hooray for 110 BCD cranksets!...

Quoted message said:

it seems to me that the bigger manufacturers should think about making this combo available, both
as OEM cranks for non-racing bikes and as an aftermarket accessory.

I agree. For most purposes most road bikes are overgeared, they come with Tour de France gearing for
riders who are just people.

I have no idea why Shimano decided to make its road triples 130-74 instead of 110-74, pretty stupid
in my book. The only reasons I can think of are:

1. Didn't want to admit that Sugino was pretty smart.

2. Had a back log of 130 mm bolt chain rings.

Jon Isaacs

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it seems to me that the bigger manufacturers should think about making this combo available, both
as OEM cranks for non-racing bikes and as an aftermarket accessory.

I agree. For most purposes most road bikes are overgeared, they come with

Tour

Quoted message said:

de France gearing for riders who are just people.

I have no idea why Shimano decided to make its road triples 130-74 instead

of

Quoted message said:

110-74, pretty stupid in my book. The only reasons I can think of are:

1. Didn't want to admit that Sugino was pretty smart.

2. Had a back log of 130 mm bolt chain rings.

You're right. But I think there is one other reason...

3. Pushing another "standard" keeps 'em buying cranks

4/74 is a great standard - it's just about perfect. I agree that Sugino is very smart. I love their
value-packed cranks. They perform beautifully, and I've found them for unbelievable prices
(including free).

The current plethora of MTB chainring standards isn't doing anything positive for the offroad
cycling community (or anybody else). LBS's can't afford to stock 3x as many chainrings (94/58,
104/64, 110/74). Mfr's have to tool up for 3x as many chainrings. I don't see how this is a
good thing.

I'm hopeful that the 110/74 5-arm standard will be available indefinitely.

I'll hop on the bandwagon: Hooray for 110mm!

Barry "My recumbent's big ring is a 60T x 110mm" Sanders

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

Quoted message said:

after trying both the standard 130 BCD with 39/53 double

rings and

Quoted message said:

52/42/30 triples, i still wasn't satisfied with the gears

i had

Quoted message said:

available. i found a set of dimension 110 BCD cyclocross

crank arms at

Quoted message said:

aebike.com, along with some sugino
34/46 rings. this combination works great for the riding i

do. most of

Quoted message said:

the time i'm on the 46, including the short rolling hills

we have

Quoted message said:

here. for the longer steeper hills, the 34 is better than

the 30t on

Quoted message said:

my old triple set. it seems to me that the bigger

manufacturers should

Quoted message said:

think about making this combo available, both as OEM

cranks for

Quoted message said:

non-racing bikes and as an aftermarket accessory.

I agree with the usefulness of 110/74 BCD - both of my wife's bikes are currently set up with
46-36-26 chainrings - makes a nice road combination with a widely available 12-25 cassette

A caveat if you're thinking of converting to 110mm BCD with a 46T ring though - make sure you can
get the front dérailleur low enough. I've had two problems with this....

- my wife's Giant TCR has a "braze on" mount (it's actually screwed to the seat tube) that needed
some file work on the slot before I could use a 46T ring

- I wasn't able to convert an old bike which had the rear shift cable running on top of the
chainstays since the front dérailleur would catch on the cable when mounted low enough for the 46T
ring - the smallest ring I could use was a 50T

"B. Sanders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Yrfma.202157$Zo.37458@sccrnsc03...

Quoted message said:

The current plethora of MTB chainring standards isn't

doing anything

Quoted message said:

positive for the offroad cycling community (or anybody

else). LBS's can't

Quoted message said:

afford to stock 3x as many chainrings (94/58, 104/64,

110/74). Mfr's have

Quoted message said:

to tool up for 3x as many chainrings. I don't see how

this is a good thing.

"Aw, gee, I see ya got those old-school cranks. Well, parts for those 're hardta get, you know. Ya
might wanna start thinkin' about just gettin' a whole new bike..."

