I'm currently looking for my second steel road bike frame. My current bike is a 1989 Ironman with Tange 1. I've also owned a couple of 4130 cromo frames and hi ten so I know the low end. But looking say Reynolds 853 vs equivalent Columbus or Tange, will I really notice a difference? And more importantly how much difference would I notice between frames in same family like 853 vs 520. I know that some grades should be lighter and stiffer but my question is how noticeable is it to those who have ridden dozens of frames in their lives?

it depends on how well calibrated your butt dyno is. ive had 531, tange 1, 2, columbus tsx, sl, and a few other oddballs. higher comparable models feel essentially the same with some possible differences in bb stiffness. several other factors like frame geo and tire wheel combo. ive noticed some minor weight differences when stripped to the frame but hard to tell when on the bike.
now comparing low end to high end is a different story.

I can't speak to some of the modern tubing sets, but here's some interesting reading:
The Magnificent 7

I traded off a 531 frame for a 501 years ago because I could actually feel the 531 frame flexing under me. I am a 220# gym rat so the stiffer tubes are just about a necessity. That's about all I can offer.

Marc

The main differences I've noticed is stiffness.

Without a controlled experiment, i.e., frames made identically except for tube sets, it is impossible to know. One is much better off just acquiring what appeals to them.

I hear you.

I'm a big guy and the issue for me with some framesets is flex.

I have had a few bikes that I sold, as they just wouldn't work with me at this weight.

I'm way down from where I was two years ago and expect to drop even more this season.

I'm excited to see how these current machines work for me at a lighter weight.

funny, a magazine ran a test with a slew of bikes of different tubesets all build by the same guy to the same specs, and painted in a neutral color (all bikes the same) to see if the experienced bike writers could feel the difference.

Bottom line: barely.

Can I tell the ride difference "bike to bike?" Yes...some just ride better for me...and they may have the same tubeset and/or geometry! Other times I find different tube sets and/or geometries to be better! So...in all frankness, while you may feel some differences in flex...the better quality steel seems very similar to me.

Now...low end steel to higher end steel...yes, maybe you can tell a difference there...but I would argue that it comes more from the weight...and not necessarily the flexing/etc. of the steel.

I believe you may be referring to the February, 1996 Bicycle Guide article, "Magnificent 7".

If you are asking if you would feel the difference between two tubesets that have the same diameters and wall thicknesses but different manufacturers, for example, Tange vs Reynolds, you won't. If you are comparing a standard sized straight gauge 4130 to an otherwise identical double oversize hardened tubeset, you probably feel a difference. However, as the article suggests, it's hard to predict which one you will like more. Then, start throwing design and construction differences into the mix and the watters become even more muddy. Every frame is different and every rider is different.

When you do a lot of climbing and fast decent"s down uneven roads you can tell the difference in frames. I'm not going to say any are better or worse but I'll say what I've noticed riding my bikes. Firstly on the flats they all feel the same mostly.

My SL frame swings the BB when climbing, standing while climbing it swings alarmingly and flex's quite a lot on dips in the road decending (more than EL) but feeling nice.

My EL frame is stiff in the BB and climbs incredibly well climbing it feels like all my power is going to the ground. On decent's in dips in the road or G outs the frame triangle flexes but feels good to me.

My 531 is not great at anything and not bad at anything, it just works and is comfortable.

My Deda Zero frame for a steel frame feels the stiffest and harshest, I just don't notice any real flex but the fork does a great job of reducing road buzz.

I prefer riding riding the EL-OS frame. For me it just has a feeling that it's more special.

I suspect that the only way the tube set would make much difference is in your type of riding, if maybe you fly down a long decline with a high speed tight corner at the bottom or something like a vicious climb. Since my retirement I have gone thru a bunch of really nice frames/bikes and now that I am clearly only a recreational rider the custom frame w/ True Temper S-3 and ENVE fork is a waste of money for me, Tange 1 is and no doubt Tange 2 would be just as brilliant, weight is about all I notice and that is to me inconsequential in nicer frames.

