Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

I have a Reynolds 653 Endeavour built road frame that im about to build into an Aussie frame / modern rebuild.

The frame was a little mis-represented in the ad that i bought it from, in that it had far more surface rust than i first thought from the photos, as well as a more than average depression in the rear drop out.

In the process of up loading photos soon, but want to build with a modern / retro group/wheels so am keen to make sure its of sound build.

The main concern is that the forks have the rust rattle inside. I have extracted most of the loose material through the weep holes, and have been a llittle shocked by the amount of material that has come out.

My question is, faced with the fork rattle, and quite a bit of loose rust material.... what should i look into now. Am just about to upload the amount of rusty steel that i have exteacted... but should i get the forks inspected by a frame builder / bike shop etc... or should i just find a replecement set to make sure. OR is there a significant over engineering in forks ... so a small amount of deviation in guage specificaiton acceptable.

Probably better that i get photos up... so ill do that shortly/.

Without cutting the fork legs open, I doubt anybody will be able to give you a concrete answer on how bad they are.

For me it would come down to, "do I feel safe riding that fork?", if you're answer is yes then plug it, pour rust converter into it, let it soak for a day or so then spray some auto rust prevention treatment (get it in a pressure pack can from auto stores) into it.

If you answer no, you're talking about fitting late model running gear to it so you may as well fit a new fork, it's not as if fitting a fork will make it any less retro than fitting brifters & the like, if you wanted period rebuild & were using period parts, I'd suggest just finding another fork & painting it to match the original.

My suggestion, it's probably totally wrong, but I'm sure there's some expert out there that'll tell you the 'right' way to fix it.

Agree with the above.

The only 'right' way to fix it is to buy a new fork. There may be some degree of over engineering, particularly in older forks. But why take the risk?

The outcome from a failed fork is never good.

I'd take the opportunity to fit a threadless fork & headset.

The alarm bells rung when I saw this topic heading.
As stated above, there is no way of telling whether the rust is going to kill you or not, even if you were to cut the fork open to look properly.
I have dealt with a large number of steel frames over the years, from 120 year old relics, to very recent hi-tech examples.
My two bobs worth: DONT RIDE IT.
Rust rattle down the back somewhere (probably) wont kill you one day, but front forks require a risk factor of zero.
Warren

rkelsen wrote: I'd take the opportunity to fit a threadless fork & headset.

EEWWWW! Threadless=icky. Just IMO. But then i'm happy for function to follow form .


I was about to start a thread to ask this but here is as good a place as any, should steel forks 'flutter'? I have a couple of bikes (96 cr-mo Apollo and mid 70s Durifort Tom Wallace) with forks that visibly 'flutter' backwards and forwards on rough roads, under heavy braking etc. It's particularly pronounced on the Tom Wallace, under braking the whole front end shakes. I've never noticed it at all on my Dawes, and only a very little bit on my Mercier, Univega and Repco.

ldrcycles wrote:EEWWWW! Threadless=icky. Just IMO. But then i'm happy for function to follow form .

Isn't it funny? I'm the opposite. Function before form.

I agree though. Threadless stems are fugly.

rkelsen wrote:

ldrcycles wrote:EEWWWW! Threadless=icky. Just IMO. But then i'm happy for function to follow form .

Isn't it funny? I'm the opposite. Function before form.

I agree though. Threadless stems are fugly.

Form & Function? This sounds like a conversation for design academics.

bicyclepassion wrote:should steel forks 'flutter'?

Loose headset?

diggerdantheman wrote:
Loose headset?

Nope, all good there, it's actually the bottom half of the forks that's flexing, i can actually see it .

New fork order

bicyclepassion wrote: My two bobs worth: DONT RIDE IT.
Rust rattle down the back somewhere (probably) wont kill you one day, but front forks require a risk factor of zero.
Warren

cool, this was my gut feeling. The steerer tube should be fine but with so much loose material ive extracted with a coat hanger... anyway, responses here have confirmed the caution i have felt.

rkelsen wrote:

ldrcycles wrote:EEWWWW! Threadless=icky. Just IMO. But then i'm happy for function to follow form .

Threadless stems are fugly.

