Stockpiling 110mm/74mm chainrings and cranks

[Rocketman]

I recently realized that I have quite a bit invested in 7- and 8-speed
drivetrains on 7 of my 12 bikes. I have a need for a gearing range that is
not provided by the latest standard crank offerings, so converting to newer
cranks is not a viable option. What I need, and what most everybody needs
IMO, are 110/74mm cranks, since they provide an appropriate range of
chainring sizes for just about every practical use of a bicycle with
standard-sized wheels. The availability of 7-speed 11-34T cassettes makes
the 110/74mm standard even more attractive, as it offers both a much lower
granny gear and a higher top gear than was available in years past. We can
thank the burgeoning low-end bike market for prolonging the existence of the
very sensible 7-speed drivetrains for the foreseeable future, though 8-speed
shifters and cassettes appear to be drying up very quickly. Get those
8-speed components while you can!

Virtually every hybrid and MTB made in the past 8 years or so has either
104/64mm 4-arm cranks, or 94/58mm 5-arm cranks. Road bikes, naturally, have
130/74mm triples or 130mm doubles. All of these bikes could benefit from
110mm cranks, or 110/74 triples, since 99% of them are ridden on the street
in non-racing applications. Gearing on many hybrids are too low, while
gearing on many road bikes are too high. The 110/74 cranks are just right.
The wide chainring size range for 110mm cranks would give optimal selection
of gearing for virtually every practical application. Only true racing
bikes benefit from the larger 130mm and 135mm BCD cranks, and even then it
only saves a few grams. I have a 62T x 110mm chainring, for instance. In
years past, plenty of road bikes came equipped with 110mm cranks. Wouldn't
it be nice to just have one standard, instead of five?

There are many arguments in favor of the 110mm/74mm triple crankset
standard, and few compelling arguments against it. I've decided to swim
upstream and begin stockpiling a supply of chainrings and crankarms to
support this dwindling crank standard for my fleet of bikes. Sources for
110mm cranks and rings are drying up, though perhaps not as quickly as we
might have thought. Everybody thought that 9/10 speed cranks/rings/chains
would dominate and that 7/8-speed stuff would dry up overnight. It hasn't
quite happened that way; but still, now is a good time to stock up. I
wouldn't bet on the 110/74 cranks and rings to be available forever. I
think once the current overstocks are gone, that's probably the last of it
for a while (until we regain our senses).

-Barry

[Mike S.]

"Rocketman" > wrote in message
news:sjxsb.181437$HS4.1507414@attbi_s01...
> I recently realized that I have quite a bit invested in 7- and 8-speed
> drivetrains on 7 of my 12 bikes. I have a need for a gearing range that is
> not provided by the latest standard crank offerings, so converting to
newer
> cranks is not a viable option. What I need, and what most everybody needs
> IMO, are 110/74mm cranks, since they provide an appropriate range of
> chainring sizes for just about every practical use of a bicycle with
> standard-sized wheels. The availability of 7-speed 11-34T cassettes makes
> the 110/74mm standard even more attractive, as it offers both a much lower
> granny gear and a higher top gear than was available in years past. We can
> thank the burgeoning low-end bike market for prolonging the existence of
the
> very sensible 7-speed drivetrains for the foreseeable future, though
8-speed
> shifters and cassettes appear to be drying up very quickly. Get those
> 8-speed components while you can!
>
> Virtually every hybrid and MTB made in the past 8 years or so has either
> 104/64mm 4-arm cranks, or 94/58mm 5-arm cranks. Road bikes, naturally,
have
> 130/74mm triples or 130mm doubles. All of these bikes could benefit from
> 110mm cranks, or 110/74 triples, since 99% of them are ridden on the
street
> in non-racing applications. Gearing on many hybrids are too low, while
> gearing on many road bikes are too high. The 110/74 cranks are just
right.
> The wide chainring size range for 110mm cranks would give optimal
selection
> of gearing for virtually every practical application. Only true racing
> bikes benefit from the larger 130mm and 135mm BCD cranks, and even then it
> only saves a few grams. I have a 62T x 110mm chainring, for instance. In
> years past, plenty of road bikes came equipped with 110mm cranks. Wouldn't
> it be nice to just have one standard, instead of five?
>
> There are many arguments in favor of the 110mm/74mm triple crankset
> standard, and few compelling arguments against it. I've decided to swim
> upstream and begin stockpiling a supply of chainrings and crankarms to
> support this dwindling crank standard for my fleet of bikes. Sources for
> 110mm cranks and rings are drying up, though perhaps not as quickly as we
> might have thought. Everybody thought that 9/10 speed cranks/rings/chains
> would dominate and that 7/8-speed stuff would dry up overnight. It hasn't
> quite happened that way; but still, now is a good time to stock up. I
> wouldn't bet on the 110/74 cranks and rings to be available forever. I
> think once the current overstocks are gone, that's probably the last of it
> for a while (until we regain our senses).
>
> -Barry

