# True Temper OXIII vs. Tange Ultimate



## PepeVL (Sep 18, 2007)

Dear friends, 

I've been offered a circa '94 Trek 970. As far as I can recall, it's made with True Temper OXIII tubing. I know a couple of things about Tange mid-nineties tube sets, but I don't have much information abou True Temper. 

I need help about the specs of this tube set and its equivalence to Tange stuff (prestige? ultimate superlight? ultimate ultralight?). As far I know, OXIII involves tripple butted main tubes, but I'm not sure. 

So far I've been using a '93 Marin Team Issue (Tange Ultimate Superlight), and I'd like my new frame to be as compliant and comfortable as it (from the point of view of vibrations, not geometry  ). 

Thanks


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

both prestige and true temper OXIII came in diff. diameters. te choice of diameter would make more difference in ride than the butting involved.
it's the design of the frame that makes the difference.
having said that prestige tubed bikes tend to have a special ride. i wouldn't swear off a true temper bike though.. like a fat chance yo eddy for example.


----------



## steveit (Jan 25, 2004)

Hi 
I dont think trek used OX3 on 970's until 95 and 96, but you never know. i think it was supposed to be TT's supersteel of the day with a high tensile strength. Ive had a few OX3 treks and tho they were good frames generally,but no match for the prestige concept ultimate i have now as far as my preference and limited expertise.


----------



## gm1230126 (Nov 4, 2005)

In both 1993 and 1994 the Trek 970 was True Temper OX Comp II
http://www.airfreetires.com/Specs/Step5.asp?BikeId=19361&Brand=Trek&Model=970&Year=1993
http://www.airfreetires.com/Specs/Step5.asp?BikeId=19358&Brand=Trek&Model=970&Year=1994

In 95 they jumped to True Temper OX III
http://www.airfreetires.com/Specs/Step5.asp?BikeId=19360&Brand=Trek&Model=970&Year=1995

Someone out there must have ridden a Trek or Diamond Back in True Temper OX tubing back then and have also ridden a Prestige bike.


----------



## cegrover (Oct 17, 2004)

I have a Prestige '87 Paramountain and an OX '91 Diamondback Axis - the frames are very different, so it's hard to say how much the tubing contributes. I'll say the Paramountain soaks of bumps better, but it's not a huge difference. Also, the Paramountain fits me a little better, so it biases me that way, too...


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

OX tubing was heat-treated chromoly, the I, II, III just referred to the version of butting they used. AVR was their non heat-treated butted chromoly tubing. AVR would basically be equivalent to Tange MTB, and the OX stuff falls in equal to Prestige tubing (all prestige tubesets being heat-treated) so if you compared the literally by model levels, the OX was Prestige, OX II would be Prestige Concept, and OX III would be Prestige Ultimate but probably just the Ultralight level, not the Ultrastrong or the Superlight.

Actually the only tubing I can think of equivalent to the Ultimate Superlight is the proprietary heat-treated and quadruple butted custom drawn tubing Giant was making in-house (giant being the only bicycle manufacturer to actually own their own tube mill also at the time to make their own tubesets) that were used around 1995 on ATX 780 and 760 models which while decently equipped and priced, didn't sell that well because they cost exactly the same as similar spec'ed Giant Aluminium ATX 8xx models and Al was the new wonder metal every bike owner had to have. Too bad too because that tubeset produced as light as 3.4 pound framesets.


----------



## Fred Smedley (Feb 28, 2006)

DeeEight said:


> OX tubing was heat-treated chromoly, the I, II, III just referred to the version of butting they used. AVR was their non heat-treated butted chromoly tubing. AVR would basically be equivalent to Tange MTB, and the OX stuff falls in equal to Prestige tubing (all prestige tubesets being heat-treated) so if you compared the literally by model levels, the OX was Prestige, OX II would be Prestige Concept, and OX III would be Prestige Ultimate but probably just the Ultralight level, not the Ultrastrong or the Superlight.
> 
> Actually the only tubing I can think of equivalent to the Ultimate Superlight is the proprietary heat-treated and quadruple butted custom drawn tubing Giant was making in-house (giant being the only bicycle manufacturer to actually own their own tube mill also at the time to make their own tubesets) that were used around 1995 on ATX 780 and 760 models which while decently equipped and priced, didn't sell that well because they cost exactly the same as similar spec'ed Giant Aluminium ATX 8xx models and Al was the new wonder metal every bike owner had to have. Too bad too because that tubeset produced as light as 3.4 pound framesets.


