Spa Audax crash damage – fork?

[PH]

I had 5 mins on my hands...

Above and beyond, but very interesting, thanks.

[amediasatex]

I had 5 mins on my hands...

Above and beyond, but very interesting, thanks.

It was as much for my benefit as anyone else

One fork I do want to weight at some point is the one on the front of my Dave Yates built 653 Condor, I don't know what blades it uses but it is the best riding fork I've ever had, it's sublime and very springy, I'm curious to know it's weight and one day I'll pull it out and find out.

[NetworkMan]

Thorn Audax Mk3 forks for 57mm brakes, unknown tubing with low-rider braze-ons AND two lower sets of braze ons, 1 1/8th a head steerer ~220mm long = 945g

Thorne's quoted weight is with 300 mm steerer at 1.03g/mm. So we add in (300-220)*1.03 = 82g to 945g to get 1027g vs the quoted 1040g. Only 1.3% out.

[NetworkMan]

I had 5 mins on my hands...

Above and beyond, but very interesting, thanks.

It was as much for my benefit as anyone else

One fork I do want to weight at some point is the one on the front of my Dave Yates built 653 Condor, I don't know what blades it uses but it is the best riding fork I've ever had, it's sublime and very springy, I'm curious to know it's weight and one day I'll pull it out and find out.

Re the experiment with Spa CF vs Thorn plain-vanilla. Did you find that there was a noticeable difference in ride quality? I partly wish I hadn't cannibalized my Dawes Audax to build the Spa Ti bike - It would have been interesting to compare the Reynolds 531c and 1" steerer with the Spa CF and 1.125" steerer. Perhaps after a few more tweaks to the Spa I'll have released most of the components to put the Dawes back together again!

[pwa]

Spa carbon / ally steerer forks cut down to 226mm = 548g.

[531colin]

http://www.torchandfile.com/assets/images/Reynolds/Reynolds%20Tubing%20Parts%20List%202014.pdf
Has some dimensions, but not butting lengths.....fork blades are at the end, for no reason I can think of.

[531colin]

Above and beyond, but very interesting, thanks.

It was as much for my benefit as anyone else

One fork I do want to weight at some point is the one on the front of my Dave Yates built 653 Condor, I don't know what blades it uses but it is the best riding fork I've ever had, it's sublime and very springy, I'm curious to know it's weight and one day I'll pull it out and find out.

Re the experiment with Spa CF vs Thorn plain-vanilla. Did you find that there was a noticeable difference in ride quality? I partly wish I hadn't cannibalized my Dawes Audax to build the Spa Ti bike - It would have been interesting to compare the Reynolds 531c and 1" steerer with the Spa CF and 1.125" steerer. Perhaps after a few more tweaks to the Spa I'll have released most of the components to put the Dawes back together again!

My money is on the 531c 1" steerer being much more compliant than a modern carbon fork. (Are you confident it is all 531c, not just main tubes?)

[amediasatex]

Re the experiment with Spa CF vs Thorn plain-vanilla. Did you find that there was a noticeable difference in ride quality? I partly wish I hadn't cannibalized my Dawes Audax to build the Spa Ti bike - It would have been interesting to compare the Reynolds 531c and 1" steerer with the Spa CF and 1.125" steerer. Perhaps after a few more tweaks to the Spa I'll have released most of the components to put the Dawes back together again!

Yes, the thorn fork was less comfy, but only marginally, and as above it is a fairly lumpen thing as far as forks go. You do get a lot of comfort from the flex of a 1 inch steerer (and a quill stem) and my normal audax bikes are setup that way. The Spa is not uncomfortable, but it's not an armchair ride.

I was at one point pondering putting some reducer cups into it and running it with a 1 inch fork...

This is what I normally use for audaxes, it's both fast and comfy and has a 1 inch fork with a 60mm offset



And this if I'm feeling in the mood to punish my legs, also exceedingly comfy.



Where as the Spa mostly gets used for shorter rides although I have used it on a couple of 200s, but went back to using the Osprey for longer rides.

[slowster]

Thorn claim Reynolds make theirs exclusively for them. I have no reason to doubt them, some of the other tubes in my Thorn 853 frame are not listed either.

I know that a number of brands make similar statements, e.g. Shand have 631 tubes custom drawn to their specification. However, I suspect that the tubes in those cases are specified to provide greater strength, rather than to be lighter or provide less stiffness/more flex.