Uhhh, Barry, you DO realize that there are a few manufacturers (like FSA aka
Tyler Hamilton's sponsor) that are making brand new 110mm cranksets and
rings, right?

Contrary to (a slightly misinformed) popular opinion, 110 rings aren't going
anywhere.

If you want to stock up, feel free, but you don't need to.

Mike

[David L. Johnson]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:08:40 +0000, Rocketman wrote:

> newer cranks is not a viable option. What I need, and what most everybody
> needs IMO, are 110/74mm cranks,

Well, it seems that 110/74 is on the rise, after Hamilton used on in the
Tour. There is a _lot_ of old and new stock in 110/74 size, so you need
not worry. As to whether or not this is the universal need, I might
quibble. I have found that, for me, 94/56 is somewhat better. I can use
a 12-23 cassette with my 46/30 chainrings and get all the range of a
triple with a double -- OK, except the big gears that I do not use. I can
also hang a teeny granny on and do loaded touring. Works for me better
than 110, since in that size the smallest middle ring is a 34.

since they provide an appropriate range of
> chainring sizes for just about every practical use of a bicycle with
> standard-sized wheels. The availability of 7-speed 11-34T cassettes makes
> the 110/74mm standard even more attractive, as it offers both a much lower
> granny gear and a higher top gear than was available in years past.

No matter what size rings you use, you will have
large duplication with that 11-34. You can do as well with a tighter
cassette if you use smaller middle and granny rings.

> thank the burgeoning low-end bike market for prolonging the existence of
> the very sensible 7-speed drivetrains for the foreseeable future, though
> 8-speed shifters and cassettes appear to be drying up very quickly. Get
> those 8-speed components while you can!

I'm not sure why 7-speed is more sensible than 8, or even 9. Considering
that you cannot still get a better chain with 7-speed, more like the
chains of old that Jobst talks about, there is little advantage. 9-speed
stuff is dirt cheap, and lasts as long as any other. Why not?

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig... You
_`\(,_ | soon find out the pig likes it!
(_)/ (_) |

[A Muzi]

Rocketman wrote:

> I recently realized that I have quite a bit invested in 7- and 8-speed
> drivetrains on 7 of my 12 bikes. I have a need for a gearing range that is
> not provided by the latest standard crank offerings, so converting to newer
> cranks is not a viable option. What I need, and what most everybody needs
> IMO, are 110/74mm cranks, since they provide an appropriate range of
> chainring sizes for just about every practical use of a bicycle with
> standard-sized wheels. The availability of 7-speed 11-34T cassettes makes
> the 110/74mm standard even more attractive, as it offers both a much lower
> granny gear and a higher top gear than was available in years past. We can
> thank the burgeoning low-end bike market for prolonging the existence of the
> very sensible 7-speed drivetrains for the foreseeable future, though 8-speed
> shifters and cassettes appear to be drying up very quickly. Get those
> 8-speed components while you can!
>
> Virtually every hybrid and MTB made in the past 8 years or so has either
> 104/64mm 4-arm cranks, or 94/58mm 5-arm cranks. Road bikes, naturally, have
> 130/74mm triples or 130mm doubles. All of these bikes could benefit from
> 110mm cranks, or 110/74 triples, since 99% of them are ridden on the street
> in non-racing applications. Gearing on many hybrids are too low, while
> gearing on many road bikes are too high. The 110/74 cranks are just right.
> The wide chainring size range for 110mm cranks would give optimal selection
> of gearing for virtually every practical application. Only true racing
> bikes benefit from the larger 130mm and 135mm BCD cranks, and even then it
> only saves a few grams. I have a 62T x 110mm chainring, for instance. In
> years past, plenty of road bikes came equipped with 110mm cranks. Wouldn't
> it be nice to just have one standard, instead of five?
>
> There are many arguments in favor of the 110mm/74mm triple crankset
> standard, and few compelling arguments against it. I've decided to swim
> upstream and begin stockpiling a supply of chainrings and crankarms to
> support this dwindling crank standard for my fleet of bikes. Sources for
> 110mm cranks and rings are drying up, though perhaps not as quickly as we
> might have thought. Everybody thought that 9/10 speed cranks/rings/chains
> would dominate and that 7/8-speed stuff would dry up overnight. It hasn't
> quite happened that way; but still, now is a good time to stock up. I
> wouldn't bet on the 110/74 cranks and rings to be available forever. I
> think once the current overstocks are gone, that's probably the last of it
> for a while (until we regain our senses).



Uh, there are very nice 110/74 in current production.

We've never been without 110/74 cranks since the original
Sugino ATT in , what, 1978? Maybe your local shop doesn't
stock them, but that's hardly a crisis. Sugino is
represented by all the best distributors, who generally keep
useful sized rings as well. If your local guy cared, they
are just a phone call away.*

Sugino will stop making them when people stop buying them.

http://www.yellowjersey.org/cranx.html

(second from the bottom)

* a good part of my business is selling normal, common
cycling equipment that some little shop says "ain't
available". Sheldon's moreso.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Matt O'Toole]

"David L. Johnson" > wrote in message
...

> I'm not sure why 7-speed is more sensible than 8, or even 9.

I wouldn't seek them out specifically, but all else being equal (including
price), I wouldn't forsake a 7sp bike in favor of a newer one. 7sp gear was
more sensible in many ways.

First, 7sp wheels are stronger, because of less dish. Second, while it isn't as
silky-smooth, 7sp gear shifted more solidly and reliably -- probably because of
stronger derailer springs, and more cable pull.

> Considering
> that you cannot still get a better chain with 7-speed, more like the
> chains of old that Jobst talks about, there is little advantage.

I don't know what you mean by "better," unless you have a chrome fetish. Here's
a perfectly good 7sp chain:

http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?category=76&subcategory=1099&brand=&sku=8101&storetype=&estoreid=

(please pardon the long URL)

> 9-speed
> stuff is dirt cheap,

7sp stuff is dirt cheaper. You can get old cassettes and chainrings on sale for
<$15. And the chainrings work -- they're not as fussy about lateral spacing,
etc. Some modern stuff, like my 8sp LX, won't work without the *exact*
replacement -- brand, model, and year.

But most of all, 7sp *bikes* are cheap.

> and lasts as long as any other.

I disagree with that too. 7sp cogs were thicker. Without the shaped and
shortened teeth, chainrings lasted longer.

Matt O.

[Matt O'Toole]

"A Muzi" > wrote in message
...

> Uh, there are very nice 110/74 in current production.
>
> We've never been without 110/74 cranks since the original
> Sugino ATT in , what, 1978? Maybe your local shop doesn't
> stock them, but that's hardly a crisis. Sugino is
> represented by all the best distributors, who generally keep
> useful sized rings as well. If your local guy cared, they
> are just a phone call away.*
>
> Sugino will stop making them when people stop buying them.
>
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/cranx.html
>
> (second from the bottom)

That's a pretty darned good deal -- cheaper than 3 new chainrings (or even 2
chainrings) for a Shimano crank. I think I'll just get one of those next time.
Nice looking crank, too.