Miyata also had inhouse tubing from the late eighties on.


----------



## Elevation12000 (Jun 16, 2004)

2nd Fred

Nice tubing. From '83 on. In later years with the 'spiral spline' spiral shaped butting at the ends.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

I think the difference is Giant owned its own FOUNDRY for pouring the steel themselves while Miyata just butted its own tubing from stock they got from other supplies.


----------



## Fred Smedley (Feb 28, 2006)

DeeEight said:


> I think the difference is Giant owned its own FOUNDRY for pouring the steel themselves while Miyata just butted its own tubing from stock they got from other supplies.


My understanding is Miyata made thier own tubing, they were known for triple butted splined tubing that was drawn to each specific model and size.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miyata,


----------



## Elevation12000 (Jun 16, 2004)

Miyata had their own mill. Back then they were the only one, they claim. I do not know whether that claim is correct, as I believe there were Vitus frames and Vitus tubing too. Or did Vitus outsource tubing making? Don't know.


----------



## PepeVL (Sep 18, 2007)

colker1 said:


> both prestige and true temper OXIII came in diff. diameters. te choice of diameter would make more difference in ride than the butting involved.
> it's the design of the frame that makes the difference.
> having said that prestige tubed bikes tend to have a special ride. i wouldn't swear off a true temper bike though.. like a fat chance yo eddy for example.


Thank you. Well, I've ridden other Marins with the same geometry and tubing of a similar diameter but lower quality (thicker) and were not as compliant, by any means. So maybe it's just a feature of "high-end tange". I'll take it into account.



steveit said:


> Hi
> I dont think trek used OX3 on 970's until 95 and 96, but you never know. i think it was supposed to be TT's supersteel of the day with a high tensile strength. Ive had a few OX3 treks and tho they were good frames generally,but no match for the prestige concept ultimate i have now as far as my preference and limited expertise.





gm1230126 said:


> In both 1993 and 1994 the Trek 970 was True Temper OX Comp II
> http://www.airfreetires.com/Specs/Step5.asp?BikeId=19361&Brand=Trek&Model=970&Year=1993
> http://www.airfreetires.com/Specs/Step5.asp?BikeId=19358&Brand=Trek&Model=970&Year=1994
> 
> ...


Yes, probably it is a 95 bike. Thank you. 2-0 for tange  , so far.



cegrover said:


> I have a Prestige '87 Paramountain and an OX '91 Diamondback Axis - the frames are very different, so it's hard to say how much the tubing contributes. I'll say the Paramountain soaks of bumps better, but it's not a huge difference. Also, the Paramountain fits me a little better, so it biases me that way, too...


3-0. Thanks. I'm starting to think that it isn't only high-end steel what soaks up vibrations, but, to a certain extent, tange know-how :eekster: .



DeeEight said:


> OX tubing was heat-treated chromoly, the I, II, III just referred to the version of butting they used. AVR was their non heat-treated butted chromoly tubing. AVR would basically be equivalent to Tange MTB, and the OX stuff falls in equal to Prestige tubing (all prestige tubesets being heat-treated) so if you compared the literally by model levels, the OX was Prestige, OX II would be Prestige Concept, and OX III would be Prestige Ultimate but probably just the Ultralight level, not the Ultrastrong or the Superlight.
> 
> Actually the only tubing I can think of equivalent to the Ultimate Superlight is the proprietary heat-treated and quadruple butted custom drawn tubing Giant was making in-house (giant being the only bicycle manufacturer to actually own their own tube mill also at the time to make their own tubesets) that were used around 1995 on ATX 780 and 760 models which while decently equipped and priced, didn't sell that well because they cost exactly the same as similar spec'ed Giant Aluminium ATX 8xx models and Al was the new wonder metal every bike owner had to have. Too bad too because that tubeset produced as light as 3.4 pound framesets.


So I should expect an OXIII frame to be slightly worse than a Superlight. Good enough, though. Nice point about Giant, didn't have a clue. Mid-nineties steel Giants are not very well known at this side of the sea (Europe). Thanks a lot!

Indeed, thanks everyone for your help. I'll keep you updated. :thumbsup:


----------



## Elevation12000 (Jun 16, 2004)

That OX3 is inferior is what you make yourself believe. Same for various other assumptions you make. Maybe you should not have asked us in 1st place. Good luck.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

So I should expect an OXIII frame to be slightly worse than a Superlight. Good enough, though. Nice point about Giant, didn't have a clue. Mid-nineties steel Giants are not very well known at this side of the sea (Europe). Thanks a lot!

