Re: [RBW] Re: Low q, low range 2x cranks

['John Hawrylak' via RBW Owners Bunch]

 Adam
You might want to verify with VO about the actual Q of their 50.4 crank.  They 
list a 144mm Q with a 118mm BB.  I exchanged emails with one member on the iBob 
list using the VO 50.4 crank and measured a 141.5mm Q with a 110mm BB.   This 
would indicated the Q stated by VO for their 50.4mm crank is lower than actual 
5mm  141.5 + (118-110) = 149.5 vs a VO claim of 144.   A 149.5mm Double is not 
quite low Q.
John HawrylakWoodstown NJ
On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 03:15:52 PM EST, Adam 
 wrote:  
 
 Thanks for all the help everyone!
I definitely appreciate the V.O. cranks more now that I've seen the 
alternatives. I am still mulling it all over, but it seems like buying those 
and swapping the rings may be the thing for me.
FWIW, I've come to prefer more compact cassettes for the FLAT riding around 
Chicago. I replaced a 11-32 with a 12-27 and much prefer the new setup, mostly 
because wind is so constant. Realistically, I'll never use the smaller 
chainring here, but want it for potential travel.
Thanks!
Adam

On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 11:58:45 AM UTC-6 John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ 
wrote:

On 10 Jan Adam asked:   " I'm thinking about moving away from a triple to a 
double in order to get a lower Q." 
One option is a 1980's Sugino AT (110/74mm BCD) set for a double, say 46-33, 
sicne 33T is the smallest 110mm BCD ring out there,  e.g. TA Zephyr on Peter 
White's site.  The AT was designed as a low Q triple.*  I have achieved 152mm Q 
with a Tange 127 cartridge BB and 2mm drive side spacer for a total asymmetry 
of 6mm, very close to the D-3U Sugino recommended.  The Outer ring FCL is 45mm 
and the Inner ring FCL is 37mm with a 43.5mm RCL.*  Others on the I-Bob list 
have stated 147mm Q. 
The AT Inner 74mm BCD ring uses very very low posts cast in the spider & 5mm 
spacers instead of higher cast posts using no spacer.  The Middle 110mm DCB 
ring protrudes further inward than the 74mm holes.  Therefore, removing the 
74mm Inner ring and spacers creates a double with the Inner ring chainbolt head 
being the limiting clearance to the chainstay.
The double has a Q of about 145mm with a 46-36.    The only problem with a 
110mm double is the smallest 110BCD ring in 33T.   However, with a 12-36 9 
speed cassette, a 46-33 is 1 gear higher than a 46-30 for a No Load low gear 
(24.1gi vs 20.4gi with 584x38).  
EBay seems to have a decent supply of AT's, I bought 2 a year ago, a 1980 and 
1984 one.
So unless you need the very lowest No Load low, a Sugino AT as a double may 
work. 
John HawrylakWoodstown NJ

On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 11:15:06 AM UTC-5 Adam wrote:

Hi all,
Adjacent to the triples thread, I'm thinking about moving away from a triple to 
a double in order to get a lower Q.
What are options for double cranksets that are around 40/26 or so? I think that 
would be doable with the Rene Herse cranks, but too much $$$ for me. Are there 
any cheaper options that will do that and give me a q in the 140s?
Second, drivetrain stuff is a little new to me. What determines how small a q 
factor a specific bike can have? I'm assuming chainstays play a role here? This 
hypothetical project is for a Hillborne, so I'd be curious what folks have used 
to get low q on their Hillbornes. I'm assuming I may have to change the BB as 
well.
Thanks!
Adam



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google 
Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/wS0-NPvWx9U/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/50a96ccc-ca44-4918-8293-ef41abe01fecn%40googlegroups.com.
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/1466570941.1545448.1705267387051%40mail.yahoo.com.

[RBW] Re: Low q, low range 2x cranks

[Adam]

Thanks for all the help everyone!

I definitely appreciate the V.O. cranks more now that I've seen the 
alternatives. I am still mulling it all over, but it seems like buying 
those and swapping the rings may be the thing for me.

FWIW, I've come to prefer more compact cassettes for the FLAT riding around 
Chicago. I replaced a 11-32 with a 12-27 and much prefer the new setup, 
mostly because wind is so constant. Realistically, I'll never use the 
smaller chainring here, but want it for potential travel.

Thanks!

Adam

On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 11:58:45 AM UTC-6 John Hawrylak, Woodstown 
NJ wrote:

> On 10 Jan Adam asked:   "  I'm thinking about moving away from a triple to 
> a double in order to get a lower Q." 
>
> One option is a 1980's Sugino AT (110/74mm BCD) set for a double, say 
> 46-33, sicne 33T is the smallest 110mm BCD ring out there,  e.g. TA Zephyr 
> on Peter White's site.  The AT was designed as a low Q triple.
> *  I have achieved 152mm Q with a Tange 127 cartridge BB and 2mm drive 
> side spacer for a total asymmetry of 6mm, very close to the D-3U Sugino 
> recommended.  The Outer ring FCL is 45mm and the Inner ring FCL is 37mm 
> with a 43.5mm RCL.
> *  Others on the I-Bob list have stated 147mm Q. 
>
> The AT Inner 74mm BCD ring uses very very low posts cast in the spider & 
> 5mm spacers instead of higher cast posts using no spacer.  The Middle 110mm 
> DCB ring protrudes further inward than the 74mm holes.  Therefore, removing 
> the 74mm Inner ring and spacers creates a double with the Inner ring 
> chainbolt head being the limiting clearance to the chainstay.
>
> The double has a Q of about 145mm with a 46-36.The only problem with a 
> 110mm double is the smallest 110BCD ring in 33T.   However, with a 12-36 9 
> speed cassette, a 46-33 is 1 gear higher than a 46-30 for a No Load low 
> gear (24.1gi vs 20.4gi with 584x38).  
>
> EBay seems to have a decent supply of AT's, I bought 2 a year ago, a 1980 
> and 1984 one.
>
> So unless you need the very lowest No Load low, a Sugino AT as a double 
> may work. 
>
> John Hawrylak
> Woodstown NJ
>
> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 11:15:06 AM UTC-5 Adam wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Adjacent to the triples thread, I'm thinking about moving away from a 
>> triple to a double in order to get a lower Q.
>>
>> What are options for double cranksets that are around 40/26 or so? I 
>> think that would be doable with the Rene Herse cranks, but too much $$$ for 
>> me. Are there any cheaper options that will do that and give me a q in the 
>> 140s?
>>
>> Second, drivetrain stuff is a little new to me. What determines how small 
>> a q factor a specific bike can have? I'm assuming chainstays play a role 
>> here? This hypothetical project is for a Hillborne, so I'd be curious what 
>> folks have used to get low q on their Hillbornes. I'm assuming I may have 
>> to change the BB as well.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Adam
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/50a96ccc-ca44-4918-8293-ef41abe01fecn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Low q, low range 2x cranks

['John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ' via RBW Owners Bunch]

On 10 Jan Adam asked:   "  I'm thinking about moving away from a triple to 
a double in order to get a lower Q." 

One option is a 1980's Sugino AT (110/74mm BCD) set for a double, say 
46-33, sicne 33T is the smallest 110mm BCD ring out there,  e.g. TA Zephyr 
on Peter White's site.  The AT was designed as a low Q triple.
*  I have achieved 152mm Q with a Tange 127 cartridge BB and 2mm drive side 
spacer for a total asymmetry of 6mm, very close to the D-3U Sugino 
recommended.  The Outer ring FCL is 45mm and the Inner ring FCL is 37mm 
with a 43.5mm RCL.
*  Others on the I-Bob list have stated 147mm Q. 

