Forum menu
What is the difference between 853 and say 520 steel? Would a mere mortal be overwhelmed with superlatives after getting off a decent 520 bike and going for a ride on a decent 853 bike?
Or is it all just marketing rubbish?
It's usually a bit lighter and depending on how it's built it may be a bit more springy. It's not a revelation or anything like that. Obviously some owners' bikes must have had more pixie dust than all the ones I've ridden though as no doubt they'll say otherwise...
poor mans titanium.
[runs]
IME the difference between high end and "std" steel (even 520 to 531) can be significant, though it may not always be so as there are other factors than just the material.
What is the difference between 853 and say 520 steel?
in metallurgical terms: a lot. 520 is "just" standard cro-mo - 4130 I think. See Reynolds and On-One (under the materials bit)
853 does seem fairly impervious to rust though - bare patches on mine still clean, yet the 4130 rear end has light surface rust where scraped.
If you're asking the question, all else being equal, go for the cheaper option. Unless you value weight (853 frames are generally lighter due to thinner wall thickness of t'tubes) or another factor. Fit, geometry and to a lesser extent tube butting profiles all more important in terms of noticeable difference in ride characteristics.
Does anybody have the same frame built with different metals same geometry same tube sizes etc. Maybe a inbred DN6 and an inbred 853?
My only comparison is riding a Cotic Soul and then my DMR Switchback. The Soul seemed smoother somehow but this could obviously also be down to other factors
Does anybody have the same frame built with different metals same geometry same tube sizes etc.
2 frames built from tubing with identical dimensions but different materials (for example cro-mo and any high end steel) would ride and weigh exactly the same, but one would be 'stronger'
it's the properties of the more expensive material that enable the tubes to have thinner walls and different O/D which will change how the bike rides without compromising strength.
stop fretting and buy what you can afford and fit a decent tubeless wheelset to really lose some weight where it matters and improve the ride.
stop fretting and buy what you can afford and fit a decent tubeless wheelset to really lose some weight where it matters and improve the ride
excellent advice
I've got/had STD and 853 inbreds. No significant difference in ride...
I'm not fretting about what to buy I'm just interested.
So basically 853 is JUST stronger and obviously this leads to lighter more springy frames.
In theory, potentially yes. In reality, it's a nice sticker 🙂
So basically 853 is JUST stronger and obviously this leads to lighter more springy frames.
yes to the first bit.
In very broad terms the frame maker has 2 main choices when selecting 853 tube thicknesses compared to 4130 though; go thinner and so lighter but flexier (as stiffness of 853 and 4130 is the same) or go with the same profiles and have a frame that rides and weighs exactly the same but is stronger (but not stiffer). that's a very crude description though as build and junction choices will make a lot of difference
I'm less sure on rust resistance but could easily believe the above that 853 is more rust resistant than 4130
I've got 2 853 frames but would tend to agree with MrSmith; all things being equal if after a lighter bike buy the 4130 and spend more on your wheels
Reynolds 853 is strong enough that tubes can be made with fairly thin wall thickness of 0.4 and 0.5mm and still have the strength and importantly the fracture toughness.
http://reynoldstechnology.biz/our_materials_853.php
for a comparison of Al, Ti, steel etc
http://aluminium.matter.org.uk/content/html/eng/default.asp?catid=89&pageid=2144417037
Mr Smith is correct. 853 (all else being equal) will be stronger. Assuming the same tube profiles the ride will be exactly the same. I have had singular prototypes in 843 and 4130 with similar tube profiles and I can't tell them apart for ride quality.
During my experience with steel bikes (I did try Cannondale HT's once) I found Reynolds 653ATB to be incredibly light but not very strong, loads of top tube dinks and folded two top & down tubes doing stupid drop offs. So when 853 arrived with its much higher strength it was good news all round. I also owned an on-one 29er and found the ride to be superb, but noted a harsh ride from the rear end, could be down to the straight stays or the tubing? I recently acquired a Niner MCR, and the most noticeable thing coming from the on-one was how supple the rear end is, it almost feels like a softail in comparison. Its worth noting that 853 is more difficult to work with than "normal" cro-mo. When the shop I used to work at started building with 853, they had to replace all of their cutting tools as the steel was that hard. So basically if the frame is well designed with good materials then you will see a difference, but that could also be applied to cro-mo. In short you gets what you pay.
