Reynolds 953 - Does it Exist??

[Tommasini53]

:confused: About 18 months ago I read reviews of this great new steel tubing by Reynolds. It was called 953. Supposedly you could build a frame that was comparable in weight to anything built with ti.

So its been 18 months and I really have not heard anything more about it. Does this stuff really exist?? Any chance Serotta would be using it in the near future?? :confused:

[MRB]

I have no idea if Serotta will offer it as an option, but I think it exists as it is listed as an option on Carl Strong's site. In my opinion Carl is a tried-and-true builder who would not offer vapor tubes. See for yourself at
www. strongframes.com

HTH,

JA

[Steve Hampsten]

It may exist in terms of a few tubes somewhere but other than a frame at Fairing I didn't see a 953 frame at Interbike. Someone said there was a 953 frame at IF - if so, I missed it.

The guys at Fairing sort of rolled their eyes and mumbled about "production issues" when I brought up the subject, which makes me a little sceptical/pessimistic.

I predict a whole slew of headaches working with this stuff but we'll find out soon - or not.

[Marcusaurelius]

I recall reading somewhere it was going to very expensive--close to the cost of titanium. I thought it might be slightly more than 853 but the article said it was going to much higher.

[David Kirk]

I know Carl has been shipping 953.

Dave

[Marburg]

I saw the IF 953 bike at NAHBS. Thus far, then, we can confirm that Dario, and IF have touched the stuff?


Walt over at Waltworks (29-inch MTB builder) has started a blog about the new 953-Metax-Stainless bastadbike he's got planned. I believe he's ordered his tubes.

http://www.waltworks.com/dev/blog/953.php

Uh, looks like Bob Brown has some too. Cool!

http://www.bobbrowncycles.blogspot.com/

[froze]

:confused: About 18 months ago I read reviews of this great new steel tubing by Reynolds. It was called 953. Supposedly you could build a frame that was comparable in weight to anything built with ti.

So its been 18 months and I really have not heard anything more about it. Does this stuff really exist?? Any chance Serotta would be using it in the near future?? :confused:

Yes the 953 is real and official and in production. http://www.reynoldscycles.co.uk/steel953.html

[guyintense]

I saw the IF 953 bike at NAHBS. Thus far, then, we can confirm that Dario, and IF have touched the stuff?


Walt over at Waltworks (29-inch MTB builder) has started a blog about the new 953-Metax-Stainless bastadbike he's got planned. I believe he's ordered his tubes.

http://www.waltworks.com/dev/blog/953.php

Uh, looks like Bob Brown has some too. Cool!

http://www.bobbrowncycles.blogspot.com/


Waterford had a lugged frame and fork in 953 at interbike, all polished and pretty. Course it was covered in finger prints when I saw it.

[alancw3]

all very interesting. i am going to check the bob jackson website also. they have a history of working very closely with reynolds, having built the first show bike in 753 for reynolds and being the first certified welder of that excellent but hard to work with material.

[amg]

I have heard that 953 is very difficult to work with in terms of cutting it and welding it.

Antonio

[Climb01742]

dario isn't using 953. his SS comes from another source.

[alancw3]

per the reynolds website it doew exist!

http://www.reynoldscycles.co.uk/steel953.html

[alancw3]

when reading the reynolds description of 953 i think it is interesting to note that they mention it can be used in lugged frames. wow! a lugged stainless steel frame. that could be a pure work of art par excellant.

[catulle]

A low density thin steel tube is what the world needs, atmo. If it is Columbus so much the better.

[Tom Kellogg]

This won’t be much help, but I’ll post it anyway...

The actual steel which goes into the 953 tubing was developed by and is made by Carpenter Technologies of Reading, Pa. They were the ones that came up with Aer-Met a while ago. Of course, it is Reynolds who actually draws the tubing and heat treats it. Merlin got Reynolds to supply then with some 953 a few months ago. Because they have the capacity to manipulate really tough tubing (read 6/4) they were able to create a tube set which would in theory mimic their CR-3/2.5 tube set. I can’t report on whether they were successful since that prototype is not done bench testing yet. I should be riding it in another month or so. Once Merlin was done with the tubing, it ended up looking exactly like a Merlin CR tube set, so this should be a fun comparison.

[alancw3]

i think carl strong gives a great take on 953 on his website.

http://www.strongframes.com/#area_1

this just about says it all!!

[catulle]

This won’t be much help, but I’ll post it anyway...

