Weight -- 531 vs. 853

Matt O'Toole said:

I'm just curious -- how much "heavier" would a good quality, lightweight 531 frame be, compared to
a modern 853 one (which are about 3.5-4 LB for a midsized model)?

My 56cm 531C frame is 4.2lb.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Matt O'Toole
I'm just curious -- how much "heavier" would a good quality, lightweight 531 frame be, compared to a
modern 853 one (which are about 3.5-4 LB for a midsized model)?

Matt O.

Go to the Reynolds website (http://www.reynoldsusa.com/) I'm fairly certain they will have some comparative data or a contact you can ask.

The difference is 322 :-)

I love to come up with these totally idotic answeres.

Andres

"Matt O'Toole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I'm just curious -- how much "heavier" would a good quality, lightweight 531 frame be, compared to
a modern 853 one (which are about 3.5-4 LB for a midsized model)?

Matt O.

Matt O'Toole said:

I'm just curious -- how much "heavier" would a good quality, lightweight 531 frame be, compared to
a modern 853 one (which are about 3.5-4 LB for a midsized model)?

If all the tubes in each frame shared the same length, outside diameter, wall thickness and butt
characteristics, they would weigh the same.
-------------------------------
John Dacey Business Cycles, Miami, Florida Now in our twenty-first year. Our catalog of track
equipment: eighth year online. businesscycles.combusinesscycles.comOpen ↗

"John Dacey" <[email hidden]> skrev i en meddelelse
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Matt O'Toole said:

I'm just curious -- how much "heavier" would a good quality, lightweight

531

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

frame be, compared to a modern 853 one (which are about 3.5-4 LB for a

midsized

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

model)?

If all the tubes in each frame shared the same length, outside diameter, wall thickness and butt
characteristics, they would weigh the same.

Well, the 853-tubing has less wall-thickness than 531, and is therefore ligther.

Leo

"Unus multorum" - (Horace) On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 17:10:40 +0100, "Leo Jensen"

Quoted message said:

"John Dacey" <[email hidden]> skrev i en meddelelse
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If all the tubes in each frame shared the same length, outside diameter, wall thickness and butt
characteristics, they would weigh the same.

Well, the 853-tubing has less wall-thickness than 531, and is therefore ligther.

Reynolds makes a dizzying variety of main tubes, chainstays and seatstays in the 531 and 853 tube
models. The entire range isn't offered in both models, but there are many 531 tubes that have
precisely the same shape, diameter, wall, butt and taper dimensions in common with a counterpart in
853. Just because it's 853 doesn't necessarily mean it _has to_ have a thinner wall.
-------------------------------
John Dacey Business Cycles, Miami, Florida Now in our twenty-first year. Our catalog of track
equipment: eighth year online. businesscycles.combusinesscycles.comOpen ↗

[email hidden] (andres muro) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

The difference is 322 :-)

I love to come up with these totally idotic answeres.

Andres

i like to include 'pi', 322pi, to make it both scientific sounding & transcendental. [cue sitar]

Quoted message said:

"Matt O'Toole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I'm just curious -- how much "heavier" would a good quality, lightweight 531 frame be, compared
to a modern 853 one (which are about 3.5-4 LB for a midsized model)?

Matt O.

all things being equal: 0pi

We discussed this a few weeks ago in a different tread, but Mondonico built five bikes for Bicyle
Guide magazine several years ago. They were all built with different grades of columbus tubing but
looked the same and were painted the same and had the same lugs. He used a range from the cheapest,
most ordinary straight gauge tubes, to the fanciest, lightest, most sophisticated tubes. Riders
could not tell the difference between the different grades and weights.

I would bet that if a builder made two frames, one with 531 and the other with 853, painted them the
same and assembled bikes using the same components people would not be able to tell the difference.

Andres

John Dacey <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Unus multorum" - (Horace) On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 17:10:40 +0100, "Leo Jensen"

Quoted message said:

"John Dacey" <[email hidden]> skrev i en meddelelse
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If all the tubes in each frame shared the same length, outside diameter, wall thickness and
butt characteristics, they would weigh the same.

Well, the 853-tubing has less wall-thickness than 531, and is therefore ligther.

