# Is 853 Reynolds steel a soft steel?



## ADKBiker (Apr 8, 2002)

I was doing some minor adjustments on my 853 steel bike. I notice what appears to be an indentation on the top tube when you look down the top tube. This slight dent runs around the whole tube. I check to see if I can feel a dent but, you can only notice it if you look down the top tube from and angle. There are not signs of scratches or hits. Is this normal? Or is 853 a really soft material. I notice that the some bike shops like to clamp the frames of bikes to the work stands. It appears to be right at the center of the tube. The bike has never been dropped or hit. Could this be from butting the steel tubing? The bike is hand made in the USA. Thanks for any info!

ADKBiker


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

If the bike shop dented your bike then they were stupid because most modern higher end bikes need to be clamped at the seatpost!

Otherwise the 853 tube set is not a soft metal-but Reynolds makes about 4 or 5 different thicknesses of 853; thus if you have their lightest racing 853 then that tubing is very thin and could be dented by clamping. Overall the 853 is as strong and as light as Titanium for less money. Take it to the bike shop and have them look at it to see what they think. How long ago did you get the bike? It's possible even that the factory did it, or shipping and handling caused it. Maybe it can be warrantied.


----------



## TrailNut (May 11, 2004)

*not soft, just thin*

not soft, just thin
still heck of a lot stronger then al.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Steel vs Ti*



froze said:


> Overall the 853 is as strong and as light as Titanium for less money.


Not sure how you came to this conclusion, but given the density differences, the only way you could claim 853 is as light as Ti, you'd have to use 853 tubes that were 43% thinner than the equivalent Ti. Compared to the top Ti frames, an 853 frame (or any steel frame) is always heavier. Is this what you mean by "as light"?


----------



## mhinman (Mar 27, 2004)

*Ti tubes typically are bigger*



Kerry Irons said:


> Not sure how you came to this conclusion, but given the density differences, the only way you could claim 853 is as light as Ti, you'd have to use 853 tubes that were 43% thinner than the equivalent Ti. Compared to the top Ti frames, an 853 frame (or any steel frame) is always heavier. Is this what you mean by "as light"?



Steel tubes have the smallest diameter, Ti is usually a little bigger to make it stiffer (remember it is very springy) and of course Aluminium tubes have the largest diameter. So alot of the weight savings in steel comes from the smaller diameter. Not 43% thinner walls.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*How about an example*

Show me an 853 frame that weighs the same as a Litespeed Vortex, just as an example. The slightly larger diameter and slightly thicker walls of Ti frame tubes DO NOT result in 43% more material, such that the density advantage of Ti is negated. Get me right here, I'm not saying there is something wrong with 853 - it's a great steel. It's just that you can't claim that for equivalent performance, it's as light as Ti.


----------



## mhinman (Mar 27, 2004)

*Clarify*



Kerry Irons said:


> Show me an 853 frame that weighs the same as a Litespeed Vortex, just as an example. The slightly larger diameter and slightly thicker walls of Ti frame tubes DO NOT result in 43% more material, such that the density advantage of Ti is negated. Get me right here, I'm not saying there is something wrong with 853 - it's a great steel. It's just that you can't claim that for equivalent performance, it's as light as Ti.



I was just demonstrating that steel vs Ti, the difference in tubeset weights was not just from wall thickness. Remember for every mm of diameter reduction, you lose 3.14 mm of wall. As for a steel bike that weights less than 3 pounds, it can be done, but I am not sure I would like to own it or replace it every other year, because it has become as disposable as a light Al frame. Ignoring a super light steel frame, you are probably looking at about 1 to 1 1/2 pounds of extra weight for a steel frame. For the record, my 60cm MXL weighs 3 lbs, 12 oz.


----------



## divve (May 3, 2002)

That's heavier than good aluminum MTB hardtail frame. No way your steel is going to be more durable than that.


