|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Stockpiling 110mm/74mm chainrings and cranks
I recently realized that I have quite a bit invested in 7- and 8-speed
drivetrains on 7 of my 12 bikes. I have a need for a gearing range that is not provided by the latest standard crank offerings, so converting to newer cranks is not a viable option. What I need, and what most everybody needs IMO, are 110/74mm cranks, since they provide an appropriate range of chainring sizes for just about every practical use of a bicycle with standard-sized wheels. The availability of 7-speed 11-34T cassettes makes the 110/74mm standard even more attractive, as it offers both a much lower granny gear and a higher top gear than was available in years past. We can thank the burgeoning low-end bike market for prolonging the existence of the very sensible 7-speed drivetrains for the foreseeable future, though 8-speed shifters and cassettes appear to be drying up very quickly. Get those 8-speed components while you can! Virtually every hybrid and MTB made in the past 8 years or so has either 104/64mm 4-arm cranks, or 94/58mm 5-arm cranks. Road bikes, naturally, have 130/74mm triples or 130mm doubles. All of these bikes could benefit from 110mm cranks, or 110/74 triples, since 99% of them are ridden on the street in non-racing applications. Gearing on many hybrids are too low, while gearing on many road bikes are too high. The 110/74 cranks are just right. The wide chainring size range for 110mm cranks would give optimal selection of gearing for virtually every practical application. Only true racing bikes benefit from the larger 130mm and 135mm BCD cranks, and even then it only saves a few grams. I have a 62T x 110mm chainring, for instance. In years past, plenty of road bikes came equipped with 110mm cranks. Wouldn't it be nice to just have one standard, instead of five? There are many arguments in favor of the 110mm/74mm triple crankset standard, and few compelling arguments against it. I've decided to swim upstream and begin stockpiling a supply of chainrings and crankarms to support this dwindling crank standard for my fleet of bikes. Sources for 110mm cranks and rings are drying up, though perhaps not as quickly as we might have thought. Everybody thought that 9/10 speed cranks/rings/chains would dominate and that 7/8-speed stuff would dry up overnight. It hasn't quite happened that way; but still, now is a good time to stock up. I wouldn't bet on the 110/74 cranks and rings to be available forever. I think once the current overstocks are gone, that's probably the last of it for a while (until we regain our senses). -Barry |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Stockpiling 110mm/74mm chainrings and cranks
"Rocketman" wrote in message news:sjxsb.181437$HS4.1507414@attbi_s01... I recently realized that I have quite a bit invested in 7- and 8-speed drivetrains on 7 of my 12 bikes. I have a need for a gearing range that is not provided by the latest standard crank offerings, so converting to newer cranks is not a viable option. What I need, and what most everybody needs IMO, are 110/74mm cranks, since they provide an appropriate range of chainring sizes for just about every practical use of a bicycle with standard-sized wheels. The availability of 7-speed 11-34T cassettes makes the 110/74mm standard even more attractive, as it offers both a much lower granny gear and a higher top gear than was available in years past. We can thank the burgeoning low-end bike market for prolonging the existence of the very sensible 7-speed drivetrains for the foreseeable future, though 8-speed shifters and cassettes appear to be drying up very quickly. Get those 8-speed components while you can! Virtually every hybrid and MTB made in the past 8 years or so has either 104/64mm 4-arm cranks, or 94/58mm 5-arm cranks. Road bikes, naturally, have 130/74mm triples or 130mm doubles. All of these bikes could benefit from 110mm cranks, or 110/74 triples, since 99% of them are ridden on the street in non-racing applications. Gearing on many hybrids are too low, while gearing on many road bikes are too high. The 110/74 cranks are just right. The wide chainring size range for 110mm cranks would give optimal selection of gearing for virtually every practical application. Only true racing bikes benefit from the larger 130mm and 135mm BCD cranks, and even then it only saves a few grams. I have a 62T x 110mm chainring, for instance. In years past, plenty of road bikes came equipped with 110mm cranks. Wouldn't it be nice to just have one standard, instead