Jerome & Elizabeth Moos wrote:
> There seems to be one school of thought that the 753 "test" was as
> much a publicity stunt by Reynolds as a sincere attempt at quality
> control.
I'll be more charitable and suggest that 753 was a special-purpose (e.g.
record attempts) tubing that the frame manufacturers' marketing people
latched onto as a way of boosting the "prestige" of their marques.
> In some sense one wonders about 753 in general. Was the idea that
> this tubeset was so thin-walled that it needed heat treating to
> achieve adequate tensile strength? If so, maybe it was just a bad
> idea, as it defeats two of the major benefits of steel frames,
> durability and repairability.
As a special purpose tubing, it would still make sense, though.
> Even if one could insure that the original builder didn't overheat
> the tubing, there is no way to control the repairs made after a
> crash. In my view, it's better just to make the walls a little
> thicker than rely on heat treating. But that was the day of the
> superlightweight craze.
Reynolds never recommended repairing 753 frames, but we (Trek) were told that if it absolutely had to be done, the only tube they would consider replacing on a 753 frame would be a chainstay.
--
-John Thompson (john@os2.dhs.org)
Appleton WI USA