Son-of-Strongarm Chainring Bolt-Circle Size?
binsixx....@usa.net
Factory crankset on a '97 Specialized Rockhopper. Chainsuck is starting.
Anybody know what diameter 22/32/42 chainrings I need for this puppy?
Anybody know why I would want Alu over Stainless (besides weight)?
Thanks...
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
awood
binsixx....@usa.net wrote in article
<881623261....@dejanews.com>...
> Factory crankset on a '97 Specialized Rockhopper. Chainsuck is starting.
> Anybody know what diameter 22/32/42 chainrings I need for this puppy?
Compact... whatever they are... 94mm ? i cant remember... i just know
they are the compact size...
> Anybody know why I would want Alu over Stainless (besides weight)?
Stainless will last a hell of a lot longer.
Adam Toner
binsixx....@usa.net wrote:
> Factory crankset on a '97 Specialized Rockhopper. Chainsuck is starting.
>
> Anybody know what diameter 22/32/42 chainrings I need for this puppy?
>
> Anybody know why I would want Alu over Stainless (besides weight)?
>
> Thanks...
I've got a '97 Rockhopper A1 and the Specialized catalog for '97 with the
specs. If you don't get an answer by 4 pm EST today (Tuesday 12/9), please
e-mail be at gt0...@prism.gatech.edu. The catalog is at home, and I'm using
my work computer at the moment.
Weight is the main reason for Al alloy over steel. Personally, I don't like
the factory chainrings and will probably ditch them for an XTR crankset and
bottom bracket in the spring. The weight loss in your chainrings will impact
more than just the weight of your bike - lighter rings are easier to spin.
--
Adam Toner
a...@comlab.gtri.gatech.edu
Have a day.
Tom Ace
Adam Toner wrote:
> Weight is the main reason for Al alloy over steel. Personally, I
> don't like the factory chainrings and will probably ditch them for
> an XTR crankset and bottom bracket in the spring. The weight loss
> in your chainrings will impact more than just the weight of your
> bike - lighter rings are easier to spin.
"Will impact more than just the weight on your bike"-- do you care
to make a (numerical) guess as to how much more? And do you think
you could ever notice?
Tom Ace
cr...@best.com
Adam Toner
Tom Ace wrote:
Actually, I have already noticed. Going from clunky steel rings to light
Al rings results in a crankset that feels quicker.
Joe Yannie
> Weight is the main reason for Al alloy over steel. Personally, I don't like
> the factory chainrings and will probably ditch them for an XTR crankset and
> bottom bracket in the spring. The weight loss in your chainrings will impact
> more than just the weight of your bike - lighter rings are easier to spin.
>
Yes, weight is one thing but the rotational weight penalty is small
enough be ignored....I have found that switching to a SS small chainring
has really helped eliminate 90% of my chainsuck. Only when it gets
really messy do I get chainsuck. I use an Onza Buzz-Saw inner, works
great, lasts forever. I have a friend who has to file his chainrings
every so often to
remove "burs" which he claims causes chainsuck. May be true may not be,
I have never run into his problem since I switched to SS.
To reply remove .org
P Joseph Yannie II
Steven Rickert
Steel is a good and economical choice for your small chain ring. If you
get a simple one such as Sugino you can double it's life by simply
flipping it over after the teeth wear out in your original installation.
I have also found unramped middle rings of aluminum work well. The
crowned chanring nuts act as ramps to make the upshift smooth.
Pay close attention to spacing between chainrings. You can start a
collection of washers by visiting several of your LHS's
(local hardware stores)
Steven Rickert
snip
> > Anybody know why I would want Alu over Stainless (besides weight)?
>