Thank you Stan, that is indeed the article I referred to. Sorry for my laziness by not posting the article myself

There's a goldilocks type phenomenon going on here. Pretty much all steel frames are going to feel about the same to very light rider, in that they won' flex at all; and pretty much all frames will feel the same to a very heavy rider, in that they'll all be too flexy. For riders whose weight is somewhere near heavier end of the normal range, choice of tubing seems to make a big difference. I weigh 165 lbs and haven't yet found a frame that actually feels different from all the others.

OP, have you given up on full 531c or 531p? I didnt see your mention of it. I enjoy the lighter tubesets for long rides and casual rides but really dont want the flex if I'm going on a hammerfest. I want stiffness in most of my rides (to the tune of Cannondale Criterium Series) but not at the sacrifice of a heavier frame.

I weigh 150 and I can attest to exactly what rhm is saying. Another key difference is what kind of rider you are. I'm a recreational rider and I can't tell the difference between steels at all. I can, however, tell the difference between frame geometries. I've had low-end steel frames that were much nicer riders than high-end ones. However a racer has different criteria than I. I've also had different frames of the same tube-sets that rode completely differently. If I were the OP and looking for another frame, I would look first at frame size, then the builder and geometry and lastly the tubing. Certain brands are associated with certain ride qualities so that is worth looking into. I'm sure if the OP said what kind of ride he was seeking some members here could be of assistance.

A lot of good stuff has been said here. I'll toss out a few more observations.

Regarding weight, when building a weight weenie bike you don't get much savings from just one thing. Rather, you save a few modest chunks here and there and you save smaller chunks all over the place. Together they add up. There was an old backpackers' saying "Take care of the ounces and the pounds will take care of themselves." Same with bikes. What this means is that while the weight savings from a boutique steel frame may be the largest single chunk you can save, by itself it still won't amount to much. Conversely, if you spend $200 each on every lightweight component on the bike it will be wasted money if you put them on a frame pounds heavier than you might have used.

Can I feel the difference? My "good" bikes weigh between 23 and 25lbs, more or less. I can feel the difference when I pick them up. When I ride they feel different in how they accelerate but that could be as much due to the wheels and tires as to the total weight. They all handle differently too but that's probably due to geometry.

I weigh about 160lbs and on hills I prefer to spin rather than mash. I never feel BB flex. I haven't ridden the 531c Gazelle yet but I suspect I won't feel any flex in that either.

I have noticed frame, or at least fork, responsiveness between bikes. On my previous commute there was a serious serious serious downhill, so serious that one could burn through brake pads at the bottom. I ran that hill on at least five different bikes. The Masi was quite in its element. I don't recall any particular behavior (of the bike, not me - my behavior was all about how and when to apply the brakes!) of the Raleigh, Bianchi, or Centurion. The UO8 on the other hand was much less well-connected to the road surface. Of course the UO8 isn't even close to being in the same class. Its greater frame weight might have stabilized it, as per sports car theory of sprung to unsprung weight ratio. It has similar tires and alloy wheels as the R, B, and C. But it was clearly not happy running that surface at those speeds.

The bottom line is that the frame is just one component of a system. No single item matters much by itself but all the parts contribute. There is no "I" in "team". No "I" in "bicycle". No, wait, make that no "I" in "bike". No, no, um, no "I" in "component and frame". Yeah, that must be it.

