Silver2 cranks!

[Bill Lindsay]

I stumbled upon the News Blog on rivbike.com and was glancing at Roman's Legolas.  He and I ordered ours in the same size at the same time, so I always regard his as the twin sibling to mine. 

Anyway, there's a sneak peek of a lighter, road-ish, Silver2 crankset.  Looks pretty cool!

https://www.rivbike.com/blogs/news/romans-57cm-legolas-865cm-pbh

Bill Lindsay

El Cerrito, CA

[Johnny Alien]

I'm a fan!

[Sarah Carlson]

Thank you for that tip Bill! I was just feeling sad today because I was realizing I needed to build my bike more for hills than I did (Hello Moeser!). Leah just showed me your link so now I know that if I have to swap out parts there is a chance to build up lighter.

[Bill Lindsay]

One detail from the narrative on Roman's Legolas:  His serial number is MN18RMS.  (M)ark (N)obilette 20(18) (RMS) Roman's initials.  Sure enough I looked at my serial number and it's got my initials too!  That's pretty fun.  

Bill Lindsay

El Cerrito, CA

[iamkeith]

That's cool about your serial number.  If there was ever a question, you for sure can never sell now.

Crank is VERY attractive, too.  I like arms with the fattened ends where the pedal spindle attaches, but it does make it harder to use a single mold for multiple arm lengths.

[Luke Hendrickson]

Nice to have another good-looking crank option (esp since the original Silver cranks are rather ugly).

[Sarah Carlson]

Any intel on what the timeline is on the new cranks? Beyond the mysterious sometime next year?

[R. Alexis]

Was walking past one of my bikes the other day and thought the Sugino AT cranks and the Specialized Flag cranks bare some resemblance to the upcoming Silver 2 cranks. On another note, I was surprised that Rivendell didn't go with a hidden arm crank ala Ritchey. Probably too much of a pain to deal with. 

Thanks,

Reginald Alexis  

[Joe Bernard]

 "Probably too much of a pain to deal with."

Precisely. It's not in the product descriptions anymore but at the introduction of Silvers much was made of how fiddly that hidden chainring bolt is when installing/swapping rings on the Sugino cranks Riv sold. As a many-years owner of many 'hidden arm' Suginos, I can attest they are a pain in the patooty. 

[Johnny Alien]

I agree with Rivendell and Joe...the hidden arm is the worst.

[ascpgh]

Johnny wrote: "I agree with Rivendell and Joe...the hidden arm is the worst." 

Unless you sell the higher margin crank hardware tools as a specific pursuit. 

While in possession of hidden arm hardware cranks I think I bought a new tool every three months believing the next had to be better than the previous. Profits from all those tools may have exceeded that of the cranks themselves. 

Andy Cheatham

Pittsburgh

[Bill Lindsay]

The hidden arm was definitely invented just to make a different look, and we were supposed to think that look was preferable. There's nothing better from a performance standpoint with the hidden arm, and it does indeed make it a TINY bit more work to change a chainring if you are doing things right*, and substantially harder if you are doing things some other way.  I think it's a logical and good thing that Rivendell designed Silver cranks with a normal 5-arm setup.  

That said, it works out great for me that so many people seem to have such a hard time with hidden bolt cranks, because I've never had a problem with it, and your shared struggles has got to help drive the price down for me.  Walking around my garage, there are four bikes with hidden arm Ritcheys, three with hidden arm Sugino, and two with hidden arm Campy.  If there are any of you out there at your wits-end about it and want to ship me your unwanted 172.5mm cranks, let me know.

Maybe I should do a YouTube to show how to deal with it the right* way?  That would probably be pointless because in general it seems that those who have made up their minds that they are terrible seem to have their minds completely made up.  

There is no question that the hidden arm does not make it EASIER to replace a chainring.  It makes it a tiny bit harder.  I'd put it on par with tying my shoes.  My BOA shoes are the easiest to install onto my feet and extract from my feet.  Lace-up shoes are harder to install and harder to extract than BOA shoes.  That's a fact.  Still, I know how to tie my shoes, and I do include lace-up shoes in my closet.  I imagine it would be logical to boycott lace-up shoes and label shoelaces as the worst thing ever, and limit oneself to strictly BOA shoes (and slip-ons).  That would be a principled stance.  From my perspective, it's a baby and bathwater situation.  

My guess is that there are three reasons Rivendell designed the Silver cranks with normal 5-arms:

1. their customers vocally complain about the hidden arm

2. there is no performance benefit to the hidden arm
3. the post-forging machining steps are more complicated and costly with the hidden arm

There's no reason to make an already expensive product even more expensive by adding a valueless feature that your customers will bellyache about.  

I've got guesses at how and why people struggle with the hidden arm, and it's probably a combination of 4 things.  

Bill Lindsay

El Cerrito, CA

*by right, I mean the way that was obvious and self-evident when I first ran across them in the late 1980s, but it seems what was obvious and self evident to me is not universal.  

