853 vs 953

bmxboy10

I have my appointment with Rourke in May so wondered if anyone can anyone give me an honest appraisal of riding comparable 853 and 953 frames please? I know that frames behave and feel differently due to geometry etc but in a scenario where you are going custom so cant actually ride the bike you intend to buy, what will be the real differences if any?

cadseen

would be very suprised if you could notice any diferrence !

Ryan0380

Cost would be the biggest difference

mpatts

My personal feeling is that although there isn't a lot of difference, if I was getting a frame handmade it would always be 953, otherwise I'd be riding along thinking "Yeah, I wish I'd gone for 953"

rolf_f

mpatts wrote:

My personal feeling is that although there isn't a lot of difference, if I was getting a frame handmade it would always be 953, otherwise I'd be riding along thinking "Yeah, I wish I'd gone for 953"

You could always paint out the bottom left bit of the 8 and then, Bob's your uncle, your 853 becomes 953........

I think the point is that there isn't really any difference as far as I understand it. Go for the 853 and spend the difference on stuff that counts.

neeb

I suspect that the ride will be almost identical if the tubes are selected with that object in mind. That said, the strength of 953 (which doesn't make it any stiffer as a material) allows the tubes to be slightly thinner, which makes them slightly lighter but not quite as stiff assuming the tubes are the same diameter. But the reduced weight from thinner tubes allows you to use bigger diameter tubes without a weight penalty, and tube diameter has the biggest affect on stiffness...

So it's complicated. Larger diameter tubes are stiffer. Thicker walled tubes are stiffer. The best way to maximize weight savings for a given stiffness is to make the tubes larger but thinner walled (instead of smaller and thicker walled). 953 is stronger than 853, which means you can theoretically push this further by having thinner walled tubes at larger diameters.

But in effect it hardly will make any difference - if you select the tubes to provide the same level of stiffness / ride quality, the bikes will ride the same but the 953 one will be marginally lighter.

But 953 is stainless - which is the other main reason to go for it.

mikenetic

I can speak from personal experience, having had this very discussion with Jason and Gareth when I was ordering my Rourke. If you can give a clear description of your intended use they'll recommend what's best.

I don't race road, filthy CX is my competitive hit. The bike is a weekender used on long-distance solo or club rides. Fundamentally, I said I wanted a no-nonsense road bike that I could just go out and ride.

Jason recommended 853 over 953 as a result. I did consider going for 953 chain stays so I could leave the drive side one unpainted, to stop paint damage from chain slap, but felt in the end that was just unnecessary. For me, anyhow. That's very much a personal choice though, obviously.

The bike is quick and responsive, but as it's fitted with 25mm tyres isn't at all harsh. It's a proper mile-eater, and exactly what I wanted. The fit and feel are great. I climbed off it after a reasonably brisk 110 miles a couple of weeks ago feeling in good shape, which is unusual for me

953 does give you some aesthetic options that can't be achieved with a non-stainless alloy, and as it's a custom bike I'm sure they'll be more than happy to oblige.

I think it's reasonably common to do an 853 main triangle with a 953 back end so that you can do very nice things with partially exposed tubing, while controlling the costs, because 953 is proper expensive.

Hope that helps. Also, obligatory pic.

Camcycle1974

Any benefit of high end steel over Ti?

mikenetic

Camcycle1974 wrote:

Any benefit of high end steel over Ti?

I can't comment on the differences in materials, as I don't know enough about them, nor have I ridden a Ti bike.

However, one thing I can say is you'll get access to a broader range of custom builders if you go steel, due to the differences in construction technique. Also, you *may* get more design flexibility, due to the variety of diameters & shapes of steel tubes. Not sure if there's quite as much choice in Ti.

neeb

Ti has different properties as a metal, it's quite a lot lighter than steel but less strong and less stiff. But because it is so light you can build a frame with really big tubes and (relatively) thicker walls and it will still be really light.

For whatever reason however it does seem that most Ti frames are built to be lighter but a bit less stiff than most modern oversized steel frames, even if they have really big tubes. I get the impression (although I can't back this up) that if you can either build Ti frames to be lighter than steel but less stiff (which may be ideal if that's what you are looking for), or if you build them to be the same stiffness and weight as steel (which is unusual), they can be harsh.

So maybe the best use for Ti is to build lighter frames with a slightly more yielding feel, while the best use for steel is to build slightly heavier but stiffer frames that nonetheless manage not to be harsh... But the newer hi-tech steels are managing to get closer to the frame weights of Ti while still retaining that stiff-but-not-harsh steel feel.

Take much of the above with a pinch of salt, it's half fact and half impression/speculation...

Monty Dog

The answer for titanium is much the same for steel - a skilled builder will be able to select the tube sizes that best meet your riding needs. It's perfectly feasible to build an unyieldingly stiff titanium frame but that probably defeats the purpose of selecting ti in the first place. The aesthetic argument for ti is much that same as for 953 as it can be left unpainted - it's a pretty 'honest' material as you can see the quality of the workmanship.

DrLex

mikenetic wrote:

{lots of good stuff}
Hope that helps. Also, obligatory pic.
{gorgeous pic}

A lovely looking bike; thanks for posting that!

bmxboy10

mpatts wrote:

My personal feeling is that although there isn't a lot of difference, if I was getting a frame handmade it would always be 953, otherwise I'd be riding along thinking "Yeah, I wish I'd gone for 953"

this is what I think too but 953 is seriously more expensive

bmxboy10

mikenetic wrote:

I can speak from personal experience, having had this very discussion with Jason and Gareth when I was ordering my Rourke. If you can give a clear description of your intended use they'll recommend what's best.

