Interloc Racing Design Defiant 50-34t Compact Road Double Crank

[Tom Virgil]

Interloc website

Any experience or guidance on this crankset.  The alternative is a Sugino Alpina compact.

Here is the VeloORANGE take on their VO branded variant versus the Aplina.

Thanks

Tom

[hsmitham]

Tom,

Great looking crank. Sadly I have no experience with it. What type of guidance were you looking for? 

~Hugh

[Scott G.]

They are Andel cranks.

http://www.andel.com.tw/products/products_show.php?language=_eng&pid=40&cid=18#

[Tom Virgil]

Hi Hugh,

I rarely use the granny on Sam Hilborne's triple.  So I am musing about employing a "compact" double in front with a fairly wide range cassette in the back.  A Shimano CX-70 front derailleur can go 46-52T on the big ring and handle a 16T difference between big and small rings.  So a 48/34T double in front and 12-36T 9 speed cassette in the rear should be doable.  I'll make a gear cm chart tonight to see what kind of a pattern and duplication I get.

While looking for likely double cranksets, I came across the IRD.  I think it has a classic look.  It reminds me of the Campy Nuovo Record crankset I had on my first serious road bike.

I liked that look.

I am mainly interested to see if anyone has positive or negative experiences (you, know, hair/beard loss, that kind of thing) with the IRD.

Thanks,

Tom

[ted]

Neat. The link goes to a new three arm crank that looks a bit similar to the new RH cranks from compass bikes. I have been liking the 30/46 I got from them on my Hilsen. It's nice having more compact double options with sub 34t small rings. I hope the soma folks stock this new model too.

[Tom Virgil]

Thanks, Scott.  I found the Andel site.

I also found Origin8 and TA cranksets that have the look.  The 

TA Cyclotourist Pro 5 VIS

but at around $440 for just the arms and spider, it comes pretty dearly.

The IRD can be had for around $170 here which is competitive with the Sugino Alpina.  The IRD has a better q-factor (140 mm versus 159 mm) but I am not very sophisticated about what q-factor means to me or how it affects me.  The immortal Sheldon Brown gives a plausible case for q-factor, or tread:

The tread, or "Q factor" of a crankset is the horizontal width of the cranks, measured from where the pedals screw in. The wider the tread, the farther apart your feet will be. It is generally considered a good idea to keep the tread fairly narrow. There are three main reasons for this:

• The hip joint is optimized for walking, and in normal walking the footsteps are pretty much in line, with little or no "tread."
• For standing pedaling, the farther out the pedals are from the centerline, the harder you have to pull on the handlebar to counterbalance the tendency of the pedaling force to tip the bike sideways.
• The wider the tread, the higher the bottom bracket needs to be to prevent clipping a pedal while pedaling through a turn.

19 mm difference is between 5/8 and 3/4 of an inch.  I have never really had cranksets with different q factors side by side, but I have clipped a pedal and flipped a bike.  So I am somewhat programmed to agree smaller might be better.

Thanks,

Tom

[Tom Virgil]

Come to think of it, I could do the trigonometry for a given bottom bracket height and crank arm length and see how much more "lean" one gets out of a lower q factor.  Not that my aging carcass needs it.

Did a bit of searching and found the 1991 Bridgestone catalog talks about it but doesn't do the math.  Wonder if Grant was around there for that.

Thanks,

Tom

[Hugh Smitham]

He was there till 1994 IIRC.

Best,

~Hugh

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/d0o8OPJP0G4/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Ron Mc]

you have to be careful with Q factor, bottom bracket width and chainline.  First part I replaced on my old Raleigh was the original splined crank that stripped out on Austin hills.  Got a great deal on a Mighty Comp at the UT Co-op bike shop, where racers sold parts they won in competition.  When I rebuilt my Raleigh, I used a TA5 triple and had the gorgeous Sugino crank literally hanging around.  When I built a '98 Moser frame I tried using it, but it would rub the chainstay on a 111mm BB.  Choice was wider BB or other crank, so I bought a late Campy Centaur crankset and solved that.  Finally found a home for the Mighty Comp on my daughter's '86 Team Fuji frame that she built over the summer.  Fits and clears perfectly on the chainstays, and chainline is great on a 9-speed Shimano rear.  

She rode a great ride yesterday, sprinting 18 miles with me chasing her.  

[Ron Mc]

I got a great used TA5 with 47/42 halfsteps and 26 bailout on ebay for $130

[Tom Virgil]

You folks are like a significant other who makes me run up credit card debt, write bad checks, and stay up way too late on school nights.  I love all of you.

I took a look at the Rene Herse crankset offerings on the Compass Bicycle site and fell head over heels.  Twice as expensive as the IRD, but utterly no doubt about it.

Ted also has me thinking. I never ride top end (say 48T front/12T rear) any more.  A 46/30T combo might make more sense.

Now Ron is correct.  Whatever I end up with, in terms of the front and rear end, I need to consider chain line and chain stay clearance.  I have more homework to do.

Dear Lord.  If I had known I was going to live this long and ride these bikes, I would have taken better care of myself.

