Fw: [Classicrendezvous] Re: [thin-walled frame tubing)

(Example: Framebuilders:Alberto Masi)

From: "Peter" <prkbikes@erols.com>
To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: Fw: [Classicrendezvous] Re: [thin-walled frame tubing)
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:12:40 -0400


-----Original Message----- From: Peter <prkbikes@erols.com> To: Jerry Moos <moos@penn.com> Date: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 10:12 AM Subject: Re: [Classicrendezvous] Re: [thin-walled frame tubing)


>The only difference between TSX and SLX (according to John Hollands, Master
>Framebuilder) is that TSX utilized a heat treated down tube in the set.
>
>Peter Koskinen
>Rainy Mayo MD.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jerry Moos <moos@penn.com>
>To: Hilary Stone <Hilary.Stone@Tesco.net>
>Cc: gregparker1 <GregParker1@compuserve.com>; richard m. sachs
><richardsachs@juno.com>; classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
><classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
>Date: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 8:47 AM
>Subject: [Classicrendezvous] Re: [thin-walled frame tubing)
>
>
>>Do you know the wall thicknesses of the other current Reynolds tubesets?
>Did I
>>understand someone to say that Columbus SL was 0.9/0.6/0.9? Anyone know
>the
>>thickness of SLX or TSX? The Columbus site no longer lists them.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Jerry Moos
>>
>>Hilary Stone wrote:
>>
>>> It must be remembered that 531SL and its successor 531 Pro had the same
>wall
>>> thickness tubing as 753R but in lower strength 531 steel alloy. 653 also
>>> featured the same wall thickness tubing but with slightly enhanced
>strength
>>> main tubes and 753 rear chain and seatstays. These needed to be silver
>>> soldered to retain their strength. I know of one small factory that had
>>> repeated problems with cracking chainstays on 653 frames. They were using
>a
>>> lot of heat input with brass and cold setting them big time!
>>> 753 makes for a very reliable frameset as long as it is carefully
>built
>>> with silver solder. Many of the other thin wall sets ­ Columbus EL for
>>> example are also very reliable.
>>> Hilary Stone
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Jerry Moos wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Heat-treated or no, I think 753 and other thin-walled tubeset are just
>too
>>> > thin. The simple fact may be that 531 or maybe 531SL along with
>Columbus
>>> > SL represented the best compromise between lightness and durability.
>>>
>>> Greg Parker added:
>>> >
>>> > Now, I gotta say that the early 753 tubing is just so darn cool for a
>light
>>> weight
>>> > spinner such as myself that I find it just about perfect for many
>rides. I
>>> > did admit
>>> > in an earlier post that I agree with the conventional wisdom of the
>early
>>> > 80's that felt
>>> > that 753 was right at the edge of usability given the metallurgy and
>>> > tubing diameters of
>>> > that period. I certainly have a subjective opinion here, as my 1979
>>> > Raleigh Team Pro 753
>>> > has served me well for 20+ years and thousands and thousands of miles.