SILVER crankset!!!!

[lungimsam]

In the new Blug post it mentions it may be coming.

Very cool! Interested to see what it'll be like.

Maybe they will have it all one bcd of such and such a diameter so's you can remove all rings without having to take off the crank arms.

 That would be a cool and functional design for un-mechanics like me.

BTW, who called RBW a "simon pure labrick", and what is that?

[Jim Bronson]

94 bcd with 5 bolt design would be great.

> --
> 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 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/d/optout.



--
Keep the metal side up and the rubber side down!

[Garth]

 I do believe it was 4-5 years ago that their own crank was coming . .  . . .  lol ! 

It'll be a 110/74 BCD crank though , it's simply the most versatile overall .

[Shoji Takahashi]

A prototype is on the 50cm Cheviot Complete:

http://www.rivbike.com/product-p/wsf106.htm

It's 5-bolt (non-hidden bolt), looks 110/74 to me, which would go with S!LVER rings. Finish is certainly not final with the prototype. 

shoji

[Cyclofiend Jim]

I was still holding out hope for a steel crankset.  But, 94BCD with no hidden bolts would be fine.  

- Jim / cyclofiend.com

"Set the wayback machine to 2009..."

http://ramblings.cyclofiend.com/?p=399

[Brewster Fong]

On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 6:34:19 AM UTC-7, Shoji Takahashi wrote:

A prototype is on the 50cm Cheviot Complete:

http://www.rivbike.com/product-p/wsf106.htm

 

Thanks! If you read the description it states: "The crankset (40/26) & hubs are really good S!lver prototype stuff which you may or may not be seeing on a future project we may or may not do."

 

I don't know who uses a 40/26 - seems awfully small - but if the rings are that small, it probablyis one  of those 110bcd for the big ring and a smaller 74mm bcd for the inner. I would have thought that since Grant likes triples, he would be offering a 110/74 triple?!  Good Luck!

[Tim Gavin]

It looks like it is a triple, with a bash guard in place of the big ring.  Riv has been advocating Sugino XD's set up that way.

My impression of the Silver crank is it's roughly equivalent to a nice Sugino, but with all bolts accessible.  Nice, practical, but not revolutionary.  Probably exactly how Grant wants it.

Personally, I'm sorely tempted by the gorgeous Rene Herse triples from Boulder--but not by the price!  :)  

I tried to make a lovely Stronglight 99 triple work, but the crank arm is so close to the big chain ring that it's very tough to get a derailer to work without the outer plate hitting the crank arm.  Very low Q, however.

So, for now the Campy Racing Triple crank set is back on (and shifting perfectly).  The Sugino XD's are ok, but they look plain and MTB-ish to me.  Nothing wrong with MTB parts on a road bike, but I prefer the retro-touring look on my Riv.

I may try the IRD defiant triple when my Campy rings are shot.  The IRD looks like a prettier alternative to the Sugino that's still relatively inexpensive.

--

[Johan Larsson]

If I were to design a crankset I'd make it with chain ring bolts only from the inside, like old SunTour XCM cranks but with a quite narrow gap between the outer chain ring and crank arm. That way it's easy to run it as a wide double (48/28 for example) with 110/74 or any choice of available chain rings and still having a narrow Q-factor.

It's too bad Grant seems to have given up on striving to keep the Q-factor low. (?) As far as I can tell, you wouldn't lose anything with such a crank, there would only be advantages. If you'd need a wider ring-crank arm gap for some mtb style bike with wide tires and a wide cage front shifter you can add spacers and run it with three rings. Or one. Or four. If you have an old road bike you can keep it lean and narrow and run it as a double with almost an unlimited choice of chain ring combinations and a Q-factor in the 130 mm range, still using standard chain rings. This winter I'm hoping to be able to make such a crank for myself, since I finally have access to a lathe and having collected many old cranks I can modify and take parts from.

Johan Larsson,
Sweden

[Johan Larsson]

Forgot to add a picture of an old XCM crank...

[Goshen Peter]

I thought since some of the Rivendell models have bowed chainstays you could only have so low of a q factor. Or I might be totally wrong too.

