https://www.cinelli-usa.com/frame_09xcr.html

https://www.schwinnbikes.com/paramoun...unt/index.html

i don't see your point??? you're talking about fairly big names, one model being a fairly limited run. Have you looked at the prices of stainless steel by comparison to standard steel. I'm just talking scrap steel. When you start looking at purchasing specialized tubing made for bikes, i'm willing to bet there's a huge price gap between the two.

there's a saying too that 'there's stainless steel, and then there's Stainless Steel'. i've had supposed stainless knives rust. usually the first place they rust is where they're stamped SS which i've always found amusing. I'm going to assume the stainless steel used in bike tubes is some pretty decent grade stuff.

So do you think you're missing something by not having one?

I was confused by the original post, too, because XCr and 953 have only been on the market for three or four years and this is C&V.

There are stainless C&V bikes, though, like the 70s Crescent XX and bikes from a number of builders using Metax. Even though it's not vintage and the carbon Record components aren't classic, I love my 953 Waterford RS-22 (I'd miss it if for some reason I no longer had it).

Requires a personal response. For me, it would be No.

I don't think I'm missing something by not having one.

I think that Cinelli is a beauty (pretty tasteful and shiny for a modern roadie... and I like shiny things...), but an MSRP of $4600 for the frameset? No thanks.

I was kind of wondering about it functionally. One can buy a pretty nice new carbon steal frame for a grand or so, and of course for much less used. One needn't worry about rust if careful, and of course there's always chrome.

I'd have one. don't have the money. but who doesn't like shiny objects that require little maintenance to keep them shiny?

I have one of these. It rides about like 531.

Stainless steels have lower yield strengths than carbon steel (by about 1/2).

I make this observation after scanning a handbook with material properties. Of course, any comparison of properties requires specificity of which steels are being compared. That, I do not have right now.

YES I'm missing the additional expense of stainless steel and the additional manufacturing costs and I'm glad. There's nothing new here. If SS was a hot bike commodity, someone would be marketing it. It's not, so none of the big names are interested. I don't blame them. Besides, aluminum has all the rust resistance the big boys want.

I thought the official C&V stainless steel bike was the Kabuki Submariner.

Neal

Mike, you're right (of course) that direct comparisons are difficult not only because of the chemical composition of the materials, but also heat treatment if any, cross-section of sample tested, etc.

The material used for Reynolds 953 is Carpenter Custom 455®, and in coming up with the following Yield Strength values I used the Carpenter Custom 455® data sheet, AISI/SAE 4130 chromium-molybdenum steel alloy data sheet, and AISI/SAE 2010 carbon steel data sheet. All figures are for samples in the annealed condition at room temperature, and MPa was converted to psi for as close to an apples to apples comparison as I could get with numbers from the data sheets. A plastic strain of 0.2% is used in all three samples to define the offset yield stress (0.2% Proof).

Carpenter Custom 455® . . . . 0.2% Yield = 115,015 psi

AISI/SAE 4130 chromoly . . . . 0.2% Yield = 52,300 psi

AISI/SAE 1020 carbon steel . . 0.2% Yield =50,800 psi

953 has more than twice the yield strength of either 4130 chromoly or 1020 carbon steel.

What reference did you use that showed stainless steels having lower yield strengths than carbon steel?

DeLorean tried that with cars (at $14,500 when a 'Vette wasn't much more, but just think of the value now...)

Car and Driver parked one on the street during a test ride, and some lady gave them a hard time about "that is SO hard to keep clean!"

I would imagine stainless is nice, but a chromed frame can't be that much more expensive and would seem easier to maintain...

I would take solid stainless over chrome-plated anything anyday. Plating sucks! I have never seen a plating job on anything that didn't eventually go south. Platings have pinholes which corrode. Filiform corrosion gets going. Platings flake or chip,.. there are so many defects possible I would bore you by listing them.

If you get a little corrosion on a stainless steel, use some abrasive to remove it and life goes on.

I was looking at some 3XX series stainless steel. Yield strengths were in the 30 to 50 ksi range. be careful, though, as the brazing operation could anneal the material reducing its yield strength.

For example, 416 stainless goes from 140 ksi down to 60 ksi at just 1400 F and silver doesn't melt until 1760 F. Tensile strength is similarly lost with high heat. A post-brazing tempering process could allow you to recover the yield strength lost, but you have to be sure to do that and do it in a controlled fashion. I see similar behavior for all the various classes of stainless steel.

