Crankset Question

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by I C S, Feb 7, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. I C S

    I C S Guest

    I have a touring/commuting bike that I really love. I'm running an Shimano Deore crankset on it. The
    chainrings on it are about wasted, and the crank itself is really starting to show it's age. I'm
    going to put a newer crank on the bike. It currently has a 122.5mm square taper bottom bracket. I've
    always noticed a fair amount of "flex" or "give" in crank/BB . I'm looking into replacing it with a
    newer XTR crankset and BB that uses the pipe billet spindle and the hollow tech arms. Have any of
    you that have made this change notice that it is significantly "stiffer"? Is this type of setup
    worth the additional cost over a traditional square taper design?

    TIA
     
    Tags:


  2. In article <[email protected]>, Fachausschuß@Saarbrucken.net.de says...
    >I have a touring/commuting bike that I really love. I'm running an Shimano Deore crankset on it.
    >The chainrings on it are about wasted, and the crank itself is really starting to show it's age.
    >I'm going to put a newer crank on the bike. It currently has a 122.5mm square taper bottom bracket.
    >I've always noticed a fair amount of "flex" or "give" in crank/BB . I'm looking into replacing it
    >with a newer XTR crankset and BB that uses the pipe billet spindle and the hollow tech arms. Have
    >any of you that have made this change notice that it is significantly "stiffer"? Is this type of
    >setup worth the additional cost over a traditional square taper design?

    I have a Coda 900 crankset on my road bike and a deore DX crank on my commuter. In case you are not
    familiar with the Coda crank, it uses a large, larger than XTR, hollow aluminum BB that connects to
    the cranks via a lobed and tapered interface. I can honestly say that I can feel no difference
    between the two cranks. If this was me, I would just get new chainrings for the existing cranks.
    -----------------
    Alex __O _-\<,_ (_)/ (_)
     
  3. Jon Isaacs

    Jon Isaacs Guest

    > Have any of you that have made this change notice that it is significantly "stiffer"? Is this type
    > of setup worth the additional cost over a traditional square taper design?

    My guess is that flex is in the frame, rather than in the crank. That has been my experience as a
    masher. Currently I am running a Sugino AT triple on a touring type bike and notice no flex. But
    lighter steel frames with short coupled cranks like my old SR Sequioa flex badly under load.

    jon isaacs

    Jon Isaacs
     
  4. Matt O'Toole

    Matt O'Toole Guest

    "Alex Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > In article <[email protected]>,
    Fachausschuß@Saarbrucken.net.de says...

    > >I have a touring/commuting bike that I really love. I'm
    running an Shimano
    > >Deore crankset on it. The chainrings on it are about
    wasted, and the crank
    > >itself is really starting to show it's age. I'm going to
    put a newer crank
    > >on the bike. It currently has a 122.5mm square taper bottom bracket.
    I've always noticed
    > >a fair amount of "flex" or "give" in crank/BB . I'm
    looking into replacing
    > >it with a newer XTR crankset and BB that uses the pipe
    billet spindle and
    > >the hollow tech arms. Have any of you that have made
    this change notice
    > >that it is significantly "stiffer"? Is this type of
    setup worth the
    > >additional cost over a traditional square taper design?

    No!

    > I have a Coda 900 crankset on my road bike and a deore DX
    crank on my commuter.
    > In case you are not familiar with the Coda crank, it uses
    a large, larger than
    > XTR, hollow aluminum BB that connects to the cranks via a
    lobed and tapered
    > interface. I can honestly say that I can feel no
    difference between the two
    > cranks. If this was me, I would just get new chainrings
    for the existing
    > cranks.

    I agree, don't waste your money like that.

    XTR cranks tend to come loose, ruining the splines. I know two people this has happened to. Looking
    at that Shimano spline design, there's no real press fit. It's a bad design. I don't care what
    Shimano's engineers think -- I feel perfectly comfortable second-guessing them on this one. It
    sucks. I wouldn't buy one. If you like the fat, hollow tube axle and splined interface, get an ISIS
    crank instead. It's a better design, with a slight taper, and an actual press fit.

    Furthermore, the DX crank is compatible with plain old generic chainrings, which are cheap, and
    available in a wide variety of sizes.. Newer XTR cranks need XTR rings, or zooty aftermarket ones.

    Matt O.
     
  5. Robin Hubert

    Robin Hubert Guest

    "Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Alex Rodriguez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    > > In article <[email protected]>,
    > Fachausschuß@Saarbrucken.net.de says...
    >
    > > >I have a touring/commuting bike that I really love. I'm
    > running an Shimano
    > > >Deore crankset on it. The chainrings on it are about
    > wasted, and the crank
    > > >itself is really starting to show it's age. I'm going to
    > put a newer crank
    > > >on the bike. It currently has a 122.5mm square taper bottom bracket.
    > I've always noticed
    > > >a fair amount of "flex" or "give" in crank/BB . I'm
    > looking into replacing
    > > >it with a newer XTR crankset and BB that uses the pipe
    > billet spindle and
    > > >the hollow tech arms. Have any of you that have made
    > this change notice
    > > >that it is significantly "stiffer"? Is this type of
    > setup worth the
    > > >additional cost over a traditional square taper design?
    >
    > No!
    >
    > > I have a Coda 900 crankset on my road bike and a deore DX
    > crank on my commuter.
    > > In case you are not familiar with the Coda crank, it uses
    > a large, larger than
    > > XTR, hollow aluminum BB that connects to the cranks via a
    > lobed and tapered
    > > interface. I can honestly say that I can feel no
    > difference between the two
    > > cranks. If this was me, I would just get new chainrings
    > for the existing
    > > cranks.
    >
    > I agree, don't waste your money like that.
    >
    > XTR cranks tend to come loose, ruining the splines. I know two people this has happened to.

    Splined "Octalink" cranks, unlike traditional square taper press fits, are required to be
    periodically retighted. I believe Shimano states this in their literature.

    >Looking at that Shimano spline design, there's no real press fit. It's a bad design. I don't care
    >what Shimano's engineers think -- I feel perfectly comfortable second-guessing them on this one. It
    >sucks. I wouldn't buy one. If you like the fat, hollow tube axle and splined interface, get an ISIS
    >crank instead. It's a better design, with a slight taper, and an actual press fit.
    >
    > Furthermore, the DX crank is compatible with plain old generic chainrings, which are cheap, and
    > available in a wide variety of sizes.. Newer XTR cranks need XTR rings, or zooty aftermarket ones.

    Yes.

    Robin Hubert
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...