# List of Builders Making Frames with Reynolds 953 or Columbus XCr tubesets



## velonomad (Jan 2, 2003)

Anyone have a list of US builders who are making frames with either Reynolds 953 or Columbus XCr stainless steel tubesets? Also, is XCr better than 953? I have heard there are issues with the chainstays on the 953 built frames.


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

Here are a few bulders that I'm aware of:

Independent Fabrication
Waterford
Carl Strong
Bob Brown
Jonnycycles
David Anderson

Fairing Industrial is the Reynolds distributor for North America, and may be able to provide you with the names of other builders working with 953.

Nova Cycles is a Columbus distributor and may be able to provide you with the names of builders working with XCr.

This thread has some comments on the differences between 953 and XCr by a professional steels geek.

I'm not aware of any problems with 953 chainstays. Can you elaborate?


----------



## TWD (Feb 9, 2004)

velonomad said:


> Anyone have a list of US builders who are making frames with either Reynolds 953 or Columbus XCr stainless steel tubesets? Also, is XCr better than 953? I have heard there are issues with the chainstays on the 953 built frames.


I'm curious about your comment on the 953 chainstays. I haven't heard of any issues, and haven't had any problems with the stays on my 953 cross frame built by Bob Brown. 

When I had it built up, Bob was working with Reynolds to do some tests on doing some bent stays, since up to that point, it hadn't been done with 953. Bob built a 953 cross/29er frame for one of the LaLonde brothers to test out the bent stays if I recall correctly. He was planning on using the bent stays on future 953 29er frames, but I haven't paid much attention since. 

From what I understand, bending the 953 stays wasn't a simple task.


----------



## Steve-O (Jan 28, 2004)

*Taylor*

Heres a local guy that has some good picts of a recent build using the Columbus XCr tubeset. I'll probably get to see Paul's work up close at our Tuesday crit tonight 

http://www.taylorbicycles.com/


----------



## PigmyRacer (Oct 3, 2007)

Strong has been producing some great stainless frames.


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

PigmyRacer said:


> Strong has been producing some great stainless frames.


Yes. He is one of the builders who has made both 953 and XCr frames.


----------



## barbedwire (Dec 3, 2005)

I think the title should be asking about builders who are willing to build with Reynolds 953. There are some great builders, Richard Sachs, David Kirk, Yamaguchi, Landshark, Brent Steelman, etc. etc. etc. that may not have built out of 953, but I don't doubt that each of them would be very capable of doing so. Plus, some builders have their preferences and there are some negatives as well as positives that go along with a super light steel tubeset like 953. And just because a builder hasn't yet built of out 953 or Columbus' new stainless steel XCr doesn't mean that they aren't perfectly capable of doing so.


----------



## raymonda (Jan 31, 2007)

An Italian builder that uses Columbus SS can be found @ www.vetta.it


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

barbedwire said:


> And just because a builder hasn't yet built of out 953 or Columbus' new stainless steel XCr doesn't mean that they aren't perfectly capable of doing so.


Where did that come from?

I think the OP asked the question they wanted to ask because perhaps they are interested in having an XC or 953 frame built. Why would someone interested in a stainless frame care about builders that don't build with it?


----------



## Mayday (Jan 22, 2004)

*One more*

Ionic -- associated with Dean, makes a 953 road frame priced at $1,500. Steep, but the best best price I've seen for the material. Pretty sure I saw that Pegoretti does a frame with the Columbus version, so if you really hate having $$ in your bank account, that would be an option. (Kidding -- in part -- I'm sure it's a great frame.)


----------



## velonomad (Jan 2, 2003)

Sorry for not responding sooner fellas and gals but i have ben very busy lately opening up a new business. Anyway, what I had heard about the Reynolds 953 stays is that they were too flexy for use. This came directly from one of the most respected custom steel framebuilders in the USA. In fact, his name was mentioned by another poster above.

He essentially told me that although he liked the 953 main tubes, he was unhappy with what he had seen regarding the stays and in particular the chainstays. Anway, that's what he said and I respect his opinion enough not to argue with it.

Has anyone any opinion on the quality of Ionic Frames which was mentioned above? Are these guys really related to DEAN titanium builders?

Have a great day folks.


----------



## Mayday (Jan 22, 2004)

*Dean/Ionic*

Yes, Ionic is associated with Dean -- part of the same company as I understand it. If you go to Dean's site (deanusa.com) there is a link on the main page to the Ionic site. I think they split off the Ionic brand for their steel frames when they decided to focus the Dean brand on titanium.

Anyway, they make steel frames with several levels of tubing. Prices seem pretty reasonable. I have not heard a lot of direct feedback from owners or seen many on the road, but what I've heard has been positive in terms of the quality of the frames. Seems like there was someone on this forum who posted pictures and a positive review of their new Ionic a while back.


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

Wow. I've never heard that, and have been regularly reading feedback from framebuilders using 953 on frameforum.org.

As a rider who has put about 3000 miles on a Waterford built 953 frame, and as an experienced rider, I haven't experienced any flexiness in the stays that I would consider at all unusual. I would be interested in seeing any objective data related to 953 stay flexiness that would confirm that they are "way too flexy for use."

