people don’t need more options than that
1 Like
The 2.5mm step in cranks sizes may be a little much but 1cm step in sizes is HUGE, and skips over a huge chunk of the population on 170mm cranks. Only 175 or 165 is a hard no from me.
2 Likes
the people want options
isn’t Shimano’s 4-bolt asymmetric proprietary to Shimano? And they changed it to a subtly different 4-bolt pattern from 11-speed to 12-speed? And both are subtly different from SRAM’s 4-bolt pattern? Would be big news to me if Campy adopted a Shimano pattern instead of making their own.
Well, Wolftooth still makes 110 5-bolt narrow wide rings for instance, as pictured on those cranks. Ditto Blackspire.
The three bolt patterns they chose (5 x 110, 4 x 104, 5 x 144) are, for better or worse, the most widely-used non-proprietary/not gonna get engineered out from under you with the next product release bolt patterns in use.
1 Like
Used to switch between bikes with 175 and 165: you’d get used to it pretty quick. I use 170s currently but either way half a cm isn’t a big deal.
I guess I wasn’t suggesting that Campy and Shimano use the same bolt pattern, more that ‘the industry’ has moved to 4-bolt patterns as standard. Aftermarket rings are available for Shimano, SRAM, and Campy cranks in 4-bolt. It’d also look ugly, but I’d almost always rather use an OEM ring with a drivetrain than aftermarket, it’ll plainly work better.
new standard number of bolts, but not new bolt / ring / crank interface standard.
this just makes me want a belt drive or that freaky crankshaft CeramicSpeed was demoing a few years back
8 Likes
to jan’s credit, it is quite the opposite. he says this way makes 3 sizes fit what would take many sizes otherwise. 171 covers 167.5, 170, 172.5, 177 gets 175 and 180 and 165 gets… short because people may not actually catch the pea
Jan does these weird sizes so that his cranks can’t be passed off as Rene herse originals. That was the original rationale
2 Likes
The secondary explanation does make a lot of sense though, and I can appreciate sensible ways to keep your SKUs down. 175 is a little bit too long for me, but I certainly wouldn’t notice one millimeter
1 Like
no that’s not why
165mm, 171mm, 177mm is actually 6.5", 6.75", 7.0"
which is the true historical sizing from the era of cottered cranks when they were designed, the current metric rationalizations didn’t really start until the 1960s
5 Likes
But that is what Jan said
2 Likes
Hmmmm, could be awesome
7 Likes
I can’t get over how heavy some of the steel bikes on Bikepacking.com have been this week
This is a ~3800g frameset for 51cm
This one is a little bit heavier - 3840 grams for 54cm
2 Likes
That sounds like a lot, but aren’t most steel frames like 1800-2300g? and throw in a steel fork for 750-900g and you’re most of the way there, with the added weight coming from all the frame fixtures and fitments for disc brakes and a million bolt bosses.
I guess that still leaves a mystery 500-750g floating around - maybe they used some really beefy tubing to keep the frame from twisting around loads? If you have huge tires and are actually bikepacking maybe it would smooth out with 650bx47 tires at like 20psi and a lot of weight on?
1 Like
My buddy sent an inquiry about those cranks for a weird project we’re working on and said he got a snarky answer. They do look cool though. Probably the least ugly execution of a pinch bolt crank I’ve seen.
3 Likes