Velo Orange 50.4 BCD cranks review

[Jeff Bertolet]

While looking for lower gearing I was searching for a crank that would take smaller chainrings than my current 110 BCD compact double. Compact doubles usually take 34 teeth for the smallest ring. There are some mountain bike doubles available that go smaller, but they come stock with much smaller rings and I did not feel like replacing rings. The other option is to use a triple crank, but only use two of the spots, with the third left unused.

At the time, I only knew of Sugino, TA, Rene Herse, White Industries and Velo Orange cranks that would fulfill my criteria. Pricewise, the choice was clear: Velo Orange (VO) was at least $150 less than the others. Afterwards, I also found the IRD Defiant Wide Compact cranks which are similar in price and features to the VO cranks. They use the more commonly available 94 BCD rings, instead of the less common VO/TA chainrings. See the bottom of the post for more comparisons.

Upon installation (greasing the bottom bracket spindle) it quickly became clear that one of the chainring bolt spacers was missing. The bolt that it was supposed to be on was still tightened, causing the inner ring to dive too close to the outer ring for one portion of the rotation. In this state, it was unusable as the chain would get jammed against the big ring.

The spacer in question, missing from another position on the crank.

My temporary solution: 4 small spacers to replace one large one.

I contacted the seller and they contacted VO and got me a replacement spacer and chainring bolt. The extra chainring bolt may come in handy since these aren't the same size as standard chainring bolts.

Standard chainring bolt on left, 50.4 BCD bolt on right

They also include very nice aluminum bolt covers (on right in photo below). Unfortunately, one of the crank bolts had a built in flange that was slightly off-center. With the tight fit of the cover over the bolt, I decided not to install it and risk damaging the extractor threads, I also decided not to go through the trouble of filing off the offending part of the crank bolt. I had an extra bolt cover from some very old cranks (on left in photo), but decided not to use it since I only had one. In any case, I didn't see any reason to put a cover over the bolt, it would just require one more tool for removal.

Cranks, minus crank bolt cover.

The recommended bottom bracket length is 118mm to give a chainline of 43.5, the standard for road doubles. I decided to go with a 115mm bottom bracket to keep the q-factor low (143mm w/ 115mm BB). The inside of the arms are 120mm apart at the ends, you can use that info to measure your chainstays to see if you need a longer bottom bracket for clearance reasons. I also figured since I wanted to use the entire cassette with the large 46 tooth ring (42 to 92 gear inches), putting the large ring a little closer to the frame would minimize the chain angle (and annoying chain noise) when using the large cogs on the cassette.

With a 115mm bottom bracket the measured chainline is 42.5mm (measured at the midpoint between the two rings) and rear cassette has a chainline of 42mm on a 130mm hub. When using the small 30 tooth ring, the chain starts to catch on the ramps and pins of the large ring when using the two smallest cogs on the cassette. 

The gear range is what I was looking for, and it that respect, it gets the job done. My gear range is 27-93 gear inches using a 13-30 cassette, enough for everything I'm using it for, unless I start doing camping trips with it. The chart below (created using a wheel size 4 mm smaller than mine, so not perfect) shows the useable gears, good range in the big ring with a two gear overlap in the small ring.

The smallest chainrings available are 26 teeth. The 50.4 BCD designation is misleading, since the small ring mounts to the large ring, not to the crank arm spider. The small chainrings use a 6 bolt 80mm BCD pattern. To compare, the Rene Herse cranks use a larger BCD spider (70mm) but can mount smaller rings (24 teeth) because both rings are mounting to the same crank arm spider.

I rode it for a while until finally replacing the missing spacer. There was some lateral oscillation on the big and small rings. After a little internet research (thanks Sheldon and Jan) I took the rings off to check the spider. The video below shows that two of the spider arms are closer to the frame than the others. They disturb the zip tie I attached to the frame as reference. They are about .5-.75mm out of alignment, which is magnified at the chainring.  It may take a few viewings to see the arms in question.