Thank you,

Tom

[Michael Hechmer]

I have found a 16 tooth difference between rings unsatisfactory on two counts.  First, when I shift between rings, the next gear I am looking for is somewhere at the other end of the cluster, and the wider the range of the cluster the more difficult it is to find that gear.  A lot of momentum is lost on hills while I search for it.  Second, front detailers will shift 16 teeth,  but they don't really like it and tend to do it slowly.  More momentum loss.  I have found  better ways to get a wider range double without these problems.  First option is a 48/34, which will shift much faster and put the next gear exactly two cogs away.  The 12/48 is plenty big enough for everything short of hi end field sprints.  Better yet is a 44/30 with an 11-28 cluster.  the 44/11 is the same as a 48/12 and the 30/28 is only a half gear higher that  34/34.  This combination offers a cleaner shifting pattern and more closely spaced gears.  I also find I actually have less need to shift the front at all, although my Campy derailler does it so effortlessly that I never hesitate.  I have also found that this combination works very well with the new Shimano RD short cage, which greatly improves friction shifting.   I am using the White VCB crank on my Ram and really like it, but you can also get a 44/30 with a number of cranks that offer 94 spiders - DaVinci sells one (made by White Ind) and of course the beautiful, but expensive TA Carmina.  I wish RBW offered a good, sensible compact double. (hint, hint)

Michael 

[Ron Mc]

no offense Michael, I think Grant can safely argue the Sugino double and triples he offers, along with chainring options will get you about anywhere.  Yes, there are flashier aesthetic options, but he doesn't need to inventory those.  

My next bike is going to have a compact double and a wide rear to go with it.  I know to cover everything I want to ride on one bike, I need a gear below 30" and nice to have about a 100" gear to light your hair going downhill.  11-32 9 speed rear with 44/34 up front will get me everywhere I want to go.  The big chainring alone starts below 40 inches, and the mid-range steps are 6-7"

With 6 or 7-speed rear, a triple front makes for a very useful bike.  

[RoadieRyan]

Riv does its just (shocker) a bit unconventional - the 40/26 Sugino XD2 http://www.rivbike.com/product-p/cr7.htm  

Velo Orange offers a nice 48/34t   in standard  and Grand Cru finish

[Bill Lindsay]

" I wish RBW offered a good, sensible compact double. (hint, hint)"

I'll assume that the Sugino triple run as chainguard/40/26 that they do offer doesn't qualify either on the "good" front or the "sensible" front.  Clearly you could run that crankset with a 44/30.  For a road bike I'd probably disqualify that because of the weight, q-factor, and the goofiness of running a chainguard.  

Aside from that, it's pretty clear that Riv's favorite ultra compact double is the White VBC.  Many of their staff builds have them.  They clearly have an account with White Industries, so I'm sure anybody who wanted to pay retail for a White Industries crankset could get it from Rivendell if they wanted to do so.  I got mine from my local shop, but I've also run special orders through Riv with no problems.  

Bill "running three different bikes with 44/30 and one with 42/29" Lindsay

On Monday, December 2, 2013 5:06:11 AM UTC-8, Michael Hechmer wrote:

[ted]

No doubt a 16t delta between chainrings is a large gap, but I find it can work well. Particularly if you want the kind of large spread of gears that drives you to cogs with 4 tooth gaps at the big end. Lately I have been using a 9sp 11/32 cluster with 30/46 rings. When I shift between the 30 and the 46 in front I am not going to anything like the other end of the cluster. For example, riding on the 46t ring and either the 21 or 24t cog, if I want to go one gear easier its either shift to the next bigger cog or go to the 30t ring and drop down 2 cogs to hit essentially the same gear. Changing rings and shifting 3 cogs keeps the gear about the same. If I only wanted to get down to a low 30s inch gear, I might prefer a 12-27 cassette with 34/48 rings. But for now I prefer being able to go a couple gears lower than that when I venture onto the hills in the local regional parks and open spaces (note 34/27 is nearly the same gear as 30/24 so the 28 and 32t cogs give me two more gears on the low end).

All gearing arrangements entail compromises. It is no surprise that different riders, and especially riders in different terrain, find different arrangements fit them better.

On Monday, December 2, 2013 5:06:11 AM UTC-8, Michael Hechmer wrote:

[Michael Hechmer]

I wasn't aware that riv was actually offering dbl. but I have used the Sugino triple as a dbl and wasn't impressed by the performance.  The only real advantages of a dbl are a bit of simplicity, a shorter rear derailler, faster more predictable shifting, and easier cleaning.  But the gains are small.  If I really need or want a very wide range of gears it seems to me that I will be better off with a triple.  I run triples on my Saluki, Trek, and tandem.  A 48/34 (or 38)/26 (or 24) with a 12-27 cassette will give smoother shifting, smaller steps, and a simpler pattern than an ultra wide range dbl.  Personally I find I can't spin a 24/27 combination fast enough to keep the bike moving in a straight line.

As for the White VBC crank.  I know a lot of riv fans are loath to put anything black on their bikes, and I'm pretty resistant too; but that crank is highly polished and looks much better in real life than in pictures.  The rings are excellent. MUSA. Cheaper than a TA but not cheap , about the same as a Compass.  It looks great on my Ram and is the best shifting bike I've had in 35 years of riding.

Michael

[Ron Mc]

Grant's 40/24 double makes a lot of sense for an all-purpose bike using 11-32 9-speed.  From the gear calculator, there are 3 gears between 20 and 30, and the fastest gear is still 99 inches.  You can spend all day on the road on the 40T chainring, and cover all terrain on the 24T.