Quickbeam crankset

[Michael Rivers]

I'm interested in changing the stock cranks of my Quickbeam to a
single ring. I don't use the smaller ring for my style of riding,
and a triple crank is too wide. I wonder if others have made this
switch, and what BB length, type and cranks have worked. I will
probably go to a 42t ring as well, and I have a 16/19 freewheel in the
back if that matters. Thanks in advance. Michael

[R Gonet]

Why not just remove the smaller ring and replace the larger one with
the 42T?

[Michael Rivers]

On Jul 11, 5:53 pm, R Gonet <richard.go...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Why not just remove the smaller ring and replace the larger one with
> the 42T?
>

Because it's still a triple crankset with a high Q factor. My other
bike has a Campy double, and I have had some knee pain on the QB which
might be related to the crank.

[cyclofiend]

On Jul 11, 2:53 pm, R Gonet <richard.go...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Why not just remove the smaller ring and replace the larger one with
> the 42T?

Chainline and drivetrain noise would be the issue here.

IME, the outer ring on the Quickbeam setup (which is the "middle" ring
on a triple) is slightly outboard and the smaller Quickbeam ring
slightly inboard "ideal". (And this hasn't been an issue with mine,
ever, in either fixed or free setups). Simply swapping the ring
would move the front chainline out (guesstimeasuring here) maybe 5-8
mm's, depending on the chainring. That would be a bigger change than
I'd be comfortable with on a single chainring/sprocket setup.

Now, you could do that if you removed the inner and middle rings and
installed a shorter bottom bracket. But, the clearance between the
crankset and the chainstay may be too tight to allow this, even with
the inner ring and bolts removed. I have not tried this. It's
relatively close to start with, and you probably only (no measuring
this time) gain 2-4 mm's by dropping the ring and bolts.

The simplest thing (in terms of the gearing) would simply be to remove
the inner ring and replace the 40T middle ring with a 42 x 110 (or the
cool "no cutouts" 44T)
http://www.rivbike.com/products/list/cranks_bottom_brackets#product=12-012

But it sounds like Michael was looking for a narrower tread as well,
which complicates things a bit further. What I'd probably do is pop
the driveside crank and remove the innermost ring. Then I'd reinstall
and carefully measure the clearance distance. It might be as simple
as a bb with a shorter spindle. If he had 5 mm's or so of of
clearance between the frame and the crank, I'd go ahead and see what
kind of chainline he'd get with the ring mounted outside. With those
cranks, you're probably going from 113 (I didn't check this) to 103,
which would make me wary enough to double-measure everything for
clearance rather than cinch everything down and find something is
hitting the frame.

Now....after all that.

I did swap my Hilsen crankset for a Ritchey "Cross" Double setup. It
feels nicely narrower than the XD-2's. (But the original tread/Q never
bugged me).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyclofiend/3069944090/in/photostream/

Hope that's of some help,

- Jim "shellac is drying, now I'm heading back to the bikes...."

[PATRICK MOORE]

You may be able to use just the outer, or for that matter, the middle, ring on the triple alone, and change the bb spindle as needed.

--
Patrick Moore
Albuquerque, NM
Professional Resumes. Contact resumesp...@gmail.com

[Brad]

If, for instance, you wanted to use the Sugino RD, the chainline is
42mm with a 103mm BB. The chainline measurement is the distance from
the cog or chainring to the centerline of the bike. 42mm is standard
for track cranks and hubs, I think. I don't know what the chainline
is on the Quickbeam, but you can measure the rear spacing, divide by
2, and subtract the distance from the center of the two White
Industries cogs and the right track end. Someone on this list
probably knows what the spacing is already.

So...if you did the math and came up with a chainline of 50mm, you
could use the RD with a BB that will give you 7 more mm on the right
side. Harris Cyclery gives the chainline you get with different crank/
BB combinations on their site. Not for all their cranks, but for
some. I've built up a few fixed gear conversions and getting the
chainline right always takes a few measurements, a little math, and
much finger crossing.