Its not that i find threadless ugly, but IMO apart from the horizontal top tube, lugs and the seemingly (to my eye) perfect proportions of a 56sq bike, the most aesthetically beautiful thing about older bikes is the quill stem. Elegant, minimal and beautifully shaped.

Now on the lookout for a 531 fork to suit 700 wheels. I have to repaint the bike so colour not an issue. From what ive read, 653 frames are a combination of 725 rear stays, but the rest (main tubes and forks) were 531SL

ldrcycles wrote:should steel forks 'flutter'?

I only have basic 4130 fork and frames, but the only flutter ive had is where the front brakes need adjusting to get the pad/wall interface flush, and only when i had half braking force.

diggerdantheman wrote:New fork order

yep... i think so. Makes that frame purchase a little exxy now, but swings and roundabouts i guess. Have scored a bargain or two over the years, so it all balances out.

diggerdantheman wrote: Form & Function? This sounds like a conversation for design academics.

Form v Function. A subjective helical discussion if ever there was one. Besides, form is a function.

ldrcycles wrote:I was about to start a thread to ask this but here is as good a place as any, should steel forks 'flutter'? I have a couple of bikes (96 cr-mo Apollo and mid 70s Durifort Tom Wallace) with forks that visibly 'flutter' backwards and forwards on rough roads, under heavy braking etc. It's particularly pronounced on the Tom Wallace, under braking the whole front end shakes. I've never noticed it at all on my Dawes, and only a very little bit on my Mercier, Univega and Repco.

The small amount of flex (or suspension) is part of the smooth ride that steel frames give. If you look down along your forks on a course or rough road surface you soon see how much of a hiding they cop and thus how important it is that they maintain their structural integrity. When riding over rough or course roads you also realise how much of a hiding a headset takes.

I must say when I first looked at the thread title, then looked at the location of the OP - my first thought was Brisbane floods. How many bikes must have got drenched in the flood? Not a good time to buy a sight unseen Brisbane bike on fleabay or the like.

EDIT: sorry just re-read - fork shaking under braking is diferent. Probably a headset issue or could be rims with variable amount of 'gripiness' contributing, but if you rule these out, be wary of the forks.

landscapecadmonkey wrote: Besides, form is THE function.

FTFY .


LG, the small amount of flex i understand but this is a lot, maybe an inch in either direction? And my smoothest riding bike (the Dawes) doesn't exhibit any of this flexing at all . I guess i'm just hoping to hear someone say they have owned a steel bike from new that has 'the flutter' so i don't worry about it being some kind of corrosion/damage/whoknowswhat. FWIW the Apollo is in good original condition with no visible rust.

Off topic, but I initially misread the title as 'Fork Rust Battle' and thought it was an episode of Iron Chef.

ldrcycles wrote:LG, the small amount of flex i understand but this is a lot, maybe an inch in either direction? And my smoothest riding bike (the Dawes) doesn't exhibit any of this flexing at all . I guess i'm just hoping to hear someone say they have owned a steel bike from new that has 'the flutter' so i don't worry about it being some kind of corrosion/damage/whoknowswhat. FWIW the Apollo is in good original condition with no visible rust.

Ahh - an apollo. I rode an apollo II as a commuter bike for a couple years. The bike was in great condition, but the fork on that seemed to flex a fair bit more than other bikes I've ridden. You'd expect those with more rake and shallower angles would be more prone to flex unless they are built a lot stronger/heavier. I have no answer on how much flex is too much, but generally trust a steel fork which is undamaged and appears to be corrosion free. Any damage or corrosion I err on the side of caution.

Common sense tells you to not use them so if that's the case can you do all of us a favour and cut them open so we can see how damaged they might be. I know it's not conclusive (or very scientific) but it would be interesting to see what correlation you thought there was between lots of rust and actual damage.

Cheers

morini wrote:Common sense tells you to not use them so if that's the case can you do all of us a favour and cut them open so we can see how damaged they might be. I know it's not conclusive (or very scientific) but it would be interesting to see what correlation you thought there was between lots of rust and actual damage.

Cheers

yes...and oddly yes. Am after a set of 531 forks to compliment, but will run a set of Tange Infinitys till i find a set. And, its sounds like a challenge that i can't seem to refuse. Will get a cutting wheel this weekend and advise