I have had singular prototypes in 843 and 4130
843 being the economy version!!
I also owned an on-one 29er and found the ride to be superb, but noted a harsh ride from the rear end, could be down to the straight stays or the tubing?
More likely to be something to do with the size/shape/stiffness of the top tube and/or the fork...
As with most thing bicycle-wise geometry is more important than material. the spring or compliance of high steel frames has nothing to do with the rear stays, and everything to do with careful butting of the longest unsupported tube (the Top tube)
Isn't the longest unsupported tube the down tube? 🙂
Material does matter, it greatly effects the parameters the frame designer is playing with. Pretending that it doesn't matter is a good approach to take when buying a bike on a low budget, but it's not really true is it. Steel that gets stronger after welding has to be good thing, resulting in a lighter and stronger frame when used well. Of course 853 isn't the only steel to do this, there are other options.
nickc - Member
As with most thing bicycle-wise geometry is more important than material. the spring or compliance of high steel frames has nothing to do with the rear stays, and everything to do with careful butting of the longest unsupported tube (the Top tube)
Thing is most frames have very similar geometry and no one gets it wrong.
The proposition that only the top tube matters is a joke!
Does anybody have the same frame built with different metals same geometry same tube sizes etc. Maybe a inbred DN6 and an inbred 853?
Here too, owned both 16" D76 and 16" 853 Inbred, no noticable difference in the way they ride tbh.
Ride the same, but one is lighter than the other ski? If so, then that's a good result. Like getting a lighter full sus fork that works just as well as a heavier one.
I had the DN6 and 853 Inbred and I thought there was a conciderable difference in ride. Most noticeable when taking it up to xc pace.
The proposition that only the top tube matters is a joke!
Who said "only"? I said that the top tube has much more effect than stiff, well supported, relatively small triangles (eg the stays). I hasten to add that I did stress analyse this years ago at uni and that's what the numbers said...
Clubber your dead right with that.Lot of ignorance about the materials used to construct the bike.Obviuosly people like to decieve themslvies into thinking expensive means better.Where in reality the bikes design and things like seats,seatposts,bars and wheels/tyres are far more important to the ride and feel of the bike
Why divorce design and materials? The limitations of what you can design are dictated and informed by the materials you chose to use.
No one (serious) divorces design and material - just look at the almost entirely consistent differences between aluminium and steel frames (eg tube diameter).
The point that some of us are making is that an 853 frame isn't magically better than a standard cromo frame (assuming decent quality, butted tubes) - only typically a bit lighter or a bit springier depending on how it's designed. And again, many other things like tyre size and construction, seatpost length and diameter, wheel stiffness and so on also have major effects.
On the other hand if you're paying someone to handbuild you a new frame, you may as well specify 853.
Is 853 not trickier to weld due to thinner walls often being used? It would be interesting to compare failure rates.
Just out of intrest, how do wishbone stays compare to conventional stays in terms of shock absorbtion ? Anyone have experience of both ?
I'd heard (and I'm being a rumour-monger here) that quite a lot of frames only used posh steel for the main tubes and not the stays. That's where the biggest weight saving can be had, and obviously it's fine to stick an 853 sticker to an 853 tube...
I'm a fan of Gary Klein's reasoning that the feel and efficiency of a bike is in it's chainstays, again just being a rumour-monger..
On the other hand if you're paying someone to handbuild you a new frame, you may as well specify 853.
or any other modern steel. like columbus spirit or true temper OXplatinum
Just out of intrest, how do wishbone stays compare to conventional stays in terms of shock absorbtion ? Anyone have experience of both ?
yes they both work well.
very good for keeping the front triangle attached to the rear wheel and that big fat squishy tyre
bikewhisperer wrote, "I'd heard (and I'm being a rumour-monger here) that quite a lot of frames only used posh steel for the main tubes and not the stays. That's where the biggest weight saving can be had, and obviously it's fine to stick an 853 sticker to an 853 tube..."
