Stockpiling 110mm/74mm chainrings and cranks

rocketman- 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. BRBR
Sources for
110mm cranks and rings are drying up, though perhaps not as quickly as we
might have thought. BRBR

Ritchey, FSA, TA and others are offering 110mm BCD double cranks and lots 'o
rings as well...

Thank you Tyler-


Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

"gwhite" wrote in message
...


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.

Well, there must be *some* arguments against it, or we wouldn't have had 3
different replacement standards that - taken together - have completely
eclipsed 110/74 for the past 8 years or so. Here are my versions of what I
believe to be arguments against 110/74mm, and in favor of Suntour MicroDrive
and the 94/58mm and 104/64mm 4-arm cranks:

- 20T granny ring, instead of 24T
- Smaller outer chainring gives better clearance over obstacles
- Smaller chainrings and shorter spiders weigh less
- 22-32-42T cranks give optimal gear inches for mountain biking
- With more competing standards, manufacturers sell more chainrings (since
stores have to stock more sizes)

That's about all I can see as possible advantages (not that I believe them
to be compelling arguments). When you consider that perhaps 90% of cycling
is conducted on roads and hard-packed or paved trails, it seems ridiculous
that the 110/74 standard was abandoned for use on hybrids and city-bred
ATB/MTB's (read: most mountain bikes). Of course, another argument is that
most bikes never get ridden, so the owners will never need to replace
chainrings. ;-)

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.

Thank you. I'm glad somebody else understands.

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,

I couldn't agree more. I am stockpiling to keep a supply, and to take
advantage of the *cheap* prices that can be had on closeout 110/74 7/8-speed
chainrings. Nobody wants 'em, I guess. Their loss, my gain.

and there
is a huge installed base of 110's. If anything, I think it may cycle
back, and
apparently it *is*.

Wow, I'm very glad to hear that. I really think 110/74 is the way to go for
the vast majority of cyclists (including all touring, audax, commuting,
cyclocrossers, most ATB/MTB and all 700c hybrid riders).

My 110/74mm crank collection includes a mint-condition set of RaceFace
110/74mm Turbine LP's with 9-sp Syncros chainrings that I put together for
less than 1/4 of retail, and a wonderful old set of cold-forged
first-generation Shimano XTR M900 8-speed 110/74mm cranks with like-new
chainrings that are some of the best cranks ever made, IMO. Then there are
a few sets of good old Sakae 110/74 cranks that I've pulled off of dumpster
bikes and added to the parts box as spares for future projects. My recent
haul of Suntour Accushift black-anodized aluminum chainrings, added to my
existing backstock, will keep me in 110/74 mode for the foreseeable future
regardless of marketing trends.

-=Barry=-

Besides FSA, Ritchey is returning to 110 bc. Adventure components makes
great spiders for Shimano spline as well as cranks. Blackspire makes the
cranks and has afull line of rings. The list is quite long. Don't forget BMX
"euro style" is 110 and offers crank lengths from 135-180......
Tom 110 forever Bruni

--
Bruni Bicycles
"Where art meets science"
brunibicycles.com
410.426.3420
gwhite wrote in message
...


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*.

"Rocketman" wrote in message
news:eGNsb.191482$Tr4.542552@attbi_s03...

"gwhite" wrote in message
...


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.

Well, there must be *some* arguments against it, or we wouldn't have had 3
different replacement standards that - taken together - have completely
eclipsed 110/74 for the past 8 years or so. Here are my versions of what I
believe to be arguments against 110/74mm, and in favor of Suntour MicroDrive
and the 94/58mm and 104/64mm 4-arm cranks:

- 20T granny ring, instead of 24T

Can you say "chainsuck"? On group rides back in the early 90s, I used to pass
Suntour riders at the bottom of every steep pitch, as they sucked their chain
when dropping into the small ring.

- Smaller outer chainring gives better clearance over obstacles

In practice, this isn't an issue -- the size of the chainring is hardly the
deciding factor in clearing obstacles. People who ride over logs and rocks a
lot use chainring guards anyway.

- Smaller chainrings and shorter spiders weigh less

Actually the real weight savings is in the smaller rear cog sizes. This was
probably the big selling point of Microdrive -- the whole group was half a pound
lighter than Shimano, with much of that difference from the cassette.

- 22-32-42T cranks give optimal gear inches for mountain biking

I'd say the XTR combo of 24-34-46 is better, and more versatile.

