Re: [CR]More on that Maclean ID, Norris's reminiscences, and 531 tubing

(Example: Framebuilding:Tubing)

Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 22:26:53 +0100
Subject: Re: [CR]More on that Maclean ID, Norris's reminiscences, and 531 tubing
From: "Hilary Stone" <hilary.stone@blueyonder.co.uk>
To: NIGEL LAND <ndland@btinternet.com>, <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
In-Reply-To: <00b601c69208$b1caf620$945e8351@com>
cc: Peter Brown <peterg.brown@ntlworld.com>

I think the only evidence one can reasonably rely on when researching cycles is contemporary - in the case of HM tubing Reynolds cannot even make their own minds up about the date when they started it. I have now with the help of another V-CC member who has a complete set of Cycling magazines - I was one year out with the aanouncement in Cycling. Cycling November 27th 1931 carries a full article on Reynolds by HH (H H England). There is no mention of HM tubing in Autumn 1930 (the show season). It states that Reynolds had been carrying out road tests of frames built with High Manganese tubing. It also mentions that tests were being carried out with frames built with 20/25g fork blades, 24g chain stays and 26g seatstays combined with 1in top tubes and 1 1/8in down and seat tubes with 22/28g and 22/26g wall thicknesses. Certainly a check of lightweight builders catalogues reveals that frames built with HM tubing were widely available in 1932 from Carpenter, Claud Butler and Merlin at the very least.

Hilary Stone, Bristol, England


> From: "NIGEL LAND" <ndland@btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: NIGEL LAND <ndland@btinternet.com>
> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 13:21:24 +0100
> To: <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> Cc: Peter Brown <peterg.brown@ntlworld.com>
> Subject: [CR]More on that Maclean ID, Norris's reminiscences, and 531 tubing
>
> Peter, after a little searching I have found a c 1970 Reynolds catalogue,
> which gives gauges foir different frame sets. Bill Hurlow's choice is
> remarkably close to a 531 Professional tube set. Bill's tube thicknesses
> are:
> seat tube 21/24: .81mm/.55mm
> downtube 20/23: .91/.61mm
> top tube 22/24: .71/.55mm
>
> So the stiffest tube is, as one would expect, the downtube. The plain
> lengths of the seat and top tube are the same with thicker butted sections
> for the more highly stressed seat tube. Ignoring the butted weight
> difference that makes the downtube roughly 10% heavier for a given length
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> Norris also writes of builders selecting their tubes with lightness in
> mind.
> Bill Hurlow told me the tubes he would have used for my 1959 Hurlow time
> trial frame, which were 21/24 gauge seat tube, 20/23 gauge down tube,
> and
> 22/24 gauge top tube. Does anyone know just how much difference there
> was
> in weight between these different gauges?
>
> Peter Brown, Lincolnshire, England
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------
> Back to dates of introduction I have another Reynolds catalogue that states
> '1930 "531" brand introduced'
> This is clearly incorrect and I suggest that all such statements should be
> treated with caution. A 1944 Cycling ad that I got from Mick Butler states:
> 1925-1929 Intensive development of special steels for cycle construction
> 1929 HM Steel introduced
> 1933 Light Alloy development
> 1935 531 Steel introduced
>
> However, according to the following Reynolds history website HM was
> introduced in 1924, and specifies cycle use. So, as with all research,
> beware single source information and avoid categoric statements, unless you
> enjoy being shot down. The only exception I would make to this rule is my
> own birthdate and even then, I like to have my birth certificate on hand!
> http://web.archive.org/web/19980109144634/reynoldsusa.com/history/history.html

>

> Nigel Land

> North Lincs

> UK