Vitus Steel Tubing

Long before Vitus began making bonded aluminum frames (Vitus 979), the company had an extensive history of manufacturing quality steel bicycle tubes.  According to Classic Rendezvous, Vitus began as Ateliers de la Rive, on the outskirts of St. Etienne, a city southeast of Paris, near Lyon.  Beginning in 1931, they began making tubes branded as Rubis and Durifort.

Durifort Tubing advert from the Octobre 18 1947 edition of Le Cycle

Durifort advert from the June 1947 edition of Le Cycliste magazine

These 1947 ads, which appeared in Le Cycle and Le Cycliste magazines, show that Durifort tubing was the brand promoted by the Ateliers de la Rive company as the company’s best offerings.  Numerous races were won, with bicycles using the Durifort tubing.  At this time, Rubis tubing was also offered, and was featured on a number of bicycles offered by the manufacturers of the day.

Vitus advert – 1956 Le Cycliste Magazine – Volume 10

 

1980’s Meral with Vitus 788 tubing

By the 1970’s, Vitus was making a variety of tubesets with different wall thicknesses, both butted and straight gauge.

I have owned and worked on several bicycles with Vitus tubing, the oldest of which is a 1947 Peugeot Mixte which featured Vitus Rubis tubing. I still have this bike in my collection.  Although I have seen examples of Vitus’ bonded aluminum frames, I have not ridden one.  I understand that these frames have similar flex characteristics to the alumiminum ALAN frames, which feature aluminum tubes screwed and glued into steel lugs, but Vitus 979 frames do not include steel lugs.

It would be nice to have a resource which identifies the characteristics of each designation of Vitus steel tubing, but this seems to exist only in fragments on various websites.

A writer called vertkyg on the gitaneusa.com forum has developed a fairly complete Vitus timeline, with interesting photos and commentary.  He derived much of his information from a 1974 version of DeLong’s Guide to Bicycles and Bicycling.  As I didn’t have this book in my collection, I ordered a copy and found it to provide a wealth of information, as well as being an interesting commentary on the bicycle industry of the mid 1970’s.

Tube Thickness Guide – courtesy of Delong’s Guide to Bicycles, 1974 edition.

Continuation of the tube thickness guide, courtesy of DeLong’s

The top photo above shows that Vitus tubing in 1974 was offered as the following tubesets:  172, 971, and Durifort.  Durifort was a butted set, but was otherwise identical to the 172 tubeset (although by this chart, I think both tubesets were butted).  971 tubing was presumably the best offering of the time, with its lighter weight .9/.6 wall thicknesses for all of the main tubes.

Steel Tubing Characteristics, courtesy of DeLong’s Guide to Bicycles, 1974 edition.

This additional chart shows the properties of various tubing offerings of the era. Vitus 971 tubing is shown to have ultimate psi strength in excess of Reynolds 531, and as you can see from the above chart is significantly stronger than lower end steel tubing of this era. It is much stronger than the Titanium B 338 tubeset noted on the table, and greatly so, as is Reynolds 531, of course. Vitus 971 and Reynolds 531 tubesets show similar performance characteristics, and could certainly be seen as equals in the marketplace at this time.

My early 1980’s Meral features this steel Vitus 788 tubeset.  Available catalogues from this era do not feature this designation.   From what I can surmise, this was apparently a butted tubeset with a 7/10 top tube, and 8/10 down and seat tubes, thus the 788 designation.  Whether I am right or wrong about that, one thing I know is that Vitus steel tubing is competitive with the Reynolds and Tange tubesets of this era.

UPDATE 10/21/17:  Reader Bruno (see comment below) has shared a different timeline of the Vitus, Durifort, and Rubis tubing brands and their related owners.  It appears that all of these brands were initially owned by separate companies, and that Durifort was folded under the Vitus brand in the early 1970’s.  The link he shares has many historical advertisements – if you don’t speak French you can use a translate tool to study the material presented there, which includes an article written by Daniel Rebour which reviews the history of Vitus.

