Does anyone have a picture of the backside of the rings on this
crankset? Just curious what they look like.
On Aug 9, 11:04 pm, Michael_S wrote:
> The new50.4bcd TA Cyclotourist copy crankset is now in stock at VO.
> Looks very nice and shiny! The stock 46-30 combo seems like it would
> work wel
The circle distance changes depending upon what size chain ring you are
using as well. The same ratio gear but using a smaller chain wheel
effectively makes the crank longer because the smaller chain wheel brings
the chain closer to the fulcrum (Spindle)
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Brad w
"I get it that there are folks under the big
tent of cycling that would call me pompous or even delusional, but
there's no way my preferring 172.5 is the most idiosyncratic
purchasing tendency you've heard of. As long as I can buy what I
like, I'll stick with 172.5. And no, I'm not interested in
Darn you and your "geometry"!
And, um, good point.
On Aug 26, 5:43 pm, William wrote:
> Even if you wore elevator shoes that were 4 inches thick, you still
> would pedal bigger circles with longer crankarms. The radius of that
> circle is the crank arm length, and has nothing to do with shoe
>
I for one am willing to admit that if somebody went and replaced all
the 172.5mm cranks in the garage with either 170s or 175s and forbade
me to change them back, that I would most likely lead a perfectly
happy life of cycling anyhow. I'd feel the difference, get used to it
and hopefully stop thin
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 11:00, William wrote:
> I guess I'm one of the fixated, although I wouldn't call it a
> fixation. I prefer to buy things in my size, and I've determined
> through experience that 172.5 is my best size.
I now use 170, after having tried also 165 and 175. There is no
questi
Even if you wore elevator shoes that were 4 inches thick, you still
would pedal bigger circles with longer crankarms. The radius of that
circle is the crank arm length, and has nothing to do with shoe
thickness or pedal thickness, provided your foot is actually on top of
the pedal at all times. D
On Aug 22, 1:30 am, charlie wrote:
> Just wear some 2.5 mm thicker shoes !
>
Yeah, it seems like between pedal, cleat, shoe, and sock variation you
could easily have a 2.5mm variation in thickness.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW
Owners Bunch"
"I personally have a hard time understanding the fixation with 172.5,
and
would be interested in the results of some double-blind tests for the
aficionados."
I guess I'm one of the fixated, although I wouldn't call it a
fixation. I prefer to buy things in my size, and I've determined
through expe
On Aug 20, 2010, at 1:03 PM, Steve Palincsar wrote:
What items did you find unsatisfactory?
I just returned a Retro bottle cage on which the weld had come apart
after two months' use. As I mentioned to Chris, I'd squeezed it
slightly a number of times to keep a better fit for a Kleen Cante
Most of my bikes have 180mm cranks now. The Quickbeam came
withgasp!...175s! Couldn't really tell the difference. A wider Q
I can feel, crank length...not so much.
Some BMX bikes (used to at least) come with 185mm cranks...they seemed
to have a greater range of crank lengths than other type
Just wear some 2.5 mm thicker shoes !
On Aug 19, 8:00 pm, pruckelshaus wrote:
> Yes, but it's too bad that Chris has decided that nobody needs to ride
> 172.5mm cranks. He's a fool for making that kind of decision, and has
> certainly lost a good amount of business because of it...including my
>
On 21 Aug, 13:13, Garth wrote:
> In regards to longer cranks, there's a lot of unfounded fear and mis-
> information that gets spread . Longer cranks don't hurt your knees,
Yes they do, 170mm cranks give me trouble after about 120miles on a
single ride or after about 70miles on a subsequent d
I'm going with Eric on this one. I have bikes with both 170 and 175
and can't tell any difference at all. Maybe we share a similar riding
style. There are areas where a lack of sensitivity simplifies life.
dougP
On Aug 21, 6:07 pm, EricP wrote:
> Well, I'm 6' nuthin' and my bikes have 170, 17
Well, I'm 6' nuthin' and my bikes have 170, 175 and 180 cranks.
Didn't realize the last one until looking at my Fargo one day and
realizing it had these really long crank arms. Never even noticed the
difference. Funny enough, my one century is on the bike with too
longa cranks.
Probably means th
"Where did your Pro 5 Vis break? Do you know of any quality
differences
between the newer production and the older ones?