I was able to straighten the offending arms with a 12" adjustable wrench. I don't recommend doing this unless you have a very good feel for the elasticity of metal. You need to be able to feel juuuust when it starts to deform, not an easy task when you're using a 12" lever. After doing this, there was one arm still slightly out of alignment (perhaps .1-.25mm), but it was so difficult to adjust the zip tie to get it to hit only one arm I decided to leave them alone.

After reinstalling the chainrings, they were much better, within 1mm at the edge of the chainring.

Here's a table comparing the Velo Orange and IRD cranksets

	Velo Orange Grand Cru 50.4	IRD Defiant Wide Compact
Price	$200	$199
Stock Chainrings	46/30	46/30
BCD	50.4 outer/80 inner	94
Smallest ring	26	29
Bottom Bracket	118	118
q-factor	149	152
Notes	uses non-standard chainring bolts

[Bill Gobie]

Regarding the "bolt covers," if I understand what you have done and also how self-extractors work, your crank bolts are not self-extracting presently. You have to put the supplied covers on. Then when you unscrew the bolt, the bolt flange pushes on the cover and pushes the crank off the spindle. The cover remains in the crank, as does the bolt. The inside of the cover is lined with a low-friction material so the bolt will not unscrew the cover. The cover has to be set somewhat tightly into the crank. All you need to remove the cranks is an allen key.

It is also a good idea to use covers or dustcaps so you do not lose crank bolts. On square-taper cranks, pedaling causes the cranks to squirm slightly up the tapers, away from the bolts. This unloads the bolts and then they can theoretically rattle off the bike.

Bill

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

[Edward O'Brien]

I have to say I have purchased several things from VO and have been disappointment by the quality. If I had spent $200 on a crank I would not expect it to have lateral run out.  Sugino makes two cranks that have 30/46 gearing.  The OX601 and OX801.  You can also make a double from a triple crankset that has a 74mm inner and 110middle/outer BCD.

I have been very pleased using a SRAM X-9 rear derailleur and 11-36 cassette with a standard compact crankset.  I use the short cage which is spec'd for 32t but there is plenty of chain wrap and the upper jockey/pulley wheel clears the largest cog.   I use a 34/46 up front I charted a 30t for comparison.

[WMdeR]

Dear Bill,

Those "bolt covers" look like self-extractors, but will consistently tear themselves apart if you attempt to use them as such. VO originally marked them as self-extractors, and changed their ad copy when they started getting complaints. They stick out and whack your heel, too. I'd leave them off.

There are potential corrosion problems with the VO crank. You can see other reviews and discussion of these cranks on the BOB list:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/internet-bob/SJxpSJjtIGQ/vbjg0E1sNmMJ

94BCD 5-pin cranks make a lot of practical sense. 

The RH one is lovely, manufactured to a high standard, and well-thought through. The three pin mount and 70mm BCD does make chainring/spider runout a concern--mostly for the manufacturer, as I think they have to hand-mount every crank to check runout.

Best,

Will

William M. deRosset

Fort Collins, CO

[Jeff Bertolet]

I realize they could work as self-extractors in theory, but it was pretty clear to me that they were thin machined aluminum and wouldn't actually stand up to being used as such.

Originally, I worked somewhere where I was going to purchase the VO cranks at wholesale prices, that fell through so I paid retail. 

I am somewhat disappointed by the quality (especially the missing bolt!), but also somewhat understanding considering the low price vs. other options. There will always be a premium for small runs of parts, part of the reason why all the other similar cranks (46/30 rings) are sometimes double the price. The IRD cranks only take a 29 tooth ring vs. 26 for VO and 24 for RH. I wanted the ability to use a 26 ring if I start bikepacking.

Good to know about the waxing them, I don't have a problem doing that once in a while. I started subscribing to BQ after their review came out, so I missed it.

I also forgot about the iBOB list, I'll have to keep tabs on that as well.

[AKThomas]

For $200 you can get a Shimano Ultegra compact, which in my experience, is impeccably manufactured, very light, and works flawlessly. With a big cassette and medium cage derailleur you can get a large sprocket of 36t on the back.  Combined with a 34 tooth front chain ring that should get you up just about anything a randonnee might throw at you.  Any lower gearing than that, and walking would probably be faster. 

