# How come I never see any stainless steel frames?



## Doggity (Mar 10, 2006)

Is the stuff too heavy, hard to work with, stiff? Would seem like a natural. Never seen one.
Seen stainless lugs and the like, but never a frame.


----------



## merckxman (Jan 23, 2002)

Add'l expense over a regular steel bike. Most people dont' have issues with regular steel bikes (if taken care of).


----------



## brucew (Jun 3, 2006)

I don't know of any mass-produced bike in stainless. Lots of custom builders build with it.

Look for bikes made with Reynolds 953, Columbus XCR, or True Temper S3.

One builder who works extensively with 953 is Dave Anderson in St Paul, MN.

mercksman is right about the pricing. Stainless frames come in just a little under titanium ones on the price scale.


----------



## TWB8s (Sep 18, 2003)

Because there's nothing wrong with regular steel.


----------



## brucew (Jun 3, 2006)

TWB8s said:


> Because there's nothing wrong with regular steel.


No there isn't, at least not for fair-weather riders.

I commute daily, year-round in all conditions. Our salty Update NY winters are the reason I ride aluminum in the winter. When this bike wears out, I'll be looking at either stainless or Ti for their corrosion resistance.

My steel bike stays inside from November to April, and doesn't go out in the rain during the rest of the year.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

brucew said:


> I don't know of any mass-produced bike in stainless. Lots of custom builders build with it.
> 
> Look for bikes made with Reynolds 953, Columbus XCR, or True Temper S3.
> 
> ...


S3 isn't stainless.

Stainless frames are pretty rare at this point, and pricey because it requires a pretty special alloy to be be strong enough without extensive post weld heat treating. But really, I don't see all sorts of stuff that should be common. I don't think I've ever seen a Time frame in real life, for instance.

My favorite stainless frames are fillet brazed. The brass and bare steel is really cool.


----------



## kabex (Nov 21, 2010)

Wow, how are these finishes possible:








?? 
Never seen that before.

Also, something about Stainless Steel that I would see has an advantage over Ti is the ability to have lugs and finishes like that ^^ plus it can be ridden non-painted.


----------



## medimond (Apr 26, 2009)

It's Stain-LESS not Stain-FREE steel, it's not as corrosion resistant as Ti.


----------



## Bullvine (Sep 9, 2009)

Form Cycles makes one the Revel looks like an amazing machine..

Stainless Steel BB30 :thumbsup: I'm thinking you could get within a hair of the 15 lb mark
Fairly easily.. A very classy choice.. Maybe my next ride..


----------



## brucew (Jun 3, 2006)

rx-79g said:


> S3 isn't stainless.


You're right. My mistake in research.

I know a guy who races on a Waterford R-33-S. When I researched, I forgot the "S" part. The R-33 is made with S3, the R-33-S is the stainless one, made with 953.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

kabex said:


> Wow, how are these finishes possible:


This:


rx-79g said:


> My favorite stainless frames are fillet brazed. The brass and bare steel is really cool.


----------



## TWB8s (Sep 18, 2003)

medimond said:


> It's Stain-LESS not Stain-FREE steel, it's not as corrosion resistant as Ti.



^^ This. Which is why I have two Ti's in addition to my steels. I hear carbon doesn't corrode either.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

medimond said:


> It's Stain-LESS not Stain-FREE steel, it's not as corrosion resistant as Ti.


Well, stainless bicycle tubing is much more corrosion resistant than aluminum - the rain bike favorite. Low carbon stainless, like the kind they make diver watches out of, is pretty damn rust proof. And 953 is has very low carbon. I would expect this stuff to be much more stain resistant than stainless knife or firearm steel. 

I'd bet on 953 over carbon for long term wear and tear.


----------



## LC (Jan 28, 2004)

Pretty simple, Stainless steel frames costs more and are heavier than Titanium.


----------



## chesbak (Feb 16, 2011)

TWB8s said:


> Because there's nothing wrong with regular steel.


If taken care of....


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

*Waterford*

Now you have seen one (or at least a pic of one). Fork is chromed non-stainless.


View attachment 224909


View attachment 224910


View attachment 224911



TF


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*let me guess*

a 953 frame?