of five? There are many arguments in favor of the 110mm/74mm triple crankset standard, and few compelling arguments against it. I've decided to swim upstream and begin stockpiling a supply of chainrings and crankarms to support this dwindling crank standard for my fleet of bikes. Sources for 110mm cranks and rings are drying up, though perhaps not as quickly as we might have thought. Everybody thought that 9/10 speed cranks/rings/chains would dominate and that 7/8-speed stuff would dry up overnight. It hasn't quite happened that way; but still, now is a good time to stock up. I wouldn't bet on the 110/74 cranks and rings to be available forever. I think once the current overstocks are gone, that's probably the last of it for a while (until we regain our senses). -Barry Uhhh, Barry, you DO realize that there are a few manufacturers (like FSA aka Tyler Hamilton's sponsor) that are making brand new 110mm cranksets and rings, right? Contrary to (a slightly misinformed) popular opinion, 110 rings aren't going anywhere. If you want to stock up, feel free, but you don't need to. Mike |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Stockpiling 110mm/74mm chainrings and cranks
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:08:40 +0000, Rocketman wrote:
newer cranks is not a viable option. What I need, and what most everybody needs IMO, are 110/74mm cranks, Well, it seems that 110/74 is on the rise, after Hamilton used on in the Tour. There is a _lot_ of old and new stock in 110/74 size, so you need not worry. As to whether or not this is the universal need, I might quibble. I have found that, for me, 94/56 is somewhat better. I can use a 12-23 cassette with my 46/30 chainrings and get all the range of a triple with a double -- OK, except the big gears that I do not use. I can also hang a teeny granny on and do loaded touring. Works for me better than 110, since in that size the smallest middle ring is a 34. since they provide an appropriate range of chainring sizes for just about every practical use of a bicycle with standard-sized wheels. The availability of 7-speed 11-34T cassettes makes the 110/74mm standard even more attractive, as it offers both a much lower granny gear and a higher top gear than was available in years past. No matter what size rings you use, you will have large duplication with that 11-34. You can do as well with a tighter cassette if you use smaller middle and granny rings. thank the burgeoning low-end bike market for prolonging the existence of the very sensible 7-speed drivetrains for the foreseeable future, though 8-speed shifters and cassettes appear to be drying up very quickly. Get those 8-speed components while you can! I'm not sure why 7-speed is more sensible than 8, or even 9. Considering that you cannot still get a better chain with 7-speed, more like the chains of old that Jobst talks about, there is little advantage. 9-speed stuff is dirt cheap, and lasts as long as any other. Why not? -- David L. Johnson __o | Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig... You _`\(,_ | soon find out the pig likes it! (_)/ (_) | |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Stockpiling 110mm/74mm chainrings and cranks
Rocketman wrote:
I recently realized that I have quite a bit invested in 7- and 8-speed drivetrains on 7 of my 12 bikes. I have a need for a gearing range that is not provided by the latest standard crank offerings, so converting to newer cranks is not a viable option. What I need, and what most everybody needs IMO, are 110/74mm cranks, since they provide an appropriate range of chainring sizes for just about every practical use of a bicycle with standard-sized wheels. The availability of 7-speed 11-34T cassettes makes the 110/74mm standard even more attractive, as it offers both a much lower granny gear and a higher top gear than was available in years past. We can thank the burgeoning low-end bike market for prolonging the existence of the very sensible 7-speed drivetrains for the foreseeable future, though 8-speed shifters and cassettes appear to be drying up very quickly. Get those 8-speed components while you can! Virtually every hybrid and MTB made in the past 8 years or so has either 104/64mm 4-arm cranks, or 94/58mm 5-arm cranks. Road bikes, naturally, have 130/74mm triples or 130mm doubles. All of these bikes could benefit from 110mm cranks, or 110/74 triples, since 99% of them are ridden on the street in non-racing applications. Gearing on many hybrids are too low, while gearing on many road bikes are too high. The 110/74 cranks are just right. The