I recalled this one:

Tubing Article ? Nothing is better than a bike that fits


[h=2]Steel vs. Steel[/h][h=3]Ever wonder what a difference the brand of steel makes in a frame? Find out in our blind comparison between Tange Prestige and Columbus SL[/h][h=3]We spend endless hours pondering an old question: what are the actual performance differences between different steel tubesets? What is the rider’s real preference and how much is swayed by pretty decals and advertising? And what have the new developments in steel really accomplished?[/h][h=3]Once upon a time, I was pondering these questions with frame builder Bruce Gordon and Shimano’s John Uhte, who promotes Tange tubing through the Shimano-led JNM group of bicycle component manufacturers. Uhte was frustrated: Tange Prestige, the company’s flagship tubing, is a stronger, lighter alloy than most bike steel, yet it wasn’t getting the publicity he felt it should. Many of us have respect for the qualities of Tange Prestige, but we didn’t have much to say about it except that it ultimately produced a frame a few ounces lighter than conventional tubesets.[/h][h=3]“What about a blind test in a magazine?” Uhte suggested. “Bruce here will build two bikes. I’ll throw in the Tange tubing and components. You write it up. You won’t know which bike is which. Write it the way you see it.”[/h][h=3]Thus a great idea was born. Columbus SL was nominated as the baseline tubeset. Uhte supplied the Prestige and the Shimano 600 components. Gordon built 2 frames. Some months later, two bikes, identical to the eye but the color, appeared at my door. The bikes, by the way, are absolutely beautiful. Of all the custom frames I’ve seen and ridden, these are the very best. The metalwork is absolutely flawless; the stylistic touches elegant and tasteful. The photos show that better than words can tell.[/h][h=3]The baseline tubing, Columbus SL, is popular with good reason: it works. It’s chromoly steel alloy doesn’t distinguish it from many other bicycle tubesets, but Columbus SL wins “the one to beat” designation because its metallurgy and physical dimensions have been verified and reverified by rider preference, instrumented bike test and that sincerest form of flattery: other tube manufacturers from all over the world, including Tange (in their No. 2 tubeset), copy it.[/h][h=3]Compared with SL, Tange Prestige is more expensive and has superior metallurgical performance by dint of special heat treatment. What performance benefits do we get from that? Prestige weighs the same, volume for volume, as any other kind of steel. It is also equally stiff – one rule of conventional metallurgy is that all alloys of a metal share the same modulus of elasticity, and that modulus cannot be changed by adding alloying ingredients or by heat treating.[/h][h=3]Prestige is, however, much stronger and somewhat harder than non-heat treated steels. Tange’s brochure says it has 30% more tensile strength and 12% more surface hardness than either “C Company” or Tange’s own No.2 chromoly tubing. These qualities have been verified by every frame builder I’ve talked to. It bends and cuts less readily. “It’s an SOB to cut in the machine,” Gordon said. “And when you align a fork, it takes more tugs to move the Prestige fork blade. You have to yank harder to move it or is springs right back.”[/h][h=3]This extra hardness doesn’t help the rider any – it just gives your frame builder something to talk about. But the increased tensile strength allows Tange to reduce the wall thickness, and hence the weight, of the Prestige tubeset without compromising durability or crashworthiness.[/h][h=3]Other than high strength, ultralight tubesets have appeared before. Reynolds 753 has been around the longest; Ishiwata, Vitus, and now Excell also have them. However, Tange Prestige is the only one that’s been a commercial success. It’s been marketed well by the Shimano juggernaut and it comes in a variety of wall thicknesses, including some excellent configurations in mountain bike tubing. And, unlike Reynolds, you don’t need special factory certification to build with it; it can be assembled as the builder prefers – brass or silver brazed, welded, lugged or lugless. Its surface hardness is less severe than that of other premium tubes, so it’s not so difficult to machine. Uhte says that’s due to Tange’s non-oxidizing computer controlled furnaces.[/h][h=3]The book says that the reduced wall thickness will make the Prestige tubing less rigid. For the midsection of a 1 1/8” down tube, skim 0.1mm of wall thickness and you lose 16% of your tubes rigidity; skim 0.2mm and you lose 32%. The rigidity loss is favored by many riders for its effect on the way the bike feels on rough roads. Some cyclists bemoan any lost rigidity for climbing, and others say it doesn’t matter. That particular debate will never end.[/h][h=3]Of course, the skinnier tubes will reduce the weight a bit. Gordon said that on the finished frames, the weight difference was an insignificant 5oz (about 148g) – one third of a water bottle. Our Tange frame had the same wall thickness as the Columbus SL frame in the seat tube (0.9/0.6mm) and fork blades (0.9mm), and skinnier walls everywhere else. The Columbus down tube was 0.9/0.6/0.9mm, Tange’s was 0.8/0.5/0.8mm (that was Gordon’s request: most Tange Prestige frames are 0.1mm thinner than that). The Columbus top tube was 0.9/0.6/0.9mm: Prestige 0.7/0.4/0.7mm. Chainstays and seatstays were 0.7mm for Columbus and 0.6mm for Prestige.