Compass Elk Pass vs. Pasela Tourguard, Part I

I recently had an experience involving a flat that restored my faith in Portland cyclists, and maybe in humanity itself.  I was riding to work on my beloved Terry Symmetry, which is equipped with 26″ (559) wheels front and rear.  While crossing the Tilikum Bridge, I experienced a flat, so pulled over to get out the tools needed to install a new tube.  Unfortunately, the tube I was carrying would not hold air.  As I contemplated my fate, thinking I would walk the bike, or take the Max train, a friendly cyclist rode up to ask me if I needed anything.  I mentioned that my replacement tube was compromised, and she reached in her bag to offer her spare tube.  Taking a quick gander at her bike, with its flat bars, I mistakenly assumed that she was riding 26 inch wheels.  She rode off before I could even offer payment for the tube she supplied, and that is a favor I intend to pay forward.  However, the 700c tube (622 mm) I had in my hand needed to go into my 559 mm rim.  Well, it did.

I barely inflated it, and gingerly installed the Pasela TourGuard folder back onto the rim, and was reminded why I carry FOUR tire irons in my tool kit.  The Paselas are a tight fit on these Mavic X221 rims, both on and off.  While I was underway with getting the bike back on the road, using very low pressure for the too large tube, a nearby construction worker asked me whether flats are a common problem.  To which I replied, no.

I have had more flats on my Terry, with its Pasela Tourguards than on any other tires I ride, but that is too say only once every year or two.  Even so, as I was thinking about the fact that the only tires I ever have flats on are these Paselas on the Terry, maybe it was time to consider something different.

Compass Elk Pass 559s

Pasela TourGuard 559s

Based on Georgena Terry’s recommendation, I ordered a set of Compass Elk Pass tires.  As you can see above, these tires have no tread at all, and have a kind of cross-hatch pattern on the very flexible side wall.  The logo is understated relative to the Pasela’s.  Both tires are made by Panasonic.

Elk Pass width – a little over 28mm

Pasela width – a little over 30mm

I was hoping that the Elk Pass tires would be at least as wide as the Pasela’s, but that was not that case.  The Elk Pass tires mounted at a little over 28mm on the Mavic rims, whereas the Paselas are a little over 30 mm in width.  Both tires are marketed as 32 mm tires.  I suspect that the Elk Pass tires will widen over time, but probably they will never be 32mm on my rims.

I also questioned my sanity when I read this warning on the Elk Pass packaging:  “This tire is made of very sensitive material.  Never use the tire when you drive on unpaved road, mountain trail and waste land.  Please be careful of flat tire due to side wall cutting by fallen rocks…”  Hmmm…are these tires so delicate that commuting on them will rip them to shreds?  I am not sure, and hope that this is just a wacky result of over zealous product liability advisors.

Now that I have the Elk Pass tires mounted, which involved over-inflating them so that they would seat properly on the rims, then bringing the pressure back down, I am going to test them out on my Portland commute, which includes occasional rough roads and some gravel riding.  I will follow up with a second post once I’ve ridden these tires for a few hundred miles.  As far as tire pressure goes, I am going to start with 70 psi rear and 60 psi front, which is the tire pressure I have used on the Pasela’s.  We will see how that goes.

Single Chain Ring Considerations

A Canadian Peugeot with single chain ring and spider mounted chain guard.

Most of my bikes have multiple chainrings – double or triple.  I’ve gotten so used to the shifting patterns on my bikes, that I don’t think much about the double rear shifts that might be required to maintain cadence when shifting the front ring, nor do I worry that I might have to trim out the front derailleur from time to time (I use friction shifting for the most part).  But, that is not normal.  I am a geek, and the vast majority of cyclists are not (no offense to the wonderfully geeky readers of this blog).  Non-geeky cyclists are probably drawn to the seeming simplicity of a single chain ring up front.  Less shifting equals better riding, right?

