On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 7:53 AM, Steve Palincsar <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-09-21 at 07:25 -0600, PATRICK MOORE wrote: > > > Why would chainline and Q be affected? > > You need that long spindle in order to get the arms far enough out to > not hit the chainstays. That increases tread. Since the TA Pro V Bis > arms do not splay out as do the cranks for which the Atlantis was > designbed, the long spindle moves chain rings far out which then affects > chain line. > Well, perhaps on the Atlantis, but not on my Axis Team that had stays so wide that they took 60 mm tires plus fenders plus mud. And the Q was no greater than the standard mtb triples I've used. > > > > The only downside I see is the need for a hard to get spindle, but, > > get that spindle and the rings ought to be where they need to be, > > If they are where they need to be with a normal length spindle, how > could increasing the spindle length not move the rings farther outboard > than they need to be? > But they are *not* where they ought to be with the short spindle, at least on my Axis Team (very early '90s steel mtb). They were where they ought to be with the 145 spindle. > > > and the Q ought to be fine since Q is determined far more by arm > > angle than by spindle length. > > In this case, Q factor is dsetermined by the need to not hit the > splayed-out Atlantis chain stays. > Yes, and it was only 160 mm with probably 1 cm overall more clearance than needed, this again on the A Team. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