Can you order those with different chainrings for that price, or does it get a
lot more expensive if you go non-standard?

Matt O.

[Eric S. Sande]

>I don't know what you mean by "better," unless you have a chrome
>fetish. Here's a perfectly good 7sp chain:

Almost anything SRAM/Sachs/Sedis makes or made will work with 7-speed,
and will be a far more pleasant user experience, IMHO.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------

[A Muzi]

(OP)-snip the world is ending, not enough 110/74 cranks-
> "A Muzi" > wrote in message
> ...
>>Uh, there are very nice 110/74 in current production.
-snip-
>>http://www.yellowjersey.org/cranx.html
-snip


Matt O'Toole wrote:
> That's a pretty darned good deal -- cheaper than 3 new chainrings (or even 2
> chainrings) for a Shimano crank. I think I'll just get one of those next time.
> Nice looking crank, too.
>
> Can you order those with different chainrings for that price, or does it get a
> lot more expensive if you go non-standard?


As you might imagine, we have _lots_ of extra rings from
these so we do not really need any more 26, 36 or 48 rings.
Some, but not full, credit.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[gwhite]

Rocketman wrote:
>
> There are many arguments in favor of the 110mm/74mm triple crankset
> standard, and few compelling arguments against it.

I am not aware of *any* compelling arguments against it.

> I've decided to swim
> upstream and begin stockpiling a supply of chainrings and crankarms to
> support this dwindling crank standard for my fleet of bikes.

Guess what happens when you and others do this? That is right -- it sends a
message to the supply side of the market to _keep making them_. Good for you.
You bought the right stuff.

> Sources for 110mm cranks and rings are
> drying up, though perhaps not as quickly as we
> might have thought.

The marketplace for them may have contracted and squeezed out all but a few
vendors. But that is okay as long as there is enough business for the few that
remain to continue manufacturing them. I don't see the supply going away
completely. Anyone that knows anything about bikes knows that the 110 is the
sweet spot given current wheel dimensions and average rider strength, and there
is a huge installed base of 110's. If anything, I think it may cycle back, and
apparently it *is*.

[gwhite]

Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
> "David L. Johnson" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > I'm not sure why 7-speed is more sensible than 8, or even 9.
>
> I wouldn't seek them out specifically, but all else being equal (including
> price), I wouldn't forsake a 7sp bike in favor of a newer one. 7sp gear was
> more sensible in many ways.
>
> First, 7sp wheels are stronger, because of less dish. Second, while it isn't as
> silky-smooth, 7sp gear shifted more solidly and reliably -- probably because of
> stronger derailer springs, and more cable pull.
>
> > Considering
> > that you cannot still get a better chain with 7-speed, more like the
> > chains of old that Jobst talks about, there is little advantage.
>
> I don't know what you mean by "better," unless you have a chrome fetish.


He's talking about sleeved bushing chains rather than the current sleeveless.

> Here's
> a perfectly good 7sp chain:
>
> http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?category=76&subcategory=1099&brand=&sku=8101&storetype=&estoreid=

Well yeah, it is fine -- I always buy the cheapest chains. But I think cheapo
sleeveless needs to get down in the $5-$6 range when it comes to lifetime
comparison cost with sleeved (of course it is hard to compare _current_ prices
since sleeved does not exist anymore).

> > 9-speed
> > stuff is dirt cheap,
>
> 7sp stuff is dirt cheaper. You can get old cassettes and chainrings on sale for
> <$15. And the chainrings work -- they're not as fussy about lateral spacing,
> etc. Some modern stuff, like my 8sp LX, won't work without the *exact*
> replacement -- brand, model, and year.

My 8 & 9 stuff is not at all fussy. I have a 53x33 crank with a 9sp -- it works
pretty good.

> But most of all, 7sp *bikes* are cheap.

Reason enough.

> > and lasts as long as any other.
>
> I disagree with that too. 7sp cogs were thicker.

