Mickey2

I have been reading about and looking at the new Reynold 953 tubes for the last few years. I've read pros and cons, and my conclusion is ther has to be something to their invention. I have only come across one customed build frame, they are very few and far between where I live. They are also way out of my budget. Still, I just can't help being interested. Have anyone test ridden or know someone who have a 953 frame?

I'm not picky at alll when it comes to fine frames and materials. In my mind a vintage frame with 531 tubes is as nice as it gets, though I don't mind other materials and makes of tubes, it's just that my knowledge is limited to what I have come across. The odd second hand 853 turns up, but so far not the frame build I'm looking for. I like the old racer build a lot, and I'm looking for a nice frame or used bike to build an easy ride bike.

What is the finer points and nice qualities of the different types of steel? I've seen pics of very nice bikes in the vintage section and single speed section, and probably elsewhere too :- )

Look at this bike, very classic look with the best of tubes available. I found the picture on roadcyclinguk.com

JohnDThompson 

The big advantages of the modern steel alloys is that they are available in fashionable oversize diameters and unlike 531, can be welded without losing strength.

hotbike

I don't know about Reynolds , but I do know Columbus SL is approximately seven times stronger than 4130.

Bandera

Citation?
Can you link us to the data?

-Bandera

hotbike

Nope. Sorry, it was on a graph, on an overhead projector, at an aerospace engineering conference. It was "classified".

Bandera

Was someone planning on building a top-secret lugged/SL stealth airframe?


-Bandera

JohnDThompson 

The "special thermic treatments" referred to in the Columbus catalog likely refer to heat treatment to increase tensile strength, much as Reynolds 753 is 531 tubing heat treated to higher tensile strength, and Tange "Prestige" is heat-treated Champion tubing.

D1andonlyDman

It's all about strength to weight ratio. As metallurgy technology has improved over the years, it has resulted in somewhat stronger steel alloys. Stronger alloys mean the tubes can be made with thinner walls while retaining the necessary strength to handle the stresses that a high performance bicycle frame undergoes while being ridden hard. Thinner walls means lighter weight. I believe that a Reynolds 953 frame is something like 1.5 to 2 lbs lighter than a Reynolds 531 frame of similar rigidity and size. Ride characteristics of the two frames will depend upon the geometry of the frame, and what tradeoffs the frame maker has taken to optimize the tube set as they see fit.

But basically, what you get with 953 vs. 531 is weight savings approaching two pounds - meaning 953 can approach the same weight class as Carbon Fiber as a frame material. That's pretty much it.

Bandera

7 times stronger ? Columbus SL (which is CrMo tubing) vs 4130 CrMo?

Reynolds 725, a 4130 steel, has a STRENGTH ( MPa) of 800 vs. 931 which has a STRENGTH ( MPa) of 1850 according to Reynolds.

https://reynoldstechnology.biz/assets...ys_extract.pdf

Unless Gandalf imbued SL with a magical property perhaps the overhead slide was 7 Tenths stronger at best vs. 4130.

931 has a STRENGTH ( MPa) 2.3 times vs. 725, not magic but very strong indeed.

-Bandera

martianone

I ride two different custom steel frame bikes. One is more touring orientated, but set up as my prime commuter/utility bike. The other, a pure road bike. While each is optimally suited for their intended purpose. - Depending upon weather and my inclination, I've commuted with both and toured with both (road bike tours were supported). I don't think the use of a specific frame metal is as important as getting the builder to optimize the various frame metals to rider geometry, bike purpose and desired ride quality.

hotbike

"If I tell you, then I'll have to kill you".

rydabent

Two of my sons have 80s lugged frame 531 bikes. They are of course brazed and are a thing of beauty and simplicity with their down tube shifters.

IMO todays welded frame bikes look like the iron pipe welded frame bikes of discount stores.

JohnDThompson 

Agreed. Probably described as "70% stronger."

mtk

My 1970 Raleigh Grand Sports has Reynolds 531. After ~45 years and no repairs, it's still going strong. The chrome has some rust pitting, but that can easily be solved with a rechrome, but there's something great about looking into the past I guess.

D1andonlyDman

^ This. 953 vs. 531 will basically save around 2 pounds in the finished bike. But the OP's question about ride characteristics and other nuances is MUCH more a function of the frame's geometry and what the builder optimized it to do. Any good steel frame-builder can make a fine bike with any good steel tubes, for just about any riding purpose. if it's 953, it will be lighter than 531, probably by around 2 pounds. But the builder determines the ride characteristics by altering the angles, choosing various options in terms of the fork and rear stays, and choosing various tube thicknesses to put strength where they want it, and resiliency where they want it.