[Garth]

FWIW, the most effective tool for the slotted side of crank bolts that I've used is the dual function Pedro's "Chain Checker Plus II", mostly because it's considerably longer than all those tiny things which are only good for scraping knuckles. It's easier to keep in place while tightening. It's also the best chain checking tool I've used as it uses three points on the chain in a specific orderly method, 1,2,3 as shown on the tool.  

It's rather odd than few have ever addressed the chainring tightening tool and made one that was truly excellent. Mostly, make it so it firmly fits and stays in the slot and isn't so sloppy. The Park one sold today is no different than the Sugino I bought in 1980. 

While I get some my want the Silver Riv crank because it says Riv on it, there have always been more available than a superficial internet search may offer. 

Andel in Taiwan has quite a large variety of cranks, more than anyone I can think of. 

Since I use 150mm cranks the Riv models don't apply for my use. For a 110/74 triple(or double) I ordered 3 sets directly from Andel in Taiwan, the silver RSC6-317 model. I forgot how much the arms were off hand, I think with shipping it was around $280ish for the three. You have to use their "Inquiry" form to contact a real person who will discuss with you what exactly you want and the cost. They'll check their inventory and give a yea or nay. I was going to get rings too but they didn't have exactly what I wanted so I opted for just the arms. In the US these arms are sold as Dimension Cross cranks(black) and they also were the stock arms(silver) of Surly LHT for a long time. Regular arm pattern, no hidden nonsense. The tread width is little wider than a Sugino. For years I thought I had to have a narrow tread crank(because so and so said so), without ever questioning the validity, the universality of the claim. Turns out in actuality the 170mm tread width of the Andel as a triple is great, and I have a relatively narrow pelvic structure for my height. 

For 110 doubles the Origin8 arms are terrific, though they've gone up to the skyrocket high price of $71.... hah hah ! 

Andel just happens to make Riv's crank arms to their spec. Andel is to crank arms what Velo is to saddles, many of the house brand cranks are made by Andel. 

[John Dewey]

Plus one Mr. Tapebubba. If any are holding NOS Logic silver @ 170 / 172.5 I’ll take the misery off your hands. 

BTW, I seem to recall a thread, many threads way way back when re: Logic arms prone to breaking. Is my memory faulty?

Jock

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/811af3a8-ddb6-4271-af46-0d49f6059e7dn%40googlegroups.com.

[Johnny Alien]

I tend to think its a dual problem between the tool and the actual bolt. I think the design of those lends itself to needing special tools that don't really work effectively. Using wolftooth bolts on a 1x is problem free and great. I don't like working with those Sugino style bolts even on non-hidden arms.

[Bill Lindsay]

Yeah, this gets to the heart of it.  If your gripe has anything to do with the tool that fits the backside of a chainring bolt, then in my opinion you are already doing it wrong.  I change out maybe 20 chainrings a year, maybe more, and I go years without touching that tool.  To me there is precisely one use-case for that tool:  when disassembling an old crankset that was set up by somebody who did it wrong.  In order to set things up correctly you don't need that tool.  If things were set up correctly, you don't need that tool to take things apart. 9 out of 10 times that I do need to touch that tool, it's because I'm taking apart a used crankset, set up wrong by the factory or the previous owner.  The symptom is that you can rotate the bolt and the nut part rotates right along with it.  You get to this state by setting things up wrong.  

Here's my set up:

1.The backside of a chainring bolt (the "nut" part) nestles into a recess on the chainring.  That interface is supposed to stay fixed as the bolt is tightened.  It is supposed to GRAB, not SLIDE.  As such, it should be bone dry and clean.  If in 20 years corrosion makes it stuck, no biggie, whack it out with a rubber mallet.  No grease here!

2.The threads between the bolt and nut are supposed to slide freely and it's bad if this interface ever binds or rusts.  Grease goes here on the threads (not threadlocker).

3. The head of the bolt slides against the chainring as it is tightened.  If that interface binds, you might not get it tight enough.  This interface should have a tiny bit of grease.  

4. If the chainring bolt assembly is set up dry-grease-grease, then those three interfaces will grab-slide-slide, and you can tighten the chainring bolt as tightly as you like with no backside wrench.  When you take it back apart, the interfaces still grab-slide-slide and you can disassemble it with no backside wrench.  If/when the backside nut "breaks free" when you are loosening, just press it with your fingertip while you continue loosening the bolt.  

5.  The only modification of the above for "hidden" arms is you need something thinner than your fingertip at step 4, and literally anything will serve.  A chopstick, a flathead screwdriver, an allen key, whatever thinnish thing you have handy on your workbench will serve.  

That's the entire secret in my view.  The four things I think people maybe do wrong are:

1. doing any of this work not in a workstand.  This makes every single thing 5x more clumsy and awkward

2. Doing any chainring assembly/disassembly with the cranks on the bike.  Take the crank arm off and do it right on a work surface.  Swapping chainrings with the cranks on the bike is at least 3x more awkward.  If you pull the crank arm you actually may get away with not having a workstand!