The AT Inner 74mm BCD ring uses very very low posts cast in the spider & 
5mm spacers instead of higher cast posts using no spacer.  The Middle 110mm 
DCB ring protrudes further inward than the 74mm holes.  Therefore, removing 
the 74mm Inner ring and spacers creates a double with the Inner ring 
chainbolt head being the limiting clearance to the chainstay.

The double has a Q of about 145mm with a 46-36.The only problem with a 
110mm double is the smallest 110BCD ring in 33T.   However, with a 12-36 9 
speed cassette, a 46-33 is 1 gear higher than a 46-30 for a No Load low 
gear (24.1gi vs 20.4gi with 584x38).  

EBay seems to have a decent supply of AT's, I bought 2 a year ago, a 1980 
and 1984 one.

So unless you need the very lowest No Load low, a Sugino AT as a double may 
work. 

John Hawrylak
Woodstown NJ

On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 11:15:06 AM UTC-5 Adam wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Adjacent to the triples thread, I'm thinking about moving away from a 
> triple to a double in order to get a lower Q.
>
> What are options for double cranksets that are around 40/26 or so? I think 
> that would be doable with the Rene Herse cranks, but too much $$$ for me. 
> Are there any cheaper options that will do that and give me a q in the 140s?
>
> Second, drivetrain stuff is a little new to me. What determines how small 
> a q factor a specific bike can have? I'm assuming chainstays play a role 
> here? This hypothetical project is for a Hillborne, so I'd be curious what 
> folks have used to get low q on their Hillbornes. I'm assuming I may have 
> to change the BB as well.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Adam
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/74f36654-c145-4f29-bc31-e92e64241ffbn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Low q, low range 2x cranks

['John Hawrylak, Woodstown NJ' via RBW Owners Bunch]

VO has a 50.4mm BCD crank in 46-30, but you can use TA rings to get what 
you want.   Their spec is a 144mm Q on a 116mm symmetric BB with a 43.5 FCL 
(per email from VO).   However, John Thruston in AK told me he achieved a 
141.5mm Q with a 110mm BB, indicating the VO spec is 3.5mm optimistic (the 
crank should have a 138mm Q with a 110mm BB).  The VO is $200, but they 
have 20% sales so you can get it at $160. 

Sun XCD is 50.4 with a Q spec of 145mm with a 113mm BB & 43.5mm FCL and can 
be had with TA rings from Jitensha Studios for about $290.   This is about 
the same $ as the VO sale after buying TA rings in other than 46-30.   I 
thought the SunXCD was the better deal and the optimum cost/benefit for a 
low Q double with low gearing.  The SunXCD specs are from a SunXCD drawing 
shown on Santucci Cycles site after selecting the crank in their Shop.

As Bill L stated, your Sam is a 135mm OLD, so a 43.5mm FCL puts the Outer 
ring closer to the middle cog, so the Inner ring should not use the 
smallest cogs.  This should not be a problem if you watch your shifting.

John Hawrylak
Woodstown NJ

On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 11:15:06 AM UTC-5 Adam wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Adjacent to the triples thread, I'm thinking about moving away from a 
> triple to a double in order to get a lower Q.
>
> What are options for double cranksets that are around 40/26 or so? I think 
> that would be doable with the Rene Herse cranks, but too much $$$ for me. 
> Are there any cheaper options that will do that and give me a q in the 140s?
>
> Second, drivetrain stuff is a little new to me. What determines how small 
> a q factor a specific bike can have? I'm assuming chainstays play a role 
> here? This hypothetical project is for a Hillborne, so I'd be curious what 
> folks have used to get low q on their Hillbornes. I'm assuming I may have 
> to change the BB as well.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Adam
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/ef7d9ba4-4714-4614-b2f9-75789c103fc5n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Low q, low range 2x cranks

[RichS]

This has been a good refresher course on q factor. It has also been fun 
"window shopping" so many nice looking crank arm and chain ring setups.
Thanks everyone!

Best,
Rich in ATL

On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 9:40:03 PM UTC-5 Nick Payne wrote:

> Middleburn (now BETD) also make what they call an Incy spider, which uses 
> 110BCD for the outer ring and 58BCD for the inner, so you can get down to 
> 20t on the inner ring. But it's not all that low Q at 153mm with 44mm 
> chainline. They used to make the spiders for both their RO1 and RO2 cranks, 
> but now they only have them for the RO2 cranks.
>
> Here's one I have on an RO2 crankset with 38/22 chainrings fitted.
> [image: PXL_20230301_013312155.jpg]
> [image: PXL_20230301_013324004.jpg]
>
> Nick Payne
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/1a066cac-0ab5-4cc4-b1c8-816b4a789f78n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Low q, low range 2x cranks

[Bill Schairer]

So, for example, the old TA Cyclotouriste cranksets, which are known for 
having a low Q, were designed when the rear ends were maybe 120 or 126 for 
use on frames that could maybe take 32mm  or so tires.  The stays didn't 
flare out from the bottom brackets as much as a lot of modern bikes built 
for 135mm rears and accepting wider and wider tires.  Compromises, 
compromises, you may find that a Hillborne just can't accept a Q of 150 
either because of chainring clearance or crank arm clearance.  I don't 
know. How much clearance do you currently have on your Hillborne between 
the end of the crank arms and the stays?  How much clearance between the 
chainrings and the chain stay?  You can go out and buy a narrow Q crank and 
find that you have to mount it to a longer spindle than it was designed for 
in order to get the necessary clearance or desired chainline putting you 
right back where you are now?

I don't know if pedal spindle lengths are standard but maybe there is a 
pedal out there or replacement spindles out there whereby one can bring the 
pedals inboard a few mm?  For my wife I had to buy pedal extenders to move 
her pedals out because she was clipping her ankle bones on the crank arms.

Bill S
San Diego

On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 1:17:17 PM UTC-8 Adam wrote:

> I tapped the right place for info!
>
> The nerd crank database is EXACTLY what I was looking for. And Bill, 
> Justus, thanks for clarifying the chainline stuff. I think I get it, though 
> I'm not sure if I understand what BB will get a specific chainline, I'll 
> ask that question once I get farther along figuring this out.
>
> I do intend to run it as a 1X + granny. Realistically, where I live, the 
> chances of using the granny are non-existent, but I love climbing and on 
> the rare occasions I travel to bike, want the option.
>
> As far as WHY I'm interested in changing, I have an IRD defiant 46/30 on 
> another bike and I'm finding that I MUCH prefer that feel to the wider 
> stance on the Hillborne. I don't know for sure the exact measurements, but 
> I think the IRD is around 150 and the current triple I have on the 
> Hillborne is 160+
>
> thanks for the info. I'm going to poke around that database later.
>
> Adam
>
> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 1:13:19 PM UTC-6 Bill Schairer wrote:
>
>> "That's like asking why someone wants a longer/shorter stem..."
>>
>> Which could be a perfectly valid question to someone who has stated he 
>> has limited knowledge of such things.  The reason for the goal may 
>> determine the method of achieving it.  If the person I actually asked the 
>> question of takes offense, I apologize.
>>
>> Bill S
>> San Diego
>> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 10:09:37 AM UTC-8 Josiah Anderson wrote:
>>
>>> Uhh... because lower Q works better for some people? That's like asking 
>>> why someone wants a longer/shorter stem...
>>>
>>> Adam, with the VO cranks (if we're thinking of the same ones) if you can 
>>> get a set of arms without rings, TA rings will fit, which are available in 
>>> any tooth count down to 26 IIRC. 40/26 is definitely possible with the TA 
>>> 50.4bcd rings. You could also watch eBay etc for used TA cyclotouriste/pro 
>>> 5 vis cranks, which is what the VO and SunXCD cranks are copies of.
>>>
>>> Josiah Anderson 
>>> Missoula MT 
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mer. 10 janv. 2024 à 9:47 AM, Bill Schairer  a 
>>> écrit :
>>>
 Since you stated you are a bit new to all of this, I am curious as to 
 exactly why you are so focused on a lower Q?

