# Reynolds 531??



## Ride-Fly (Mar 27, 2002)

What are you thoughts? A venerable quality steel or long past it's prime? I know it can't compare to some of the new steels from Deda or Columbus or True Temper. I read a few posts where some folks were puking at the thought of 531. But it seems that a lot of classic Rando, touring, and clubman racers use 531 and sing its praises. 

So, is it crap or still relevant good shyzza?


----------



## headloss (Mar 3, 2013)

"puking?" sounds lame... I would never trust the opinion of anyone who talks like that.

It's not the latest and greatest, but it isn't the steel used for toy-bicycles either.

All you will likely notice from higher grades of steel is weight reduction, from 531 on up. Just be sure that the frame you are looking at is FULL 531 and not just a 531 main triangle with some cheap chain/seat stays. 

Is 531 better than the average modern house-brand cromoly? No clue, but I kind of doubt it. It's heads&shoulders above a lot of old steel bikes that you might find on CL/fleabay.


----------



## Ride-Fly (Mar 27, 2002)

headloss said:


> "puking?" sounds lame... I would never trust the opinion of anyone who talks like that.
> 
> It's not the latest and greatest, but it isn't the steel used for toy-bicycles either.
> 
> ...



"Puking" was my liberal interpretation.  

I was kind of wondering if touring bikes were preferred to be of 531. Maybe thinking that 531 offered a bit more durability than say Nemo, 16.5, etc. 

Good point about ensuring all tubes are 531. Thanks.


----------



## Peter P. (Dec 30, 2006)

headloss said:


> Just be sure that the frame you are looking at is FULL 531 and not just a 531 main triangle with some cheap chain/seat stays.


Hey; I take offense at that remark! 

For 28 years I rode a Trek 660 frame: Reynolds 531 main tubes with a Tange #2 fork and rear stays. Raced it Cat. 3 for 11 years. It certainly didn't hold me back. It finally died in the fall of 2012.

I doubt any riders could tell the difference between 531 and it's then closest competitor, Columbus SL. I think the only reason 531 is used in "classic Rando, touring, and clubman racers" is for that "vintage thang". Technology has improved such that you can get a lighter, stiffer, and stronger frame at a similar price point of 531.

Reynolds 531 and it's competitors of the time such as Tange #2 and Columbus SL have been replaced because the aforementioned tubes were not suitable for the higher heat of TIG welding and some were not available in oversized configurations.

The OS tubing of today will net you a slightly lighter frame which is also stiffer (not that stiffer is always better, mind you), and hopefully offers the same longevity. Reynolds offers tubes today that are at a similar performance level as 531 but are oversized and TIG weldable.

This Wikipedia chart of Reynolds tubing shows all their offerings with the lowest strength steels at the top.


----------



## paredown (Oct 18, 2006)

I think some of the obsession with stiffness has caused some collective amnesia about the merits of a frame that has some spring or snap to it. Yes you can stand up on a typical 531 frame and flex the stays enough to cause wheel rub--so by that measure it is not stiff. If you are a fit racer who can put out a consistent 300 watts racing crits it is not the tubing of choice and hasn't been for some time.

Still though it is responsive, reasonably light built up, and relatively strong. It is also more dent resistant because of its typical wall thickness--not a bad thing for a touring frame. My Mercian Audax is from the early 90s, built up with 531c and it is a fine frame, that has no dents after years of use, whereas my El-OS Concorde and my 3v are both dented to heck... And the 'C' variant of 531 was one of the thinner sets.

The other thing that has happened is that a lot more Clydesdales are getting into the sport--and stiffer (and stronger) tubing sets than 531 may be what they need. But even then I suspect that a lot of large casual riders who complain about frame flex are mashers, and would do well to learn better style. And I have not seen or heard of many frames failing because of raw force--usually accident, or improper construction.


----------



## bradkay (Nov 5, 2013)

The bikes I toured on for two decades were Reynolds 531 throughout. I loved those bikes (the first was destroyed in a collision with a left turning car, the second was stolen and the third one sits in my garage) - they were light, responsive and predictable. The new production touring bikes (most noticeably Long Haul Trucker and the new Trek 520) are substantially heavier than the old ones - the new 520 weighs almost 5 pounds heavier - and that is with 32 spoke wheels instead of the 36 spoke ones of my old classics. 

Some people think that a touring bike made with Reynolds 531 is too weak for touring but that is only if you are thinking of touring to Tierra Del Fuego or through Afghanistan, etc. For road touring in the US, Canada or Western Europe I find that the old frames were absolutely wonderful - and I generally had mine heavily loaded with 40-50 pounds of gear. That still didn't stop me from descending passes in the Rockies at up to 47mph. Okay, I do need to point out that I am a spinner, not a masher...


----------



## headloss (Mar 3, 2013)

Peter P. said:


> Hey; I take offense at that remark!


It was directed at Bikes Direct, in particular. Not to mention, the modern Reynolds 531 is being contracted out to Asian steel producers anyways. Is all 531 equal? *shrugs* At least Tange is a respected brand.


----------



## Ride-Fly (Mar 27, 2002)

paredown said:


> whereas my El-OS Concorde and my 3v are both *dented to heck*... And the 'C' variant of 531 was one of the thinner sets.


that sucks bro! 



bradkay said:


> Some people think that a touring bike made with Reynolds 531 is too weak for touring but that is only if you are thinking of touring to Tierra Del Fuego or through Afghanistan, etc. For road touring in the US, Canada or Western Europe I find that the old frames were absolutely wonderful - and I generally had mine heavily loaded with 40-50 pounds of gear. That still didn't stop me from descending passes in the Rockies at up to 47mph. Okay, I do need to point out that I am a spinner, not a masher...


The bike I'm looking at is an urban clubman so it might be the perfect steel for its purposes.




Peter P. said:


> Hey; I take offense at that remark!
> 
> For 28 years I rode a Trek 660 frame: Reynolds 531 main tubes with a Tange #2 fork and rear stays. Raced it Cat. 3 for 11 years. It certainly didn't hold me back. It finally died in the fall of 2012.
> 
> ...


Good hogue and thanks for the wiki link on Reynolds!0


----------