3. Putting grease where it does not belong: the interface that is supposed to grab

4. Not putting grease where it does belong: the interfaces that are supposed to slide

Bill Lindsay

El Cerrito, CA

[Joe Bernard]

Most of the time I get away with not having to grab the backside with anything. Other times I need a thin flathead screwdriver slotted in there and risk scratching the crankarm. I do not like scratching things, those hidden arms are a pain in the patooty. 

[Johnny Alien]

All of that being necessary is still a sign of bad design. If its not clear or takes very specific processes to be done correctly then there is a problem somewhere. I think that problem is 100% the design of that bolt system. Most 1x bolts are a breeze and require no specific instructions. And I have swapped chainrings right on the bike with the crankset installed.

[Bill Lindsay]

I comprehend that perspective. and it's an evergreen retort to "doing it right".  You should be able to "do it wrong" and still get optimal results.  If there is a "right way" to do it, then it's already disqualified.  I disagree with that perspective, because there's always an even more wrong way to handle any subassembly.  The old saying goes "Idiot proof?  They'll just make a bigger idiot".  

The fact is that 95% of bicycles made in the last half-century with multiple chainrings have bolts of this type.  All of them have an equivalently bad design, right?  This has nothing to do with hidden bolts, or Silver cranks.  It's every thing except after-market two-headed chainring bolts like Wolf Tooth makes.  My XTR M985 cranks also came with a two-headed chainring bolt design.  Folks that hate traditional chainring bolts will be free to use a two-headed design on their Silver or Silver2 cranks, so they are golden.

Bill Lindsay

El Cerrito, CA

[George Schick]

This is an interesting discussion.  Some years ago I bought one of Riv's Sugino triple cranks that they modified into a two-plateau (may I use that word nowadays?) "wide/low," replacing the outer chainring with a chain guard.  I really like the set up and i works perfectly for one of my bike's applications.  So, reading through these threads I had to go take a look at the Sugino crank and noticed that it does, indeed, have a chainring bolt hidden behind the crank arm.  BUT, I noticed another thing: the smallest inner chainring is steel instead of the usual aluminum which got me wondering if Sugino used steel for that chainring because it would be less likely to wear out and need replacement before the outer chainring(s), requiring one to fiddle with that "hidden" bolt. Or if the folks at Riv did that...

[Bill Lindsay]

Most 24T 26T and 28T granny rings are steel.  That's the way Riv does it AND Sugino does it by default.  Wear resistance is the motivation, and it is twofold.  The smaller diameter ring results in higher chain tension, and the smaller tooth count ring means more pressure per tooth.  So it's a double whammy.  Aluminum granny rings exist, and they are super light, but wear out super fast.  The biggest 74mm granny I've used is a 34, and those are aluminum.  

BL in EC

[Nick Payne]

On Friday, 1 December 2023 at 1:11:08 am UTC+11 Bill Lindsay wrote:

The hidden arm was definitely invented just to make a different look, and we were supposed to think that look was preferable.

It does minimise the problem that some cranks have/have had where cracking develops at the join between the crank and adjacent spider arm because of the acute angle between them. I can remember having to retire a couple of Campagnolo Super Record cranks that I was racing on back in the 1980s because cracks had developed at this point. e.g. - This image is from pardo.net, but it's identical to the cracks I found.

 

That said, it works out great for me that so many people seem to have such a hard time with hidden bolt cranks, because I've never had a problem with it, and your shared struggles has got to help drive the price down for me.  Walking around my garage, there are four bikes with hidden arm Ritcheys, three with hidden arm Sugino, and two with hidden arm Campy.

Ditto here. There must be half a dozen bikes in our garage using cranks with the hidden chainring bolt behind the arm, and I've not had any problems changing chainrings on them.

Nick Payne

[RichS]

As a long time Sugino hidden bolt user I agree the chainring removel/install process can be onerous. Over a period of time and you develop a technique (like Bill has kindly shared) I do believe it becomes easier. And, as my wife always tells me, "patience is a virtue". A useful mantra for much of the bike tinkering I do. Metal fender installation comes to mind here.

Something not mentioned in this discussion is the quality or consistency of chainring nuts & bolts. I have sometimes switched out nuts and bolts when the nut tool isn't making a tight connection. Steel or aluminum? Does that make a difference? I don't know; I've always used steel.

Best,

Rich in ATL

[Eric Norris]

The crack on Campy Record/Super Record spiders was the result of the very sharp edge at that location. A common fix back in the day was a few minutes’ work with a round file to take the edge off that part of the crankset.

--Eric Norris
campyo...@me.com
Insta: @CampyOnlyGuy
YouTube: YouTube.com/CampyOnlyGuy 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/3b631a33-38ec-4dff-8fb2-0bd541c8e1e3n%40googlegroups.com.

[Andrew Letton]

I had that same cracking on a Specialized (Sugino) Flag triple crank, solved it with some judicious filing, and have been riding it for a couple of decades since with no further sign of cracking.

cheers,

Andrew in Sydney

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/AA0DEB22-4970-4EBF-8868-548CF8CC9D3F%40me.com.