Reynolds 631 or 853 for Touring Frameset
#1
1, 2, 3 and to the 4X
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 324
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Reynolds 631 or 853 for Touring Frameset
I got to thinking: Why would one want a touring bike built out of higher grade materials, especially if it's going to be well used and abused. Reynolds 853 tubing is lighter and thinner than 631, correct? Weight is a consideration, yes, but I'm sure a 631 frameset is light enough.
Last edited by Wheels Of Steel; 12-31-13 at 04:55 PM.
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,878
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 603 Post(s)
Liked 285 Times
in
196 Posts
You might consider posing this question in the "frame builders" forum as they can discuss ad nauseam the attributes of each of those steels and which might be more appropriate for your needs.
#3
Banned
tell about the wall thicknesses and the outside diameters of the frame tubes
853 and 631 and 531 are product designations of the tube set Maker ,
doesn't give that much more information.
a super high strength alloy and heat treatment process can be used to allow the tube walls to Be thinner.
but that is not like real data.. How much thinner? IDK, DO you?
too light and it wont handle the weight carried (unless you just ride with Money)
853 and 631 and 531 are product designations of the tube set Maker ,
doesn't give that much more information.
a super high strength alloy and heat treatment process can be used to allow the tube walls to Be thinner.
but that is not like real data.. How much thinner? IDK, DO you?
too light and it wont handle the weight carried (unless you just ride with Money)
Last edited by fietsbob; 12-10-13 at 04:14 PM.
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 8,896
Bikes: Waterford RST-22, Bob Jackson World Tour, Ritchey Breakaway Cross, Soma Saga, De Bernardi SL, Specialized Sequoia
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 196 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
4 Posts
My Bob Jackson World Tour is made from Reynolds 631, but it is a special tubeset designed for touring bikes. It has thicker walls and perhaps butting than regular 631. I'm not sure if regular 631 would have any advantages over any other tubing. I have another bike (Gunnar Crosshairs) made from Reynolds 853. It feels lighter than the BJ, but I haven't actually weighed the two bikes set up comparably. I haven't ridden the Gunnar on a tour so I don't know how it would handle fully loaded, but I use it for commuting and have carried moderate loads plenty of times. The Bob Jackson is definitely a stiffer riding frame unloaded, and for that reason (in part), I run 32 mm tires on it. The frame is a little too stiff for my preferences riding unloaded on 28 mm or narrower tires. The Gunnar, in contrast, rides very nice on 25-28 mm tires.
#5
Banned
My Japan sourced steel 86 Specialized Expedition had a 1.125" top tube, and a 1.25" down tube .
and it still flexed with every pedal stroke , on tour, with 4 panniers .
Liked my heavier bike better ..
thought an 1x2" Oval tube would be a benefit .. horizontal on top, vertical; for the downtube..
and it still flexed with every pedal stroke , on tour, with 4 panniers .
Liked my heavier bike better ..
thought an 1x2" Oval tube would be a benefit .. horizontal on top, vertical; for the downtube..
#6
Senior Member
I got to thinking: Why would one want a touring bike built out of higher grade materials, especially if it's going to be used. Reynolds 853 tubing is lighter and thinner than 631, correct? Weight is a consideration, yes, but I'm sure a 631 frameset is light enough.
Heck, at this point, I think you could legitimately make a fantastic loaded touring bike out of carbon fiber. There's not really a market for it, but a stiff and durable CF touring bike is certainly doable - And that would be nice. Is there much reason to do it? Well, no. There's not really a market for it, either. But heck, if you went to Calfee and asked for one, I bet they would at least consider building it.
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 138 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 81 Times
in
64 Posts
I got to thinking: Why would one want a touring bike built out of higher grade materials, especially if it's going to be used. Reynolds 853 tubing is lighter and thinner than 631, correct? Weight is a consideration, yes, but I'm sure a 631 frameset is light enough.
Nothing wrong having a touring frame made out of costlier materials as long as the design utilizes the materials appropriately. No sense in having a touring bike made with costlier materials that are dimensioned for light duty use. A truck doesn't have to be made out of titanium and carbon fiber to haul junk.
#9
Decrepit Member
Personally, for a touring bike I'd use 631 because the slightly thicker walls would be a little more dent resistant. The chemical composition of 853 and 631 is identical, but 853 is heat treated. The heat treatment makes 853 stronger, so it can be drawn thinner. The thinner walls will make 853 more prone to dents.
