Samuel D wrote:Very good, NetworkMan – except for that bottle cage! I think its fat, swoopy obvious plastic-ness detracts from the metal bicycle. A neat metal cage like amediasatex’s would look better to my eye, whether in silver or black.
I wasn't going to say anything having done my share of nit picking in this thread... but if anyone were looking for some cages that go well with a ti frame, they might also look at stainless steel ones, I have a couple and they're such a perfect match people assume they're ti. They're Tortec and no longer seem to be available but I've seen some others similar, Blackburn I think.
Velo orange 'moderniste' stainless steel bottle cage. This cage (and some others) are very lightweight because the material is tube not solid. The colour match is very close to Ti.
Those VO cages look lovely, very similar to King Cages 'handmade in the USA' http://www.kingcage.com/ They even do a ti version for those with deep pockets. i have a couple of the traditional styled SS ones, very nice.
I just use Tortec Alu cages on most of my bikes, they come in silver, black and a nice Ti-alike grey so you can match them easily with most bikes, and they're super cheap yet work well and have been durable for me, I've not ever had to replace one in the last decade or so since I've been using them.
Samuel D wrote: If I had to guess one way or the other, I’d say the bigger frame feels stiffer..
Did you weigh the new (58) frame? I think Spa may have changed the tubing on the 725 Audax? I've recently built up a 54 Audax frame which weighs 58g more than a larger 56 frame which i had before (1978g vs. 1920g (edit)). When you flick the downtube of the 54 with a fingernail it has a much duller 'ring' than the 56. Great value frames and service from Spa.
Last edited by iow on 21 Jul 2019, 8:45am, edited 1 time in total.
Samuel D wrote: If I had to guess one way or the other, I’d say the bigger frame feels stiffer..
Did you weigh the new (58) frame? I think Spa may have changed the tubing on the 725 Audax? I've recently built up a 54 Audax frame which weighs 58g more than a larger 56 frame which i had before (978g vs. 920g). When you flick the downtube of the 54 with a fingernail it has a much duller 'ring' than the 56. Great value frames and service from Spa.
The only information I have on 725 is what I can find on the internet.....https://www.torchandfile.com/assets/images/PARTS%20LIST%202019.pdf. That doesn't show a great many tubes, which fits in with my recollection. We have never specified the 26.8 tube in the thinner (0.7/0.4/0.7) gauge, and I don't know the purpose of the 26.8 single butted tube. Because the 725 tubes are a "special order" we always prototype in locally produced butted cromo, but the only (rim braked Audax) prototyping we have done recently is a Mk2 Audax with ovalised tubing, and I'm sure somebody would have noticed. ( I doubt the weight would of Far Eastern cromo be very different anyway)
iow wrote:I've recently built up a 54 Audax frame which weighs 58g more than a larger 56 frame which i had before (978g vs. 920g).
Are those accurate weights? They both seem on the low side to me.
Sorry missed the '1' off the beginning (now edited).
After I asked I thought that was probably it, I'm glad it's that rather than my frames weight twice as much as anyone else's! Thorn have always been reluctant to give frame weights, saying there's some variation and I think I've read that when they do it's an average and not to assume yours will be exactly that. There also something from Surly saying if it's important to you get the dealer to weigh your frame. I don't know why there'd be variation or how much there is, but the difference between your two is around 3%, maybe that's just within expectation.
Samuel D wrote:If I had to guess one way or the other, I’d say the bigger frame feels stiffer.
Did you weigh the new (58) frame?
As it happens, I did. It was a bit heavier than I expected from the weight of my original 54 cm frame. Details here. Sorry for my slow reply.
I observed the same thing you did when I flicked the down tube. The new one (58 cm) had a duller ring on that tube. I couldn’t be sure that wasn’t because it was longer, but since you’ve noticed the same with a shorter tube, I’m inclined to agree with your conclusion that the tubing may have changed. Could it be plain gauge?
Samuel D wrote:If I had to guess one way or the other, I’d say the bigger frame feels stiffer.
Did you weigh the new (58) frame?
As it happens, I did. It was a bit heavier than I expected from the weight of my original 54 cm frame. Details here. Sorry for my slow reply.
I observed the same thing you did when I flicked the down tube. The new one (58 cm) had a duller ring on that tube. I couldn’t be sure that wasn’t because it was longer, but since you’ve noticed the same with a shorter tube, I’m inclined to agree with your conclusion that the tubing may have changed. Could it be plain gauge?
Brucey wrote:Velo orange 'moderniste' stainless steel bottle cage. This cage (and some others) are very lightweight because the material is tube not solid. The colour match is very close to Ti.
True. But on this page no promise is made that the whole frame is Reynolds 725.
You’d know better than me whether it’s possible or likely that Spa or the factory changed a tube mid-production, whether to cut costs (Spa’s price has gone down in real terms as the pound has fallen) or to solve some other problem, with or without telling people downstream. I just know the sound when flicking the down tube is very different on my two frames and the new frame is a little heavier than I anticipated, and now iow reports the same experience.
