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


Example: History:Ted Ernst

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:52:04 +0100
From: "Hilary Stone" <Hilary.Stone@Tesco.net>
To: gregparker1 <GregParker1@compuserve.com>, Jerry Moos <moos@penn.com>
CC: "richard m. sachs" <richardsachs@juno.com>, classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Subject: [Classicrendezvous] Re: [thin-walled frame tubing)

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.