Who's got a 953 bike and what's it like to ride?

stickman

Maybe one day i'll be able to afford to build up a 953 fixed
I think carbon is good as a work tool bike for competing, for leisure and pleasure, the enjoyment of riding - only steel will do!

stickman

Seems like nobody here has got one, maybe they are less common than I thought? Maybe the non-owning tubing experts would like to reveal their knowledge, I think it's an interesting topic: mega-light, mega-strong, stainless steel tubing.

nickwill

I'm a bit intrigued by the whole stainless steel phenomenon. I have a custom frame built from Columbus Life. I could have had the same frame made from Spirit which would have been marginally lighter but less durable owing to the thinner tubes. If I had specced the Columbus stainless tubing it would have cost me rather more. I would have considered it but I was advised that it is fragile as compared to the othe Columbus tubesets. This begs the question as to where the advantages lie. Yes it will be rust free, but if it's fragile in other respects then I can't quite see the reason to go in that direction. A well looked after quality steel frame is unlikely to suffer from rust to any significant level, particularly if treated with frame saver. The extra money spent on stainless tubing. could instead be spent on a respray of a non stainless frame if thought necessary every few years.

fluff.

Dunno about its application in bike frames but stainless is what it says on the tin, it stains-less, not corrosion proof or anything. If you treat it like rubbish, by using it on salt covered roads and not cleaning it, then it 'll rust away as fast as any carbon steel tubes would.

Edit: Just a thought, if you wanted a steel that was almost corrosion proof you would be using duplex and expensive alloys, but the price gets astronomical .. have had course to use these sorts of alloys for my work and a single M10 bolt can set you back 250 quid+ cost price, a bike made of the stuff would be bonkers.

Tail end Charlie

Stainless steel is one of the biggest misnomers going. If it was introduced now it would have to be called something different under Trades Description or some other similar act.

Chris James

Tail end Charlie wrote:

Stainless steel is one of the biggest misnomers going. If it was introduced now it would have to be called something different under Trades Description or some other similar act.

Normally stainless steel means an iron alloy with sufficient chromium in it to form a protective chromium oxide layer on the surface (this varies slightly depending on what other elements are in the alloy). However, when used in high chloride environments then you can get localised corrosion. The original application for it, when developed at Firth Labs (?) in Sheffield was for cutlery, to avoid the food staining that previous generations of cutlery suffered – hence the name.

I believe 953 is a martensitic stainless, so incredibly hard, and difficult to work with - presumably accounting for the expense of the frames.

Having had an (admittedly old, relatively thick walled?) 531c frame last 25 years then I wonder just how stainless frames need to be in practice. Likewise, since all steels have the same density then the weight difference between steels is only proportional to wall thickness - i.e. there is a limit to how much lighter a 953 frame would be. It may be worth spending the price differential elsewhere to get more of a weight loss?

If I was building up a fixie then I think I would go for a much cheaper 631 frame, which should give a nice ride, being quite robust (in case you come off in winter) and only weigh, what, a pound extra?

stickman

Any more 953 thoughts?

ride_whenever

TBH the sort of people who a) have the money for 953 and b) would buy 953 generally have beards, are 4000 years old, legs of steel and can't use a computer because they're always riding everywhere incredibly fast.

Probably why you've not got many answers!!!!

Mccaria

No beard, can use a computer, not yet 4,000 years old and legs of straw.

Going for a fitting on Tuesday for a 953 OS frame with a carbon fork. Having it built as essentially a fast sportive/racing bike (no mudguard clearance or braze ons etc), Intrigued to see how it compares to my exceptionlly light carbon Canyon - going to kit them out with very similar components.

Fitting on Tuesday so it will be a few weeks before its built, but when its done will post some pictures/observation.

stickman

You're not having a 953 fork!!?

Mccaria

Nope. Carbon forks, carbon bars, carbon seat pin, carbon pedals, carbon saddle rails...... It won't be a traditional steel build !

The issue of a 953 fork never really came up, it was a given that it would be a carbon fork. When speccing the build, it was only ever a discussion on which carbon fork to go with.

stickman

Mccaria wrote:

It won't be a traditional steel build !

Definately not!

Mccaria

Stickman,

I asked about the reasoning behind going for carbon forks rather than 953 forks. It's pretty much all about the weight.

The reason for building in 953 over other Reynolds steel tubes is primarily to build a lighter frame (there is the issue of better rust proofing, but this is not the main reason people spec 953) The weight of the steel fork (especially on a more race orientated bike) is quite puntitive to the weight of the overall build. It doesn't make a lot of sense to spend the premium in speccing 953 and then go for a steel fork - a cheaper steel with a carbon fork would be more cost effective and probably lighter than an all steel 953 frame. If you are more concerned by the aesthetics of an all steel frame, then 953 is a needlessly expensive option if weight is your secondary concern.

I think this is a pretty fair reflection of how it was explained and it convinced me (but then I am the one intending to fit carbon fibre bottle cages !!)

stickman

It'd be interesting to see actual weights to compare: a 953 with regular componants/a 953 with carbon componants/an all carbon.
(Bikes that are basically the same apart from materials)

giant_man

Can't tell you about Reynolds stainless steel but Columbus XCr stainless has a wonderful feel on the road, so damn responsive.

drlodge

I've got a 953 on order, lead time I'm told is 25 weeks! Its gonna have Campy super record Grouppo, Ritchey WCS carbon forks, handle bar and stem so should be real light weight.

ugo.santalucia

It seems a very expensive way to go for a fixed wheel. Stainless is a lovely lovely material, but very expensive and very scarce in cycling... as a result the frames are very pricey and waiting times can stretch easily to 6 months.
For your purpose I would consider any decent steel... the ride quality will be indistinguishable... there is nothing magic about stainless... stick a 953 decal and it will ride just like the real thing

drlodge

ugo.santalucia wrote:

It seems a very expensive way to go for a fixed wheel.

I agree withthat...Reynolds 725 would be a good choice for a track frame, its the Reynolds equivalent of what was 753 tubing.

APIII

I've had a 953 frame on order for over a year, although I'm told the build will be this month. I will let you know! Indicative weight for a 953 fork was given as 600g, so probably 200g more than a good carbon fork.

drlodge

The Ritchey WCS carbon fork is 300g I believe, so half the weight of the lightest steel fork