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

Doggity said:


> Is the stuff too heavy, hard to work with, stiff? Would seem like a natural. Never seen one.
> Seen stainless lugs and the like, but never a frame.


Now you've seen two. I think that might qualify as a "rash" of stainless steel frame sightings.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

Why you don't see more.....

- Cost. The premium over regular steel is hard for many to justify......it pushes many to TI.

- Difficulty to work with. This drives part of the cost issue. In addition, more than a few respected builders don't want to/won't work with it because it is so hard to work with.

IMO, it's a solution looking for a problem for the most part....hence it is a very niche product. Done right, there are beutiful bikes made with it, but not many are willing to pay the price.

Len


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

rx-79g said:


> Well, stainless bicycle tubing is much more corrosion resistant than aluminum - the rain bike favorite.


A side note, but the aluminum 'winter bike' choice isn't all that the common wisdom would suggest. Bare aluminum reacts badly to road salt - quite a bit worse than quality steels.


----------



## Rollo Tommassi (Feb 5, 2004)

*Independent Fabrications and Cinelli*

both make stainless frames, and i've ridden the IF. Well, the IF was three sizes too big for me, but it was a rocket sled!

it's REAALY stiff but smooth similar to titanium.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

Rollo Tommassi said:


> both make stainless frames, and i've ridden the IF. Well, the IF was three sizes too big for me, but it was a rocket sled!
> 
> it's REAALY stiff but smooth similar to titanium.


Yup and it's almost twice the price of the steel versions and a few hundred $'s cheaper than TI.

Len


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

danl1 said:


> A side note, but the aluminum 'winter bike' choice isn't all that the common wisdom would suggest. Bare aluminum reacts badly to road salt - quite a bit worse than quality steels.


For someone with a no BS logo, this is an absurd post.

All structural metals corode - Ti included. But carbon steels are the only ones that commonly rust through, causing parts to break. No one is complaining that their aluminum bike broke because of corrosion.

"Quality steel", if not stainless, will rust and pit with little provocation. Anyone who grew up in the midwest can testify to how fast rust can consume thin steel car parts. In contrast, an aluminum canoe will seem to never wear out. Rover has been making aluminum bodies for 60+ years because of the resistance to the elements aluminum offers. My Cannondale has been bare aluminum for 19 years. Many aluminum components prior to the '80s were un-anodized. They'll look cloudy if they get enough salt on them, but actually corrode through? Nope.

Stainless steel comes in many grades. The least strong stuff, like 304, is so corrosion resistant that watch bodies will never rust despite sweat and sea water. While maraging and marstenistic hardening structural steel is not going to be as stainless, it is still much better than even medium carbon surgical stainless.

With a stainless frame you are more likely to have corrosion problems with the brazing material than the frame. Suggesting that SS tubing is even remotely like 4130, or even aluminum, is just false. SS tubing is probably second ONLY to Ti, and is less likely to suffer from oxide damage during welding than Ti.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

ttug said:


> a 953 frame?


Yes. Nothing polishes like SS; can't tell it from the chrome. - TF


----------



## Doggity (Mar 10, 2006)

TurboTurtle said:


> Now you have seen one (or at least a pic of one). Fork is chromed non-stainless.
> 
> 
> View attachment 224909
> ...


My God!....that is _beautiful! _


----------



## Waves77 (Aug 15, 2010)

+1 for Dave Anderson, he makes some amazing Reynolds 953 based bikes. 

I love this one he made:









Cinelli makes the XCR (insanely expensive):









Like other have said, way more expensive tubing (3-4x the price of regular steel), more difficult and expensive to work with. It all drives the price up quite a bit.


----------



## Hula Hoop (Feb 4, 2009)

holy sh!t is that nice


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

Dave Anderson won the "President's Choice" award at NAHBS in Austin last weekend with this Reynolds 953 bike. His work with stainless is exquisite.


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

Another builder doing beautiful work with 953 is Dave Wages (Ellis Cycles). This bike is a mix of polished 953 and painted True Temper S3.


----------



## Waves77 (Aug 15, 2010)

Scooper said:


>


That is so damn sexy.


