Compact cranks

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 04:34:45 GMT, Jeff Starr
wrote:

P.S. Think about installing a chain checker/keeper and take 2 links
out of your 53/39 chain

Don't just take the links out, without checking. Going from a 50 to a
50, there should be no reason to change chain length.


You mean 53 to 50. Surely he should check, but my experience was the
chain was slack without removing the links. Of course, better to have
it too long than too short.
http://sheldonbrown.com/derailer-adjustment.html#chain

On 31 Jan 2006 06:04:19 -0800, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
wrote:


We have tried some of the 'compact front ders, both IRD and Campag and
find the standard front derailleur for a double works the best for all
compact systems. A chain watcher and

I believe you are totally correct. I think that they design the
'special' compact front derailleurs to minimize dropping the chain
inside. When I tried a Campy CT that seemed the case. The regular
Campy front works fine. And yes, I use Jump Stops with compact and
triple cranks.

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 09:36:02 -0500, Doug Taylor
wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 04:34:45 GMT, Jeff Starr
wrote:

P.S. Think about installing a chain checker/keeper and take 2 links
out of your 53/39 chain

Don't just take the links out, without checking. Going from a 50 to a
50, there should be no reason to change chain length.


You mean 53 to 50. Surely he should check, but my experience was the
chain was slack without removing the links. Of course, better to have
it too long than too short.
http://sheldonbrown.com/derailer-adjustment.html#chain

Go read the original post. The guy said he had a 50/39. Maybe he
mistyped, or maybe that is what he has. Shimano did have some cranks
that came with 50.

I'm just going by what the OP wrote.


Life is Good!
Jeff

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:58:09 GMT, Jeff Starr
wrote:


You mean 53 to 50. Surely he should check, but my experience was the
chain was slack without removing the links. Of course, better to have
it too long than too short.
http://sheldonbrown.com/derailer-adjustment.html#chain

Go read the original post. The guy said he had a 50/39. Maybe he
mistyped, or maybe that is what he has. Shimano did have some cranks
that came with 50.

I'm just going by what the OP wrote.

Hmmm. I read right over making the assumption that "just bought"
compact meant that he must have had a 53 before. I am under the
impression that 50 tooth rings are all 110 mm bcd, i.e. compact. If
he already had 110 bcd, he already had compact.

Whatever. My point is that if you are switching from 53/39 to compact
50/34, I advise checking your chain length - I had to shorten mine
because my chain was slack in the "bad" gear ratios of small ring/
smaller cogs.

Doug Taylor wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:58:09 GMT, Jeff Starr
wrote:


You mean 53 to 50. Surely he should check, but my experience was the
chain was slack without removing the links. Of course, better to have
it too long than too short.
http://sheldonbrown.com/derailer-adjustment.html#chain

Go read the original post. The guy said he had a 50/39. Maybe he
mistyped, or maybe that is what he has. Shimano did have some cranks
that came with 50.

I'm just going by what the OP wrote.

Hmmm. I read right over making the assumption that "just bought"
compact meant that he must have had a 53 before. I am under the
impression that 50 tooth rings are all 110 mm bcd, i.e. compact. If
he already had 110 bcd, he already had compact.

I have had a 50/39 on my Record crank for 5 years. 135mm BCD.


Whatever. My point is that if you are switching from 53/39 to compact
50/34, I advise checking your chain length - I had to shorten mine
because my chain was slack in the "bad" gear ratios of small ring/
smaller cogs.

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 14:39:42 GMT, Dan Connelly
wrote:

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
Doug Taylor wrote:
I am under the
impression that 50 tooth rings are all 110 mm bcd, i.e. compact. If
he already had 110 bcd, he already had compact.

Frankly, I'm astounded anyone with an internet connection could make a statement
like this, unless they're profoundly lazy. A trivial google search shows availability
of "130mm 50 tooth chainring". Why waste everyone's time without doing even a few
keystrokes of research to back up your assertion?

I was trying to explain why I misread the original post (thinking he
"meant" 53/39 when he typed 50/39), because of "my impression" that 50
tooth was compact 110 bcd. I didn't do any research. Very generally
speaking, most people "switching" to compact these days are going from
the standard 53/39 to 50/34 or 50/36. Like me and a bunch of my 50+
friends who figured out it was cheaper and "cooler" than going to
triples.

So really, I only have one bad: I misread the original post.

On 2006-02-01, Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

I have had a 50/39 on my Record crank for 5 years. 135mm BCD.

48/36 on my Zeus crank for 20 years. 120mm BCD. Plus ça change, plus c'est
la même chose...

--

John )