Compact Crank Query
View Full Version : Compact Crank Query
OK, the subject line is not really alliterative, bit it's
close. I've been following the compact crank threads and am
about to replace my old Dura-Ace
39/53 crank with a 34/50 to help my aging knees. The FSA
Carbon compact seems really nice except for the price,
however, Supergo has it @ $279. The FSA Energy compact
seems to make more economic sense for half the price.
Both FSA cranks have a 10 year warranty on the crank arms
which is good as most crank failures happen at the pedal
or spindle interface. Ritchey claims to have sent out
their first batch of WCS compacts, Octalink only, but I
have never read any comments from someone who has one.
Does anyone have info on upcoming models, other than
Campy? Octalink is passing away and I am afraid that ISIS
may as well if manufacturers move to outboard bearings.
Also, does anyone using the FSA models have any chain rub
issues. I read some review where the user had a lot of
rub using the 34 tooth ring, but he may have been
technically challenged. Thanks to all who offer useful
information.
Tim McTeague
Tim McTeague <mcteaguenot@comcast.net> wrote:
> Ritchey claims to have sent out their first batch of WCS
> compacts, Octalink only, but I have never read any
> comments from someone who has one.
I picked up a short comment in the german tour magazine IIRC
that called them "not too stiff". Looking at the groove I'd
assume they are torsionally challenged. Ritchey AFAIK will
switch to ISIS in 2005.
> Does anyone have info on upcoming models, other than
> Campy?
Sugino offers 110BCD cranks.
--
MfG/Best regards helmut springer
Unless you have rather long chain stays, chain rub could
well be an issue. On a 9-spd cluster, you cannot have
the chain on the smallest 3 cogs without it scraping the
big ring. It's not being technically challenged; it's
simple geometry.
Seeing as it's a cross-over system, those combinations
aren't really necessary. However, in some terrain, it
results in LOTS of shifting - back and forth between 2-3 in
the back for each shift between rings.
Tim McTeague wrote:
> OK, the subject line is not really alliterative, bit it's
> close. I've been following the compact crank threads and
> am about to replace my old Dura-Ace
> 39/53 crank with a 34/50 to help my aging knees. The FSA
> Carbon compact seems really nice except for the price,
> however, Supergo has it @ $279.
[snip] Also, does anyone using the FSA models have any chain
rub issues.
> I read some review where the user had a lot of rub using
> the 34 tooth ring, but he may have been technically
> challenged. Thanks to all who offer useful information.
drt-<< I picked up a short comment in the german tour
magazine IIRC that called them "not too stiff". Looking at
the groove I'd assume they are torsionally challenged.
>><BR><BR>
Ohhh, please. Are they saying that while riding, the
aluminum crank arm flexes?? If it really did, it would soon
break. These claims of crank arm stiffness or lack thereof,
when a rider is JRA makes me cringe.
Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com (http://www.vecchios.com/) "Ruote convenzionali
costruite eccezionalmente bene"
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 12:36:18 +0000, richard wrote:
> Unless you have rather long chain stays, chain rub could
> well be an issue. On a 9-spd cluster, you cannot have the
> chain on the smallest 3 cogs without it scraping the big
> ring. It's not being technically challenged; it's simple
> geometry.
Not within my experience. I have an even more radical set-
up; MTB-compat cranks with 46/30. I can use all but the
smallest cog (9-speed Campy) with no rub.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | "What am I on? I'm on my bike, six hours a day,
busting my ass. _`\(,_ | What are you on?" --Lance
Armstrong (_)/ (_) |
FWIW, I had a similar thought last year while building up
another road bike. I normally ride 53/39 + 23/13. I have no
problem with hills but at age 59 do not use the big ring
enough for cruising. Rather than buying a new compact crank
I replaced the 53 with a 48 and later, as the old 39 became
worn, replaced it with a 38, the smallest that fits a
standard Shimano road crank. I'm quite happy with this
combination and may put a 48 on my other bikes if I ever
wear the 53 ring out...
Mike Yankee
(Address is munged to thwart spammers. To reply, delete
everything after "com".)