----------



## misterdangerpants (Oct 23, 2008)

I have 3:

1997 Rhygin Metax CX

View attachment 224977


1997 Rhygin Metax Road (just got it today via FedEx and it will be stripped and rebuilt):

View attachment 224978


2010 Igleheart 953 650B SS

View attachment 224979


Love the ride quality of each! :thumbsup: To answer your question, yes, it's very difficult to work with and hard on tools/machines.

Just got back from NAHBS in Austin and there were some stainless steel bikes. KVA also had as booth, sort of the new kid on the block. Got to talk at length with both Columbus and Reynolds about my bikes.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

misterdangerpants said:


> I have 3:
> 
> 1997 Rhygin Metax CX
> 
> ...


What stainless tubeset was available in 1997?

Oop, just found out what "Metax" refers to. I didn't realize there was something before XCR. Do you know if it is also marstenistic air hardening steel?


----------



## cdhbrad (Feb 18, 2003)

He had another 953 bike there too, both were really nice. I had seen pictures of his 953 frames on his site, but in person, even better. If I wanted lugged stainless, he would be top of the list.


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

cdhbrad said:


> He had another 953 bike there too, both were really nice. I had seen pictures of his 953 frames on his site, but in person, even better. If I wanted lugged stainless, he would be top of the list.


Yep; here's the other one:


----------



## misterdangerpants (Oct 23, 2008)

rx-79g said:


> Do you know if it is also marstenistic air hardening steel?


I have no idea.


----------



## Peanya (Jun 12, 2008)

Dang, Scooper! You bring out the super hard core stuff there. I need to take a cold shower now!


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*agreed*



Peanya said:


> Dang, Scooper! You bring out the super hard core stuff there. I need to take a cold shower now!


Its freaky incredible for certain


----------



## tantra (Jan 8, 2008)

Compared to titanium, stainless steel is much heavier, less corrosion resistant and almost as expensive. Titanium can be polished to a mirror finish like stainless. I can't see any aesthetic or functional advantage of a stainless frame.


----------



## Waves77 (Aug 15, 2010)

tantra said:


> I can't see any aesthetic or functional advantage of a stainless frame.


No lugs on Ti (unless you're Bruce Gordon, but he's not revealing the technique) and many people will argue Ti feels different than Steel.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

tantra said:


> Compared to titanium, stainless steel is much heavier, less corrosion resistant and almost as expensive. Titanium can be polished to a mirror finish like stainless. I can't see any aesthetic or functional advantage of a stainless frame.


Some of the stainless frames are down in the Ti weight range. Steel does ride differently, and a polished steel frame will look better much longer.

I also think the aesthetics of bare fillets is revolutionary.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

rx-79g said:


> Some of the stainless frames are down in the Ti weight range. Steel does ride differently, and a polished steel frame will look better much longer.
> 
> I also think the aesthetics of bare fillets is revolutionary.


I've seen a clear-coated regular steel fillet brazed bike.......several years ago. Not sure hoe revolutionary it is. 

Len


----------



## Waves77 (Aug 15, 2010)

Len J said:


> I've seen a clear-coated regular steel fillet brazed bike.......several years ago. Not sure hoe revolutionary it is.
> 
> Len


I thought clear coat on raw steel would discolor over time?


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

tantra said:


> Compared to titanium, stainless steel is much heavier, less corrosion resistant and almost as expensive. Titanium can be polished to a mirror finish like stainless. I can't see any aesthetic or functional advantage of a stainless frame.


My 61cm Waterford RS-22 lugged 953 frame weighs 1620g, or 3.57 pounds. Traditional geometry (near horiz TT) similar size Dean Titanium (3/2.5) El Diente is 1600g, or 3.53 pounds. I'm not sure why you think stainless steel is "much heavier".

In normal use neither 953 nor Ti are likely to corrode. I've ridden my bike frequently in the rain over the past four years without any hint of rust or corrosion.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Waves77 said:


> I thought clear coat on raw steel would discolor over time?


It would full on rust. Steel bikes will rust at the first stone chip if they aren't properly primed, and there aren't any clear primers. It will look okay for awhile, but nothing that you'd want to sell to consumers. Stainless allows you to play with finishes like Ti does, but have more elegant joints.

I say this as a big Ti fan. But if I ever get the jones for a deluxe home project (after I get this stupid lugged project done), I'm going to fillet braze some KVA together, then polish, acid etch and whatever else comes to mind.