wide chainring size range for 110mm cranks would give optimal selection of gearing for virtually every practical application. Only true racing bikes benefit from the larger 130mm and 135mm BCD cranks, and even then it only saves a few grams. I have a 62T x 110mm chainring, for instance. In years past, plenty of road bikes came equipped with 110mm cranks. Wouldn't it be nice to just have one standard, instead of five? There are many arguments in favor of the 110mm/74mm triple crankset standard, and few compelling arguments against it. I've decided to swim upstream and begin stockpiling a supply of chainrings and crankarms to support this dwindling crank standard for my fleet of bikes. Sources for 110mm cranks and rings are drying up, though perhaps not as quickly as we might have thought. Everybody thought that 9/10 speed cranks/rings/chains would dominate and that 7/8-speed stuff would dry up overnight. It hasn't quite happened that way; but still, now is a good time to stock up. I wouldn't bet on the 110/74 cranks and rings to be available forever. I think once the current overstocks are gone, that's probably the last of it for a while (until we regain our senses). Uh, there are very nice 110/74 in current production. We've never been without 110/74 cranks since the original Sugino ATT in , what, 1978? Maybe your local shop doesn't stock them, but that's hardly a crisis. Sugino is represented by all the best distributors, who generally keep useful sized rings as well. If your local guy cared, they are just a phone call away.* Sugino will stop making them when people stop buying them. http://www.yellowjersey.org/cranx.html (second from the bottom) * a good part of my business is selling normal, common cycling equipment that some little shop says "ain't available". Sheldon's moreso. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Stockpiling 110mm/74mm chainrings and cranks
"David L. Johnson" wrote in message ... I'm not sure why 7-speed is more sensible than 8, or even 9. I wouldn't seek them out specifically, but all else being equal (including price), I wouldn't forsake a 7sp bike in favor of a newer one. 7sp gear was more sensible in many ways. First, 7sp wheels are stronger, because of less dish. Second, while it isn't as silky-smooth, 7sp gear shifted more solidly and reliably -- probably because of stronger derailer springs, and more cable pull. Considering that you cannot still get a better chain with 7-speed, more like the chains of old that Jobst talks about, there is little advantage. I don't know what you mean by "better," unless you have a chrome fetish. Here's a perfectly good 7sp chain: http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?c...ype=&estoreid= (please pardon the long URL) 9-speed stuff is dirt cheap, 7sp stuff is dirt cheaper. You can get old cassettes and chainrings on sale for $15. And the chainrings work -- they're not as fussy about lateral spacing, etc. Some modern stuff, like my 8sp LX, won't work without the *exact* replacement -- brand, model, and year. But most of all, 7sp *bikes* are cheap. and lasts as long as any other. I disagree with that too. 7sp cogs were thicker. Without the shaped and shortened teeth, chainrings lasted longer. Matt O. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Stockpiling 110mm/74mm chainrings and cranks
"A Muzi" wrote in message ... Uh, there are very nice 110/74 in current production. We've never been without 110/74 cranks since the original Sugino ATT in , what, 1978? Maybe your local shop doesn't stock them, but that's hardly a crisis. Sugino is represented by all the best distributors, who generally keep useful sized rings as well. If your local guy cared, they are just a phone call away.* Sugino will stop making them when people stop buying them. http://www.yellowjersey.org/cranx.html (second from the bottom) That's a pretty darned good deal -- cheaper than 3 new chainrings (or even 2 chainrings) for a Shimano crank. I think I'll just get one of those next time. Nice looking crank, too. Can you order those with different chainrings for that price, or does it get a lot more expensive if you go non-standard? Matt O. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Stockpiling 110mm/74mm chainrings and cranks
I don't know what you mean by "better," unless you have a chrome
fetish. Here's a perfectly good 7sp chain: Almost anything SRAM/Sachs/Sedis makes or made will work with 7-speed, and will be a far more pleasant user experience, IMHO. -- _______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------ in.edu__________ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Stockpiling 110mm/74mm chainrings and cranks
