Joined
·
8,173 Posts
Reynolds 653 tubing. I got interested because I have seen a frame.
There appear to be two stories out there. No direct confirmation is available on the Reynolds site.
One is that 653 was a compromise/combination tube set, most recently cited by Scooper in this thread on RBR. Thus a 653 frame was essentially a combination of "753 stays with 531 main tubes and forks. The 531 used was a thinner gauge than usual produced specifically for use in the 653 set."
The second is that 653 is in essence 753 tubing, but not hardened to the same degree, & thus was able to be brazed rather than silver soldered. [And tigg'ed as apparently some early Surly Crosschecks were...]
For the first, Scooper provides a link to a posting on Jim Langley's cycling blog about the genesis of 653, which cites a letter from Reynolds that the tubing was manufactured at the instigation of Merckx, to provide more comfort than an all-753 frame. This story appears all over the web, including the Wikipedia entry, for which it says "citation needed."
Oddly, another claim of a letter from Reynolds appears on this all-Gazelle site, again claiming that "653 was very different, as it was NOT a material, but a tube concept set. The main triangle was 531 tubes, and the rear stays were 753..."
Skeptics have questioned the likelihood of the "Cannibal" setting a technical direction for a tubing company, but stranger things have happened in cycling...
For the second version, that 653 and 753 are different only in their hardening, in the same RBR thread,
"The key thing to remember here is that the 653 and 753 tube-set is the same tube-set. They have exactly the same gauges. If you order a 753 and a 653 tube-sets you get identical tubing. The only difference between them is the final heat treatment.
653 is heat treated which makes it much stronger than 531C it is also much lighter because the tubes are thinner. 753 is simply the process of a special heat treatment that gives it a little more strength than 653."
[And to answer the engineer's objection, he goes on to qualify--Young's modulus remains the same so the heat treating affects strength.]
In favor of the second version, I'm including the tubing chart cited by Mark Kelly (you can see it on his original link or on the Gazelle site).
Indeed the 653 and 753 tubing sizes are identical.
In one sense, both 653 and 753 have a common ancestor--531. But if the tubes of 653 are heat-treated, then they are more like 753, especially if their dimensions are the same.
Anyone out there who built with these sets, or has an actual Reynolds MDS with technical specs?
I'd love to correct the Wikipedia article if it needs to be corrected.
Mostly I'd just like to know the answer.
There appear to be two stories out there. No direct confirmation is available on the Reynolds site.
One is that 653 was a compromise/combination tube set, most recently cited by Scooper in this thread on RBR. Thus a 653 frame was essentially a combination of "753 stays with 531 main tubes and forks. The 531 used was a thinner gauge than usual produced specifically for use in the 653 set."
The second is that 653 is in essence 753 tubing, but not hardened to the same degree, & thus was able to be brazed rather than silver soldered. [And tigg'ed as apparently some early Surly Crosschecks were...]
For the first, Scooper provides a link to a posting on Jim Langley's cycling blog about the genesis of 653, which cites a letter from Reynolds that the tubing was manufactured at the instigation of Merckx, to provide more comfort than an all-753 frame. This story appears all over the web, including the Wikipedia entry, for which it says "citation needed."
Oddly, another claim of a letter from Reynolds appears on this all-Gazelle site, again claiming that "653 was very different, as it was NOT a material, but a tube concept set. The main triangle was 531 tubes, and the rear stays were 753..."
Skeptics have questioned the likelihood of the "Cannibal" setting a technical direction for a tubing company, but stranger things have happened in cycling...
For the second version, that 653 and 753 are different only in their hardening, in the same RBR thread,
Another discussion of the question of the difference between the tube sets on BikeRadar a contributor named Peanut weighs in on the question, rightly pointing to the way in which the Merckx genesis story/combi tube story has been copied and pasted without verification over a whole host of sites, and flatly states:Mark Kelly said:I've heard that story many times but I've never seen evidence for it and there is evidence for it being wrong: there is a CHART on Equus which shows that the tube and stay dimensions for 653 were identical to 753 and different from any of the grades of 531.
When I ordered a 653 frame in 1990 I was told that the alloy was the same as 753 but heat treated to a lower level (more like 531) so the tubing was less fussy and cheaper. BTW that 653 frame never arrived, the maker substituted 700 because he felt that the 653 would be too whippy for me.
"The key thing to remember here is that the 653 and 753 tube-set is the same tube-set. They have exactly the same gauges. If you order a 753 and a 653 tube-sets you get identical tubing. The only difference between them is the final heat treatment.
653 is heat treated which makes it much stronger than 531C it is also much lighter because the tubes are thinner. 753 is simply the process of a special heat treatment that gives it a little more strength than 653."
[And to answer the engineer's objection, he goes on to qualify--Young's modulus remains the same so the heat treating affects strength.]
In favor of the second version, I'm including the tubing chart cited by Mark Kelly (you can see it on his original link or on the Gazelle site).
Indeed the 653 and 753 tubing sizes are identical.
In one sense, both 653 and 753 have a common ancestor--531. But if the tubes of 653 are heat-treated, then they are more like 753, especially if their dimensions are the same.
Anyone out there who built with these sets, or has an actual Reynolds MDS with technical specs?
I'd love to correct the Wikipedia article if it needs to be corrected.
Mostly I'd just like to know the answer.