Olmo Columbus Air?

[Jesper]

@AJ 1967 No problem. You have enlightened (and interested) me regarding "newer" Olmos as my present model is substantially older (and also hard to ID), and before they started using more of the various Columbus tubesets on the market in the early to mid '80s and beyond. I am somewhat perplexed that I cannot find (I never really tried researching it previously; I have none, nor have I worked on an "AIR" frame before) a spec sheet for the "AIR" tubeset given that is was in production for at least 4 years (maybe 5) by all accounts and was used by a variety of builders during its lifetime.

Unfortunately, I can only hope Columbus' records will reveal some information, but as with many Italian companies I have reached out to, it often seems like they know nothing other than some generalities about their products in the '80s and prior to that time (Colnago being the worse!). I have other questions to ask them that are unrelated the "AIR" product so hoping to clear up a few other things that remain unanswered for me.
I might pose some questions to "SAARF"; but I have seen information provided by him that contradicts known facts, and he is not easy to get along with (can be downright rude!) if you question his "authority" on certain subjects, but still worth a try since his experience had some merits.

I think your example from "RSC" is a great bet as being pretty much definitive for what is available at present. I have found that site to be a good resource for a lot of my older bikes from the '30s to '70s (although I still have a couple mystery bikes; I never really used it for "newer" bikes post-'70s), and contributors are usually quite knowledgeable as to the history of their machines when providing examples to add to that database.

 

[AJ 1967]

The interesting thing about the RSC listing is that it says Luigi Borini bought it new. I have found a LB on a web site where he cites vintage cycling as an interest and a Cyclist on instagram with the same profile picture. He hasn't been on insta for a long time but I messaged him on both platforms a while back.



Here's another badged Air on the Frame, with Forcella Originale sticker for the fork.

https://www.peterbrueggeman.com/cr/catalogues/olmo-ssn-bike1859-scampi-cicli.pdf

 

[Jesper]

I got this photo forwarded to me from a friend who states that it is the crown from a boxed set of "AIR" lugs and tubes. He was told that Columbus did not make the crowns themselves, but they were IC crowns made (contracted) to fit the particular shape of the "AIR" fork blades. Pretty obvious teardrop design, so rear of the blade would be quite narrow compared to the front. I cannot discern dimensions from your photos, but I am sure that you would be able to tell with the fork at hand. Original teardrop seat post along side.

I am awaiting a response from Tom as we have both left a forum group we were members of years ago, and I am not a member of the forum he subscribes to now so I have forwarded my queries through a friend on the same site as Tom. We are all getting kind of old so I know not everyone is onliine daily. I just retired 1 month ago so some spare time on my hands more than normal. I've been up early catching the TdF so aeeing more UK/European material posted than I normally have time for.


Air Blades (before bending)

 

[Jesper]

The interesting thing about the RSC listing is that it says Luigi Borini bought it new. I have found a LB on a web site where he cites vintage cycling as an interest and a Cyclist on instagram with the same profile picture. He hasn't been on insta for a long time but I messaged him on both platforms a while back.



Here's another badged Air on the Frame, with Forcella Originale sticker for the fork.

https://www.peterbrueggeman.com/cr/catalogues/olmo-ssn-bike1859-scampi-cicli.pdf

As with your forks, I would have expected the fork decals in the example provided would have had "AIR" decals (looks like those blade decals are original on Peter's bike); your fork appears to be the same design. Those decals are typical for "SL" /"SP" blade designation. (early pre c.'88 version).

 

[Jesper]

Here is a quote from a frame builder regarding shaping of blades to fit specific crown shapes:
"I reshaped some Prestige blades to fit a different, Japanese-made aero crown, which was actually closer to a real airfoil in that it had a sharper crease down the back. The Col. Air blades should be easier to make, since the radius of curvature at the back of the blade was larger. I mean larger compared to that same spot on the Tange. Air blades still have a smaller radius in back than at the front, and as with all teardrops, they're wider in front and narrower in back. But a true teardrop would have essentially a zero radius in back, i.e. a super sharp crease, which is next to impossible to make out of tubing. Tange just made theirs a bit closer to the ideal teardrop. Getting that sharper crease down the back was challenging, I had to make a die for it, but the corresponding die for squishing to the Columbus shape would be easier to make. Col. Air blades aren't really all that aero; it was more the "aero look" that they were going for.
Anyway getting too wordy there, sorry I didn't have enough time to make it shorter! Bottom line, since Col. obviously had the die to make Air blades, they could use that die on any other blades that had the same dimensions before squishing. I think all Col. blades back then (before Max came out) were made from 24 mm round tube stock. Oh except for the slightly oversized C&C Tandem blades, made from 1" round I believe."

He certainly did not say that he knew if Columbus had manipulated other tubeset blades to the same shape as the "AIR" blades, only that it would be very easy to do so at the Columbus factory; and also that it could certainly be done by framebuilders inhouse. Since I have seen this happen with main tubes being "crimped", fluted, and ovalized by builders I do not assume that tubing used is in the same form as it was received by a builder. All this just makes it harder on us trying to figure out we have after the fact.

