[Closed] 853 Is it really better?

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?

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

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)

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.

Stiffness
http://www.nous.org.uk/steel.tensile.html

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)

Young's Modulus

http://www.matter.org.uk/schools/content/YoungModulus/Default.htm

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.

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 in principle 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.

Or the fact that 2 different metals behave/flex/whatever differently. You're clutching at straws now, you know that don't you? 🙂
Because you've not ridden the two bikes back to back..... I have.

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...

Yeah, you'd think the one with the shorter fork would feel a bit more lively, wouldn't you? In a way it did - It steered faster and climbed better, but it felt 'dull' doing it. More solid. Heavier, even though it wasn't.

I'll say again, it's only a slight difference, but it's there, no doubt about it. 🙂

Don't forget I've got both too...

Or the fact that 2 different metals behave/flex/whatever differently

Sorry Pete, that's just wrong. Ask anyone who knows the basics of material science.

Or the fact that 2 different metals behave/flex/whatever differently

I've just had a trawl back through the pics of my bikes at the time, and I've actually been telling a lie!

I had the exact same Rebas on both bikes (I sold the Recons a lot earlier than I thought) and a lot of the same components - I swapped all the bits over to the DN6 and when the 853 frame broke. Forgot about that...!
So the first back to back test was with the same build kit!!
And when I rebuilt the 853 after it was repaired, I put 140mm Vanillas on it, not 130mm Recons, so it had longer forks on than I thought it did. Even more curious then!

So I'm comparing this
[img] [/img]

With this
[img] [/img]

Exact same wheels and tyres & forks. Comparable stem, saddle, bars, seatpost, cranks, headset. Similar brakes - Both Louises. 🙂

teddy - there is plenty of difference in what you call 'weldability' of steel
also while you point to the seatpost diameter, i would like to call 'titanium' for saddle rails

EPIC FAIL

No, it's not at all. I may not know the 'science' behind it like the cleverclogs do, but similarly none of you rode both bikes, back to back, on the same trails, week-in, week-out for the best part of a year, did you? 🙂

I'm not saying it's night and day. I'm not saying it makes any difference that can be measured. But there was a difference that I could feel, end of story. 🙂

In the end I sold the SS because I wasn't riding the 853 as much as I'd like to, and it was my favourite bike. And it still is. I've never had a bike fit me so well, feel so right and ride so well.

PP, the Young's modulus for both steels is the same. It's not a straw, it's physics.

I don't claim that your feeling that the bikes rode differently is some phantom thing that you were imagining, but it's not the material directly. It may be some detailing (like welding detail) that is different. also, try as we might, not all frames are equal in the real world.

More concrete evidence is in your photo, as someone pointed out that there's a head tube gusset on the DN6 version which doesn't appear on the 853 version. this will stiffen the head tube junction. who knows what other detailing differences there are elsewhere? The chain and seat stays were (probably) the same material on both bikes as not many folks make "full" 853 frames (see Cy's comments on the soul)

Plus everyone knows blue paint is stiffer than red paint

but believe whatever you want really.

Dropout design could (possibly) account for some loss of stiffness on the 853?

PeterPoddy - Member

No, it's not at all. I may not know the 'science' behind it like the cleverclogs do, but similarly none of you rode both bikes, back to back, on the same trails, week-in, week-out for the best part of a year, did you?

Of course I haven't.

The point is there is proven science (Young's modulus) stating the metals flex in the same way. You can't contravert this and there are a heap of other factors explaining your experience which you are choosing to ignore.

So it is, indeed,

[img] [/img]

{searches for the double facepalm pic}

if there were any O/D differences between the the 2 tubesets used or a significant difference between butting and wall thickness then the frames are not the same. (853 was possibly .8-.5-.8 and 4130 i guess something like 1-.7-1)

so you are not comparing 2 identically dimensioned frames of different materials.

so you are wrong and the armchair internet scientists are right.

you sure the yound moduli for the two materials are the same are ya?

as i understand it they are two differing alloys. id be suprised if it was.

certainly varies a shed load in differing alloys of aluminium...