Thanks.
Patrick Moore, who has a collection of the older ones"
The left crank broke at top of the flute while accelerating out of the
saddle from a stop sign. It showed the us
Where did your Pro 5 Vis break? Do you know of any quality differences
between the newer production and the older ones?
Thanks.
Patrick Moore, who has a collection of the older ones
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Noel wrote:
> I took delivery of a pair of the VO cranks a couple of days ago, t
Thanks for posting that. As a tall rider I've never tried long cranks.
As it happens, I take delivery of a custom bike next week with 185mm
TA cranks. I'm almost hoping that they're not all that. My other three
bikes with 175's are going to be quite costly to convert if they are.
On Aug 21, 7:13 a
In regards to longer cranks, there's a lot of unfounded fear and mis-
information that gets spread . Longer cranks don't hurt your knees,
or slow your cadence, or ruin your pedal motion. Resistance domes from
fear of change fear of the unknown. We all experience it.
There's 3 groups about lo
On 20 Aug, 04:21, andrew hill wrote:
> I don't really understand about crank length and it's benefits.
For distance cycling efficiency and freedom from pain it's best to err
towards the shorter cranks. Long cranks will over extend the natural
range of knee motion and may cause long term injury.
I took delivery of a pair of the VO cranks a couple of days ago, to
replace the late production Pro 5 Vis that broke. Overall they seem
fine so far. The cranks themselves seem approximately comparable in
quality and finish to the TA. The backside of the chainrings is a
"pebble grain" finish rather
Oh, and regarding gearing, I am very glad that 46x30 is becoming kind
of a "standard" because it is my favorite. I prefer it with a 12-28
for general use. This gives me adequate climbing gears for any on-road
use, and an adequate high gear. (I cannot keep up with downhill
"attacks" but my racing da
Ok, I'll go.
I had a Grand Cru seatpost clamp shear. This was the round part that
the rear bolt screws into. Kinda scary but the saddle stayed in place
long enough that I could climb off safely.
I weigh 210 and ride semi off road at times so maybe that had
something to do to it though I would hop
> What items did you find unsatisfactory?
I wound up donating a bunch of the no-squeal VO brake pads to the
local non-profit bike shop rather than using them. They just did not
seem as substantive as Kool Stops.
On the other hand, VO still sells derailer cables that work with
Simplex and Campy l
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 09:33 -0700, scott wrote:
> I personally stopped buying
> VO products after having things break or wear badly or just seem cheap
> in real life with regular use. Pretty stuff, but not good for my
> lifestyle.
Let me add my voice to the chorus of those asking for more specific
I agree Joel. I have always tried to buy stuff that will last a
long time (I still have campy hubs and a set of brakes from the 80's
that work quite well). When I swap out a component it's usually after
a number of years of usage and the discovery of some aspect about it
that I don't like, e.g.
rs-bunch@googlegroups.com
[mailto:rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com]on Behalf Of Michael_S
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 2:32 PM
To: RBW Owners Bunch
Subject: [RBW] Re: VO 50.4 BCD Crankset is here
Specialized uses a varus wedge in their Body Geometry shoes that that
accomplishes the same &qu
ups.com
>
> [mailto:rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com]on Behalf Of PATRICK MOORE
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 1:51 PM
> To: rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: VO 50.4 BCD Crankset is here
>
> This is excellent information. I have, with most shoes and
ups.com
Subject: Re: [RBW] Re: VO 50.4 BCD Crankset is here
This is excellent information. I have, with most shoes and pedals, a
chronic "burn" -cum- "ache" on the outside of my left foot thanks, I
think, to a foot that is canted outward. I know that, when I
deliberately ca
Curious: what VO products did you have that wore out thus quickly?
I recently bought some VO butterfly cages; pretty and a good shape,
but very, very flexy. But the Retros seem stiff and sturdy.
The other VO stuff I've bought seems decent if not outstanding.