----------



## TrailNut (May 11, 2004)

*good aluminum MTB hardtail frame that strong? YEAH RIGHT...*

good aluminum MTB hardtail frame?
if "good" means light xc al. being strong, then that's oxymoronic!
as no light (under 3.2#) al. frame's going to be stronger then steel. al. being more stiff or less depends on design and craftmanship, not on intrinsic material vs. crmo steel.
if "good" means heavy dirt jumper (like specialized P2 or a Kona Hoss ) then al. can be very strong, but usually heavier than a crmo steel frame.
al. is cheap, easy to manipulate, light, perahps stiff...but not strong. 
good steel can be built race stiff (stiffer than ti for the same mass), moderately light (3.5# for 55 road) and is the strongest among ti, al.alloy, or carbon. (remember, sponcered pros do not buy thier own bikes).
stiffness is miss-leading as the rider matter far more than any bike to determine who's faster.
you pay less now with al. for 1/2# less weight while sacrificing strength& endurance over time.

bike companys like to sell al. cause it's cheap & easy to produce a good frame, that 's suited for 95% of recreational riders, but "rough riders," heavy riders, and racers need to be careful with light xc or road al. frames. anecdotal stories that i hear is that for one good steel frame failure i hear of ten "good" al. frame failures

my xc crmo steel Kona frame (4.5#) has endured numerous crashes, some on gnarly dh courses, since 1998. if i were on my other light al. xc mtb on I'd mostly likely have to replace the frame already or at least be thinking about taking it easier to baby the thin al. frame (3.2#, ad claimed as 2.8#)

to me, the best long-term (over 5 years of strenous riding) choices are steel or ti for mtb hardtails. (al. is fine for full suspension, as they're many more variables) 
and for road: steel, ti, or carbon are the lasting virtues.


----------



## divve (May 3, 2002)

The example was to illustrate that steel will always be at a strength to weight disadvantage compared to aluminum. Laboratory fatigue testing has shown this over and over again and my MTB example was to show that in practice it's stronger as well. I'm sure you wouldn't want to try an XC trail with that steel Colnago....or any steel MTB that would weigh less than 3lbs......an aluminum frame of 3lbs 12oz would be a tank on the other hand and you could probably do some good hucking with it


----------



## TrailNut (May 11, 2004)

*a 4# steel ought to last longer than a 4# al.*

well in that sense, yeah, Divve gotta agree with you there.
Yet a 4# steel ought to last longer than a 4# al., if you keep the rust off
and most full bikes around $1000 will have frames that weigh close to that for both materials.


----------



## Nessism (Feb 6, 2004)

*Specific strength*



Kerry Irons said:


> Not sure how you came to this conclusion, but given the density differences, the only way you could claim 853 is as light as Ti, you'd have to use 853 tubes that were 43% thinner than the equivalent Ti. Compared to the top Ti frames, an 853 frame (or any steel frame) is always heavier. Is this what you mean by "as light"?



When 853 first came out, Reynolds ran a series of print ads promoting its strength to weight ratio. I don't remember all the particulars but remember them claiming that 853 steel is equal, or better, than 3/2.5 Ti in this regard.


As far as making a steel frame as light as Ti, it depends on the tubes used. A straight gauge 54 cm Ti frame weighs in the range of 3.3 lbs. It wouldn't be all that difficult to make a steel frame that comes in at a similar weight. The steel frame would have thin tubes, but it is possible. 

Ed


----------



## russw19 (Nov 27, 2002)

Nessism said:


> When 853 first came out, Reynolds ran a series of print ads promoting its strength to weight ratio. I don't remember all the particulars but remember them claiming that 853 steel is equal, or better, than 3/2.5 Ti in this regard.
> 
> 
> As far as making a steel frame as light as Ti, it depends on the tubes used. A straight gauge 54 cm Ti frame weighs in the range of 3.3 lbs. It wouldn't be all that difficult to make a steel frame that comes in at a similar weight. The steel frame would have thin tubes, but it is possible.
> ...


Reynolds 853 is right around the same strength as True Temper's OX Gold or Platinum tubesets and has a tensile strength of around 170,000 to 190,000 psi. One advantage of OX Plat is that you can silver braze it if you wanted a lugged frame, whereas with 853, you just TIG weld it. Reynolds does in fact claim you can braze 853, but I don't know too many builders who would agree that it is easy to do. Most would just use OX Plat or Columbus Foco instead. Which leads me to another point... you can very easily build a Columbus Foco frame in a 54 cm standard geometry frame under 3 pounds. Actually if you TIG weld it without lugs, 2.6 (just under 1200 grams) is possible, but pushing it. 

