'flyer

I understand Independant Fabrications has begun to sell Reynolds 953 stainless frames.
This material really floats my particular boat.
Are there any other builders?

cs1

Waterford.

Scooper

Independent Fabrication
Waterford
Carl Strong
Bob Brown
Jonnycycles
David Anderson

I went with Waterford and took delivery of my polished, lugged, 953 frame in May. So far, it's been an absolute joy. The 61 cm frame came in at under 1700 g.

Thylacine

We can build with 953, but personally I think the new Columbus Stainless - XCR - will probably win the marketing game.

Expect to pay as much as you would a nice Ti frame.

Falanx

Bob Jackson Cycles of Leeds are, but only road frames and only silver fillet brazed.


It's a sad day when the reason a technologically superior product is runied is p*ss-poor support.

cf. Betamax.

NoReg

I thought they had had quality problems...

Falanx

For "quality" read "we can't get anyone to make the tubes in the first place at a price we're willing to pay"

From a materials point of view, because of the extremely favourable toughness and strength levels of the base steel it's a very tolerant material to the process.

What's the problem is that to ensure the somewhat mythical, esoteric image the steel is intended to have in the market, the technical information regarding the steel has not been made as open as for example, Columbus XCR.

It took me thrity seconds to find out what XCR was made of, where it's made, who makes it, and as a result, to come up with some even more favourable information I'm not sure Columbus was aware of regarding it.

I had to work out what 953 was, and double-bluff one of their engineers to find out what it was, and then spend a month trying to find out who had been working it for them and so forth.

And I know steel like no-one else on here...

Scooper

I heard the "quality" issue was related to an inability to achieve the .3 mm wall thickness in the middle (T2) sections of the .5 mm, .3 mm, .5 mm butted tubes, resulting in disappointing weights.

Having looked down an SS4000 tube toward a ceiling light, I can say with certainty that the tubes are butted and that the ends have a .5 mm wall thickness. While my 61 cm frame weighs a little more than a similarly sized carbon fiber frame, at a hair over 3.5 pounds it's plenty light enough for me.

Nessism

I've heard the same thing about the 953 tubes - thicker than advertised. As far as your frame goes, 3.5 lbs is about as light as one should go considering the tube diameters necessary for lugs. Any lighter and the frame is going to be a noodle.

squirtdad

Very pretty bike....which model is it?

Scooper

Thanks, and that's a good question...

It's clearly based on the 2200, but all of my paperwork just says "Custom 953". The seat tube decal where the model number usually appears just says "SS", which I assume means stainless steel. The lugs are Richard Sachs stainless steel Newvex.

Scooper

Here are some more 953 frames. A number of builders are now working with 953 and most really like the stuff.

Dave Wages' Waterford Frameset:



Bob Brown lugged 953 Frame:



Orlando Simoncini fillet brazed 953 bike:

cs1

I don't know about anyone else, I'm drooling over those bikes. I'm having seventies flashbacks to all the chrome plated bikes I wanted as a kid. For me, the height of cycling beauty was a Seventies Schwinn Paramount with chrome plated stays, fork and Nervex lugs. The Waterford is the closest I'll ever come.


Tim

halfspeed

Dave Anderson: https://www.andersoncustombicycles.com/

Falanx

It's not that there's a technical reason why they can't get .3mm out of a section - but it does require some fairly specialised equipment to draw to those tolerances - and those manufacturers are usually medical, not large industry press-tool users. Meidical manufacturers charge the highest of top dollar to draw to shape and they are the final pass workers. The tube would have to be delivered to Reynolds ready to assemble, and Reynolds would not be able to keep what they want in house if that were the case. If manufacturers like Hamilton or Unimed (they make hypodermic syringes through to stents and pipework) did the job, a tubeset would cost five times what they're askign right now, but it *would* be the right size.

Reynolds make the final drawings, to the tube comes to them at the correct OD, and welded and homogenised through a mult-stage shaping. Then they do the final butting draws.

But the steel is expensive before any working, and it's much more expensive after drawing, and to be able to deliver those tolerances, Reynolds will have had to invest in expensive new plant.

It's not 'quality' in this case. It's bottom line.

norfox 

Can you use steel lugs with stainless steel tubes. If not I have lugs that run standard round tubes and I want the lightest tubes with good durability that are available. Does anyone have any suggestions?

Nessism

Shouldn't require a new plant but may require some new tooling and machinery. My understanding is that the tubes work harden during the coldworking operations which limits what they can do without subsequent stress leaving oven cycles, which as you note, costs money. Reynolds listed the specs in their catalog before they had their manufacturing operations sorted out. Then they let the tubes go out into customers hands in an "out of spec" condition - which is most definetly POOR QUALITY. They were more worried about getting product out into the marketplace to keep the hype high as opposed to putting out a high quality product that met thickness standards the industry has come to expect. Shame on Reynolds.

acorn_user

There is a similar thread on www.bikeradar.com
https://www.bikeradar.com/forums/view...php?t=12536816

Thylacine,
why do you think that Xcr will win? I'm interested to know Has Reynolds made that bad of a hash of launching 953?

Thylacine

Reynolds could not have made a worse launch. First up they only give sample tubes to two companies which alienated a few companies who had solid relationships with them, then one of them was stupid enough to try and say it will produce ridable 1kg frames when it won't, then they can't make the tube to spec' and don't know what the correct filler wire is.

I don't know....what do you think? Is that a bad launch?

XCR will become more predominant in the custom arena simply because Columbus has better wholesaling and promotion.

Falanx

In the UK plant means *any* machinery.
If Reynolds are planning on drawing 953 at the same time as other tube then they will have to buy new plant. Older machines won't draw the steel and new ones will be dedicated for 953 as premier tubes will demand superior surface finishes - which means keep the machines as pristine as possible... No dirty 631 going on these, sunshine...


With regard to the work hardening during forming - ALL tubes do that, and these actually work harden slower than any other steel. That may sound counterintuitive to you, because they're so strong to start with, but that's how it goes with high strength steels. Their work hardening rates per unit deformation are actually quite low. It's due to the strength they already have being due to the mechanisms that cause work hardening already being mostly used up.


We can debate the exact bottom line, but the reason for the poor uptake is something we've all seen - that 953 is really just vapourware.

johnopower

Baum was the first (along with some yank) to build with it.

https://www.baumcycles.com/

go AUS!

wa3lt

https://www.frameforum.net/forum2/ind...topic=4895&hl=

Thylacine

We all know 953 is not to spec, that it's heavy, and that the improper welding wire and post weld HT was recommended.

And then we have Neil 'encouraging' framebuilders to use it!

Hey Neil, maybe you should call up your mates at Reynolds and tell them to get behind their product? Maybe then people like Carl, Walt, and whoever else is attempting to TIG and Post weld heat treat the stuff will actually use it and recommend it?

Man the bike industry is so half ar∫ed sometimes it's laughable.

javna_golina

reynold 953 defeats the whole purpose of using steel in the first place: thin sexy tubes.