Reynolds 653 tubing
Comments
-
SLX was always considered the equivalent to 753 wasn't it ? Ribble offered both 653 and SLX in the 80's but never 753
I have always been obsessed about bike weight and prized my 653 Ribble until I weighed the forks against some aluminium forks which was astonishing. Then later I tried carbon 1" and it must have halved the weight of the frameset.
I have still stuck with the original forks though because they just look `right' on an old steel frame
Wish I had chrome on my chainstay .It might have saved the paint chipping :roll:0 -
peanut wrote:SLX was always considered the equivalent to 753 wasn't it ? Ribble offered both 653 and SLX in the 80's but never 753
Then later I tried carbon 1" and it must have halved the weight of the frameset.
I have still stuck with the original forks though because they just look `right' on an old steel frame
Wish I had chrome on my chainstay .It might have saved the paint chipping :roll:
When I bought my SLX New frame, that's pretty much what the shop told me, though they said it was slightly better than 753 for heavier riders (presumably due to the thicker tube walls[1]?). It had the steel fork replaced by a carbon one for a while before it was relegated to my winter bike (with original fork re-fitted), but this was one of the first-generation carbon forks made by Time (with a threaded 1" steel column, no less) so it suited it quite well compared to today's fatter offerings with their integral headset races. Said fork is still going strong and now on my Look KG241, which it complements nicely.
David
[1] The other chief difference between SLX and 753 is the alloy steel used; in SLX the main alloying elements are chromium & molybdenum whereas 753 uses manganese & molybdenum."It is not enough merely to win; others must lose." - Gore Vidal0 -
Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but my current pride and joy is a Harry Hall lo-profile (with a 24" front :shock: ) built in Reynolds 531Pro. I did read somewhere that Reynolds replaced 531Pro with 653. Can anyone confirm or deny that and give me a little more info on 531Pro?I was only joking when I said
by rights you should be bludgeoned in your bed0 -
peanut wrote:looks like this should put the 653 debate to bed for good.
I was right in so far as my memory served me. The 653 tubeset was not just a thin 531 tube.
The 753 and the 653 tubesets are identical.
The 653 was a development of the 531C and the tubes were indeed thinner. It was braized together.
The 753 tubeset was simply a 653 tube-set but put together with silver solder and received a special heat treatment which made it slightly stronger.Frame builders had to be licensed to buy and build to 753 standard. Apparently Bob Jackson was the first licensed 753 builder.
http://www.worldclasscycles.com/JACKSON-HOME.htm
http://www.equusbicycle.com/bike/reynolds/Reynolds-tubing-sizes.jpg
In fact, 753 and the 653 tubesets are not identical.
653 frames were a mix of different steels. The main tubes are 653, the forks are 531 and the stays are 753.
753, the steel, is simply heat-treated 531. 753 (ultimate tensile strength:1,315 Newtons/sq mm) is stronger than 531 (UTS: 802) so can be made in to lighter tubes with thinner walls than 531. 753 had to be brazed with silver solder, overheating 753 would make it revert back to 531. 753 was not supposed to be chromed, nevertheless some builder did do it. I also have a Rourke 753 frame with chromed ends and a rh chainstay, and it's still going strong.
I don't think 653 was a development of 531C, more like introduced as something in-between 531 and 753.
"753 tubeset was simply a 653 tube-set but put together with silver solder and received a special heat treatment "
This is absolutely wrong. 753 was introduced in the 70s, more than ten years before 653.
Columbus Cyclex (UTS: 1030), eg SL, SLX, SP etc was in-between 753 and 531. It was the later Columbus Nivachrome (UTS: 1280), eg Max, Neuron etc, that was equivalent to 753.
"Can anyone confirm or deny that and give me a little more info on 531Pro?"
All 531 frames have the same steel, all the different versions such as C, ST etc just means they have different wall thickness. 531Pro had thinner walls than 531c, so was lighter, but less durable.
