Ritchey WCS compact crank, any comments?

RS said:

I want to try a compact on a bike with an Ultegra 6500 crank on it now
and see the Richey WCS compact crank uses the same octalink BB.
Anyone have any comments on this Ritchey crank? Shift well? thanks

Do a search, you may want to check this out before getting one:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/swoo/sets/533276/

Caveat Emptor!

In article
<[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

RS said:

I want to try a compact on a bike with an Ultegra 6500 crank on it now
and see the Richey WCS compact crank uses the same octalink BB.
Anyone have any comments on this Ritchey crank? Shift well? thanks

Do a search, you may want to check this out before getting one:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/swoo/sets/533276/

Caveat Emptor!

Thanks! I've have never seen a crank arm break like that by itself.

bfd said:

Do a search, you may want to check this out before getting one:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/swoo/sets/533276/

Ouch! You've inspired me to keep a close eye on my Pros. Any background
info? Did you notice anything funny before they snapped?

The Pros are the same crank only with more black anodizing... and a
different alloy according to Ritchey (weight is 10g higher, or more
likely the same). Mine are in fine shape after more than 10k miles. I
can't comment on the shifting because I changed out the big ring for a
48. I think it's probably good that they use a steel inner ring...
should last longer.

I'd consider getting the Pros... saw some really cheap on ebay awhile
ago.

In article
<[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

bfd said:

Do a search, you may want to check this out before getting one:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/swoo/sets/533276/

Ouch! You've inspired me to keep a close eye on my Pros. Any

background

Quoted message said:

info? Did you notice anything funny before they snapped?

The Pros are the same crank only with more black anodizing... and a
different alloy according to Ritchey (weight is 10g higher, or more
likely the same). Mine are in fine shape after more than 10k miles. I
can't comment on the shifting because I changed out the big ring for a
48. I think it's probably good that they use a steel inner ring...
should last longer.

I'd consider getting the Pros... saw some really cheap on ebay awhile
ago.

Pros are octalink BB also? thanks

bfd said:

RS said:

I want to try a compact on a bike with an Ultegra 6500 crank on it now
and see the Richey WCS compact crank uses the same octalink BB.
Anyone have any comments on this Ritchey crank? Shift well? thanks

Do a search, you may want to check this out before getting one:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/swoo/sets/533276/

Caveat Emptor!

entirely predictable - i said as much last year. "i-beam" profiles like
that are great for static loads but highly susceptible to fatigue.

jim beam said:

bfd said:

RS said:

I want to try a compact on a bike with an Ultegra 6500 crank on it
now and see the Richey WCS compact crank uses the same octalink BB.
Anyone have any comments on this Ritchey crank? Shift well? thanks

Do a search, you may want to check this out before getting one:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/swoo/sets/533276/

Caveat Emptor!

entirely predictable - i said as much last year. "i-beam" profiles
like that are great for static loads but highly susceptible to
fatigue.

The crack(s) were not unnoticeable, either.

--
Phil

RS said:

Pros are octalink BB also? thanks

Yes. They look identical to the WCS, except the arms and the big ring
are all black.

RS said:

I want to try a compact on a bike with an Ultegra 6500 crank on it now
and see the Richey WCS compact crank uses the same octalink BB.
Anyone have any comments on this Ritchey crank? Shift well? thanks

Since no need to change the BB, well made, steel inner ring(a GOOD
thing), works and shifts well. Install, lower FD, take a link outta the
chain, go ride.

jim beam said:

bfd said:

RS said:

I want to try a compact on a bike with an Ultegra 6500 crank on it now
and see the Richey WCS compact crank uses the same octalink BB.
Anyone have any comments on this Ritchey crank? Shift well? thanks

Do a search, you may want to check this out before getting one:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/swoo/sets/533276/

Caveat Emptor!

entirely predictable - i said as much last year. "i-beam" profiles like
that are great for static loads but highly susceptible to fatigue.

BUT we sold more than a few of these w/o any issue or problem. I can't
argue that the one in the pic broke but we saw no problem.

jim beam said:

bfd said:

RS said:

I want to try a compact on a bike with an Ultegra 6500 crank on it now
and see the Richey WCS compact crank uses the same octalink BB.
Anyone have any comments on this Ritchey crank? Shift well? thanks

Do a search, you may want to check this out before getting one:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/swoo/sets/533276/

Caveat Emptor!

entirely predictable - i said as much last year. "i-beam" profiles like
that are great for static loads but highly susceptible to fatigue.

BUT we sold more than a few of these w/o any issue or problem. I can't
argue that the one in the pic broke but we saw no problem.

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

jim beam said:

bfd said:

RS wrote:
> I want to try a compact on a bike with an Ultegra 6500 crank on it now
> and see the Richey WCS compact crank uses the same octalink BB.
> Anyone have any comments on this Ritchey crank? Shift well? thanks
Do a search, you may want to check this out before getting one:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/swoo/sets/533276/

Caveat Emptor!

entirely predictable - i said as much last year. "i-beam" profiles like
that are great for static loads but highly susceptible to fatigue.

