Tube choice??

roadking":stpej5v7 said:
bikenut2010":stpej5v7 said:
nope no budget for 853 then, so 631 here we come :D

Go for 531, classic tubeset.

Roadking.

Is there still much 531 around? Pashley build with it but I think they get it to special order from Tyseley; by and large I think it's been supplanted for main tubes and triangles (think 531 fork blades are still made though) by 525 and 631.

David
 
Is there still much 531 around?
The last time I looked at the Woodrup site, specific frame designs could be ordered in 531 with an informative proviso which went something like ... depending on supply. The last complete set of publicly auctioned Reynolds 531 bicycle tubing sold for an astronomical sum.

This has lead me to believe that constructors of classic mode frames are challenged for the true stuff that began mass production in the early 1930's. It has been formed into a galactic number of British airframes, race car chassis and bicycle frames. Could it ever be that the rising interest in classic bicycle frames could influence Reynolds to produce new production? Reynolds may tell you that they have already done this, but with an improved metallurgy. I am not one to argue that finer point. But would it not be a public relations coup if they were to do so — exactly!?

My own personal concerns as regards custom-built, classic style frames as reproductions is that the tubing be of the same outside diameter of most classic tubing, while at the same time it deforms/flexes somewhat in the same way we expect it to. In that set of perimeters, I believe that we are getting into an area where wheel-sets and tire selections are overriding — all the while assuming that classical geometry and proportions arebeing applied.

Perhaps the most important focus should be on the fork — its rake and whether or not the tubing formula behaves similarly to tubing of decades ago. Pretty esoteric stuff ... is it not?

IMHO, much of currently produced steel tubing produced for road machines can do this to a degree where we cannot detect a difference, but depending on application.* Still, I am not totally convinced. But having said that, I am thinking that the lugs and geometry play a more important part, even as modern metallurgy may prevail.

If my late Papa were to be ghosted back in order to ride a replica of his once beloved Bates in some modern, quality tubing (using the same intricate lugs) would he 'dis' the difference? An unanswerable question no matter which way you put it. It is a subject for debate and speculation — all adding up to friendly entertainment — I would hope.

My advise to the OP is to consider what loads will be applied to the frame and what geometry is best suited for your needs.

* Pure racer, sports-touring, touring, loaded touring ... each classic rendition has their respective ideal, specified tubing characteristic. The information is available — very likely on these forums.
 
I'm no frame builder nor metallurgist, but I thought 531/653/753 were discontinued in favour of 653/853 (and now 953 for the exotic) as the latter group are tig/mig (?) welded as opposed to brazed/soldered in lugs. The fashion for lugless frames has driven the change, rather than any performance improvements in the tubes
 
The fashion for lugless frames has driven the change, rather than any performance improvements in the tubes
A very interesting point! And I wonder if braze-filled frame construction was considered in the process. Would it not be the case that steel assembled with MIG would have different characteristics in respect to heat? And what if any differences are there in the way that the newer material behaves as a frame when we ride it.

We need some experts here — for fun if nothing else.

I'll bet that if I had 25 bikes all with the same wheel-set and tires/tubulars ... and of the same dimension ... they would feel differently. Not radically. I think that many would be feeling very much like the other. But some would be idiosyncratic. But that is a very, very, feint and gauze-like supposition — stuff of dreams ... well, for me it is.
 
The other thing is that (as I understand it) 531 cannot be TIG welded as it is a Manganese-Molybdenum alloy, not Cro-Mo.
 
hamster":10i0yxvo said:
The other thing is that (as I understand it) 531 cannot be TIG welded as it is a Manganese-Molybdenum alloy, not Cro-Mo.

The official line on the Reynolds website of a few years ago was that TIG fabrication could be used but wasn't recommended over fillet brazing or lugged/brazed assembly. TIG welding got a definite no-no from Reynolds for 753.

David
 
Tube sets for tig are designed with much thicker but shorter butting to keep the weight down.You can tig 753 but it would simply crack and fail at the joint due to the heat involved.You can still buy 531 and you can notice the difference between different tubesets.But as an example a badly built 853 would feel inferior to ride than a well built/designed 531 frameset.Ishiwata tubing was rarely built with in the 70/80s but popular with time trialists because it was so light but in my humble opinion to thin and very flexible.In the mid to late 90s Columbus took the lead over Reynolds but today there is very little in it and really down to preferences and intended use.
 
I'd still have Kevin Sayles build a frame for me even if he built it out of a rolled up bits of coke can....... :)

Shaun
 
Back
Top