Compact Crank Query

Tim McTeague said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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 said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

richard said:

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
(_)/ (_) |

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

Quoted message said:

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
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

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".)

Quoted message said:

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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:5pRHc.62254$Oq2.19430@attbi_s52...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

OK, the subject line is not really alliterative, bit it's close. I've

been

Quoted message said:

following the compact crank threads and am about to replace my old

Dura-Ace

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

I read some review where the user had a lot of rub using the 34 tooth

ring,

Quoted message said:

but he may have been technically challenged. Thanks to all who offer

useful

Quoted message said:

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.

Mike Beauchamp said:

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

Quoted message said:

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
"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-8&threadm=8b4b7de4.0401301145.4a23338d%40posting.google.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dchalo%2Bfogel%2Bcrank%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 said:

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

Quoted message said:

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 said:

"richard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:5pRHc.62254$Oq2.19430@attbi_s52...

Quoted message said:

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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:4D2Ic.31266$WX.25452@attbi_s51...

Quoted message said:

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

Why wait? Ultegra BBs are cheap. Get the crank you want now and get a spare
BB to go with it, in case they become unavailable when Shimano forces us all to
buy something different. Two BBs ought to last as long as you want to use the
crank, i.e., until we all gotta have the next cool thing. If you never use the
spare, someone will be glad to buy it from you on eBay.

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

Quoted message said:

Why wait? Ultegra BBs are cheap. Get the crank you want now and get a

spare

Quoted message said:

BB to go with it, in case they become unavailable when Shimano forces us

all to

Quoted message said:

buy something different. Two BBs ought to last as long as you want to use

the

Quoted message said:

crank, i.e., until we all gotta have the next cool thing. If you never

use the

Quoted message said:

spare, someone will be glad to buy it from you on eBay.

If I go that route is there any consensus on which BB type to get, Octalink
vs ISIS? I think Ultegra BBs are very reliable but the FSA ISIS ones seem
to get mixed reviews and Sheldon Brown has a scary story about one:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/fsabb.html . Perhaps the new ones are more
reliable.

Tim

There is lots material on this question. Do a google groups search and you'll
find plenty of opinions. I vote for for Ultegra. In spite of a few detractors,
Octalink is a well-established standard and the Ultegra version is
long-lasting, easy to install, and works just fine. No flames please.

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

Quoted message said:

There is lots material on this question. Do a google groups search and

you'll

Quoted message said:

find plenty of opinions. I vote for for Ultegra. In spite of a few

detractors,

Quoted message said:

Octalink is a well-established standard and the Ultegra version is
long-lasting, easy to install, and works just fine. No flames please.

I have Googled this several times and seem to end up with analysis
paralysis. Octalink is going the way of the Dodo, ISIS does not leave room
for decent bearing size, etc., etc. So, I may wait it out a year and see
what 2005 brings. My crank is an 8 speed era Dura-Ace and still has life in
it. I wish I could say the same for my knees. A while back I added a 12-27
cassette and now keep trying to go to shift to a bigger cog only to find
that I am already in the 27. Thus the interest in 34/50 cranks.

Tim

Tim McTeague said:

If I go that route is there any consensus on which BB type to get, Octalink
vs ISIS?

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