"I have always been obsessed about bike weight and prized my 653 Ribble until I weighed the forks against some aluminium forks which was astonishing. Then later I tried carbon 1" and it must have halved the weight of the frameset. "
The difference between a steel and a carbon forks is around 300-500g, so it can't make your frame lighter by half, a 753 frame and forks would weigh about 2.4-2.5kg, 531 maybe about 200g more. However, the lighter carbon forks do weigh about half the weight of steel forks.0 -
Introduced by Reynolds in 1987 at the Paris Bike Show. The tubing was introduced to counter act the advance Columbus and Tange were making introducing lighter tube sets. The 653 addressed a lot of the problems of 531, 531SL and the lighter 753 which became brittle when over heated. 653 actually became harder when heated and was new as claimed by Reynolds but a return to the properties of Accles & Pollock tubing from decades before.
The tubeset weight was between 531 and 753.0 -
GaryGkn wrote:Looked up 453 on that neat poster never heard of it but i did once buy a Peugeot with 553.
Never seen one since!
I actually own a mid-late 80's model Falcon "Harrier" built with the unusual 453 tubeset and have been looking for some info on it to no avail... this thread seems all but dead but hopefully someone will see this. I've been extremely happy with the ride and it is pretty darn light, though i'm not sure how much it weighs exactly. Here is a pic or two
0 -
0
-
Thanks, I've seen this material but I'm looking for some more in depth commentary on the characteristics of the tubing.0
-
On the basis of no technical knowledge or research what so ever....early '80s SLX is the "nicest" (and no I can't define that term) tubes I've ridden.d.j.
"Cancel my subscription to the resurrection."0 -
Dave, was that the Daccordi? I think I prefer SLX to 753.0
-
Rob, yes - and the CBT Italia. Best steel I've ridden!d.j.
"Cancel my subscription to the resurrection."0 -
I've got a complete set of unmolested 653 tubing in my shed. A set of Cinelli cast lugs, and some Campag dropouts and all the cable guides, bosses etc too.
If anyone is hell bent on making their own frame I could be tempted to part with them for the right offer .....................
0 -
Just to support what Tom753 said earlier - that is exactly how I remember it.
My Russell 653 is now back on the road again after a few years out and I distictly remember the late (and great) Dave Russell telling me that the 653 tubeset was a actually a mix of 753 rear, 653 main and 531 front. Dave was also a licenced 753 builder as I recall...
To go back to the original question - I don't think 653 was ever intended to be built into tourers, but its amazing how good a handmade steel frameset still feels, even after a few years on the latest hydro-formed ally stuff...0 -
"I don't think 653 was ever intended to be built into tourers"
Well, the Dawes Synthesis XT (late '90s) that I've just bought has all the touring fittings (and seems to have been the flat bar (more expensive - listed at a grand in '97) version of the Super Galaxy) and is built in "653 Fillet Brazed"! And a beautifully finished frame it is too.
I'll see how it rides (fixed, with an Eno).d.j.
"Cancel my subscription to the resurrection."0 -
Pardon me for getting in on this thread but as a complete beginner with steel frames it's hard to know what feels good and what doesn't, with all these numbers being flown about.
If you want a steel frame that is comfortable and forgiving, as I am in the market for something in steel, do I go for something made in Reynolds tubing eg. 853,953 or other tubing eg. DT15 V tubing, as found on the Master X LIght from Colnago.0 -
I have a 23 year ols 531c which was originally a raleigh road ace.
I also have 853 ribble and 853 track bike.
I also have carbon road bike but the orads are so crap in England the ride feels pretty much the same on all of them
0 -
It really isn't the brand or model of tubing you select, but the design of the frame that will determine if a frame is comfortable and forgiving. Generally speaking, racing frames are less comfortable and forgiving while touring frames are more comfortable and forgiving. Audax frames are somewhere in the middle. A Colnago Master X Light is a racing frame. A Bob Jackson Audax is an audax frame(duh). A Thorn Nomad is a touring frame. So refine your needs a bit more so you're sure you don't go out and buy a racing frame made from steel thinking you'll get a comfortable and forgiving frame and find out you got a frame that is much less forgiving than you expected.0
-
I do not believe the geometry has anything to do with the comfort of my bikes when riding in the UK, it is more to do with the state of the road surface in general.
