Re fewer-speed cogsets

[PATRICK MOORE]

http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/bikes/ferris-clarke-rb.html

This setup is pretty nice, tho' I'd prefer a 17 in place of the 16.

--
"When in Rome, do as they done in Milledgeville."

Flannery O'Connor

-------------------------
Patrick Moore, Albuquerque, NM, USA
For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW
http://resumespecialties.com/index.html
-------------------------

[charlie]

I like this setup........I always thought five rear cogs were ideal but three further simplifies things. Pretty sturdy looking cogs. I also like the steel crank arms and wonder why these aren't still made perhaps out of stainless steel tubing. Never cared for cottered crank arms but steel vs. aluminum, no contest. Talk about a life long setup. 

[charlie]

Just ordered stainless steel chain rings so I'm working on the switch from aluminum to steel where possible.

On Saturday, August 11, 2012 10:29:54 AM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote:

[Bertin753]

Regarding steel vs aluminium: I've 11000+ miles on a 46t TA Pro 5 Vis chainring with no wear that I can see. Pavement, dry, but dusty. 

Patrick Moore

iPhone

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/ovInlZ0af6EJ.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[ted]

I have heard or read that wear is more of a problem with fewer teeth
and that that was why chainrings are usually al and cogs are usually
steel. That seemed pretty plausible when the small ring was 39 or 42
and the big cog was 21 or 25. When small rings are 24 or 26 and the
big cog is 32 or 34 or even 36, well not so much. Does it make sense
to use steel for sub 30t chainrings, or al for big (like maybe >28t)
cogs?

On Aug 11, 1:03 pm, Bertin753 <bertin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Regarding steel vs aluminium: I've 11000+ miles on a 46t TA Pro 5 Vis chainring with no wear that I can see. Pavement, dry, but dusty.
>
> Patrick Moore
> iPhone
>

> On Aug 11, 2012, at 11:49 AM, charlie <cl_v...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Just ordered stainless steel chain rings so I'm working on the switch from aluminum to steel where possible.
>
> > On Saturday, August 11, 2012 10:29:54 AM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote:
> >http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/bikes/ferris-clarke-rb.html
>
> > This setup is pretty nice, tho' I'd prefer a 17 in place of the 16.
>
> > --
> > "When in Rome, do as they done in Milledgeville."
>
> > Flannery O'Connor
>
> > -------------------------
> > Patrick Moore, Albuquerque, NM, USA
> > For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW
> >http://resumespecialties.com/index.html
> > -------------------------
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

> > To view this discussion on the web visithttps://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/ovInlZ0af6EJ.

[dougP]

There's an idea worth considering. My 24t granny is steel. When you
think about it, neither the granny nor the Really Big Cog see a lot of
use, so maybe an aluminum 34 would do.

I see a lot of people wearing out middle rings because they're over-
geared & don't use the big one. My Atlantis came with a Riv standard
Sugino 24-36-46. The middle & big wore out together at around 20-25k
miles of mostly dry riding.

dougP

> > > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Marc Schwartz]

Darn, sorry, Ted & all, my last reply was to this thread, not the narrow tread one.
For that one, use the shortest bottom bracket length that clears satisfactorily. Q factor will be minimized for that frame.

Previously;
That sounds reasonable Ted, provided production costs are low enough, and perceived need high enough. Not sure if I would bother to make the change, but whudooino?

Schwartzy


________________________________________
From: rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com [rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of ted [ted....@comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2012 4:31 PM
To: RBW Owners Bunch
Subject: [RBW] Re: Re fewer-speed cogsets

[ted]

"... but whudooino?"
Probably as much or more than I do.
I just find it curious that chainrings are almost always al, even when
they are as small as 24t, but cogs are virtually always steel, even
when they are bigger than that. Even when those cogs are on separate
al spyder to "save weight".
I mean I don't really care, but it seems a bit odd.

On Aug 11, 6:48 pm, Marc Schwartz <mschw...@nmsu.edu> wrote:
> Darn, sorry, Ted & all, my last reply was to this thread, not the narrow tread one.
> For that one, use the shortest bottom bracket length that clears satisfactorily. Q factor will be minimized for that frame.
>
> Previously;
> That sounds reasonable Ted, provided production costs are low enough, and perceived need high enough. Not sure if I would bother to make the change, but whudooino?
>
> Schwartzy
>
> ________________________________________

> From: rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com [rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of ted [ted.ke...@comcast.net]