Reduced Gearing

cheapie compact crankset thread for old-fashioned bottom bracket(crankset works OK!):

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!searchin/rec.bicycles.tech/compact$20crank/rec.bicycles.tech/WnFGn-pcBrQ/za0HfJoMDMQJ

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 3:40:54 PM UTC-4, wrote:
cheapie compact crankset thread for old-fashioned bottom bracket(crankset works OK!):

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!searchin/rec.bicycles.tech/compact$20crank/rec.bicycles.tech/WnFGn-pcBrQ/za0HfJoMDMQJ

/_____________________________

On 09/08/15 08:54, Joe Riel wrote:


Whoops. My mistake. Is the 11 speed stuff narrower, hence faster
wearing? How do carbon cranks handle the occasional dropped chain?
Do they get terribly gouged?


I have had a set of Chorus Ultra Torque carbon cranks since 2008. Yes I
have chipped the clear coat in a few places. No they have not broken or
appear to have any cracks. Yes I have had the chain overshoot the big
ring a couple of times. No I am not concerned.

--
JS

On 10/08/15 02:56, Joe Riel wrote:
AMuzi writes:


Doesn't matter. After 16 years of frenetic innovation, whichever
current model crank he buys will need the current matching bearing
assembly.

If I go with a compact crank with external bearings, should I first
ensure that the bottom bracket shell is suitable? That is, do I need to
have the threads checked for alignment (coaxial) and the faces parallel?
Is it even possible (reasonable, with bike shop tools) to check for
coaxial threads? A facing tool really only ensures a face perpendicular
to the coaxial center of the threads on the side being faced; it doesn't
ensure parallel faces on both sides, which requires that the threads are
coaxial. Presumably that has to be ensured by the frame builder. Given
that this is for an unpainted titanium frame, should I even be worrying
about it? Since the bike originally had SweetWings (an early type of
external bearing crank) it seems likely that it is suitable.


For an older square taper BB, I just bought a pair of these for the
wife. They work fine. Steel rings are a bonus. Longer lasting. About
as cheap as I could find, even with postage!

http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/alloy-com...0mm-prod13441/

--
JS

James wrote:
On 09/08/15 08:54, Joe Riel wrote:


Whoops. My mistake. Is the 11 speed stuff narrower, hence faster
wearing? How do carbon cranks handle the occasional dropped chain?
Do they get terribly gouged?


I have had a set of Chorus Ultra Torque carbon cranks since 2008. Yes I
have chipped the clear coat in a few places. No they have not broken or
appear to have any cracks. Yes I have had the chain overshoot the big
ring a couple of times. No I am not concerned.

A little clear nail polish was suggested to me for nicks in the clear coat.


--
duane

On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 09:48:04 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/8/2015 6:02 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 3:54:30 PM UTC-7, JoeRiel wrote:
AMuzi writes:

On 8/8/2015 3:31 PM, Joe Riel wrote:
AMuzi writes:

On 8/8/2015 10:20 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 6:05:27 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/7/2015 10:48 PM, Joe Riel wrote:
I'm looking to reduce the gearing somewhat on my road bike, which
currently has a 53/39 and 23-12 cassette. It's 9-speed Super Record,
about 15 years old. Am wondering if I can even find replacement
cassettes. Would a Veloce or Chorus casette work? From the pictures
I've seen their cassette splines are symmetric, whereas mine has some
asymmetry (one of the splines is wider, one is smaller), so that seems
doubtful. I could also look at going to a compact front-end.
Any thoughts? Am mainly trying to figure out what is feasible.


Campagnolo CS-9 are of the current spline style, same for
9-10-11:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/CACS890.JPG

(Eights were overly clever with a symmetric spline to allow
various gear combinations which required a chart to align
the index ramps on the sprockets. The change to the better
big-bearing hub also incorporated the asymmetric cassette
spline format)

Since nine cassettes are less available and about the same
price as Tens, you might use a Ten cassette and rearrange
sprockets.

Some notes about that:
Lockrings are different OD to match high gear size. Too
large a lockring will hit the chain plates.
Only the basic model crmo sprocket models can be swapped
around. Aluminum carriers can't. Re use your nine spacers.
Lowest gear on a Ten is shaped and so unsuitable to a nine.
Look to the second-largest sprocket in the set.
Nine cassettes seem to be only available in 23 and in 28 low
gear now. If you have the short cage rear changer, 26 max is
the spec.

