Re: [CR] was 1984, now "spacing, not dish, not # of cogs"

(Example: Framebuilders:Dario Pegoretti)

Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 09:51:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Tom Dalton" <tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [CR] was 1984, now "spacing, not dish, not # of cogs"
To: Bill Canilang <whcanilang@usa.net>
Cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
In-Reply-To: <20010420150122.12192.qmail@aw161.netaddress.usa.net>


I'm not picking on Bill here, but I was just thinking of posting a question on this very subject when I saw this:

(snip) "Not to mention the additional imbalance of going from 120/126 to 130"

Why does it seem that a lot of listers are down on wider rear spacing? Not more cogs, but just the spacing itself. What is the down side? Thinking about it, all I can come up with is the widening of the cranks that is required (the infamous Q factor)if the centerline of the freewheel moves outboard. In the extreme case of some (triple-equipped) MTB's, the wider gait can be a real problem for some riders, but I don't think that road cranks have widened by more than a couple of mm, if at all. At least this was the case when Campy went from 126.5mm/7-speed to 130mm/8-speed. The freewheel got wider, but some of that width went toward the spokes (a problem for other reasons) and some went toward the frame, taking up part of that newly-acquired 3.5 mm. Overall the center of the freewheel didn't move much and the crank spacing didn't have to change much, if at all.

I know that adding cogs generally increases dish, and sometimes decreases flange spacing, and that neither is good for wheel strength. However, adding cogs and not adding the space would be worse. All of the extra FW width would then move toward the spokes, further aggrivating the dish issue. So, unto itself, what is so wrong with the wider rear spacing? Mike K, among others, is an advocate of 7 speeds in 130 frames, which allows using the extra width on the non-FW side to reduce dish. Makes sense to me. Bottom line is that all else being equal (# of cogs, flange spacing etc.) don't wider rears reduce dish by putting at least some of the extra width on the non-FW side?

Tom Dalton


--- Bill Canilang wrote:


> Usually just lurk here, but felt I had to add some
> humble opinions:
>
> "Moos, Jerry" <jmoos@urc.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> > Frames: New frames are lighter, but much uglier,
> lack eyelets or clearance
> > for racks or mudguards, the typical TIGed ones
> can't be repaired, and the
> > aluminum ones don't last nearly as long as the old
> steel ones. Old is
> > better.
>
> I don't like TIG either, but there are some nice
> fillet brazers out there,
> i.e. Bilenky and others. Good Ti welds (Moots,
> Ibis) can also be a thing of
> beauty. I hear TIG Al and Ti _can_ be repaired,
> though I don't know anyone
> who has had it done and wouldn't think its worth it
> for Al. Old is better,
> but there is nice new. Just wish everything still
> had eyelets and enough
> clearance as standard... I think that's a decision
> forced on us by Marketing
> and Manufacturing and not by Product Developers and
> real users.
>
> > Wheels: The one component where weight matters the
> most, the rim, is now
> > much heavier in order to withstand the greater
> dish of a 10 speed rear.
> Old
> > is better.
>
> Not to mention the additional imbalance of going
> from 120/126 to 130.
>
> > Shifters and Derailleurs: Modern marketing hype
> at its worst. This year's
> > Campy is not only incompatible with Shimano, but
> also with last year's
> > Campy. Can you say "planned obsolesence"? No
> compatibility, no
> > interchangeability, damn few replacement parts.
> The user must buy a new
> > drivetrain when one part wears out - marketing
> Nirvana. Easier to shift
> for
> > an absolute novice, but hardly worth the
> tradeoffs. Old is better.
>
> While Shimano takes a lot of heat for their constant
> innovation, at least
> their derailleurs maintain a lot of backward
> compatibility (you can use a 9spd
> rd over a 7spd cassette). Also, if you stick to
> friction shifting, I don't
> believe compatibility is much of an issue.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Pedals: Clipless pedals are more efficient, but
> less versatile. They also
> > can malfunction. Anyone watch Paris-Roubaix on
> OLN on Easter and see the
> > Telecom rider Wesemans trying to stay in the lead
> break with a pedal that
> > kept releasing every km or two because of mud?
> With toe clips he might
> have
> > won the race. New is better if you never get off
> the bike in the middle of
> > a ride or encounter mud, otherwise I vote for old.
>
> I read that Weseman's cleat had come undone. This
> can happen also happen with
> old, but at least you can try to cinch down with the
> straps. I think mud can
> jam up old cleats better than new cleats/pedals. I
> doubt Weseman could have
> won the race from three Domo's, be real.
>
>
> ---
> Bill Canilang
> ridgewood.nj.usa
> '99 Ibis Sonoma (Ancotech Ti), 34/46, 11x23
> '95 Trek 970 (Easton CrMo), 24/36/46, 12x28
> '91 Trek 2300 (TreTubi Carbon), 39/52, 12x23
> '84 Bianchi Sport SX (Ishiwata Magny), 42x16
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Get free email and a permanent address at
> http://www.amexmail.com/?A=1
>
> _______________________________________________
> Classicrendezvous mailing list
> Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> http://www.bikelist.org/mailman/listinfo/classicrendezvous

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/