 Bill S
 San Diego

 On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 9:26:06 AM UTC-8 Adam wrote:

> Thanks,
>
> Great ideas already. I have thought about the VO cranks, but want 
> slightly lower gearing if I'm going to the trouble of swapping.
>
> For Ron, or anyone else, does swapping the large ring for a bash guard 
> allow for a lower Q? I assumed that would stay the same?
>
> I'm going to look at the Alex cycle option, your pic is exactly what I 
> want to do. Is there a clever way to piece something like that together 
> from older stuff on eBay? Guessing it may take knowledge I don't have 
>
> Adam
>
> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 11:15:31 AM UTC-6 Ron Mc wrote:
>
>> adding a ps - another use of your triple crank, there are some 
>> virtually weightless bash guards out there if you want to make it a 
>> compact 
>> double.  
>>
>> [image: Rw6vTY9.jpg]
>>
>> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 10:44:54 AM UTC-6 Ron Mc wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Adam, 
>>> take a look at VO Rando crank.  
>>> If you can find them, Sun XCD makes their 50.8 BCD and chainrings, 
>>> which I'm running on 2 bikes.  .  
>>> I was on SJS Cycles last night looking at rings, and noticed they 
>>> still have some T/A-5 chainrings.  
>>> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 10:15:06 AM UTC-6 Adam wrote:
>>>
 Hi all,

Re: [RBW] Re: Low q, low range 2x cranks

[Kim H.]

Supplemental:
I added a Rivendell chain guard on the outer 110bcd with 38T ring on the 
inside followed by the Avid Micro-adapter on the 74bcd with a 20T ring.

Kim Hetzel.

On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 4:36:53 PM UTC-8 Kim H. wrote:

> Awhile back, I wanted to have some ultimate "granny gears" as absolute 
> insurance for climbing hills without spending a lot of money. I came across 
> the Avid Micro-adapter 74/58 bcd granny gear adaptor for a 20T ring.  
> After sometime of playing around with it and getting a lot of advice from 
> over on the IBOB LIST (
> https://groups.google.com/g/internet-bob/c/-C-kw8MfM2Y/m/xW5gSLXUAgAJ), I 
> succeeded in doing so. 
>
> These are my results. I have a Rivendell 52cm Clem Smith Jr. "L" bicycle 
> with a the standard SILVER 173mm crank set with rings of 34/20T with a 
> SunRace 9 speed cassette 11-40T in the back. My front derailleur is a 
> Shimano CX70 and my rear derailleur is Shimano Deore RD951 9 speed SGS long 
> cage with a Wolf Tooth Road Link. This set-up works very well for me for my 
> cycling needs, after years of running a triple crank set. The last one I 
> ran was a 172.5mm T. A. Zephyr 42/36/20T. I don't feel the need to run a 
> triple anymore. 
>
> There is nothing like having a lot of low gears and plenty of water 
> bottles and cages to hold them. One never knows where my adventures will 
> take me. 
>
> How low can you go ?
>
> Kim Hetzel.
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 11:13:19 AM UTC-8 Bill Schairer wrote:
>
>> "That's like asking why someone wants a longer/shorter stem..."
>>
>> Which could be a perfectly valid question to someone who has stated he 
>> has limited knowledge of such things.  The reason for the goal may 
>> determine the method of achieving it.  If the person I actually asked the 
>> question of takes offense, I apologize.
>>
>> Bill S
>> San Diego
>> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 10:09:37 AM UTC-8 Josiah Anderson wrote:
>>
>>> Uhh... because lower Q works better for some people? That's like asking 
>>> why someone wants a longer/shorter stem...
>>>
>>> Adam, with the VO cranks (if we're thinking of the same ones) if you can 
>>> get a set of arms without rings, TA rings will fit, which are available in 
>>> any tooth count down to 26 IIRC. 40/26 is definitely possible with the TA 
>>> 50.4bcd rings. You could also watch eBay etc for used TA cyclotouriste/pro 
>>> 5 vis cranks, which is what the VO and SunXCD cranks are copies of.
>>>
>>> Josiah Anderson 
>>> Missoula MT 
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mer. 10 janv. 2024 à 9:47 AM, Bill Schairer  a 
>>> écrit :
>>>
 Since you stated you are a bit new to all of this, I am curious as to 
 exactly why you are so focused on a lower Q?

 Bill S
 San Diego

 On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 9:26:06 AM UTC-8 Adam wrote:

> Thanks,
>
> Great ideas already. I have thought about the VO cranks, but want 
> slightly lower gearing if I'm going to the trouble of swapping.
>
> For Ron, or anyone else, does swapping the large ring for a bash guard 
> allow for a lower Q? I assumed that would stay the same?
>
> I'm going to look at the Alex cycle option, your pic is exactly what I 
> want to do. Is there a clever way to piece something like that together 
> from older stuff on eBay? Guessing it may take knowledge I don't have 
>
> Adam
>
> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 11:15:31 AM UTC-6 Ron Mc wrote:
>
>> adding a ps - another use of your triple crank, there are some 
>> virtually weightless bash guards out there if you want to make it a 
>> compact 
>> double.  
>>
>> [image: Rw6vTY9.jpg]
>>
>> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 10:44:54 AM UTC-6 Ron Mc wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Adam, 
>>> take a look at VO Rando crank.  
>>> If you can find them, Sun XCD makes their 50.8 BCD and chainrings, 
>>> which I'm running on 2 bikes.  .  
>>> I was on SJS Cycles last night looking at rings, and noticed they 
>>> still have some T/A-5 chainrings.  
>>> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 10:15:06 AM UTC-6 Adam wrote:
>>>
 Hi all,

 Adjacent to the triples thread, I'm thinking about moving away from 
 a triple to a double in order to get a lower Q.

 What are options for double cranksets that are around 40/26 or so? 
 I think that would be doable with the Rene Herse cranks, but too much 
 $$$ 
 for me. Are there any cheaper options that will do that and give me a 
 q in 
 the 140s?

 Second, drivetrain stuff is a little new to me. What determines how 
 small a q factor a specific bike can have? I'm assuming chainstays 
 play a 
 role here? This hypothetical project is for a Hillborne, so I'd be 
 curious 
 what folks have used to get low q on their Hillbornes. I'm assuming I 
 may 
 have 

Re: [RBW] Re: Low q, low range 2x cranks

[Kim H.]

Awhile back, I wanted to have some ultimate "granny gears" as absolute 
insurance for climbing hills without spending a lot of money. I came across 
the Avid Micro-adapter 74/58 bcd granny gear adaptor for a 20T ring.  
After sometime of playing around with it and getting a lot of advice from 
over on the IBOB LIST 
(https://groups.google.com/g/internet-bob/c/-C-kw8MfM2Y/m/xW5gSLXUAgAJ), I 
succeeded in doing so. 