Oh, one more thing; compact crank is another path to lower
gearing.

So, to be clear, he can buy Veloce 9 speed? Those seem to be available from a number of sources. Speaking as one on the downward spiral towards utter decrepitude, a compact is nice.

-- Jay Beattie.


Yes, he could. We have them, as do others.
That would be a better choice if there were nine cassettes besides the
23 he has now and the 28 which Campagnolo says is too big for a short
cage changer.

Any suggestions for a good compact crank? I'm a lightweight (less than
130 lbs), so durability is rarely an issue, though I value reliability
and longevity.


Campagnolo's current offerings are both much lighter than yours and
rings are enhanced to shift better. Compatible in your nine system
despite the 'eleven' graphic. (p.s. your bike may be super, and it may
be Record, but in 1998 there was no Super Record).

Whoops. My mistake. Is the 11 speed stuff narrower, hence faster
wearing? How do carbon cranks handle the occasional dropped chain?
Do they get terribly gouged?

We also like the classic design Sugino XD compact 34-48 or 34-50 all
crank lengths. It costs less than carbon Campagnolo models.

I imagine.

Your 1998 front changer unless worn or damaged will shift a compact
nicely, just lower it. A brazed mount may introduce a problem there.

It's a clamp-on, so repositioning it is not a problem.

What type of BB do you have?

-- Jay Beattie.


Doesn't matter. After 16 years of frenetic innovation,
whichever current model crank he buys will need the current
matching bearing assembly.

Andrew, out of curiosity, in your long history in a bicycle shop have
you noticed any measurable difference in service life of bottom
brackets? Is any one specific type actually better?
--
cheers,

John B.

On 10/08/15 12:13, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 09:48:04 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


Doesn't matter. After 16 years of frenetic innovation,
whichever current model crank he buys will need the current
matching bearing assembly.

Andrew, out of curiosity, in your long history in a bicycle shop have
you noticed any measurable difference in service life of bottom
brackets? Is any one specific type actually better?

I wish to add a data point. I started with the old cup and cone BB with
adjustment made with a big special C spanner (wrench, whatever). No
seals on most, but there were attempts to reduce water and grit ingress
with rubber bits on the cups and a plastic shroud insert to divert water
that comes down the seat tube, etc.

Royal pain in the arse to keep running well.

Square tapered cartridge BBs from Shimano were better, as the bearings
had dust covers and kept most moisture out, but... They start making
noises before too long, and the bearings are fairly small compared to
the loads being transmitted - thus premature failure.

Same to be said for Campag square taper cartridge BBs.

Joy came in 2008 when I bought a Campag Chorus UT crankset, that has
external bearings and a nice construction method. These bearings have
lasted about 4 years without so much as a look see inspection. Ok, they
are a little fiddly to pull the bearing off the BB axle at home, and you
can only use Campag bearings because they're non-standard size, but not
expensive. The killer is I get a 400% improvement in longevity!

YMMV, and Andrew's probably will too.

--
JS

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 8:52:31 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 10/08/15 12:13, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 09:48:04 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


Doesn't matter. After 16 years of frenetic innovation,
whichever current model crank he buys will need the current
matching bearing assembly.

Andrew, out of curiosity, in your long history in a bicycle shop have
you noticed any measurable difference in service life of bottom
brackets? Is any one specific type actually better?

I wish to add a data point. I started with the old cup and cone BB with
adjustment made with a big special C spanner (wrench, whatever). No
seals on most, but there were attempts to reduce water and grit ingress
with rubber bits on the cups and a plastic shroud insert to divert water
that comes down the seat tube, etc.

Royal pain in the arse to keep running well.

Square tapered cartridge BBs from Shimano were better, as the bearings
had dust covers and kept most moisture out, but... They start making
noises before too long, and the bearings are fairly small compared to
the loads being transmitted - thus premature failure.

Same to be said for Campag square taper cartridge BBs.

