably a Fondriest that you have never ridden. No wonder people think we engineers are know it alls. The Giro was won on Fondriest and Julich didn't do bad on one either and several classics have been won on one. The number of people that like the bike far outweigh those few who don't.Go scan the internet for that. If you did your homework on Pinarello you might know what i am talking about. You talked of an insert for structural strength and got corrected more than once on several other issues. My point is that the Fondriest is just as light as an EOM 16.5 and i have had no problems with it. I thought you were through talking.
Getting a little tight in here isn't it?Anvil
Feb 5, 2002 1:18 AM
I think the Pegerotti is heavy because of the grossly oversized tubes it uses, i.e., a 44mm downtube, etc. Those are tandem sized tubes, so if wall thickness stays the same, it's going to be heavier (they advertise the frames as 2.8 pounds but I was told recently a 58 weighed closer to 4.).

16.5 is thinner than many other tubesets, but it's a high performance tubeset and you always sacrifice durability and toughness for lighter weight. It's important to remember that dent resistance is dependant on yield strength and surface hardness (for a given thickness or cross section). So, compared to other light bikes, 16.5 will fair no worse than many other lightweight frames and will do a fair site better than many lightweight Al frames.

I think Carl's info may be a little old and he just hasn't updated it yet. When 16.5 first came out if was hard to get since some manufacturers had Deda's production of 16.5 cornered. It hasn't been hard to get for at least a year and with the expansion of the line, it's not super fragile. You have to remember that the tubeset was originally produced for a particular bike (not Pegerotti) and was not therefore available in a range of sizes. Today there are several tubes to choose from and some of the SAT14.5 tubes have been consolidated into the 16.5 lineup. You make some good points Ness, but I think you're painting with a pretty broad stroke and some of your info relative to 16.5 is no longer current.

BTW, I read your post about the Deda Zero long tapered tube (the 31.7 to 35mm downtube) and you're right in that the BB end is damn thin. Thin as any tube I've seen but it does build into a great lug bike and the Dt/BB junction is not highly stressed. I use that tube in conjunction with a Walter 35mmx28.6mm BB shell and the Walter mico racing lugs. Builds a fine light bicycle. I usually pair it up with a 28.6 Zero or Foco top tube in road frames or and a .9/.6/.9 28.6 top tube on track frames (helps ward the inevitable handlebar strikes). You can see an example of a lugged fixed gear/track frame built with this setup here: http://tc-homes.com/bike/forum/fg-bikes/anvil.htm. That particular example belongs to Martin Fernandez somewhere in Virginia...
What is the real weight of a 57 Pinarello Opera roughly?Compact frames are by manuf's
Feb 5, 2002 5:38 AM
Anybody know. Do you think this frame is durable enough for a serious recreational rider to use for everyday training with decent durability? Do the carbon seatstays affect the durability issue at all?
Concession speech (sort of)Nessism
Feb 5, 2002 9:34 AM
Don is right when he says that I am generalizing too much regarding the concerns I've raised. I also made some definitive statements in my previous posts that I can not prove as fact.

Dedacciai has been redefining their lineup of steel tubing over the last year or so, so it's not really fair to say that the entire line of EOM 16.5 tubes are "pushing the limit" durability wise. My unfairness is even more pertinent considering the expansion of the EOM 16.5 product line to include more options, stouter tubes, for the builders.

It is a fact that upon its origional release, EOM 16.5 was one of the thinnest steel tubesets ever mass produced and made available to the general public. The tubes were given what Dedacciai termed the KET treatment (shot/bead peening) to improve durability. I'm not sure if this treatment was/is absolutely necessary, but considering the tubes were some of the lightest on the market, I think it's fair to say that feature is at least "desireable".

Another thing I'm not positive about is the origin and full reasoning behind the insert on the 28.6 mm seat tube. I have no doubt that Don's assessment of this situation is correct in that it's an assembly aid. I also believe Joe Bringheli when he said that Dedacciai's own testing deemed this insert necessary, or at least recommended, to assure the weld joint is at full strength. No other tubeset that I'm aware of requires/recommends/resorts the use of an insert such as this.