Presumably Reynolds standard tube dimensions are chosen to provide an optimum balance of stiffness, strength and weight for brands using the tubes to make off-the-shelf frames in batches. In other words, the likes of Thorn and Shand frames are generally not custom built frames in the sense that the frame tubes and geometry are chosen by the builder to match a particular customer. If Reynolds do make lighter/thinner tubes than those in that list, I suspect that they will only be purchased by (and may only even be available to) a small number of true custom builders, and that even those custom builders would only order such tubes in preference to a standard tube if they were essential for a particular customer, e.g. a very petite lightweight female rider or an extremely tall rider.

As for amediasatex's point about the ratio of those the two thicknesses differing, I imagine it's possible, but I am sceptical that is the case in practice. Logically it would be the 853 blade which would exploit the greater strength of the metal to increase the thinner section (and so reduce weight and reduce stiffness for more comfort), but that is the opposite of what Dave Yates has stated, which is that 853 blades are stiffer/less comfortable.

I don't know the answers, but I do find this subject interesting (and apologies to SamuelD for taking the thread slightly off tangent).

[amediasatex]

If Reynolds do make lighter/thinner tubes than those in that list, I suspect that they will only be purchased by (and may only even be available to) a small number of true custom builders

I was thinking along opposite lines, namely that you'd only be able to get custom product if you were willing to place an order big enough for them to bother (custom) making it?

On the other hand if they have stock of unlisted/custom product sitting on shelves then presumably anyone they supply to can purchase it if it's there and not reserved for anyone?

I suspect we need and insider to answer this one as I certainly don't know.

And yes we've drifted a little off-topic, I wonder if Samuel had any such input into the metalwork chosen to rebuild his shoulder

Hope you do heal up quickly and can get your bike back on the road as good (or better) than before.

[slowster]

I was thinking along opposite lines, namely that you'd only be able to get custom product if you were willing to place an order big enough for them to bother (custom) making it?

On the other hand if they have stock of unlisted/custom product sitting on shelves then presumably anyone they supply to can purchase it if it's there and not reserved for anyone?

I think in the past Reynolds have sought the assistance of Dave Yates (and maybe other top custom builders) to help them develop and test new tubesets. I think the same happened with Columbus and Dario Pegoretti, who helped them develop Columbus' Xcr stainless steel tubeset. I suspect that although things have moved on significantly from the days when builders had to be approved by Reynolds to use 753, Reynolds would still be wary of providing tubes that were lighter/thinner than standard to builders unless they could rely on them to specify the tubes only for riders for whom they were suitable and could rely on the builders to have the skills necessary to braze/weld such lighter/thinner tubes.

Ultimately both Reynolds and the best custom framebuilders have a shared interest in not pushing the envelope too far. When Andy Hampsten won the Giro, that year the 7 Eleven team had Serotta frames built with 0.7mm/0.4mm Tange tubing. I read an interview in which Ben Serotta said that he had not wanted to use the tubing and only did so reluctantly. His doubts proved correct because the team experienced a high number of frame breakages that season, probably caused by the fact that Tange's quality control simply was not good enough, with the result that Hampsten did not trust the frames and instead rode the Giro on a (Huffy badged) Landshark custom made for him.

So my guess is that tubes which are drawn thinner/lighter than standard would be unlikely to be custom drawn for any one individual framebuilder, and instead would be made in a small batch which would probably provide Reynolds with enough stock to meet occasional orders from custom framebuilders for years.

As you say, we need an insider. I suspect Reynolds deliberately do not publish details of non-standard tubing because they do not want inexperienced framebuilders using it and they (and the top framebuilders) do not want customers asking for it, since most customers would not know whether it was appropriate for them and would only be asking because it's 'special' and the 'best' (just as many want 953 because it's the 'best', even though it might not be suitable for them and their use). Publicising the existence of such tubing would also undermine the marketing cachet of a brand having tubes custom drawn for them, because it would highlight the fact that frames built with such custom drawn tubesets are unlikely to be true custom frames.

[NetworkMan]

It was as much for my benefit as anyone else

One fork I do want to weight at some point is the one on the front of my Dave Yates built 653 Condor, I don't know what blades it uses but it is the best riding fork I've ever had, it's sublime and very springy, I'm curious to know it's weight and one day I'll pull it out and find out.

