RE: [CR]953 touring vs randonneur


From: "Robert D. Dayton,Jr." <rdayton@carolina.rr.com>
To: <hersefan@comcast.net>, <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: RE: [CR]953 touring vs randonneur
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:46:11 -0400
In-reply-to: <101020062332.10343.452C2DA2000ACC3F000028672200761064020E000A9C9D0A08@comcast.net>
Thread-Index: AcbsxHBkd9gR2UlrTpqGqOjVw+PM7QAASGog


The biggest advantage of 953 for Rando is it doesn't rust. The randonneurs I know ride thru anything, anytime, anywhere. Or maybe better stated is a disadvantage of steel is it rusts.

Rob Dayton Charlotte,NC USA

-----Original Message----- From: classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org [mailto:classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org] On Behalf Of hersefan@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 7:33 PM To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Subject: Re: [CR]953 touring vs randonneur

I appologize for not following all the thread, so I hope I'm not repeating anything.

Many folks confuse randonneur bikes with touring bikes. Randonneur bikes have lighting, typically a front rack, and fenders. These machines do not carry much weight other than a handlebar bag, so these bikes can be built increadibly light - comfort is key. So while the bike looks touring in nature, it can take advantage of super light tube guages. Randonneur bikes in the past on occasion used super thin tubes (3/10 in the middle sections) and many had a great super lively ride. The downside to these machines is that such thin tubes dent quite easily.

But, using modern materials with higher tensile and yield strength, thin tubes can be far more robust. That allows for very light guage frames that make much more sense. Mike Kone in Boulder CO


-------------- Original message --------------
From: Jonathanadamgree@aol.com


>
> Jerry,
>
> For practical purposes the difference between 953 and metax is that 953 is
> able to be made in incredible thin tube wall #'s. Engineers may find interest
> in other differences also.
>
> Someone mentioned last week that 953 may be good for touring frames. I think
> that 953 at best is a solution for a problem that does not exist with
> touring frames(or many frames for that matter), and maybe not really suitable
> at
> all for that kind of bike.
>
> Jonathan Greene
> Oviedo FL
>
>
> In a message dated 10/9/2006 9:22:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net writes:
>
> And how is 953 different from the old Columbus stainless, Metax I believe it
> was?
>
> REgards,
>
> Jerry Moos
> Big Spring, Republic of Texas