Track cranks/bb question



S

supabonbon

Guest
What is the major difference between track cranks and regular road
cranks when it comes to chainline issues? I know the spindle length of
the bb is typically shorter, and it seems like track cranks typically
have a larger chainwheel diameter. And maybe track cranks are a little
more built-up.

Anything I'm missing?

/s
 
supabonbon wrote:

> What is the major difference between track cranks and regular road
> cranks when it comes to chainline issues?=20


Track cranks generally have about a 42 mm chainline, sometimes a bit=20
less. See: http://sheldonbrown.com/chainline

Track cranks most often come in the 165 mm length, which is shorter than =

current fashion for road cranks.

Most track cranks use the old 144 mm bolt circle, while most road cranks =

use the 130 bolt circle.

Track drivetrains commonly use the older, wider 1/8" chain and=20
sprockets, rather than the 3/32" size used for road bikes.

See my fixed gear articles: http://sheldonbrown.com/fixed

Sheldon "Prefers Road Cranks For Road Fixed Use" Brown
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| I still feel that variable gears are only for people over |
| forty-five. Isn't it better to triumph by the strength |
| of your muscles than by the artifice of a derailleur? |
| We are getting soft...As for me, give me a fixed gear! |
| --Henri Desgrange, _L'=85quipe_ article of 1902 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com
 
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 20:47:52 -0400, Sheldon Brown
<[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

>
>Sheldon "Prefers Road Cranks For Road Fixed Use" Brown
>+-------------------------------------------------------------+
>| I still feel that variable gears are only for people over |
>| forty-five. Isn't it better to triumph by the strength |
>| of your muscles than by the artifice of a derailleur? |
>| We are getting soft...As for me, give me a fixed gear! |
>| --Henri Desgrange, _L'…quipe_ article of 1902 |
>+-------------------------------------------------------------+


After supper she got out her book and learned me about Moses
and the Bulrushers, and I was in a sweat to find out all
about him; but by and by she let it out that Moses had been
dead a considerable long time; so then I didn't care no more
about him, because I don't take no stock in dead people.

--Huck Finn

Now and then a division-agent was really obliged to shoot a
hostler through the head to teach him some simple matter
that he could have taught him with a club if his
circumstances and surroundings had been different. But they
were snappy, able men, those division-agents, and when they
tried to teach a subordinate anything, that subordinate
generally "got it through his head."

A great portion of this vast machinery--these hundreds of
men and coaches, and thousands of mules and horses--was in
the hands of Mr. Ben Holliday. All the western half of the
business was in his hands. This reminds me of an incident
of Palestine travel which is pertinent here, so I will
transfer it just in the language in which I find it set down
in my Holy Land note-book:

No doubt everybody has heard of Ben Holliday--a man of
prodigious energy, who used to send mails and passengers
flying across the continent in his overland stage-coaches
like a very whirlwind--two thousand long miles in fifteen
days and a half, by the watch! But this fragment of history
is not about Ben Holliday, but about a young New York boy by
the name of Jack, who traveled with our small party of
pilgrims in the Holy Land (and who had traveled to
California in Mr. Holliday's overland coaches three years
before, and had by no means forgotten it or lost his gushing
admiration of Mr. H.) Aged nineteen. Jack was a good boy--a
good-hearted and always well-meaning boy, who had been
reared in the city of New York, and although he was bright
and knew a great many useful things, his Scriptural
education had been a good deal neglected--to such a degree,
indeed, that all Holy Land history was fresh and new to him,
and all Bible names mysteries that had never disturbed his
virgin ear.

Also in our party was an elderly pilgrim who was the reverse
of Jack, in that he was learned in the Scriptures and an
enthusiast concerning them. He was our encyclopedia, and we
were never tired of listening to his speeches, nor he of
making them. He never passed a celebrated locality, from
Bashan to Bethlehem, without illuminating it with an
oration. One day, when camped near the ruins of Jericho, he
burst forth with something like this:

"Jack, do you see that range of mountains over yonder that
bounds the Jordan valley? The mountains of Moab, Jack!
Think of it, my boy--the actual mountains of Moab--renowned
in Scripture history! We are actually standing face to face
with those illustrious crags and peaks--and for all we know"
[dropping his voice impressively], "our eyes may be resting
at this very moment upon the spot WHERE LIES THE MYSTERIOUS
GRAVE OF MOSES! Think of it, Jack!"