[/h][h=3]Tiny differences, five ounces of metal stretched out over six tubes. And when I rode the bikes, I hadn’t been told which was which. And yet, there was a definite difference between the bikes and it took little time to notice. Once when I went on a side by side with Imre Barsy, our former industry editor who now works at Specialized, he took all of 100 yards to notice the differences and voice his preferences for the pink bike.[/h][h=3]Barsy’s preference was due to the single most striking difference between the bikes: the pink once seemed to transfer fewer vibrations to the rider. The minute vibrations that result when you roll over a slightly rough asphalt road are a source of fatigue and bother. They were much , much lighter on the pink bike.[/h][h=3]Indeed, I preferred the pink bike too. In addition to feeling smoother over minor pavement roughness, it had a lighter “feel” to it. I should set this difference in context – it was small enough that you couldn’t detect it except by comparing two identical bikes. Once, I replaced the Specialized Turbo S tires with a slightly pudgier set; it resulted in far greater change in riding qualities. Other, smaller changes, such as a padded saddle or padded handlebar tape, would have muddied the waters too.[/h][h=3]And yet, the pink bike’s list of small but discernible advantages grew. It tracked the pavement better on my favorite descent – a steep nine percent grade with potholes, lumps and patches in the pavement. This demands white-knuckled bike handling to be a very challenging test (I’ve clocked 43 mph there with my Solar Cateye). The pink bike felt more secure on this hill – a difference you’d never notice on smoother or less steep roads. When the aqua bike went over a bump, it took longer to regain full weight, traction, and control on the front wheel. The pink bike felt more inclined to stay glued to the road.[/h][h=3]One place where I didn’t notice an advantage was on rougher surfaces. On roads where the asphalt mix uses especially large stones, the pink bike’s slight comfort advantage was lost, and both bikes told the rider all about the poor pavement underneath.[/h][h=3]I could detect no difference in climbing. I rode both bikes up a 21% grade, among lesser hills, and both got to the top in better shape than I did. We know from our calculations that the Prestige bike, whichever it was, had to flex more, but it didn’t seem to matter much in practice.[/h][h=3]From all these findings, I assumed the pink bike was the Tange bike. It rode a bit nicer and felt a bit springier. Must be the lighter tubing, Barsy thought so too.[/h][h=3]Now, may I have the envelope please?[/h][h=3]The pink bike, the one Barsy and I preferred was the Columbus SL bike! Builder Bruce Gordon wasn’t surprised. “Louis (BG Cycles Plant Manager at the time) agreed with your preferences. He rode the bikes and liked the pink bike better. Said it just felt a little more right.”[/h][h=3]Uhte was surprised. He mentioned that the beefier Prestige down tube specified by Gordon may have hurt his cause. “I’ve had lots of reports of 0.7/0.4/0.7 down tubes give an especially smooth ride,” he said. He added that Tange is investigating the possibility of lightening the fork blades to 0.8mm to increase shock absorption and reduce vibration.[/h][h=3]Another interested party was John Kennedy, the country’s exclusive Tange distributer. “What you say is contrary to what all the builders I sell to say,” Kennedy said. “You’ll stir up some controversy and get some letters. I get comments that it smoothes out the road better than Columbus, and it’s stiff where it needs to be. It does well in the hills, yet rides smoothly over rough roads. The people using Prestige just love it. I have had both Columbus SL and Prestige frames, made by different builders. I agree with what I hear – that would be my judgment.”[/h][h=3]So how do I reconcile my and Barsy’s wrong guess? Our logic must have been thrown off by something more fundamental than tubing gauges. Was a dynamic vibrating mode the culprit? Any mass, such as bike frames, has various frequencies at which it stores energy and resonates, and other frequencies at which it dampens vibration. Changing the mass changes the frequencies. It’s a complicated question because the frame has several major vibratory modes; including front fork, fishtailing, and something call the hammock effect. The front and back ends of the frame can have different vibratory modes. The coupled resonances of the frame and fork can interact. Only a massive research program could sort through this complicated network of vibratory modes.[/h][h=3]I was astonished. I was so sure the pink bike was Prestige. Maybe the flashy color influenced me. No, that’s not it. Maybe my build was better suited to the SL bike. It was a 54cm bike and I’m 5’8” and 155lbs. Other riders, other frame sizes and other wall thicknesses are going to yield difference preferences. True road racing ectomorphs may be better served by the lighter frame.[/h][h=3]In any event, the results of this comparison, hair-splitting thought they may be, proves two points: first, building a frame out of lighter, more flexible tubing doesn’t necessarily increase ride comfort; second, that small differences in frame flex may not be noticeable while climbing. The results also speak much about the current state of steel frames. The gauge of steel frame tubes has been refined over many decades, not by any sophisticated structural analysis, but by using the simplest and most sensitive of computers: the human body. Trial and error and many thousands of miles ridden have yielded tubing gauges that deliver a remarkably good ride. I think it can be safely said that improving the traditional steel frame is neither simple nor easy.[/h]

