Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    My Bikes
    '85 Nishiki Tri-A, early '90's Nishiki Tange Prestige, '84 Trek 610, mid-'80's Miele (unknown), '72 all chrome Raleigh International, '81 Trek 412, 84 Specialized StumpJumper
    Posts
    186
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    4130 v. Reynolds 531

    Any insight into the qualatative differences b/w these two materials? I'm thinking of trading in my 06 Jamis Aurora (great bike, Reynolds) for a Cross Check (4130). I've read quite a bit on this forum about the perceived overpriced Surly products, mostly due to its "cheap" 4130 frame. Is the 531 superior? Equal? Inferior? If it's at least an even trade in terms of the frame, I'm doing it. Thanks in advance.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Grunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Denver, CO
    My Bikes
    Gunnar Street Dog, Bianchi Pista, ****ty Road Conversion, Fit Van Homan BMX
    Posts
    348
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Don't let people tell you the Surly frames are straight guage chromoly. The main triangle is double butted. The chainstays and seatstays are straight guage. FWIW I love my crosscheck and ride it more than my "nicer" bikes.

  3. #3
    Unique Vintage Steel cuda2k's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Allen, TX
    My Bikes
    Kirk Frameworks JKS-C, Serotta Nova, Gazelle AB-Frame, Fuji Team Issue, Schwinn Crosscut, All-City Space Horse
    Posts
    11,486
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If the 531 frame is full 531, it'll likely be a little lighter, though a little less durable, than 4130. Though, unless you're commuting down a mountainside (sans road) either will be a good ride.
    [CENTER][URL="http://VeloBase.com"][IMG]http://velobase.com/App_Themes/VeloBase2_blue/Images/VeloBase2TitleCampagnolo.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/CENTER]
    [CENTER][URL="http://JonPFischer.com"][COLOR="#006400"]Fischer Photography[/COLOR][/URL] - [URL="http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/785462-My-new-modern-quot-Classic-quot-Kirk-JKS-Classic-Terraplane"][COLOR="#8b0000"]Kirk Frameworks JKS-Classic Build Thread[/COLOR][/URL][/CENTER]

  4. #4
    Easily distracted...
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Decatur, Ga
    My Bikes
    Surley Cross Check
    Posts
    1,067
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Good question. I'm interested to hear from some other more knowlegable folks. This thread might get a better response in the mechanics forum or from the rec.bicycles.tech newsgroup.

    As I understand it, 531 is a proprietary brand from Reynolds. It's a similar alloy (1.5% Mn, 0.25% Mo, 0.35% C) to 4130, but the Reynolds company applies some extra heat treating to make the tubing stronger (??). I don't know if that equates to lighter, such as 631 or 953(!), but it is a step up from basic 4130. Please, someone with more info step in...

    That being said, I've got a "cheap" 4130 Cross Check and I really enjoy it. Surlys may be a bit overpriced in terms of frame technology, but they're such a versitile and rugged design.
    Safe, efficient, and comfortable transportation.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    My Bikes
    '85 Nishiki Tri-A, early '90's Nishiki Tange Prestige, '84 Trek 610, mid-'80's Miele (unknown), '72 all chrome Raleigh International, '81 Trek 412, 84 Specialized StumpJumper
    Posts
    186
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks for the replies--very hellpful. I suspected as much, and for what I'm doing (commuting), it seems to be a wash b/w the two. Glad to hear you all like your Cross Checks. Now that I've got your attention--thoughts on the chainstay length of the Cross Check v. the LHT? The LHT CS length (almost 18 inches) seems a bit much, the Aurora (17.32 inches) is just about right, and the CCheck comes in on the shorter end (of my comparison) at 16.7. How material is that difference in terms of ride quality? I know the longer the CS, the "smoother" the ride. Would you describe your CChecks as "smooth" or more "agile"? Again, thanks in advance.

  6. #6
    Senior Member ollo_ollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Stayton, OR
    My Bikes
    Still have a few left!
    Posts
    3,478
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Main advantage to longer seatstays is that they let you carry panniers without heel strike problems.
    visit my homebuilding blog: www.monoplanar.blogspot.com

  7. #7
    Been Around Awhile I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Burlington Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vaterland and Ragazzi
    Posts
    20,230
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by russian fighter
    Thanks for the replies--very hellpful. I suspected as much, and for what I'm doing (commuting), it seems to be a wash b/w the two. Glad to hear you all like your Cross Checks. Now that I've got your attention--thoughts on the chainstay length of the Cross Check v. the LHT? The LHT CS length (almost 18 inches) seems a bit much, the Aurora (17.32 inches) is just about right, and the CCheck comes in on the shorter end (of my comparison) at 16.7. How material is that difference in terms of ride quality? I know the longer the CS, the "smoother" the ride. Would you describe your CChecks as "smooth" or more "agile"? Again, thanks in advance.

  8. #8
    Retro-nerd georgiaboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Morningside - Atlanta
    My Bikes
    2002 Cannondale Badboy, 2004 Bianchi Vigorelli
    Posts
    1,584
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by russian fighter
    Thanks for the replies--very hellpful. I suspected as much, and for what I'm doing (commuting), it seems to be a wash b/w the two. Glad to hear you all like your Cross Checks. Now that I've got your attention--thoughts on the chainstay length of the Cross Check v. the LHT? The LHT CS length (almost 18 inches) seems a bit much, the Aurora (17.32 inches) is just about right, and the CCheck comes in on the shorter end (of my comparison) at 16.7. How material is that difference in terms of ride quality? I know the longer the CS, the "smoother" the ride. Would you describe your CChecks as "smooth" or more "agile"? Again, thanks in advance.
    Check the link below and look at the entire page:

    http://www.anvilbikes.com/?news_ID=49&catID=3
    Would you like a dream with that?

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    My Bikes
    '85 Nishiki Tri-A, early '90's Nishiki Tange Prestige, '84 Trek 610, mid-'80's Miele (unknown), '72 all chrome Raleigh International, '81 Trek 412, 84 Specialized StumpJumper
    Posts
    186
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Thanks**

    nm

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Oklahoma
    My Bikes
    Pake fixie. Klein Reve (for sale, http://www.theveer.net/gordons_klein)
    Posts
    389
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My Cross Check is the smoothest bike I've ridden - smoother even then my suspended mountain bike and hybrid. It's the bike to use when my bag is heavy, or I just feel the need for a gentle ride. I assume this is due to the longer chain stays, fork rake, and relatively relaxed geometry. It's well behaved and versatile, but I can still get down on the drops when fighting a head wind.

    You're thinking too much. Performance and comfort depend as much on fabrication technique and parts selection as on frame material and geometry details. Do some research, then do some test rides.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •