fish@ihlpg.UUCP (Bob Fishell) (09/26/85)
*** AC T YOUR AGE *** I just bought a Trek frame made of Reynolds 531 tubes. It's really light despite its 25.5" size. I'm now anxiously awaiting the arrival of the rest of the stuff I need to make a bike out of it. It has Campy dropouts front and rear, investment cast lugs and BB shell, and a 39.5" wheelbase. 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. __ / \ \__/ Bob Fishell ihnp4!ihlpg!fish
leimkuhl@uiucdcsp.CS.UIUC.EDU (09/26/85)
I've got two 531 frames (with a third on order). I love them. 531 frames are very stiff and very durable, and your's is probably guaranteed by the shop you bought it from or by TREK or by Reynolds for life against breakage in normal use. (These guarantees are usually implicit, just try the shop and then write the company if it breaks.) Both my Holdsworth and my Puch are guaranteed like this. The new Treks have investment cast lugs which probably means your frame is very well alligned and very stiff. Congratulations! You're going to love that bike. -Ben Leimkuhler
reintom@rocky2.UUCP (Tom Reingold) (09/29/85)
> 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. You'll find that your new bike will ride better than you ever imagined a bike could. It is also tremendously stronger than bikes made with cheap carbon-steel tubes. Anyone who has tried to straighten both carbon-steel tubes and Reynolds tubes will quickly agree -- Reynolds is incredibly strong. Reynolds tubes are also more durable than cheaper tubes under normal riding conditions. This means under conditions under which a bike is intended to be ridden. It will handle bumps, potholes, sprints, not-too-severe front-end collisions, and many other things better. The only thing is less resistant to is dents, especially in the middle of the tubes. This is because the Reynolds are thinner than the cheaper ones. Tom Reingold 36 Ellwood St New York, NY 10040 (212) 304-2504 [home]
jans@orca.UUCP (Jan Steinman) (09/30/85)
Uh, do they last any longer than thorn-proof? (I am really very, very sorry for posting this! :-) -- :::::: Artificial Intelligence Machines --- Smalltalk Project :::::: :::::: Jan Steinman Box 1000, MS 61-405 (w)503/685-2956 :::::: :::::: tektronix!tekecs!jans Wilsonville, OR 97070 (h)503/657-7703 ::::::
fred@varian.UUCP (Fred Klink) (10/03/85)
> 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".