Indeed, thanks everyone for your help. I'll keep you updated. :thumbsup:[/QUOTE]

is a fat chance worse than a prestige marin?


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Its very rare to find Tange Prestige Ultimate Superlight tubing used for mountain bikes anyway, it was just "too light" a tubeset for many brands to bother building with. I can only think of a handful of brands to have used it for the full frame even then. In the same way, the Prestige Ultimate Ultrastrong was rarely used completely to make up the frames because few designers actually built frames at the time to be as strong as they could (this is years before the whole urban/freeride scene). It was far more likely to encounter them both mixed in a frame where the downtube was ultrastrong, the toptube was superlight, and the seattube was likely ultralight.










You'll note the double external dimensions on the mtb tubesets that aren't on the superlight road tubeset. That's the flared and ovalized end for the BB shell zone that increased the weld zone size for better joint strength and lateral stiffness. It usually transitioned about 2" above the BB shell, so you couldn't use a top-swing front derailleur on one of those frames (as the clamp band diameters didn't come in the right sizes/shape). Also they didn't offer the headtubes in an external diameter large enough for 1 1/4" headsets, just 1" and 1 1/8".


----------



## PepeVL (Sep 18, 2007)

colker1 said:


> So I should expect an OXIII frame to be slightly worse than a Superlight. Good enough, though. Nice point about Giant, didn't have a clue. Mid-nineties steel Giants are not very well known at this side of the sea (Europe). Thanks a lot!
> 
> Indeed, thanks everyone for your help. I'll keep you updated. :thumbsup:


is a fat chance worse than a prestige marin? [/QUOTE]

I'm not saying that. A fat chance has other advantages that make them a dream and a keeper. I'm comparing two stock bikes from two big brands. Similar geometry, similar weldings, similar bussiness. In that context, it is tubing that counts, and apparently Tange Superlight is better than TT OXIII.


----------



## RXL (Feb 8, 2008)

I miss my old 970 ('93). Sold it last year for a new stumpjumper.


----------



## PepeVL (Sep 18, 2007)

DeeEight said:


> Its very rare to find Tange Prestige Ultimate Superlight tubing used for mountain bikes anyway, it was just "too light" a tubeset for many brands to bother building with. I can only think of a handful of brands to have used it for the full frame even then. In the same way, the Prestige Ultimate Ultrastrong was rarely used completely to make up the frames because few designers actually built frames at the time to be as strong as they could (this is years before the whole urban/freeride scene). It was far more likely to encounter them both mixed in a frame where the downtube was ultrastrong, the toptube was superlight, and the seattube was likely ultralight.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, it's very hard to find. That's why I'm widening my scope. Regarding ultrastrong, I remember a ninety-something Kona Explosif, built in the way you explain, from ultrastrong, and ultralight. Great frame.

Very interesting information. Thanks again!


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

PepeVL said:


> is a fat chance worse than a prestige marin?


I'm not saying that. A fat chance has other advantages that make them a dream and a keeper. I'm comparing two stock bikes from two big brands. Similar geometry, similar weldings, similar bussiness. In that context, it is tubing that counts, and apparently Tange Superlight is better than TT OXIII.[/QUOTE]

another perspective: ibis moron tubing was once done by tange accoridng to ibis specs. when tange ceased their cycling operation dedacciai ibis took their specs to dedacciai.
did mojos suffer in quality or refinement cause of this change?

i think tubing brand is a non issue.


----------



## PepeVL (Sep 18, 2007)

RXL said:


> I miss my old 970 ('93). Sold it last year for a new stumpjumper.


Nice one. I'm not a fan of lugs, but in this case I'd make an exception.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

i have a tange specialized fork and a true temper vicious cycles forlk. the vicious is far superior so we have to assess true temper is far superior...???...


----------



## RXL (Feb 8, 2008)

PepeVL said:


> Nice one. I'm not a fan of lugs, but in this case I'd make an exception.


Thanks. Yeah, I don't miss the lugs.


