Reynolds 531

For discussions about bikes and equipment.
roger72
Posts: 32
Joined: 10 Jun 2011, 7:21pm

Reynolds 531

Postby roger72 » 4 Nov 2013, 5:31pm

Can anyone please tell me the difference between 531c tubing and 531 super tourist tubing and also the difference in weight on two same size frames if possible.
Last edited by roger72 on 5 Nov 2013, 4:18pm, edited 2 times in total.

Brucey
Posts: 35930
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Reynolds 531

Postby Brucey » 4 Nov 2013, 6:17pm

this is a summary;

531c
Top tube - 0.8/0.5db
Down tube - 0.9/0.6db
Seat tube - 0.8/0.5sb
Fork blade - 1.0/0.5
steerer - 2.3/1.6sb
Seatstay - 0.5 x 16
Chainstay - 0.8
tubeset weight ~ 2050g

531ST
Top tube - 1.0/0.7db
Down tube - 1.0/0.7db
Seat tube - 1.0/0.7sb
Fork blade - 1.2/0.8
steerer - 2.3/1.6sb
Seatstay - 0.9 x 16
Chainstay - 0.9
tubeset weight ~2300g

in round numbers the ST tubeset is ~15% heavier nearly everywhere so assuming proportionally heavier fittings too, an ST frame you would be looking at another 1lb or so. A medium sized 531DB (or 'C') frame and fork tip in at ~6lbs and a similar sized ST frame might be 7lbs, around that mark. Do bear in mind that many frames may well have been built with a few non-standard tubes in; also the manufacturers did change the specification of the tubesets from time to time.

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 46793
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Reynolds 531

Postby Mick F » 5 Nov 2013, 8:47am

My frame is 531c, 23.5", 73deg parallel.
Frame weighs 2170g
Forks weigh 692g
Total 2,862g

Notes:
The head tube still has the headset fittings in place, as did the forks.
Electronic kitchen scales may not be dead-on accurate, but the figures must be fairly reasonable.
The figures of course, include the lugs and the fork crown plus the dropouts, and the brazing and paint too.
Brucey's figures above are only for the bare tubes.
Mick F. Cornwall

roger72
Posts: 32
Joined: 10 Jun 2011, 7:21pm

Re: Reynolds 531

Postby roger72 » 5 Nov 2013, 5:06pm

PM,s sent to both Brucey and Mick F.

User avatar
CREPELLO
Posts: 5558
Joined: 29 Nov 2008, 12:55am

Re: Reynolds 531

Postby CREPELLO » 25 Jan 2014, 1:28pm

I've just bought a Claud Butler 23" Dalesman frameset off ebay http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/221357421367? ... 1439.l2649

Thinking it would be made of 531ST I weighed it (stripped bare) and was a bit surprised that it weighed 2140g + 750g = 2890g total. I really expected it to weigh over 3kg. Does this suggest that it could be 531c? The sticker just says " Reynolds 531 - butted frame tubes".

tatanab
Posts: 3776
Joined: 8 Feb 2007, 12:37pm

Re: Reynolds 531

Postby tatanab » 25 Jan 2014, 1:54pm

CREPELLO wrote:The sticker just says " Reynolds 531 - butted frame tubes".
Says it all - 531 butted 3 main tubes, unspecified others. 80s/90s they were badged as ST, I think yours is a more modern one because it has low rider bosses and cantilever bosses.

User avatar
Paul Smith SRCC
Posts: 1055
Joined: 13 Feb 2007, 10:59am
Location: Live in Surrey
Contact:

Re: Reynolds 531

Postby Paul Smith SRCC » 25 Jan 2014, 2:33pm

Visually 531C (competition) and 531ST (Super Touriste) framesets were very similar, take the stickers off and it would be very hard to tell the difference, the 'ST' version having a heavier guage downtube to stop speed wobble under load, ST tubing looked the same as the 'C' version, although ST fork blades were flatter, slimmer in profile

Paul Smith

User avatar
CREPELLO
Posts: 5558
Joined: 29 Nov 2008, 12:55am

Re: Reynolds 531

Postby CREPELLO » 25 Jan 2014, 3:22pm

tatanab wrote:
CREPELLO wrote:The sticker just says " Reynolds 531 - butted frame tubes".
Says it all - 531 butted 3 main tubes, unspecified others. 80s/90s they were badged as ST, I think yours is a more modern one because it has low rider bosses and cantilever bosses.
With "unspecified other" tubes, I'd expect the frame to weigh more.