Sangetsu

I have had a few bikes with different types of steel, 531, SL and SLX, Dedacciai, and Tange Prestige. I find that 531 and SL tubes give the most comfortable ride, the SLX and Dedaccia frames were stiffer. My Tange Prestige frame was not as "lively" as the other frames, but it may have been the construction of the frame.

McBTC

953 is stainless steel so it has more corrosion resistance than --e.g., 853 Cromo.

D1andonlyDman

Were those bikes all the same geometries and were the forks made of the same steel? If not, those differences will dominate the differences between different varieties of steel

Sangetsu

The SL and SLX frames were made by Pinarello, the Dedacciai bike was a Gios Compact Pro. These three had the same geometry, as all three were custom made for me using the same specifications. The Tange Prestige bike was a Panasonic, not exactly the same geometry as the other bikes, it was more relaxed. The 531 bike was a Trek 660, all bikes used the same material in the frame and forks, or so the labels say.

rekmeyata

7 times stronger? 70% stronger? Here are the facts; Columbus SL, or what is also known as Nivacrom, has a breaking load of 930; 4130 has a 772 Mpa. SL is closer to 20% stronger. Reynolds 753 has them both beat by a wide margin at 1158, and Reynolds gets better as the number of the frame set goes up.

BUT, don't let a bunch of numbers influence your decision to buy a certain bike. Most touring bikes are made of Reynolds 531 (now called 525 and 520 by Reynolds but also called 4130 due to licensing purposes so other manufactures can make it, it's confusing I know but that's how it reads at the Reynolds web site) which has proven itself over more years than any other material ever used to be very strong for touring purposes and comfortable at the same time. Surly Long Haul Trucker is one of the most praised touring bikes in the world due to it's low price, comfort, and high durability and it's made of 4130.

I had my Mercian main frame and fork made of 631 because it has all the same comfort of 531 but with 10% greater strength, the stays were made with 725.

953 is in a different league because it's stainless steel and thus far stronger, but because it's stronger they make the walls a wee bit thinner to save weight but that inherit strength makes the ride quality a bit more harsher vs regular steel, and the longevity of the frame could be weakened depending on how thin the walls are made per manufactures specs. Personally I think you would be far better off with either titanium for about 25% less plus it has a much better ride quality, or steel 853 for lightness or 631 for comfort for about 40 to 50% less in cost, I think stainless is overpriced for what you get. This comfort thing is all subjective and all based on the geometry of the frame manufacture. If you want a good riding bike that won't set you back a kings ransom I would look at 631.

Of course that is just my opinion.

D1andonlyDman

I've got 3 steel bikes: A Tommasini Super Prestige that is made of SLX, A Schwinn Paramount PDG Series 7 (made by Panasonic) that's made of Tange Prestige OS, and a Trek 510 that's Ishiwata 022. In terms of responsiveness, I'd say that the Paramount and Tommasini - which are similar geometries - are equally responsive and stiff, but the Tommasini rides a bit more comfortably, which I attribute to the fact that it's got a more relaxed fork rake - and I have a very well-broken-in Ideale leather saddle on it, whereas the Paramount has a Fizik saddle that's a lighter, stiffer racing perch. The Ishiwata Trek is more of a sport touring frame, so it's more relaxed than the other two - but I can't attribute that to the steel, rather, I'm sure it's the geometry.

rekmeyata

I also have a 84 Trek 660, the Reynolds 531 has a cs after it which stood for club sport (Reynolds build it for Trek but a few other builders used it too, probably the others used it due to left over stock?) I got my bike as a frame and fork instead of a factory built bike because I was replacing a crashed frame, there use to be a small sort of square but with an arrow at the bottom shaped Reynolds sticker on my fork blades that said "531 fork blades"; for some reason I found out years later that the factory built bike did not come out with that sticker and the blades were straight gauged cromoly and not 531. I will say this about the 531cs, back when I got the 660 I test rode a 760 which was what all my racing buddies were telling me to get, but when I rode hard up a steep grade outside the store I was able to get the frame to flex enough that the chain would rub both sides of the front derailleur. I took the bike back and explained to the salesperson what happened so he said that the 760 was probably too light so he invited me to try a factory equipped 660, same grade again but this time no rubbing between the derailleur and it felt snappier so I ordered the frame. In racing form my bike weighed 20.5 pounds, but I replaced some of the lighter stuff due to wearing out and looks and now it weighs 22.3; I can't remember anymore how much the 760 frame and fork weighed exactly but I think the frame and fork were about 1/4th of a pound difference from the 531cs. 531cs was used by very few other manufactures, I think mostly custom builders, which is often debated, I once found a list of builders that used that tube set but I no longer can find it but recall couple were Holdsworth and Geoffrey Butler plus a few others I can't remember.