The catch with steel like 853 is that it is very difficult to manipulate the shape of the tubeset, whereas it is much easier to do with Ti. That is where a Ti frame has an advantage in that you can shape the tubing to strengthen the frame and enhance ride qualities. 853 is hard to shape.. that is why Lemond bikes that are listed as the 853 Pro frames are actually only 853 front triangles with the seat and chain stays being 725 with a slightly triangular shape to them. It would be much more difficult to shape an 853 tube to the semi-triangular shape of the chain stays that you can make with 725. So for Ti bikes you can ovalize the tubes at the head and seat tubes to give better ride qualities and help stiffen those areas. With 853, you only use a round tube, so you need to manipulate the butt to help stiffen those areas. So to stiffen the area, you use thicker steel. Thicker means more material which adds weight. I could be wrong, but I have never yet seen a bi-conical ovalized 853 downtube yet. So that is one area where Ti and aluminum have advantages. 

I am not a frame builder... everything I just said could be 100% wrong... so don't take my word for it. But if you were going to build a custom bike, I would make sure to ask your builder about all the things I mention above. The use of steel over Ti or aluminium, the use of 853 or OX Plat if you want lugs... Ultra Foco for a super light steel frame... and how well you can use tube manipulation with the current generation of steel to enhance ride quality.

It would be cool to hear the thoughts from some frame builders like Richard Sachs or Todd from Heron or Don from Anvil...they have much more experience with this stuff than me. They build bikes... I just talk a lot to guys like them and try my best to absorb what they say.

Russ


----------



## charlieboy (Sep 10, 2003)

*no*

see argos cycles for this...

853

The ultimate performance tubeset?. Maybe, the Reynolds 853 tubeset has been our No 1 for the performance rider ever since it's launch in 1995. Reynolds 853 offers uncompromising performance combined with superb ride quality and excellent strength to weight ratio. The strength to weight ratio equals that of Titanium frames.

After the frame is constructed, 853 actually increases in strength as the frame cools (air hardening). 

The unique air hardening properties of 853 provides additional stiffness through reduced microyielding at the joints, allowing stiffer frames with higher fatigue strength.

Reynolds 853 - Heat Treated
UTS - 81 - 91 Tsi
180 - 210 Ksi
1250-1450 MPa


http://www.argoscycles.co.uk/reynolds.htm

I don't know what all those numbers really mean but it sure ain't soft!


----------



## ADKBiker (Apr 8, 2002)

*I have seen Ovalized down tubes!*



russw19 said:


> Reynolds 853 is right around the same strength as True Temper's OX Gold or Platinum tubesets and has a tensile strength of around 170,000 to 190,000 psi. One advantage of OX Plat is that you can silver braze it if you wanted a lugged frame, whereas with 853, you just TIG weld it. Reynolds does in fact claim you can braze 853, but I don't know too many builders who would agree that it is easy to do. Most would just use OX Plat or Columbus Foco instead. Which leads me to another point... you can very easily build a Columbus Foco frame in a 54 cm standard geometry frame under 3 pounds. Actually if you TIG weld it without lugs, 2.6 (just under 1200 grams) is possible, but pushing it.
> 
> The catch with steel like 853 is that it is very difficult to manipulate the shape of the tubeset, whereas it is much easier to do with Ti. That is where a Ti frame has an advantage in that you can shape the tubing to strengthen the frame and enhance ride qualities. 853 is hard to shape.. that is why Lemond bikes that are listed as the 853 Pro frames are actually only 853 front triangles with the seat and chain stays being 725 with a slightly triangular shape to them. It would be much more difficult to shape an 853 tube to the semi-triangular shape of the chain stays that you can make with 725. So for Ti bikes you can ovalize the tubes at the head and seat tubes to give better ride qualities and help stiffen those areas. With 853, you only use a round tube, so you need to manipulate the butt to help stiffen those areas. So to stiffen the area, you use thicker steel. Thicker means more material which adds weight. I could be wrong, but I have never yet seen a bi-conical ovalized 853 downtube yet. So that is one area where Ti and aluminum have advantages.
> 
> ...


On my 2001 Lemond Zurich with full Ultegra groupo (stock) has an ovalized down tube, as so do the 2002, 2003, & 2004 models. My bike is a 57cm and weighs just under 19 lbs. I have seen Ti bikes weighing more then that.