These are my results. I have a Rivendell 52cm Clem Smith Jr. "L" bicycle 
with a the standard SILVER 173mm crank set with rings of 34/20T with a 
SunRace 9 speed cassette 11-40T in the back. My front derailleur is a 
Shimano CX70 and my rear derailleur is Shimano Deore RD951 9 speed SGS long 
cage with a Wolf Tooth Road Link. This set-up works very well for me for my 
cycling needs, after years of running a triple crank set. The last one I 
ran was a 172.5mm T. A. Zephyr 42/36/20T. I don't feel the need to run a 
triple anymore. 

There is nothing like having a lot of low gears and plenty of water bottles 
and cages to hold them. One never knows where my adventures will take me. 

How low can you go ?

Kim Hetzel.



On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 11:13:19 AM UTC-8 Bill Schairer wrote:

> "That's like asking why someone wants a longer/shorter stem..."
>
> Which could be a perfectly valid question to someone who has stated he has 
> limited knowledge of such things.  The reason for the goal may determine 
> the method of achieving it.  If the person I actually asked the question of 
> takes offense, I apologize.
>
> Bill S
> San Diego
> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 10:09:37 AM UTC-8 Josiah Anderson wrote:
>
>> Uhh... because lower Q works better for some people? That's like asking 
>> why someone wants a longer/shorter stem...
>>
>> Adam, with the VO cranks (if we're thinking of the same ones) if you can 
>> get a set of arms without rings, TA rings will fit, which are available in 
>> any tooth count down to 26 IIRC. 40/26 is definitely possible with the TA 
>> 50.4bcd rings. You could also watch eBay etc for used TA cyclotouriste/pro 
>> 5 vis cranks, which is what the VO and SunXCD cranks are copies of.
>>
>> Josiah Anderson 
>> Missoula MT 
>>
>>
>> Le mer. 10 janv. 2024 à 9:47 AM, Bill Schairer  a 
>> écrit :
>>
>>> Since you stated you are a bit new to all of this, I am curious as to 
>>> exactly why you are so focused on a lower Q?
>>>
>>> Bill S
>>> San Diego
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 9:26:06 AM UTC-8 Adam wrote:
>>>
 Thanks,

 Great ideas already. I have thought about the VO cranks, but want 
 slightly lower gearing if I'm going to the trouble of swapping.

 For Ron, or anyone else, does swapping the large ring for a bash guard 
 allow for a lower Q? I assumed that would stay the same?

 I'm going to look at the Alex cycle option, your pic is exactly what I 
 want to do. Is there a clever way to piece something like that together 
 from older stuff on eBay? Guessing it may take knowledge I don't have 

 Adam

 On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 11:15:31 AM UTC-6 Ron Mc wrote:

> adding a ps - another use of your triple crank, there are some 
> virtually weightless bash guards out there if you want to make it a 
> compact 
> double.  
>
> [image: Rw6vTY9.jpg]
>
> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 10:44:54 AM UTC-6 Ron Mc wrote:
>
>> Hi Adam, 
>> take a look at VO Rando crank.  
>> If you can find them, Sun XCD makes their 50.8 BCD and chainrings, 
>> which I'm running on 2 bikes.  .  
>> I was on SJS Cycles last night looking at rings, and noticed they 
>> still have some T/A-5 chainrings.  
>> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 10:15:06 AM UTC-6 Adam wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Adjacent to the triples thread, I'm thinking about moving away from 
>>> a triple to a double in order to get a lower Q.
>>>
>>> What are options for double cranksets that are around 40/26 or so? I 
>>> think that would be doable with the Rene Herse cranks, but too much $$$ 
>>> for 
>>> me. Are there any cheaper options that will do that and give me a q in 
>>> the 
>>> 140s?
>>>
>>> Second, drivetrain stuff is a little new to me. What determines how 
>>> small a q factor a specific bike can have? I'm assuming chainstays play 
>>> a 
>>> role here? This hypothetical project is for a Hillborne, so I'd be 
>>> curious 
>>> what folks have used to get low q on their Hillbornes. I'm assuming I 
>>> may 
>>> have to change the BB as well.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>> an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> 

[RBW] Re: Low q, low range 2x cranks

[J G]

Adam,

Re:  *"...though I'm not sure if I understand what BB will get a specific 
chainline"*

That will be crank and implementation specific.  

Since this is Riv-centric we can use the concept of a square taper triple 
mountain crankset as an example.  It will require a specific BB length to 
achieve the proper chainline for the standard implementation, which in this 
case is 47.5mm for 135mm rear spacing.

I you want to:
 - Run as a double and rm granny, then reduce spindle by 6mm (mountain 
double/triple and preferred single speed 47.5mm chainline)
 - Run as a triple on a bike with 130mm rear spacing, then reduce spindle 
by 5mm (road triple 45mm chainline)
 - Run as a double and rm granny plus run on a 130mm rear road spaced bike, 
then reduce spindle by 11mm (and yes, for some cranks, you cannot find 
spindles that small)
 - Run as a double with bash, then increase spindle by 6mm

-Justus
Mpls, MN

On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 4:34:21 PM UTC-6 Nick Payne wrote:

> Sugino OX series. Very nicely made and attractive cranks that use 110BCD 
> for the outer ring and 74 BCD for the inner, Q factor 145mm. For some 
> reason they aren't sold with a smaller chainring combination than 44/30, 
> but you can use them with smaller chainrings than that. Here's one I 
> installed on one of my wife's bikes with 39/26 chainrings. The downside of 
> the cranks is that they're rather expensive - a cheaper alternative of the 
> same design with 110BCD for the outer chainring and 74BCD for the inner is 
> the Dixna La. It's about one third the price, and also slightly narrower Q, 
> though to my eye it's also less attractive: 
> https://alexscycle.com/products/dixna-la-crank-arm-set-130mm-to-170mm.
>
> Here's the Sugino OX801 - on Sugino's website it has now been superseded 
> by the OX901, which looks pretty identical.
> [image: IMG_20180102_144900.jpg]
>
> Nick Payne
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/7fbe7908-ac3b-4450-8cad-d542e7cb81a3n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Low q, low range 2x cranks

[Adam]

I tapped the right place for info!

The nerd crank database is EXACTLY what I was looking for. And Bill, 
Justus, thanks for clarifying the chainline stuff. I think I get it, though 
I'm not sure if I understand what BB will get a specific chainline, I'll 
ask that question once I get farther along figuring this out.

I do intend to run it as a 1X + granny. Realistically, where I live, the 
chances of using the granny are non-existent, but I love climbing and on 
the rare occasions I travel to bike, want the option.

As far as WHY I'm interested in changing, I have an IRD defiant 46/30 on 
another bike and I'm finding that I MUCH prefer that feel to the wider 
stance on the Hillborne. I don't know for sure the exact measurements, but 
I think the IRD is around 150 and the current triple I have on the 
Hillborne is 160+

thanks for the info. I'm going to poke around that database later.