BUT we sold more than a few of these w/o any issue or problem. I can't
argue that the one in the pic broke but we saw no problem.

give it time. believe me, campy and shimano use their rounded profiles
for a reason.

jim beam said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

jim beam said:

bfd wrote:
> RS wrote:
>> I want to try a compact on a bike with an Ultegra 6500 crank on
>> it now and see the Richey WCS compact crank uses the same
>> octalink BB. Anyone have any comments on this Ritchey crank?
>> Shift well? thanks
> Do a search, you may want to check this out before getting one:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/swoo/sets/533276/
>
> Caveat Emptor!
>
entirely predictable - i said as much last year. "i-beam" profiles
like that are great for static loads but highly susceptible to
fatigue.

BUT we sold more than a few of these w/o any issue or problem. I
can't argue that the one in the pic broke but we saw no problem.

give it time. believe me, campy and shimano use their rounded
profiles for a reason.

Err, shoe rubs on the neutral axis as opposed to the site of highest stress?

This flawed design would encompass nearly the entire RaceFace line,
something they've been doing for a long time.
http://www.raceface.com/components/component-pop-ups/Deus-crank.jpg

Remember the Turbine LP, which seem to break a lot. Ask alt.mountain-bike:

--
Phil

A better choice for 110BCD crankset that fits an Octalink BB is the Sugino
Alpina. It looks a lot nicer than the Ritchey too.
http://www.suginoltd.co.jp/chainwheel_e.html.

"RS" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I want to try a compact on a bike with an Ultegra 6500 crank on it now
and see the Richey WCS compact crank uses the same octalink BB.
Anyone have any comments on this Ritchey crank? Shift well? thanks

Nick Payne said:

A better choice for 110BCD crankset that fits an Octalink BB is the Sugino
Alpina. It looks a lot nicer than the Ritchey too.
http://www.suginoltd.co.jp/chainwheel_e.html.

Ben Cycles has it for $150:

http://www.benscycle.net/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=694

Phil said:

jim beam said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

jim beam wrote:
> bfd wrote:
>> RS wrote:
>>> I want to try a compact on a bike with an Ultegra 6500 crank on
>>> it now and see the Richey WCS compact crank uses the same
>>> octalink BB. Anyone have any comments on this Ritchey crank?
>>> Shift well? thanks
>> Do a search, you may want to check this out before getting one:
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/swoo/sets/533276/
>>
>> Caveat Emptor!
>>
> entirely predictable - i said as much last year. "i-beam" profiles
> like that are great for static loads but highly susceptible to
> fatigue.
BUT we sold more than a few of these w/o any issue or problem. I
can't argue that the one in the pic broke but we saw no problem.

give it time. believe me, campy and shimano use their rounded
profiles for a reason.

Err, shoe rubs on the neutral axis as opposed to the site of highest stress?

shoe rub is not really a feature of this fracture. and the neutral axis
is inside the crank arm.

Quoted message said:

This flawed design would encompass nearly the entire RaceFace line,
something they've been doing for a long time.
http://www.raceface.com/components/component-pop-ups/Deus-crank.jpg

Remember the Turbine LP, which seem to break a lot. Ask alt.mountain-bike:

if you have an i-beam, any load resolves so that maximum skin stress is
at the sharpest edges. this is unfortunate because those regions are
also the most easily damaged. even a tiny stone chip or scratch can be
sufficient riser to initiate fatigue. the component is also
increasingly sensitive to surface finish quality in this situation too.
if you therefore want to make the most of your fatigue life, you use a
rounded profile, no sharp edges.

iirc, race face, while it does have the basic i-beam profile, is not as
extreme as the ritchey. it's also machined out of very high quality
material. from a production standpoint, this is a bizarre setup. faced
with small production runs, cnc production of complex profiles from
solid block is the way to go - no question. and use of expensive
material will help fatigue performance, but they're stuck between a rock
and a hard place because fully shaped [rounded] profiles are
prohibitively expensive to make this way - better to stick to profiles
that take single passes using cheaper tool bits, hence i-beam.

big picture, better mechanical properties are achievable with more
economic material when forged to shape, then using more limited
finishing operations. this is what most other people do. initial
tooling costs are higher, but material costs are lower and performance
can be better. race face are in quantity production mode using possibly
the most expensive materials and production process possible. it's far
from the best solution either for them or the consumer.

As another data point, I suffered the same failure. It's the only bike
part I've ever had fail in 17 years of riding.

I'm not sure how much I blame myself. I never saw any crack or any
damage. But I must have missed the initial break. I went riding one day
and the right pedal felt funny. As I was pulling over to inspect it the
crank broke off.

Ritchey more or less refused to believe that it happened and that
"they'd have to see it".

Ron Ruff said:

bfd said:

Do a search, you may want to check this out before getting one:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/swoo/sets/533276/

Ouch! You've inspired me to keep a close eye on my Pros. Any background
info? Did you notice anything funny before they snapped?

The Pros are the same crank only with more black anodizing... and a
different alloy according to Ritchey (weight is 10g higher, or more
likely the same). Mine are in fine shape after more than 10k miles. I
can't comment on the shifting because I changed out the big ring for a
48. I think it's probably good that they use a steel inner ring...
should last longer.

I'd consider getting the Pros... saw some really cheap on ebay awhile
ago.