The actual steel which goes into the 953 tubing was developed by and is made by Carpenter Technologies of Reading, Pa. They were the ones that came up with Aer-Met a while ago. Of course, it is Reynolds who actually draws the tubing and heat treats it. Merlin got Reynolds to supply then with some 953 a few months ago. Because they have the capacity to manipulate really tough tubing (read 6/4) they were able to create a tube set which would in theory mimic their CR-3/2.5 tube set. I can’t report on whether they were successful since that prototype is not done bench testing yet. I should be riding it in another month or so. Once Merlin was done with the tubing, it ended up looking exactly like a Merlin CR tube set, so this should be a fun comparison.

I like your posts better than college. Thank you. And I have a question: If I want a light weight frame with thin tubes (in diameter, like in the old times), what would be the ideal tube for it? Again, thank you.

[davyt]

dario isn't using 953. his SS comes from another source.

Right, it's from Columbus and is called XCr. You can read a little more about it here (http://www.bikelugs.com/XCR.pdf).
--
Davy

[manet]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kellogg
This won’t be much help, but I’ll post it anyway...

The actual steel which goes into the 953 tubing was developed by and is made by Carpenter Technologies of Reading, Pa. They were the ones that came up with Aer-Met a while ago. Of course, it is Reynolds who actually draws the tubing and heat treats it. Merlin got Reynolds to supply then with some 953 a few months ago. Because they have the capacity to manipulate really tough tubing (read 6/4) they were able to create a tube set which would in theory mimic their CR-3/2.5 tube set. I can’t report on whether they were successful since that prototype is not done bench testing yet. I should be riding it in another month or so. Once Merlin was done with the tubing, it ended up looking exactly like a Merlin CR tube set, so this should be a fun comparison.


I like your posts better than college. Thank you. And I have a question: If I want a light weight frame with thin tubes (in diameter, like in the old times), what would be the ideal tube for it? Again, thank you.

see the man:


http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e61/easterncaster/IMG_3028.jpg

[Tom Kellogg]

I like your posts better than college. Thank you. And I have a question: If I want a light weight frame with thin tubes (in diameter, like in the old times), what would be the ideal tube for it? Again, thank you.

Since all, ALL, steel has the same stiffness numbers whether it is high end stuff or just soft 1020 steel, the properties that you want to look at are the yield strength and fatigue properties. Whether you build your new (old style) frame out of 1020 steel or 953 steel, as long as the diameters and gauges are the same, the frames will perform the same until the first crash. Having said that, the conclusion:

In order to have a reasonably reliable frame, almost any decent traditional steel bicycle tubing will do just fine. Since you want a “traditional” look, you are likely talking about main tubes of 1.125" or less. Steel is the only metal that will give you enough stiffness in those diameters, simple as that. In those diameters and gauges, a steel frame that is not too heavy (read butted numbers of .9-.6-.9 and less) is your only concern. As I said before, yield and fatigue strengths are less critical since you are talking about tubing that has somewhat high gauge numbers. Do you remember the Columbus “ELOS” tubing that many folks used. That was essentially, the same alloy and heat treatment that we had with SL and SP, but the tubing was thinner and much more prone to buckling during crashes. The higher yield strength tubing that is more common now largely gets around that problem BUT in order to make a frame with that thinner tubing, you can’t make it with small diameter tubes. Boy, I’m not being very clear here. The New England / Miami game is distracting me. Hope I was at least a little help.

[AgilisMerlin]

so what is exactly the benefit of stainless over Ti ? Less flexy, stiffer bottom bracket ? Or just the age old concept that what is new is better' ?


It cannot be the sole fact that it buffs up pretty well ! Why didn't Metax take off.............as a standard for steel, and how is this different beyond the fact that it is lighter?


My brain cannot rap around the reasoning on this tubeset.


AmerliN

[Tom Kellogg]

The fact that 953 is stainless has no effect on the weight, stiffness or anything else except that you don’t have to paint it. The trick with 953 is that it CAN be heat treated so that it’s yield strength is super high. That enables a builder to, in theory, use very thin tubes and consequently somewhat larger diameter tubes to make a frame that is really very light for steel. The numbers, if you run them, get you pretty close to what you can do with titanium. That begs the obvious question...

We won’t have a clear idea for another month or so, at least.

-Please remember; a cubic centimeter of 953 weighs exactly the same as a cubic centimeter of junk 1020 steel. 953 is NOT a lighter material than any other steel.

-953 is a potentially a stronger steel than all the other stuff out there. With good engineering and design, that SHOULD enable Reynolds and the builders to make a very light steel frame set. Very close to Ti.