Adam

On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 1:13:19 PM UTC-6 Bill Schairer wrote:

> "That's like asking why someone wants a longer/shorter stem..."
>
> Which could be a perfectly valid question to someone who has stated he has 
> limited knowledge of such things.  The reason for the goal may determine 
> the method of achieving it.  If the person I actually asked the question of 
> takes offense, I apologize.
>
> Bill S
> San Diego
> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 10:09:37 AM UTC-8 Josiah Anderson wrote:
>
>> Uhh... because lower Q works better for some people? That's like asking 
>> why someone wants a longer/shorter stem...
>>
>> Adam, with the VO cranks (if we're thinking of the same ones) if you can 
>> get a set of arms without rings, TA rings will fit, which are available in 
>> any tooth count down to 26 IIRC. 40/26 is definitely possible with the TA 
>> 50.4bcd rings. You could also watch eBay etc for used TA cyclotouriste/pro 
>> 5 vis cranks, which is what the VO and SunXCD cranks are copies of.
>>
>> Josiah Anderson 
>> Missoula MT 
>>
>>
>> Le mer. 10 janv. 2024 à 9:47 AM, Bill Schairer  a 
>> écrit :
>>
>>> Since you stated you are a bit new to all of this, I am curious as to 
>>> exactly why you are so focused on a lower Q?
>>>
>>> Bill S
>>> San Diego
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 9:26:06 AM UTC-8 Adam wrote:
>>>
 Thanks,

 Great ideas already. I have thought about the VO cranks, but want 
 slightly lower gearing if I'm going to the trouble of swapping.

 For Ron, or anyone else, does swapping the large ring for a bash guard 
 allow for a lower Q? I assumed that would stay the same?

 I'm going to look at the Alex cycle option, your pic is exactly what I 
 want to do. Is there a clever way to piece something like that together 
 from older stuff on eBay? Guessing it may take knowledge I don't have 

 Adam

 On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 11:15:31 AM UTC-6 Ron Mc wrote:

> adding a ps - another use of your triple crank, there are some 
> virtually weightless bash guards out there if you want to make it a 
> compact 
> double.  
>
> [image: Rw6vTY9.jpg]
>
> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 10:44:54 AM UTC-6 Ron Mc wrote:
>
>> Hi Adam, 
>> take a look at VO Rando crank.  
>> If you can find them, Sun XCD makes their 50.8 BCD and chainrings, 
>> which I'm running on 2 bikes.  .  
>> I was on SJS Cycles last night looking at rings, and noticed they 
>> still have some T/A-5 chainrings.  
>> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 10:15:06 AM UTC-6 Adam wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Adjacent to the triples thread, I'm thinking about moving away from 
>>> a triple to a double in order to get a lower Q.
>>>
>>> What are options for double cranksets that are around 40/26 or so? I 
>>> think that would be doable with the Rene Herse cranks, but too much $$$ 
>>> for 
>>> me. Are there any cheaper options that will do that and give me a q in 
>>> the 
>>> 140s?
>>>
>>> Second, drivetrain stuff is a little new to me. What determines how 
>>> small a q factor a specific bike can have? I'm assuming chainstays play 
>>> a 
>>> role here? This hypothetical project is for a Hillborne, so I'd be 
>>> curious 
>>> what folks have used to get low q on their Hillbornes. I'm assuming I 
>>> may 
>>> have to change the BB as well.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>> an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/a82cfe04-9719-4991-9de9-ad164a0c59d6n%40googlegroups.com
>>>  
>>> 

Re: [RBW] Re: Low q, low range 2x cranks

[Bill Schairer]

"That's like asking why someone wants a longer/shorter stem..."

Which could be a perfectly valid question to someone who has stated he has 
limited knowledge of such things.  The reason for the goal may determine 
the method of achieving it.  If the person I actually asked the question of 
takes offense, I apologize.

Bill S
San Diego
On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 10:09:37 AM UTC-8 Josiah Anderson wrote:

> Uhh... because lower Q works better for some people? That's like asking 
> why someone wants a longer/shorter stem...
>
> Adam, with the VO cranks (if we're thinking of the same ones) if you can 
> get a set of arms without rings, TA rings will fit, which are available in 
> any tooth count down to 26 IIRC. 40/26 is definitely possible with the TA 
> 50.4bcd rings. You could also watch eBay etc for used TA cyclotouriste/pro 
> 5 vis cranks, which is what the VO and SunXCD cranks are copies of.
>
> Josiah Anderson 
> Missoula MT 
>
>
> Le mer. 10 janv. 2024 à 9:47 AM, Bill Schairer  a 
> écrit :
>
>> Since you stated you are a bit new to all of this, I am curious as to 
>> exactly why you are so focused on a lower Q?
>>
>> Bill S
>> San Diego
>>
>> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 9:26:06 AM UTC-8 Adam wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Great ideas already. I have thought about the VO cranks, but want 
>>> slightly lower gearing if I'm going to the trouble of swapping.
>>>
>>> For Ron, or anyone else, does swapping the large ring for a bash guard 
>>> allow for a lower Q? I assumed that would stay the same?
>>>
>>> I'm going to look at the Alex cycle option, your pic is exactly what I 
>>> want to do. Is there a clever way to piece something like that together 
>>> from older stuff on eBay? Guessing it may take knowledge I don't have 
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 11:15:31 AM UTC-6 Ron Mc wrote:
>>>
 adding a ps - another use of your triple crank, there are some 
 virtually weightless bash guards out there if you want to make it a 
 compact 
 double.  

 [image: Rw6vTY9.jpg]

 On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 10:44:54 AM UTC-6 Ron Mc wrote:

> Hi Adam, 
> take a look at VO Rando crank.  
> If you can find them, Sun XCD makes their 50.8 BCD and chainrings, 
> which I'm running on 2 bikes.  .  
> I was on SJS Cycles last night looking at rings, and noticed they 
> still have some T/A-5 chainrings.  
> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 10:15:06 AM UTC-6 Adam wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Adjacent to the triples thread, I'm thinking about moving away from a 
>> triple to a double in order to get a lower Q.
>>
>> What are options for double cranksets that are around 40/26 or so? I 
>> think that would be doable with the Rene Herse cranks, but too much $$$ 
>> for 
>> me. Are there any cheaper options that will do that and give me a q in 
>> the 
>> 140s?
>>
>> Second, drivetrain stuff is a little new to me. What determines how 
>> small a q factor a specific bike can have? I'm assuming chainstays play 
>> a 
>> role here? This hypothetical project is for a Hillborne, so I'd be 
>> curious 
>> what folks have used to get low q on their Hillbornes. I'm assuming I 
>> may 
>> have to change the BB as well.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Adam
>>
> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/a82cfe04-9719-4991-9de9-ad164a0c59d6n%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/e0bfb927-590e-4f89-831b-933cb9c51231n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Low q, low range 2x cranks

[J G]

Bill,

As a fellow Q nerd, this is a really good mention:

*A lot of people with 135mm OLD Rivendell Road bikes will set up their 
double with 43.5mm chain line anyway, thinking of it more as a 1x plus 
granny setup.  Swing the whole cassette in the big ring and only use the 
larger 4 cogs in the small ring.  Doing that would probably bring <150mm 
Q-factor into play for your Hillborne.  *

If I do not set a perfect chainline on a 2x bike, it is always skewed to 
the inside for reduced Q and shifting habits as described above.  Although, 
I generally run a 108mm vs. 113mm for WI VBC as an example so I generally 
only go from 47.5mm to 45mm chainline and 150mm to 145mm Q.

