"Compact Double Crank" = "Touring Bike Crank"
 

This is the funniest thing to come along since oval chain rings were
"replaced" by super-duper round ones.

Finally, some company had the smarts to give the average cycling joe the
gearing he needs while wrapping it all in some "weight saving" mystique.

http://www.yellowjersey.org/cranx3.html

My '93 Cannondale touring bike came with a low-Q Ritchey triple with
50-42-30 rings. I run another Ritchey triple with 50-38-28 on my road
bike with a 7-speed 12-23 cassette.

Maybe we can now dig out our old Sugino triples and call them "vintage
racing compact"

Rob

Robert Perkins wrote:
This is the funniest thing to come along since oval chain rings were
"replaced" by super-duper round ones.

Finally, some company had the smarts to give the average cycling joe the
gearing he needs while wrapping it all in some "weight saving" mystique.

http://www.yellowjersey.org/cranx3.html

My '93 Cannondale touring bike came with a low-Q Ritchey triple with
50-42-30 rings. I run another Ritchey triple with 50-38-28 on my road
bike with a 7-speed 12-23 cassette.

Maybe we can now dig out our old Sugino triples and call them "vintage
racing compact"

Rob

Wow, why $120 for the Suntour XC-Pro long cage rear der.?
http://www.yellowjersey.org/rdxcpro.jpg

Robert Perkins wrote:
This is the funniest thing to come along since oval chain rings were
"replaced" by super-duper round ones.

Finally, some company had the smarts to give the average cycling joe the
gearing he needs while wrapping it all in some "weight saving" mystique.

http://www.yellowjersey.org/cranx3.html

My '93 Cannondale touring bike came with a low-Q Ritchey triple with
50-42-30 rings. I run another Ritchey triple with 50-38-28 on my road
bike with a 7-speed 12-23 cassette.

Maybe we can now dig out our old Sugino triples and call them "vintage
racing compact"

wrote:
Wow, why $120 for the Suntour XC-Pro long cage rear der.?
http://www.yellowjersey.org/rdxcpro.jpg

Some riders prefer "new in box", others accept used from
EBay for less. Choice is good.

Regarding your crank comment, which I'm not sure I understood-
We also sell the basic Sugino XD crank for $69.95.
Choice is good.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 2005-06-01, Robert Perkins wrote:

This is the funniest thing to come along since oval chain rings were
"replaced" by super-duper round ones.

Finally, some company had the smarts to give the average cycling joe the
gearing he needs while wrapping it all in some "weight saving" mystique.

http://www.yellowjersey.org/cranx3.html

My '93 Cannondale touring bike came with a low-Q Ritchey triple with
50-42-30 rings. I run another Ritchey triple with 50-38-28 on my road
bike with a 7-speed 12-23 cassette.

Maybe we can now dig out our old Sugino triples and call them "vintage
racing compact"

This spring I decided that since I seldom used the high gears on my road
bike, I'd get rid of them. So I installed an old Stronglight 99 crank with
32-45T rings on it and paired it with a 13-21 freewheel. Now I can use all
my gears...

--

John )

A Muzi wrote:

Regarding your crank comment, which I'm not sure I understood-



I'm not sure what exact point regarding compact doubles the OP was
addressing, either. But I do wonder why anyone would pay to have the
potential utility of a crank *reduced*, as in your Sugino triple to
double conversion. I know you guys are just meeting a demand, and the
labor charge is very fair....but WHY??? Why not just put some plugs on
the 74mm mounts and ride on? Maybe one day, a triple would be handy.

On 2 Jun 2005 05:24:26 -0700, wrote:

I'm not sure what exact point regarding compact doubles the OP was
addressing, either. But I do wonder why anyone would pay to have the
potential utility of a crank *reduced*, as in your Sugino triple to
double conversion. I know you guys are just meeting a demand, and the
labor charge is very fair....but WHY??? Why not just put some plugs on
the 74mm mounts and ride on? Maybe one day, a triple wo

There are little bumps where the threads for the inner ring are. When
the chain is derailled, it will lodge between the bottom bracket and
those bumps and become very difficult to get back up. Remember, when
using as a double, the crankarm is closer to the frame. Those pumps
are particularly pronounced on something like an RX 100 crank.

