On 3/31/21 1:16 PM, Mark J. wrote:
On 3/31/2021 1:00 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 3/31/21 12:00 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:

[...]

Joerge, I think that you're making a mistake looking for steel rings.
Aluminum rings have had remarkable advancement in shifting and THAT
is where most excessive wear occurs in the rings. The slight "give"
in an aluminum ring actually reduces the wear on the chain itself.
Thinking that the FSA rings would wear out I bought an extra set and
after 4 years and a change in FSA standard chain arms, they have
never been needed.


I wore through several aluminum rings from Shimano and now rings for
the 600EX set seems to have become unobtanium unless I pay an obscene
price. I really do not care about shifting speed. I don't use the road
bike on dirt/gravel roads much anymore so not much shifting. Weight
never mattered to me either. My only concern is wear.

During my time at the university I rode around 6000mi/year and because
of rampant theft used old beater road bikes, cheap department store
bikes, for all commuting and the good bike (the one I still use now)
for touring, fitness and fun rides. The steel rings on the beater
bikes lasted a _lot_ more miles despite being of a very cheap variety.

Yes, there's really no doubt that steel chainrings wear longer than
aluminum ones (Tom notwithstanding).Â* That's one reason why the smallest
MTB rings are/were available in steel, even for high-end cranks.Â* Got
one - Campagnolo even! - for my tandem granny gear (26T).Â* Beyond those,
though, good luck finding well-made steel rings that fit a quality
crankset.


The ones I just sent back measured out ok, would have fit. However,
after seeing the shoddy workmanship of the crankset I was not convinced
of the "well-made" part.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/