[Jeff Bertolet]

I considered that possibility as it would have been the least expensive option since I already had a 110BCD compact double crank. I decided that I would prefer the small jumps that would be possible using my new setup, especially in the 66-85 gear inch range. I was also tired of external bearing bottom brackets, I find they wear out too quickly for me, being poorly sealed. I also wanted the option to go smaller on the front chainring (and larger on the rear cassette) if I started to do light touring.

Given all this, I was committed to getting something with smaller rings available, the only question was how much to spend. If I were doing it over again, I would still get the VO cranks, even with dubious quality control. The price difference and the fact that the IRD will take a 29t smallest ring made it an easy decision. Among all the options in the $400+ category, I would pick the RH cranks.

[Emily O'Brien]

Incidentally, while we're on the subject of 50.4 BCD cranks, if you're going to use them with a single ring, use a chainring that is intended for use as such, and not one with a ring of extra empty holes in it.

I found out that if you use a TA chainring with perforations (bolt holes for the inner ring) on a fixed gear and then crank up a lot of steep climbs, someday it might just break where it's perforated. 

Since a chainring in two concentric pieces doesn't tend to propel a bicycle especially effectively, I'll be switching to a V-O single ring on my TA crank.

It's really one of those things that makes perfect sense after it breaks, but that you might just not think about before that. So, just a word to the wise. :)

Emily

-----------------------------------

Emily O'Brien

Dill Pickle Gear

www.dillpicklegear.com

... gear for the extra mile

-----------------------------------

[Guy Washburn]

For another opinion, I just got a VO 50.4 MKII crank last week and installed it in time to use it on a 200k ride last sunday. Other than the bolts for the inner ring bring loose (A pain, but a <5 minute fix with the torque wrench) they seem fine. The rings that came with mine are true. I got it with the recommended 118 BB, and I used the self extractors to pull them when switching down to a 113 BB to slim down the Q. The extractors worked fine. I'm using the crank with a CX70 FD and Ultegra 11 speed mid cage in the back with a 11-32 cassette. The shifting up and down is quick and smooth. with no issues at all... I have the IRD 46-30 on another bike and wanted to compare. Initial impressions suggest they are comprable. I'll probably switch to a shorter BB spindle for the IRD too..

[Jeff Bertolet]

That's great, I'm really interested to hear more opinions. I did some research on euro-sourced chainrings as suggested. I may get some backup rings or smaller replacements.

I like the front shifting as well, I'm using a friction DT shifter. when in the small ring, have you had any issues with the chain catching on the ramps and pins of the large chainring when shifting to smaller cogs (the two or three smallest cogs)?

I would also be interested to know what your measured tread/q-factor is with the 113 BB.

On Friday, May 1, 2015 at 6:14:18 PM UTC-4, Guy Washburn wrote:

For another opinion, I just got a VO 50.4 MKII crank last week and installed it in time to use it on a 200k ride last sunday. Other than the bolts for the inner ring being loose (A pain, but a <5 minute fix with the torque wrench) they seem fine. The rings that came with mine are true. I got it with the recommended 118 BB, and I used the self extractors to pull them when switching down to a 113 BB to slim down the Q. The extractors worked fine. I'm using the crank with a CX70 FD and Ultegra 11 speed mid cage in the back with a 11-32 cassette. The shifting up and down is quick and smooth. with no issues at all... I have the IRD 46-30 on another bike and wanted to compare. Initial impressions suggest they are comparable. I'll probably switch to a shorter BB spindle for the IRD too.

[Ted Shwartz]

There is one more option, the Sun XCD crank. I recently had a bike built with this crank set using Velo Orange 30/46 rings and an IRD 12/32 10 speed cog set, using Ultegra shifters

It has worked well so far. I have similar crank extractors

It may be that this crank and VO come from the same factory

Ted

[Guy Washburn]

I used the highly technical "the crank arms look closer to the chainstays, my feet feel more naturally closer together and my knees feel much better now" measurement system of measuring Q. I tried the 107 spindle length and It didn't have enough clearance... If I have time I'll try an actual measurement.

