Frame Tubing

R. Murphy said:

So - we have a Dawes Galaxy, c1993, with 531ST tubing giving an excellent
ride.

But now there is (to me) a bewildering array of tubing materials on touring
bikes. We seem to have

Aluminium in various guises (on my MTB this gave such a harsh ride I
fitted a squidgy seatpost)

Reynolds 853

Reynolds 631 cromoly

Reynolds 520

Which of these is the nearest equivalent to 531?

Personally, I'd say 520, although 531 is certainly better than that. In
it's heyday, 753 was the best, followed by 631, followed by 521c
(competition) and 531st (sports touring???). It refers to the relative
amounts of Manganese, Chromium and Molybdenum added to alloy the steel.
( Note: I'm just talking about Reynolds tubing here - no flame wars from
the Columbus etc fans, please (: )

The plethora of newer steels was introduced when ( as I understand it )
Reynolds got much cleverer with playing with tubing thicknesses.

My $0.02,

Steve

in message <[email hidden]>, R. Murphy

(') said:

So - we have a Dawes Galaxy, c1993, with 531ST tubing giving an
excellent ride.

But now there is (to me) a bewildering array of tubing materials on
touring bikes. We seem to have

Aluminium in various guises (on my MTB this gave such a harsh ride
I fitted a squidgy seatpost)

Reynolds 853
Reynolds 631 cromoly
Reynolds 520

Which of these is the nearest equivalent to 531?

853 is the best current Reynolds tubing but is not advised for forks.
It's an air-hardening weldable tubing. 753 is also really good stuff but
can't be welded; must be silver brazed. It's also probably too
thin-walled for a touring frame. 520 is just chrome molybdenum, and I
don't think it's even double butted. 631 is a weldable replacement for
531, and is recommended for touring and for forks. It is /not/ chrome
molybdenum, and if someone is selling a '631 cromoly' the 'cromoly' part
is the seatstays/chainstays, which are not available in 631. Classic 531
is still available on special order, but as it isn't weldable and has no
particular advantage over 631 it isn't often used.

Having said all that, the benefit of steel is that it is repairable,
which if you're going a very long way in very remote places may be
important. For anything else, carbon fibre is IME more comfortable.
Aluminium is these days cheap, but not significantly lighter than a good
steel frame, not usually repairable, and as you say can be (again in my
experience) a slightly harsh ride.

Go carbon.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

I'm fed up with Life 1.0. I never liked it much and now it's getting
me down. I think I'll upgrade to MSLife 97 -- you know, the one that
comes in a flash new box and within weeks you're crawling with bugs.

R. Murphy said:

So - we have a Dawes Galaxy, c1993, with 531ST tubing giving an excellent
ride.

But now there is (to me) a bewildering array of tubing materials on touring
bikes. We seem to have

Aluminium in various guises (on my MTB this gave such a harsh ride I
fitted a squidgy seatpost)

Reynolds 853

Reynolds 631 cromoly

Reynolds 520

Which of these is the nearest equivalent to 531?

725 and 520 are closest to 531 fom a materials point of view. Modern
tubes are usually oversize and available in a great array of diameters
and guages (ST was a specific set with 1-0.7-1.0mm main tubes) so a
direct comparison is difficult

--
---
Marten Gerritsen

INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl

R. Murphy said:

So - we have a Dawes Galaxy, c1993, with 531ST tubing giving an
excellent ride.

But now there is (to me) a bewildering array of tubing materials on
touring bikes. We seem to have

Aluminium in various guises (on my MTB this gave such a harsh ride
I fitted a squidgy seatpost)

Reynolds 853

Reynolds 631 cromoly

Reynolds 520

Which of these is the nearest equivalent to 531?

Further to the replies given, it seems that some frame builders pick from
other makers of tube, such as Columbus. Not sure which make of tube is the
better, and I suspect its really down to the details of the frame
designer/builder in picking the correct mix to match the dimensions and
weight of the rider.

Whilst I understand Simon Brooks' recommendation towards carbon, the one bit
which puts me off is "how long will it last" and "how long will I be able to
get bits which fit the frame". But I'm someone who thinks a circa 1990
bike is "just run in".

The other material to consider is titanium, which seems to have weight
advantages and a reputation of a reasonable ride.

- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

R. Murphy said:

So - we have a Dawes Galaxy, c1993, with 531ST tubing giving an excellent
ride.

But now there is (to me) a bewildering array of tubing materials on touring
bikes. We seem to have

Aluminium in various guises (on my MTB this gave such a harsh ride I
fitted a squidgy seatpost)

Reynolds 853

Reynolds 631 cromoly

Reynolds 520

Which of these is the nearest equivalent to 531?

631 is sold as the 531 "replacement". 531 forks are still quite
commonly used, but the full tubesets seem to have dried up.