--

[ted]

Many factors come into play. At the moment I have a sugino crankset from RBW with 24/33/43 rings on it mounted on my Bombadil with a 107mm cartridge bb. Its close but despite the curves everything clears the chainstay. Mind you a 26 small ring would not clear with that bb, so ...

[Johan Larsson]

On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 2:04:10 AM UTC+2, Peter M wrote:

I thought since some of the Rivendell models have bowed chainstays you could only have so low of a q factor. Or I might be totally wrong too.

The chainstays are of course setting the limit for the crank arms. But with chain rings mounting inwards on the crank you would be able to vary the chainline and Q-factor independently from each other with any chain ring combination. With such a crank as I would like to see you first choose a bottom bracket that gives the chainstay clearance you want on the bike in question (as tight as possible for most), then set the desired/correct chain line using spacers for the chain rings.

Johan Larsson,
Sweden

[Tim Gavin]

Johan-

I rode a super low-Q Stronglight 99 triple on my Riv Road for several months.  It's a very lovely, very narrow crank set.  I got it (from a list member) with standard extractor and pedal threading.

However, these old French cranks have very little distance between the big ring and the crank arm (that's how they have such low Q factor), which makes them difficult to shift properly.  I couldn't use any modern FD with a sculpted outer plate or it would hit the crank arm.  I had decent luck with a vintage Suntour Cyclone double FD, shifted friction with Silver levers.  But with that setup it was still very reluctant to shift from the small cog to the middle without going to the big ring first.  

A triple FD would have a sculpted inner plate to lift the chain better than the double FD, but I couldn't find any triple FDs, vintage or otherwise, that don't also have a scuplted outer plate.

I recently swapped my Riv to drop bars and index shifting (8 speed Campy Ergos) and I couldn't get any FD to work with that Stronglight crank.  I ended up swapping the Campy Racing Triple crank back on, which shifts perfectly with the IRD Alpina FD.  

I'm just pointing out that low-Q cranks with little space between the big ring and the crank arm do have some complications.  Whether those complications become drawbacks depends on your priorities.  :)

With drops and Ergo shifters, my Riv is at least 17% faster.

And 47% of all statistics are fictional.  :)

[Goshen Peter]

But that's only true 75% of the time... :)

--

[ted]

and whats the confidence interval ...

[Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery]

It's difficult to have a narrow Q-factor and still have big tires and good shifting and a wide range of gears. Personally, I like the direction things are going with the wide range 1x10 and 1x11 stuff. Single chainring eliminates all these pesky front derailleur compatibility and functionality issues, and most chain suck issues. Rear derailleurs simply work more reliably than front derailleurs, and 11-42 cassettes with a carefully selected chainring size will get most of us up most of the grades that we ride. For example, for a hypothetical 700 mm wheel diameter, and a 36t chainring, you get a range of 24-90 gear inches. I can sacrifice higher and lower gears to not have front derailleur problems anymore.

[Steve Palincsar]

On 09/24/2014 01:36 PM, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote:
> It's difficult to have a narrow Q-factor and still have big tires and
> good shifting and a wide range of gears.

A friend of mine has a Jeff Lyon L'Avecaise equipped with 650Bx42 Hetres
and a Rene Herse crank. Big tires, good shifting and wide range, and
low Q. It can definitely be done.

[EGNolan]

Jim said difficult, not impossible. I personally like 1x's as well, though I haven't made it over 7 in the rear yet...

 

Best,

Eric

Indpls

[Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery]

I lot of us don't consider 42 mm tires to be especially large.

[Bill Lindsay]

Big tires are in the eye of the beholder.  28mm for some.  75mm for others

Narrow Q is in the eye of the beholder.  130mm for some.  165mm for others

Good shifting is in the eye of the beholder.  Doesn't chain suck for some.  Doesn't make a sound for others

Wide range gearing is in the eye of the beholder.  50-95 inches on a double for some.  18-110 inches on a triple for others

Difficult is in the eye of the beholder.  "Can be done by a top builder" for some.  "Is done by mass producers" for others

[Garth]

    LoL ...   Yes Bill !  
The I of the beholder indeed !

