-
• #52
I also think they're a bit wanky-ugly looking.
They also do not follow the requirements for a new track crank I listed above.
@ DK - Q factor is distance between pedals. Ring placement affects chainline.
-
• #53
I also think they're a bit wanky-ugly looking.
They also do not follow the requirements for a new track crank I listed above.
@ DK - Q factor is distance between pedals. Ring placement affects chainline.
Yeah, I realise that... but would've thought that putting the chainrings on the inside would require a greater distance between cranks to keep chainline... hence an increase in Q-factor and a decrease is what everyone wants (and what was being implied).
-
• #54
If I get them, I can always let Miles do a start on my bike to see how they perform with 110Kg and associated watts on them.
Or Gizmond... He's Hoy-like
-
• #55
I'm not so sure you'd want a narrower Q factor than D.A. unless you are going for the hour record, my knees are brushing the TT as it is.
-
• #56
^fat knees
-
• #57
Or Gizmond... He's Hoy-like
Yes, he's a lot like David Hoy at the moment.
-
• #58
Mounting the chainring on the inside was to help reduce Q-factor. But looking at it now, I'm not sure how it does that.
Eh?
-
• #59
Q factor is much of a muchness to me and my power comes from a wider stance anyway, besides I don't think you could get outboard bearings and a tiny Q on the same crank without having fucked up arm shapes that bent back in.
I'm with Hippy BTW, can't make sense of your post DK.
-
• #60
-
• #61
Mmmm, tasty horses
-
• #62
Did anyone get the reason (apart from the avowed improved contact area) behind trying to invent their very own new axle taper? It seems to defy common sense, notwithstanding the inventiveness of attempting it... history is littered with companies trying to invent proprietary systems, only the big boys can get away with it... well, Shimano basically.
And no wools. But the thing is, it looks pretty much like what modern cranks llok like, only veeeerry shiny instead of matt black with white and red writing on, like most cycle things seem to have.
-
• #63
The Campag Pista is about as narrow as I'd want to go for Q. It's a little too narrow, TBH, if you have a slightly heels-in gait.
So why haven't Sugino gone non-square taper yet, if it's so fucking useless?
-
• #64
Maybe I should have used the word decrease.
Actually, I figured it out. It does work.
Chain ring is part of chain line stuff, so can't really move inwards (necessary to decrease the Q factor).
Chain ring on the inner mount works as the crank arm can then intersect with the space that would've been taken by having the chainring on the outer mount (look at the mounts, it's like putting it on the inside of a double).
So by using the inner mount, Royce can move the crank arm inwards the width of a chainring + a little.
So yeah... they do get a reduced Q factor by using the inner mount.
-
• #65
Yeah, I realise that... but would've thought that putting the chainrings on the inside would require a greater distance between cranks to keep chainline... hence an increase in Q-factor and a decrease is what everyone wants (and what was being implied).
Chainline is 42mm (pretty standard) so with a 68mm BB (pretty standard) you only have 8mm out from BB edge to get centre of chainring, if you put the ring on the outside of the spider it further reduces this to 5mm (3mm for width of chainring)
-
• #66
So why haven't Sugino gone non-square taper yet, if it's so fucking useless?
Sugino needs to stay NJS approved.
-
• #67
The Campag Pista is about as narrow as I'd want to go for Q. It's a little too narrow, TBH, if you have a slightly heels-in gait.
Freak
So why haven't Sugino gone non-square taper yet, if it's so fucking useless?
Cretins (or people with older cranks that still want to use them)
-
• #68
*Did anyone get the reason (apart from the avowed improved contact area) behind trying to invent their very own new axle taper?* It seems to defy common sense, notwithstanding the inventiveness of attempting it... history is littered with companies trying to invent proprietary systems, only the big boys can get away with it... well, Shimano basically.
And no wools. But the thing is, it looks pretty much like what modern cranks llok like, only veeeerry shiny instead of matt black with white and red writing on, like most cycle things seem to have.
The guy said it was used in tanks back in the day made to be strong as an ox
-
• #69
was the triangle so if someone stole it, it would be useless.
anyhoo, bling "fucking" bling £$€
-
• #70
we need cliff in here
has he joined the forum yet ? -
• #71
Did anyone get the reason (apart from the avowed improved contact area) behind trying to invent their very own new axle taper? It seems to defy common sense, notwithstanding the inventiveness of attempting it... history is littered with companies trying to invent proprietary systems, only the big boys can get away with it... well, Shimano basically.
Cliff said "I've wanted to make this taper for 20 odd years, and basically I do what I like most of the time anyway." or words to that effect.
Did anyone get close up pictures of Ti/carbon track hubs? Make those gold Phils look like System Ex ;)
-
• #72
We need Mr. Shimano in here.
Please make a track version of the DA 7900 crank.
-
• #73
It works fine though (square taper). I've used both (and splined), and can't tell any difference - other bits of my bike seem to want to flex first, which isn't necessarily problematic.
If it's cheaper to manufacture/£RRP external BBs, fine, but any chat about 'power-robbing flex' is fucking bullshit. Especially from weaklings like Dov.
-
• #74
If it's cheaper to manufacture/£RRP external BBs, fine, but any chat about 'power-robbing flex' is fucking bullshit. Especially from weaklings like Dov.
Aye, If it was a significant issue then our squad would not be on 75s/DA/SRM.
I have been on DA octalink for about 2 years now and have no complaints, so I have a very good benchmark.
-
• #75
I completely disagree.
If you ride outboard BB'd road cranks and then a set of old square taper ones you can feel the difference instantly.
If you were designing a track bike from the ground up you wouldn't be making it with a square taper crank that's for sure.
Just spoke to Cliff, what a nice chap.
If I get them, I can always let Miles do a start on my bike to see how they perform with 110Kg and associated watts on them.
Although TBH people putting out 2k are on SRMs anyway.