Reynolds makes a dizzying variety of main tubes, chainstays and seatstays in the 531 and 853 tube
models. The entire range isn't offered in both models, but there are many 531 tubes that have
precisely the same shape, diameter, wall, butt and taper dimensions in common with a counterpart
in 853. Just because it's 853 doesn't necessarily mean it _has to_ have a thinner wall.
-------------------------------
John Dacey Business Cycles, Miami, Florida Now in our twenty-first year. Our catalog of track
equipment: eighth year online. businesscycles.combusinesscycles.comOpen ↗

[email hidden] (andres muro) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>... <cut>

Quoted message said:

I would bet that if a builder made two frames, one with 531 and the other with 853, painted them
the same and assembled bikes using the same components people would not be able to tell the
difference.

Andres

I'm afraid you're wrong here. When flicked with a finger nail the 853 tube would make a much tinnier
noise than the 531. However, in line with your general argument, I see no easy way of telling the
difference between 853 and 631 frame tubes.

Andrew Webster

(Andrew Webster) said:

[email hidden] (andres muro) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>... <cut>

Quoted message said:

I would bet that if a builder made two frames, one with 531 and the other with 853, painted them
the same and assembled bikes using the same components people would not be able to tell the
difference.

Quoted message said:

I'm afraid you're wrong here. When flicked with a finger nail the 853 tube would make a much
tinnier noise than the 531. However, in line

Bit of a red herring that, as Andres probably meant in ride characteristics. I personally care very
little whether my frame makes a tinny sound or not if I flick it with a finger.

Jasper

"Matt O'Toole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm just curious -- how much "heavier" would a good quality,

lightweight 531

Quoted message said:

frame be, compared to a modern 853 one (which are about 3.5-4 LB

for a midsized

Quoted message said:

model)?

Matt O.

Look at reynoldsusa.comtubing.htmlOpen ↗.

I'm not a frame designer,so I don't know what the drivers are. If the primary forces are axial
(tension and compression) the strength of the tube and the weight are both proportional to cross
sectional area. Assuming the frame is designed to the same ratio of working stress to fatigue limit,
the 531 frame would weigh about 1.6 times as much as the 853 frame.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I would bet that if a builder made two frames, one with 531 and the other with 853, painted them
the same and assembled bikes using the same components people would not be able to tell the
difference.

Quoted message said:

I'm afraid you're wrong here. When flicked with a finger nail the 853 tube would make a much
tinnier noise than the 531. However, in line

Bit of a red herring that, as Andres probably meant in ride characteristics. I personally care
very little whether my frame makes a tinny sound or not if I flick it with a finger.

as has been pointed out by previous posters, thin walled tube of a given diameter is less stiff as
thick walled tube of the same diameter. so, if it's thin wall, it's going to be more flexy even if
can take more stress before yield.

that's why you want to know if it sounds tinny or not. and that's why oversize tube is important in
modern tube sets.

jb

Andre: That is a very interesting report. I bet if they would have set those bikes up as fixed
gear road bikes it would be easier to tell when riding a downhill at high cadence. Been there,
done that 🙂

I might add that it is my understanding that the better steel will tolerate more flex before
becoming damaged. Bike makers are using bigger diameter tubing to control the flex and using thinner
walls to lower the weight. I don't think the density of the steel is much different. Dave

[email hidden] (andres muro) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

We discussed this a few weeks ago in a different tread, but Mondonico built five bikes for Bicycle
Guide magazine several years ago. They were all built with different grades of columbus tubing but
looked the same and were painted the same and had the same lugs. He used a range from the
cheapest, most ordinary straight gauge tubes, to the fanciest, lightest, most sophisticated tubes.
Riders could not tell the difference between the different grades and weights.

I would bet that if a builder made two frames, one with 531 and the other with 853, painted them
the same and assembled bikes using the same components people would not be able to tell the
difference.

Andres

John Dacey <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Unus multorum" - (Horace) On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 17:10:40 +0100, "Leo Jensen"

Quoted message said:

"John Dacey" <[email hidden]> skrev i en meddelelse
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> If all the tubes in each frame shared the same length, outside diameter, wall thickness and
> butt characteristics, they would weigh the same.

Well, the 853-tubing has less wall-thickness than 531, and is therefore ligther.

Reynolds makes a dizzying variety of main tubes, chainstays and seatstays in the 531 and 853
tube models. The entire range isn't offered in both models, but there are many 531 tubes
that have precisely the same shape, diameter, wall, butt and taper dimensions in common with
a counterpart in 853. Just because it's 853 doesn't necessarily mean it _has to_ have a
thinner wall.
-------------------------------
John Dacey Business Cycles, Miami, Florida Now in our twenty-first year. Our catalog of track
equipment: eighth year online. businesscycles.combusinesscycles.comOpen ↗

[email hidden] (andres muro) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

We discussed this a few weeks ago in a different tread, but Mondonico built five bikes for Bicyle
Guide magazine several years ago. They were all built with different grades of columbus tubing but
looked the same and were painted the same and had the same lugs. He used a range from the
cheapest, most ordinary straight gauge tubes, to the fanciest, lightest, most sophisticated tubes.
Riders could not tell the difference between the different grades and weights.