Matt O.

smokey wrote, about 110/74 BCD cranks:

Quoted message said:

it seems to me that the bigger manufacturers should think about making this combo available, both
as OEM cranks for non-racing bikes and as an aftermarket accessory.

I agree 100%. I just finished trying to get decent gears on a 130/74 triple. What a pain!

--
Frank Krygowski [email hidden]

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

after trying both the standard 130 BCD with 39/53 double

rings and

Quoted message said:

52/42/30 triples, i still wasn't satisfied with the gears

i had

Quoted message said:

available. i found a set of dimension 110 BCD cyclocross

crank arms at

Quoted message said:

aebike.com, along with some sugino
34/46 rings. this combination works great for the riding i

do. most of

Quoted message said:

the time i'm on the 46, including the short rolling hills

we have

Quoted message said:

here. for the longer steeper hills, the 34 is better than

the 30t on

Quoted message said:

my old triple set. it seems to me that the bigger

manufacturers should

Quoted message said:

think about making this combo available, both as OEM

cranks for

Quoted message said:

non-racing bikes and as an aftermarket accessory.

I agree with the usefulness of 110/74 BCD - both of my wife's bikes are currently set up with
46-36-26 chainrings - makes a nice road combination with a widely available 12-25 cassette

A caveat if you're thinking of converting to 110mm BCD with a 46T ring though - make sure you can
get the front dérailleur low enough. I've had two problems with this....

- my wife's Giant TCR has a "braze on" mount (it's actually screwed to the seat tube) that needed
some file work on the slot before I could use a 46T ring

- I wasn't able to convert an old bike which had the rear shift cable running on top of the
chainstays since the front dérailleur would catch on the cable when mounted low enough for the
46T ring - the smallest ring I could use was a 50T

that's a very good point. they work fine on my lemond poprad cyclocross bike, but there are
undoubtable some bikes out there that won't have the clearance. i think most people could make do
with a double chainring setup if they try this gearing. maybe not for loaded touring on steep hills,
but for a lot of us, it makes real sense. i always hated that shift from 42 to 30 on my triple c/s,
it was a real momentum killer. it's also surprising how many rolling hills you can top in the big
ring. i am running this with a 12-32 cassette, quite a bit lower geared than many road bikes. but it
still works great for me.

Matt O'Toole said:

"Aw, gee, I see ya got those old-school cranks. Well, parts for those 're hardta get, you know. Ya
might wanna start thinkin' about just gettin' a whole new bike..."

This explains why we'll soon see the end of 110mm cranks, followed by 94, then 130 -- or maybe
Shimano will just make their "new, improved" 130mm road cranks with a 4-bolt pattern. Anything to
get you to buy new.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | When you are up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember _`\(,_ | that your initial
objective was to drain the swamp. -- LBJ (_)/ (_) |

Frank Krygowski <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

smokey wrote, about 110/74 BCD cranks:

Quoted message said:

it seems to me that the bigger manufacturers should think about making this combo available,
both as OEM cranks for non-racing bikes and as an aftermarket accessory.

I agree 100%. I just finished trying to get decent gears on a 130/74 triple. What a pain!

is it just me, or does anyone else think many of the manufacturers play on the racing image to sell
their bikes? the 130 BCD cranks are one example, saddles way below the bars are another, and selling
light weight instead of durability. i love my lemond, but had to make modifications to the gearing
and bar position for comfort, and also change the saddle. if i can ever scrape the money together,
my next road bike will probably be one of grant rivendell's models. he now has a bike that sells for
around $1400 complete. grant catches a little flak for being too "retro"; i think he just builds
more "common sense" bicycles. smokey strodtman

smokey said:

Quoted message said:

is it just me, or does anyone else think many of the manufacturers play on the racing image to
sell their bikes? the 130 BCD cranks are one example, saddles way below the bars are another...