Ha classical STW thread this is turning into ie guy who is so called Rocket Scientist versus weekend warrior!

Reynolds suggest ER70-S filler wire to weld 853. They do not say it is the only stuff to use just that it works.

I think blue frames always ride better than red ones...

853 Inbred used 0.8/0.5/0.8. DN6 use 0.9/0.6/0.9. DN6 is therefore between 16% and 19% stiffer depending on the tube OD.

[url= http://reynoldstechnology.biz/assets/pdf/rtl_steel_alloys_extract.pdf ]Reynolds materials stuffs (warning; pdf link)[/url]

basically all their steel alloys (and I believe 525 is chromoly steel and roughly equal to 4130) have the same "stiffness" as they list it (pretty sure the number is Young's Mod expressed in MPa but not 100% certain). Some variance across different alu alloys but <5% variance, not really a shed load 😉 (although admittedly they only cover some alloys and there are many for alu, plus many different tempering standards)

Tensile strengths also shown and that is where the variation is

don't need to be a rocket scientist to know these things, Young's mod is covered in A-level physics (at least it was 20 years ago when I took it)

5% change in stiffness? that sounds noticable!!!

Reynolds 853 stiffness 207 GPa.

I agree with PP. I had a DN6 inbred and swapped the bits over onto an 853 Inbred. I thought there was a different feel to the ride. The 853 feeling a bit more "lively". But that was probably down to the colour difference. Everyone knows Volvo biscuit biege produces a more responsive lively bike than red. No way was that down to riding the two bikes back to back. 🙄

Having said that the Singular Swift I have now rides better than both. Which does make me agree that Frame design, fit and wheels make just a big as difference. Plus its a nice blue colour which is bound to make a difference....

red or any variation on red gives a better ride than blue. pure science fact.

And purple is even better than red or blue - takes the best of both 🙂

tracknicko - Member

you sure the yound moduli for the two materials are the same are ya?

as i understand it they are two differing alloys. id be suprised if it was.

certainly varies a shed load in differing alloys of aluminium...

This is the same FAIL as peter poddy. Youngs modulus is the same for all aluminium alloys, give or take 2% but often that is down to differences in measurement.

Think of it like this:

Two identical shaped diving boards side by side, one made of 853 and one made of 520. Lets simplify the numbers 853 and 520 have the same stiffness (also called youngs modulus, elastic modulus or E), but 853 fails at 100 and 520 fails at 50.

So I put 49 kg on the tip of each diving board, the tip of the 520 board bends down by 20mm, the tip of the 853 board bends down by 20mm, then I add 2 more kg, the 520 board fails it buckles and bends, the 853 board just bends a bit more. I keep upping the weight on the 853 board to 99 kg and it keeps just bending more, but when I get to 101 KG it fails also. This is the difference between stiffness and strength.

ummmm thanks for your magical explanation of yield strength.

here's some number for youngs modulus:

pure aluminium. 96GN/m^2 or GPa if you like.
2024 74
5083 71
7075 72

Mild steel 207
0.4%C steel 210
Stainless 205

small differences indeed. but combined with geometric changes they certainly may well be noticable.

PP, isn't that two different seatposts? Maybe even saddles can't see the top one...

My Kona has a 27mm seatpost, which is out way long (as the frame is a little small and my body has a funny geometry:-)) and this is the most comfy hardtail I've ridden - usually using fairly narrow tyres too as it's primarily a commuter - I reckon this makes a big difference.

tracknicko - Member

small differences indeed. but combined with geometric changes they certainly may well be noticable.