----------



## russw19 (Nov 27, 2002)

ADKBiker said:


> On my 2001 Lemond Zurich with full Ultegra groupo (stock) has an ovalized down tube.


Splitting hairs here, but there is a difference in bi-axial ovalized shape, and bi-conically ovalized, which is specifically what I mentioned. Bi-conical tubes are much more extremely manipulated. Think frames like Cannodale's aluminum frames or the Litespeed Ultimate... massive horizontal oval at the bottom bracket shell, and a smaller vertical oval at the head tube, with a change in size along the down tube. Slighly different from simply rolling the downtube to an ovalized type shape to fit the bottom bracket. Your frame is what is called "bi-axially ovalized" which means they smosh the tube into an oval shape then weld it. The difference is that the tube is the same round diameter until they crush it to an oval shape. Bi-conically ovalized tubes are like what you see in massive oeversized tubing (again, think Cannonadale) where the outside diameter of the tube changes from very large at the bottom bracket shell to much smaller at the head tube. Think of the bare tubes... one would be a cone shape, the 853 would be a tube or cylinder shape. Again, splitting hairs, but the advantage to bi-conical tubes is that a tube needs more strength to resist torsion at the bottom bracket than the head tube. Your bike doesn't change to a larger diameter at the bottom bracket shell, but they add more material to the butt there to strengthen it. And like I already said in an earlier post.... more material equals more weight. With bi-conical tubes you would think there is more material, but the reality is that there is the same amount, it is just spread out over a larger radius but thinner diameter tube. The extra torsional rigity gives it the strength that the extra steel in an 853 tube gives.




ADKBiker said:


> My bike is a 57cm and weighs just under 19 lbs. I have seen Ti bikes weighing more then that.


I guess I missed a point in this... I have seen 16 pound steel bikes. I have a 21 pound steel bike. I used to ride a 17.5 pound Colnago Ovalmaster that started with a 3.5 pound frame, so it was no lightweight, and I have seen 15 pound Ti frames in normal geometry sizes. What is the point? It is possible to make a sub 3 pound standard geometry 56cm frame in steel, but it is far easier to do so with Titanium or Aluminium or Carbon. How many steel bikes come in under the magic 1 kilo mark?

I am not trying to rip on your Lemond, they make some of the nicest mass-produced steel frames on the market (until this year...) and I work for a Lemond dealer, but let's face it, you didn't buy your Lemond to be the lightest bike on the market, you bought it because of the ride that a well built 853 frame gives. And that is the big underlying factor on why people keep going back to steel bikes. They have a ride that is very hard to reproduce in other materials, but it is the classic steel ride that everyone seems to desire. My 21 pound bike that I mention above is a Columbus SLX Eddy Merckx... of all the bikes I own or have owned, it is by far the absolute nicest riding bike I have thrown a leg over... but it isn't that light. My next frame will most likely be a Columbus Max frame, silver brazed with hand cut lugs. It will be a 4.5 lbs frame with a 1.5 lbs flat crown steel fork. Why? because you can't beat the ride of a bike like that (IMO) and I am not a weight weenine, so I don't care how heavy it is. 

Russ


----------



## divve (May 3, 2002)

No offense but I have both Scalpel MTB and CAAD7 road frames and neither are massively horizontal oval at the BB. Instead, they're both almost round and sort of flow into the seat tube at the weld due to being too large of a diameter to completely fit the BB shell. I don't know how it's done....maybe they fill it up with bondo gap filler and sand it smooth.....whatever the technique, they aren't squished to the extent you see on the Litespeed Classic for instance.


----------



## Nessism (Feb 6, 2004)

*Correction*



charlieboy said:


> The unique air hardening properties of 853 provides additional stiffness through reduced microyielding at the joints, allowing stiffer frames with higher fatigue strength.



While the 853 tubes will increase in hardness and strength in the weld zone, the stiffness of the metal is uneffected. In fact, stiffness of the metal is completely independant of strength. Very basic material property law at work.

Ed


----------



## TrailNut (May 11, 2004)

*Renolds 853 et. al. can be light, stiff, and strong (and affordable)*

Renolds 853, 
Columbus Ultra Foco Thermacrom (example: Cervelo), 
Dedacciai EOM 16.5 (example: Viner), & 
True Temper S3 (example: Waterford) 
are among the strongest and lightest steel alloys available with KSI* rating from 177 to 220. 

