Reynolds 531

For discussions about bikes and equipment.
Brucey
Posts: 44666
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Reynolds 531

Post by Brucey »

CREPELLO wrote: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?


That just tells you how old the sticker is, not how old the frame is. I don't ever remember the dalesman having such a plain and boring paint job as that. If the rear end is 122mm then this might suggest a much earlier frame with revisions.

The Super Dalesman from ~1985 on had those braze-ons, though; maybe it is one of those. There are 1985 and 1986 catalogues on Nick Kilgariff's site.

http://www.nkilgariff.com/ClaudButler.htm

On reflection it is possible that this is an early Falcon-manufactured bike; the Claud Butler brand changed hands several times around that time; first to Marlboro and then to Falcon.

Come to think of it I owned a 1988 CB bike and it had a rather plain paint job with Vinyl decals (no clear coat over them), a BS sticker etc. The paint job was white with another colour coat over that in places. The paint was thick but chipped easily at the dropouts; the Blue topcoat was almost the same colour as yours. An earlier Falcon I owned had a similar paint job to that, too.

So I'm going to change my mind; maybe it is an original paint job, just missing some vinyl decals by normal standards. If the paint is original, sound but chipped I'd fill the chips, flat it off, and then (except for the decal areas) give it a topcoat of come kind, ideally one that touches in easily.

I'd suggest you look at the manufacturing dates of the parts on it. Shimano bits have a two letter date code on them. It isn't proof of course but it might tally with some other information.

BTW under Falcon ownership (and contrary to mentions on some websites) 1987-1992 the CB range DID include MTBs; that is what my 1988 CB was.

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
User avatar
timmyhiggy
Posts: 215
Joined: 24 Jul 2011, 10:13pm

Re: Reynolds 531

Post by timmyhiggy »

excellent 531 variations knowledge coming out in this thread!
For sake of comparison, what kind of thicknesses and weights are gas pipes that get used for cheap frames?
Brucey
Posts: 44666
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Reynolds 531

Post by Brucey »

well (in standard dia tubesets) to put it into perspective....

a 531DB/531C frame and fork in a middling size is 6lbs.

Anything lighter than that is 'something fancy' e.g. 531SL, 753 or equivalent) etc. Pre ~1975, 531 was available in lighter gauges, for use as a builder thought fit. So although '531SL' didn't exist, the tubes themselves mostly did. Occasionally you will hear of a much older frame that is around 5- 1/2lbs in 531, and this is how it was done. I own a lightweight touring frame that weighs convincingly less than 6 lbs which is built in Accles and Pollock tubing; presumably the slightly higher post-braze strength allowed a lighter gauge to be used in places; it is a pretty lively ride.

A 531ST frame and fork can be around 7lbs but the tube gauges varied so can be heavier. The ST fork was a fair bit heavier.

A reasonable 'lightweight' 531frame with PG main tubes and a 531 Fork can also be about 7lbs.

A touring frame/fork with 531PG main tubes and heavier built stays and forks (for load carrying) can be up to ~8.5lbs (e.g. mid 1970s dawes galaxy)

A bog standard Raleigh frame/fork in 20/30 tubing (PG steel as manufactured from ~1948- 1980) is also around 8.5lbs

Gas pipe frames can just get heavier from there; I have a Raleigh Pioneer frame/fork (from about 1990, with a lugged frame and a welded fork) and it weighs about 11lbs.

My Pashley frame weighed more than that.

larger frames get heavier ( tubes are longer plus tube gauges have to get thicker in many cases, so it is a double-whammy...), and smaller frames can be built in very light tubes and are still strong enough for a small, light rider to go touring on.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
User avatar
CREPELLO
Posts: 5559
Joined: 29 Nov 2008, 12:55am

Re: Reynolds 531

Post by CREPELLO »

Brucey wrote:
CREPELLO wrote: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?


That just tells you how old the sticker is, not how old the frame is. If the rear end is 122mm then this might suggest a much earlier frame with revisions.

The 122 OLN figure is strange for a frame that might be circa late '80's, when you consider that the BB cable runs are underside rather than the old style above run and the fork doesn't have the old style front lamp boss either. And with low rider bosses...

Here's a write up about an identical (more than less) http://brazenbicycles.com/Claude-Butler-Randonneur. All essential features are the same as my own.
I don't ever remember the dalesman having such a plain and boring paint job as that.
:lol: Well, I know what you mean, but polished up like the one in the link above, French Blue is quite a fetching colour and as it approximates very well with Humbrol French Gloss Blue, touching up should be a doddle.