The best bike ever, and the best parts ever .  . . .are Ones I HAVE !   

[Steve Palincsar]

On 09/24/2014 04:19 PM, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote:

I lot of us don't consider 42 mm tires to be especially large.

Once you start getting beyond the demi-ballon size you're right, it becomes very difficult to maintain reasonable Q factors and all the rest.

[Jim Bronson]

This post is addressed to nobody in particular, so don't take it
personal. Instead, it's addressed towards group think that tends to
overtake any skepticism that might naturally occur towards new trends.

In many ways I am adherent to the old-school ways of doing things, but
if there's one area I really regret pursuing it's low-Q. IT'S NOT FOR
EVERYONE AND IT'S NOT A PANACEA.

The hype about narrow Q-factor cost me a lot of cartilage in my knees.

Oh how many nights I laid in bed with throbbing knees. If only I had
not listened. What I really needed to do was go the opposite
direction. I'm glad I finally came to realize that. Otherwise, I
might not be riding at all, because it hurt so much.

Just think about it, next time you are bloviating about Q-factor.

Jim
The hype about narrow Q-factor cost me a lot of cartilage in my knees.

[Garth]

Very Good Jim !

Yes .  . . I bought that theory too  . . .  and it's all preference .  It used to be that every crank was narrow and straight, I can't say that I particularly liked it either .  Even my '83 Stumpy back in the day had a narrow straight Sugino triple .  I like the way the XD's feel now :)      Speaking of design, those stays clearly chowed how a narrow cranks can be in unison with wide tires .  Plus, you could use about any rings and any crank with it .   Brilliant !

Baseball is ninety percent mental and the other half is physical.

Yogi Berra

So is cycling . .  .  . .

On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 5:04:24 PM UTC-4, Jim Bronson wrote:

This post is addressed to nobody in particular, so don't take it
personal.  I

Baseball is ninety percent mental and the other half is physical.

Yogi Berra

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/y/yogi_berra.html#S67Mo4PVRLlR5O8Z.99

[Chris Lampe 2]

I've never measured the Q factor of the cranksets I've ridden but I do know some are more comfortable than others.  As a very broad person with wide hips and shoulders, I suspect those that have felt good tended to be higher Q cranks.  Right now I'm running a modern 9-speed Deore crankset and I find my right foot hanging half-way off the pedal.  Maybe I should figure out the Q factor of that crankset and use that info if I ever purchase another one. 

[Andrew Marchant-Shapiro]

W/r/t Q:

My current crankset, a Sugino PX double on a 118 BB, feels significantly narrower in terms of Q than my last few (last one on the same bike was an Ultegra 6500-series road double on the standard spindle, I forget the size, last other was a Sugino XD triple on a 113).  It's not really (far as I can tell) more comfortable or less uncomfortable...it does make me feel like I may need to very slightly raise my saddle from where it was with the Ultegra, though that may be purely psychological.

[Michael Hechmer]

Sorry to be joining this conversation so late, but for some reason I woke up this morning thinking about cranks and looked this thread up.

I certainly concur with those who write that low Q isn't for everyone, and I'm not sure why anyone would assert that, especially in the land of high end custom bike world.

My Ram has the White VBC with 150 Q; the tandem and Saluki both have the DaVinci crank with 158; and the Trek has the Sugino which RBW list as 161-165.  As far as it goes, I can't tell the difference, unless I really focus on it, but even that may be in my immagination.

I have TA rings on the tandem and they work great, so I'd really like to have a TA crank, but crank, rings, and BB come to $700.  Too rich for my wallet.  I hope RBW does come out with a Silver branded crank.   My vote would be one like the DaVinci.  Made by White, separate spiders, so could be 110 or 94, nice looking in silver or black.  If co-branded, RBW could probably sell enough to get the price well below the current $220, with Silver rings, maybe $275.  Neither cheap nor crazy expensive as cranks go.

The Trek may well get a new crank next Spring.  Another option would be great.

Michael