-Justus
Mpls, MN

On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 12:27:25 PM UTC-6 J G wrote:

> This one is a little harder or more restrictive as you cannot use a 
> middle/outer combo for a 94bcd double/triple with the 26t and requires the 
> use of the granny ring for most triples, which works against low-Q:
>
> *What are options for double cranksets that are around 40/26 or so?*
>
> White Industries VBC road cranks is what I tend to use for doubles in the 
> range of 24/38 up to 28/42 and the Q is not quite in the 140s but a flat 
> 150mm on a 113mm BB.
>
> -Justus
> Mpls, MN
>
> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 12:21:12 PM UTC-6 J G wrote:
>
>> Adam,
>>
>> Regarding:
>>
>> *does swapping the large ring for a bash guard allow for a lower Q? I 
>> assumed that would stay the same?*
>>
>> No, in fact this would create a higher Q if implemented properly. 
>>  Chainline is now between middle and small rings with a bash and need 
>> longer BB spindle to achieve proper chainline, resulting in higher Q.
>>
>> The best use of triples for low-Q doubles are ones where the granny ring 
>> has spacers that can be removed.  Cranks like the old Ritchey Logic and 
>> Suntour XC Pro (among others) can be run with middle/large rings only and a 
>> shorter BB spindle for proper chainline between middle and large in this 
>> implementation and lower-Q.
>>
>> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 12:09:37 PM UTC-6 Josiah Anderson wrote:
>>
>>> Uhh... because lower Q works better for some people? That's like asking 
>>> why someone wants a longer/shorter stem...
>>>
>>> Adam, with the VO cranks (if we're thinking of the same ones) if you can 
>>> get a set of arms without rings, TA rings will fit, which are available in 
>>> any tooth count down to 26 IIRC. 40/26 is definitely possible with the TA 
>>> 50.4bcd rings. You could also watch eBay etc for used TA cyclotouriste/pro 
>>> 5 vis cranks, which is what the VO and SunXCD cranks are copies of.
>>>
>>> Josiah Anderson 
>>> Missoula MT 
>>>
>>>
>>> Le mer. 10 janv. 2024 à 9:47 AM, Bill Schairer  a 
>>> écrit :
>>>
 Since you stated you are a bit new to all of this, I am curious as to 
 exactly why you are so focused on a lower Q?

 Bill S
 San Diego

 On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 9:26:06 AM UTC-8 Adam wrote:

> Thanks,
>
> Great ideas already. I have thought about the VO cranks, but want 
> slightly lower gearing if I'm going to the trouble of swapping.
>
> For Ron, or anyone else, does swapping the large ring for a bash guard 
> allow for a lower Q? I assumed that would stay the same?
>
> I'm going to look at the Alex cycle option, your pic is exactly what I 
> want to do. Is there a clever way to piece something like that together 
> from older stuff on eBay? Guessing it may take knowledge I don't have 
>
> Adam
>
> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 11:15:31 AM UTC-6 Ron Mc wrote:
>
>> adding a ps - another use of your triple crank, there are some 
>> virtually weightless bash guards out there if you want to make it a 
>> compact 
>> double.  
>>
>> [image: Rw6vTY9.jpg]
>>
>> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 10:44:54 AM UTC-6 Ron Mc wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Adam, 
>>> take a look at VO Rando crank.  
>>> If you can find them, Sun XCD makes their 50.8 BCD and chainrings, 
>>> which I'm running on 2 bikes.  .  
>>> I was on SJS Cycles last night looking at rings, and noticed they 
>>> still have some T/A-5 chainrings.  
>>> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 10:15:06 AM UTC-6 Adam wrote:
>>>
 Hi all,

 Adjacent to the triples thread, I'm thinking about moving away from 
 a triple to a double in order to get a lower Q.

 What are options for double cranksets that are around 40/26 or so? 
 I think that would be doable with the Rene Herse cranks, but too much 
 $$$ 
 for me. Are there any cheaper options that will do that and give me a 
 q in 
 the 140s?

 Second, drivetrain stuff is a little new to me. What determines how 
 small a q factor a specific bike can have? I'm assuming chainstays 
 play a 
 role here? This hypothetical 

Re: [RBW] Re: Low q, low range 2x cranks

[J G]

This one is a little harder or more restrictive as you cannot use a 
middle/outer combo for a 94bcd double/triple with the 26t and requires the 
use of the granny ring for most triples, which works against low-Q:

*What are options for double cranksets that are around 40/26 or so?*

White Industries VBC road cranks is what I tend to use for doubles in the 
range of 24/38 up to 28/42 and the Q is not quite in the 140s but a flat 
150mm on a 113mm BB.

-Justus
Mpls, MN

On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 12:21:12 PM UTC-6 J G wrote:

> Adam,
>
> Regarding:
>
> *does swapping the large ring for a bash guard allow for a lower Q? I 
> assumed that would stay the same?*
>
> No, in fact this would create a higher Q if implemented properly. 
>  Chainline is now between middle and small rings with a bash and need 
> longer BB spindle to achieve proper chainline, resulting in higher Q.
>
> The best use of triples for low-Q doubles are ones where the granny ring 
> has spacers that can be removed.  Cranks like the old Ritchey Logic and 
> Suntour XC Pro (among others) can be run with middle/large rings only and a 
> shorter BB spindle for proper chainline between middle and large in this 
> implementation and lower-Q.
>
> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 12:09:37 PM UTC-6 Josiah Anderson wrote:
>
>> Uhh... because lower Q works better for some people? That's like asking 
>> why someone wants a longer/shorter stem...
>>
>> Adam, with the VO cranks (if we're thinking of the same ones) if you can 
>> get a set of arms without rings, TA rings will fit, which are available in 
>> any tooth count down to 26 IIRC. 40/26 is definitely possible with the TA 
>> 50.4bcd rings. You could also watch eBay etc for used TA cyclotouriste/pro 
>> 5 vis cranks, which is what the VO and SunXCD cranks are copies of.
>>
>> Josiah Anderson 
>> Missoula MT 
>>
>>
>> Le mer. 10 janv. 2024 à 9:47 AM, Bill Schairer  a 
>> écrit :
>>
>>> Since you stated you are a bit new to all of this, I am curious as to 
>>> exactly why you are so focused on a lower Q?
>>>
>>> Bill S
>>> San Diego
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 9:26:06 AM UTC-8 Adam wrote:
>>>
 Thanks,

 Great ideas already. I have thought about the VO cranks, but want 
 slightly lower gearing if I'm going to the trouble of swapping.

 For Ron, or anyone else, does swapping the large ring for a bash guard 
 allow for a lower Q? I assumed that would stay the same?

 I'm going to look at the Alex cycle option, your pic is exactly what I 
 want to do. Is there a clever way to piece something like that together 
 from older stuff on eBay? Guessing it may take knowledge I don't have 

 Adam

 On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 11:15:31 AM UTC-6 Ron Mc wrote:

> adding a ps - another use of your triple crank, there are some 
> virtually weightless bash guards out there if you want to make it a 
> compact 
> double.  
>
> [image: Rw6vTY9.jpg]
>
> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 10:44:54 AM UTC-6 Ron Mc wrote:
>
>> Hi Adam, 
>> take a look at VO Rando crank.  
>> If you can find them, Sun XCD makes their 50.8 BCD and chainrings, 
>> which I'm running on 2 bikes.  .  
>> I was on SJS Cycles last night looking at rings, and noticed they 
>> still have some T/A-5 chainrings.  
>> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 10:15:06 AM UTC-6 Adam wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Adjacent to the triples thread, I'm thinking about moving away from 
>>> a triple to a double in order to get a lower Q.
>>>
>>> What are options for double cranksets that are around 40/26 or so? I 
>>> think that would be doable with the Rene Herse cranks, but too much $$$ 
>>> for 
>>> me. Are there any cheaper options that will do that and give me a q in 
>>> the 
>>> 140s?
>>>
>>> Second, drivetrain stuff is a little new to me. What determines how 
>>> small a q factor a specific bike can have? I'm assuming chainstays play 
>>> a 
>>> role here? This hypothetical project is for a Hillborne, so I'd be 
>>> curious 
>>> what folks have used to get low q on their Hillbornes. I'm assuming I 
>>> may 
>>> have to change the BB as well.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>> an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/a82cfe04-9719-4991-9de9-ad164a0c59d6n%40googlegroups.com
>>>  
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 

[RBW] Re: Low q, low range 2x cranks

[Bill Lindsay]

Adam asked: "What determines how small a q factor a specific bike can 
have?"  