I can certainly feel the difference when riding in Italy or France for that matter, but in UK? it is generally bumpy as sxxt most of the time.
I also notice the difference when riding carbon or steel on the track, but thats s good surface.0 -
I have a 1985 Holdsworth Professional, built in 531Pro. To make up for the thinner gauge on the chain and seat stays, compared to 531c, the stays were fatter, giving it a stiffer rear triangle. This was also a good thing when stretching the rear to take a modern rear axle for 8 speed +.
653 did replace 531Pro. The stays in the 653 tubeset were carried over from 753, as these were a thick enough guage not to need silver soldering, unlike the rest of the 753 tubeset, which was paper thin.To err is human, but to make a real balls up takes a super computer.0 -
Scuse me resurecting this thread but I'm a new boy here and it's one of my fave topics - especially as everyone I meet is carbon/aluminium mad and hasn't a clue about Reynolds!
Over the years i've been a big fan of their tubing. I'm sure Tony Olivers comments re: 653 are justified as they are in context to touring machines. 653 Is a mixture of the standard guage tubes from 753 and 531c. The touring tube development of 531 is 531st which has thicker sections to cope with pannier loadings front and rear. 531c therefore, and the guage-comparable 653 are too thin and flexible.
531 pro was a lighter guage 531c It's ride is very springy and I would recommend a frame in this guage for the lighter rider. I was 10 stone and had a custom 531pro for many years. It was the most comfortable I had ever ridden and curiously was actually more responsive than an identically sized stock 531c frame. This I put down to accurate building - something else Tony Oliver stresses as vital when wanting the best from any given tubeset.
Incidentally I have it on good authority from a reputable frame builder in the south that when 653 was introduced that the balance of demand was such that Reynolds had suggested that 531pro tubes were used up and labeled 653 :shock:
I have 2 753 frames. one is a custom Rick Powell, the other a Peugeot Perthus. To be fair there is not a lot to choose between as far as performance is concerned. However, Nothing has fallen off the Powell yet but the Perthus has lost a gear boss!!!
I also have a Dynatech cyclocross 708 frame. Ex Delta Racing Team. I use it to commute and it's a dream. A very stiff mainframe with an oversized top tube - very curious as it must cause a problem for the builder finding lugs to fit! I have seen some 708 frame decals with the word 'tourist' and others 'classic' Mine is the former and you can see that the forks and downtube have had boss holes brazed over.
My pride and joy is a personally designed 531 Mountain bike frame. In Tony Olivers book 'Touring Bicycles' he lists all the Reynolds tubing, their diameters and guages. In 1990, armed with a spec taken from this list I asked Denis Field, an ex-Condor frame builder who had retired to Cornwall to build me a frame. It has some very unusual features (like road fork blades instead of chainstays) and is one of a kind. Denis was a road bike builder and vowed never build another MTB frame. To Quote him "I had to throw the book away!"
I certainly chose right. it's a seriously quick piece of kit which I still ride today - 19 years after it was built I did a hilly 10 mile TT on it once and was only 1.38 mins behind my previous weeks attempt on my Powell 753.
My present fleet is pretty much all Reynolds:
531st Revell Romany
531c Sirrius Training
531Pro Condor
753 Rick Powell
753 Peugeot Perthus
Columbus Brain Peugeot
531DS (Designer Select) MTB
708 Dynatech cross0 -
GaryGkn wrote:Does anybody have any info on Reynolds 653 tubing?
I have a 653 frame which i am going to build up.
Should I be concerned by the views below?
Light Use
'In this group Reynolds 531 competition must represent the best value, much better than 653. It is a poor man's 753 offering neither the strength nor overall stiffness. It has identical gauges to 753 which I believe inadequate for the slightly inferior material. 531 Competition offers a better and longer lasting frame. Even so, 653 has gained a large following so I shall say no more.'