Paul Smith SRCC wrote: ST tubing looked the same as the 'C' version, although ST fork blades were flatter, slimmer in profile

Paul Smith
I've got a King of Mercia and the fork blades are very flat at the top. The blades on the Dalesman are noticeably rounder in comparison. Is 750g light for an ST fork?

I didn't buy the frame as a thoroughbred, so it doesn't really matter, but I'm just interested, especially when many modern touring frames seem to weigh significantly more.

It's supposed to become my replacement 'daily' - the previous 'daily' succumbing to the slightly tragic condition of 'upgraditis', rendering it far too good for leaving around town :roll: .
$_58.JPG

As you can see, the Dalesman has aquired a nice sized dent in the top tube. The tube isn't bent, so I'll fill the dent up with Milliput putty, then paint over it. The colour looks a dead ringer for Humbrol 'French Gloss Blue' (the paintwork is darker in real life than the photo), so I'm hopeful of getting a good colour match.

Brucey
Posts: 35930
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Reynolds 531

Postby Brucey » 25 Jan 2014, 3:40pm

CREPELLO wrote:I've just bought a Claud Butler 23" Dalesman frameset off ebay http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/221357421367? ... 1439.l2649

Thinking it would be made of 531ST I weighed it (stripped bare) and was a bit surprised that it weighed 2140g + 750g = 2890g total. I really expected it to weigh over 3kg. Does this suggest that it could be 531c? The sticker just says " Reynolds 531 - butted frame tubes".


As noted above this transfer means that the three main tubes are butted 531. It says nothing about the stays or forks.

2890g is 6lbs 6oz in real money.

The Dalesman for some years was not a heavy tourer; it was built more like a clubman's bike. IIRC a friend had one which was built in a standard 531DB tubeset, i.e. about the same weight as 531C. Another had one like yours which I think had 531DB main tubes and a 531 fork. A standard 531 (i.e. non ST) fork will weigh a gnats over 1.5lbs in that size with those braze-ons. If yours is like that then you have stays that weigh about 6oz more than 531 racing stays would weigh. This would make sense to me because the dalesman was sold for years with a rear carrier but no front carrier fittings.

BTW that frame has, I think, been refinished. If it is the model I'm thinking of (from the 1980's) then the low rider bosses (is that what I'm seeing or is it just a paint mark?) and perhaps the canti braze-ons have been added later.

The rear bosses and double eyes may be original (hence heavier stays).

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

User avatar
CREPELLO
Posts: 5558
Joined: 29 Nov 2008, 12:55am

Re: Reynolds 531

Postby CREPELLO » 25 Jan 2014, 6:39pm

Brucey wrote:
CREPELLO wrote:I've just bought a Claud Butler 23" Dalesman frameset off ebay http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/221357421367? ... 1439.l2649

Thinking it would be made of 531ST I weighed it (stripped bare) and was a bit surprised that it weighed 2140g + 750g = 2890g total. I really expected it to weigh over 3kg. Does this suggest that it could be 531c? The sticker just says " Reynolds 531 - butted frame tubes".


As noted above this transfer means that the three main tubes are butted 531. It says nothing about the stays or forks.

2890g is 6lbs 6oz in real money.

The Dalesman for some years was not a heavy tourer; it was built more like a clubman's bike. IIRC a friend had one which was built in a standard 531DB tubeset, i.e. about the same weight as 531C. Another had one like yours which I think had 531DB main tubes and a 531 fork. A standard 531 (i.e. non ST) fork will weigh a gnats over 1.5lbs in that size with those braze-ons. If yours is like that then you have stays that weigh about 6oz more than 531 racing stays would weigh. This would make sense to me because the dalesman was sold for years with a rear carrier but no front carrier fittings.

BTW that frame has, I think, been refinished. If it is the model I'm thinking of (from the 1980's) then the low rider bosses (is that what I'm seeing or is it just a paint mark?) and perhaps the canti braze-ons have been added later.