In my view it starts with chain line, and a 135mm OLD rear end like a 
Hillborne "expects" a 47.5mm chain line.  For a bike like that, getting 
into the 150mm range is pretty good.  Bikes with a 130mm OLD "expect" a 
normal 43.5mm road chain line and give you a lower floor if you are looking 
to minimize Q-factor.  I'm kind of Q-factor obsessed, and I maintain a 
number of 126mm OLD bikes just to facilitate that.  I also have a 120mm OLD 
custom in the works with an ultra-narrow 41mm chain line to go even 
narrower.  That machine will end up in the low 130s in Q-factor.  

A lot of people with 135mm OLD Rivendell Road bikes will set up their 
double with 43.5mm chain line anyway, thinking of it more as a 1x plus 
granny setup.  Swing the whole cassette in the big ring and only use the 
larger 4 cogs in the small ring.  Doing that would probably bring <150mm 
Q-factor into play for your Hillborne.  

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA

On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 8:15:06 AM UTC-8 Adam wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Adjacent to the triples thread, I'm thinking about moving away from a 
> triple to a double in order to get a lower Q.
>
> What are options for double cranksets that are around 40/26 or so? I think 
> that would be doable with the Rene Herse cranks, but too much $$$ for me. 
> Are there any cheaper options that will do that and give me a q in the 140s?
>
> Second, drivetrain stuff is a little new to me. What determines how small 
> a q factor a specific bike can have? I'm assuming chainstays play a role 
> here? This hypothetical project is for a Hillborne, so I'd be curious what 
> folks have used to get low q on their Hillbornes. I'm assuming I may have 
> to change the BB as well.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Adam
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/1bd911e4-bfa1-4b61-a443-c1e0338162a0n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Low q, low range 2x cranks

[J G]

Adam,

Regarding:

*does swapping the large ring for a bash guard allow for a lower Q? I 
assumed that would stay the same?*

No, in fact this would create a higher Q if implemented properly. 
 Chainline is now between middle and small rings with a bash and need 
longer BB spindle to achieve proper chainline, resulting in higher Q.

The best use of triples for low-Q doubles are ones where the granny ring 
has spacers that can be removed.  Cranks like the old Ritchey Logic and 
Suntour XC Pro (among others) can be run with middle/large rings only and a 
shorter BB spindle for proper chainline between middle and large in this 
implementation and lower-Q.

On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 12:09:37 PM UTC-6 Josiah Anderson wrote:

> Uhh... because lower Q works better for some people? That's like asking 
> why someone wants a longer/shorter stem...
>
> Adam, with the VO cranks (if we're thinking of the same ones) if you can 
> get a set of arms without rings, TA rings will fit, which are available in 
> any tooth count down to 26 IIRC. 40/26 is definitely possible with the TA 
> 50.4bcd rings. You could also watch eBay etc for used TA cyclotouriste/pro 
> 5 vis cranks, which is what the VO and SunXCD cranks are copies of.
>
> Josiah Anderson 
> Missoula MT 
>
>
> Le mer. 10 janv. 2024 à 9:47 AM, Bill Schairer  a 
> écrit :
>
>> Since you stated you are a bit new to all of this, I am curious as to 
>> exactly why you are so focused on a lower Q?
>>
>> Bill S
>> San Diego
>>
>> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 9:26:06 AM UTC-8 Adam wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Great ideas already. I have thought about the VO cranks, but want 
>>> slightly lower gearing if I'm going to the trouble of swapping.
>>>
>>> For Ron, or anyone else, does swapping the large ring for a bash guard 
>>> allow for a lower Q? I assumed that would stay the same?
>>>
>>> I'm going to look at the Alex cycle option, your pic is exactly what I 
>>> want to do. Is there a clever way to piece something like that together 
>>> from older stuff on eBay? Guessing it may take knowledge I don't have 
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 11:15:31 AM UTC-6 Ron Mc wrote:
>>>
 adding a ps - another use of your triple crank, there are some 
 virtually weightless bash guards out there if you want to make it a 
 compact 
 double.  

 [image: Rw6vTY9.jpg]

 On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 10:44:54 AM UTC-6 Ron Mc wrote:

> Hi Adam, 
> take a look at VO Rando crank.  
> If you can find them, Sun XCD makes their 50.8 BCD and chainrings, 
> which I'm running on 2 bikes.  .  
> I was on SJS Cycles last night looking at rings, and noticed they 
> still have some T/A-5 chainrings.  
> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 10:15:06 AM UTC-6 Adam wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Adjacent to the triples thread, I'm thinking about moving away from a 
>> triple to a double in order to get a lower Q.
>>
>> What are options for double cranksets that are around 40/26 or so? I 
>> think that would be doable with the Rene Herse cranks, but too much $$$ 
>> for 
>> me. Are there any cheaper options that will do that and give me a q in 
>> the 
>> 140s?
>>
>> Second, drivetrain stuff is a little new to me. What determines how 
>> small a q factor a specific bike can have? I'm assuming chainstays play 
>> a 
>> role here? This hypothetical project is for a Hillborne, so I'd be 
>> curious 
>> what folks have used to get low q on their Hillbornes. I'm assuming I 
>> may 
>> have to change the BB as well.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Adam
>>
> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/a82cfe04-9719-4991-9de9-ad164a0c59d6n%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/bfdca1b6-54ab-4f31-945f-f60f5884c9ban%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [RBW] Re: Low q, low range 2x cranks

[Josiah Anderson]

Uhh... because lower Q works better for some people? That's like asking why
someone wants a longer/shorter stem...

Adam, with the VO cranks (if we're thinking of the same ones) if you can
get a set of arms without rings, TA rings will fit, which are available in
any tooth count down to 26 IIRC. 40/26 is definitely possible with the TA
50.4bcd rings. You could also watch eBay etc for used TA cyclotouriste/pro
5 vis cranks, which is what the VO and SunXCD cranks are copies of.

Josiah Anderson
Missoula MT


Le mer. 10 janv. 2024 à 9:47 AM, Bill Schairer  a
écrit :