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:33 AM, sco
This is excellent information. I have, with most shoes and pedals, a
chronic "burn" -cum- "ache" on the outside of my left foot thanks, I
think, to a foot that is canted outward. I know that, when I
deliberately cant the foot inward, it relieves the slight but real
pain. I must try a shim under my
Nothing scientific, they just feel right. They allow me to maintain a
cadence of between 80 and 90, without tiring me out, while still
giving me a sense that I'm putting power to the pedals. I'd tried a
set of 170's a couple of years back for about a month, and I felt like
I was riding with my sh
I hope this means some folks will be selling off their XD-2's on the
list. I like having a triple, even if I almost never use the smallest
ring. Doesn't hurt anything in my book. I personally stopped buying
VO products after having things break or wear badly or just seem cheap
in real life with re
On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 20:21 -0700, andrew hill wrote:
> I do have some kneed problems on one side, especially an IT band
> problem that cropped after a century in June.. perhaps less bend would
> help that.
>
Steve P. suggested:
>Or a higher Q.
Or LeWedges. I got a packet of these a couple of
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 6:57 AM, Ken Freeman wrote:
> I don't know about pruckelshaus, but I find that a 170 and a 172.5 feel
> significantly different and it is important on a long ride.
I agree - though for me it works the other way around (i.e. 170 feels
much better - 165 feels better still.)
I don't know about pruckelshaus, but I find that a 170 and a 172.5 feel
significantly different and it is important on a long ride. I'm
unfortunately in the camp of not willing to purchase a 170 or 175 while I'm
acclimated to a 172.5. I may choose to attempt to re-acclimate to a 170,
but it's not
On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 20:00 -0700, pruckelshaus wrote:
> Yes, but it's too bad that Chris has decided that nobody needs to ride
> 172.5mm cranks. He's a fool for making that kind of decision, and has
> certainly lost a good amount of business because of it...including my
> own. This would be the
On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 20:21 -0700, andrew hill wrote:
> I do have some kneed problems on one side, especially an IT band
> problem that cropped after a century in June.. perhaps less bend would
> help that.
>
Or a higher Q.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
I'm curious about this too. Peter White has a long thing about crank length on
his site, in the bike fit bit. I should read that...
Rob in Seattle
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 19, 2010, at 11:21 PM, andrew hill wrote:
>
> Why do you like em, Pete?
--
You received this message because you
I don't really understand about crank length and it's benefits.
My gut says that with short legs I'd benefit from shorter cranks, but I've
always used 175 (2 mtn bikes and 1 Riv Sam).
I do have some kneed problems on one side, especially an IT band problem that
cropped after a century in June..
Yes, but it's too bad that Chris has decided that nobody needs to ride
172.5mm cranks. He's a fool for making that kind of decision, and has
certainly lost a good amount of business because of it...including my
own. This would be the perfect crank for my needs, if only it were
available as a 172.
A side by side comparison of the TA's and the new VO cranks, both in
appearance and function, would be interesting. I'm sure there is some
trade off between price and quality (and labor economics). And we all
know that even the best vendors in the bike business work hard for
their dollar.
On Aug
> I give VO a lot of credit for making these cranks. Until now, there
> weren't many options for wide range compact doubles, and most of those
> cranks (TA Pro 5 Vis, TA Carmina, White Industries, etc.) are
> exceedingly expensive.
Exceedingly how? I hardly doubt TA and the White family (the busi
Mike, for a range like that I was going to use a Campy medium cage
dérailleur an prob. an 11-32 8 spd xtr cassette. I've been using that
dérailleur with a 50-34 and 13-29. I just picked up a long cage
Centaur dérailleur if I need to switch to that. I like to ride in the
San Gabriel Mountains nor
I give VO a lot of credit for making these cranks. Until now, there
weren't many options for wide range compact doubles, and most of those
cranks (TA Pro 5 Vis, TA Carmina, White Industries, etc.) are
exceedingly expensive.
The cyclotourist gives the gear range of a triple with a simpler
double cr
I use a 12-28 7 speed cassette with the TA Cyclotourist 30/46. I cycle
in the S.F. Bay area where the terrain is sometimes challenging and
that gearing seems to be adequate.
On Aug 9, 8:04 pm, Michael_S wrote:
> The new 50.4 bcd TA Cyclotourist copy crankset is now in stock at VO.
> Looks very ni
Wow! I sometimes have mixed feelings about VO but this is really a
good thing. I imagine I'll have these on my Hilsen by the the end of
the year.
I have a 46/34 double on there now, can I keep using the same derailer
(Campy compact dbl)?
--mike
--
You received this message because you are subsc
47 matches
Mail list logo