Paul Kopit wrote:
On 2 Jun 2005 05:24:26 -0700, wrote:
I'm not sure what exact point regarding compact doubles the OP was
addressing, either. But I do wonder why anyone would pay to have the
potential utility of a crank *reduced*, as in your Sugino triple to
double conversion.

There are little bumps where the threads for the inner ring are. When
the chain is derailled, it will lodge between the bottom bracket and
those bumps and become very difficult to get back up. Remember, when
using as a double, the crankarm is closer to the frame. Those pumps
are particularly pronounced on something like an RX 100 crank.

In addition, converting a triple to a double can result in a lower
Q-factor (tread) than many purpose-built doubles, which is something
that a lot of people, including me, like a lot.

Once upon a time, Sugino and others built triple cranks that used
separate spacers for the inner ring (and had no "bumps"), and bottom
brackets had interchangeable axles, so you could go back and forth from
a triple to a double as you saw fit without any grinding or filing. But
then, a lot of double cranks back then also used the 110mm BCD, too.

I wonder why the move to integrated granny spacers happened. I can't
see any benefit in it, for the consumer at least.

"Compact Double Crank" = "Touring Bike Crank"
 

Paul Kopit wrote:
On 2 Jun 2005 05:24:26 -0700, wrote:

I'm not sure what exact point regarding compact doubles the OP was
addressing, either. But I do wonder why anyone would pay to have the
potential utility of a crank *reduced*, as in your Sugino triple to
double conversion. I know you guys are just meeting a demand, and the
labor charge is very fair....but WHY??? Why not just put some plugs on
the 74mm mounts and ride on? Maybe one day, a triple wo

There are little bumps where the threads for the inner ring are. When
the chain is derailled, it will lodge between the bottom bracket and
those bumps and become very difficult to get back up. Remember, when
using as a double, the crankarm is closer to the frame. Those pumps
are particularly pronounced on something like an RX 100 crank.


I think a properly set limit screw would prevent the problem. If not, a
"third eye" type thingie surely would. I'd rather take some care
setting the limit screw or take the time to install the "third eye" and
save the money on having the crank modified, get to keep the 74mm
chainring *and* have the option to run a triple on the same crank. YMMV

"Compact Double Crank" = "Touring Bike Crank"
 

David Huggins-Daines wrote:
Paul Kopit wrote:
On 2 Jun 2005 05:24:26 -0700, wrote:
I'm not sure what exact point regarding compact doubles the OP was
addressing, either. But I do wonder why anyone would pay to have the
potential utility of a crank *reduced*, as in your Sugino triple to
double conversion.

There are little bumps where the threads for the inner ring are. When
the chain is derailled, it will lodge between the bottom bracket and
those bumps and become very difficult to get back up. Remember, when
using as a double, the crankarm is closer to the frame. Those pumps
are particularly pronounced on something like an RX 100 crank.

In addition, converting a triple to a double can result in a lower
Q-factor (tread) than many purpose-built doubles, which is something
that a lot of people, including me, like a lot.


I like low Q factor cranks, too. But, IMO, you would have to set the
crankarm awfully close to the BB for the "bumps" to hit the chainstay.


Once upon a time, Sugino and others built triple cranks that used
separate spacers for the inner ring (and had no "bumps"), and bottom
brackets had interchangeable axles, so you could go back and forth from
a triple to a double as you saw fit without any grinding or filing. But
then, a lot of double cranks back then also used the 110mm BCD, too.

I wonder why the move to integrated granny spacers happened. I can't
see any benefit in it, for the consumer at least.


No spacers probably speed up the time to assemble the crank, a factor
in production time.

"Compact Double Crank" = "Touring Bike Crank"
 

On 2 Jun 2005 14:38:49 -0700, wrote:

I like low Q factor cranks, too. But, IMO, you would have to set the
crankarm awfully close to the BB for the "bumps" to hit the chainstay.

No, they don't hit the chainstay. If the chain derails, it is often
difficult to get it up again. The chain lodges on the underside of
the bumps.