Jerry Moos wrote at 10/17/00 9:28 AM:
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. What we have seen since is tubes that are made too thin, then hardened in some way to try to compensate for being too thin in the first place. I'm not convinced that there has been any real metallurgical advance which has really allowed a lower weight than 531 or Columbus SL without some undesirable tradeoff. To the extent modern steel frames are significantly lighter, it is less because of technical advances than because the public is willing to accept them as a throway item like modern aluminum frames, to be used 2 or 3 seasons, then discarded. It's perhaps not surprising that a public which trades in automobiles every two or three years will no longer expect that a bicycle last a lifetime.
<snip>
Jerry, you make some good points about our unfortunate tendency to throw things away in our modern, whiz-bang society. That's why I like being a retro-grouch in some ways; we're reducing the landfill masses' increases in size. But for the record, I believe the average person is keeping his or her (purchased) car longer than he or she did in the past....
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.
Anyone want to get rid of a 50 cm (wife's size) or 60 cm (le mien) c-t early 753 frameset?
I'd be happy to help reduce someone's inventory!
A bientot,
Greg "why am I using French here anyways?" Parker