Re: [CR]New Reynolds 953 steel tubing

(Example: Framebuilding:Tubing)

Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:44:09 -0500 (EST)
From: "Roman Stankus" <rstankus@mindspring.com>
To: charles f nighbor <cnighbor@pacbell.net>, CR RENDEZVOUS <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: Re: [CR]New Reynolds 953 steel tubing


To turn the tables on this line of thinking - I have a carbon fiber bike that weighs more than the 953 bike. Does that mean carbon fiber is heavier than steel?

Based on info from folks building with 953 - there isn't any significant weight savings over other super steel sets that have been on the market for some time - so no stainless bullet here. Maybe just a shinier one.

Roman Stankus Atlanta, Georgia USA

-----Original Message-----

>From: charles f nighbor <cnighbor@pacbell.net>

>Sent: Feb 27, 2007 12:05 PM

>To: CR RENDEZVOUS <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>

>Subject: [CR]New Reynolds 953 steel tubing

>

>I noticed in Bicycling April 2007 that Independent Fabrication using Reynolds 953 tubing for a 50cm bicycle got the weight down too 16.2 pounds( using an off topic Carbon fiber fork)

> That make steel a very viable option for those concerned with riding low weight bikes.On next page and a Look 595 (off topic) Carbon fiber bike Medium came in at 15.7 pound Difference of .5 pounds. That is almost not noticeable.

> Yes Steel is real. Anyone have experience building a frame or riding a frame with 953?

> Charles Nighbor

> Walnut Creek, CA