From Touring Bikes, A Practical Guide, Tony Oliver
Quite agree.
http://equusbicycle.com/bike/reynolds/R ... -sizes.jpg0 -
The seat tube of the 653 (and 753) tube set was outside diameter of 28.6 mm (inch and an eighth) so with a wall thickness of 0.5mm (at the top and 0.7mm at the bottom bracket) this would require what size seatpillar? 28.6mm -(2 times 0.5mm) = 27.6mm so with a clearance fit and a bit of allowance for distortion in the tube during manufacture then 27.4mm seems the obvious size.
The wall thickness of 531c is also 0.5mm at the top, but a 27.2mm seatpillar with the seattube clamp overtightend and a distorted seat tube during brazing seems to be popular. So that water and salt and muck off the road has a chance to find its way down between the seatpillar and the inside of frame tube to cause enough corrosion to sieze the seat pillar solid.
To remove a siezed seatpillar it used to be popular to use violent heat (sometimes with an oxyacytelene torch) to cause lots of damage to the frame and the seatpillar (paint destroyed on frame and seatpillar fit for the bucket). The alloy seatpillar would try to expand more than the frame, siezing even more. A easier way, and less detructive is to freeze the seatpillar in liquid nitrogen or use a carbon dioxide fire extinguisher to freeze the seatpillar. There are also other products for the purpose Sol-X freeze, Loctite Freeze & release etc.0 -
I'm no metallurgist but having owned a 653 Bob Jackson from about 20yrs ago I can tell you that the ride was one of the most plush and comfortable bikes I've ever been on. Not real rigid but it had a springy effect that felt like I was being propelled forward with every pedal stroke. I rode an identical BJ (same size, frame geometry, wheels) with a 753 tubeset that a guy in my club owned and it was noticeably stiffer. So IMO if you want a fairly stiff frame or a touring frame the 653 is not the best choice but ride quality is fantastic. It's certainly very strong as well since I almost had a hernia resetting the rear triangle for a wider hub but which hasn't always been the case for other frames I've worked on. And of course the frame builder can make a big difference but Alu, Ti or CF will never feel like this.0
-
mmacavity wrote:The seat tube of the 653 (and 753) tube set was outside diameter of 28.6 mm (inch and an eighth) so with a wall thickness of 0.5mm (at the top and 0.7mm at the bottom bracket) this would require what size seatpillar? 28.6mm -(2 times 0.5mm) = 27.6mm so with a clearance fit and a bit of allowance for distortion in the tube during manufacture then 27.4mm seems the obvious size.
.
not sure where you get those dims from ?
my 653 Ribble has a seat tube measuring 28.9mm and the seat pillar dia of 27.2mm
Never heard of 27.6 seat pillar ? :roll: 0 -
not sure where you get those dims from ?
Reynolds.
my 653 Ribble has a seat tube measuring 28.9mm and the seat pillar dia of 27.2mm
Unusual size 28.9mm. Very thick paint!
If you look at the difference between 28.9mm and 27.2mm then.... did Reynolds make such odd size tubes?
Never heard of 27.6 seat pillar ?
No, me neither. But a 27.4mm is a better fit in Reynolds 653.0 -
mmacavity wrote:not sure where you get those dims from ?
Reynolds.
my 653 Ribble has a seat tube measuring 28.9mm and the seat pillar dia of 27.2mm
Unusual size 28.9mm. Very thick paint!
If you look at the difference between 28.9mm and 27.2mm then.... did Reynolds make such odd size tubes?
Never heard of 27.6 seat pillar ?
No, me neither. But a 27.4mm is a better fit in Reynolds 653.
sorry not sure about your answer as some of it seems to have got mixed with the quote ?
are you saying that you also have a 653 Ribble ?
I didn't check Reynolds specs I used a micrometer on my frame . I thought the 28.9 mm OD dim rather odd but as you say allowing for paint .