Dedacciai as a company is clearly pushing the standards of technology these days. Examples of this include the EOM 16.5 tubeset we are discussing, the U2 AL tubeset, and the Deda Newton stem/handlebars. Details matter when pushing technology and technology sometimes pushes back, or at least teaches us hardwon lessons. Deda Newton stems have had their share of problems early on as have ultra lightweight Dedacciai steel Bianchi Boron and Fondreist frames. Most of these problems have been remedied at this point, but clearly Dedacciai is on the leading edge testing the physical limits with some of their products.

And lasty (it's about time), I would still encourage people to honestly access what they need in a frame before purchasing. If one has a 10% or less body fat level and rides at a high level, by all means explore these high-tech ultra-lightweight steel rigs. If one is carrying some extra flab around the middle and/or is not anal about the care of their bike, a slightly heavier frame is recommended. Free lunches are hard to come by.

Ed, the opinionated one, Ness(ism).
EOM 16.5Anvil
Feb 3, 2002 8:40 AM
I've built lots of bikes with EOM16.5 and I think Joe quit carrying it because the majority of his customers build lugged frames and for him carrying those tubesets represent a lot of money just sitting on the shelf if demand is low. I bought the remaining inventory he had a year or so ago and now get it through the Euro pipeline.

EOM16.5 is a tubeset that poses a few challenges to the builder, primarily during mitering and welding operations. It is difficult for many builders to use EOM16.5 because it's shape makes it hard to hold when mitering. The downtube is tapered and shaped on both planes and the size/shape varies with the length of the tube. This requires special tube holding fixtures to rigidly fix the tubes for machine mitering. The top tube is also very thin and this also makes it difficult to hold. This isn't really a problem for me since I build framebuilding tooling, but if you normally only worth with round tubes, buying special tooling just for some of these types of tubesets can be a huge expense. Portions of some EOM16.5 tubes are thin, but it is no thinner than UltraFoco (it could be argued that UltraFoco is thinner since it has some .38mm walls where .4 is EOM's thinnest.) or some other tubesets. EOM 16.5 saves weight through its very aggressive butting profiles and in low stress areas a thicker butt is not used, it is merely tapered from the thin wall section.

The surface treatment (Deda calls it KET, Kinetic Energy Treatment = marketing name for bead blasting) of the tubes isn't to keep it from cracking, per se, it's a stress relieving technique that helps normalize internal stresses in the tubes prior to welding. EOM16.5 is made from the same alloy as SAT14.5 (used to be called Dedacciai Zero) and the KET is the difference between the two. As far as the welding of the tubeset, you can prep the weld joint area with no worries as long as you do so realizing you don't want to be getting jiggy with it and only cleaning the joint, not removing material. I use a 3M pad and an ultrasonic cleaner for joint prep. Deda advises a weld bead only 2mm wide so when welding 16.5 you just have to move fast and hot.

The 28.6mm seattube does use what is a called a "consumable insert" for the seattube at the seattube/downtube/BB joint. It is used as a backup during welding, it is not a structural reinforcement or designed to to keep the tube from failing. Consumable inserts are nothing new to the welding industry, they're often used in piping systems and such. The idea behind them is that they offer a weld back up and as a secondary source of filler material for the weld joint. Deda uses it in a slightly different manner in that it is there in case the welder should burn through the tube and they are not really intending it to be used as filler. You don't need it if you're confident in your ability to weld thin section steel tubing without burning through. Again it offers no additional structural benefit, it is a welding aid that's use can prevent failure IF the welder perforates/burns through the tube. It's also a PITA to use it as it requires you to tack weld it to the tube prior to mitering. I don't use it and have never had a problem. The EOM16.5 31.7mm seattube doesn't use one at all and that tube is better suited for most riders. I only use the 28.6mm tube on small bikes with lighter riders. I will say that some of the shortcomings in EOM16.5 and UltraFoco for that matter is what prompted me to have my own tubes.

Anyway, EOM16.5 is a light tubeset and sub 3-pound frames are easily achievable in a 55cm with standard geometry. You can see an example of a 3lb frame that uses a mix of EOM16.5 tubes and my tubes here: http://tc-homes.com/bike/forum/lt-bikes/ryansabga.htm (it's not my website). Of course, low weight shouldn't be every one's primary criteria for a bike frame but that's a different thread.