Agreed.. it would be interesting to stick a crank and BB
combo onto some sort of testing machine to actually test any
flex. See how many degrees it flexes with a certain weight..
etc. Just to disprove (or even prove) the claims that people
can feel cranks flexing.
"Qui si parla Campagnolo " <vecchio51@aol.com> wrote in
message news:20040710084229.29866.00001099@mb-m18.aol.com...
> drt-<< I picked up a short comment in the german tour
> magazine IIRC that called them "not too stiff". Looking at
> the groove I'd assume they are torsionally challenged.
> >><BR><BR>
>
> Ohhh, please. Are they saying that while riding, the
> aluminum crank arm flexes?? If it really did, it would
> soon break. These claims of crank arm stiffness or lack
> thereof, when a rider is JRA makes me cringe.
>
> Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St.
> Boulder, CO, 80302
> (303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com (http://www.vecchios.com/) "Ruote convenzionali
> costruite eccezionalmente bene"
> Ohhh, please. Are they saying that while riding, the
> aluminum crank arm flexes?? If it really did, it would
> soon break. These claims of crank arm stiffness or lack
> thereof, when a rider is JRA makes me cringe.
>
> Peter Chisholm
That drives me crazy as well. With all the flex and can see,
as well as feel, in the frame and tires how in the world can
you notice ANY flex in the crank?
Tim McTeague
"richard" <rmcclarynospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:5pRHc.62254$Oq2.19430@attbi_s52...
> Unless you have rather long chain stays, chain rub could
> well be an issue. On a 9-spd cluster, you cannot have the
> chain on the smallest 3 cogs without it scraping the big
> ring. It's not being technically challenged; it's simple
> geometry.
>
> Seeing as it's a cross-over system, those combinations
> aren't really necessary. However, in some terrain, it
> results in LOTS of shifting - back and forth between 2-3
> in the back for each shift between rings.
>
Well, that is what I was wondering about. As I only read one
complaint about chain rub I assumed it could easily be a
case of improper setup. But the 16 tooth difference made me
worry about it. I would never use the big/big, small/small
chainring/cassette crossover and rarely even get closer than
two cogs to it. My chainstays are 41cm BTW.
Tim
"Tim McTeague" <mcteaguenot@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:X5adneHtPu-pS3LdRVn-hg@comcast.com...
> OK, the subject line is not really alliterative, bit it's
> close. I've
been
> following the compact crank threads and am about to
> replace my old
Dura-Ace
> 39/53 crank with a 34/50 to help my aging knees. The FSA
> Carbon compact seems really nice except for the price,
> however, Supergo has it @ $279.
The
> FSA Energy compact seems to make more economic sense for
> half the price. Both FSA cranks have a 10 year warranty on
> the crank arms which is good as most crank failures happen
> at the pedal or spindle interface. Ritchey claims to have
> sent out their first batch of WCS compacts, Octalink only,
> but I have never read any comments from someone who has
> one. Does anyone have info on upcoming models, other than
> Campy? Octalink is passing away and I am afraid that ISIS
> may as well if manufacturers move to outboard bearings.
> Also, does anyone using the FSA models have any chain rub
issues.
> I read some review where the user had a lot of rub using
> the 34 tooth
ring,
> but he may have been technically challenged. Thanks to all
> who offer
useful
> information.
>
> Tim McTeague
>
>I've used an FSA Energy compact crank for 500 miles now
>with good success.
No chain rub in any gear combo (41.5 chainstays), very good
shifting. Easy set up and installation. The only thing,
other than proper torque, that you have to pay attention to,
is to move the front der down to the correct big ring
clearance.
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 10:12:48 -0400, "Mike Beauchamp"
<news@mikebeauchamp.com> wrote:
>Agreed.. it would be interesting to stick a crank and BB
>combo onto some sort of testing machine to actually test
>any flex. See how many degrees it flexes with a certain
>weight.. etc. Just to disprove (or even prove) the claims
>that people can feel cranks flexing.
>
>"Qui si parla Campagnolo " <vecchio51@aol.com> wrote in
>message news:20040710084229.29866.00001099@mb-
>m18.aol.com...