According to the custome manufacturer Viner, their Pro Team Dedacciai EOM 16.5 steel tigged weided frame can weigh as low as 2.8#.

Frames being "stiff" is high subjective: i believe being fast has lot more to do with rider than the lates frame material fashion/fad or perceived stiffness. however weigh is weigh, ans lighter i better, but then so is stronger. I would think a 3# steel frame from the same company would be stronger than a 3# aluminum frame.

Buy hey what do i know, i just know to never use carbon fibre frames for aggressive xc mtbing. 


*see...
http://www.strongframes.com/index.php?get=Frame Tube Specifications&nav=Tech Geek Love
&
http://www.anvilbikes.com/story.php?news_ID=16&catID=3

"steel is real"


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

As a mechanical engineer, I hope I can explain this a little bit. The numbers you are looking at are the ultimate material strength. This number is given in pounds per square inch in the engish system. It refers to the pounds of tensile load applied to the specipen divided by the specimen's cross-sectional area. Obviously a bigger bar is going to take a higher load than a small one. The area part of than number just normalizes the numbers. Ultimate strength is arrived at by taking a specimen of the material and breaking it under carefully controlled conditions in a lab, by pulling it apart in a test frame. These numbers give designers an idea of how much load a given material can take, relative to its cross-section. Things such as surface finish, structure, and alloy can make big differences in material strength. Another useful material property is yield strength. This is a measure of when a material can no longer return to the origional shape, because permanent, or plastic deformation has taken place.

Much of this discussion has nothing to do with the strength of a given material, but with the stiffness of that material. Stiffness is related to how much material will bend under a goven load, and has nothing to do with when it will break. Aluminum has a widely varying stiffness, which can be changed by changing alloys or heat treatments. Steel has a Young's modulus (Youngs modulus is a measure of a material's stiffness) that doesn't change very much with alloy or heat treatment. The strengh can be changed quite drastically though.

Now, if you notice, these properties are based on area, not weight. Steel is usually stiffer than aluminum by area, but not necessarily by weight. Titanium is not as stiff as steel, but it has a much higher ultimate and yield strength.

So, back to the origional poster's question. The steel that your frame is made from has a reasonably high yeild strength. The damage to your frame could have happened during the manufacturing process, but likely did not happen at your local bike shop without some cracks in the paint.


----------



## russw19 (Nov 27, 2002)

Quite true, but it is a very conical tube shape. Not a straight one size diameter tube where the end at the head tube and the end at the bottom bracket are the same diameter. No matter which direction the tube is ovalized, it is still a bi-conical tube and not bi-axial like the Lemond, which uses 853, which is not at all cost effective to shape into a conical tube like 6061-T6 aluminium (or what ever other alloy an aluminium bike maker uses.)

Here's a perfect example of what I am talking about... this is a Cannondale CAAD 3 before they switched to 1 1/8th headsets so the conical shape of the tube is bery easy to see. You can clearly see that the tube is nearly twice the diameter at the bottom bracket than the headtube.

There is no way currently that I am aware of to make this same shape with 853 steel.

Russ


----------



## Nessism (Feb 6, 2004)

*Some info*



russw19 said:


> Reynolds 853 is right around the same strength as True Temper's OX Gold or Platinum tubesets and has a tensile strength of around 170,000 to 190,000 psi. One advantage of OX Plat is that you can silver braze it if you wanted a lugged frame, whereas with 853, you just TIG weld it. Reynolds does in fact claim you can braze 853, but I don't know too many builders who would agree that it is easy to do. Most would just use OX Plat or Columbus Foco instead. Which leads me to another point... you can very easily build a Columbus Foco frame in a 54 cm standard geometry frame under 3 pounds. Actually if you TIG weld it without lugs, 2.6 (just under 1200 grams) is possible, but pushing it.
> 
> The catch with steel like 853 is that it is very difficult to manipulate the shape of the tubeset, whereas it is much easier to do with Ti. That is where a Ti frame has an advantage in that you can shape the tubing to strengthen the frame and enhance ride qualities. 853 is hard to shape.. that is why Lemond bikes that are listed as the 853 Pro frames are actually only 853 front triangles with the seat and chain stays being 725 with a slightly triangular shape to them. It would be much more difficult to shape an 853 tube to the semi-triangular shape of the chain stays that you can make with 725. So for Ti bikes you can ovalize the tubes at the head and seat tubes to give better ride qualities and help stiffen those areas. With 853, you only use a round tube, so you need to manipulate the butt to help stiffen those areas. So to stiffen the area, you use thicker steel. Thicker means more material which adds weight. I could be wrong, but I have never yet seen a bi-conical ovalized 853 downtube yet. So that is one area where Ti and aluminum have advantages.
> 
> ...