 

[AJ 1967]

Thanks for all your efforts Jesper. I am now semi retired and hence my fixation with this. I have time.

Cromor was a tubeset for the budget conscious buyer, I don't think you would go the extra mile to reprofile tubes, a builder wouldn't waste their time doing this, let alone a manufacturer like Olmo, the catchet of a better tube set would sell better. I also think it's not young enough to be of that era.

That crown is really interesting my forks are the same. I compared the measurement of the wider section of the fork blade on the crown (front) to the rear and its the same ratio on mine. The Cromor forks fitted to the Olmo San Remo (Cromor equiped bike) are oval. My forks and seat stays look like all the other Olmo Air equipped bikes, so that I think is now beyond question. The weight says it has to be SL for the frame. I came across a quote "An SL or SP tretubi frame will use a 27.2mm or 27.0mm post but not have the ridges in the steerer." So that addresses the lack of ridges in my steerer tube. IMHO it should be stickered as Air as the factory did for these frames, but also could be stickered TreTubi with AIR fork stickers.

Moreover the fact that it's a facsimile of this one with known provenance (Bicycle built for the current owner in the Olmo factory in Celle Ligure) is drawing a line under this, I ..........think??
https://www.registrostoricocicli.com/rsc/registro-altre-marche/olmo-005/

 

[Jonny69]

I really think it’s time you just stick some callipers on the tubes and compare it to a tubeset. 3 pages of discussion now, some of it quite interesting, but we still don’t know anything for sure.

 

[Jesper]

Thanks for all your efforts Jesper. I am now semi retired and hence my fixation with this. I have time.

Cromor was a tubeset for the budget conscious buyer, I don't think you would go the extra mile to reprofile tubes, a builder wouldn't waste their time doing this, let alone a manufacturer like Olmo, the catchet of a better tube set would sell better. I also think it's not young enough to be of that era.

Unfortunately, bigger builders did custom shape tubes quite regularly. Rossin being one (I own examples of this), and the quote provided to me is directly from a builder who was custom shaping fork blades to fit their needs (I wonder what decals, if any, were used). It happens! It is much easier for a larger scale builder to custom shape tubes in volume than a small shop. I only bring this up because if I was Olmo using "AIR" fork blades I would want a customer to know that by using "AIR" decals on the forks. Why put "SL" type decals (this has nothing to do with the rest of the frame, just the forks) on the blades when using the more specialized model of blade. It would be a much better selling point to use "AIR" decals. Let's get past the "CROMOR" blades, now we have Peter's and the RSC forks essentially stating "SL" blades while apparently using "AIR" blades, and having an "AIR" decal on the frame which appear to be primarily "SL" tubes except the stays. I assume the fork blades are "AIR" just like your fork blades. It just lacks logical consistency with how Olmo labelled their bikes (again, I am assuming they are OE decals); and I am only referencing the examples you brought forth not your frame at all. It just makes things more confusing. Use "AIR" decals for "AIR" fork blades aside from whether the steerer is Columbus or an inhouse component from Olmo, and regardless of the frame tubes. If frames are mixed tubesets then that is another issue.

I can only assume your fork blades are authentic "AIR" blades based on shape. But why do we keep running into "mis-labelled" blades pertaining to their decals.
I, as well as others, know that large and small builders bought tubesets in large lots (often required) but that did not mean that they exhausted a supply just because a certain model had been discontinued. People are still finding "NOS" sets of tubes and components decades after they had stopped being manufactured so finding a large company like Olmo using certian items 1 or 2 years after they ceased being manufactured is not at all surprising. I know this due to having a frame by a builder using tubes that were about 8 years past their production time. Builders do weird things that we cannot account for which again makes it hard on us decades later to intuit what the heck was going on. Builders change frame designs that never make it into catalogs or other factory documents. They may just be slapping on spare decals (as with your fork's decals which look original) for whatever reason but it makes them look like fools to portray a more specialized product as the lesser or more common item. It is like labelling gold as brass and expecting the buyer to somehow realize that they got something of greater value than what is being outwardly stated by the maker.

I would stick with your assessment, but if going that route I would put "AIR" decals on the forks and be damned with matching the mis-labelled (we assume) blades in previous examples. While assuming your frame is a mix of tubesets (tretubi "SL", and "AIR" stays), I would put both decals on the seat tube (I would eschew the "riverniciato" decal; that's more for shop resellers). At least the next person could avoid all the confusion created by the manufacturer who was either inept or negligent about how they labelled their own work.

 

[AJ 1967]

That is good advice. I hadn’t thought of using the Tretubi and Air decals together as I thought it would be best to just have the one.

 

[AJ 1967]

I really think it’s time you just stick some callipers on the tubes and compare it to a tubeset. 3 pages of discussion now, some of it quite interesting, but we still don’t know anything for sure.

Taken with a crummy digital caliper and need to allow for paint, all measurements are "ish"
Round Tubes:
TT 25.5
ST 28.6
DT 28.8
HT 32
So consistent with most manufacturers standard size.
Seat Stays teardrop shape. From Side view: upper part 11.6, widest point 16.7 near rear lug 12.3
Seat Stay from rear view 11