Cy from Cotic has a few words on this... 2 secs... Ah, here it is:
"So after all the slagging we've just given cromoly, you're probably wondering why the rear end of the Soul is made out of the stuff instead of 853 now that 853 stays have become available (late 2005). Well, any structural problem is simply a matter of working to the limits of the material, and the rear end of the Soul is as strong and responsive as it can be through careful design and tube specification, backed up by more than 4 years of riding through prototyping and into production. Reynolds are only offering their 853 stays in the same profiles and wall thickness as our cromoly stays so they wouldn't any lighter, just an awful lot stronger (when our cromoly rear end is perfectly strong enough) and an awful lot more expensive. For the moment, we'll stick with what we've got. "
Good. I'm glad I wasn't imagining it then!
Mine is made of Columbus BTW, and is molto rapido..
As to whether it's worth it.. Well, I have a Soul, which I absolutely love, but I don't really care what it's made of. It's the complete package which clicked for me, and though the light weight (for steel) and compliance of the frame is nice, if I could buy a Soul in aluminium I probably would. And if I could have bought a cromo Soul that weighed, say, 30% more, I might well have bought that.
Had a Genesis with 853 that felt hard as nails in comparison to a standard 4130 Inbred. That proved to me that frame design is the key not the actual material. Also had a few very hard alloy frames and some softer feeling ones that felt more like cromo to ride. Maybe comparing the average alloy frame to the average Titanium frame you could tell a good difference. I reckon if using the same material Steel is steel at the end of the day. Then its not going to be anything as drastic.
Does anybody have the same frame built with different metals same geometry same tube sizes etc. Maybe a inbred DN6 and an inbred 853?
Yep. I had both for a while, 853 geared and a DN6 SS
2 frames built from tubing with identical dimensions but different materials (for example cro-mo and any high end steel) would ride and weigh exactly the same, but one would be 'stronger'
WRONG!!!!!
They HANDLED pretty much the same (Save for the DN6 beeing quicker steering due to a 15mm shorter fork) but the feel of each bike was definately different, no question about it. No, it's not a massive difference, but it's there, and I can feel it. If I had to describe it, I'd say the 853 was just a bit more 'lively' and the DN6 a bit more 'solid' or maybe 'dead' feeling if I was being harsh about it.
And before you ask, the SS was lighter due to lack of gears and a better fork (Reba vs Recon on the 853)
Peter, then I suggest the butting was different or there was some random variation in the welds (ofc there is always some differnce frame to frame). the YM for both materials is the same so using the same so [i][b]in principle[/b][/i] the ride should have been the same.
Quite possible that the welding detail on the DN6 frame was simply different due to the different material and this created either stiffer or more flexible junctions. It's also possible that 2 DN6 frames would not ride itentically due to variations in the actual weld detailing, within tolerances specified by the frame manufacturer, adding or taking away stiffness from a frame junction.
obviously wheel construction and tyre choice can affect how whippy or dead a frame feels, but you don't say whether or not these were like for like
back we go to design and detailing again
PP - I'm not saying you're wrong about the very slight difference but riding the two with different length travel forks will have made a difference too so it's hard to isolate the two...
It's worth pointing out too that inbreds aren't identical between the 853 and DN6 models - the 853 ones don't have gussets at the head tube.
Anyway, once again, to get back to the point, 853 frames aren't magically better - they're typically just a bit different feeling but it's a small effect when comparing like with like.
What is the difference between 853 and say 520 steel? Would a mere mortal be overwhelmed with superlatives after getting off a decent 520 bike and going for a ride on a decent 853 bike?
I rode a 2006 RM Blizzard (853 main tubes) for a few years and not only was the frame around the 5lb mark (17.5") it also felt dead and lifeless - I just couldn't ever really like it. Just because it had some 853 in there didn't give it any magic.
However I now mostly ride a Singular Hummingbird (4130), which I love.
Macavity: good shout on the youngs mod.
steel stiffness is a function of the cross sectional geometry, not the yield strength.
So as Cy rightly points out, the same section stays in a fancier material will not do anything to the ride or weight, it will just make it stronger ('fail' at a higher load)
my question to the welders is: is there a difference in the 'weldability' of the various steel alloys? if so, there may be gains there...
ive always thought that the ride of steel bikes (i have 2 HT bikes - columbus and 4130) depends on a mix of the seat stays flex and the seatpost...
id like to feel the difference back to back between a 27.2 dia post and a 31.6 (or whatever)on the same frame....
great advice on spending on wheels instead.