Sugino Cranks in General

[James McKinley]

I have a bike with a Sugino Alpina crankset.  The crank arms extend outward from the bottom bracket and I can observe that the curving geometry allows my ankle to clear the arm as it comes around. The crankset looks great and functions great with a 10 speed chain.   I'm thinking of building another bike, but when I look at the Sugino website, the Alpina is not there.  I know it's still sold, presumably NOS?  The current commonly-available Compact Double looks to be the XD500-d (sold at Boulder Bike and Harris Cyclery, for example), but the Sugino website doesn't list that, either: it is the XD2 701D.  How would one know how similar they are: maybe Sugino make superficial changes to existing models then rename them with related or unrelated names? Also, the Sugino website shows quite a few models that don't appear for sale anywhere that I can find, and there isn't any clear description that differentiates one road model from another (e.g., the Mighty Tour vs.the 701D).

http://www.suginoltd.co.jp/us/products/productsList.html

So, the question is, what's up with those guys?  Is there a way to know what is actually for sale, and how, precisely, it is configured?  Is there someone who sells the whole line?  Thanks for any inside dope or experience with these.

-- Jim

[Nick Payne]

Bens Cycle sell quite a number of Sugino cranks, including two different models they call Alpina: https://www.benscycle.com/c-27-cranks.aspx#PowerSearch=[Manufacturer:Sugino].

Alex's Cycle in Japan also sell several different models of Sugino cranks - I purchased a very nicely made set of Sugino OX801D from them a few months ago. It comes in lengths from 160mm upwards, and uses 110BCD for the outer chainring and 74BCD for the inner, and comes as standard in chainring combinations from 50-36 down to 40-24. I bought the set with 44-30 chainrings, which puts me on the big chainring and around middle of the cassette at my normal flat country cruising speed.

http://www.alexscycle.com/?type=extended&search_performed=Y&match=any&q=SUGINO&pname=N&pname=Y&cid=196&category_name=Cranks&subcats=Y&pcode=&price_from=&price_to=&weight_from=&weight_to=&dispatch[products.search]=Search

Nick

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/650b.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Brad]

Here is a pretty little secret.  Sugino manufactures cranks for Stronglight.
take a look, for example at this one.  http://www.xxcycle.com/crankset-stronglight-impact-compact,,en.php
The one I bought for a restoration/ conversion has the bends you describe and the markings on the back indicate that it was cold forged.
http://www.stronglight.com/stronglight/index.php/welcome/pedalier_catalogue

My experience with shipping from XXCycle in France is that it is comparable with shipping to me on east coast from Seattle/Portland/ San Francisco.
And you get cooler stamps.

[JL]

I have always hated the look of the OX801D. Not because it is modern or uses outboard bearing bbs, but because the large chainring bolts behind the crank arm spider rather then flush with it. It just looks sloppy and like they redesigned a crank by replacing the outer position with the middle. It could have been done better. 

No discontent on ultra compact double setups, only the aesthetics of this attempt at selling them. 

[Fred Blasdel]

On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 4:44 AM, JL <subf...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have always hated the look of the OX801D. Not because it is modern or uses outboard bearing bbs, but because the large chainring bolts behind the crank arm spider rather then flush with it. It just looks sloppy and like they redesigned a crank by replacing the outer position with the middle. It could have been done better.

Nope! Think about the path of the chain mid-shift.

It's not possible to make a hyper-compact double using a standard outer chainring without putting the spider on the outside.

[Jim Bronson]

Wow that's a good deal on that Stronglight double you linked.  If only someone made a wide-low double at that kind of pricing.  IRD's 46/30 is available for around $180, but it uses a 5 bolt spider 94bcd and there's not likely to be easily obtainable replacement rings.

I'm looking to try 44-28 and I've decided to just reuse an older Ultegra octalink triple.  I got my bbg bashguard on Friday and have a 130 bcd 44T and a 74 bcd 28T coming hopefully today or tomorrow.  I've got one used Ultegra Octalink BB with smooth bearings and another new in the box so i think I'm good with BBs for a while on this setup.

--

[Joel Niemi]

My Stag has a number of bits purchased from Spa Cycles in the UK. As I recall, they carried both the Stronglight-branded Sugino "chainsets" as well as a Spa-branded one. Main difference was the quality of thechainrings. It was less expensive to get one of their packages, 2 loose (and better) chainrings, and ebay the ones I didn't want.

At the time they weren't selling to the USA. I did the legwork and found an expeditor who had Fedex stop at Spa and pick up the package with the prepaid shipping label and customs forms attached.