The only bike in my constellation of daily riders with a single chain ring up front is my 1987 Panasonic MC 7500 – a bike I acquired as a frame and fork and then built into a city commuter.  Even though it’s the heaviest bike I ride, it’s the one that gets the most daily use.  One of the reasons for its appeal as a commuter bike is the simplicity of its equipment.  It has a rear freewheel with 6 speeds and plenty of range, plus a single chainring up front.  I installed a $7 ratcheting no name friction shifter on the handlebar to move the rear derailleur, and the shifter works intuitively with the lower end but perfectly decent Shimano Acera long cage rear derailleur.  At first, I didn’t use a chainkeeper, but experienced the chain jumping off on a few occasions, so decided to install Paul’s chainkeeper.  Chainkeepers are designed to keep the chain from falling off either side of the front ring of a single chainring bicycle when shifting vigorously or oddly, as can happen when unexpected events occur while cycling, and especially while commuting.

After a few mishaps with Paul’s chainkeeper, the most recent of which caused me to re-locate this device, as shown above (it is now a “fender keeper”), I have been thinking about the way returning cyclists, as well as those not mechanically inclined might have dealt with my recent near disaster.

I was cycling home after a day at work, heading downhill when suddenly my cranks would not turn.  Since I was still freewheeling I knew that the problem was at the front of the drive train and I immediately suspected that the chainkeeper had become dislodged and contacted the chain.  I pulled over immediately, and after confirming this was true, disengaged the chainkeeper, as shown above.  I rode home with no further issues, but shifted very gently, hoping my chain would not jump off the front ring, and all went well.  It is unlikely that the average cyclist would have been able to diagnose this problem, much less solve it.  Nor should they really need to.  Instead, the marketplace needs some much better solutions to the single chain ring challenge.

1947 Camille Daudon with single chainring

Vintage bicycles with single chain rings don’t need chain keepers.  Why?  The rear freewheel will have only 3 to 5 speeds for the chain to navigate, causing the chain movement to be very manageable as compared to modern drive trains with 8 – 11 speeds at the rear.  For commuters, it’s not necessary to have tons of gears, but instead to have enough gear range to accommodate the hills you encounter on your commute.  So, 3 to 5 speeds might be all you need, if the gear range is appropriate.

Paul’s Chain Keeper

The problem with many chainkeepers, such as Paul’s, is that they work TOO well. Since they are designed to prevent chain movement, there isn’t enough clearance to provide for even the slightest change in chain angle, and they require extremely precise adjustment that can go out of whack with even a small mishap.

One solution is to put a spider mounted chain guard on the crank, and then use a seat tube mounted chain watcher on the other side.  Or, you can put two spider mounted chain guards on the crank – on either side of the chain ring.  Sheldon Brown published an article for Adventure Touring Magazine in 1999 which deals with chainring issues for touring bicycles, but he also includes some good advice on anti-derailment devices that can help prevent the chain from dropping off a single chain ring.

If you are going to convert your bike to a single ring up front, here are some points to consider:

Shorten the Chain – you will want to remove links from your chain in order to accommodate the switch to a single ring up front.  This will help to prevent chain slap and chain jump.

Decide about a chainkeeper vs. chainwatcher vs. chainguard(s):  Depending on the width of your rear cassette or freewheel, you’ll need to think about the demands you are placing on the front ring.  If you are trying to go with an 11 or 10 speed system at the rear, then you’ll need something to help deal with the extreme angles that the chain will experience at the front ring.

Make sure the rear derailleur can handle the range: when switching to a single ring up front, you often need to increase the range of your rear cassette or freewheel.  If you do so, make sure that your rear derailleur can handle the the bigger cogs.  You may need to adjust your b-screw, or invert it (a la Sheldon Brown) to get the clearance you’ll need for the larger cogs.

Or – shift carefully and don’t worry about any of this.  Occasionally your chain may fall off, and then, you’ll put it back on again.