Comfortable forks

If you had the choice of 853 or 653 forks [assuming 653 are 653 and not 531 in disguise].....which would give the most 'comfortable ride'?......both forks are to use a quill stem and the steerers are threaded...so the only difference is the material...the frame size is 22.25''......cheers.

It varies on the geometry more than the tubing (I think).

Easy - 853 will be more comfortable. 30.6% more, in fact.

Depends on how they are made, the crown and geometry as ed pointed out. Its also a matter of personal opinion, your best to try them out. But obviously the 853 is the newer more high-tech tubing with better strength and more expensive.

You could just think out of the box and get some carbon.

I would have thought the 653 would be more complient steel, as 853 is a 'better' and therefore stiffer steel.

Thing is that I would also assume a pair of 853 forks to be made of thinner tubing, than the 653. So any difference due to steel type would be somewhat lost.

Having said that 531 has been and still is a very popular fork material, so would trust the experts and go for the 653 if it was me (probs cheaper, no), (or carbon if I could get the right look).

Thanks for the advice.....the 653 is really a thin 531 in disguise [bit like a transformer]....i did think of CF but seeing a CTC thread on sheared alloy steerers i decided to stick to steel....trouble with trying both is the cost of prepping both etc...though Deadly Fanny Pack...in an ideal world your suggestion is best and as i have been overlooked for the Tour de France again...i will probably stick with 653 [aka as 531] forks......but the 853 are tempting cos they are 853!

am i correct in saying that 853 cannot be bent into curved fork legs, they have to be straight?

Easy - 853 will be more comfortable. 30.6% more, in fact.

853-653=200

200/653=0.306x100=30.6% 853 is more comfortable than 653

but

853-653=200

200/853x100=23.45% 853 less comfortable than 653

Have you considered that?

853-653=200

200/653=0.306x100=30.6%

but

853-653=200

200/853x100=23.45%

So Olly....30.6% or 23.45% or or 27.03%?

The word more means states a comparison between 653 and 853 so you put 653 on the denomenator.

853 is 30.6% more awesome than 653
653 is 23.5% less awesome than 853

a nice pair of gazelle 531 forks would be good they have a nice amount of flex in the fork which absorb a good amount of " road noise "
so 531 ftw in my honest opinion

The word more means states a comparison between 653 and 853 so you put 653 on the denomenator.

853 is 30.6% more awesome than 653
653 is 23.5% less awesome than 853

I did edit my calculations...but i'm not convinced of your argument...the implication is 853 must be better but there must be the possibility that it is worse!

a nice pair of gazelle 531 forks would be good they have a nice amount of flex in the fork which absorb a good amount of " road noise "
so 531 ftw in my honest opinion

Sadly a set Gazelle 531 forks is not an option...Graham Weigh 653 [531] forks are!

Reynolds says that 653 is 753 without the heat treatment, which would make it a thinner and weaker 531c. That would be comfy.
Incidentally Wikipedia says 653 tubesets have proper 753 stays.

853 is the same tubing(?) heat treated and air hardened. That would make it very stiff, though light.

I find 753 forks a little unforgiving over rough tarmac, but so bloody nice to ride over smooth stuff.

A bigger rake = more comfort. short rake and straight forks are the least comfortable but most responsive.

I think the key point Blue Quinn has made is 'but so bloody nice to ride over smooth stuff.'.....on British roads at least where i live ......'smooth stuff' is rare as most surfaces have considerable 'road noise and buzz'.....with many roads with deep potholes......under those conditions 853 would cause great discomfort as compared to 531.....am i correct here?

am i correct in saying that 853 cannot be bent into curved fork legs, they have to be straight?

ye, i think you can only get 853 in the main tubes.

ye, i think you can only get 853 in the main tubes.

Prynhawn da, Dylan......so what are 853 forks made from...[I]if not 853?[/I]

prynhawn da markist fixie...

yes, im not a 100% but what murtle said rings a bell, u only see main tubes made from 853, and googling 853 forks doesnt show anyone actually making them.

prynhawn da markist fixie...

yes, im not a 100% but what murtle said rings a bell, u only see main tubes made from 853, and googling 853 forks doesnt show anyone actually making them.

a couple of years ago.....when i was considering getting a Bob Jackson.....they told me that whatever the tube set...853, 631, 725 etc...Reynolds only have one type of steel fork....made from CroMo....not 531 etc......so perhaps it depends when the 853 forks were made...perhaps originally...Reynolds made 853 tubing for forks.....whereas there is no such thing [it seems] as 653 forks...as they are really thin 531 with a 653 label.....but that would be 'better' than the indeterminate modern Reynolds CroMo forks....if you see what i mean!......plus one needs to measure like for like....similar rake etc to make it a 'fair test.'......or am i talking bollocks?

Meh.. tyre pressure will make more difference.

Problem solved- quill as well so it won't look out of place.

Problem solved- quill as well so it won't look out of place.

I remember those...weren't they considerd......crap!....but i thought they were for the ATB type of vehicle?

Usually to be seen on one of these:

Although Girvin sold them to a number of other companies.

The idea was that (when you had a suspension fork) you could set the fork to be very firm to take out big hits whilst the stem took care of trail chatter.

The Proflex in the picture reviewed very well- especially for the 20", I remember wanting one at the time.

On second thoughts it might be a good idea as some of the roads around Cambridge are very poor...boneshaker time.....when your lower jaw whacks into upper jaw!

Flex will depend on the blade diameter and wall thickness more than anything. Curved forks should be slightly more forgiving too.

a couple of years ago.....when i was considering getting a Bob Jackson.....they told me that whatever the tube set...853, 631, 725 etc...Reynolds only have one type of steel fork....made from CroMo....not 531 etc......so perhaps it depends when the 853 forks were made...perhaps originally...Reynolds made 853 tubing for forks.....whereas there is no such thing [it seems] as 653 forks...as they are really thin 531 with a 653 label.....but that would be 'better' than the indeterminate modern Reynolds CroMo forks....if you see what i mean!......plus one needs to measure like for like....similar rake etc to make it a 'fair test.'......or am i talking bollocks?

You certainly used to get 531 and 753 fork blades back when you could get 531 and 753.
653 is really thin 531 anyway. (Same thickness as 753, but not heat-treated), so I see no reason why they would not have made fork blades using it.

Nowadays they might only make 525, which is the seamless Cr-mo, and very similar to 531 in its weight and strength.