Re: [CR]re: TA triples

(Example: Framebuilders)

In-Reply-To: <45212324.6050004@new.rr.com>
References: <28057177.1159798479553.JavaMail.root@eastrmwml04.mgt.cox.net>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 08:29:27 -0700
To: john@os2.dhs.org
From: "Jan Heine" <heine94@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [CR]re: TA triples
cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org

>sachshm@cox.net wrote:
>
>
>> First, let me agree strongly that the TA "cyclotourist" units had
>> design defects. The business of 6 spindly arms supporting a large
>> chainring can be best described as "nuts."
>
>If you had it set up as a triple, those "six spindly arms" would have to
>support all three rings!

Yes, but only one would carry a chain and a load. So in fact, the "unused" rings would reinforce the one you use. I suspect a single-ring setup would be the most fragile.

That said, even a 48-32 "compact double" on a tandem, and riding as hard as we could caused, no problems during 2000 km or brevets and Paris-Brest-Paris. Maybe others are stronger or put out more torque (at lower rpm)... or it is one of those theoretical problems.

I have since used the same cranks on my single for about 10,000 km of brevets, hill intervals and even trailer pulling (with cases of books, uphill). No problems yet, except that the rings are worn. TA rings don't wear as well as Campagnolo NR, but that is the only deficiency I have found. -- Jan Heine Editor Bicycle Quarterly 140 Lakeside Ave #C Seattle WA 98122 http://www.bikequarterly.com