Wow, lot's of great info and opinions! To answer one question, I have not given up on 531 or anything other than very low end/generic steel. That's basically my reasoning for the post. I am 170 lbs and only been seriously riding for about 3 years. I have a carbon bike and my tange 1 bike. I also previously had a Cannondale CAAD (super stiff aluminium). I notice a little flex on my Tange 1 bike compared to the carbon or caad bikes but not enough that it effects me. Initially I wanted to get a new frame that is a little more modern 130 spacing, 1 1/8 fork and so focusing on 853 or TSX etc. But, shopping for used and vintage/classic frames I feel like I've already passed up on some really frames in my price range recently such as a Merckx Corsa and an RB-1because they weren't a certain level of steel. But now I think I should open up my mind to things like 531 and other maybe "mid range" tube sets...especially because I want to stay under $500 and get a frameset that is in very nice condition

So, lots of great information here, especially that for riders in the 165-190 range it's often more about the geometry (and the care with which something is made) than the tubing. I have or have owned bikes made with Tenax, SL, SLX, TSX, MAX, 531, 753, Tange 1, Tange Prestige, Deda Zero, Cro-Mor, and probably some I've forgotten. Wouldn't say any of them were better or worse because of the tubing. In fact, the Tenax and Cro-Mor bikes rode exceptionally well for my 5'11" or so, 190-ish pounds, especially on centuries or multi-day rides. Have also had good luck with Cannondale aluminum frames with steel forks, and regularly ride them long distances (100-350 miles).

Best suggestion I can make is to try and ride as many different bikes as you can before buying more bikes. That way you can find the best fit and geometry for your needs. I often ride with small groups where bikes between similar sized riders are swapped for five or ten miles, and it has really helped me to figure out what I desire and what I'm glad I didn't buy.

And also your laziness for not clicking the link in my post number 3! I tease of course. It's the same article. (I suppose I should have edited the link name to make it more obvious.)