At least on the repair stand I had no chain/pin interaction even going small - small..

[Jan Heine]

Make sure you have the newer version of the Sun
XCD crank. The early versions seemed to break
with alarming frequency due to a stress riser...

Disclosure: Compass Bicycles offers René Herse
cranks, which could be seen as competing with the
Sun XCD cranks...

Jan Heine
Compass Bicycles Ltd.
Seattle WA USA
http://www.compasscycle.com

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

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

--

[Jeff Bertolet]

Boulder Bicycles makes notes a similar sharp corner/stress riser on the IRD Wide Compact Cranks (but they still call it the most robust square taper crank?). From their website:

Note - this crank like the classic Campagnolo Nuovo Record has a sharp edge between arm and spider. When you purchase this crank from us, we relieve this sharp edge for extra security. Even without this sharp-edge removal, this crank is perhaps the most robust square taper crank currently in production!

[WMdeR]

Dear Jeff,

The early XCD cranks had a very sharp stress riser in a bad spot, and they immediately started breaking (they weren't on the market long before they got pulled and redesigned). It was a design bust, if there was any real design involved at all.

I don't know the IRD defiant's design background, but the stress riser that Boulder Bicycle reports, a sharp-edged web between the spider and crank arm, is common on 5-pin cranks with five spider arms (vs the ones that integrate the crank arm as one of the spider arms). It is the same one shared by Shimano Dura-Ace 7400 cranks, Campagnolo Nuovo/Super Record cranks (and their imitators), and Suntour Superbe Pro cranks.Campagnolo Nuovo Record cranks were actually well-known for cracking at that junction. 

However, that's not where the cranks usually failed. All of those cranks had failures, but the failures that started at the sharp web of the spider/crank junction were very rare.It is a design deficiency in my personal opinion, but not a critical one.

Later designs from folks who lived through the NR era generally worked to eliminate that sharp spot. Later Campagnolo Veloce-Chorus cranks modified the forging to round out that edge by filling in some of the valley. Several makers went to integrating the fifth arm of the spider into the back of the crank arm to get rid of the problem (Campagnolo C-record and later; Sugino XD; various Ritchey Logic cranks, TA zephyr) at the expense of more machine work.

If you're concerned about that spot, your dealer should be happy to round that edge out before it leaves the shop. Alternatively, you can do it at home. A bit of round-file work and the sharp edge is gone, and there is enough material there that the crank is not compromised. 

Pedal eye failures or cracks starting at vanity grooves were/are more common and more dramatic. That's where cold-forging, near-net design and forging dies for every size crank you produce starts to pay. Forging aligns the grain structure around the forging die shape. Near net design minimally interrupts that structure. A forging for every size means the pedal eye location is included in that grain alignment. Polishing the crank surface gets rid of surface irregularities that can act as local stress risers and starting points for cracking, and limiting/eliminating sudden section changes reduces stress concentrations. 

In the super-compact crank world, the RH (they use hot forging from what I can see from their promotional material--cold forging isn't ordinarily done in a single stage) and TA cranks do all of that, along with careful design (the TA was developed back in the 1960's and is substantially unmodified since), and it is reflected in their prices.

Or the crank is not quite as optimized for weight/strength as it could be. For example, the IRD has lots of material around the pedal eye, which is a bit heavier and doesn't look quite as nice, but achieves the same design end at lower cost. 

If they were competently designed, they were engineered within a set of compromises and design constraints, and each successful design balances those constraints to meet the design objectives. The Bontragerism, "Strong, light, cheap; pick two." is an popular expression of that tension. The IRD leans more on the first and third legs of that stool. The René Herse and TA cranks on the first two. You pays your money and makes your choice. 