Cheers!
Don
EOM 16.5tr
Feb 3, 2002 9:29 AM
Thanks for the informative and experienced thread
Great post Anvil, I do have a question thoughkelloggg
Feb 3, 2002 9:51 AM
Pegoretti is the frame builder who originally worked with Dedaciai on the development of the EOM 16.5 tubesets. I find it very, very interesting that Pegoretti, having an advantage over other EOM 16.5 framebuilders from a development and R&D standpoint chooses to use EOM 16.5 tubesets which are not specially shaped different from classical round tubes. For his EOM 16.5 GGM and Marcelo bikes, Pegoretti uses classic round shaped tubes. The only place on his EOM 16.5 bikes where he uses non round shaped tubes (they are ovalized) is for the chainstays. Any comments on this? Great thread. By the way, I ride a Pegoretti Great Googoolee Moogoolee and it has been a beautifully durable frameset. I have ridden this think over some of the worst brabble and chip sealed roads you can imagine and the comfort of the ride and the push botton acceleration is fantastic. You could not talk me into trading this bike for a ti, carbon fiber or classic steel lugged framed bike, but that's just me.
Kelloggg, please contact me offlineBrad S
Feb 5, 2002 2:35 PM
I am about to put down a deposit on a GGM and would love to talke to you about yours, what you like, don't like, etc.

You can email me at bdseaman@hotmail.com

thanks
Brad
Great post Don! This is what I come here for. (nm)DoubleK
Feb 3, 2002 10:20 AM
US framebuilders and DED tubesetsOpticalNetguru
Feb 3, 2002 11:09 AM
The reason US framebuilders have yet to embrace the dedacciai EOM 16.5 tubesets has nothing to do with durability or failure issues. This tubeset, when welded properly by a skilled builder is in fact even stronger than comparable Reynolds 853 tubesets.

The reason US builders have not embraced EOM 16.5 is mainly because it's very expensive and very hard to work with. How many US builders use the lower end Dedacciai tubesets - 12.5, and 14.5? Not many! I can think of Strong Frames and that's about it! Most US builders get Reynolds 531 and 853 tubesets at a substantial discount relative to comparable Dedacciai tubes , thus they are using these tubes mainly for economical reasons, not becauset they necassarily have better durability or are stronger and less prone to failure.

To show you some of the hypocrisy of US builders, take a look at the Spectrum bicycles website, for bikes built by the venerable Tom Kellogg. On his site, he has an article written by himself about 5 years ago where he specifically talks about not using the Reynolds 853 tubesets because he believed when using Tig welding on these tubesets, that these tubes developed substantial structural weaknesses about 2-4 mm from the weld patch and thus according to him these new 853 tubesets were no better than regular steel tubesets in his opinion (this article is still posted on the Spectrum website). Nowadays, in 2002, Reynolds 853 is about the most common tubeset that Kellog uses for his custom Spectrum steel frames. What happened, why the change of heart? He is now getting the Reynolds 853 tubesets delivered to him at a much better price than in 1996 when he was trying to develop a relationship using Aeromet tubesets (which never came to fruition) so now all of a sudden the 853's are fine to use. It's called economics folks, it has nothing to do with durability or superiority of the tubeset in any way shape or form over dedacciai EOM 16.5 or the like.

Several of the TDF teams use the dedacciai EOM 16.5 tubesets on some of the roughest roads over there. They would not do this if these framesets had failure issues. As a matter of fact, the Telekom team has already decided to ride dedacciai EOM 16.5 steel bikes similiar to the Pinarello Opera for all the upcoming spring races because the bulk of these races will be run over very rough roads according to their head mechanic. They will later switch to the Pinarello Prince for the summer races and the TDF. There is no way they would choose dedacciai EOM 16.5 frames for the rough road spring classics if they thought they were gonna suffer failures. To the contrary, these tubes thus far have proven to provide great comfort and durability when built by a skilled fabricator. You should have no fear at all about EOM 16.5 if you are considering such a frame, what you should really be considering is the expertise of the builder using these tubesets. If you were to eliminate all the frames from consideration simply because they are thin walled or lightweight approaching 3 lbs than you would be elimination just about every oversized tubed aluminim bike, every carbon fiber bike, and everey lightweight steel bike. That doesn't lead too many choices for someone looking for performance riding does it?