I don't have the knowledge of professional builder like Don Ferris or Richard Sachs, but I've built a number of frames in my garage, lugged steel, for myself and friends. I'm also an engineer so I try to understand the various details involved in materials and framebuilding.

First off the debate over brazing 853 is ongoing. Most of the confusion is due to Reynolds themselves. They warn against silver brazing lugs but recommend this same process for brazeons. General consensus is that brass brazing 853 is fine since this is a fairly high temperature process which kicks in the air hardening process. Silver brazing does not get the metal hot enough to air harden and subsequently, softens the metal through annealing. Interestingly, TIG welding brazeons, like cable stops, can create a hard spot on the tube, from air hardening, which can create a stress concentration which can lead to tube failure. 

As far as building with 853 goes, it's not any more difficult to braze/weld compared to other steel materials, but mitering, and reaming seat tubes, is more difficult due to the metal hardness. Also Reynolds asks builders to not shape the tubes before assembly. It’s not a great idea to shape any tube due to the possibility of creating micro-cracks in the metal. Non-heat treated tubes are more forgiving this way and many builders shape the tubes with no ill effects (myself included). Regarding use of non-853 stays, this is a good idea due to the absurd high cost of these tubes. Why spend three times the money for an 853 stay when 725 is more than strong enough to do the job?

The issue of tube shaping is a little over played. It’s generally known that some shaping is advantageous but a round tube is still viable. Best shape to resist stresses is the bi-conic down tube as noted. Most other tubes are fairly well served with round, other than chain stays. My pet peeve is aero down tubes; a tube shaped this way resists vertical flexing, making the ride stiffer, while at the same time, the oval shape is in the wrong plane to resist lateral flex in the bottom bracket area. Steel tubing comes in a multitude of stock shapes so a framebuilder can pick and choose which tube they want to use. Choices of Ti tubes are much smaller and mostly require the builder to shape the tube themselves. Not much advantage there.

Just a little info, use at your own risk.

Ed


----------



## russw19 (Nov 27, 2002)

Nessism said:


> Just a little info, use at your own risk.
> 
> Ed



Thank you Ed, that was a great post! 

So you build frames... tell me what you think, I am about 225 and have very strong legs. I play hockey and have a sprinter's build, but about 50 pounds bigger than most pro sprinters due to beer and the weight room. I absolutely love a nice stiff yet responsive bike. I think my next frame will be either Columbus Max or True Temper OX Platinum tubing, lugged, silver brazed and with a steel box crown fork. Opinions? Wanna build it for me?

Russ


----------



## Nessism (Feb 6, 2004)

*Max all the way!*



russw19 said:


> Thank you Ed, that was a great post!
> 
> So you build frames... tell me what you think, I am about 225 and have very strong legs. I play hockey and have a sprinter's build, but about 50 pounds bigger than most pro sprinters due to beer and the weight room. I absolutely love a nice stiff yet responsive bike. I think my next frame will be either Columbus Max or True Temper OX Platinum tubing, lugged, silver brazed and with a steel box crown fork. Opinions? Wanna build it for me?
> 
> Russ



Russ,

Max tubing uses tubes 1/8” larger in diameter compared to more common “Oversize” tubing used for lugged frames. This is the ticket for sprinters types that make lots of power. In order to make an oversize tube frame stiff enough for someone like you, thick tubes are necessary which adds weight. Also, Max tubes have lots of nice shaping which adds stiffness and also add to the coolness factor.

My most recent project uses round tubes and super oversized tubes (similar to Max diameters: 1-1/4” top and seat tubes, 1-3/8” down tube). Lugs for tubes this size are very difficult to get (purchased from www.ceeway.com in England) and are not readily available. If you find an adventuress builder you might ask him about using tubes like this.