I would bet that if a builder made two frames, one with 531 and the other with 853, painted them
the same and assembled bikes using the same components people would not be able to tell the
difference.

Andres

Your post, while true,leaves out a very important conclusion found in the article. The testers
couldn't guess which frameset was built with which tubeset (except for the frame built with Max
tubing, due to the extensive shaping of the tubes).

BUT, what they did agree on was which of the anonymous frames they prefered. The one built w/ Thron
tubing, which BTW, was the least expensive tubeset used in the test. Hmmmm....

Quoted message said:

Your post, while true,leaves out a very important conclusion found in the article. The testers
couldn't guess which frameset was built with which tubeset (except for the frame built with Max
tubing, due to the extensive shaping of the tubes).

BUT, what they did agree on was which of the anonymous frames they prefered. The one built w/
Thron tubing, which BTW, was the least expensive tubeset used in the test. Hmmmm....

to me, least expensive means thicker tube and thicker tube means less noodly ride. i've not read the
article, but personally, i would have expected that rider preference to come through.

i know from my own preference and messing about with a whole bunch of big [60cm +] frames this last
few years, noodly is downright dangerous.

jb

John Dacey said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If all the tubes in each frame shared the same length, outside diameter, wall thickness and butt
characteristics, they would weigh the same.

Well, the 853-tubing has less wall-thickness than 531, and is therefore ligther.

Reynolds makes a dizzying variety of main tubes, chainstays and seatstays in the 531 and 853
tube models. The entire range isn't offered in both models, but there are many 531 tubes that
have precisely the same shape, diameter, wall, butt and taper dimensions in common with a
counterpart in
853. Just because it's 853 doesn't necessarily mean it _has to_ have a thinner wall.

This discussion is equivalent to the old threads about tire diameter and rolling resistance (if you
use the same pressure, a fatter tire would have less rolling resistance -- but you would not use,
and probably could not use, the same tire pressure on all sizes of tires. A fat one would be
over-inflated and might fail, and a skinny one would pinch flat).

Anyway, the reason for the newer alloys is to allow the use of thinner-walled tubing, so you can
produce a lighter bike. There are also other reasons; some tubing cannot be brazed with brass (must
be silver-soldered), some can't be TIG welded, etc.

I have two nice lugged frames made with 531. Neither of them could claim to be 3.5 lbs, which is a
common weight for modern steel frames. I don't know their exact weights, and have neither the scale
nor the desire to strip the bikes down to a bare frame, but my guess would be closer to 5 lbs in a
56 C-T size.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Deserves death! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve _`\(,_ | death. And some that die
deserve life. Can you give it to (_)/ (_) | them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in
judgement. -- J. R. R. Tolkien

"David L. Johnson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I have two nice lugged frames made with 531. Neither of them could claim to be 3.5 lbs, which is a
common weight for modern steel frames. I don't know their exact weights, and have neither the
scale nor the desire to strip the bikes down to a bare frame, but my guess would be closer to 5
lbs in a 56 C-T size.

This is the kind of answer I was looking for when I started this thread. I was hoping people
familiar with various frames could give me some offhand/ballpark figures. I've got one, and yours is
the second.

Matt O.

Matt O'Toole said:

Quoted message said:

desire to strip the bikes down to a bare frame, but my guess would be closer to 5 lbs in a 56
C-T size.

This is the kind of answer I was looking for when I started this thread. I was hoping people
familiar with various frames could give me some offhand/ballpark figures. I've got one, and yours
is the second.

"Offhand" is charitable in my case. More of a WAG.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | It doesn't get any easier, you just go faster. --Greg LeMond _`\(,_ | (_)/ (_) |

"Matt O'Toole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I'm just curious -- how much "heavier" would a good quality, lightweight 531 frame be, compared to
a modern 853 one (which are about 3.5-4 LB for a midsized model)?

You are talking about the stuff they used to build the Golden Gate bridge. Check out something build
up with Dedacciai's U2 aluminum.

Keep the frame weight under 1.1 kg.