"Moses who?" (falling inflection).

"Moses who! Jack, you ought to be ashamed of yourself--you
ought to be ashamed of such criminal ignorance. Why, Moses,
the great guide, soldier, poet, lawgiver of ancient Israel!
Jack, from this spot where we stand, to Egypt, stretches a
fearful desert three hundred miles in extent--and across
that desert that wonderful man brought the children of
Israel!--guiding them with unfailing sagacity for forty
years over the sandy desolation and among the obstructing
rocks and hills, and landed them at last, safe and sound,
within sight of this very spot; and where we now stand they
entered the Promised Land with anthems of rejoicing! It was
a wonderful, wonderful thing to do, Jack! Think of it!"

"Forty years? Only three hundred miles? Humph! Ben
Holliday would have fetched them through in thirty-six
hours!"

--Mark Twain anticipating a comment on fixed gears in
"Roughing It"
 
On 5 Aug 2004 13:59:58 -0700, [email protected] (supabonbon)
wrote:

>What is the major difference between track cranks and regular road
>cranks when it comes to chainline issues? I know the spindle length of
>the bb is typically shorter, and it seems like track cranks typically
>have a larger chainwheel diameter. And maybe track cranks are a little
>more built-up.


Contemporary track cranks generally conform to the common chainline
standard of 42.5 mm., plus or minus .5 mm. It's a specification shared
with premium track hub models for compatibility.

As part of our online track catalogue, there's a reference page that
addresses many track-specific issues, including chainline, which you
may find helpful. The link direct to the page is
http://www.businesscycles.com/tr-refspec.htm


-------------------------------
John Dacey
Business Cycles, Miami, Florida
http://www.businesscycles.com
Since 1983
Our catalog of track equipment: online since 1996
-------------------------------
 
Sheldon Brown <[email protected]> writes:

> supabonbon wrote:
>
> > What is the major difference between track cranks and regular road
> > cranks when it comes to chainline issues?

>
> Track cranks generally have about a 42 mm chainline, sometimes a bit
> less. See: http://sheldonbrown.com/chainline
>


Does it make sense to speak of chainline for a crank alone?
I had thought that it really only made sense for a BB and crank
combination. At least for square taper cranks, whose BBs are
available in so many sizes that one can adapt them to most any
chainline. Or am I missing something?
 
supabonbon wrote:
>>
>>>What is the major difference between track cranks and regular road
>>>cranks when it comes to chainline issues?


I replied, in part:

>>Track cranks generally have about a 42 mm chainline, sometimes a bit
>>less. See: http://sheldonbrown.com/chainline
>>

Jim Smith wrote:
>
> Does it make sense to speak of chainline for a crank alone?
> I had thought that it really only made sense for a BB and crank
> combination. At least for square taper cranks, whose BBs are
> available in so many sizes that one can adapt them to most any
> chainline. Or am I missing something?


My assumption was that the mysterious "supabonbon" was referring to
standard installations, where the manufacturer's recommended bottom
bracket would be used.

Otherwise, the original question would have been meaningless.

Indeed, if you mix and match bottom brackets, you can do all kinds of
non-standard things with chainline.

Sheldon "http://sheldonbrown.com/chainline" Brown
+--------------------------------------------------------+
| As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, |
| they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, |
| they do not refer to reality. --Albert Einstein |
+--------------------------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com
 
"Sheldon Brown" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> supabonbon wrote:
> >>
> >>>What is the major difference between track cranks and regular road
> >>>cranks when it comes to chainline issues?

>
> I replied, in part:
>
> >>Track cranks generally have about a 42 mm chainline, sometimes a bit
> >>less. See: http://sheldonbrown.com/chainline
> >>

> Jim Smith wrote:
> >
> > Does it make sense to speak of chainline for a crank alone?
> > I had thought that it really only made sense for a BB and crank
> > combination. At least for square taper cranks, whose BBs are
> > available in so many sizes that one can adapt them to most any
> > chainline. Or am I missing something?