Hope that's helpful. Actually, I hope that's correct...

Brad

On Jul 11, 1:45 pm, Michael Rivers <mriver...@gmail.com> wrote:

[fiddlr40]

I like the White Industries ENO crank. Very solid, and IMHO,
attractive. I still use the stock QB crank but I have the White on
several other bikes.

Jim M

[R Gonet]

Jim:

Pardon my density, but if chainline and drivetrain noise are not a
problem with the stock Quickbeam setup, as it comes from Riv, why does
it become a problem if you remove one of the chainrings and only use
the other? You really haven't changed anything but the number of
teeth with the new chainring. What am I missing?

Richard

On Jul 11, 7:30 pm, cyclofiend <cyclofi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Jul 11, 2:53 pm, R Gonet <richard.go...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Why not just remove the smaller ring and replace the larger one with
> > the 42T?
>
> Chainline and drivetrain noise would be the issue here.
>
> IME, the outer ring on the Quickbeam setup (which is the "middle" ring
> on a triple) is slightly outboard and the smaller Quickbeam ring
> slightly inboard "ideal".  (And this hasn't been an issue with mine,
> ever, in either fixed or free setups).   Simply swapping the ring
> would move the front chainline out (guesstimeasuring here) maybe 5-8
> mm's, depending on the chainring.  That would be a bigger change than
> I'd be comfortable with on a single chainring/sprocket setup.
>
> Now, you could do that if you removed the inner and middle rings and
> installed a shorter bottom bracket.  But, the clearance between the
> crankset and the chainstay may be too tight to allow this, even with
> the inner ring and bolts removed. I have not tried this.  It's
> relatively close to start with, and you probably only (no measuring
> this time) gain 2-4 mm's by dropping the ring and bolts.
>
> The simplest thing (in terms of the gearing) would simply be to remove
> the inner ring and replace the 40T middle ring with a 42 x 110 (or the

> cool "no cutouts" 44T)http://www.rivbike.com/products/list/cranks_bottom_brackets#product=1...

>
> But it sounds like Michael was looking for a narrower tread as well,
> which complicates things a bit further. What I'd probably do is pop
> the driveside crank and remove the innermost ring. Then I'd reinstall
> and carefully measure the clearance distance.  It might be as simple
> as a bb with a shorter spindle.  If he had 5 mm's  or so of of
> clearance between the frame and the crank, I'd go ahead and see what
> kind of chainline he'd get with the ring mounted outside. With those
> cranks, you're probably going from 113 (I didn't check this) to 103,
> which would make me wary enough to double-measure everything for
> clearance rather than cinch everything down and find something is
> hitting the frame.
>
> Now....after all that.
>
> I did swap my Hilsen crankset for a Ritchey "Cross" Double setup.  It
> feels nicely narrower than the XD-2's. (But the original tread/Q never

> bugged me).http://www.flickr.com/photos/cyclofiend/3069944090/in/photostream/

[CycloFiend]

on 7/12/09 12:25 PM, R Gonet at richar...@earthlink.net wrote:

> Pardon my density, but if chainline and drivetrain noise are not a
> problem with the stock Quickbeam setup, as it comes from Riv, why does
> it become a problem if you remove one of the chainrings and only use
> the other? You really haven't changed anything but the number of
> teeth with the new chainring. What am I missing?

I believe I misread your post.

I had thought you were suggesting putting the larger ring on the outside
where the chain guard is. Not at all what you wrote.

That's the change in chainline which I referred to.

Sorry about the confusion.

- J

--
Jim Edgar
Cyclo...@earthlink.net

Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries - http://www.cyclofiend.com
Current Classics - Cross Bikes
Singlespeed - Working Bikes

Your Photos are needed! - http://www.cyclofiend.com/guidelines

"Steel's what you want for a messenger bike. Weight. Big basket up front.
Not cardboard with some crazy aramid shit wrapped around it, weighs about as
much as a sandwich."
-- William Gibson, "Virtual Light"

[R Gonet]

You're so right, the crank really is a triple, the chainguard
occupying the outer ring position. I had forgotten that. So getting
back to my thought, wouldn't it work to replace the large ring with
another of a different size?