----------



## brucew (Jun 3, 2006)

Len J said:


> I've seen a clear-coated regular steel fillet brazed bike.......several years ago. Not sure hoe revolutionary it is.


True. Giant even sells one--a cruiser or city bike of some sort. It's at the LBS across the street. It had a neat chainguard.

The major manufacturers are watching the handbuilt market closely.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

Waves77 said:


> I thought clear coat on raw steel would discolor over time?


Not with modern clear coats...and not any more than over paint.

Len


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Len J said:


> Not with modern clear coats...and not any more than over paint.
> 
> Len


Can you think of an example? A link, maybe?


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

rx-79g said:


> It would full on rust. Steel bikes will rust at the first stone chip if they aren't properly primed, and there aren't any clear primers. It will look okay for awhile, but nothing that you'd want to sell to consumers. Stainless allows you to play with finishes like Ti does, but have more elegant joints.
> 
> .


Not modern steels. As long as you touch up the clear.....(or paint if it's painted)....it's not going to full on rust at the first chip.......

I'm still not seeing the revuolutionary part of SS....unless someone just doesn't want to maintain their bike.

Len


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Len J said:


> Not modern steels. As long as you touch up the clear.....(or paint if it's painted)....it's not going to full on rust at the first chip.......
> 
> I'm still not seeing the revuolutionary part of SS....unless someone just doesn't want to maintain their bike.
> 
> Len


"Modern" steels aren't more rust resistant. Even the air hardening stuff - it's little different than air hardening carbon knife steels like A2, which rust easily.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

rx-79g said:


> Can you think of an example? A link, maybe?


PPG's website would be a good place to start.

Len

Or KBS's http://www.kbs-coatings.com/diamondfinish-clearcoat.html


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

rx-79g said:


> "Modern" steels aren't more rust resistant. Even the air hardening stuff - it's little different than air hardening carbon knife steels like A2, which rust easily.


Now it's your turn to rpovide a link. I've been riding steel a long time and "rust easily" is an exaggeration IMO.

Len


----------



## Bob Ross (Apr 18, 2006)

Len J said:


> unless someone just doesn't want to maintain their bike.



I must confess, that's pretty appealing!


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Len J said:


> Now it's your turn to rpovide a link. I've been riding steel a long time and "rust easily" is an exaggeration IMO.
> 
> Len


I meant a link to someone selling clear coated carbon steel bicycles.


There are 6 kinds of steel I can think of used in bicycles:

4130 - a low to medium carbon chrome-moly steel. 725, 525, Prestige, SL, Versus, etc. Not "stainless". Can be sold heat treated.

Chrome manganese - low carbon alternative to chrome-moly steel. Can be heat treated. Not stainless. Reynolds used to make it, but doesn't anymore. 531, 753.

Air hardening tool steels, like the A series:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_steel 
A high carbon tool steel with chromium content well below the stainless range. It has a long transformation time, so air will harden it. 853, S3, Ox Platinum

High alloy steels, like Columbus Life, Spirit, Zona (possibly Aermet and stainless Metax). Complex alloy steels that discourage damaging grain growth. Heat treated.
http://www.pipedreamcycles.com/Tubing Comparisons.pdf

Martenistic air hardending stainless steels. The 400 series. Considered stainless because they have a chromium content above 10%. Hardenability based on carbon content - more hardenable steels are less corrosion resistant. I would guess that KVA and XCR and are somewhere in the medium carbon 410 to 420 range.
http://www.kvastainless.com/stainless-steel.html

Mar-aging stainless. A steel that hardens due to alloy interactions that aren't the classic carbon based hardening of all the other steels in this list. They will not harden like a knife steel, but will harden into the range that's good for strength. The hardening is slow (aging) due to post heating precipitation, so the metal might take hours or days to reach full strength after welding. Not a classic stainless, since much of its corrosion resistance comes from the very high nickel content, as well as chrome. Reynolds 953.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maraging_steel

If it isn't stainless, it rusts. If it is stainless, it can rust. Of the range of heat treatable steels I have available as a knife maker, none of the high or low alloy non-stainless steels have much better reputations than others. 52100, A2, 1084, 01, 1095V, W2, 1065, all rust. D2 is better, but at 12% chrome it should be.

