531 vs 653
Jeremy
I am getting confused by the Reynolds frame materials around. Obvious
531ST is the standard touring frame material, but how does 653 compare?
Would 653 be better for a light touring bike? My usual use would be day
tours carrying very little, some Audax rides, and occasional tours.
Touring would probably be light - not carrying tent etc. But woould 653
be up to a heavier tour, if I wanted to do one?
Is the issue of how the frame is made equaly important to the tubing
used?
Thanks
Jeremy
--
jer...@elmc.demon.co.uk
Cambridge
England
Dr. David Martin
In article <2MJTQLA7...@elmc.demon.co.uk>,
Jeremy <Jer...@elmc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
+>
+>I am getting confused by the Reynolds frame materials around.
Obvious
+>531ST is the standard touring frame material, but how does 653
compare?
+>
+>Would 653 be better for a light touring bike? My usual use would be
day
+>tours carrying very little, some Audax rides, and occasional tours.
+>Touring would probably be light - not carrying tent etc. But woould
653
+>be up to a heavier tour, if I wanted to do one?
753, 653, and 531 are all the same alloy but have different heat
treatment processes. This gives the tubing different properties
(ductility, etc.).
Then tubing sets are made up with different properties such as width,
wall thickness, butting etc.
So a 531ST is a fairly hefty tubeset made out of 531. It will be
ehavier than a racing version (ie 531SL or 531C) purely by dint of the
dimensions of the tubing.
A 653 tubeset should be stronger and lighter than a 531 set *for a
given application*. If it is a touring 653 set then I cannot imagine
any problem (except the difference in the wallet). I would probably
stick with 531ST though as its good enough for me and is a tried and
tested tubeset (though 653 should be OK.
+>
+>Is the issue of how the frame is made equaly important to the tubing
+>used?
+>
Possibly more so. A bad builder can wreck a good tubeset. Getting the
bike in the wrong dimensions can negate the effect of a better
tubeset. Unless you find an 'off the peg' frame that is just right,
consider having a frame custom built to suit what you want it for.
.d
* David Martin - Atherosclerosis and Thrombosis research group *
* http://www.uio.no/~damartin/ david....@biotek.uio.no *
* Lab +47 22 95 84 54 Fax +47 22 69 41 30 GSM +47 90 74 27 65 *
Garry Lee
Unless you find an 'off the peg' frame that is just right,
>consider having a frame custom built to suit what you want it for.
This is standard advice which is trotted out willy nilly here and there. I
have my doubts about it. What exactly will a custom-made frameset have
that one you size within limits, with appropriate components does not
have?
The mythical "responsiveness", "forgiving ride" etc.?
All in the imagination, I say.
I can understand if you have unusual requirements for braze-ons etc. that
you might need one made, or if you had very unusual dimensions.
I've had maybe 12 bikes in my time, some quite expensive, and have never
had a frame made, and never will.
Spend the money on components, I say.
TO Jackson
Jeremy (Jer...@elmc.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: I am getting confused by the Reynolds frame materials around. Obvious
: 531ST is the standard touring frame material, but how does 653 compare?
: Would 653 be better for a light touring bike? My usual use would be day
: tours carrying very little, some Audax rides, and occasional tours.
: Touring would probably be light - not carrying tent etc. But woould 653
: be up to a heavier tour, if I wanted to do one?
When I was asking these same questions about a year ago, I
was advised (by several respected frame builders) that
there would be no significant weight saving with 653, and
it is not advised for touring frames. The two choices
came down to 531 or 753, the latter offering stiffness
and weight improvements, but at a much higher cost. 853
now appears to be the 'no-compromise' reynolds tube, and
I've seen references to this as a good touring tube.
The reynolds literature, by the way, does not recommend
653 for touring use.
tom.
Chris McSweeny
Jeremy wrote:
>
> I am getting confused by the Reynolds frame materials around. Obvious
> 531ST is the standard touring frame material, but how does 653 compare?
>
> Would 653 be better for a light touring bike? My usual use would be day
> tours carrying very little, some Audax rides, and occasional tours.
> Touring would probably be light - not carrying tent etc. But woould 653
> be up to a heavier tour, if I wanted to do one?
>
>
I wouldn't recommend 653 for touring, as it is only available (AFAIK) in
'racing' gauges. In this form it is actually less stiff than 531c, and
I've seen several tests commenting on the lack of stiffness. For a
touring bike this isn't what you want - as it will cause all sorts of
handling problems even with fairly light loads. I've tried carrying
loads on my 531c frame, but even with a fairly small load (two front
panniers full, carried on the back), flex was very noticeable if not
particularly upsetting the handling. If you really want something
'better' than 531st, look into 753 in touring gauges (available from Tony
Oliver I think), or even to go high tech with 853, which is renowned as
very stiff for a racing bike, and should be great for light touring.
Just my 2p
Chris McSweeny
cpmcs...@dra.hmg.gb
Stephanie Peters
Garry Lee <gl...@iol.ie> wrote:
> Unless you find an 'off the peg' frame that is just right,
>>consider having a frame custom built to suit what you want it for.
>
>This is standard advice which is trotted out willy nilly here and there. I
>have my doubts about it. What exactly will a custom-made frameset have
>that one you size within limits, with appropriate components does not
>have?
Standard advice yes, but in my experience good advice. I am at the
extreme small end of the size range, having only a 25" inside leg.
Whilst there are road bikes with 700C wheels small enough that I can
comfortably straddle the cross bar, the reach is usually too long. My
custom built frame from Malc Cowle in Manchester has short cranks,
smaller brake levers, and a 20" bottom gear, all of which add greatly to
riding comfort. Had my name put on the frame as part of the paint job
so that it cannot be removed, to hopefully deter thieves. This bike is
so much comfier to ride I was able to increase the length of ride I can
do in a day from 80 - 110 miles, also aided by the fact that as it is
nicer to ride I ride it more.
If you are in standard size ranges maybe you can get as good a fit by
changing components, but it will take a lot of time and effort on the
part of your LBS.
Steph Peters
Manchester, England
bj...@cityscape.co.uk
Tom Barrance
One problem with 531ST for Audax/fast touring is that it gives a pretty
harsh ride with narrow tyres, being designed for stiffness and robustness
with heavy loads and fatter touring tyres. I'd agree with David Martin that
the framebuilder is crucial; a good builder might well recommend a mix of
tubing from different sets to get what you want. An alternative to a custom
might be an off-the-peg frame designed for Audax, like those made by St
John Street and Argos.
Tom