reply is in CAPS:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 21:00:49 -0800 (PST) Fred Rafael Rednor
<fred_rednor@yahoo.com> writes:
> > 753 was a MATERIAL, not a tube set.
> Richard,
> That part I understood - but I thought that 753 was
> a harder material than 531, thus allowing the thickness
> of the tube walls to be made thinner and lighter. Is
> that not the case?
> IT WAS THE CASE
> > The lightest, thinnest 531 was similar
> > to its 753 counterpart.
> But wouldn't you prefer to use the 753 tubing for larger
> frames due to its superior strength of the material?
>I THOUGHT THE CONCEPT OF HIGH-ER STRENGTH
MATERIAL WAS MISPLACED. 531 WAS VERY STRONG;
USING LESS OF IT TO REDUCE FRAME WEIGHT WAS
NEVER AN ISSUE FOR ME. CHANGING THE COMPOSITION
AND MAKING THE NEW MATERIAL LESS WILLING TO
WITHSTAND ALL THE BENDING CYCLES TYPICAL
TO RACE BIKE USE WAS A LIABILITY.
> None of this is meant as a challenge - I'm trying to understand
> the whole story and why Reynolds bothered to develop 753.
>PARALYSIS BY ANALYSIS. TOO MANY SLIDERULES,
TOO FEW TRAINING RIDES.
> So, to get back to the original question, what is 753R?
>THE LIGHTEST TUBE MIX OF ALL THE AVAILABLE
753 PIPES WHEN SOLD AS A BOXED SET.
> Best regards,
> Fred Rednor - Arlington, Virginia
>REGARDS TO ALL
e-RICHIE at the breakfast table
(CAPS LOCK RUUUUUULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just
> $8.95/month.
> http://geocities.yahoo.com/