Is that what you were asking?


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*question about ti and steel weight*



Scooper said:


> My 61cm Waterford RS-22 lugged 953 frame weighs 1620g, or 3.57 pounds. Traditional geometry (near horiz TT) similar size Dean Titanium (3/2.5) El Diente is 1600g, or 3.53 pounds. I'm not sure why you think stainless steel is "much heavier".
> 
> In normal use neither 953 nor Ti are likely to corrode. I've ridden my bike frequently in the rain over the past four years without any hint of rust or corrosion.


Didnt some folks claim in the late 90's that Reynolds 853 has similiar strength to weight ratio as 3/25 Ti??????


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

rx-79g said:


> If it isn't stainless, it rusts. If it is stainless, it can rust. Of the range of heat treatable steels I have available as a knife maker, none of the high or low alloy non-stainless steels have much better reputations than others. 52100, A2, 1084, 01, 1095V, W2, 1065, all rust. D2 is better, but at 12% chrome it should be.
> 
> Is that what you were asking?


But you said "rusts easily".....in the context of a steel bike, that just ain't true. A little preventive maintenance, and periodic touch up (like a couple of times a season) and in most conditions (and I commute on steel in rain) short of leaving your bike out in salt air for a summer), you ain't getting any rust. 

So I was objecting to your "Rusts easily with a paint chip" comment...which you've done nothing to convince me you are correct on.

Does it rust more readily than stainless? No doubt.

Is the difference appreciable for most users?......probably not.

Does regular steel used in bikes rust easily?.....not likely.

Len


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*interesting*



Len J said:


> But you said "rusts easily".....in the context of a steel bike, that just ain't true. A little preventive maintenance, and periodic touch up (like a couple of times a season) and in most conditions (and I commute on steel in rain) short of leaving your bike out in salt air for a summer), you ain't getting any rust.
> 
> So I was objecting to your "Rusts easily with a paint chip" comment...which you've done nothing to convince me you are correct on.
> 
> ...


Lots of folks look at Ti as the "forever" material. However, it is, IMO maintenance that keeps the bike. Example, cleaning the BB with just simple once a week, get the gunk off, seems to have kept the 12 year old Bianchi steel bike in good state. I have zero rust and have ridden it for thousands of miles in all weather. HOWEVER, I was very keen to clean the frame once a week, this included the bottom of the BB


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

ttug said:


> Didnt some folks claim in the late 90's that Reynolds 853 has similiar strength to weight ratio as 3/25 Ti??????


Steels can have similar ratios as Ti, but you can't necessarily take advantage of it, due to the "beer can effect". While the bike might be the same theoretical strength, if the wall thicknesses get too thin the bike becomes too delicate to use. This is currently a little bit of a problem with carbon fiber.

Titanium butted tubing is .9 at the butts and .55 in the center. The thinnest steel tubing I've seen is .6/.4/.6. If the two are the same diameter, the ti is going to be lighter. Steel is stiffer, so if you can reduce the diameter and butt it thinner, it can be about the same weight as ti can be - which is why S3 can get down to 2.5 pounds. So far, I haven't seen a SS bike that thin, but it could. Still, the lightest Ti frames went under 2 lbs, but that wasn't with regular butted tubing.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Len J said:


> But you said "rusts easily".....in the context of a steel bike, that just ain't true. A little preventive maintenance, and periodic touch up (like a couple of times a season) and in most conditions (and I commute on steel in rain) short of leaving your bike out in salt air for a summer), you ain't getting any rust.
> 
> So I was objecting to your "Rusts easily with a paint chip" comment...which you've done nothing to convince me you are correct on.
> 
> ...


Len, my post was about the _beauty_ of stainless steel bikes. They don't discolor. You're talking about durability issues. Those are two different things.

You can't brush a carbon steel frame and leave it unpainted - it will change color. Even if you clear coat it, it won't look very good when the paint develops small cracks or chips. No amount of maintenance will prevent discoloration from changing the way the bike looks. We paint bare steel because it both seals it and prevents us from seeing what it looks like. 

When people don't paint steel, like on old guns, they use controlled rust, like browning and later bluing, to keep the finish even over time. The only alternative is constant re-polishing, like swords. Either way, you need to keep the metal surface oiled or waxed.