Re the experiment with Spa CF vs Thorn plain-vanilla. Did you find that there was a noticeable difference in ride quality? I partly wish I hadn't cannibalized my Dawes Audax to build the Spa Ti bike - It would have been interesting to compare the Reynolds 531c and 1" steerer with the Spa CF and 1.125" steerer. Perhaps after a few more tweaks to the Spa I'll have released most of the components to put the Dawes back together again!

My money is on the 531c 1" steerer being much more compliant than a modern carbon fork. (Are you confident it is all 531c, not just main tubes?)

Fairly confident. Although there are no Reynolds stickers on the frame the Dawes advert says: "Frame+fork Reynolds 531c." Also as mentioned above the blades+crown are particularly lighweight, being similar to the Thorn 853 fork and lighter than the one on my Spa steel tourer, and the other Thorn forks. Just had a thought. People say that a 1" steerer and quill stem is more flexible than a 1-1/8" inch threadless system. Presumably a fork with an alloy steerer (like my CF one) can't be allowed to flex much in the steerer or it would be prone to fatigue failure in the alloy.

Having said all that surely carbon fibre offers the possibility of building really flexible forks with controlled stiffness sideways doesn't it? Just what is done I just don't know.

[PH]

If Reynolds do make lighter/thinner tubes than those in that list, I suspect that they will only be purchased by (and may only even be available to) a small number of true custom builders, and that even those custom builders would only order such tubes in preference to a standard tube if they were essential for a particular customer, e.g. a very petite lightweight female rider or an extremely tall rider.

I don't know about lighter/thinner but there's no if as to whether Reynolds make tubes to order that are not on the list. For example - The Thorn Mercury has a 30.2 top tube in 853 that isn't there. How much difference it makes I neither know nor care, it rides as I would expect it to.

[NetworkMan]

As you say, we need an insider. I suspect Reynolds deliberately do not publish details of non-standard tubing because they do not want inexperienced framebuilders using it and they (and the top framebuilders) do not want customers asking for it, since most customers would not know whether it was appropriate for them and would only be asking because it's 'special' and the 'best' (just as many want 953 because it's the 'best', even though it might not be suitable for them and their use). Publicising the existence of such tubing would also undermine the marketing cachet of a brand having tubes custom drawn for them, because it would highlight the fact that frames built with such custom drawn tubesets are unlikely to be true custom frames.

A few clues re the 853 Thorn fork in the mega brochure:-
"Reynolds made the 853c blades and lightweight 853 steerer especially for us Reynolds even made the tooling for the tight-radius bend that I’d requested."
My reading of that is that Reynolds make them a fork (remember Thorn don't weld/braze themselves anymore) using off the shelf parts and bend the blades to Thorn's profile. I just don't believe that an off the shelf steerer would not be good enough. Tony Oliver says that 753 can't be cold set and I suspect that 853 can't either. Note that it does not say that Reynolds made the tooling to cold draw (or however they make 'em) a butted fork blade to Thorn's own design.

[slowster]

A few clues re the 853 Thorn fork in the mega brochure:-
"Reynolds made the 853c blades and lightweight 853 steerer especially for us Reynolds even made the tooling for the tight-radius bend that I’d requested."
My reading of that is that Reynolds make them a fork (remember Thorn don't weld/braze themselves anymore) using off the shelf parts and bend the blades to Thorn's profile. I just don't believe that an off the shelf steerer would not be good enough. Tony Oliver says that 753 can't be cold set and I suspect that 853 can't either. Note that it does not say that Reynolds made the tooling to cold draw (or however they make 'em) a butted fork blade to Thorn's own design.

I doubt Reynolds make forks or do any brazing/welding, it's not their core business either and it would put them in the position of being a competitor to the companies to which they supply tubes. I agree with you about the 'lightweight 853 steerer', which I suspect does not save much weight and is more about marketing/bragging rights.

I don't think what products Reynolds make solely for Thorn or any other off-the-shelf frame brand sheds much light on high performance, lightweight custom frames. I think it's extremely telling that Dave Yates reportedly persuades many of his customers not to have 853 and to have 631 instead, and similarly that he uses basic R fork blades as standard instead of 853 or 631.

If the tubesets custom drawn for the likes of Thorn and Shand were superior for general use and applications to the standard tube profiles currently offered by Reynolds, then I would expect Reynolds to include them in their standard line up.