Reynolds 653

[Haylock1974]

I was told 'The Merckx Story' by a senior Reynolds executive at a trade show a few years ago so I take it as being true. Seems he rode Paris-Roubaix on a full 753 frame and didn't enjoy the experience. He discussed this with Reynolds and they came up with the hybrid 653 tubing set which was more to his liking.

That certainly gives the 653 some kudos.
If it's good enough for Merckx it's good enough for me!

 

[Pionir]

Back when it first came out I remember hearing the heat treatment explanation. I can't remember if I read it in cycling weekly, heard it down my LBS or from someone at my club though. The story was the 653 tubes were 753 *without* heat treatment so they weren't as strong but kept their properties whereas the increased strength/stiffness of 753 was supposed to reduce with age. So basically 653 was supposed to be a more consumer friendly version of the pro focused 753 as pros would swap frame every year anyway.

How accurate this was I couldn't say of course. I do know that Raleigh omitted the chainstay bridge off their off the peg 653 frames around 91-92 presumably because they thought it wasn't needed for bracing to reduce deflection.

It could all be complete bobbins

 

[AndyMart]

It is bobbins as we all know it's a concept tube set, 531 front triangle with 753 stays, there is no 653 tubing, and there's one of those bridgeless frames on eBay now with cracked stays, perhaps because of the lack of a bridge?

 

[Pionir]

Could be although I think it's more like to have been cold spread or abused some other way.

 

[cce]

I've a sneaking suspicion the Merckx story is bunk, largely because 653 didn't emerge until he was well and truly retired. A Reynolds rep told me it too, but he'd never heard of 653 Record, which is absolutely a thing, and the source of even more confusion than 653 itself.......

 

[hamster]

Back when it first came out I remember hearing the heat treatment explanation. I can't remember if I read it in cycling weekly, heard it down my LBS or from someone at my club though. The story was the 653 tubes were 753 *without* heat treatment so they weren't as strong but kept their properties whereas the increased strength/stiffness of 753 was supposed to reduce with age. So basically 653 was supposed to be a more consumer friendly version of the pro focused 753 as pros would swap frame every year anyway.

How accurate this was I couldn't say of course. I do know that Raleigh omitted the chainstay bridge off their off the peg 653 frames around 91-92 presumably because they thought it wasn't needed for bracing to reduce deflection.

It could all be complete bobbins

What you say is exactly what is in Tony Oliver's framebuilding book - 653 uses tubing with the same gauges as 753 but without the heat treatment for stiffness. His view was that it was no better than 531c in the end...but noted how popular it was as a poor man's 753.

Remember that 753 is essentially heat-treated 531...overheating 753 destroyed the effects of the heat treatment. This was why builders had to be individually certified and brass brazing was forbidden.

 

[Haylock1974]

Thanks so much for all the interesting contributions...still slightly confusing though!?!?

 

[cce]

Thanks so much for all the interesting contributions...still slightly confusing though!?!?

in such circumstances, i find the best option is to take the bike and ride around on it.

 

[Haylock1974]

Thanks so much for all the interesting contributions...still slightly confusing though!?!?

in such circumstances, i find the best option is to take the bike and ride around on it.

Sounds a very sensible idea!

 

[FiveAlpha]

Reviving this thread after 4 years, because of a conversation on another thread, regarding what 653 actually is (it is still as clear as mud!).

Amongst so much rumour and conjecture, the 'facts' we know are:

- 653 has same gauge main tubes as 753 (though supposedly heavier, which makes no sense)
- Made of MnMo, not CrMo (so, same material as 531 and 753)
- Mixed strength tubeset (strong forks, stronger main triangle, strongest rear triangle)
- 753 and 531 are essentially the same material, with 753 receiving thinner gauges and heat-treatment

Questionable 'facts':

- Merckx had anything to do with 653 - just because a Reynolds employee said it, doesn't make it true. I worked for a global company, where dozens of myths were propagated, either out or ignorance or laziness, or because people thought it was fun to make up stuff for customers!)
- The idea that the main triangle is just 531/531Pro - it is thinner gauge than 531 and, according to Raleigh, stronger than 531Pro (although, see point above, about misinformation)
- That 725 has any place in this story. It was released to the public more than 10 years after, and is CrMo, not MnMo. Did Reynolds make a new product, and hide it for a decade, to make stays for a tubeset that was around for only a couple of years? Seems implausible.


My best guess is that 653 main tubes are something between 531 and 753. If 753 is heat-treated 531, drawn thinner; then 653 is likely to be 531, non-heat-treated, drawn to the same gauge as 753, and then some additional strengthening (cold-working?) so, neither 531P nor 753?

Also, if it uses 753 rear stays, why are non-753 certified builders allowed to use it? And why can 653 frames have chromed stays, whilst 753 supposedly can't?