You certainly could build a steel frame and leave it bare. If you are very diligent about removing corrosives and re-oiling it, it will turn brown or grey over a few years. And anywhere moisture collects that you miss, will pit.

Bicycle steel is steel. It obeys the same rules as all other carbon steels that humans have been using for 4000 years.



You said someone makes/sells/has clear coated non-stainless steel bikes. Who?


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

rx-79g said:


> Len, my post was about the _beauty_ of stainless steel bikes. They don't discolor. You're talking about durability issues. Those are two different things.
> 
> You can't brush a carbon steel frame and leave it unpainted - it will change color. Even if you clear coat it, it won't look very good when the paint develops small cracks or chips. No amount of maintenance will prevent discoloration from changing the way the bike looks. We paint bare steel because it both seals it and prevents us from seeing what it looks like.
> 
> ...


I've seen 3 that I can remember:

- one was a waterford that when I saw it was a few years old and had neither yellowed nor browned, nor did I n otice any visible cracking

- One was a Japanese bike (I can't remember the maker). Again, no noticible degradation.

- one was a custom Bilenky I saw in Philly. 

Len


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Len J said:


> I've seen 3 that I can remember:
> 
> - one was a waterford that when I saw it was a few years old and had neither yellowed nor browned, nor did I n otice any visible cracking
> 
> ...


Where these show bikes, or in use?

If I called Waterford, do you think they'd say clear coated non-SS was an option they offered?


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

rx-79g said:


> Where these show bikes, or in use?
> 
> If I called Waterford, do you think they'd say clear coated non-SS was an option they offered?


I didn't ask if they were original show bikes or not. I saw all of them at different times on the road over a few years in the late 90's early 2000's.

Don't know what waterfords policies are now, though I expect they would do anything for the right price.

Len


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*Waterford will do it*



Len J said:


> I didn't ask if they were original show bikes or not. I saw all of them at different times on the road over a few years in the late 90's early 2000's.
> 
> Don't know what waterfords policies are now, though I expect they would do anything for the right price.
> 
> Len


As you stated, for the price, they will do just about anything. Thought I saw that as an option on their current web page.


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

rx-79g said:


> Steels can have similar ratios as Ti, but you can't necessarily take advantage of it, due to the "beer can effect". While the bike might be the same theoretical strength, if the wall thicknesses get too thin the bike becomes too delicate to use. This is currently a little bit of a problem with carbon fiber.
> 
> Titanium butted tubing is .9 at the butts and .55 in the center. *The thinnest steel tubing I've seen is .6/.4/.6.* If the two are the same diameter, the ti is going to be lighter. Steel is stiffer, so if you can reduce the diameter and butt it thinner, it can be about the same weight as ti can be - which is why S3 can get down to 2.5 pounds. *So far, I haven't seen a SS bike that thin, but it could.* Still, the lightest Ti frames went under 2 lbs, but that wasn't with regular butted tubing.


A number of 953 main tubes are .5/.3/.5:


----------



## kabex (Nov 21, 2010)

Wow, those prices are extremely way out of the range I had previously thought of.

How are 520's prices in comparison? 1/10th?

I can't imagine how frames are being mass-produced in China even at 1/10th the price for the steel.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

terry b said:


> Now you've seen two. I think that might qualify as a "rash" of stainless steel frame sightings.


I love that paint job...especially the red accents

Len


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Scooper said:


> A number of 953 main tubes are .5/.3/.5:


My understanding was that the really thin 953 was spec'd, but no one was shipping it. Who's price sheet is that?


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

rx-79g said:


> My understanding was that the really thin 953 was spec'd, but no one was shipping it. Who's price sheet is that?


Reynolds. I picked it up at the Reynolds booth at NAHBS in Richmond last year. I know they were shipping SS4010 in 2007, 'cause that's what my top tube is.


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*have to say*



Scooper said:


> Reynolds. I picked it up at the Reynolds booth at NAHBS in Richmond last year. I know they were shipping SS4010 in 2007, 'cause that's what my top tube is.


