Interested to know.

I heard it was because the bends prevent the fork being heat treated, but that doesn't make the greatest bit of sense as the rear triangle often features bends in the chain stays and seat stays. Also 753 forks are available and they too are heat treated.

Basically I like that 853 features air hardening which helps increase stiffness and create higher fatigue strength. But I've never seen 853 forks (even my custom 853 BJ has 753 forks).

So why does 853 not work for forks?

just to annoy you?!?
maybe too thin.

Do you get 853 rear triangles (especially bendy ones)?

I thought not, but I could be wrong. I thought it was main tubes only.

i've got 853 forks on by bob jackson road bike...
the main triangle and the forks are, but the stays aren't. go figure.

I read something that said the 853 Pro tubeset featured an oversize downtube and 853 rear. I imagine the benefits (if any in that location) are so minimal, that it's better to go for a major cost saving and use 531/725 or even carbon.

From here:

"Stays - Updated
So after all the slagging we've just given cromoly, you're probably wondering why the rear end of the Soul is made out of the stuff instead of 853 now that 853 stays have become available (late 2005). Well, any structural problem is simply a matter of working to the limits of the material, and the rear end of the Soul is as strong and responsive as it can be through careful design and tube specification, backed up by more than 4 years of riding through prototyping and into production. Reynolds are only offering their 853 stays in the same profiles and wall thickness as our cromoly stays so they wouldn't any lighter, just an awful lot stronger (when our cromoly rear end is perfectly strong enough) and an awful lot more expensive. For the moment, we'll stick with what we've got. "

Looking here it seems that their fork blades (bottom of page 4) are not in a specific tube set group. They just seems to be a selection of fork blades with different gauges for different uses. Unless I am reading what they have available wrong.

At a complete guess maybe they find that people that have a 853 frame tend to have carbon forks and hence the production cost of 853 fork blades does not make sence?

Looking here it seems that there is not a technical reason why you could not have a 853 fork blade. The bending thing may be an issue but you could still have a straight blade fork I would have though. We need a materials person to work this one out.

would athena star women be off assistance?

853 is terrifyingly thin, but that doesn't seem to be a good reason not to use it for forks. Capp put carbon forks on his new 853 Cooper and it looks totally wrong.



If you like, I can ask Horses (builds at Bilenky) for his views on the matter.

Thin is good... lightweight but strong is the way I want to go (without quite going to carbon as I do love the feel of steel and all it represents - one man masterful craftsmanship with metal).

If you could find ask, I'd appreciate it. I just want the view on it really.

If there is a problem with bends and tolerances, then I'm part considering a strut fork design that doesn't have bends to accomodate a light but strong steel.

must buy a Ron Cooper before it's too late.

I can't answer your question but I know that 853 after brazing becomes harder and thats why you don't or didn't get 853 headtubes, because once they were brazed it was very hard to face and ream them

Exactly what Cappa thought. Well, actually he thought must buy ANOTHER cooper. Frame no fork £800.