preferred-google-button
log in
register

653 Steel

  • This topic has 4 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 9 years ago by fenix.
  • Creator
    Topic
  • June 20, 2017 at 3:52 pm #27250
    notfastenough

    Hi folks, question for you: How would a Reynolds 653 frame compare to modern frames? There is just such a bike in the bike shelter at work, covered in dust and evidently uncared for. I’m inclined to rescue it (assuming I can trace and purchase from the owner) and restore into something nice, but to someone accustomed to relatively modern kit (I ride a 2013 Trek Madone carbon), do you think it would feel nice to ride, or would I be underwhelmed by a heavy clunky old thing? I’d probably try and dress it in campag xenon. Thanks

  • Creator
    Topic
Viewing 4 replies - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • June 22, 2017 at 3:52 pm #895485
    0
    fenix

    I had a 653 – nice enough

    I had a 653 – nice enough bike to ride – but harsh compared to the carbon TCR I replaced it with. 

    June 22, 2017 at 2:42 pm #895483
    0
    Langsam

    A classic steel frameset with

    A classic steel frameset with modern wheelset and groupset is many people´s idea of perfection. Go for it.

     

    One caveat – you can´t cold-set 753 so you´ll have to leave the rear spacing at 126mm (which is most likely what it is). This means you´re restricted in the rear hub you can use, 126mm was maximum 7-speeds.

     

    Happily there is a workaround for this – use 9 sprockets of a 10-speed cassette on a 7-speed cassette body, with one redundant ´click´ on the ergo shifters. Rear derailleur will need its H and L screws carefully adjusted. You might be able to salvage and reuse the existing wheelset. If it has Shimano already a conversion to (say) 10-speed Shimano would probably be easier.

     

     

    June 21, 2017 at 11:32 am #895481
    0
    Rod Marton

    653 was a mixed frameset,

    653 was a mixed frameset, effectively a 753 rear triangle and lower spec tubes towards the front (I can’t remember exactly what). As such it was effectively a cheaper version of 753. Long ago I raced on a 653 frame (it’s still at the back of the shed somewhere) and it was excellent. But 753 was difficult to build in, and, as per the comment above, there’s probably quite a variation between bikes.

    There was talk of 653 being a bit flexy, but I never found a problem (probably only an issue for larger frames). But I’m sure it would be more flexible than a carbon frame. You certainly won’t find it clunky, and steel really has a feel all of its own. Personally I found 653 a little harsh for really long rides, for anything over 200 miles I preferred 531. But that’s only an issue for doing audaxes/TCR/similar.

    The only issue you will have is that you will probably need to expand the rear dropout to cope with modern cassettes. I don’t know how easy this is with 753, no problem with 531 but 753 had some strange properties.

    June 21, 2017 at 10:16 am #895479
    0
    madcarew

    I was fortunate enough to be

    I was fortunate enough to be sponsored in 1992 and given a 653 Olmo to ride. It was really rubbish. However, I also put in a LOT of miles on a 653 peugeot, and it was a brilliant bike. It is entirely down to the build, probably even more so than carbon bikes. However, even a really well built steel frame feels nothing like a carbon bike, and by comparison feels much less stiff and responsive. Not to say it’s a bad ride, but is just different.

    Breathing life once more into a fine steel frame, and allowing it the opportunity to, again, roll the world below it’s feet?           Haut Category.

  • Author
    Replies
Viewing 4 replies - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.