Any chance of seeing a Reynolds 953 Serotta someday?

[DRZRM]

So after drooling over Jack's new sub 15 lbs. IF Crown Jewel (I'm still excited that I can type that word here now...jewel, jewel, jewel, thanks Pete) and doing some reading on these new stainless steel tube sets, I'm pretty excited about a light, strong, steel frame that will not rust. Sounds as good as Ti, and I have to admit, I really liked the ride quality of steel back when I had a early 90s Pinarello SLX. I bought my Legend because it was the Ti bike that best emulated the ride quality of steel.

So I have to ask the good folks at Serotta if there is any planning for the use of this material here. If you are taking suggestions, I'd offer two thumbs up!!

:banana: :banana:

[Steelhead]

Isn't a Crown Jewel made of Ti? I thought the 953 stainless model from IF was the Facroty Lightweight?

[swoop]

i think the $5k sub 1000 gram wheels go a long way to the weight of the bike.

[DRZRM]

The Crown Jewel is offered in Steel and Ti, you are right that the stainless frame is a different model, the SSR (I assume Stainless Steel Reynolds). I only first saw Jack Brunk's new frame, and thought I remembered that it was a Crown Jewel, but when I go back to the original post that got me thinking about this, I realize he does not name it at all.

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=42092

[Steelhead]

The Crown Jewel is offered in Steel and Ti, you are right that the stainless frame is a different model, the SSR (I assume Stainless Steel Reynolds). I only first saw Jack Brunk's new frame, and thought I remembered that it was a Crown Jewel, but when I go back to the original post that got me thinking about this, I realize he does not name it at all.

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=42092

Ti. Check the rear end. :)

[DRZRM]

Granted, but even with those wheels, there are not too many steel bikes that come in under 15 lbs (I don't think), and there are some of us who just don't feel any connection with carbon. I'm not sure I'd drop the $ on a SS frame, but I imagine it's price point would seem much more realistic than a new Meivici.

Edit: Oh, I also don't have any need for or interest in a 15 lbs. bike, I'm not a weight weenie (I'm 6'3" and 220), if I were specking such a frame I'd go for a MUCH stiffer build that Jack would, I'm just saying it seems like a very interesting material.

i think the $5k sub 1000 gram wheels go a long way to the weight of the bike.

Not much more to say Marco as this new steel rides more and more like really good carbon at a much better price point. I can build a sub 15lb bike for almost the same cost as a Meivici frame and fork. So far there haven't been too many sub 15lb Meivici's on the forum. this stainless steel seems really top notch. It's going on a climbing run this weekend so a more all around ride report will follow.

[Boundgear]

Igleheart 953 stainless frames start at 2800. And that is full custom and local.

[DRZRM]

That's unpainted stainless not ti, that's why I'm interested, no corrosion (unless I am misunderstanding Jack's post).

Ti. Check the rear end. :)

[David Kirk]

I have no insider info on this so take it with a huge grain of salt. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a 953 Serotta. I doubt they will move away from their tapered Colorado tubing and I don't know if the process used to make the 953 main tubes would lend itself well to making a tapered tube.

Serotta Pete?

Dave

[corky]

My IF 953 has tapered chainstays........

oh and it says Crown Jewel on the left chainstay, newer ones say SSR. I think the seatstays are very slightly tapered too, main tubes are not.

[David Kirk]

My IF 953 has tapered chainstays........

oh and it says Crown Jewel on the left chainstay, newer ones say SSR. I think the seatstays are very slightly tapered too, main tubes are not.

They use a different process to make the different tubes due to the uber thin walls on the main tubes.

dave

[bleusky]

I have no insider info on this so take it with a huge grain of salt. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a 953 Serotta. I doubt they will move away from their tapered Colorado tubing and I don't know if the process used to make the 953 main tubes would lend itself well to making a tapered tube.

Serotta Pete?

Dave

I agree with Dave, plus look at the investment in the carbon facility Serotta has made in the past year

[Pete Serotta]

I agree with Dave and also have no inside info. Just my thoughts....now going for a ride on my Steel bike (where are you SMILEY)


I have no insider info on this so take it with a huge grain of salt. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a 953 Serotta. I doubt they will move away from their tapered Colorado tubing and I don't know if the process used to make the 953 main tubes would lend itself well to making a tapered tube.

