Reynolds 953 (Rourke and co.)
jamie4759
Posts: 117
Afternoon all. How are riders finding the Reynolds 953? Any issues? Plus points? I am looking at a Rourke 953 for next year. Seems a better price than the Columbus stainless (XCR) that is around. I want to use mine for chain gangs, fast club rides and the usual stuff us adults do (and should know better). I know that steel is heavier than other materials, but the 953 seems to have good reviews re its weight, stiffness etc. I would be really interested to hear what riders think of 953, especially those that have bought Rourke 953 bikes. The other alternative is Ti, but a bit over budget, so if anyone out there has used both, I would be all ears.
0
Comments
-
I have a genesis volare 953, having coming from carbon and also have a Ti bike. Carbon is lightest obviously, but the 953 isn't heavy and has a lovely feel to it. Kind of solid yet comfy.
I think the main reason to chose 953 other other materials is that it should last a very long time, the ride quality is possibly down to the specific frame and design rather than the material.0 -
Only reason to go 953 instead of 853 is if you want bare steel showing. No difference in stiffness and the weight difference for the price is laughable.English Cycles V3 | Cervelo P5 | Cervelo T4 | Trek Domane Koppenberg0
-
Only reason to go 953 instead of 853 is if you want bare steel showing. No difference in stiffness and the weight difference for the price is laughable.
You mean, no difference in specific stiffness (i.e. modulus).
953 is stronger than 853 though (according to Reynolds' datasheets), so you can design a more compliant frame for the same yield strength with 953 than 853.
853 is a fine material. So is 953. Both will last for many, many years.- - - - - - - - - -
On Strava.{/url}0 -
I think the main reason to chose 953 other other materials is that it should last a very long time, the ride quality is possibly down to the specific frame and design rather than the material.
There is no reason as to why 953 should last any longer than carbon fibre or titanium.0 -
I think the main reason to chose 953 other other materials is that it should last a very long time, the ride quality is possibly down to the specific frame and design rather than the material.
There is no reason as to why 953 should last any longer than carbon fibre or titanium.
I meant compared to other steels, I.e., 953 won't rust.
Compared to ti and carbon I agree. However, steel has greater fatigue life than ti (afaik) and less likely to be damaged by impact than carbon.0 -
I've broken steel, aluminium and carbon. That's life. Other steels won't rust if they're treated/clearcoated.English Cycles V3 | Cervelo P5 | Cervelo T4 | Trek Domane Koppenberg0
-
So titanium must be better then.I've broken steel, aluminium and carbon. That's life.
Is steel not easier to work with than ti? I seem to recall reading somewhere that ti is particularly difficult to weld, if so good steel may be a better option over the long term in case of any future issues.0 -
Steel is easier to work with than both Ti an Alu. I see zero reason to buy Ti as it's just weak steel for double the price.English Cycles V3 | Cervelo P5 | Cervelo T4 | Trek Domane Koppenberg0
-
Some good points made above, I have a Rourke 953, also a 1987 Condor Italia Pro (Reynolds 531 Professional tubing) and recently acquired Grill's Massive Attack. I think, therefore, I am in quite a good position to provide a balanced view ;-)
The Rourke is a lovely bike and the whole fitting/building experience is one to be savoured. You get something very personal and obviously made to measure that will last a lifetime. With Campag Super Record, it weighs in at 8kg. My paint job includes leaving the rear stays bare which is very nice. But as Grill says, it costs a lot more than 853 and weighs only a smidge less. I would suggest an 853 is better value, a lot cheaper and if you want the rear stays left bare, well Rourke will do the stays only in 953. Whatever you want.
The ride is nice, in many ways very similar to the Condor but the carbon fork gives it a smoother ride over rough ground. It is a bike for all seasons and all purposes, not the lightest but its only 1 bidon of fluid.
Now, comparing to a carbon bike, my WyndyMilla Massive Attack. This bike is *fast* and *smooth* and not that more expensive than a 953 (£2500 for a standard geo frame/forks compared to my Rourke with paint job about £2200). I wouldn't want to be riding it in poor weather, so I don't class it as an "all weather" bike but its not going to dissolve. It is a more enjoyable bike to ride, but more aggressive position. You have to pay substantially more for a custom geo so consider whether a standard geometry frame is going to fit you well.
If I were doing it all again, and with hindsight, what I do the same again? Hard to say. Probably I would have got an 853 from Rourke with a cheaper group set (Chorus rather than Super Record) and had clearance for mudguards so it could be used as an all weather bike. Then with the money I had saved bought a new (not second hand) WM MA. So I would still have ended up with both, and quite similar to what I have now.
The big question is: what do you want from a bike? And how do the various options stack up against your wish list?WyndyMilla Massive Attack | Rourke 953 | Condor Italia 531 Pro | Boardman CX Pro | DT Swiss RR440 Tubeless Wheels
Find me on Strava0 -
Good post by drlodge,
I have a Rourke 853 teampro, which love. I thought about the 953 at the time but it was to expensive for me.
I would now not pay the extra anyway, as mine is used for around160 miles aweek on my own. As Jason Rourke himself says; If you are racing then go for the 953, if not the 853 is great for getting the miles in`. Both materials are great for frames, the question; Is the 953 worth the extra premium? Not to me.Rourke 853 Team Pro Custom.0