That 953 frame is just an oculargasm.......incredible really


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Waves77 said:


> +1 for Dave Anderson, he makes some amazing Reynolds 953 based bikes.
> 
> I love this one he made:



Wow. That is just damn cool. :thumbsup: 
.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

rx-79g said:


> Chrome manganese - low carbon alternative to chrome-moly steel. Can be heat treated. Not stainless. Reynolds used to make it, but doesn't anymore. 531, 753.


Reynolds 531 and 753 are manganese-molybdenum alloy steel. 1.5%Mn, 0.25%Mo 0.35%C. No chrome.

Thanks for posting that list, seeing the biaxial tubes has got me thinking about a stainless MAX style frame.


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

The comparison of 953 to titanium is fairly common. Besides steel tubing, Reynolds also makes titanium and aluminum tubing. Because steel (including 953) is density challenged and all steels have virtually the same stiffness (Young's modulus), in order to be weight competitive with less dense frame materials, it has to be thin walled. In order to provide the stiffness required for bicycle frames, the tubing diameter has to be increased (or the wall thickness increased which would make it heavier).

This graph is on the Reynolds website and shows how their different products stack up as framebuilding materials. The top graph shows strength and stiffness, and the bottom graph shows ratios when density is normalized. The strength to weight ratio of 953 is higher than for any other material, but it's impractical for 953 walls to be thinner than .3mm in the non-butted centers because of the "beer can effect" rx-79g noted in his post. A 953 frame weighing the same as a similar sized 6AL-4V or 3AL-2.5V titanium frame will be stronger, and will be significantly stronger than a titanium frame weighing less.


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> Reynolds 531 and 753 are manganese-molybdenum alloy steel. 1.5%Mn, 0.25%Mo 0.35%C. No chrome.


Yes; both 531 and 753 are manganese-molybdenum with identical chemical composition. 753 is essentially heat treated 531.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

rx-79g said:


> For someone with a no BS logo, this is an absurd post.
> 
> All structural metals corode - Ti included. But carbon steels are the only ones that commonly rust through, causing parts to break. No one is complaining that their aluminum bike broke because of corrosion.
> 
> ...


I didn't say a thing about stainless, but thanks for trying to start a fight for no good reason.

Facts are, bare aluminum corrodes quite badly in concert with salt, especially where dissimilar metals get into the action. Water bottle bosses, BB cups, etc. can fall to hell in a hurry. And while the cheap steel of car doors goes quickly, even mid-level bike tubes are quite a bit more resistant.

I've not insignificant amounts of experience with rental bikes at the seashore. I can tell you without a moment's hesitation that the steel frames remain serviceable considerably longer. You have your theories, I have my facts. You needn't believe if you choose not to. 

The interesting thing - the part not readily seen - is that the failure modes differ. It's true that an aluminum frame won't 'rust through' like steel might. But when Al gets a significant corrosion, commonly a galvanic corrosion from an Al-steel-brine interface, it creates it's own internal stresses that lead to rapid crack propagation.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*My thoughts as well*



SystemShock said:


> Wow. That is just damn cool. :thumbsup:
> .


clear signs of good taste on that one


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*my guess is Metax*



misterdangerpants said:


> I have no idea.


it is what Ibis was using for their chainstays on some bikes

it was made by Columbus

and the bikes use it in their names (call me Captain Obvious)


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

danl1 said:


> I didn't say a thing about stainless, but thanks for trying to start a fight for no good reason.
> 
> Facts are, bare aluminum corrodes quite badly in concert with salt, especially where dissimilar metals get into the action. Water bottle bosses, BB cups, etc. can fall to hell in a hurry. And while the cheap steel of car doors goes quickly, even mid-level bike tubes are quite a bit more resistant.
> 
> ...


Pardon. You do have some valuable experience to share. I've never seen anything like that in all the time I've been tending aluminum. The stainless comments weren't aimed at you.


ATPJunkie,

I realized it was Metax, I was just trying to find out what kind of alloy Metax is. You can see my theory in the steel type post.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

rx-79g said:


> I've never seen anything like that in all the time I've been tending aluminum.


And that's exactly why - the 'tending' part.

Treated halfway decently - emphasis on the halfway - and kindness will kill steel. Get rid of all the oxidation and repaint, and it's good. Leave it to be, and it'll normally stabilize a patina and be OK, unless it's cheap steel. But half measures are the worst - material is removed, allowing the next layer to be attacked. Repeated, the damage is done.