Not to my knowledge. 7sp & 8sp are both 1.8 mm, and the 8sp has one more cog to
share that wear. If you pop a 16 into the 12-21 7sp to make an 8sp, that extra
cog will definitely share the wear since it is in the fat of the range. The 9sp
cogs are 1.78 mm, not enough to really care about. And there are _two_ more
cogs to share the wear. Uniglide was really the long wear cog. It was the same
1.8mm, but it could be reversed.

> Without the shaped and
> shortened teeth, chainrings lasted longer.
>
> Matt O.

[Rocketman]

"gwhite" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Rocketman wrote:
> >
> > There are many arguments in favor of the 110mm/74mm triple crankset
> > standard, and few compelling arguments against it.
>
> I am not aware of *any* compelling arguments against it.

Well, there must be *some* arguments against it, or we wouldn't have had 3
different replacement standards that - taken together - have completely
eclipsed 110/74 for the past 8 years or so. Here are my versions of what I
believe to be arguments against 110/74mm, and in favor of Suntour MicroDrive
and the 94/58mm and 104/64mm 4-arm cranks:

- 20T granny ring, instead of 24T
- Smaller outer chainring gives better clearance over obstacles
- Smaller chainrings and shorter spiders weigh less
- 22-32-42T cranks give optimal gear inches for mountain biking
- With more competing standards, manufacturers sell more chainrings (since
stores have to stock more sizes)

That's about all I can see as possible advantages (not that I believe them
to be compelling arguments). When you consider that perhaps 90% of cycling
is conducted on roads and hard-packed or paved trails, it seems ridiculous
that the 110/74 standard was abandoned for use on hybrids and city-bred
ATB/MTB's (read: most mountain bikes). Of course, another argument is that
most bikes never get ridden, so the owners will never need to replace
chainrings. ;-)

> > I've decided to swim
> > upstream and begin stockpiling a supply of chainrings and crankarms to
> > support this dwindling crank standard for my fleet of bikes.
>
> Guess what happens when you and others do this? That is right -- it sends
a
> message to the supply side of the market to _keep making them_. Good for
you.
> You bought the right stuff.

Thank you. I'm glad somebody else understands.

> > Sources for 110mm cranks and rings are
> > drying up, though perhaps not as quickly as we
> > might have thought.
>
> The marketplace for them may have contracted and squeezed out all but a
few
> vendors. But that is okay as long as there is enough business for the few
that
> remain to continue manufacturing them. I don't see the supply going away
> completely. Anyone that knows anything about bikes knows that the 110 is
the
> sweet spot given current wheel dimensions and average rider strength,

I couldn't agree more. I am stockpiling to keep a supply, and to take
advantage of the *cheap* prices that can be had on closeout 110/74 7/8-speed
chainrings. Nobody wants 'em, I guess. Their loss, my gain.

> and there
> is a huge installed base of 110's. If anything, I think it may cycle
back, and
> apparently it *is*.

Wow, I'm very glad to hear that. I really think 110/74 is the way to go for
the vast majority of cyclists (including all touring, audax, commuting,
cyclocrossers, most ATB/MTB and all 700c hybrid riders).

My 110/74mm crank collection includes a mint-condition set of RaceFace
110/74mm Turbine LP's with 9-sp Syncros chainrings that I put together for
less than 1/4 of retail, and a wonderful old set of cold-forged
first-generation Shimano XTR M900 8-speed 110/74mm cranks with like-new
chainrings that are some of the best cranks ever made, IMO. Then there are
a few sets of good old Sakae 110/74 cranks that I've pulled off of dumpster
bikes and added to the parts box as spares for future projects. My recent
haul of Suntour Accushift black-anodized aluminum chainrings, added to my
existing backstock, will keep me in 110/74 mode for the foreseeable future
regardless of marketing trends.