BTW, if you really thought alu gave a hard ride it was probably the
tyres or the geometry. A triangulated bike frame has next to no
vertical compliance regardless of what metal it's made from. The
difficulty is making the frame adequately stiff laterally, to prevent
the brakes rubbing and gears changing when you get out of the saddle.

Zog The Undeniable said:

BTW, if you really thought alu gave a hard ride it was probably the
tyres or the geometry. A triangulated bike frame has next to no
vertical compliance regardless of what metal it's made from.

I've often wondered this; I assumed any up / down flex was due to the
forks, which is why so many ally frames now have carbon forks. I have
ridden 5 seasons of Audax (and pretty much everything else) on an alloy
frame and can't say it felt harder than steel.

MartinM said:

Zog The Undeniable said:

BTW, if you really thought alu gave a hard ride it was probably the
tyres or the geometry. A triangulated bike frame has next to no
vertical compliance regardless of what metal it's made from.

I've often wondered this; I assumed any up / down flex was due to the
forks, which is why so many ally frames now have carbon forks. I have
ridden 5 seasons of Audax (and pretty much everything else) on an alloy
frame and can't say it felt harder than steel.

Apart from marketing, basic carbon forks are now the same price or
cheaper than steel forks. Alu forks were always a bit of a rarity; alu
can't be allowed to flex much, so it was never a good material for a
fork. Cannondale used it with some success (they dropped the alu
steerer tube for a steel one after a breakage and a recall) but some
early alu forks were lethal.

Titanium is OK for forks, but is more expensive than all but the top-end CF.

Zog The Undeniable said:

MartinM said:

Zog The Undeniable said:

BTW, if you really thought alu gave a hard ride it was probably the
tyres or the geometry. A triangulated bike frame has next to no
vertical compliance regardless of what metal it's made from.

I've often wondered this; I assumed any up / down flex was due to the
forks, which is why so many ally frames now have carbon forks. I have
ridden 5 seasons of Audax (and pretty much everything else) on an alloy
frame and can't say it felt harder than steel.

Apart from marketing, basic carbon forks are now the same price or
cheaper than steel forks. Alu forks were always a bit of a rarity; alu
can't be allowed to flex much, so it was never a good material for a
fork. Cannondale used it with some success (they dropped the alu
steerer tube for a steel one after a breakage and a recall) but some
early alu forks were lethal.

Titanium is OK for forks, but is more expensive than all but the top-end CF.

My Ribble came with alu forks which haven't snapped yet, can't say I've
noticed forks on alu frames much, the only ones with steel are the
cheapo Claud Butler and Carrera ones.
Steel seems to persist as de rigeur for proper Audax bikes; not sure if
this is due to lightness, comfort or tradition.

On a tangent, I was advised the other day that for long distance I
should consider a pair of the n (where n is a low number) spoked
factory wheels due to the reduced wind resistance, not sure how much
there is in that. Bit late now anyway.

MartinM said:

I've often wondered this; I assumed any up / down flex was due to the
forks, which is why so many ally frames now have carbon forks. I have
ridden 5 seasons of Audax (and pretty much everything else) on an alloy
frame and can't say it felt harder than steel.

When I replaced my Claud Butler 531 racer with a Alloy + CF Fork Giant
OCR I noticed an immediate increase in "harshness" (Some might say,
"improved road feel"😉 which I was merrily attributing to material until
I applied some thought.

- Compact frame w/ larger diameter tubing.
- Correspondingly larger diameter seat post (IIRC)
- Straight bladed "sprint" forks which offer little or no flex as per
my old steel ones.
- Higher pressure "race" tyres.

I decided in retrospect that the basic frame material may not have been
overly significant after all.

Jon

Zog The Undeniable said:

R. Murphy wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So - we have a Dawes Galaxy, c1993, with 531ST tubing giving an excellent
ride.

But now there is (to me) a bewildering array of tubing materials on touring
bikes. We seem to have

Aluminium in various guises (on my MTB this gave such a harsh ride I
fitted a squidgy seatpost)

Reynolds 853

Reynolds 631 cromoly

Reynolds 520

Which of these is the nearest equivalent to 531?

Quoted message said:

631 is sold as the 531 "replacement". 531 forks are still quite
commonly used, but the full tubesets seem to have dried up.

Quoted message said:

BTW, if you really thought alu gave a hard ride it was probably the
tyres or the geometry. A triangulated bike frame has next to no
vertical compliance regardless of what metal it's made from.

I have an old Hetchins "curly stays" frame, which has a slight S bend
in the horizontal struts to the rear wheel, and the down stays have a
bend like the front forks. I think the idea was to give the frame a
bit of extra vertical compliance. But it certainly didn't soak up
bumps nearly as well as the bigger hybrid type tyres I now prefer,
since my old joints don't like hard wallops.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

MartinM said:

On a tangent, I was advised the other day that for long distance I
should consider a pair of the n (where n is a low number) spoked
factory wheels due to the reduced wind resistance, not sure how much
there is in that. Bit late now anyway.