>
> My assumption was that the mysterious "supabonbon" was referring to
> standard installations, where the manufacturer's recommended bottom
> bracket would be used.
>
> Otherwise, the original question would have been meaningless.
>
> Indeed, if you mix and match bottom brackets, you can do all kinds of
> non-standard things with chainline.
>
> Sheldon "http://sheldonbrown.com/chainline" Brown
> +--------------------------------------------------------+
> | As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, |
> | they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, |
> | they do not refer to reality. --Albert Einstein |
> +--------------------------------------------------------+
> Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
> Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
> http://harriscyclery.com
> Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
> http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com


Chainline is a very important issue with a fixed-gear. I like the Phil Wood
bottom bracket because it allows me to make fine adjustments to the
chainline. Phil Wood also has a lot of combinations in tapers to chose
from. They have a very good support if you contact them about set-up.
-tom
>
 
Sheldon Brown wrote:

> Most track cranks use the old 144 mm bolt circle, while most road cranks
> use the 130 bolt circle.


I don't know about that. Miche use 135mm BCD, others use 130mm (like my
Truvativ cranks and TA's Alize track crankset) - these are the most
common BCDs I've seen.
 
In rec.bicycles.tech Zog The Undeniable <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Sheldon Brown wrote:
>
>> Most track cranks use the old 144 mm bolt circle, while most road cranks
>> use the 130 bolt circle.

>
> I don't know about that. Miche use 135mm BCD, others use 130mm (like my
> Truvativ cranks and TA's Alize track crankset) - these are the most
> common BCDs I've seen.


both my miche & suntour track cranks use 144bcd.
--
david reuteler
[email protected]
 
"Tom Nakashima" <[email protected]> wrote
> Chainline is a very important issue with a fixed-gear.


Surely, you're not *telling* Sheldon this?

-Brendon
 
David Reuteler wrote:

> both my miche & suntour track cranks use 144bcd.


How old are they?
 
"Zog The Undeniable" writes:

> I don't know about that.

Evidently not!

> Miche use 135mm BCD, others use 130mm (like my
> Truvativ cranks and TA's Alize track crankset) -
> these are the most common BCDs I've seen.

I don't know where you've been looking, but your sample isn't representative.

http://www.businesscycles.com/tr-refspec.htm#cranks
 
Zog The Undeniable <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> David Reuteler wrote:
>
>> both my miche & suntour track cranks use 144bcd.

>
> How old are they?


~1994. they came on & with a track bike i bought summer of 96 that was two
years old at the time. in track bike time that isn't all that old.
--
david reuteler
[email protected]
 
I reported:

>> Most track cranks use the old 144 mm bolt circle, while most road
>> cranks use the 130 bolt circle.

>

A hair splitter piped up:
>
> I don't know about that.


I do.

> Miche use 135mm BCD,


Right. _Only_ Miche uses 135 BCD. Miche is a tiny niche player.

We stock Miche rings for the benefit of folks who want to do fixed-gear
conversions of bikes that have Campgranola cranks.

> others use 130mm (like my
> Truvativ cranks and TA's Alize track crankset) - these are the most
> common BCDs I've seen.


None of these are common in track circles (or track ovals, for that matter.)

Much more common are Campagnolo, Shimano, Sugino, Sun Tour, all of which
are 144 except for some ancient 151 stuff.

The 130 size seems to be the "coming thing" but 130 track stuff has
only been around for a handful of years, while the 144 mm standard goe
back to 1967 or thereabouts. Trackies like to stick to 144 because they
often lend chainrings back and forth with their buddies when making
small gearing changes for different events.

Sheldon "I Like 130 Best" Brown
+-------------------------------------------+
| To escape criticism -- |
| do nothing, say nothing, be nothing. |
| --Elbert Hubbard |
+-------------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com
 
On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 19:36:58 -0400, Sheldon Brown
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Much more common are Campagnolo, Shimano, Sugino, Sun Tour, all of which
>are 144 except for some ancient 151 stuff.
>
>The 130 size seems to be the "coming thing" but 130 track stuff has
>only been around for a handful of years, while the 144 mm standard goe
>back to 1967 or thereabouts.


Hey! Have a care about that "ancient" stuff!

Campy road cranks went to the 144 pcd around then, but it was still a
few years thereafter before the track crank followed suit. My first
all-brand-new track bike (1975) came fitted with Record Pista cranks
that still had a 151 'ring pattern. In hindsight, it seems likely that
what I'd thought was a goodish price for the bike was reflected in the
fact that the chainring format had changed to 144 a season or two
before.

Nonetheless, not "ancient" at all from where I'm sitting (trying to
fend off lying in repose).

-------------------------------
John Dacey
Business Cycles, Miami, Florida
Since 1983
Our catalogue of track equipment: online since 1996.
http://www.businesscycles.com