RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General


Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )


Reynolds 853(9 posts)

Reynolds 853Kunfoochi
Oct 17, 2002 12:04 PM
How is this tubing? I'm looking specifically at the Lemond Zurich frame, but a general answer would be great too. How would a frame like this compare to an OCLV or a CAAD Aluminum frame?

Thanks
re: Reynolds 853Jambo
Oct 17, 2002 12:50 PM
I've never ridden an OCLV frame, but I went from a CAAD3 to a 853 Jamis Eclipse. I love 853. It is a very stiff, light steel. I think it has the perfect balance between comfort and stiffness. It will be very stiff when you stand up, but still absorb a lot of the rough road. It doesn't accelerate quite as fast as an Aluminum bike, but I think it's not far off. Also, Lemonds have a more comfortable geometry than other bikes, more relaxed angles with a long top tube. 853 is light too(for steel). My ultegra bike is under 19lbs. with Ksyriums.
Hard to sayFez
Oct 17, 2002 1:06 PM
The Lemond Zurich is an excellent example of a bike using 853. Comfortable, yet stiff and reasonably light. I have only test ridden one. The main reason I decided against it was fit. Lemonds have longish top tubes and I could not get a perfect fit in 53, yet 55 had too long of a top tube. The ride was nice. The weight is up to a pound more than comparable OCLV or CAAD5/7 bikes, but if you are dead set on Zurich you can shave some weight by getting lighter wheels.

The reason I say it is hard to say, is because you have to look at opinions that are familiar with Zurich and OCLV and CAAD. How many riders have ridden all three for more than just test rides? I have ridden thousands of miles on steel and Ti bikes. My experience with OCLV and Cannondale are just test rides, so I don't think that makes me particularly qualified to comment on them.
re: Reynolds 853Spunout
Oct 17, 2002 2:17 PM
I ride a 2001 Zurich. Stell does not compare to Aluminum or Carbon, it is just different. Actually, steel is real and anything else is different ;-)
216.162.199.215gtx
Oct 17, 2002 7:30 PM
re: Reynolds 853
trying again...gtx
Oct 17, 2002 7:31 PM
the builder makes the difference, not the tubing. And of couse, fit. The guys at Soulcraft put it pretty well...

http://www.soulcraftbikes.com/id45.htm
Not wild about aluminumAmbishawn
Oct 17, 2002 8:43 PM
I've owned a couple of Specialized aluminum frames (Stumpjumper and Allez) that I purchesed earlier in My cycling days. The reason I bought these bikes was because they were light and not too expensive. Not being a Racer I think aluminum rides terrible. I hate the vibration, hamonic noises and unforgiving harshness that overbuilt oversized aluminum tubing provides. If your into crits I is probably the way to go since your rides are 1 hour or less and you will have a nice stiff light cheap frame you can abuse and replace in a season or two. If your into long 50+ mile rides and still want a responsive frame 853 or Titanium
can provide this compromise for a price. The way I see it, it's your legs and lungs that makes a bike fast so the long miles a good steel or Ti allows you to ride In comfort will go a long way to develop those lungs and legs.
Here's the secret about 853...Spunout
Oct 18, 2002 3:49 AM
It is as stiff as Aluminum. People think a crit bike must be harsh to be a crit bike. Well, 853 isn't, and it is not *noticeably any whippier.

*It feels different, snappy. Does a rider on 853 lose to an Aluminum bike because of BB stiffness? Doubt it.

/ramble.
re: Reynolds 853commuterguy
Oct 18, 2002 4:51 AM
I have ridden a Schwinn Peloton (with an 853 frame) for about 5K miles. I have absolutely no complaints about the tubing: it is amazingly supple over rough road, turns with great confidence, and feels increasingly stable as speed increases (at least up to 40 mph).

I haven't ridden the other frames you are considering, so I can't offer anything in the way of a comparison. However, you should keep in mind that steel is in many ways a more forgiving material than Al or carbon. Both Al and carbon are reputed to be difficult to repair, and carbon in particular is vulnerable to nicks that can signficantly weaken a frame. Al also fatigues much more than steel (i.e., the frame is much more likely to simply break after a few years of heavy use).

Steel's disadvantage--beside a small weight penalty--is corrosion. Weige (sp) framesaver for inside the tubes, and touch-up paint for nicks and dings on the outside will largely remove this as an issue.