You can also get tapered spokes, which are thinner except for
thickening to normal proportions nears the ends. Certainly lighter,
and allegedly less wind resistance, but I'm not sure if that's
significant. Doing all your zips etc. up tightly might matter more.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

In article <[email hidden]>, Chris Malcolm

() said:

I have an old Hetchins "curly stays" frame, which has a slight S bend
in the horizontal struts to the rear wheel, and the down stays have a
bend like the front forks. I think the idea was to give the frame a
bit of extra vertical compliance. But it certainly didn't soak up
bumps nearly as well as the bigger hybrid type tyres I now prefer,
since my old joints don't like hard wallops.

There is, though, a school of thought which maintains that all the
distinctive frame designs, in spite of the claims made about compliance,
rigidity, bringing world peace and an end to hunger in the third world,
were more to enable readers of The Comic identify the winning bike from
the photos, as frame builders were not permitted to advertise racing
successes directly. Hence Hetchins, Bates Cantiflex & Diadrant, Thanet
Silverlight, Baines Flying Gate, Paris Galibier, etc. etc.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
World Domination? Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then
chain to the floor and walk up and down on it in high heels.

Chris Malcolm said:

You can also get tapered spokes, which are thinner except for
thickening to normal proportions nears the ends. Certainly lighter,
and allegedly less wind resistance, but I'm not sure if that's
significant. Doing all your zips etc. up tightly might matter more.

I thought most spokes were butted -- doesn't it help wheels to stay under
tension better?

Simon Bennett said:

Chris Malcolm said:

You can also get tapered spokes, which are thinner except for
thickening to normal proportions nears the ends. Certainly lighter,
and allegedly less wind resistance, but I'm not sure if that's
significant. Doing all your zips etc. up tightly might matter more.

I thought most spokes were butted -- doesn't it help wheels to stay
under tension better?

The extra elasticity might help prevent left-side spokes in highly dished
wheels from undoing (?), as these can't be very highhy tensioned, but
mainly butting reduces fatigue and saves weight.

~PB

in message <[email hidden]>, Simon Bennett

(') said:

Chris Malcolm said:

You can also get tapered spokes, which are thinner except for
thickening to normal proportions nears the ends. Certainly lighter,
and allegedly less wind resistance, but I'm not sure if that's
significant. Doing all your zips etc. up tightly might matter more.

I thought most spokes were butted -- doesn't it help wheels to stay
under tension better?

My new ones aren't...

<fx>Whistles smugly</fx>

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; I'd rather live in sybar-space

Simon Bennett said:

Chris Malcolm said:

You can also get tapered spokes, which are thinner except for
thickening to normal proportions nears the ends. Certainly lighter,
and allegedly less wind resistance, but I'm not sure if that's
significant. Doing all your zips etc. up tightly might matter more.

I thought most spokes were butted -- doesn't it help wheels to stay under
tension better?

What does butted mean?

TIA

Chris
--
Chris Eilbeck

"Chris Eilbeck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Simon Bennett said:

Chris Malcolm said:

You can also get tapered spokes, which are thinner except for
thickening to normal proportions nears the ends. Certainly lighter,
and allegedly less wind resistance, but I'm not sure if that's
significant. Doing all your zips etc. up tightly might matter more.

I thought most spokes were butted -- doesn't it help wheels to stay under
tension better?

What does butted mean?

TIA

Well, you know how if you're doing boolean logic, you can say two variables
are 'anded' together? Butted is sort of like that.

cheers,
clive

(except almost entirely different. http://sheldonbrown.com/glossary.html
probably contains a more sensible answer :-) )

Quoted message said:

What does butted mean?

[nicked from Sh*ldon's bicycle glossary]

Butted
Thicker at the ends. Said of spokes and frame tubing. (Butted spokes
are also called "swaged"😉 Butted tubing is usually made with a constant
outside diameter, but thicker walls at the ends. The idea is to make the
part stronger at the ends, where the stresses are greatest, and lighter in
the long middle section, where stresses are less.

The Reynolds site has a good explanation of how butted tubing is made.
<https://vault2.secured-url.com/reynolds/cgi-bin/contentdisplay.pl?act=c&l=
1&c=19>

Some writers have objected to this term being applied to spokes, and
maintain that "swaged" is more correct, since the operation that produces a
butted/swaged spoke is one of thinning the middle, not thickening the ends.
For some reason they don't generally object to the use of "butted" in
reference to tubing, though the process is also one of thinning the middle,
not thickening the end. This objection is based on a misunderstanding of
the origin of the origin of the term "butted." "Butted" means having a
butt, i.e. a thick end, and has no reference to the means of fabrication.

--
Another notch in the on-topic bedpost.

re butted spokes:

I wonder what the original intention was. Was it just to save weight, or
did whoever first came up with the idea realise that it's good for
reducing fatigue as well?

~PB