While it’s always nice to here someone express interest in having a frame built, the liability issue is a big one for someone like me. Remember to story about the guy that got hit by a car because he was riding at night and the bike was sold without lights? His family sued everyone in the distribution chain and they won a huge judgment (appealed?). I have nightmares about getting sued by the second owner of one of my frames. Bottom line is that it’s very risky to sell frames unless you are in business and have insurance (neither of which applies to me).

Good luck.

Ed


----------



## Armchair Spaceman (Jun 21, 2003)

russw19 said:


> Thank you Ed, that was a great post!
> 
> So you build frames... tell me what you think, I am about 225 and have very strong legs. I play hockey and have a sprinter's build, but about 50 pounds bigger than most pro sprinters due to beer and the weight room. I absolutely love a nice stiff yet responsive bike. I think my next frame will be either Columbus Max or True Temper OX Platinum tubing, lugged, silver brazed and with a steel box crown fork. Opinions? Wanna build it for me?
> 
> Russ


Russ,
Don't overlook Columbus EL-OS for a big bloke (if you can find it). I'm a shade heavier than you and on the strong side (ex Rugby prop forward). My tig-welded EL-OS frame is stiff, strong and has a buttery smooth ride. I tried 853 and Max frames but found them a bit harsh (and heavier) compared to EL-OS.


----------



## goloso (Feb 4, 2004)

*got one*

My Coppi foco frame is right at 3lbs. Its still has a steel-like ride even though every tube is shaped. There are no spindley small diameter round tubes on this bike. Almost everyone assumes it is Al. 

The whole bike is 18.5lbs with chorus and OPs.


----------



## russw19 (Nov 27, 2002)

Nessism said:


> While it’s always nice to here someone express interest in having a frame built, the liability issue is a big one for someone like me. I have nightmares about getting sued by the second owner of one of my frames. Bottom line is that it’s very risky to sell frames unless you are in business and have insurance (neither of which applies to me).
> 
> Good luck.
> 
> Ed



I can fully relate to this. Actually I think my next bike will be built by one of 4 or 5 builders... in no particular order... Llewellyn, Anvil, Bohemian, Sachs, or if I could get him to J P Weigle. All make some particularly amazing frames. My plan while I still work in a shop is to buy something like Pinarello Dogma or DeRosa Cinquanta at EP and then sell it and use the profit to finance my lust for sliver brazed highly polished stainless lugged box crown forked steel sweetness! Here's a pic of a bike I am currently lusting for.

Russ


----------



## russw19 (Nov 27, 2002)

*More steel goodness!*

Mo' better steel


----------



## russw19 (Nov 27, 2002)

*One more... Anvil Columbus Max Lugged*

Anvil Columbus Max Lugged


----------



## Nessism (Feb 6, 2004)

*Frame photos*

A few photos of one of my homebuilts. Can't tell by the photo but it has a 4 degree sloping top tube. BTW, Kenia is a region in Alaska where my father is from.


----------



## russw19 (Nov 27, 2002)

*Wow!*



Nessism said:


> A few photos of one of my homebuilts. Can't tell by the photo but it has a 4 degree sloping top tube. BTW, Kenia is a region in Alaska where my father is from.


Holy Crap! That is a beautiful frame! You really should be proud of that one Ed. That is gorgeous.

How many frames had you built prior to that one? Looks like you have either quite a bit more experience than you are letting on, or you are seriously gifted in your skills. I have built two frames in my lifetime... neither came remotely close to looking that nice. Did you ever build that frame and ride it? It looks great.

Russ


----------



## Nessism (Feb 6, 2004)

russw19 said:


> How many frames had you built prior to that one?
> 
> Russ



That frame is number seven, paint is still drying (painted myself using PPG Deltron Urethane). I'm planning to build it up any day now. 

Not sure I like the carbon fork on a lugged frame yet. Unfortunately, their are not a lot of fork crowns available for 1-1/8" forks and I don't like any of them. Their is a straight blade crown that is not too bad...just doesn't excite me any thus the carbon.

At any rate, framebuilding is not all that hard, it just takes time and attention to detail.