Re the seat pillar I mic'd the lug on my frame as 27.2mm ID so have always used a 27.2 Campag aero seatpin without any slippage or distortion. I don't think that I could insert a 27.4mm pin but why would the frame makers chose such a bastard size for a mass produced framset ? doesn't make sense to me when most roadrace steel framesets of the period take 27.20 -
crankycrank wrote:I'm no metallurgist but having owned a 653 Bob Jackson from about 20yrs ago I can tell you that the ride was one of the most plush and comfortable bikes I've ever been on. Not real rigid but it had a springy effect that felt like I was being propelled forward with every pedal stroke. I rode an identical BJ (same size, frame geometry, wheels) with a 753 tubeset that a guy in my club owned and it was noticeably stiffer. So IMO if you want a fairly stiff frame or a touring frame the 653 is not the best choice but ride quality is fantastic. It's certainly very strong as well since I almost had a hernia resetting the rear triangle for a wider hub but which hasn't always been the case for other frames I've worked on. And of course the frame builder can make a big difference but Alu, Ti or CF will never feel like this.
yes I couldn't agree more. Its not until you have ridden other frames and different materials and come back for a ride on a 653 that you truly appreciate the excelence of the 653 tubeset. I will never part with my 653 for that reason.
My frame is slightly large at 23.5 " ( I'm 5'11" ) so I'm sure that also cotributes to a comfortable ride to some extent0 -
sorry not sure about your answer as some of it seems to have got mixed with the quote ?
are you saying that you also have a 653 Ribble ?
I didn't check Reynolds specs I used a micrometer on my frame . I thought the 28.9 mm OD dim rather odd but as you say allowing for paint .
Re the seat pillar I mic'd the lug on my frame as 27.2mm ID so have always used a 27.2 Campag aero seatpin without any slippage or distortion. I don't think that I could insert a 27.4mm pin but why would the frame makers chose such a bastard size for a mass produced framset ? doesn't make sense to me when most roadrace steel framesets of the period take 27.2[/quote]
Have a look at this:
http://www.reynoldstechnology.biz/downl ... eparts.pdf
as you will see 653 was so popular (?) that they do not make it any more, it was only a thinner type of 531.
Reynolds have for many years had a mix and match approch to pipe thicknesses / sizes (tubes) for bike frames. You can choose what ever you decide is appropriate for a top tube, seat tube, downtube etc. Then choose the sticker (or as the americans say decal) to match, for example 531select, 531c competion, 531 ST super tourist etc.
In some of Reynolds promotional material for Reynolds 953, Reynolds concede that they are pipe manufacturers and not frame builders so they do not intend to clain expertise in frame design.
Was 27.2mm anymore standard than any other size?
On the subject of what pipe diameter, is best to fit inside another bit of pipe (frametube) then bike shops use what they have on the shelf. Reynolds do not design pipes / tubes around seat pillar sizes but attempt to standardise the outside diameter. One inch = 25.4mm (incidentally one inch is defined as 25.4mm). One and an eighth inches is 28.6mm (an approximation of 28.575mm). Even Columbus, Tange, Vitus, etc used standard outside diameter sizes for frame tubes / pipes, so that they would fit standard size capillary fittings (in bike speak lugs, bottom bracket shells etc).
To make lighter steel pipes / frame tubes the only way is to use less steel / reduced wall thickness hence 653 is thinner / lighter than 531.0 -
if you use the 'quote' button before replying you will find your reply will be easier to understand.
653 was sold by Reynolds as a complete tubeset . Framebuilders were naturally free to mix and match tubes naturally. Although to what advantage any frame builder would want to use an expensive tubeset then mix it with 531 tubes is beyond me.0 -
peanut wrote:if you use the 'quote' button before replying you will find your reply will be easier to understand.
653 was sold by Reynolds as a complete tubeset . Framebuilders were naturally free to mix and match tubes naturally. Although to what advantage any frame builder would want to use an expensive tubeset then mix it with 531 tubes is beyond me.
"expensive" was it expensive... oh I see what you are implying.... surely people dont do that sort thing?.... do they?0
