Btw, who ever said chain stays are always symmetrical?
By the way, who ever said my two legs are symmetrical?
On Saturday, August 3, 2013 6:50:42 PM UTC-7, Peter Pesce wrote:
I'm thinking that a few mm one way or another just doesn't matter. Some
will say they notice. Some will say they
Exactly !!!Legs, hips, feet, etc. etc. . any time there is more
than one of something, they are never exactly equal !
On Wednesday, August 7, 2013 6:46:24 PM UTC-4, William wrote:
By the way, who ever said my two legs are symmetrical?
--
You received this message because
I get it the other way. I put a SKS symmetric bottom bracket on my old
Raleigh for a Cyclotouriste triple. The weird 73mm Raleigh socket is not
recommended for spacers to make it asymmetric. So my pedals are exactly
the same width from the frame.
I was giving my commuter bike CBO a quick check over and noticed that the
crankset sits asymetric to the frame. It has never bothered me but my
question is - aside from cranks that are made offset so an asymetrical BB
actually aligns them symetrically - what is the purpose of asymetrical
BBs?
AFAIK, the reason is to get as small a Q as possible while allowing
sufficient clearance for the stays and proper chainline. I think this was
particularly popular in the old days for triples -- the right stuck out
further to accommodate proper chain line. I could lose ~5 mm on my XD2 if I
could
So the theory is that low q is ranked higher than having one's legs/feet/ankles
rotating in different circles? That doesn't sit right with me but i am
probably over thinking it. Rivendell's advocacy of pedaling free would address
this issue but I don't care for it. It doesn't bother me on my
I'm thinking that a few mm one way or another just doesn't matter. Some will
say they notice. Some will say they don't. If you can get the inner ring of
your triple to clear then maybe it's all good.
Btw, who ever said chain stays are always symmetrical?
- Pete in CT
--
You received this
