View Single Post
Old 03-26-21, 04:10 AM
  #22  
bulgie
blahblahblah chrome moly
 
bulgie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 620
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 354 Post(s)
Liked 486 Times in 256 Posts
Originally Posted by avhed View Post
753 is the lightest with the exception of the Tange Silhouette.
Could you explain what you mean in more detail? Your short statement is a bit ambiguous, but it sounds wrong to me no matter how I parse it.

Did you mean the lightest fork blade (what this thread is about)? Your mention of Silhouette makes me think you mean forks that's a brand name of a Tange fork, correct? I know of several blades that were available in the past that were lighter. Like Excel, much lighter. Prestige had two lighter gauges, the lighter (and rarer) of which was two tenths lighter than 753. Even Columbus SL was a little lighter than 753. Some of those would be hard to source today. Also I think there are a couple blades still made that are lighter, like 853 and 953, though I haven't used them. Someone here will know. But basically, 753 blades aren't very light.

If you mean main triangle or an entire tubeset, I still know one or two historical sets that were lighter. Again, hard to source today, but apples to apples: original superlight 753 is not thick on the ground either.

Your statement also doesn't talk about how 753 frame tubes came in different thicknesses, and how those choices changed over time. (Blades never varied much though to the best of my knowledge only one weight was made.) Most 753 was light (up until Rivendell started using heavyish 753), but not all was superlight. Maybe you meant that as "the lightest 753 was the lightest..."? Sorry if that was obvious, I just like having all the assumptions and qualifiers spelled out, in a discussion like this.

I made a few frames with Prestige that was truly .6/.3, measured directly and confirmed by tube weight matching the calculated weight (based on nominal dimensions and the density of steel). 753 was closer to .7/.4, though Reynolds somewhat dishonestly calls it .3 in some of their materials. Did anyone ever get a 753 tube that truly was 0.3 in the unbutt? I'd love to hear about any confirmed sightings.

Ishiwata also had a tubeset with 0.3 mm bellies, from reliable reports, but I never held it in my hand IRL.

Mark B
bulgie is offline  
Likes For bulgie: