Workshop tales, trials and disasters.
Maintenance tips, techniques and myths.
Technical discussion, description and outright lies
22 posts • Page 1 of 1
When replacing brake cables (inners and/or outers) do the rear brake first. If you manage to stuff up by cutting the cable too short, you can usually use the cable/outer on the front. Do the front first, stuff it up and you're up for a new cable and/or outer.
He should have started the post with - "A friend told me . . ."
I think we can do better. I KNOW we can do better.
The driver's window on Sydney buses has "Do not enter bus through window" warning labels on them. Maybe if they included the picture of the person who inspired the warning label on each one there would be fewer of them.
531db was replacing the brake levers and cables, handlebars and stem on the # 1 Hillman road bike with newer (ie 1990's) bits including a set of Dura Ace cables recently re-discovered in the bike room.
531db was about to measure up, then cut front, when own advice from past came to mind. 531db got the job done perfectly, but recalls - ahem - a stuff up, in the distant past, fortunately with cheaper quality cables.
Hence the post, it's one of those things you only remember after or if your are lucky, just before you stuff up.
Absolutely state of the art gearing this one: 53/42 chainrings and 13-23 eight speed cassette with indexed down tube shifters. Why would you need more? I usually use less - a lot less
Are you setting up a secret weapon for the criterium circuit?
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple
My gawd - DHBC has spies everywhere!!!
The Hillman is my road bike, I don't use the small chainring, let alone the 23 tooth cog in crits or even in roadraces at ECR, WSID etc
But yeah, "The Heffronator" is currently in build, a 1982 lugged Tange Champion # 1 tubing frame (similar weight/performance to Reynolds 531db tubing), with a 6 speed 13-18 straight block for crits and 6 speed 13-21 for when required with down tube friction shifting. Still running 25/28C tyres though!
Tange#1 is heavier than 531, and has a lower tensile strength than 531, so I would rate 531 in all its variants (C, ST, PRO) as superior to Tange#1. Not that you'll be generating the 108,000 PSI required to break the stuff...
I might have to wheel out my steelie for some Heffron action too (weather permitting).
As built up frames, there is really little effective weight and performance difference between Reynolds 531C and Tange Champion No. 1
Obviously 531 is a manganese molybdeum steel and No.1 a chrome molybdeum steel and there is a slight difference in the UTS.
In terms of tubeset wall thickness 531 uses a double butted top tube of 0.8mm/0.5mm/0.8mm, the same as No. 1.
531's down tube is 0.9/0.6/0.9mm, heavier than No. 1's 0.8/0.5/0.8mm.
531's seat tube is 0.8/0.5mm single butted as oppose to No. 1's 0.9/0.6/0.9mm double butted.
Small variations exist in head tube, stays and fork blades but in reality both tube sets weigh with about 50g of each other.
I've seen quoted weights of 2050g for a 531C tubeset and 2220g for Tange Champion No.1, but these are manufacturer supplied weights and there is an element of apples and oranges in this as the length of supplied tubes varies. Incidently Columbus SL with all main tubes being 0.9/0.6/0.9mm (seat tube 0.9/06mm) and thicker stays than 531C gets quoted as 1925g for a tubeset, clearly heavier in reality to 531C, but manufacturers figures are 'banana's' here.
Reynolds 531C is 'the tubing' as far as I'm concerned, but in reality, Tange Champion No. 1 is just as good in providing a quality lugged steel frame.
It sounds like you are describing SLX. SL is definitely lighter than 531.
No, Columbus SL is definitely a heavier tubeset than 531C, thicker wall thickness for all main tubes and stays. A metalurgical and physical fact, greater mass = greater weight. (The difference between manganese moly and chrome moly steel in terms of weight/mass is non-existent).
Only Columbus tubesets of the same era (80's), lighter than SL were Columbus Record and KL.
See www.desperadocycles.com/Tubing_Properti ... Tubing.htm
Note the the reference to Columbus SL in the second line of the chart is an error - Columbus KL is what is being refered to. Columbus SL is correctly described in the fourth line of the chart in terms of dimensions, if not weight.
Ahh... I remember reading a link to that page a while ago, in relation to SL v SLX. I always thought SLX was heavier but stiffer due to the "rifling". So all these years I've been misled. Lots of forum posts refer to that table, so I'm probably not the only one...
22 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Mick Dee