On Jul 12, 3:39 pm, CycloFiend <cyclofi...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> on 7/12/09 12:25 PM, R Gonet at richard.go...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> > Pardon my density, but if chainline and drivetrain noise are not a
> > problem with the stock Quickbeam setup, as it comes from Riv, why does
> > it become a problem if you remove one of the chainrings and only use
> > the other?  You really haven't changed anything but the number of
> > teeth with the new chainring.  What am I missing?
>
> I believe I misread your post.
>
> I had thought you were suggesting putting the larger ring on the outside
> where the chain guard is. Not at all what you wrote.
>
> That's the change in chainline which I referred to.
>
> Sorry about the confusion.
>
> - J
>
> --
> Jim Edgar

> Cyclofi...@earthlink.net
>
> Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries -http://www.cyclofiend.com

> Current Classics - Cross Bikes
> Singlespeed - Working Bikes
>

> Your Photos are needed! -http://www.cyclofiend.com/guidelines

[CycloFiend]

on 7/12/09 12:44 PM, R Gonet at richar...@earthlink.net wrote:

>
> You're so right, the crank really is a triple, the chainguard
> occupying the outer ring position. I had forgotten that. So getting
> back to my thought, wouldn't it work to replace the large ring with
> another of a different size?

You could definitely change the gearing in that manner without impacting
chainline. Unless you went up to the John Howard LSR range*, it's unlikely
to be an issue.

I think the OP mentioned that he wanted to reduce his tread, which would not
occur with just a chainring swap (unless you start monkeying with the bb at
the same time, as in my earlier post).

- Jim

* photo ref: http://www.teammccallusa.com/images/clip_image005.jpg

--
Jim Edgar
Cyclo...@earthlink.net

Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries - http://www.cyclofiend.com

Current Classics - Cross Bikes
Singlespeed - Working Bikes

Send In Your Photos! - Here's how: http://www.cyclofiend.com/guidelines

"Nigel did some work for some of the other riders at Allied, onces who still
rode metal. He hadn't liked it when Chevette had gone for a paper frame."

[Clayton Scott]

The ENO crank won't work with the Quickbeam's 42mm chainline. You would need a 103 mm bb instead of the 113 the ENO typically uses to achieve it. The spindle of the 103 will be too short and the  crank will bottom out. A track crank such as campy or sugino 75 will be a much better fit.

Clayton

[Dr. Bill]

I had similar issues with my QB. The Q-factor was a bit much with the
stock Sugino XD cranks, and I didn't use the small ring. As it
happened, I had a spare set of Shimano Tiagra double cranks, which I
put on the stock QB 110 mm BB (which is a Shimano as well). I put a
Salsa 42T ring on the inside and a Salsa 45T on the outside, and run
that with a White Industries 17/19T freewheel in the back. Most of my
riding, however, is in the 42/17 combination. Hope this helps.

Dr. Bill

On Jul 11, 1:45 pm, Michael Rivers <mriver...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Frank]

I switched to the TA Pista early on, and believe I installed a 103mm
axel TA bottom bracket at the same time. I run a 17/19 White
Industries freehub on the back and it all works great.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pguillam/2335320807/

On Jul 11, 10:45 am, Michael Rivers <mriver...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Michael Rivers]

Thanks everyone for your answers. I thought I thought I would update
the group as to my final choices.

I needed a 41t ring, so that excluded the pure track cranks with
144bcd, where the smallest ring I found was 46t. The suggestions about
double cranks pointed me towards a JIS double, and the Sugino RD2
seemed to fit the bill. I found a 41t, 130 bcd ring, and attached
this to the existing 110 BB. The chainline was off with the ring on
the outer position, but seems to be great with the ring attached to
the inner position. I will ride this for a while, and see how it
works.

Thanks to everyone again.

Michael