Note: I've got no financial interest in RH cranks, in whoever is IRD  nor in Compass Cycles. I was privy to a bit of the design process for the Rene Herse crank, I did get the chance to test one of the pre-production prototypes extensively, and I bought a production model as soon as they came out. I've not had occasion to regret that decision yet. I'm on my second outer chainring, and the crank has weathered MgCL2 baths in the winter and just under 30,000mi so far. It still works right and is in good condition. I'll likely get another for an upcoming project.

Best Regards,

Will 

William M. deRosset

Fort Collins, CO

[Jeff Bertolet]

Good information to know, thank you for the thorough explanation.

I've only been concerning myself with the minutiae of bike parts engineering for the last couple years, so I have missed much of the historical context for current design decisions. The people who might know this kind of information where I work are so cranky and unpleasant, it doesn't seem worth getting it from them.

[Lounging Longhorn]

I've been converting triples for the purpose of a "wide-low" double of sorts.  You can do it with a 110/74 triple or a 130/74 triple, doesn't matter.

In my most recent case I used an Ultegra 6503 triple, put a bashguard where the big ring was, installed a 44T middle and a 28T granny.  I run this with a 9 speed 11-34 in the back which I'm pretty happy with for the most part, although some of the jumps are a bit larger than I would like.

I was thinking maybe someday I should try an 11 speed 11-32 and drop the small ring down to 26.  That would give me no jumps more than 2 teeth from 11 to 22.  (but for now I'm staying with the 9 because I'm trying to minimize costs).

-LL

[NickBull]

Hi, Will,

Having just bought a VO triple, your post about corrosion problems was a bit of a cause of concern. 

I contacted VO, who say that all their cranks are now anodized.  They'll be putting this info on the product pages.

I wish that I could afford the Rene Herse cranks, they look just beautiful.  But three of my family are in college so I have an incentive to economize.  (Not enough of an incentive to skip PBP, though.)

Nick

On Friday, May 1, 2015 at 2:14:08 AM UTC-4, WMdeR wrote:

[WMdeR]

Dear Nick,

Thank you for the update. I'm glad they've changed their design and started anodizing their 7075 aluminum cranks. It is the right thing to do for that alloy.

Best,

Will

William M. deRosset

Fort Collins, CO

[Andrew]

I've got one of those IRD Defiant wide compact cranksets waiting for a project, and would be grateful if someone could post photos or a diagram of the filing needed to reduce the likelihood of a failure. I've had to rebuild a bike with a new frame after one of my sons had a crank failure in the middle of a major intersection with the motorized traffic about to move. I was concerned for his safety first when he told me (he was OK) then for the nice old Speedwell frame that bent when he fell on it, and the Sugino Mighty Comp crank. Having read the above comments, I'd not like to be worrying now in advance for my own body and bike!

[Andrew]

[WMdeR]

Dear Andrew,

See:

http://goo.gl/hOiOK5

For the location. Just round the sharp edge out a bit with a round second-cut or finish file and buff with sandpaper to smooth it into the rest of the crank. It doesn't need much--you just want to get rid of that sharp edge without adding any new discontinuities with the file or chewing up too much of the finish. 

See: 

http://goo.gl/6UAsUw

Also, to your concern, this is almost never where NR cranks and their ilk actually failed. A lot of them CRACKED there, because it is a design deficiency and a(n easily fixed) stress riser on a highly-stressed part, but the failures (i.e. what dumped someone's pedal on the road, with or without their foot attached ) were generally at the pedal eye or radiating out from some deep vanity groove or stamped writing on the arm itself. The IRD crank is much more heavily built there, and the fluting is pretty subtle. 

If you're really worried about it, there are other options (which have their own advantages and design challenges). See:

http://www.pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/000.html#Crank

For lots of different failures and extended discussions of various failure mechanisms. Every crank can fail--they're highly-stressed and poorly-maintained bits operating in often corrosive conditions. Thankfully, good design limits the failure rate, and reduces the likelihood of a catastrophic failure. A relatively soft failure mode (i.e. non-catastrophic failure) is part of good design for general-use or mission-critical stuff.

Best Regards,

Will