Al acts differently. A little bit of love will keep the oxidation from forming a stress point, and beyond that, there's not much added in giving it much more attention. But flat-out ignore both, and the steel will outlast the Al. But the Al will leave a marginally better looking corpse. 

One other small factor in this: The steel is slightly more stable to the paint, IME, and so stays protected a bit better. That's not strictly about the material corrosion itself, but one real-world outcome of building from the two.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*rx*



rx-79g said:


> Pardon. You do have some valuable experience to share. I've never seen anything like that in all the time I've been tending aluminum. The stainless comments weren't aimed at you.
> 
> 
> ATPJunkie,
> ...


I was just being a smart azz
I've tried to find info but it is hard to come by, I heard it was a type of Nivachrom
I will ask Scot Nicol on Monday and see if he knows


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

danl1 said:


> And that's exactly why - the 'tending' part.
> 
> Treated halfway decently - emphasis on the halfway - and kindness will kill steel. Get rid of all the oxidation and repaint, and it's good. Leave it to be, and it'll normally stabilize a patina and be OK, unless it's cheap steel. But half measures are the worst - material is removed, allowing the next layer to be attacked. Repeated, the damage is done.
> 
> ...


Well, the "tending" was one polish job 19 years ago and then ignoring it since. It doesn't look as good as it used to, but people still like it.


----------



## bicyclerepairman (Mar 12, 2003)

I'm not sure of the timeline (I'll guess @ 2000 or 2001); Interloc had made 10 frames in stainless steel as production prototypes. The project was not followed up on. Maybe someday in the future......

The one I saw was stunning.


----------



## brucew (Jun 3, 2006)

Here's some old hands building under a new name. 

Indy Fab recently moved their production, and a bunch of the guys wanted to stay in Boston. They founded Firefly Bicycles, building exclusively in stainless and Ti.

Frame #001 is shaped XCr. It uses Columbus MAX shaping profiles. Finish is glass bead blast.










It's currently under Tim Johnson (yes, THAT Tim Johnson) as he rides to the LAB's National Bike Summit in DC.

More about Tyler Evans and Firefly here.


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

Configuration looks similar to this 953 Waterford R33 (16.4 pounds as shown).


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

What is the lightest Stainless frame anyone's seen? 

According to the chart Scooper posted, 953 could be built lighter than thicker S3, which can be found as light as 2.2 lbs. It sounds like all S3 frames are decently below 3 lbs.


----------



## Waves77 (Aug 15, 2010)

I seem to recall David Bohm did a 14.2 pound one recently. Looks mindblowing too. Can't seem to find the post right now... 

(SS frame, carbon everything else, including tubular carbon wheels).

Edit: He didn't list frame weight, but obviously it build up very light.


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

It depends on the frame size. A 48cm S3 frame will be lighter than a 61cm 953 or XCr frame.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Scooper said:


> It depends on the frame size. A 48cm S3 frame will be lighter than a 61cm 953 or XCr frame.


I could probably take that into account.


----------



## Scooper (Mar 4, 2007)

Heh heh...

Since the density of all steels is virtually the same (usually between 7,750 and 8,050 kg/m3), the ultimate tensile strength and yield strength of an alloy essentially determine the thinnest practical wall thickness of the tubes, and therefore the weight.

Here are the UTS of True Temper S3, Columbus XCr, and Reynolds 953 from the manufacturers' specifications:

S3 - 150-217 KSI
XCr - 185-195 KSI
953 - 255-290 KSI

The thinnest S3 tubes have .5/.4/.5 butting.
The thinnest XCr tubes have .6/.4/.6 butting
The thinnest 953 tubes have .5/.3/.5 butting

I'm guessing here, but it seems apparent that a 953 frame built with the same O.D. tubes, same size and configuration as frames built with S3 and XCr would be as strong or stronger and marginally lighter than the S3 or XCr frames.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Scooper said:


> Heh heh...
> 
> Since the density of all steels is virtually the same (usually between 7,750 and 8,050 kg/m3), the ultimate tensile strength and yield strength of an alloy essentially determine the thinnest practical wall thickness of the tubes, and therefore the weight.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I know that. I'm asking if anyone has actually observed that happen.


----------