The rear bosses and double eyes may be original (hence heavier stays).

cheers
Interesting thoughts, but I'm not so sure the frame has been refinished - although there is a chance you might be correct (as usual :wink: ). It had the usual stickers (shop/BS6102 - removed by me) and I've been looking at other examples on the web. There are of course differences year to year and at least one example marked 531c with side pull brakes, although plenty with canti's too. My frame has horizontal dropouts with only one pair of eyes :? and no facility for adjusting screws :roll: . I've also seen another one in french blue which also exhibits wear to the paintwork, revealing a white undercoat, as does mine.

I've not looked at the frame number yet, which may help define a year. When did low riders become common place? Late '80's/early '90s. It doesn't have the corresponding eyelets on the fork. I think the Reynolds sticker dates from '89ish (?). Rear dropouts bizarrely measure about 122mm, so maybe it is earlier :? Brakes are Shimano AT-50 and CS is Exage(***?) Biopace.

None of this matters of course as I'm not planning a historic rebuild, just a well spec'd work horse, which this frame should make a good basis for. I do want something with a bit of zip to it. so knowing the frame isn't over weight is a good start.

User avatar
CREPELLO
Posts: 5558
Joined: 29 Nov 2008, 12:55am

Re: Reynolds 531

Postby CREPELLO » 27 Jan 2014, 1:09pm

tatanab wrote:
CREPELLO wrote:The sticker just says " Reynolds 531 - butted frame tubes".
Says it all - 531 butted 3 main tubes, unspecified others. 80s/90s they were badged as ST, I think yours is a more modern one because it has low rider bosses and cantilever bosses.
Still thinking about this, the sticker doesn't really say that much. What type of 531 has been used? From what I understand, the default 531 was the same as 531C, or is that an assumption too far? So, could this be a mix of 531C and regular Cro-mo perhaps?

This sticker looks like the most recent style of sticker. From what I've seen, the sticker in question would usually be accompanied by a separate one denoting C or ST, but some of this style also have those tube types denoted in red lettersing within the one sticker. So perhaps this sticker should have been accompanied by a separate sticker.

It's no great concern, but trying to decipher the meaning of Reynolds stickers isn't easy, and that I would like to understand more.

tatanab
Posts: 3776
Joined: 8 Feb 2007, 12:37pm

Re: Reynolds 531

Postby tatanab » 27 Jan 2014, 1:25pm

CREPELLO wrote:trying to decipher the meaning of Reynolds stickers isn't easy, and that I would like to understand more.
This is a help http://www.equusbicycle.com/bike/reynol ... nsfers.jpg which comes from http://www.equusbicycle.com/bike/reynolds/reynolds.htm with a lot more Reynolds information.

User avatar
CREPELLO
Posts: 5558
Joined: 29 Nov 2008, 12:55am

Re: Reynolds 531

Postby CREPELLO » 27 Jan 2014, 4:37pm

Thank's for the links Tatanab. Unfortunately the info that accompanies the decal closest to mine (No.24) merely states (as you said) that "the top tube, seat tube and down tube...are Reynolds BUTTED 531". Question is, which gauge tube? :?

tatanab
Posts: 3776
Joined: 8 Feb 2007, 12:37pm

Re: Reynolds 531

Postby tatanab » 27 Jan 2014, 6:15pm

I doubt you will ever know, there being no unique sticker for ST main triangle tubes. In the link I gave above is this - a history of Reynolds decals http://www.hlloydcycles.com/531%20history.pdf which I found interesting having had many 531 frames of various ages, DB and plain gauge, a 531SL, a 653 and a 653 All Terrain. I've moved into this century as well having two 725 frames at present.

User avatar
CREPELLO
Posts: 5558
Joined: 29 Nov 2008, 12:55am

Re: Reynolds 531

Postby CREPELLO » 27 Jan 2014, 10:58pm

Well from the link above I've deduced that the frame is probably post '89, indeterminate 531db main and non butted cro-mo other tubes. The non butting is probably an aid for a load lugging machine. Could lighter 531C main tubes and non butted stays make a good combination I wonder? Or is stiffness gained more from a stiffer main triangle than from the stays?