>> drt-<< I picked up a short comment in the german tour
>> magazine IIRC that called them "not too stiff". Looking
>> at the groove I'd assume they are torsionally challenged.
>> >><BR><BR>
>>
>> Ohhh, please. Are they saying that while riding, the
>> aluminum crank arm flexes?? If it really did, it would
>> soon break. These claims of crank arm stiffness or lack
>> thereof, when a rider is JRA makes me cringe.
>>
>> Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St.
>> Boulder, CO, 80302
>> (303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com (http://www.vecchios.com/) "Ruote
>> convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"
>
Dear Mike,
In January, there was a long thread about testing what does
or doesn't flex. Here's where Chalo Colina weighed in (a
pardonable pun):
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-
rank%2Bgroup:rec.bicycles.tech%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-
8%26group%3Drec.bicycles.tech%26selm%3D8b4b7de4.0401301145.-
4a23338d%2540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D1
or
http://tinyurl.com/384uz
From that point, you can browse the whole thread.
The question is whether the frame, the bearings, the bottom-
bracket spindle, the pedal arms, or the spindles inside
the pedals themselves are flexing, and how much (as well
as how much flexing is real and how much is in the mind of
the rider).
As far as I know, no one ever did any testing.
Carl Fogel
Tim McTeague wrote:
> OK, the subject line is not really alliterative, bit it's
> close. I've been following the compact crank threads and
> am about to replace my old Dura-Ace 39/53 crank with a
> 34/50 to help my aging knees. The FSA Carbon compact seems
> really nice except for the price, however, Supergo has it
> @ $279. The FSA Energy compact seems to make more economic
> sense for half the price. Both FSA cranks have a 10 year
> warranty on the crank arms which is good as most crank
> failures happen at the pedal or spindle interface. Ritchey
> claims to have sent out their first batch of WCS compacts,
> Octalink only, but I have never read any comments from
> someone who has one. Does anyone have info on upcoming
> models, other than Campy? Octalink is passing away and I
> am afraid that ISIS may as well if manufacturers move to
> outboard bearings. Also, does anyone using the FSA models
> have any chain rub issues. I read some review where the
> user had a lot of rub using the 34 tooth ring, but he may
> have been technically challenged. Thanks to all who offer
> useful information.
>
> Tim McTeague
I've got the FSA compact with campy 10s. The chain rubs the
large chainring when in the small/small combo. Slight touch
when small/ 2nd smallest.
YMMV with longer/shorter chainstays.
"Tim McTeague" <mcteaguenot@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<X5adneHtPu-pS3LdRVn-hg@comcast.com>... Ritchey
> claims to have sent out their first batch of WCS compacts,
> Octalink only, but I have never read any comments from
> someone who has one. Does anyone have info on upcoming
> models, other than Campy? Tim McTeague
I have received a pair of black, WCS 50/34 170mm compact
cranks. I have put a weeks' worth of rides on them and I
like them a lot. The one issue some people may have if they
are like me, is i tend to have a lot of movement at the
ankle so I rub my crank arms with the inside heel of my
shoe. Since these cranks are hollowed on the outer surface
in the middle, i tend to hit the groove every once in a
while. Lots of metal around the pedal hole compared to the
Ultegra I was using before, dunno if that is good or bad.
It's painted black, with a machined surface extending from
the pedal hole, over the grooves. If it were not for the
much lower gearing, I could not tell the difference between
these and my Ultegra or 105 on the other bike or the Sugino
on my track bike.
My setup works very well in the big ring/2nd biggest cog.
Although it's discouraged, it behaves well in the detestible
big-big combo as well.
Tim McTeague wrote:
> "richard" <rmcclarynospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> news:5pRHc.62254$Oq2.19430@attbi_s52...
>
>>Unless you have rather long chain stays, chain rub could
>>well be an issue. On a 9-spd cluster, you cannot have the
>>chain on the smallest 3 cogs without it scraping the big
>>ring. It's not being technically challenged; it's simple
>>geometry.
>>
>>Seeing as it's a cross-over system, those combinations
>>aren't really necessary. However, in some terrain, it
>>results in LOTS of shifting - back and forth between 2-3
>>in the back for each shift between rings.
