|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 ) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Compact Double Crank" = "Touring Bike Crank"
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
May 6 NYC NBG Day to Honor Fallen Bike Activist | Cycle America | General | 0 | April 11th 05 04:15 PM |
19 Days to go: NBG Mayors' Ride Excitement #5 | Cycle America | Recumbent Biking | 0 | March 30th 05 07:32 PM |
Convert Hybrid to Touring bike | Willy Smallboy | Techniques | 23 | March 26th 04 02:03 PM |
aus.bicycle FAQ (Monthly(ish) Posting) | kingsley | Australia | 3 | February 24th 04 09:44 PM |
How old were you when you got your first really nice bike? | Brink | General | 43 | November 13th 03 11:49 AM |