----------



## alexk (Sep 30, 2005)

Just a comment slightly related to one of D8's posts, I have ridden a 1995 Diamond Back Ascent with True Temper AVR tubing and compared that to my 1993 Diamond Back Axis that uses True Temper OX. The AVR frame feels 'dead' in comparison to the OX frame. The difference is noticeable even just riding just riding up a driveway. The OX frame feels 'alive' with an instantaneous response to pedalling inputs and rider movement. There's a real feeling of 'let's go bloody fast' that isn't apparent with the AVR frame. This may not be a direct comparison as I'm sure there is a geometry difference between the frames but I'm sure some of that difference is also related to the frame tube specification.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

alexk said:


> Just a comment slightly related to one of D8's posts, I have ridden a 1995 Diamond Back Ascent with True Temper AVR tubing and compared that to my 1993 Diamond Back Axis that uses True Temper OX. The AVR frame feels 'dead' in comparison to the OX frame. The difference is noticeable even just riding just riding up a driveway. The OX frame feels 'alive' with an instantaneous response to pedalling inputs and rider movement. There's a real feeling of 'let's go bloody fast' that isn't apparent with the AVR frame. This may not be a direct comparison as I'm sure there is a geometry difference between the frames but I'm sure some of that difference is also related to the frame tube specification.


i had khs's w/ both avr and ox. same size and geom= no difference.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

OX being heat-treated could be drawn thinner so the tubeset would overall be lighter. Part of thinning out a tube's wall includes a minute reduction in its stiffness (not as significant a change as the outside diameter makes mind you). It would be more interesting to compare the tubeset diameters of that Ascent and Axis (assuming they're the identical size and all the angles and lengths match).


----------



## anthonyinhove (Nov 3, 2007)

I’m very dubious about ever saying one tubeset is ‘better’ than another. What is your definition of ‘better’? Stiffer? Stronger? Lighter? Livelier? More compliant? All of these qualities are desirable, but some may be mutually contradictory so you can’t have all of them in one tubeset. One person’s most-desired qualities might be quite different from another’s, so there can't be agreement about which is the ‘best’ tubeset.

And even if you ride bikes made of the different tubes, do you learn anything? I have a 97 Kilauea made of Columbus Cyber and a 98 Explosif made of Reynolds 853. The Kilauea frame is lighter than the Explosif, the Explosif is stiffer. Does that prove that Cyber is lighter than 853 but 853 is stiffer? No, it proves nothing. The Kilauea has a 28.6 x7/4/7 top tube and a 31.8x8/5/8 down tube, the Explosif has a 31.8x8/5/8 top tube and a 34.9x9/6/9 down. So with c30% more metal in those two tubes, it’s hardly surprising that the 853 bike is stiffer and heavier than the Columbus Cyber one, and it certainly doesn’t prove that 853 is stiffer and heavier than Cyber. Let alone ‘better’. 

And you only know that much because Kona publish their tube specs - with other makes you wouldn’t know what the tube specs are, so you’d have no basis for comparison whatsoever.

My guess is that the differences between tubesets are quite small and the marketing departments of these companies would be thrilled to read this thread. ‘Wow, the people actually believe in our hype!’ they’d say to themselves.


----------



## PepeVL (Sep 18, 2007)

anthonyinhove said:


> I'm very dubious about ever saying one tubeset is 'better' than another. What is your definition of 'better'? Stiffer? Stronger? Lighter? Livelier? More compliant? All of these qualities are desirable, but some may be mutually contradictory so you can't have all of them in one tubeset. One person's most-desired qualities might be quite different from another's, so there can't be agreement about which is the 'best' tubeset.
> 
> And even if you ride bikes made of the different tubes, do you learn anything? I have a 97 Kilauea made of Columbus Cyber and a 98 Explosif made of Reynolds 853. The Kilauea frame is lighter than the Explosif, the Explosif is stiffer. Does that prove that Cyber is lighter than 853 but 853 is stiffer? No, it proves nothing. The Kilauea has a 28.6 x7/4/7 top tube and a 31.8x8/5/8 down tube, the Explosif has a 31.8x8/5/8 top tube and a 34.9x9/6/9 down. So with c30% more metal in those two tubes, it's hardly surprising that the 853 bike is stiffer and heavier than the Columbus Cyber one, and it certainly doesn't prove that 853 is stiffer and heavier than Cyber. Let alone 'better'.
> 
> ...


Well, as you say, I can't say if a tubeset is better than another in general terms, but I can say which one is better for me and my preferences.

Indeed, I've had the chance to ride thoroughly bikes made with different tubing but an almost identical geometry and structure. Let's compare a Marin Bear Valley (Tange MTB, double butted, rather thick tubing) with a Team Issue (Ultimate Superlight, really thin). As far as riding confort goes, the second feels quite better, without resulting flexy. That's what I want and what makes a tubeset better for me.

Moreover, I would have not asked the question if I was to compare mi Marin with, for instance, a GT Bravado, high-end steel but completely different (from welds to tube diameters, geometry and structure). But I'm comparing fairly similar frames sharing many features BUT tubing. That's it.