Ed


----------



## russw19 (Nov 27, 2002)

Nessism said:


> That frame is number seven, paint is still drying (painted myself using PPG Deltron Urethane). I'm planning to build it up any day now.
> 
> Not sure I like the carbon fork on a lugged frame yet. Unfortunately, their are not a lot of fork crowns available for 1-1/8" forks and I don't like any of them. Their is a straight blade crown that is not too bad...just doesn't excite me any thus the carbon.
> 
> ...



It may not be the greatest option, but you could always get a King Devolution headset that would allow you to use a 1 inch fork in that frame. You would just use a shim for the stem and everything else would be normal.
http://www.chrisking.com/headsets/hds_devo.html

Russ


----------



## cdmc (Feb 3, 2004)

TrailNut said:


> good aluminum MTB hardtail frame?
> if "good" means light xc al. being strong, then that's oxymoronic!
> as no light (under 3.2#) al. frame's going to be stronger then steel. al. being more stiff or less depends on design and craftmanship, not on intrinsic material vs. crmo steel.
> if "good" means heavy dirt jumper (like specialized P2 or a Kona Hoss ) then al. can be very strong, but usually heavier than a crmo steel frame.
> ...



Boy, I would love to see this statement over on MTBR. Guess what, mountain bikes, from entry level to high end are almost exclusively aluminium and there is a very low failure rate. Take a look at Titus, Turner, and Santa Cruz, all high end manufactures that have been around for years and build lightweight cross country race frames with (Gasp) aluminium. You virtually never hear of frame failures of these bikes, and there are a lot of pre 2000 bikes with over 10,000 hard off road miles on them. While there may be a shorter fatigue life in theory, in the real world it simply isn't true. I believe that Keith Bontranger or Gary Klein addressed this years ago and basically found that even the theoretical fatigue life of an aluminum frame was on the order of 20 years if ridden 5,000 miles per year.


----------



## Thommy (Sep 23, 2003)

*Russ, the 853 guru*



russw19 said:


> Reynolds 853 is right around the same strength as True Temper's OX Gold or Platinum tubesets and has a tensile strength of around 170,000 to 190,000 psi. One advantage of OX Plat is that you can silver braze it if you wanted a lugged frame, whereas with 853, you just TIG weld it. Reynolds does in fact claim you can braze 853, but I don't know too many builders who would agree that it is easy to do. Most would just use OX Plat or Columbus Foco instead. Which leads me to another point... you can very easily build a Columbus Foco frame in a 54 cm standard geometry frame under 3 pounds. Actually if you TIG weld it without lugs, 2.6 (just under 1200 grams) is possible, but pushing it.
> 
> The catch with steel like 853 is that it is very difficult to manipulate the shape of the tubeset, whereas it is much easier to do with Ti. That is where a Ti frame has an advantage in that you can shape the tubing to strengthen the frame and enhance ride qualities. 853 is hard to shape.. that is why Lemond bikes that are listed as the 853 Pro frames are actually only 853 front triangles with the seat and chain stays being 725 with a slightly triangular shape to them. It would be much more difficult to shape an 853 tube to the semi-triangular shape of the chain stays that you can make with 725. So for Ti bikes you can ovalize the tubes at the head and seat tubes to give better ride qualities and help stiffen those areas. With 853, you only use a round tube, so you need to manipulate the butt to help stiffen those areas. So to stiffen the area, you use thicker steel. Thicker means more material which adds weight. I could be wrong, but I have never yet seen a bi-conical ovalized 853 downtube yet. So that is one area where Ti and aluminum have advantages.
> 
> ...


Thanks Russ for the info on 853 tubing. I figured 853 was limited to plain round tubing. Most of the bargain priced frames I see use the "853" as a strong selling point, but, they are all tig welded, and sometimes with silver solder around the joints to make them pretty. I have a nice 853 frame with carbon fork, semi-sloping top tube that rides really well. I can release the handle bars most of the time with out having to give the bike any "hip-english". Haven't tried releasing the bars during a down hill bombing run nor will I anytime soon. Always good to hear info on the steel you're riding. I have a custom Henry James lugged frame made out of SLX tubing, rides vey well also. I notice a trend towards higher bottom bracket heights on the compact frames, must be to increase speed around fast cornering. My 853 road bike has a higher bottom bracket than a really good quality Italian road bike and it corners like it's on rails. I mean this in a good way. I would say it is a little bit twitchy but nothing radical. The more I ride it the more I love it. Steel is real. Thanks again for the history.


----------