Joy came in 2008 when I bought a Campag Chorus UT crankset, that has
external bearings and a nice construction method. These bearings have
lasted about 4 years without so much as a look see inspection. Ok, they
are a little fiddly to pull the bearing off the BB axle at home, and you
can only use Campag bearings because they're non-standard size, but not
expensive. The killer is I get a 400% improvement in longevity!

YMMV, and Andrew's probably will too.

I've gotten good service out of the Shimano external bearing BBs -- perhaps more importantly, they're cheap. Back in the old days, ignoring regular BB maintenance could mean new cups, bearings and axle. Not cheap and labor intensive -- particularly removing the fixed cup. Phil BBs were not cheap. Now you can get a really good $30 outboard bearing set, and it takes 20 minutes to remove and install a new set.

-- Jay Beattie.

James writes:

On 10/08/15 12:13, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 09:48:04 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


Doesn't matter. After 16 years of frenetic innovation,
whichever current model crank he buys will need the current
matching bearing assembly.

Andrew, out of curiosity, in your long history in a bicycle shop have
you noticed any measurable difference in service life of bottom
brackets? Is any one specific type actually better?

I wish to add a data point. I started with the old cup and cone BB
with adjustment made with a big special C spanner (wrench, whatever).
No seals on most, but there were attempts to reduce water and grit
ingress with rubber bits on the cups and a plastic shroud insert to
divert water that comes down the seat tube, etc.

Royal pain in the arse to keep running well.

Square tapered cartridge BBs from Shimano were better, as the bearings
had dust covers and kept most moisture out, but... They start making
noises before too long, and the bearings are fairly small compared to
the loads being transmitted - thus premature failure.

Same to be said for Campag square taper cartridge BBs.

Joy came in 2008 when I bought a Campag Chorus UT crankset, that has
external bearings and a nice construction method. These bearings have
lasted about 4 years without so much as a look see inspection. Ok,
they are a little fiddly to pull the bearing off the BB axle at home,
and you can only use Campag bearings because they're non-standard
size, but not expensive. The killer is I get a 400% improvement in
longevity!

I assume you haven't experienced the creaking/clicking that I've seen
reported on the web. The stiffness of the wavy washer is what resists
lateral movement of the shaft.

--
Joe Riel

On 10/08/15 14:26, Joe Riel wrote:
James writes:

On 10/08/15 12:13, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 09:48:04 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


Doesn't matter. After 16 years of frenetic innovation,
whichever current model crank he buys will need the current
matching bearing assembly.

Andrew, out of curiosity, in your long history in a bicycle shop have
you noticed any measurable difference in service life of bottom
brackets? Is any one specific type actually better?

I wish to add a data point. I started with the old cup and cone BB
with adjustment made with a big special C spanner (wrench, whatever).
No seals on most, but there were attempts to reduce water and grit
ingress with rubber bits on the cups and a plastic shroud insert to
divert water that comes down the seat tube, etc.

Royal pain in the arse to keep running well.

Square tapered cartridge BBs from Shimano were better, as the bearings
had dust covers and kept most moisture out, but... They start making
noises before too long, and the bearings are fairly small compared to
the loads being transmitted - thus premature failure.

Same to be said for Campag square taper cartridge BBs.

Joy came in 2008 when I bought a Campag Chorus UT crankset, that has
external bearings and a nice construction method. These bearings have
lasted about 4 years without so much as a look see inspection. Ok,
they are a little fiddly to pull the bearing off the BB axle at home,
and you can only use Campag bearings because they're non-standard
size, but not expensive. The killer is I get a 400% improvement in
longevity!

I assume you haven't experienced the creaking/clicking that I've seen
reported on the web. The stiffness of the wavy washer is what resists
lateral movement of the shaft.


I don't recall any creaking or clicking coming from my Campy UT BB.
Note that this is the one with the two half shafts joined by a hirth
joint in the middle.

I have had 1 cup come loose, and that was a clunk that was easily
detected and fixed before any damage had occurred. I obviously didn't
tighten it enough after rebuilding my bike when the frame came back from
the repairer.

I have had the chain ring bolts come loose and cause ticking sounds.
They are a bad design in aluminium, and cannot be adequately tightened
to stay tight, and rely on thread lock instead. I have actually
modified some old steel CR bolts to fit, and they stay tight without
thread lock.

--
JS