Stronglight chainset

[phatboytwo]

Just for info These stronglight cranks with BB and 42T ring are lighter than the Tune sixpack cranks+Royce BB+42 ring by 45g

 

[phatboytwo]

sorry got that abit wrong Royce BB with the stronglight ,sixpack Ti bb with the Tune

 

[non-fixie]

-----



somewhat dependent upon which side o' ye olde puddle one calls their place o' abidementation


-----

The grass is always greener (or more French-threaded) on the other side of the puddle.

 

[bikeworkshop]

Stronglight 49D. Low Q-factor, low weight, small BCD. What's not to like?

It's a beautiful, simple chainset, but...
Small bcd means bent rings - I've seen these stronglight and ta bcd rings folded almost in half many times.

And with many front derailleurs, the rh arm clacks on the cage in top - (specially index compatible with its own design requirements)

 

[bikeworkshop]

... so that's light, Yes, strong, No

 

[non-fixie]

It's a beautiful, simple chainset, but...
Small bcd means bent rings - I've seen these stronglight and ta bcd rings folded almost in half many times.

And with many front derailleurs, the rh arm clacks on the cage in top - (specially index compatible with its own design requirements)

I have quite a few '5 vis' chainsets om my bikes and never experienced any flexing, let alone bending of chain rings, but maybe I'm just not strong enough.

And yes, the low Q factor comes at the expense of having to use a front derailleur with a flat outer cage plate. Which is one reason why I like early Campagnolo Ergo shifters for 'modern' shifting.

 

[bulgie]

I have quite a few '5 vis' chainsets om my bikes and never experienced any flexing, let alone bending of chain rings, but maybe I'm just not strong enough.

And yes, the low Q factor comes at the expense of having to use a front derailleur with a flat outer cage plate. Which is one reason why I like early Campagnolo Ergo shifters for 'modern' shifting.

Yes, 5-vis rings have been strong enough for countless Clydesdales on MTBs, not to mention tandems.

I used to compete in Observed Trials, and would bash my TA 5-vis rings on rocks and logs pretty often, usually only bent one or a few teeth, which I could straighten on the spot with a 4" long adjustable wrench. Sometimes (or maybe usually? I forget), the bent tooth would break off instead of straightening, but then the ring kept working, as near to perfectly as I could tell. Yes I went through a couple rings that way, but that's the name of the game in Trials whatever brand of cranks you run, unless you have a dedicated bashguard, the kind that attaches to the frame and can take real impacts. I never bothered with one of those, since I sometimes used my big chainring teeth to help me get over a log. That was back in the '80s, and my Trials bike was more of a "mountain/Trials" than pure trialsin. I used it as a general-purpose MTB also. So it had a front derailer and a double, with the small ring used for Trials, teeth of the big ring exposed. Fun times!

 

[Foreigner]

No flexing on their touring crankset - 165mm and 45/28 rings as I have found them on one of the bikes I got recently.

 

[bikeworkshop]

It's the 52s that fold generally, and it could easily be cheap aftermarket rings which you probably can't get nowdays.
And I'm looking at a sample size of hundreds, where a few have folded - i remember one bike the bent ring had actually cut through the chainstay!