-=Barry=-

[Bruni]

Besides FSA, Ritchey is returning to 110 bc. Adventure components makes
great spiders for Shimano spline as well as cranks. Blackspire makes the
cranks and has afull line of rings. The list is quite long. Don't forget BMX
"euro style" is 110 and offers crank lengths from 135-180......
Tom 110 forever Bruni

--
Bruni Bicycles
"Where art meets science"
brunibicycles.com
410.426.3420
gwhite > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Rocketman wrote:
> >
> > There are many arguments in favor of the 110mm/74mm triple crankset
> > standard, and few compelling arguments against it.
>
> I am not aware of *any* compelling arguments against it.
>
> > I've decided to swim
> > upstream and begin stockpiling a supply of chainrings and crankarms to
> > support this dwindling crank standard for my fleet of bikes.
>
> Guess what happens when you and others do this? That is right -- it sends
a
> message to the supply side of the market to _keep making them_. Good for
you.
> You bought the right stuff.
>
> > Sources for 110mm cranks and rings are
> > drying up, though perhaps not as quickly as we
> > might have thought.
>
> The marketplace for them may have contracted and squeezed out all but a
few
> vendors. But that is okay as long as there is enough business for the few
that
> remain to continue manufacturing them. I don't see the supply going away
> completely. Anyone that knows anything about bikes knows that the 110 is
the
> sweet spot given current wheel dimensions and average rider strength, and
there
> is a huge installed base of 110's. If anything, I think it may cycle
back, and
> apparently it *is*.

[Matt O'Toole]

"Rocketman" > wrote in message
news:eGNsb.191482$Tr4.542552@attbi_s03...

> "gwhite" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Rocketman wrote:
> > >
> > > There are many arguments in favor of the 110mm/74mm triple crankset
> > > standard, and few compelling arguments against it.
> >
> > I am not aware of *any* compelling arguments against it.
>
> Well, there must be *some* arguments against it, or we wouldn't have had 3
> different replacement standards that - taken together - have completely
> eclipsed 110/74 for the past 8 years or so. Here are my versions of what I
> believe to be arguments against 110/74mm, and in favor of Suntour MicroDrive
> and the 94/58mm and 104/64mm 4-arm cranks:
>
> - 20T granny ring, instead of 24T

Can you say "chainsuck"? On group rides back in the early 90s, I used to pass
Suntour riders at the bottom of every steep pitch, as they sucked their chain
when dropping into the small ring.

> - Smaller outer chainring gives better clearance over obstacles

In practice, this isn't an issue -- the size of the chainring is hardly the
deciding factor in clearing obstacles. People who ride over logs and rocks a
lot use chainring guards anyway.

> - Smaller chainrings and shorter spiders weigh less

Actually the real weight savings is in the smaller rear cog sizes. This was
probably the big selling point of Microdrive -- the whole group was half a pound
lighter than Shimano, with much of that difference from the cassette.

> - 22-32-42T cranks give optimal gear inches for mountain biking

I'd say the XTR combo of 24-34-46 is better, and more versatile.

> - With more competing standards, manufacturers sell more chainrings (since
> stores have to stock more sizes)

In case you haven't noticed, no one stocks *any* chainrings anymore. The trend
now is to simply replace entire cranks when the chainrings wear out. You can
get a whole new crank for less than the price of 3 chainrings -- like that crank
that A. Muzi just posted.

> That's about all I can see as possible advantages (not that I believe them
> to be compelling arguments). When you consider that perhaps 90% of cycling
> is conducted on roads and hard-packed or paved trails, it seems ridiculous
> that the 110/74 standard was abandoned for use on hybrids and city-bred
> ATB/MTB's (read: most mountain bikes). Of course, another argument is that
> most bikes never get ridden, so the owners will never need to replace
> chainrings. ;-)

Bullseye on both points!

A 48/12, which is the same as the traditional 53/13, is a big enough gear for
most road riders.

> I really think 110/74 is the way to go for
> the vast majority of cyclists (including all touring, audax, commuting,
> cyclocrossers, most ATB/MTB and all 700c hybrid riders).

Me too.

That said, I have a MTB with 22-32-42, and a road bike with 30-42-52. That's
what they came with, so that's what I use. However, I think I'll switch the MTB
to 110/74 when the chainrings wear out next time.