If I've been able to notice a difference between tubesets, I guess some of you wise people can help me to decide  .


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

PepeVL said:


> Well, as you say, I can't say if a tubeset is better than another in general terms, but I can say which one is better for me and my preferences.
> 
> Indeed, I've had the chance to ride thoroughly bikes made with different tubing but an almost identical geometry and structure. Let's compare a Marin Bear Valley (Tange MTB, double butted, rather thick tubing) with a Team Issue (Ultimate Superlight, really thin). As far as riding confort goes, the second feels quite better, without resulting flexy. That's what I want and what makes a tubeset better for me.
> 
> ...


Tube diameters make more difference in ride feel than brand, butting or even heat treating.
so an 853 bike can be heavy or light, stiff or compliant or even flexy.
you may chose tange x true temper out of pure mfgr loyalty or because you like the words "ultimate ultralite" but you can't say one rides significantly different than the other.
it's how a builder choses his tubes in terms of diameter and thickness that defines the ride.
even if you compare high end tange x high end true temper w/ the exact same geometry, the choice of tubing diameters is what makes the ride different. 
sorry... but there is no point in brand x brand of steel tubing when it comes to ride quality.


----------



## PiriPiri82 (Jun 22, 2008)

alexk said:


> Just a comment slightly related to one of D8's posts, I have ridden a 1995 Diamond Back Ascent with True Temper AVR tubing and compared that to my 1993 Diamond Back Axis that uses True Temper OX. The AVR frame feels 'dead' in comparison to the OX frame. The difference is noticeable even just riding just riding up a driveway. The OX frame feels 'alive' with an instantaneous response to pedalling inputs and rider movement. There's a real feeling of 'let's go bloody fast' that isn't apparent with the AVR frame. This may not be a direct comparison as I'm sure there is a geometry difference between the frames but I'm sure some of that difference is also related to the frame tube specification.


This is an interesting and enlightening thread. In reply to alexk's quote I have had a similar experience riding 2 seemingly identical Diamond Backs; albeit one had better tubing. I had the good fortune of inheriting a 1991 Diamond Back Axis after my brother purchased a Diamond Back Axis team of the same year (interestingly they have re-released the team colours for a special edition model in the 2008 Diamond Back range).

The only real difference between these 2 bikes was the tubesets. The Diamond Back Axis had double butted True temper OX and the Axis Team had True Temper OX, Heat treated, Double butted Ultralite -II tubing. The difference in the character of these bikes was astounding. They were both the same size and there was maybe only a half-pound weight difference between the two. The Axis Team was way snappier, much faster and generally had the cliched "alive feeling" in spades compared to the plain vanilla Axis. From this perspective I can see that different tubesets do make a discernible difference to the quality of ride as much as geometry. They were both great bikes though and I miss them dearly. The Axis died of neglect after I bought my Orange P7 in 1996. I passed it on to my younger brother and he rode it into the ground. The Axis Team met its demise in Glentress. A fitting end to a trusty thoroughbred.

Ever since then I have only ever desired steel. I have ridden Tange Prestige and Reynolds tubed frames and each has it's own characteristics. Good quality tubing is reassuring but at the end of the day, if the ride is good it's good no matter what brand or guise.


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

that is all very interesting and good... i have another question to through in; I have a 1994 DB Axis TR made from True Temper short butted tubing (thats all i remeber, will have to go look at the sticker for more info...) any idea what that is??


----------



## mik_git (Feb 4, 2004)

hmmm says True Temper TT-Lite Custome short butted Cro-Mo tubing


----------



## laffeaux (Jan 4, 2004)

I own a Bontrager made of True Temper OX and a Moutnain Goat made of Tange Prestige. They are two of my favorite riding bikes. Both tubesets are nice. How the frame builder puts them together is what matters.


----------



## archone (Sep 24, 2009)

*Short Butts*



mik_git said:


> hmmm says True Temper TT-Lite Custome short butted Cro-Mo tubing


Short butted tubing is basically the same as Custom butted. Generally, a custom builder can only get a tube in one or two butt lengths. So a tube would be say 650mm long.. and the first 50mm may be butted.. then the next 400mm would be the thin wall, then the rest would be the other thick butt. Well, if the frame uses 650mm of tube, then 200mm of the tube would be the larger thickness.

Because manufacturers make so many bikes, they can order custom tubes for each bike size. So in the above example... the tube would most likely be 50mm thick butt, 550mm thin wall, 50mm thick butt.

So "short butted" or "custom butted" for the particular size.


----------