Here are the specs for the stays. For comparison, Reynolds 725 chainstays (recommended by Reynolds for 853 frames), P/N FX2510 are 18 x 29 oval (slightly smaller diameter than 953, so not quite as stiff) with 0.8/0.6 mm wall thickness (only a tenth mm thicker than the 953 stays).

Profile of 953 chainstay

P/N: FS4510D
Diameter (mm): 20/31 oval 
Wall thickness (mm): butted 0.7/0.5 
Length (mm): 410 
Butt profile (mm): taper to 15mm tip in 953
Weight (grams): 146

It's true the 953 chainstay tapers to a smaller diameter at the dropout, but that provides vibration dampening rather than making the stay flexy; it's stiff, but compliant. Here's a photo of the chainstays on my 953 frame:


----------



## Thylacinecycles.com (May 19, 2004)

Okay, so I'm really, really late to the party here, but we're doing both now.

Et viola -


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

Beautiful frame, Warwick! Very nice welds.

May I ask how you feel about working with 953 and XCr compared to other steels? Are they tougher on tooling?

Looking at your website, it seems the frame you posted the photo of is XCr. Have you worked with 953?


----------



## Peanya (Jun 12, 2008)

Wow that is one hella good looking frame!


----------



## Thylacinecycles.com (May 19, 2004)

Scooper said:


> Beautiful frame, Warwick! Very nice welds.
> 
> May I ask how you feel about working with 953 and XCr compared to other steels? Are they tougher on tooling?
> 
> Looking at your website, it seems the frame you posted the photo of is XCr. Have you worked with 953?


Hiya,
Yeah, stainless is pretty tough material. Probably in terms of wear and tear, it's the same as Ti I guess. Different, but similar.

As I'm the poor guy in charge of finishing the frames, I will say it's a heck of a lot harder than Ti. Takes a whole day to get it from raw to this level, but I'm still learning really and I'm sure that with a few new techniques I'll be able to get that down. As it stands though, it's good therapy!

We haven't done any 953 frames as yet because I'm not happy with the technical support from Reynolds. We're currently in the middle of trying different welding wires with the stuff because unlike XCR where we used actual XCR welding wire, you can't buy 953 welding wire so whatever you do, there's going to be some technical issues with making sure the stuff stays stuck together.

Having said that, we're weeks away rather than months from being fully confident we can pump out the best stainless bikes, regardless of grade.


----------



## Cgreen (Jan 26, 2017)

*Builder contact*

Hey Stan, looking to get a frame built just like yours. Can you PM me your builder contact info? Thanks.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Never quite figured out Stainless Steel vs Titanium. More people on Titanium so I went that route.


----------



## Cgreen (Jan 26, 2017)

Ok thanks. Both are great. I'm building beater travel bike and SS's skin is harder then TI for dents, etc.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Cgreen said:


> Ok thanks. Both are great. I'm building beater travel bike and *SS's skin is harder then TI for dents*, etc.


No, it's not. Titanium is the better choice for avoiding dents.


----------



## Cgreen (Jan 26, 2017)

Ok good to know. Can you explain how? I thought Ti was a soft material. Thanks.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Cgreen said:


> Ok good to know. Can you explain how? I thought Ti was a soft material. Thanks.


Being hard and being dent resistant are not the same thing. An exaggerated example but does rubber dent?

But no I can't really explain it and quit honestly don't know much about it. But I trust builders such as Tyler from Firefly who's built with both and have a great understanding of each when they say that SS will dent easier than ti.

Off course there's a bit more to it that just material. There's really only a couple SS tube options but Ti has a ton of different wall thicknesses available so it depends which one you're using.


----------



## Tachycardic (Mar 31, 2013)

Cgreen said:


> Ok thanks. Both are great. I'm building beater travel bike and SS's skin is harder then TI for dents, etc.


If you're going for a beater travel bike, especially if you're planning on traveling the world, you are much better off going with regular steel. It'll be so much easier to repair when you're in the boondocks.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Cgreen said:


> Ok good to know. Can you explain how? I thought Ti was a soft material. Thanks.


It is about tube butting.

953 is VERY difficult to work. 953 is so hard, it'll eat metal-working tools like files. To keep weight down, 953 tubesets are quite thin....which you can do because the metal is so strong, but with thin tubesets, makes things like dents easier to occur (compared to other steels or Ti)....but thin walls means that when welding you can burn holes in the metal. 953 is so hard to work with...it is the only Reynolds tubeset that Reynolds actually consults with builders on regarding fabrication techniques, because it is so easy for welding and the like to go wrong.

Reynolds Technology



Reynolds said:


> Reynolds work directly with fabricators to provide recommended production techniques, so that the challenges inherent in using an extremely hard metal can be overcome.


-Cruise Reynold's website. 953 is the only tubeset with that statement attached to it.


All of which are why Ti is more common. Neither is exactly easy to work (hence cost), but one has much more to go wrong more easily. Tubeset thinness is why you never see 953 gravel/offroad bikes IMHO and Ti is preferable.


----------



## Cgreen (Jan 26, 2017)

Thanks. That's actually a very good point. So far my travels have taken me to Vermont, Carolina, and California. Not boon docking locations yet. We'll, I did see a guy with a camouflage top hat in North Carolina. Pretty awesome.


----------



## Hiro11 (Dec 18, 2010)

Ti is almost always a better, more accessible choice than stainless. Having said that, I still lust after a stainless frame, I have no idea why.


----------