>>
>
>
> Well, that is what I was wondering about. As I only
> read one complaint about chain rub I assumed it could
> easily be a case of improper setup. But the 16 tooth
> difference made me worry about it. I would never use
> the big/big, small/small chainring/cassette crossover
> and rarely even get closer than two cogs to it. My
> chainstays are 41cm BTW.
>
> Tim
"richard" <rmcclarynospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:4D2Ic.31266$WX.25452@attbi_s51...
> My setup works very well in the big ring/2nd biggest cog.
> Although it's discouraged, it behaves well in the
> detestible big-big combo as well.
Thanks, Richard, that is the sort of answer I was looking
for. Now, my decision is whether to buy now or wait till
next year to see if ISIS bottom brackets start going the way
of Octalink when more manufacturers switch to outboard
bearings (which seems to be the way they may be headed).
Tim
mikeyankee-<< Rather than buying a new compact crank I
replaced the 53 with a 48 and later, as the old 39 became
worn, replaced it with a 38, the smallest that fits a
standard Shimano road crank. I'm quite happy with this
combination and may put a 48 on my other bikes if I ever
wear the 53 ring out... >><BR><BR>
Samo-I use a 50/39, have for years. 34t is too small, but
the 50t with a 13t combo is plenty big for me and other .5
century and .1 offa ton riders.
Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com (http://www.vecchios.com/) "Ruote convenzionali
costruite eccezionalmente bene"
Tim McTeague <mcteaguenot@comcast.net> wrote:
>OK, the subject line is not really alliterative, bit it's
>close. I've been following the compact crank threads and am
>about to replace my old Dura-Ace
>39/53 crank with a 34/50 to help my aging knees. The FSA
> Carbon compact seems really nice except for the price,
> however, Supergo has it @ $279.
If the Sugino XD doesn't suit you, the latest Rivendell
Reader mentions an upcoming Sugino Alpina with lower Q-
factor; Octalink now, square taper later...
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Qui si parla Campagnolo <vecchio51@aol.com> wrote:
: Samo-I use a 50/39, have for years. 34t is too small, but
: the 50t with a 13t combo is plenty big for me and other .5
: century and .1 offa ton riders.
I use 110 PCD crankset, then use either 34/48 with 13-26
(The Alps) or 38/48 with 12-23 (normally). 38/48 and 12-23
gives me a slightly higher big gear than you, nice close
rings at the front and a big ring I can tick over nearly
all the time.
Arthur
--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org (http://www.clune.org/) "Technolibertarians make a
philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook
"Guenther Schwarz" <strap@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.07.11.22.19.12.413647@gmx.de...
>
> Why not a square taper? They have been around for quite a
> while and I expect them to be available in the future,
> too. Not fancy stuff, of course, just simple cranks like
> Stronglight or Sugino. They do their job, I am quite happy
> with my 110mm BCD Stronglight and just bought an NOS RX100
> for another bike.
>
> Guenther
Because this post is about the new compact cranks. Campys
new one will be square taper but most likely over $400. FSA
and Ritchey do not offer square taper. Stronglight has one
but it does not appear to be available on these shores. I
like the fact that FSA has a 10 year warranty on the crank
arms, the part that contains to hole where most failures
occur. Anyway, Octalink is going away and I doubt any new
cranks will be made in this format. ISIS is here for while
anyway although I am sure Ocalink BBs will still be made for
older cranks. No harm in trying to buy a new crank with the
best chance at avoiding rapid obsolescence.
Tim
Tim McTeague <mcteaguenot@comcast.net> wrote:
: Because this post is about the new compact cranks.
: Campys new one will be square taper but most likely over
: $400. FSA and Ritchey do not offer square taper.
: Stronglight has one but it does not appear to be
: available on these shores.
TA does a very nice one, square taper (Shimano pattern) : TA
Vega Light
http://www.chickencycles.co.uk/products/chains/pg_chai-
nsets.html
Arthur
--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org (http://www.clune.org/) "Technolibertarians make a
philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