Serotta Pete?

Dave

[DRZRM]

Well sure, I'm not trying to suggest that 953 would replace carbon, just that those of us who really like steel, might be willing to drop a big chunk of coin on a new "lifetime" frame. It may be a nice alternative to Ti at a slightly lower pricepoint.

Ingeheart and IF...I'm liking MA more and more.

I agree with Dave, plus look at the investment in the carbon facility Serotta has made in the past year

[rphetteplace]

I would call the smartest man in cycling Mr. Carl Strong and get his $.02 about 953

[Brian Smith]

I have no insider info on this so take it with a huge grain of salt. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a 953 Serotta. I doubt they will move away from their tapered Colorado tubing and I don't know if the process used to make the 953 main tubes would lend itself well to making a tapered tube.

Serotta Pete?

Dave

AFAIK - They can do 953 tubes for Serotta in tapered-diameter shaped main tubes, but we don't want it.

corky - the seatstays weren't made from the 953 alloy but instead from a good normal stainless alloy. The chainstays are 953.

Serotta steel bikes have always been about the best possible set of tube design compromises, not simply those that produce the lightest possible frame. Why decrease the overall performance and value of the frame in order to achieve simply a lighter frame, when other materials Serotta already does a good job using are being built into lighter frames already?



Among those building with the available 953 products, is there anyone who has been doing cycle (fatigue) testing with any near-scientific approach? Serotta does this kind of thing before releasing any new class of product. Some other companies might be willing to put your butt on the line in order for themselves to seem more avant-garde than they really are.

[DRZRM]

I don't disagree. That's why I'd like to see Serotta throw their hats in the ring. I'm likely to wait a while on new material, and if Serotta tested and used it, I'd be more inclined to try it out. I also would not expect Serotta to simply make the lightest bike they could, but the best engineered. That's why I asked if it was something being considered.

AFAIK - They can do 953 tubes for Serotta in tapered-diameter shaped main tubes, but we don't want it.

corky - the seatstays weren't made from the 953 alloy but instead from a good normal stainless alloy. The chainstays are 953.

Serotta steel bikes have always been about the best possible set of tube design compromises, not simply those that produce the lightest possible frame. Why decrease the overall performance and value of the frame in order to achieve simply a lighter frame, when other materials Serotta already does a good job using are being built into lighter frames already?



Among those building with the available 953 products, is there anyone who has been doing cycle (fatigue) testing with any near-scientific approach? Serotta does this kind of thing before releasing any new class of product. Some other companies might be willing to put your butt on the line in order for themselves to seem more avant-garde than they really are.

[Blue Jays]

See below:

"...It is very unlikely that we will be building with 953. Below, please fine a few reasons that apply to us, although not to all other builders;

Although the 953 main tubes are drawn in reasonable gauges and butt lengths for a significant portion of our custom customers, We can get non-953 tubing that will replicate the weight and feel of those tubes on almost any street corner.

The 953 chain stays and seat stays are not as good (functionally) as the ones that we do use. Our chain stays are custom-drawn Reynolds 531 stays that we had them mill for us a number of years ago. There simply aren't any other steel chain stays out there that work as well in the real world.

The fact that 953 is practically stainless steel really does nothing for us. Since we don't weld our frames, we still would have the problem of corroding silver solder and bronze on our frames if we didn't paint them.

Along with the issue of the molecular structure of 953...it IS very strong stuff. In the real world of bicycles, the only advantage that 953 gives a rider is that it will hold up better in a crash than most other tubing...all other things being equal. There is the crux of the issue. Since 953 is really very thin tubing, it is tough for its weight, but it is not very tough.

And of course, that means that is does not make a very rigid frame. For its weight it feels just like any other steel frame, but it does not work as well as most steel frames that might be a couple of ounces heavier.

I guess that I am just too practical..."

[David Kirk]

AFAIK - They can do 953 tubes for Serotta in tapered-diameter shaped main tubes, but we don't want it.



Eggsellent.

Have you had any colorado 953 tubes drawn to play with?


Dave

[Jack Brunk]

Hey the stuff works really well. If builders want to use it it's cool and the other builders who don't well that's cool too. To each their own. I like choices in materials. I've now decided on what I'm taking to Italy because of choices.