^^^^^

Is this meant to tie into the low-racer recumbent threads? ;-)

--
Frank Krygowski [email hidden]

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

Quoted message said:

"Grenouil" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

after trying both the standard 130 BCD with 39/53

double

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

rings and

Quoted message said:

52/42/30 triples, i still wasn't satisfied with the

gears

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

i had

Quoted message said:

available. i found a set of dimension 110 BCD

cyclocross

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

crank arms at

Quoted message said:

aebike.com, along with some sugino
34/46 rings. this combination works great for the

riding i

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

do. most of

Quoted message said:

the time i'm on the 46, including the short rolling

hills

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

we have

Quoted message said:

here. for the longer steeper hills, the 34 is better

than

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the 30t on

Quoted message said:

my old triple set. it seems to me that the bigger

manufacturers should

Quoted message said:

think about making this combo available, both as OEM

cranks for

Quoted message said:

non-racing bikes and as an aftermarket accessory.

I agree with the usefulness of 110/74 BCD - both of my wife's bikes are currently set up with
46-36-26

chainrings -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

makes a nice road combination with a widely available

12-25

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cassette

A caveat if you're thinking of converting to 110mm BCD

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a 46T ring though - make sure you can get the front dérailleur low enough. I've had two
problems with

this....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- my wife's Giant TCR has a "braze on" mount (it's

actually

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

screwed to the seat tube) that needed some file work on

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

slot before I could use a 46T ring

- I wasn't able to convert an old bike which had the

rear

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

shift cable running on top of the chainstays since the

front

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

dérailleur would catch on the cable when mounted low

enough

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

for the 46T ring - the smallest ring I could use was a

50T

Quoted message said:

that's a very good point. they work fine on my lemond

poprad

Quoted message said:

cyclocross bike, but there are undoubtable some bikes out

there that

Quoted message said:

won't have the clearance. i think most people could make do with a double chainring

setup if

Quoted message said:

they try this gearing. maybe not for loaded touring on

steep hills,

Quoted message said:

but for a lot of us, it makes real sense. i always hated

that shift

Quoted message said:

from 42 to 30 on my triple c/s, it was a real momentum

killer. it's

Quoted message said:

also surprising how many rolling hills you can top in the

big ring. i

Quoted message said:

am running this with a 12-32 cassette, quite a bit lower

geared than

Quoted message said:

many road bikes. but it still works great for me.

The disadvantage of a double crankset is that you need much wider spacing between sprockets to get a
half way decent low gear - which for me is defined as about 28 gear-inches. A 34T ring/32T sprocket
on a double 'll get you there, but with some big gaps between sprockets. My preference would be a
46-36-26 triple, ideally with 12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-24 sprockets (drop the 16T for eight speed),
or a widely available 12-25 'standard' cassette as the next best alternative

[email hidden] (smokey) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Frank Krygowski <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

smokey wrote, about 110/74 BCD cranks:

Quoted message said:

it seems to me that the bigger manufacturers should think about making this combo available,
both as OEM cranks for non-racing bikes and as an aftermarket accessory.

I agree 100%. I just finished trying to get decent gears on a 130/74 triple. What a pain!

is it just me, or does anyone else think many of the manufacturers play on the racing image to
sell their bikes? the 130 BCD cranks are one example, saddles way below the bars are another, and
selling light weight instead of durability. i love my lemond, but had to make modifications to the
gearing and bar position for comfort, and also change the saddle.

Its YOU! No, seriously, bike mfrs buy into the car mfrs slogan/theme of "race on sunday, sell on
monday"...However, "racers" now have a NEW 110bcd choice, see here (scroll down to FSA new crank and
look at the chainrings = 50/34; 110bcd): cyclingnews.comtech.phpOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

if i can ever scrape the money together, my next road bike will probably be one of grant
rivendell's models. he now has a bike that sells for around $1400 complete. grant catches a little
flak for being too "retro"; i think he just builds more "common sense" bicycles.

Agree in part, Romulus/Rambo/Redwood/Atlantis/Riv custom are great bikes/frames. However, GP has his
"quirks" that make him "retro" to most - preference for friction shifting, toe clip or no clips (his
"clipless or step-on pedals), bar-end or dt shifters, brook saddles, shellac bar tape, non-aero
brake levers....you get the picture - 1978, maybe 1983 at best....not really going to "attract"
newer, younger riders who grew up on sti/ergo, clipless pedals, index shifting, etc......

