Originally Posted by
superstator
It's just been my experience with automotive parts that stainless hardware is generally considered "hardware store junk" with no tensile strength and an obnoxious tendency to gall and cause corrosion around aluminum parts. Obviously on a bike galling and galvanic corrosion are less of a concern, and if Reynolds has some fancy new alloys that solve the strength issues then good for them. Still seems like a lot of money to spend on a material that isn't bringing much new to the table vs alu/scandium/etc. I am curious, is your frame lugged, or are they able to join the tubing together adequately with fillet welds?
"similar wall thicknesses, tube diameters, and butting profiles" is a pretty key caveat. Unless they can shape 953 tubing as drastically as the stays on one of those alu Tiemeyers, for instance, they'll never match it for stiffness in the end product without using much thicker walls and consequently increasing weight.
My frame is lugged, but there are a number of builders making fillet brazed as well as TIG-welded frames using 953. So far, the response of framebuilders as well as customers to 953 has been very enthusiastic.
Since you seem unfamiliar with the material, you might want to google "reynolds 953" and see what those with experience building with the material and riding frames made of it have to say about it. Reynolds has managed to turn out 953 tubes with different wall thicknesses and butting profiles for given tube diameters so that builders can pretty much mix-and-match to tune frames (stiffness, compliance, weight, rider preferences, etc.) for specific applications.
Respectfully, the OP asked about titanium vs. stainless, and I thought your response regarding the qualities of stainless steel as a frame material deserved additional comment from someone who actually rides a stainless steel frame.