See the below image. Deflection of the free end (thats the right handside)= (w(l^3))/12EI if we make w, l E and I all equal to 1 then the deflection is 1/12E where is youngs mod then:

e = 200 gpa (thats 200 with 9 zeros) deflection = 4.1667 e-13
e = 204 gpa defelction = 4.08496 e-13
e = 207 gpa deflection = 4.025 e-13
So if we fiddled witht he numbers to make them 4.1667 mm, 4.08496mm and 4.025mm I'll bet you cannot tell the difference. Or even 4.167cm 4.084cm and 4.025 cm thats a difference of 1.4mm over 4cm, its small.

[img] [/img]

I'm with the naysayers - two frames with identical design in 4130 and 853 will not feel different. I don't think it's clear whether the DN6 and 853 versions of the frame [i]are[/i] an identical design.

I don't think you can underestimate the effect of psychology in a sighted test either. Just look at all the rubbish that people talk about hi-fi cables (just to open another can of worms).

what? L and W are both 1?
thats a wierd shaped beam but nevermind i take your point...

right eff this. all im saying is.. there IS a change in stiffness. particularly if OD and ID are changed between models and gussets added removed as well...

indeed i was saying there IS a difference in youngs modulus.

so don't 'EPIC FAIL' me like some kind of engineering keyboard hero. Technically you are wrong. whether by much, and whether you can feel it or not is another issue.

@toys19 - To put it another way: there's 3.5% difference between 207 and 200. That means there's a 3.5% difference in stiffness (if you make two identical shapes with the two different materials). Really no need to make it more complicated than it is.

I don't actually think there would be a 3.5% difference in YM between 4130 and 853, but I haven't seen any more than estimates yet. Engineering calculations are not generally accurate to 3.5%, so I'd still consider the two figures to be identical for most working purposes.

[b]djcombes[/b]

I don't think it's clear whether the DN6 and 853 versions of the frame are an identical design.

yeah, it is clear, Cy clarified higher up that the butting is different between 853 and DN6 versions of the Inbred frame (853 has thinner tubes).

[b]cy[/b] <- Mr Cotic, incase you didn't know (as if!) and were wondering about his quals.

853 Inbred used 0.8/0.5/0.8. DN6 use 0.9/0.6/0.9. DN6 is therefore between 16% and 19% stiffer depending on the tube OD.

that plus the gussetting at the head tube of the DN6 version will be enough to change the feel significantly. but the argument seems to have moved on into a physics lesson 😉

No way is purple or red a better ride than blue. I cannot accept that.

As one of the relatively few people to have actually owned and ridden a purple bike, I can categorically state that it's better 😉

djcombes - Member

@toys19 - To put it another way: there's 3.5% difference between 207 and 200. That means there's a 3.5% difference in stiffness (if you make two identical shapes with the two different materials). Really no need to make it more complicated than it is.

Not to mention that if I hadn't simplified the above calc you actually find that the difference in E has very little effect on the deflection, what makes a massive difference is section.

so don't 'EPIC FAIL' me like some kind of engineering keyboard hero. Technically you are wrong. whether by much, and whether you can feel it or not is another issue

You did make an EPIC fail lets face it, technically I am right, you were just spouting stuff without any technical or practical knowledge. There are no differences in youngs modulus between aluminium alloys. If you want to split hairs by your method of accuracy I can guarantee you that no two frames are the same, small diffs in diameter, differences in the welds, maybe more paint on one than another, be careful what you buy imagine if you ended up with one that was too stiff...

clubber - Member
As one of the relatively few people to have actually owned and ridden a purple bike, I can categorically state that it's better

But did you ride it back to back with a blue bike? No....I thought not. 😛

I on the other hand had a Purple kona (eggplant actually if you want to split hairs) at the same time as a Blue kona. Can you guess which was better?

(The blue Kona was also 853 as opposed to the Purple which was 4130; but thats pure subjective cooncidence here 😈 ).

I'll EPIC FAIL whoever I like, particularly those who claim to disprove Young's modulus!*

*I am aware this doesn't really make sense.