Here's how 853 and 631 compare, both in chemistry and strength. 631 has about 2/3 the ultimate tensile strength of 853, but it's still plenty strong enough.
Reynolds 631 Range
Reynolds 853 Range
Here's how 853 and 631 compare, both in chemistry and strength. 631 has about 2/3 the ultimate tensile strength of 853, but it's still plenty strong enough.
Reynolds 631 Range
Reynolds 853 Range
Last edited by Scooper; 12-31-13 at 06:35 PM.
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Thomaston, Georgia
Posts: 217
Bikes: 2013 Raleigh Clubman, 2010 Schwinn LeTour, 2012 Raleigh Sojourn, 2011 Schwinn Voyaguer 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Not a framebuilder but a steel lover.
My touring bike is a Raleigh Sojourn in R-631. I commute on this bike mainly and unloaded it is stiff but still smoother than my aluminium framed bike. My Brevet bike is a Raleigh Clubman in R-520. The tubes are smaller in diameter on the Clubman and the ride is smooth.
Reynolds offers a material breakdown on their site:
https://reynoldstechnology.biz/our_materials_631.php
https://reynoldstechnology.biz/our_materials_853.php
https://reynoldstechnology.biz/our_materials_520.php
My touring bike is a Raleigh Sojourn in R-631. I commute on this bike mainly and unloaded it is stiff but still smoother than my aluminium framed bike. My Brevet bike is a Raleigh Clubman in R-520. The tubes are smaller in diameter on the Clubman and the ride is smooth.
Reynolds offers a material breakdown on their site:
https://reynoldstechnology.biz/our_materials_631.php
https://reynoldstechnology.biz/our_materials_853.php
https://reynoldstechnology.biz/our_materials_520.php
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Posts: 660
Bikes: Trek 520 total custom build, Cannondale Mountain Tandem, Oryx Mountain Bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
4 Posts
So, I'm still puzzled. R-520 and 725 are the same metal. Both well respected, one at the low end the other at the high end. So what is the big deal if your tubes have been heat treated? Is it just more dent resistant? And If you can get a 520 frame for $400 is it really worth 3 times to get 725?
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 18,123
Bikes: Stewart S&S coupled sport tourer, Stewart Sunday light, Stewart Commuting, Stewart Touring, Co Motion Tandem, Stewart 3-Spd, Stewart Track, Fuji Finest, Mongoose Tomac ATB, GT Bravado ATB, JCP Folder, Stewart 650B ATB
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4224 Post(s)
Liked 3,917 Times
in
2,336 Posts
So, I'm still puzzled. R-520 and 725 are the same metal. Both well respected, one at the low end the other at the high end. So what is the big deal if your tubes have been heat treated? Is it just more dent resistant? And If you can get a 520 frame for $400 is it really worth 3 times to get 725?
However the more costly tubes (of thinner walls and being heat treated) are often used in a larger diameter, the thinner walls help offset the added weight of the larger diameters. So then the frame is strong enough, stiffer and no heavier then the lower cost one.
The more costly tubes (thinner walls) do require more care during the building as they are more easily dented and have less wall to withstand under cutting filing or weld beads edges. So the greater cost of the heat treaded tubed frames comes from the extra and more skillful labor as well as the higher material cost. Then there's the marketing value increase, but that's another topic.
So a touring/travel bike that needs to be stiff, strong, dent resistant, possibly field repairable (think third world tours, there's lots of cool unpaved paths out there) all make the more basic/thicker walled tubes a good choice. The slight weight difference between the thinner walled tubes and the thicker walled ones is less then 1% of a fully loaded bike's weight. Not too much, I think we all can agree on.
Now where I do think the nicer stuff is very justified is in the components and gear. Andy.
#13
Decrepit Member
So, I'm still puzzled. R-520 and 725 are the same metal. Both well respected, one at the low end the other at the high end. So what is the big deal if your tubes have been heat treated? Is it just more dent resistant? And If you can get a 520 frame for $400 is it really worth 3 times to get 725?
The downside is that thinner walls mean the frame won't be as stiff (given the same diameter tubes) and the tubing will not be as dent resistant.
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Posts: 660
Bikes: Trek 520 total custom build, Cannondale Mountain Tandem, Oryx Mountain Bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
4 Posts
Thanks Andy. I appreciate the info, and ultimately, support to my argument-more expensive doesn't mean it's necessarily better. I went with a 520 when I easily could have gone with waay more expensive. Glad I made the choice I did.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Glennr134
Classic & Vintage
29
04-10-19 10:43 AM