Matt O.

[gwhite]

Matt O'Toole wrote:
>

> > - Smaller chainrings and shorter spiders weigh less
>
> Actually the real weight savings is in the smaller rear cog sizes. This was
> probably the big selling point of Microdrive -- the whole group was half a pound
> lighter than Shimano, with much of that difference from the cassette.

Microdrive pays for the lighter weight with increased drivetrain wear on at
least two counts:

1. Higher chain tension (a 42x11 has 8.3% higher tension than a 46x12)
2. Less teeth and links to wear out (same work distributed upon less teeth)

I don't think it is worth it.

[Matt O'Toole]

"gwhite" > wrote in message
...

> Microdrive pays for the lighter weight with increased drivetrain wear on at
> least two counts:
>
> 1. Higher chain tension (a 42x11 has 8.3% higher tension than a 46x12)
> 2. Less teeth and links to wear out (same work distributed upon less teeth)
>
> I don't think it is worth it.

I don't either.

There's more friction, too, but I don't know how much it really matters.

Matt O.

[Mike S.]

> > > Rocketman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There are many arguments in favor of the 110mm/74mm triple crankset
> > > > standard, and few compelling arguments against it.
> > >
> > > I am not aware of *any* compelling arguments against it.
> >
> > Well, there must be *some* arguments against it, or we wouldn't have had
3
> > different replacement standards that - taken together - have completely
> > eclipsed 110/74 for the past 8 years or so. Here are my versions of
what I
> > believe to be arguments against 110/74mm, and in favor of Suntour
MicroDrive
> > and the 94/58mm and 104/64mm 4-arm cranks:
> >
> > - 20T granny ring, instead of 24T
>
> Can you say "chainsuck"? On group rides back in the early 90s, I used to
pass
> Suntour riders at the bottom of every steep pitch, as they sucked their
chain
> when dropping into the small ring.
>
> > - Smaller outer chainring gives better clearance over obstacles
>
> In practice, this isn't an issue -- the size of the chainring is hardly
the
> deciding factor in clearing obstacles. People who ride over logs and
rocks a
> lot use chainring guards anyway.
>
You wanna guess again?

> > - Smaller chainrings and shorter spiders weigh less
>
> Actually the real weight savings is in the smaller rear cog sizes. This
was
> probably the big selling point of Microdrive -- the whole group was half a
pound
> lighter than Shimano, with much of that difference from the cassette.
>
> > - 22-32-42T cranks give optimal gear inches for mountain biking
>
> I'd say the XTR combo of 24-34-46 is better, and more versatile.
>
> > - With more competing standards, manufacturers sell more chainrings
(since
> > stores have to stock more sizes)
>
> In case you haven't noticed, no one stocks *any* chainrings anymore. The
trend
> now is to simply replace entire cranks when the chainrings wear out. You
can
> get a whole new crank for less than the price of 3 chainrings -- like that
crank
> that A. Muzi just posted.
>
> > That's about all I can see as possible advantages (not that I believe
them
> > to be compelling arguments). When you consider that perhaps 90% of
cycling
> > is conducted on roads and hard-packed or paved trails, it seems
ridiculous
> > that the 110/74 standard was abandoned for use on hybrids and city-bred
> > ATB/MTB's (read: most mountain bikes). Of course, another argument is
that
> > most bikes never get ridden, so the owners will never need to replace
> > chainrings. ;-)
>
> Bullseye on both points!
>
> A 48/12, which is the same as the traditional 53/13, is a big enough gear
for
> most road riders.
>
> > I really think 110/74 is the way to go for
> > the vast majority of cyclists (including all touring, audax, commuting,
> > cyclocrossers, most ATB/MTB and all 700c hybrid riders).
>
> Me too.
>
> That said, I have a MTB with 22-32-42, and a road bike with 30-42-52.
That's
> what they came with, so that's what I use. However, I think I'll switch
the MTB
> to 110/74 when the chainrings wear out next time.
>
> Matt O.
>
>