(OP)-snip the world is ending, not enough 110/74 cranks-
"A Muzi" wrote in message ... Uh, there are very nice 110/74 in current production. -snip- http://www.yellowjersey.org/cranx.html -snip Matt O'Toole wrote: That's a pretty darned good deal -- cheaper than 3 new chainrings (or even 2 chainrings) for a Shimano crank. I think I'll just get one of those next time. Nice looking crank, too. Can you order those with different chainrings for that price, or does it get a lot more expensive if you go non-standard? As you might imagine, we have _lots_ of extra rings from these so we do not really need any more 26, 36 or 48 rings. Some, but not full, credit. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Stockpiling 110mm/74mm chainrings and cranks
Rocketman wrote: There are many arguments in favor of the 110mm/74mm triple crankset standard, and few compelling arguments against it. I am not aware of *any* compelling arguments against it. I've decided to swim upstream and begin stockpiling a supply of chainrings and crankarms to support this dwindling crank standard for my fleet of bikes. Guess what happens when you and others do this? That is right -- it sends a message to the supply side of the market to _keep making them_. Good for you. You bought the right stuff. Sources for 110mm cranks and rings are drying up, though perhaps not as quickly as we might have thought. The marketplace for them may have contracted and squeezed out all but a few vendors. But that is okay as long as there is enough business for the few that remain to continue manufacturing them. I don't see the supply going away completely. Anyone that knows anything about bikes knows that the 110 is the sweet spot given current wheel dimensions and average rider strength, and there is a huge installed base of 110's. If anything, I think it may cycle back, and apparently it *is*. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Stockpiling 110mm/74mm chainrings and cranks
Matt O'Toole wrote: "David L. Johnson" wrote in message ... I'm not sure why 7-speed is more sensible than 8, or even 9. I wouldn't seek them out specifically, but all else being equal (including price), I wouldn't forsake a 7sp bike in favor of a newer one. 7sp gear was more sensible in many ways. First, 7sp wheels are stronger, because of less dish. Second, while it isn't as silky-smooth, 7sp gear shifted more solidly and reliably -- probably because of stronger derailer springs, and more cable pull. Considering that you cannot still get a better chain with 7-speed, more like the chains of old that Jobst talks about, there is little advantage. I don't know what you mean by "better," unless you have a chrome fetish. He's talking about sleeved bushing chains rather than the current sleeveless. Here's a perfectly good 7sp chain: http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?c...ype=&estoreid= Well yeah, it is fine -- I always buy the cheapest chains. But I think cheapo sleeveless needs to get down in the $5-$6 range when it comes to lifetime comparison cost with sleeved (of course it is hard to compare _current_ prices since sleeved does not exist anymore). 9-speed stuff is dirt cheap, 7sp stuff is dirt cheaper. You can get old cassettes and chainrings on sale for $15. And the chainrings work -- they're not as fussy about lateral spacing, etc. Some modern stuff, like my 8sp LX, won't work without the *exact* replacement -- brand, model, and year. My 8 & 9 stuff is not at all fussy. I have a 53x33 crank with a 9sp -- it works pretty good. But most of all, 7sp *bikes* are cheap. Reason enough. and lasts as long as any other. I disagree with that too. 7sp cogs were thicker. Not to my knowledge. 7sp & 8sp are both 1.8 mm, and the 8sp has one more cog to share that wear. If you pop a 16 into the 12-21 7sp to make an 8sp, that extra cog will definitely share the wear since it is in the fat of the range. The 9sp cogs are 1.78 mm, not enough to really care about. And there are _two_ more cogs to share the wear. Uniglide was really the long wear cog. It was the same 1.8mm, but it could be reversed. Without the shaped and shortened teeth, chainrings lasted longer. Matt O. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stockpiling 110mm/74mm chainrings and cranks | Rocketman | General | 15 | November 13th 03 07:32 PM |
rotor cranks | andy | Techniques | 66 | November 5th 03 03:23 PM |
Campy triple cranks: Veloce vs. Centaur? | trent gregory hill | Techniques | 2 | October 18th 03 12:41 AM |