Come to think of it I owned a 1988 CB bike and it had a rather plain paint job with Vinyl decals (no clear coat over them), a BS sticker etc. The paint job was white with another colour coat over that in places. The paint was thick but chipped easily at the dropouts; the Blue topcoat was almost the same colour as yours. An earlier Falcon I owned had a similar paint job to that, too.

So I'm going to change my mind
:D It does sound very similar, , white undercoat, vinyl stickers etc, although some stickers are clear coated (incl the 531), the main CB stickers aren't, I don't think.

a 531DB/531C frame and fork in a middling size is 6lbs.

Anything lighter than that is 'something fancy' e.g. 531SL, 753 or equivalent) etc. Pre ~1975, 531 was available in lighter gauges, for use as a builder thought fit. So although '531SL' didn't exist, the tubes themselves mostly did. Occasionally you will hear of a much older frame that is around 5- 1/2lbs in 531, and this is how it was done. I own a lightweight touring frame that weighs convincingly less than 6 lbs which is built in Accles and Pollock tubing; presumably the slightly higher post-braze strength allowed a lighter gauge to be used in places; it is a pretty lively ride.

A 531ST frame and fork can be around 7lbs but the tube gauges varied so can be heavier. The ST fork was a fair bit heavier.
As I mentioned my frameset is in old money 6.5lb. And as I also speculated to no conclusion, the Reynolds sticker merely states "531 butted frame tubes". Sorry to have to repeat myself, but with that weight and that sticker, but in the greater interests of frameology :D , any idea what those 531 tubes could be? (seatpost is 27.2)
Last edited by CREPELLO on 30 Jan 2014, 8:54pm, edited 1 time in total.
Brucey
Posts: 44666
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Reynolds 531

Post by Brucey »

CREPELLO wrote: ...As I mentioned my frameset is in old money 6.5lb. And as I also speculated to no conclusion, the Reynolds sticker merely states "531 butted frame tubes". Sorry to have to repeat myself, but with that weight and that sticker, but in the greater interests of frameology :D , any idea what those 531 tubes could be? (seatpost is 27.2)


well if I were designing a frame for a light load I'd use the same gauge main tubes as in 531C in small frame sizes and I'd increase the down tube, seat tube lower section and then top tube wall thicknesses in larger sizes. I wouldn't bother with anything larger than ~25" in those tube dias.

Short of using a hacksaw on it you will have difficulty in finding out for sure what you have there..... :wink:

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
User avatar
CREPELLO
Posts: 5559
Joined: 29 Nov 2008, 12:55am

Re: Reynolds 531

Post by CREPELLO »

Brucey wrote:
CREPELLO wrote: ...As I mentioned my frameset is in old money 6.5lb. And as I also speculated to no conclusion, the Reynolds sticker merely states "531 butted frame tubes". Sorry to have to repeat myself, but with that weight and that sticker, but in the greater interests of frameology :D , any idea what those 531 tubes could be? (seatpost is 27.2)


well if I were designing a frame for a light load I'd use the same gauge main tubes as in 531C in small frame sizes and I'd increase the down tube, seat tube lower section and then top tube wall thicknesses in larger sizes. I wouldn't bother with anything larger than ~25" in those tube dias.

Short of using a hacksaw on it you will have difficulty in finding out for sure what you have there..... :wink:

cheers
To your knowledge, have you ever seen or heard of a normal sized 531C frame with plain gauge stays?
Brucey
Posts: 44666
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Reynolds 531

Post by Brucey »

what makes you think the stays are ever butted?

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
User avatar
CREPELLO
Posts: 5559
Joined: 29 Nov 2008, 12:55am

Re: Reynolds 531

Post by CREPELLO »

Brucey wrote:what makes you think the stays are ever butted?

cheers

Umm, dunno...
Not even a 531c (or lighter) throughout frame?
Brucey
Posts: 44666
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Reynolds 531

Post by Brucey »

well IIRC some chainstays are made like Reynolds fork blades, but not all. The seat stays are plain gauge, and only vary in wall thickness by virtue of being manipulated in external diameter, I think.

Famously, Reynolds had to issue a different 531DB sticker for use in the USA because it was claimed that the original (slantwise) 531DB transfer was misleading re the butting in the stays.

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
keyboardmonkey
Posts: 1123
Joined: 1 Dec 2009, 5:05pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Reynolds 531

Post by keyboardmonkey »

Don't know if it's of any interest, or if it's relevant to this thread, but my 531ST frame (c. 1984) and 531 tandem (c. 1997) both take a 27.0 mm seat post, whereas my 531C frame (c.1986) takes 27.2 mm.
Post Reply