# 531 framed bikes



## lastpubrunner (9 Jul 2008)

Why is there such a difference in the values of old 531 bikes ? Is it because of the components ?

I can understand why the likes of Hetchins etc are so sought after (appearance mainly, I guess).

About a year ago, I purchased an old (but perfectly useable) Rory O'Brien for a massive £40; but an elderly friend told me that O'Briens cost more than many other (531 framed) bikes at the time. Why ?

Frankly, I think that old bikes with 531 frames can be a *very good* buy; I have a very lightweight FW Evans bike which weighs about 21 Ibs (cost £100), a friend has a Felt F75 (17.5 Ilbs and about £1,000), another friend has a Van Nicholas £1,600, yet another has a Trek Madone (15 Ilbs and about £2,500). 

Bearing in mind that we all cycle only occasionally (we certainly don't compete), I feel that I am certainly getting the best value for money. Some people may say that steel bikes are old-fashioned, but it is hard to argue against the economics. Yes, my bike does weigh a bit more, but does it matter when in fact I could do with losing a few pounds myself. 

Is it a case of the Emperor's new clothes ?


----------



## dan_bo (9 Jul 2008)

A lot of the time i'd agree with you on the emperor's new clothes bit; a mate of mine commutes 33 miles daily on a dawes stratos (531/8 speed 105) that he bought for...........£26!


----------



## mickle (9 Jul 2008)

There's nowt wrong with steel frames, I own one or two myself, but there's something extraordinary about a really light bike. You'd think a few pounds wouldn't make much difference to the feel but it really does. 531 was developed for aeroplanes in the thirties and had reached the vertex of it's evolutionary potential by the seventies in terms of wall thickness and internal butting. 

There nothing wrong with it like there's nothing wrong with a MKIII Cortina but with the passage of time the technology has moved on in leaps and bounds. 

Each to their own. I think it's great that you can get a good old bike for peanuts but I also like to remind myself that if I was this big into most other pastimes (Motorbikes, cars, diving whatever) it would cost me a bunch more money than the piddling £3K that my best bike is worth. Whichever way you look at it it's a cheap sport.


----------



## EYE-TYE-MAD (14 Feb 2012)

mickle said:


> There's nowt wrong with steel frames, I own one or two myself, but there's something extraordinary about a really light bike. You'd think a few pounds wouldn't make much difference to the feel but it really does. 531 was developed for aeroplanes in the thirties and had reached the vertex of it's evolutionary potential by the seventies in terms of wall thickness and internal butting.
> 
> There nothing wrong with it like there's nothing wrong with a MKIII Cortina but with the passage of time the technology has moved on in leaps and bounds.
> 
> Each to their own. I think it's great that you can get a good old bike for peanuts but I also like to remind myself that if I was this big into most other pastimes (Motorbikes, cars, diving whatever) it would cost me a bunch more money than the piddling £3K that my best bike is worth. Whichever way you look at it it's a cheap sport.


I agree, a decent 531 frame with the right bits can still be a good ride by any measure.


----------



## HovR (14 Feb 2012)

Just so you know, this thread is over 3 years old. You may want to check the dates before posting..


----------



## EYE-TYE-MAD (14 Feb 2012)

HovR said:


> Just so you know, this thread is over 3 years old. You may want to check the dates before posting..


That may be so, but the sentiment remains for all eternity!


----------



## biggs682 (15 Feb 2012)

still worth discussing though

steel bikes are nice to ride and can be nearly as light as other materials


----------



## screenman (2 Mar 2012)

I used to live in a council flat, before that a halfway house, before that a hostel I now own a nice 4/5 bed house overlooking miles of open countryside. Bit the same with my bikes started off on scaffold tubes and now enjoy something a bit more newish might we say. The thing is some aspire and drive for nicer things in their view whilst others are happy with what they have and where they are, in my mind there is absolutely nothing wrong with either.

In fact whilst I was driving forward I often envied those that were content with what they had, now I am one of them content, just in a different place to where I started.

Still got 653 sitting on the turbo, in fact it has been there that long they have most likely fused together.

Personally I very much doubt I get a measurable amount of more pleasure riding my newer bike than I did in the past riding those older bikes.


----------



## Scilly Suffolk (2 Mar 2012)

HovR said:


> Just so you know, this thread is over 3 years old. You may want to check the dates before posting..


Why's that? I don't understand your beef, are you having a bad day?

It's not as if the thread related to anything time-sensitive like prices or availability.