I have owned, built and ridden hundreds of vintage road bicycles, and compared each one to the others, on purpose. Been doing it for years.

Personally, I can't tell the difference between most steel frame sets. Aluminium offers a much stiffer ride than steel and that I do notice. I have never ridden a carbon fibre bike so no offering of opinion there. So, what is the difference in feel..?

Nothing, as nearly as I can tell. Feel, to me, is all about frame construction, geometry and intention for use, in my opinion. Take the stiffness of aluminium that I noticed. My Vitus 979 was all alloy but anything but stiff. And that was a design issue, not a material issue.

So, in my opinion, what kind of steel tubing it is is irrelevant, unless weight reduction is the primary focus.

Again, this is all opinion and based on my personal experience. My present favorite rides are a 1977 Motobecane Grand Jubilee with Vitus tubing and either my Cyclops (Columbus SL) or my Wateford (Reynolds 753 frame and 531 fork). I should add that I have not had time to give the Waterford a decent chance to show its virtues. Which is best...

My guess is the Cyclops will win the contest for best ride quality but not because of tubing used. The Waterford is an aggressive geometry racing bike and not necessarily designed to impart rider comfort. The Cyclops sports less aggressive geometry.

Metallurgists tell us that all grades of steel have the same stiffness. Dimensions make the difference, not the alloy. The alloy makes a difference in strength, not stiffness.

Very good points...

Flexing is your friend! An excessively stiff frame will scramble your eggs! The frame is the suspension and shock absorbers on a bike.

A light rider on a small frame will probably not feel much difference between production bikes.

Aside from tires, wheels, bars, stem, saddle and riding style, there are too many variables to come up with a simplistic answer.

Frame size and geometry play a big role, also tubing material, diameter and wall thick are also important considerations.

At one point, Reynolds offered 531 main tubes in a multitude of wall thicknesses: 3 different thicknesses of straight gage - 0.7mm. 0.8mm, and 0.9mm plus butted tubes from 0.5mm x 0.3mm to 1.2mm x 0.9mm thickness. Same with fork blades and rear stays.

The only requirement was that you needed to order a minimum of 100 sets of tubes in a given dimension.

This chart from the 1974 edition of Delong's Guide to Bicycles and Bicycling shows the most commonly used tube sets for production bike back in the 70s.



Reynold 531 "Sprint" with 1mm x 0.7mm wall thickness main tubes was the most common set used for Continental European production frames. Raleigh and Falcon used a lot of this too.

The Sprint tubing set had almost identical wall thicknesses as Columbus SP tubing that was also the tubes used on most Italian bikes until the mid to late 70s when they switched to light gage Columbus SL tubing.

The heavier gage tubes allowed for the use of less skilled employed to braze frames because the thicker tubes were less sensitive to overheating.

In the UK where many frames and bikes were made by small builders, the use of thinner wall thickness tube sets was common.

Up until the late 70s most Japanese bikes were built to the specs of the US importers who didn't necessarily have a good sense of what it took to make a good riding and handling frame. The attitude was "Here, just build us some bikes that look like this".

Sport cycling was a very small sector of domestic bike manufacturing in Japan. Most bikes were black 50 lb. single speed, rod brake behemoths. A bike was the family's major form of transportation.

A 3 speed was a luxury. Bike buying decisions were made by frugal Japanese housewifes so there were very few frills.

One time about 1975 a student from out of town brought in a brand new Centurion in a box that they got as a Xmas present. We generally didn't assemble new bikes purchased elsewhere but it was January so we did it.

The bike was a top of the line model with a 4130 Chromo steel frame and all good quality alloy components. It weighed 32 lbs! Cheap gas pipe European bikes with all steel components weighed in at 27 Lbs.

The difference was in the frame. Even though it was alloy steel, the tubing was so thick that it added pounds to the weight of the frame. A bike like that is going to be a harsh ringing bike, no matter what the rider weighs!

verktyg

Chas.