hooray for 110 BCD cranksets!...

[Smokey]

after trying both the standard 130 BCD with 39/53 double rings and
52/42/30 triples, i still wasn't satisfied with the gears i had available. i found a set of
dimension 110 BCD cyclocross crank arms at aebike.com, along with some sugino
53/46 rings. this combination works great for the riding i do. most of the time i'm on the 46,
including the short rolling hills we have here. for the longer steeper hills, the 34 is better
than the 30t on my old triple set. 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.

 

[Jon Isaacs]

>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

 

[B. Sanders]

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

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

 

[Grenouil]

"smokey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> after trying both the standard 130 BCD with 39/53 double
rings and
> 52/42/30 triples, i still wasn't satisfied with the gears
i had
> available. i found a set of dimension 110 BCD cyclocross
crank arms at
> aebike.com, along with some sugino
> 34/46 rings. this combination works great for the riding i
do. most of
> the time i'm on the 46, including the short rolling hills
we have
> here. for the longer steeper hills, the 34 is better than
the 30t on
> my old triple set. 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 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

 

[Matt O'Toole]

"B. Sanders" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> 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.

"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.

 

[Frank Krygowski]

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!

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]

 

[Smokey]

"Grenouil" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "smokey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > after trying both the standard 130 BCD with 39/53 double
> rings and
> > 52/42/30 triples, i still wasn't satisfied with the gears
> i had
> > available. i found a set of dimension 110 BCD cyclocross
> crank arms at
> > aebike.com, along with some sugino
> > 34/46 rings. this combination works great for the riding i
> do. most of
> > the time i'm on the 46, including the short rolling hills
> we have
> > here. for the longer steeper hills, the 34 is better than
> the 30t on
> > my old triple set. 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 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.

 

[David L. Johnso]

On Sun, 13 Apr 2003 18:40:14 +0000, Matt O'Toole wrote:

> "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 (_)/ (_) |

 

[Smokey]

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

 

[Frank Krygowski]

smokey wrote:
>

> 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 protected]

 

[Grenouil]

"smokey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Grenouil" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "smokey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > after trying both the standard 130 BCD with 39/53
double
> > rings and
> > > 52/42/30 triples, i still wasn't satisfied with the
gears
> > i had
> > > available. i found a set of dimension 110 BCD
cyclocross
> > crank arms at
> > > aebike.com, along with some sugino
> > > 34/46 rings. this combination works great for the
riding i
> > do. most of
> > > the time i'm on the 46, including the short rolling
hills
> > we have
> > > here. for the longer steeper hills, the 34 is better
than
> > the 30t on
> > > my old triple set. 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 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.

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

 

[Bfd]

[email protected] (smokey) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > 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): http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2003/news/apr11

>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......

 

[David L. Johnso]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 09:14:01 +0000, Grenouil wrote:

> 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.

> 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 (_)/ (_) |

 

[Smokey]

[email protected] (bfd) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (smokey) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > > 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):
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2003/news/apr11
>
> >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

 

[Smokey]

Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> smokey wrote:
> >
>
> > 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! ;-)

 

[Grenouil]

"David L. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 09:14:01 +0000, Grenouil wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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 (_)/ (_) |
>

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.....

 

[David L. Johnso]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 20:30:14 +0000, Grenouil wrote:

>
> 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

 

[Bfd]

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

>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"...

>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.....