Grenouil said:

The disadvantage of a double crankset is that you need much wider spacing between sprockets to get
a half way decent low gear - which for me is defined as about 28 gear-inches.

But this is clearly false. If you look at the gears you suggest, every single ratio using the
middle chainring is available on either the big, or the little, ring, with the exception of the 67"
gear. And the big ring has a 70.7" gear, so that is not so far off. And this is without using the
widest reaches.

The problem, aside from the ridiculously large gears that seem to be necessary to sell a bike, is
that the chainrings are not wide enough apart to take advantage of a modern cassette. My gears are
not quite the 46/26 that your big ring+granny would be; I use a 46/30 double. But I have nearly as
small a bottom as you do with your triple, no gaps, with a double. It's not the number of
chainrings, it's their sizes that are a poor choice.

Quoted message said:

My preference would be a 46-36-26 triple, ideally with 12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-24 sprockets (drop
the 16T for eight speed), or a widely available 12-25 'standard' cassette as the next best
alternative

--

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 (_)/ (_) |

[email hidden] (bfd) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (smokey) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Frank Krygowski <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

smokey wrote, about 110/74 BCD cranks:

> it seems to me that the bigger manufacturers should think about making this combo
> available, both as OEM cranks for non-racing bikes and as an aftermarket accessory.

I agree 100%. I just finished trying to get decent gears on a 130/74 triple. What a pain!

is it just me, or does anyone else think many of the manufacturers play on the racing image to
sell their bikes? the 130 BCD cranks are one example, saddles way below the bars are another,
and selling light weight instead of durability. i love my lemond, but had to make modifications
to the gearing and bar position for comfort, and also change the saddle.

Its YOU! No, seriously, bike mfrs buy into the car mfrs slogan/theme of "race on sunday, sell on
monday"...However, "racers" now have a NEW 110bcd choice, see here (scroll down to FSA new crank
and look at the chainrings = 50/34; 110bcd):
cyclingnews.comtech.phpOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

if i can ever scrape the money together, my next road bike will probably be one of grant
rivendell's models. he now has a bike that sells for around $1400 complete. grant catches a
little flak for being too "retro"; i think he just builds more "common sense" bicycles.

Agree in part, Romulus/Rambo/Redwood/Atlantis/Riv custom are great bikes/frames. However, GP has
his "quirks" that make him "retro" to most - preference for friction shifting, toe clip or no
clips (his "clipless or step-on pedals), bar-end or dt shifters, brook saddles, shellac bar tape,
non-aero brake levers....you get the picture - 1978, maybe 1983 at best....not really going to
"attract" newer, younger riders who grew up on sti/ergo, clipless pedals, index shifting,
etc......

if you visit the rivendell site, or look in their catalog, they tell you that they are not after the
mainstream bicyclist. they build a simpler bike that is more comfortable for many riders and is made
to last a lifetime. for the record, i took off my STI to go back to bar-ends because i preferred
them and they worked better. shimano bar-ends can be set to index or friction shifting with a 1/4
twist on the adjuster. brooks saddles are not retro in my book, just the best i've used. all my
others went to the swap meet and my buns thanked me for it. smokey strodtman

Frank Krygowski <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

smokey said:

Quoted message said:

is it just me, or does anyone else think many of the manufacturers play on the racing image to
sell their bikes? the 130 BCD cranks are one example, saddles way below the bars are another...

^^^^^

Is this meant to tie into the low-racer recumbent threads? ;-)

jesus, frank, don't bring that up again! ;-)

"David L. Johnson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Grenouil said:

The disadvantage of a double crankset is that you need

much

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

wider spacing between sprockets to get a half way decent

low

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

gear - which for me is defined as about 28 gear-inches.

