Wait, are you friction shifting 11 speed?[/quote]
Not currently, but tried it when we first got these little doo-dads in: Dia-Compe ENE 11s Road and 10s Dynasys Downtube Shifters – Velo Orange
[quote=igor][quote=sparksflyhigh]
Interesting. I was waiting for more info before I pulled the trigger on an IRD wide compact. So is that design available from any other vendors? I had a 50.4 crankset but once I moved past 9 speed, the chain was getting stuck between the rings a lot on downshifts. Also I never quite got over the Nervar 631 arms that broke.[/quote]
Are you talking about their Adventure crankset? I’m pretty sure it’s the same as the one we tried. I haven’t had any problems with 10 or 11 speed stuff on our 50.4s both indexed and friction. Definitely no drops between rings.[/quote]
I don’t think so, the adventure crank from ird has a 24 mm integrated spindle, fhe wide compact is the one with the 46 30 rings on a 96 bcd, I’m referring to this crank https://velo-orange.blogspot.com.es/2017/07/igors-country-rambler-650b-pass-hunter.html?m=1 , which I’m pretty sure is square taper and is not a design I’ve seen elsewhere. I had the 50.4 problems with TA rings and vo hardware with friction dt shifters, I assumed the issue was due to the spacing between rings and not the lack of ramps or pins on the rings, but I didn’t do a lot of work to figure out the problem.
[quote=kmcdon]My stronglight 49d definitely does not drop the chain between the rings with a 10 speed chain. No idea about 11s.
10speed friction has served me well on the commuter.[/quote]
Maybe my shifting technique just sucks. It happened a few times and I had to stop and yank the chain out with my hands. I assumed it would only get worse with 11 speed.
Edit: apparently narrower chainring spacing does help: https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!msg/internet-bob/VpRbR3WJhog/Z1PzBoNaKQAJ
[quote=eric_ssucks][quote=igor]Here’s my bike
Jesus fucking christ this is a retro-grouch catalog photo. “Let’s make a bike that is actually terrible to use out of some parts that are pretty great individually and some that aren’t because looks are the most important feature of the bike.”[/quote]
I don’t have a problem with this bike. If you don’t like VO parts fine but I think that bike would be fun. Why would it be terrible to use? Looks like a standard Jan Heine approved randonneur.*
*edit – other than than the fucking cantis that is. There’s no excuse for cantis on anything…in fact I might rank them a bit below BB7s
Ah, the man with the chrome Rene herse has chimed in.
Cantis, ancient dangler, threaded headset, steel bottle, brown tires, shiny square taper crankset, and friction shifting. Not going to say anything about the big loop brakes and saddle couch. It’s not any one component: it’s that it was clearly built as a retro homage to old bikes using mostly new parts that are fine on their own but the combination is a little much.
IIRC non aero levers pull more cable than aero right? so they might be a bit better with cantis- paging fredd for this one
yesssir
non-aero levers improve the function of narrow-profile cantis and road-pull mechanical discs
[quote=sparksflyhigh][quote=kmcdon]My stronglight 49d definitely does not drop the chain between the rings with a 10 speed chain. No idea about 11s.
10speed friction has served me well on the commuter.[/quote]
Maybe my shifting technique just sucks. It happened a few times and I had to stop and yank the chain out with my hands. I assumed it would only get worse with 11 speed.
Edit: apparently narrower chainring spacing does help: https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!msg/internet-bob/VpRbR3WJhog/Z1PzBoNaKQAJ[/quote]
not having thin tall unsupported chainrings helps the most
shifting sucks on old 50.4 and 86bcd cranks because you can just flex the big ring out of the way if you hork on the DT lever
the wedged-in chain is because you opened up a big enough gap while also moving the chain across it
[quote=eric_ssucks]Ah, the man with the chrome Rene herse has chimed in.
Cantis, ancient dangler, threaded headset, steel bottle, brown tires, shiny square taper crankset, and friction shifting. Not going to say anything about the big loop brakes and saddle couch. It’s not any one component: it’s that it was clearly built as a retro homage to old bikes using mostly new parts that are fine on their own but the combination is a little much.[/quote]
Yes but it all works, the bike is probably comfortable, and it looks like it gets a lot of use. Plus it is objectively pretty. Or in order for a bike to be serious, does it have to be ugly in some way?
Everything on that bike functions well enough except maybe the cantis. Those are just dumb.
It is not objectively pretty, and the original (mild) criticism is that it looks like a retro grouch who had no idea how eBay works built a bike. Which is exactly what it is except clearly straight from the v-o hookup parts bin rather than a single splurge.
Hot take: a certain percentage of VO’s customer base are retrogrouch idiots, and that’s totally fine. Ivan’s bike is not only a functional and aesthetically pleasing bike, but also an advertising mechanism.
Can you fault him? I can’t. Looks like the guy is having fun and selling the lifestyle at the same time.
I do wanna see that tarckXvelo-orange collabo tho.
Even downshifting? My big ring was a 42, so it wasn’t super tall
[quote=kmcdon]Hot take: a certain percentage of VO’s customer base are retrogrouch idiots, and that’s totally fine. Ivan’s bike is not only a functional and aesthetically pleasing bike, but also an advertising mechanism.
Can you fault him? I can’t. Looks like the guy is having fun and selling the lifestyle at the same time.
I do wanna see that tarckXvelo-orange collabo tho.[/quote]
This is the new guy thread. You’re supposed to pick on the bikes. Also, I don’t think it’s an aesthetically pleasing bike. I don’t like brown tires, shiny skinny cranks, and non aero levers unless the housing is black to hide the loops. So, you’re wrong.
We’re all wrong, always. In the right way.
that front rack is giving me dry heaves
with the exception of the bullshit ye olde fronche crank, the lavender bike looks good and is a bike I would ride
[quote=emor]that front rack is giving me dry heaves
with the exception of the bullshit ye olde fronche crank, the lavender bike looks good and is a bike I would ride[/quote]
I can take criticism 'cause my GAF tank is bone dry. ye olde fronche crank. Straight to the signature with you!
igor, are you in annapolis?
lilac bike needs some more gears.
[quote=imoscardotcom]igor, are you in annapolis?
lilac bike needs some more gears.[/quote]
Annapolis, Yep.
someone explain why the lilac bike has the front rack attached to the inside of the fork braze-ons – is the spacing not right on the rack legs?
also, nice job hiding your rusty stack with a bell, i used to do the same thing.
you should make the rear fender on both bikes like 2 inches longer
how does the campeuur handle with panniers on that front rack?
[quote=joy of vaping]someone explain why the lilac bike has the front rack attached to the inside of the fork braze-ons – is the spacing not right on the rack legs?
also, nice job hiding your rusty stack with a bell, i used to do the same thing.
you should make the rear fender on both bikes like 2 inches longer
how does the campeuur handle with panniers on that front rack?[/quote]
I could bend the legs out and square them up, but they fit better on the inside of the legs and it looks pretty cool. The rack was not designed specifically for that fork, but rather to fit most bikes with the braze-on location there or using p-clamps.
Still testing that rack out with increasing loads, but riding fully loaded on with our Campeur Front Rack, it handled fine. Nothing more to note really, and that is a good thing.