Compacts and short chainstays?

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by wakked1, Oct 16, 2006.

  1. wakked1

    wakked1 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi all,

    I'm firmly on the fence between two framesets... Canyon F10 and Cervelo R3. I actually briefly had the latter frameset for a bit but it arrived pretty beat up.. I won't go into the details here. Anyway, I have a new SRAM force groupset but now I'm forced to pick out a frame.. again.

    I'm wondering if the short chainstays on the R3 will cause the drivetrain fits... seems like the large difference between 50/34 chainrings and the radical chainline could cause a lot of rubbing. Has anyone tried a compact on an R3 or another bike with supershort (< 400mm) chainstays? Thanks!
     
    Tags:


  2. gclark8

    gclark8 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,522
    Likes Received:
    2
    I have a tri bike with a short chainstay, 385mm, and a steep seat post, 78 degree. I solved the FD clearance problem by using a triple crankset, 36/42/53, and a triple Front Derailleur.
     
  3. gregkeller

    gregkeller New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2003
    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's the only problem i've had with my compact crank, when i'm in the inner ring, and down towards the bottom of my cassette (13 or lower) the chain rubs on the big chainring. There is nothing that can be done about this, just have to keep it out of those gears. I'm not sure if short chainstays would worsen this but it could. I had this crank on a Giant frame that has pretty short chainstays, and i couldn't use it in the 13 or 12 while on the 34, then put the crank on a Fuji with longer stays, and now i just can't use the 12, but shouldn't be crossing the chain that much anyway.
     
  4. sugaken

    sugaken New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    0
    I use a compact crankset (FSA Carbon Pro Elite Compact) on a R3 frameset with no problem so far. I absolutely love this frame, BTW.

    Ken
     
  5. wakked1

    wakked1 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Cool, thanks! I've been trying to order a Canyon F10 but I can't quite pull the trigger coz of the 74.5 headtube... unless they have some crazy small rake on the fork (i.e. 37mm).

    The problem with a climbing bike is that you have to come back down at some point. I've been riding the Trek 2300 for a few years... I'm used to the small amount of trail, but it doesn't mean I like it.
     
  6. sugaken

    sugaken New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    0
    How odd... My previous bike was a Trek 2300, too. Its frame and front fork among several other small parts have been damaged in a car accident, and after investigating several replacement and upgrade options I opted for the R3.

    Oh, and the fork that came with the frame, Cervelo's own Wolf SL, isn't the lightest fork on the market, but looks quite beefy and feels very secure on descent.
     
  7. wakked1

    wakked1 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is funny. I guess the R3 is a good upgrade from the 2300, then! When I got it originally there wasn't really much choice outside of alu if you wanted a really stiff, responsive but "light" frame. Steel was too heavy in a suitably stiff frame (size 63 in the Trek), and all the carbon frames were very dead/flexy feeling.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

Loading...