Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site varian.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!zehntel!zinfandel!varian!fred
From: fred@varian.UUCP (Fred Klink)
Newsgroups: net.bicycle
Subject: Re: Reynolds 531 Tubes
Message-ID: <377@varian.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 3-Oct-85 14:21:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: varian.377
Posted: Thu Oct  3 14:21:09 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 7-Oct-85 05:48:29 EDT
References: <1304@ihlpg.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Varian, Walnut Creek, CA
Lines: 34

> Does anybody out there have experience with Reynolds 531 bikes?  I'd
> particularly like to know how much punishment the frame will take,
> how it rides, and whether there are any special problems I should be
> aware of.

Reynold's 531 (chrom-moly steel) was the standard (along with Columbus
tube for Italian bikes), for racing bicycles until about 1979 when
Reynold's came up with an improved steel called 753.  Columbus has
also introduced some new tubing types, e.g. SL and SLX.  These new
tubes came out mainly to build even lighter, more rigid racing bikes,
not because 531 was inadequate.

For the average user (I've heard), 531 is still superior to 753 because
its more forgiving to being bent and straightened.  I've ridden 531 bikes
for a dozen years and never had any material problems.  In fact, one frame
was trashed and severely bent by a car.  I've since had it straightened
and, while I wouldn't sprint it uphill on the big ring, it's still a 
very functional frame.  I think you'll find your 531 frame to be an all-
around great bike, especially if you're graduating from a straight-gauge
steel frame.

Another note:  there's a myth, among racers at least, that after a couple
of seasons a steel frame is "thrashed", i.e. turned into a soft, whippy
noodle by the powerful legs of the rider.  I'm not a metalurgical engineer,
but some I know and respect (like my dad), tell me this is patent garbage.
Chrom-moly steel either bends, breaks or stays the same but it certainly
doesn't soften (more correctly, lose rigidity).  My theory is that for the
last many dozens of years frame material and/or design improves every two
to three years to the point where a new frame performs better than an old
one, not due to failure of the old one but due to improved design character-
istics of the new ones.  Therefore, you test ride a new frame and it appears
that your old one has gone south.  This myth does have one useful purpose:
its easier to justify a new frame to yourself (and your spouse), on the
basis of the old one having "gone bad" than of the new ones being "better".