Review: St. John's St. Cycles cheapie 110 PCD alloy crankset (~$60.00US) for old-fashioned BBs

On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 10:55:09 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 8:42:01 AM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 05 Feb 2015 00:40:59 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. Slocomb considered Wed, 04 Feb 2015
07:48:45 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Tue, 3 Feb 2015 03:56:50 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

"Christ, don't start filing; you'll never get it right and, besides the fit, you'll wreck the temper of the metal at the critical interface."

Nonsense. You're talkin' to an (admittedly amateur) machinist here, Andre! I just applied Prussian blue to the square taper and filed where the blue dye was pushed out. Then I machined 1/8" off the end of the axle so the crank wouldn't bottom out. In doing so, I managed to maintain perfect alignment and moved the crankset 1/8" that way, plus another 1/8" by adjusting the Phil BB.

When I got the chain line where I wanted it, I filed lightly on the crank's taper opposite the chainring runout until the runout disappeared.

Now I have less than 10 thou runout at the chainring: better than some Campy cranks I've had! And the Prussian blue pattern inside the crank's square taper is smoother than it was before I began filing, so the taper's fit is, if anything, BETTER than it was originally.

"Surface temper"?? I don't believe so; not with a forged crank. To my knowledge, you can't shot-peen or nitride forged aluminum (the two primary surface-hardening methods). A forged piece is hard all the way through; that's why they forge it. Besides, the mating surface area of the crank's square taper is so large compared to the load imposed on it that the actual pedaling load is virtually insignificant (assuming a good fit to begin with, and that it doesn't loosen up).

If anyone disagrees with me about the surface hardening issue, please feel free to correct me. I have thick skin.

Well, technically one could do some form of casehardening on a forged
item, and one could do some form of surface hardening, perhaps by
coating the forging with various thickness of some sort of refractory
material as the Japanese sword makers do, and I once had an old
blacksmith tell me about hardening the face of a hammer head by
heating the entire head and than splashing water on the face of the
hammer, but who would bother.

As for selectively filling or scrapping and using Prussian blue to fit
parts, it has a long history of use and was universally used when
fitting cast bearings and I suspect that those who would condemn it
are simply ignorant of the capabilities of a competent craftsman.

The ability to perform such tasks accurately used to be regarded as
the difference between a mere mechanic and a fitter.

I believe that you are in the U.K. I think that the terms used to be
"fitter - turner" which I believe would be "machine operator" in
America and "Machinist". The Bloke from Newcastle I have mentioned
told me that a "fitter-turner" could not, according to union rule pick
up a file and file the burr off he end of a piece he was turning in
the lathe, although he went on to say that he'd never actually seen
anyone admonished for doing it.

I don't know what they called the guys at Purdey fitting the barrels
on the 1,000 Pound (in those days) shotguns though.

And I've heard English people describe themselves as an "Engineer"
when Americans would use the term Mechanic, or "car repairman", so
obviously the terms vary.

But then, I've heard the present Queen speak and I assume that she by
definition must be speaking the "Queen's English". Which puzzles me a
bit when I hear a mine from Yorkshire speaking "English" :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

I like the term used these days for garbage collectors; they're now called sanitation engineers although they do no engineering whatsoever.

Cheers

I suspect that it is something like "political correct", which seems
to be a parody as the two words so often seem to have dramatically
different meanings, neither of which, at times, seem to have the
meaning that the dictionary indicates is correct.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 16:16:01 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 1:55:12 PM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

I like the term used these days for garbage collectors; they're now called sanitation engineers although they do no engineering whatsoever.


Yep. For a while, there were several attempts to inflate the dignity of certain
jobs by attaching the word "engineer." The various societies of Professional
Engineers were very much against that. And as a (retired) PE, I certainly agreed.

- Frank Krygowski


If I remember correctly, when I was in high school "PE" meant Physical
Education :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 2/5/2015 9:23 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 16:16:01 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 1:55:12 PM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

I like the term used these days for garbage collectors; they're now called sanitation engineers although they do no engineering whatsoever.


Yep. For a while, there were several attempts to inflate the dignity of certain
jobs by attaching the word "engineer." The various societies of Professional
Engineers were very much against that. And as a (retired) PE, I certainly agreed.

- Frank Krygowski


If I remember correctly, when I was in high school "PE" meant Physical
Education :-)

There aren't enough acronyms to go around.

Maybe the engineers should have chosen Greek letters. Pi Epsilon (Î*Ε)
would have worked with other engineers, mathematicians and scientists.
But then, few others in America would know what that first squiggle meant.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank - quick now go 14 numbers on Pi

I installed the crankset and took the bike for a few rides. By filing the taper inside the aluminum crank and moving the Phil BB over, I was able to get the chain line to point almost down the middle of the cassette.

I really like these compact crank ratios (34-50) a lot better than those of my old standard crankset (42-52). I should have gotten a compact crank long ago.

The steel chainrings work fine and shift well. They don't feel like they are particularly smooth-running, though, like a good alloy chainring would be. Hopefully they'll run smoother when they wear in a bit.

The crank didn't loosen up after my rides, which I think means I fit it to the spindle OK.

On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 8:16:22 PM UTC-5, wrote:
I installed the crankset and took the bike for a few rides. By filing the taper inside the aluminum crank and moving the Phil BB over, I was able to get the chain line to point almost down the middle of the cassette.

I really like these compact crank ratios (34-50) a lot better than those of my old standard crankset (42-52). I should have gotten a compact crank long ago.