----------



## HovR (2 Mar 2012)

Jimmy The Whiskers said:


> Why's that? I don't understand your beef, are you having a bad day?
> 
> It's not as if the thread related to anything time-sensitive like prices or availability.


 
I don't have any "Beef", nor was I having a bad day. Re-awakening (so to speak) old threads is often looked down upon in online communities.

The poster I was quoting may not have been aware that the thread was so old, so a bit of helpful advice ("You might want to check the dates before posting") may have prevented him from making the same mistake again in a more time sensitive thread.

I don't see any issue with me posting what I did. Did I come across as hostile? As that was not the intent of the post (hence the wink face).


----------



## Scilly Suffolk (2 Mar 2012)

HovR said:


> ...Re-awakening (so to speak) old threads is often looked down upon in online communities.
> 
> *Why?*
> 
> ...


----------



## Manonabike (2 Mar 2012)

HovR said:


> I don't have any "Beef", nor was I having a bad day. *Re-awakening (so to speak) old threads is often looked down upon in online communities.*
> 
> The poster I was quoting may not have been aware that the thread was so old, so a bit of helpful advice ("You might want to check the dates before posting") may have prevented him from making the same mistake again in a more time sensitive thread.
> 
> I don't see any issue with me posting what I did. Did I come across as hostile? As that was not the intent of the post (hence the wink face).


 
Says who? A lot of nonsense IMHO. Probably starting a brand new thread to discuss the same topic would seem rather silly. People do that old the time cause they are not aware of old threads.


----------



## HovR (2 Mar 2012)

At no point did I say "It is bad to post in 3 year old threads, you should not do it." or anything of the sort. I was merely informing the poster that the thread was over 3 years old, as IME it was more than likely they were not aware. I have no idea why you are making such a big deal over this.

I came across as patronising, and the emoticon reinforced that? Seems you can't win here - No emoticon and people take you far too seriously, and with emoticons I come across as patronising. Oh well.


----------



## Scilly Suffolk (2 Mar 2012)

You may not have said it directly, but you certainly implied it: why else would yuo feel obliged to point out his "error"?

What difference does it make whether or not they knew how old the original post was? You still haven't explained why "Re-awakening (so to speak) old threads is often looked down upon in online communities."

Your post was patronising, with or without the emoticon: it _reinforced_ your attitude, it didn't define it.

"IME" you weren't "merely informing" ETM of anything, you were drawing attention to mistake and demonstrating your membership of an elite by your understanding of unwritten codes of conduct and behaviour.

I am making no bigger a deal of it than you are: I am expressing my opinion that your criticism was petty and groundless; if you don't like your opinions being scrutinised, I suggest you keep them to yourself rather than posting them on a public foirum.


----------



## HovR (2 Mar 2012)

No offence, but I think you're reading waaay too far into this.


----------



## Scilly Suffolk (3 Mar 2012)

So, no answer as to why "Re-awakening (so to speak) old threads is often looked down upon in online communities." then?


----------



## HovR (3 Mar 2012)

*Sigh*, if you insist.

Reviving old threads is often looked down upon for a few reasons:

Posts of this nature often contain very little that add to the (old) conversation - Often made by new members to boost post count.
Old threads die and sink to the bottom for a reason - Because there either wasn't enough interest in the topic or it has been exhausted.
The topic has become irrelevant.
And in response to "Manonabikes" comment "Says who?" These people/forums, for example: 1, 2, 3.

I'm sorry that you interpreted my post the way you did, which was not the way I intended it to be conveyed - However I have to wonder why you are even going to such an effort to continue this debate - Especially since my post was over 15 days ago, and the person I was replying to didn't appear to interpret my post in the way you did (or anyone else, for that matter).

I didn't sign up for this forum to have petty disputes over such trivial things, so if you still have a problem with my post feel free to take it to the moderators, and I will discuss it with them.

Thank you.


----------



## Manonabike (4 Mar 2012)

HovR said:


> *Sigh*, if you insist.
> 
> Reviving old threads is often looked down upon for a few reasons:
> 
> ...


 
Thank you for taking the trouble to search the net is search of these people with weird ideas on old threads  - Number 1, IMHO the man is talking out of his backside. Number 2, that situation is not relevant to this case. Number 3, I wonder how much time some people have to waste on trying to persuade people to follow some strange rules....

I see nothing wrong with reviving an old thread, as long as the new post is still relevant..... it seems you'd prefer to start a new thread


----------



## Blue Hills (4 Mar 2012)

Well I thought this an interesting thread one wet Sunday before it went all argumentative.

More than willing to see some more posts on it, so I'll watch it.


----------

