citizen kane
Member
- Messages
- 266
I'm looking for some advice about stainless TIG wire.
I making a bicycle frame, in fact I'm making another bicycle frame, Type Bikes Type 44 is already complete.
The new frame will probably be made in Reynolds 853 or Columbus Life tubing. Typically tube wall thickness in light weight bicycle tubing is between 0.6 and 0.8 mm and some components like the dropouts will be stainless.
A frame forum I use has consistently recommended 0.9mm Weldmold 880T tig wire.
I cant find this over in the UK but my research and specifically the Lincoln Electric website has led me to sifsteel 312 as a possible alternative.
Apparently 880T "flows" better than your typical mild steel filler and will be suitable for joining steel to stainless steel.
I can get hold of a pound of 0.9mm 880T from the US frame builder for a not unreasonable $35 plus approx $30 shipping, not a bad price I think you will agree but it seems a bit crazy shipping steel rods halfway around the world.
Does any one know of a domestic source of 880T or if 312 is a suitable substitute.
I making a bicycle frame, in fact I'm making another bicycle frame, Type Bikes Type 44 is already complete.
The new frame will probably be made in Reynolds 853 or Columbus Life tubing. Typically tube wall thickness in light weight bicycle tubing is between 0.6 and 0.8 mm and some components like the dropouts will be stainless.
A frame forum I use has consistently recommended 0.9mm Weldmold 880T tig wire.
I cant find this over in the UK but my research and specifically the Lincoln Electric website has led me to sifsteel 312 as a possible alternative.
Apparently 880T "flows" better than your typical mild steel filler and will be suitable for joining steel to stainless steel.
I can get hold of a pound of 0.9mm 880T from the US frame builder for a not unreasonable $35 plus approx $30 shipping, not a bad price I think you will agree but it seems a bit crazy shipping steel rods halfway around the world.
Does any one know of a domestic source of 880T or if 312 is a suitable substitute.