The steel chainrings work fine and shift well. They don't feel like they are particularly smooth-running, though, like a good alloy chainring would be. Hopefully they'll run smoother when they wear in a bit.

errrrrrrrrrkkk

The crank didn't loosen up after my rides, which I think means I fit it to the spindle OK.

(( SUPER....how were the nuts cranked in ?

On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 5:16:22 PM UTC-8, wrote:
I installed the crankset and took the bike for a few rides. By filing the taper inside the aluminum crank and moving the Phil BB over, I was able to get the chain line to point almost down the middle of the cassette.

I really like these compact crank ratios (34-50) a lot better than those of my old standard crankset (42-52). I should have gotten a compact crank long ago.


I agree, although with a 34/50 you have to have a rear derailleur that can wrap a bit of chain, particularly if you have a wide ratio and like to use all your gears. I have a 34/50 and a 27t low on my rain bike, which produces a ridiculously low gear. I don't have any cross-chaining problems (the bike has an inherently good chain line with my two piece crank and BB30 bearings with Wheels Mfg Shimano adapter), and I can find myself in a 50/27 if I'm not paying attention -- but the drive train doesn't seem to mind,and it's kind of fun riding a 1X10. I do notice if I go 34/11 or 12 because the chain droops -- but not enough to justify taking out a link and losing my 50/27.

Bottom line is that with modern compacts, you're getting gears in a range formerly reserved for triples. I have a 34/50 on my plastic bike with a 23 or 25t cog depending on the wheel, and even in my advanced state of decrepitude, the 34/25 is plenty low enough, and it doesn't look dorky.

With the conversion, you'll need to shorten your chain and drop your FD, if you haven't done that already. If you like big gears, you'll need to get a 12 or 11t cog, which may or may not be easy depending on how retro you really are.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Thu, 05 Feb 2015 13:47:21 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

Social engineering at its finest.

Best bit of social engineering ever accomplished was variously called
the National City Lines scandal," the "General Motors streetcar
conspiracy, etc." Looking at the Wikipedia entry, I see the right wing
revisionists have had at it and are trying to rewrite history again. He
who controls access to information controls the world.

On 2/7/2015 2:51 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 5:16:22 PM UTC-8, wrote:
I installed the crankset and took the bike for a few rides. By filing the taper inside the aluminum crank and moving the Phil BB over, I was able to get the chain line to point almost down the middle of the cassette.

I really like these compact crank ratios (34-50) a lot better than those of my old standard crankset (42-52). I should have gotten a compact crank long ago.


I agree, although with a 34/50 you have to have a rear derailleur that can wrap a bit of chain, particularly if you have a wide ratio and like to use all your gears. I have a 34/50 and a 27t low on my rain bike, which produces a ridiculously low gear. I don't have any cross-chaining problems (the bike has an inherently good chain line with my two piece crank and BB30 bearings with Wheels Mfg Shimano adapter), and I can find myself in a 50/27 if I'm not paying attention -- but the drive train doesn't seem to mind,and it's kind of fun riding a 1X10. I do notice if I go 34/11 or 12 because the chain droops -- but not enough to justify taking out a link and losing my 50/27.

Heh. Can you climb Tunitas Creek with a 34-27? A low gear is 28-34 or
28-32 and that's not backwards. That's not even as low as you can go.
The "Mountain Tamer" system offered front chain rings as low as 17
teeth. You could not be on your smallest cog in the rear but you
wouldn't want to do that anyway.

On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 5:42:40 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 2/7/2015 2:51 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 5:16:22 PM UTC-8, wrote:
I installed the crankset and took the bike for a few rides. By filing the taper inside the aluminum crank and moving the Phil BB over, I was able to get the chain line to point almost down the middle of the cassette.

I really like these compact crank ratios (34-50) a lot better than those of my old standard crankset (42-52). I should have gotten a compact crank long ago.


I agree, although with a 34/50 you have to have a rear derailleur that can wrap a bit of chain, particularly if you have a wide ratio and like to use all your gears. I have a 34/50 and a 27t low on my rain bike, which produces a ridiculously low gear. I don't have any cross-chaining problems (the bike has an inherently good chain line with my two piece crank and BB30 bearings with Wheels Mfg Shimano adapter), and I can find myself in a 50/27 if I'm not paying attention -- but the drive train doesn't seem to mind,and it's kind of fun riding a 1X10. I do notice if I go 34/11 or 12 because the chain droops -- but not enough to justify taking out a link and losing my 50/27.

Heh. Can you climb Tunitas Creek with a 34-27? A low gear is 28-34 or
28-32 and that's not backwards. That's not even as low as you can go.
The "Mountain Tamer" system offered front chain rings as low as 17
teeth. You could not be on your smallest cog in the rear but you
wouldn't want to do that anyway.

I used to climb it in a 42/19 or 21 -- I'd probably just drive these days. I still miss the long, classic climbs in and around the SCV.

My plastic bike has 34/25 on it, and that's good enough for anything I do around here -- although I end up creeping the last two miles in to my neighborhood, but I don't think a lower gear would help. EPO might help. All of my rides on the east side (many this time of year) end with a mandatory climb up some hill -- usually this one in reverse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUXgvgWIURY An almost car-free zone, but look out for the walkers.

Speaking of -- just got a call for a ride. Another wet one. Hope my shoes are dry from yesterday. I forgot to put them on the shoe dryer.

-- Jay Beattie.