Keep in mind that most UK and Euro prices include VAT at 15% or so. You get that as a discount if they ship it to USA.

Joel Niemi

[Will Vautrain]

Similar prices exist for Sugino-branded triples in ultra-short 152mm length. They can be "converted" to compact doubles if needed. I bought one for my Soma GR build that's still in limbo.

[Jim Bronson]

Eh I am 6'7", I already went to 170 on my Rivendell custom I converted because of the 80mm BB drop had gotten the pedals perilously close the tarmac.  I had 180s before the conversion.

152 is unacceptable...unless I'm pedaling with my toes or something ;)

[Will Vautrain]

Yeah for sure, I was just throwing that out there in case anyone else is interested. I'm 5'8" and going to 165mm from 172.5mm did wonders for me, I'm looking forward to getting the 152mm crankset mounted on something.

[Jason Leach]

Alex, Fred,

Both you guys are right.  Working within the constraints of 110 outer/74inner and outboard bearing bottom bracket there is little else to do than put the outer ring on the inside of the crank spider. That said, I still think it looks ugly. I consider the 94bcd chaining to be a common size, less common than 110, but still currently made and available nonetheless.  A modern 94bcd double crank would be more elegant and still appeal to the 48/36 cyclocross setup and the 48/34 road compact setup.  

Jason

On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Alex Wetmore <al...@phred.org> wrote:

That is the only way to make this crank. It is a 110/74 double, so the two chainrings have different BCDs. If you mount the outer chainring to the outside of the spider then the spider would live between the two chainrings, making use of the inner chainring impossible.

If you want a compact double with a 29-34 inner chainring and don't want a 110/74 double you need to go with a 94mm double.

alex

---

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of JL <subf...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 4:44 AM
Cc: 65...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [650B] Sugino Cranks in General

 

[Fred Blasdel]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Jim Bronson <jim.b...@gmail.com> wrote:

Eh I am 6'7", I already went to 170 on my Rivendell custom I converted because of the 80mm BB drop had gotten the pedals perilously close the tarmac.  I had 180s before the conversion.

I've got 180s on most of my bikes, my 650b Elephant with ~73mm drop is perfectly happy for pedal clearance with 180mm cranks

I just built up an old Kogswell P with 28mm 700c tires, 76mm drop and 190mm cranks. It's riding low but fine with thin XTR pedals.

Big flat pedals wouldn't work at all, pedal width and thickness are what'll really mess you up.

152 is unacceptable...unless I'm pedaling with my toes or something ;)

I have a mad max cycletruck with 110mm cranks, I spin with my ankles 

[Jim Bronson]

I do ride big flat pedals, VP-001 and I use pedal extenders (kneesavers) as well to take it out yet another 20mm so that's why I take clearance so seriously.  My pedals are out there, in more ways than one :)

[Benz Ouyang]

Neither a 48/36 nor a 48/34 requires the ultra compact 110/74 setup. A straight 110 will do fine, even if a 34 is at the lower limit of this BCD.

Back to the ugliness factor (subjective of course, I like my OX601D just fine), perhaps someone can make a 110/74 version of the old Mavic "Starfish" crank. Those have hidden attachment points for the chainrings and won't have the "outer ring inside the spider" look.

[Alex Wetmore]

That is the only way to make this crank. It is a 110/74 double, so the two chainrings have different BCDs. If you mount the outer chainring to the outside of the spider then the spider would live between the two chainrings, making use of the inner chainring impossible.

If you want a compact double with a 29-34 inner chainring and don't want a 110/74 double you need to go with a 94mm double.

alex

---

From: 65...@googlegroups.com <65...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of JL <subf...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 4:44 AM
Cc: 65...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [650B] Sugino Cranks in General

 

[Jan Heine]

At 4:57 PM +0000 8/24/14, Alex Wetmore wrote:
>That is the only way to make this crank. It is a
>110/74 double, so the two chainrings have
>different BCDs. If you mount the outer chainring
>to the outside of the spider then the spider
>would live between the two chainrings, making
>use of the inner chainring impossible.

In the past, I didn't understand why crank makers
use two different BCDs on the same crank. It's
not like you need the support for the larger
rings, since chainrings are loaded almost
exclusively in a vertical direction.

After making the René Herse cranks, which use a
single bolt circle diameter for all rings, I know
why! The smaller the BCD, the tighter the
tolerances for arms and rings must be, since even
a small error is translated outward to result in
a noticeable wobble of the chainrings. Using a
larger BCD and more spider arms allows you to
pull even the a slightly potato-chip-shaped
chainring into shape.