I expect you are going to see more polished stainless lugs out of China soon because Nova is selling polished steel lugs. Maybe I'm wrong about that. I really like stainless dropouts and some other parts that generally rusted such as braze ons. Stainless lugs and fork crowns are mostly just for decoration, but they are a very good alternative to chrome.

Most commercial stainless steel does have worse properties than 4130. XCR and 953 are obviously exceptions. They cost about twice what a fairly similar steel tube set would cost.

I don't think the fact that most large companies high-end frames are carbon means anything at all. They are marketing companies, not engineering companies.

Interesting. I was trying to take all three alloys to the lowest common denominator by quoting annealed numbers.

In its literature on 953, Reynolds says the Yield strength is 1500-1900 MPa (217- 275 ksi) depending on the combination of cold-working, butting, and aging temperature. Carpenter recommends that for optimum mechanical properties (Yield Strength an Ultimate Tensile Strength among other properties), the material should be heated uniformly to 1900/2100° F.

For 953, Reynolds has had two tubing manufacturing processes (I'm not sure if they're still doing both):

1) Optimum Strength Process (Cold Worked, Butted tubing as sent by Reynolds, Welded and Aged by the frame manufacturer)

Process:
- Carpenter producers raw material to the required specification
- Reynolds cold-works, butts tubes and produces tube sets
- Frame Manufacturer welds tube sets including fittings in 953
- Uses 17-4PH (A WS ER 630) weld rod
- No preheat necessary, but aligning recommended prior to Age
- Frame Aged at 950 F (510 C) for 4 hours at temperature, air cooled.

Final Properties of Frame:
- Welds will have aged properties (over 1350 MPA Tensile Strength with 17-4 wire)
- Cold worked tubes areas will have cold worked plus age properties - 1750-2050 MPA Tensile Strength depending on coldwork/age/thickness.

and

2) Aged Tubing Process (Cold Worked, Butted and Aged Tubing by Reynolds, then Welded by frame manufacturer) Process:

- Carpenter produces raw material to required starting specification
- Reynolds cold-works, butts tubes and shapes tube sets, then ages tubing to delivered specification
- Frame manufacturer welds tube sets
- Uses 17-4P11 (A WS ER 630) weld rod
- No preheat necessary, and no aging process is carried out on the finished frame
- Process should allow for cutting/mitering of high-strength steel (some builders have observed the pre-aged tubes are very hard on tooling)

Final Properties of Frame:
- Welds and Heat Affected Zones will have as-welded properties (over 1100 MPA Tensile Strength with 17-4 wire)
- Cold worked tubes will have cold worked plus age properties (around 1850-1950 MPA Tensile Strength). Final properties of each frame will depend on the tubes used, the wall thicknesses chosen and the welding method employed.

Waterford used silver brazed stainless lugged construction on my 953 frame, with brazing temperatures at 1200 -1300° F (not sure where 1760° F came from unless it’s the melting point of silver which in this case is irrelevant since the silver brazing filler material consists of silver, copper, zinc, and tin, and melts at 1184° - 1256° F).

At these brazing temperatures the strength of the 953 pre-aged tubes in the butted HAZ is not affected, or at worst minimally affected, and since there is no post-heat treatment required re-tempering the whole frame and the risk of frame warping isn’t an issue.

But all things being equal, the stainless will outlive the steel frame...as if a steel frame lasting a your lifetime, and more then likely longer, is not long enough!

+1000

3xx series stainless steels are about the most corrosion resistant but are relaticely soft and are not heat treatable that I know of. 316 stainless is what is referred to as surgical stainless steel and is also used in good body piercing jewelry. It is supposed to be the most corrosion resistant alloy normally available.

The high carbon stainless steels such as 440C are hardenable and are used in cutlery but are not nearly as corrosion resistant as the 3 series stainless steels per my reading. All stainless steels are better referred to as corrosion resistant rather than corrosion proof IMO.

Hard to talk about strength or corrosion resistance of a stainless alloy without specifying which one as each alloy will have its own characteristics.

I always thought "silver solder" used for brazing was an alloy or eutectic with a lower melt point than silver. Then, I read something about using pure silver, not a silver solder. This was the cause of my concern. Even so, some alloys will (partially) anneal at teh temperaturs you quote. It is really essential to know which alloy one is working with and what its properties are. We agree that "stainless steel" is too broad a term.

Welding is a totally different mprocess, altogether.