- With more competing standards, manufacturers sell more chainrings (since
stores have to stock more sizes)

In case you haven't noticed, no one stocks *any* chainrings anymore. The trend
now is to simply replace entire cranks when the chainrings wear out. You can
get a whole new crank for less than the price of 3 chainrings -- like that crank
that A. Muzi just posted.

That's about all I can see as possible advantages (not that I believe them
to be compelling arguments). When you consider that perhaps 90% of cycling
is conducted on roads and hard-packed or paved trails, it seems ridiculous
that the 110/74 standard was abandoned for use on hybrids and city-bred
ATB/MTB's (read: most mountain bikes). Of course, another argument is that
most bikes never get ridden, so the owners will never need to replace
chainrings. ;-)

Bullseye on both points!

A 48/12, which is the same as the traditional 53/13, is a big enough gear for
most road riders.

I really think 110/74 is the way to go for
the vast majority of cyclists (including all touring, audax, commuting,
cyclocrossers, most ATB/MTB and all 700c hybrid riders).

Me too.

That said, I have a MTB with 22-32-42, and a road bike with 30-42-52. That's
what they came with, so that's what I use. However, I think I'll switch the MTB
to 110/74 when the chainrings wear out next time.

Matt O.

Matt O'Toole wrote:


- Smaller chainrings and shorter spiders weigh less

Actually the real weight savings is in the smaller rear cog sizes. This was
probably the big selling point of Microdrive -- the whole group was half a pound
lighter than Shimano, with much of that difference from the cassette.

Microdrive pays for the lighter weight with increased drivetrain wear on at
least two counts:

1. Higher chain tension (a 42x11 has 8.3% higher tension than a 46x12)
2. Less teeth and links to wear out (same work distributed upon less teeth)

I don't think it is worth it.

"gwhite" wrote in message
...

Microdrive pays for the lighter weight with increased drivetrain wear on at
least two counts:

1. Higher chain tension (a 42x11 has 8.3% higher tension than a 46x12)
2. Less teeth and links to wear out (same work distributed upon less teeth)

I don't think it is worth it.

I don't either.

There's more friction, too, but I don't know how much it really matters.

Matt O.

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.

Well, there must be *some* arguments against it, or we wouldn't have had
3
different replacement standards that - taken together - have completely
eclipsed 110/74 for the past 8 years or so. Here are my versions of
what I
believe to be arguments against 110/74mm, and in favor of Suntour
MicroDrive
and the 94/58mm and 104/64mm 4-arm cranks:

- 20T granny ring, instead of 24T

Can you say "chainsuck"? On group rides back in the early 90s, I used to
pass
Suntour riders at the bottom of every steep pitch, as they sucked their
chain
when dropping into the small ring.

- Smaller outer chainring gives better clearance over obstacles

In practice, this isn't an issue -- the size of the chainring is hardly
the
deciding factor in clearing obstacles. People who ride over logs and
rocks a
lot use chainring guards anyway.

You wanna guess again?

- Smaller chainrings and shorter spiders weigh less

Actually the real weight savings is in the smaller rear cog sizes. This
was
probably the big selling point of Microdrive -- the whole group was half a
pound
lighter than Shimano, with much of that difference from the cassette.

- 22-32-42T cranks give optimal gear inches for mountain biking

I'd say the XTR combo of 24-34-46 is better, and more versatile.

- With more competing standards, manufacturers sell more chainrings
(since
stores have to stock more sizes)

In case you haven't noticed, no one stocks *any* chainrings anymore. The
trend
now is to simply replace entire cranks when the chainrings wear out. You
can
get a whole new crank for less than the price of 3 chainrings -- like that
crank
that A. Muzi just posted.

That's about all I can see as possible advantages (not that I believe
them
to be compelling arguments). When you consider that perhaps 90% of
cycling
is conducted on roads and hard-packed or paved trails, it seems
ridiculous
that the 110/74 standard was abandoned for use on hybrids and city-bred
ATB/MTB's (read: most mountain bikes). Of course, another argument is
that
most bikes never get ridden, so the owners will never need to replace
chainrings. ;-)

Bullseye on both points!

A 48/12, which is the same as the traditional 53/13, is a big enough gear
for
most road riders.

I really think 110/74 is the way to go for
the vast majority of cyclists (including all touring, audax, commuting,
cyclocrossers, most ATB/MTB and all 700c hybrid riders).

Me too.

That said, I have a MTB with 22-32-42, and a road bike with 30-42-52.
That's
what they came with, so that's what I use. However, I think I'll switch
the MTB
to 110/74 when the chainrings wear out next time.

Matt O.