> Since you stated you are a bit new to all of this, I am curious as to
> exactly why you are so focused on a lower Q?
>
> Bill S
> San Diego
>
> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 9:26:06 AM UTC-8 Adam wrote:
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Great ideas already. I have thought about the VO cranks, but want
>> slightly lower gearing if I'm going to the trouble of swapping.
>>
>> For Ron, or anyone else, does swapping the large ring for a bash guard
>> allow for a lower Q? I assumed that would stay the same?
>>
>> I'm going to look at the Alex cycle option, your pic is exactly what I
>> want to do. Is there a clever way to piece something like that together
>> from older stuff on eBay? Guessing it may take knowledge I don't have
>>
>> Adam
>>
>> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 11:15:31 AM UTC-6 Ron Mc wrote:
>>
>>> adding a ps - another use of your triple crank, there are some virtually
>>> weightless bash guards out there if you want to make it a compact double.
>>>
>>> [image: Rw6vTY9.jpg]
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 10:44:54 AM UTC-6 Ron Mc wrote:
>>>
 Hi Adam,
 take a look at VO Rando crank.
 If you can find them, Sun XCD makes their 50.8 BCD and chainrings,
 which I'm running on 2 bikes.  .
 I was on SJS Cycles last night looking at rings, and noticed they still
 have some T/A-5 chainrings.
 On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 10:15:06 AM UTC-6 Adam wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Adjacent to the triples thread, I'm thinking about moving away from a
> triple to a double in order to get a lower Q.
>
> What are options for double cranksets that are around 40/26 or so? I
> think that would be doable with the Rene Herse cranks, but too much $$$ 
> for
> me. Are there any cheaper options that will do that and give me a q in the
> 140s?
>
> Second, drivetrain stuff is a little new to me. What determines how
> small a q factor a specific bike can have? I'm assuming chainstays play a
> role here? This hypothetical project is for a Hillborne, so I'd be curious
> what folks have used to get low q on their Hillbornes. I'm assuming I may
> have to change the BB as well.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Adam
>
 --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/a82cfe04-9719-4991-9de9-ad164a0c59d6n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CADqZWjMv8Ynv2oK8BzzCTWTX2Ph6LpEiVsQ-rhwBuisdTMNxwg%40mail.gmail.com.

[RBW] Re: Low q, low range 2x cranks

[Bill Schairer]

Since you stated you are a bit new to all of this, I am curious as to 
exactly why you are so focused on a lower Q?

Bill S
San Diego

On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 9:26:06 AM UTC-8 Adam wrote:

> Thanks,
>
> Great ideas already. I have thought about the VO cranks, but want slightly 
> lower gearing if I'm going to the trouble of swapping.
>
> For Ron, or anyone else, does swapping the large ring for a bash guard 
> allow for a lower Q? I assumed that would stay the same?
>
> I'm going to look at the Alex cycle option, your pic is exactly what I 
> want to do. Is there a clever way to piece something like that together 
> from older stuff on eBay? Guessing it may take knowledge I don't have 
>
> Adam
>
> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 11:15:31 AM UTC-6 Ron Mc wrote:
>
>> adding a ps - another use of your triple crank, there are some virtually 
>> weightless bash guards out there if you want to make it a compact double.  
>>
>> [image: Rw6vTY9.jpg]
>>
>> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 10:44:54 AM UTC-6 Ron Mc wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Adam, 
>>> take a look at VO Rando crank.  
>>> If you can find them, Sun XCD makes their 50.8 BCD and chainrings, which 
>>> I'm running on 2 bikes.  .  
>>> I was on SJS Cycles last night looking at rings, and noticed they still 
>>> have some T/A-5 chainrings.  
>>> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 10:15:06 AM UTC-6 Adam wrote:
>>>
 Hi all,

 Adjacent to the triples thread, I'm thinking about moving away from a 
 triple to a double in order to get a lower Q.

 What are options for double cranksets that are around 40/26 or so? I 
 think that would be doable with the Rene Herse cranks, but too much $$$ 
 for 
 me. Are there any cheaper options that will do that and give me a q in the 
 140s?

 Second, drivetrain stuff is a little new to me. What determines how 
 small a q factor a specific bike can have? I'm assuming chainstays play a 
 role here? This hypothetical project is for a Hillborne, so I'd be curious 
 what folks have used to get low q on their Hillbornes. I'm assuming I may 
 have to change the BB as well.

 Thanks!

 Adam

>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/a82cfe04-9719-4991-9de9-ad164a0c59d6n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Low q, low range 2x cranks

[Adam]

Thanks,

Great ideas already. I have thought about the VO cranks, but want slightly 
lower gearing if I'm going to the trouble of swapping.

For Ron, or anyone else, does swapping the large ring for a bash guard 
allow for a lower Q? I assumed that would stay the same?

I'm going to look at the Alex cycle option, your pic is exactly what I want 
to do. Is there a clever way to piece something like that together from 
older stuff on eBay? Guessing it may take knowledge I don't have 

Adam

On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 11:15:31 AM UTC-6 Ron Mc wrote:

> adding a ps - another use of your triple crank, there are some virtually 
> weightless bash guards out there if you want to make it a compact double.  
>
> [image: Rw6vTY9.jpg]
>
> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 10:44:54 AM UTC-6 Ron Mc wrote:
>
>> Hi Adam, 
>> take a look at VO Rando crank.  
>> If you can find them, Sun XCD makes their 50.8 BCD and chainrings, which 
>> I'm running on 2 bikes.  .  
>> I was on SJS Cycles last night looking at rings, and noticed they still 
>> have some T/A-5 chainrings.  
>> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 10:15:06 AM UTC-6 Adam wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Adjacent to the triples thread, I'm thinking about moving away from a 
>>> triple to a double in order to get a lower Q.
>>>
>>> What are options for double cranksets that are around 40/26 or so? I 
>>> think that would be doable with the Rene Herse cranks, but too much $$$ for 
>>> me. Are there any cheaper options that will do that and give me a q in the 
>>> 140s?
>>>
>>> Second, drivetrain stuff is a little new to me. What determines how 
>>> small a q factor a specific bike can have? I'm assuming chainstays play a 
>>> role here? This hypothetical project is for a Hillborne, so I'd be curious 
>>> what folks have used to get low q on their Hillbornes. I'm assuming I may 
>>> have to change the BB as well.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/c07077e5-8a9a-4d7a-97f9-64c99658ed0cn%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Low q, low range 2x cranks

[Ron Mc]

Hi Adam, 
take a look at VO Rando crank.  
If you can find them, Sun XCD makes their 50.8 BCD and chainrings, which 
I'm running on 2 bikes.  .  
I was on SJS Cycles last night looking at rings, and noticed they still 
have some T/A-5 chainrings.  
On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 10:15:06 AM UTC-6 Adam wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Adjacent to the triples thread, I'm thinking about moving away from a 
> triple to a double in order to get a lower Q.
>
> What are options for double cranksets that are around 40/26 or so? I think 
> that would be doable with the Rene Herse cranks, but too much $$$ for me. 
> Are there any cheaper options that will do that and give me a q in the 140s?
>
> Second, drivetrain stuff is a little new to me. What determines how small 
> a q factor a specific bike can have? I'm assuming chainstays play a role 
> here? This hypothetical project is for a Hillborne, so I'd be curious what 
> folks have used to get low q on their Hillbornes. I'm assuming I may have 
> to change the BB as well.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Adam
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/668d4358-7ed4-4673-8390-0c126d78f0e6n%40googlegroups.com.

[RBW] Re: Low q, low range 2x cranks

[Irving]

Behold, the nerd crank database 

!

I ordered the La Dixna cranks 
 from 
AlexsCycle and matched them with TA Chainrings for a 42/26 wide low double. 
Have been really happy with that combination.

-Irving
SF, CA
On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 8:15:06 AM UTC-8 Adam wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Adjacent to the triples thread, I'm thinking about moving away from a 
> triple to a double in order to get a lower Q.
>
> What are options for double cranksets that are around 40/26 or so? I think 
> that would be doable with the Rene Herse cranks, but too much $$$ for me. 
> Are there any cheaper options that will do that and give me a q in the 140s?
>
> Second, drivetrain stuff is a little new to me. What determines how small 
> a q factor a specific bike can have? I'm assuming chainstays play a role 
> here? This hypothetical project is for a Hillborne, so I'd be curious what 
> folks have used to get low q on their Hillbornes. I'm assuming I may have 
> to change the BB as well.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Adam
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW 
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/99af3553-119c-480f-81e5-caf4fcf371den%40googlegroups.com.