On the Rene Herse cranks, we went to great
lengths to reduce the tolerances so that the
rings spin round and true, but I can see why
other manufacturers would try to avoid this.

Jan Heine
Compass Bicycles Ltd.
2116 Western Ave.
Seattle WA 98121
http://www.compasscycle.com

Follow our blog at http://janheine.wordpress.com/

[JL]

I was referring to manufacturing and marketing considerations inherent in producing a new crank.  Sugino markets the ox801d primarily in more common chainring combinations. Outside of a few small segments of cycling, people ride 34 or 36 small rings as a compact double. Sugino took a gamble on the novelty of an ultra compact double that would appeal to a niche market.  My point was a 94bcd double would still fit a "modern" bottom bracket and be a more elegant and refined design. It could also be available for people who are not interested in such small chainring combinations.  

The same "modern" bbs are only available in limited lengths (two?) that limits the shape of the crank arms and spider. There isn't an efficient way to bolt a crank arm to the outside of a larger spider and have a smaller bcd ring on the inside without there being a shelf hazard in-between the two rings.  The large ring has to bolt to something.  The starfish style would hide it better.  :) 

There is no reason to go to a new crank model when there are many of pre-existing, reproduction, or new production runs of cranks that can offer an ultra compact chainring combination. I like do like Sugino cranks. Would a new version of the PX work with an outboard bearing bottom bracket? 

Jason

[Benz Ouyang]

I don't know how hard it is to make cranks or chainrings with good tolerances, but if I have to guess, I would say it's not that uncommon. How do I know this? Well, l don't remember the last time I had problems mounting chainrings to crank arms, even from different manufacturers. That means the bolt holes must be quite spot on. Or maybe I'm lucky enough to be using nice cranks and chainrings?

[Jan Heine]

The bolt holes are easy to get right. Much harder is to get the chainrings to run round. For this, the spider must be perfectly in plane with the square taper, and the chainrings cannot be warped. All aluminum sheet will warp when you cut chainrings out of it, so you must find some raw stock that warps the least. And then do a lot of quality control to make sure you have got it right.

Jan Heine
Compass Bicycles Ltd.
2116 Western Ave.
Seattle WA 98121
http://www.compasscycle.com

Follow our blog at http://janheine.wordpress.com/

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/650b.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 

[mitch....@gmail.com]

I can see why Sugino might also offer a two-bcd-double crank to retain compatibility with commonly available chainrings they're used to producing. No need to develop a new ring product, and you can market to people who already have and know where to get the rings.  I use 50/30 wide range doubles on several bikes and use TA Pro 5 vis cranks for their accommodating bcd. To get this double with a 110/74 crank you'd need to use both bcds. The Herse is a natural for this too, but some may prefer to compromise on the bcd in favor of familiar rings. Herse crank buyers don't have a bcd compromise but do have to rely on one-source rings and trust availability into the future. 

Not that ring availably into the future isn't also an issue for 110 and 74. Bcd standardization and dominance is hard to predict. In 1997 I was building a new trail bike and decided to get the fairly new 94/56 bcd triple because I predicted the 110/74 was too obsolete and no one would make rings for it anymore. So wrong. As I watched 100/74 make a big comeback, I also saw a new four arm mtb crank quickly become standard, making my 94/56 crank sort of an orphan. Oh well. I agree with Jason that 94 bcd would be a better basis for most wide range doubles than 110. But at this point I trust future availability of Herse rings and 50.3 bcd rings more than 94 bcd rings. 

--Mitch

[Fred Blasdel]

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 4:10 PM, JL <subf...@gmail.com> wrote:

The same "modern" bbs are only available in limited lengths (two?) that limits the shape of the crank arms and spider.

You misunderstand the problem, that's referring to the BB shell's width

There is no reason to go to a new crank model when there are many of pre-existing, reproduction, or new production runs of cranks that can offer an ultra compact chainring combination.

Not for the reason you think though! There are a ton of modern cranks with swappable spiders on the market, including much of SRAM's recent production. You don't have to make new cranks, just new spiders.

Or to follow what the MTB aftermarket has been doing for a decade, custom chainrings that replace the spider entirely.

I like do like Sugino cranks. Would a new version of the PX work with an outboard bearing bottom bracket? 

That's a silly roundabout way to get stiff new cranks with incredibly flexy old chainrings. The 50.4 bcd would conflict with most of the BB standards anyway.