But this is clearly false. If you look at the gears you

suggest, every

Quoted message said:

single ratio using the middle chainring is available on

either the big, or

Quoted message said:

the little, ring, with the exception of the 67" gear. And

the big ring

Quoted message said:

has a 70.7" gear, so that is not so far off. And this is

without using

Quoted message said:

the widest reaches.

The problem, aside from the ridiculously large gears that

seem to be

Quoted message said:

necessary to sell a bike, is that the chainrings are not

wide enough apart

Quoted message said:

to take advantage of a modern cassette. My gears are not

quite the 46/26

Quoted message said:

that your big ring+granny would be; I use a 46/30 double.

But I have

Quoted message said:

nearly as small a bottom as you do with your triple, no

gaps, with a

Quoted message said:

double. It's not the number of chainrings, it's their

sizes that are a

Quoted message said:

poor choice.

Quoted message said:

My preference would be a 46-36-26 triple, ideally with 12-13-14-15-16-17-19-21-24 sprockets
(drop the 16T for

eight

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

speed), or a widely available 12-25 'standard' cassette

as

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the next best alternative

--

David L. Johnson

__o | "What am I on? I'm on my bike, six hours a

day, busting my ass.

Quoted message said:

_`\(,_ | What are you on?" --Lance Armstrong (_)/ (_) |

Duhhh - it's not what's available, but how close what's available is......I can get a low/high with
only two gears - but would I want to?

If you're happy with wide jumps between adjacent sprockets, then go for it.....

Grenouil said:

Duhhh - it's not what's available, but how close what's available is......I can get a low/high
with only two gears - but would I want to?

If you're happy with wide jumps between adjacent sprockets, then go for it.....

As Jon points out, the jumps between adjacent sprockets are no wider with the middle ring removed,
since the adjacent sprockets are exactly the same ones.

The only argument against a wider spacing between chainrings, to take more advantage of a modern
9-speed cassette, is that under some conditions you would make more multiple shifts. In practice,
this is not a problem, since shifts are so quick and precise these days.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or _`\(,_ | that we are to
stand by the president right or wrong, is not (_)/ (_) | only unpatriotic and servile, but is
morally treasonable to the American public. --Theodore Roosevelt

[email hidden] (smokey) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Agree in part, Romulus/Rambo/Redwood/Atlantis/Riv custom are great bikes/frames. However, GP has
his "quirks" that make him "retro" to most - preference for friction shifting, toe clip or no
clips (his "clipless or step-on pedals), bar-end or dt shifters, brook saddles, shellac bar
tape, non-aero brake levers....you get the picture - 1978, maybe 1983 at best....not really
going to "attract" newer, younger riders who grew up on sti/ergo, clipless pedals, index
shifting, etc......

if you visit the rivendell site, or look in their catalog, they tell you that they are not after
the mainstream bicyclist.

But Riv is always whinning about not having enough customers, not making a profit....IF Riv wants to
ATTRACT more customers, it ought at least to offer STI/Ergo as an option.

Quoted message said:

they build a simpler bike that is more comfortable for many riders

and is made to last a lifetime.

Agree. But STI/Ergo, especially Ergo since its rebuildable, can also be "more comfortable" and made
to "last a lifetime"...

Quoted message said:

for the record, i took off my STI to go back to bar-ends because i preferred them and they worked
better. shimano bar-ends can be set to index or friction shifting with a 1/4 twist on the adjuster.
brooks saddles are not retro in my book, just the best i've used. all my others went to the swap
meet and my buns thanked me for it.

That's personal preference. In contrast, I rode dt shifters/friction shifting even with 9 speed on
my carbon fiber bike, no problem. However, once I switched to ergo levers, I won't go back. I love
the feel of the hoods and being able to shift on the hoods. I also like the fact that my levers are
rebuildable.

Most riders today will look at GP/Riv's products as "retro". Bottom line - Riv has one of the best
steel frames on the market. However, it should offer sti/ergo AS AN OPTION. Marketing retro products
is not going to increase sales/attract new members. GP can still sell the retro stuff, but he's
doing a disservice by not marketing his excellent frames with modern components.....