I don't race road, filthy CX is my competitive hit. The bike is a weekender used on long-distance solo or club rides. Fundamentally, I said I wanted a no-nonsense road bike that I could just go out and ride.

Jason recommended 853 over 953 as a result. I did consider going for 953 chain stays so I could leave the drive side one unpainted, to stop paint damage from chain slap, but felt in the end that was just unnecessary. For me, anyhow. That's very much a personal choice though, obviously.

The bike is quick and responsive, but as it's fitted with 25mm tyres isn't at all harsh. It's a proper mile-eater, and exactly what I wanted. The fit and feel are great. I climbed off it after a reasonably brisk 110 miles a couple of weeks ago feeling in good shape, which is unusual for me

953 does give you some aesthetic options that can't be achieved with a non-stainless alloy, and as it's a custom bike I'm sure they'll be more than happy to oblige.

I think it's reasonably common to do an 853 main triangle with a 953 back end so that you can do very nice things with partially exposed tubing, while controlling the costs, because 953 is proper expensive.

Hope that helps. Also, obligatory pic.

Cheers for the pic my friend thats a nice bike you have there. The more I think about it the 953 for me would be more of a bling thing but if I went 853 I will probably think at some stage - what if?

The other thing is to design a nice one off paint job and save about £700

desweller

Ti is more difficult to work with than steel; you can get a nice steel frame with fillet brazing or lugs, but you're limited to welding with a Ti frame - the skill level required to weld Ti is pretty high and there are quite a few stories of Ti frames failing at the welds.

For a bicycle fillet brazing is plenty stiff enough. 953 / Columbus XCr can now provide your 'lifetime' frame and can be made to give excellent results without needing super welding skills; Ti is becoming a material looking for an application IMHO.

IrishMac

If you're going to go custom, I'd imagine you're going to have it for a long time?
If so, then I'd go for the 953 everytime, the frame will outlast any set of wheels or gruppo

woolwich

Des,

Almost all 953 frames are either welded or lugged. You can only braze stainless with Silver, it can and has been done, looks awesome but it is hugely expensive. Also for want of a better way of putting it, Silver, even the trade stuff FilletPro, is very runny and requires a very skilled builder.

desweller

Interesting, why can't you use bronze with stainless?

woolwich

I don't understand the chemistry properly but put simply the bond between the two isn't strong enough. Whilst it is possible to actually join them it would be dangerous long term. Even stainless braze on's, cable guides etc, on regular tube tends to be brazed in place with silver. The lower temperature also has the added bonus of being kinder to the tube.

ugo.santalucia

IrishMac wrote:

If you're going to go custom, I'd imagine you're going to have it for a long time?
If so, then I'd go for the 953 everytime, the frame will outlast any set of wheels or gruppo

My Columbus SL is in excellent conditions after over 30 years. Of course if you keep the bike in a damp shed, then it will rust, but if you are prepared to spend that kind of money and then you have to leave the bike in a rotting shed, I wonder if there is any point in getting anything better than a cheap beater

mikenetic

DesWeller wrote:

Interesting, why can't you use bronze with stainless?

The melting point of bronze is higher than silver. Getting up to bronze temps "cooks" the strength out of stainless steel, weakening it significantly. Silver brazing alloys have a lower melting point, so they preserve the strength of the stainless alloy.

cycleclinic

yep that's it. also 953 can be left unpainted and that saves even more weight. I think the paint on my steel frame is 100g or so. Therefore from a weight weenie perspective 953 but then again if you are that way inclined you's be buying carbon.

I think 853 tubing makes a damm good frame and given the cost difference it is a sensible choice.

LegendLust

DesWeller wrote:

Ti is more difficult to work with than steel; you can get a nice steel frame with fillet brazing or lugs, but you're limited to welding with a Ti frame - the skill level required to weld Ti is pretty high and there are quite a few stories of Ti frames failing at the welds.

For a bicycle fillet brazing is plenty stiff enough. 953 / Columbus XCr can now provide your 'lifetime' frame and can be made to give excellent results without needing super welding skills; Ti is becoming a material looking for an application IMHO.

From what I hear and read stainless is just as hard to work with as Titanium - which is why a lot of the builders who have experience of titanium have 'easily' started making stainless frames

desweller

I should think stainless is a bit of a pain compared to 531 but would be surprised if it's as difficult as titanium. But a framebuilder will still need pretty good quality tools in his/her shop to deal with it.

woolwich

Spot on Des. 531 is like working with cheese compared to 853. The stainless tubesets must be another leap altogether. It must be terribly hard on tooling like reamers and facers, another cost to factor.
Also aligning a relatively soft tubeset can be a hard task. You really learn how strong 4 or 8 tubes can be. With Stainless it must be nigh on impossible, the frame builder must build to super tolerances from the start as there can be no fudging it later.
What with that and the increased skill levels in the welding or brazing plus the additional cost of the tube and I can really see why the frames have to be priced as they are.

I still get 953 to some degree. I love the look of a bare stay. Also I have thought it would be great to leave a drive side chain stay bare on cx bike for example, somewhere the paint can have a really hard time.
Also it must make sense in some environments, seaside towns maybe. I know my motorbikes rotted quick time by the coast. For most people though I imagine it is an unnecessary extravagance, a bit like the Super Record of the tube world, hey if you can afford it why not?

neeb

Regarding the strength of stainless tubes - when I got my XCR frame I was told by the builder that they had had problems getting hold of the tube sets for a while - the metal was so hard it had broken the drawing machines at the Columbus factory...