A Really Compact Ritchey Crankset

rocketman58 said:

I have a cold forged Ritchey crank that sports 41,30,20 rings. How's
that for compact? Set up with three rings, it still weighs about
625g. Ya, I know it's not the same "compact" as everyone has been
talking about here, but if ya need real low gears...

....and if you don't mind a little chainsuck...

Quoted message said:

I have a 110 XTR crank with 48,34 that I have been using for a number
of years. It is one of the best 110's ever made, in my opinion. I
have even used it with a 46,34,19 combo (19 via a MT Triple on the
inner location.)

It probably *is* the best 110 crank ever made. Cold forged, polished, etc.
I've never heard of one breaking, especially with people who have broken several
other cranks.

Quoted message said:

I hope we start seeing a lot more quality 110's become available. It
was getting hard to find them for a while.

Sugino has always made them. Ritchey and others are probably made by Sugino
anyway.

Matt O.

Matt O'Toole said:

Sugino has always made them. Ritchey and others are probably made by Sugino
anyway.

I know they were for lots of years - suppose they still are. I've
been running Ritchey cranks on my own MTB forever - they're really,
really beat up but I can't think of a good reason to "upgrade".

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Matt O'Toole said:

rocketman58 said:

I have a cold forged Ritchey crank that sports 41,30,20 rings. How's
that for compact? Set up with three rings, it still weighs about
625g. Ya, I know it's not the same "compact" as everyone has been
talking about here, but if ya need real low gears...

...and if you don't mind a little chainsuck...

Quoted message said:

I have a 110 XTR crank with 48,34 that I have been using for a number
of years. It is one of the best 110's ever made, in my opinion. I
have even used it with a 46,34,19 combo (19 via a MT Triple on the
inner location.)

It probably *is* the best 110 crank ever made. Cold forged, polished, etc.
I've never heard of one breaking, especially with people who have broken several
other cranks.

These go for a lot of dough on ebay.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I hope we start seeing a lot more quality 110's become available. It
was getting hard to find them for a while.

They seem to be coming back some. Folks recognize there is no apparent
disadvantage, but yet some advantage. I wonder how many new bikes will
come with them OEM. The last 110 road crank that came on production
bikes was the RSX model -- it wasn't bad for a entry level component.
Keeping 110's as simply aftermarket items will lower the total quantity
greatly. We'll see how it shakes out.

Quoted message said:

Sugino has always made them. Ritchey and others are probably made by Sugino
anyway.

The square taper Ritcheys are Sugino. That fact is not attempted to be
hidden. Sugino is embedded in Al on the back side of the arms. It too
is cold forged and highly polished. Very high quality. I think it is
about 550 g without rings/bolts -- about the same as Dura Ace of the
era. It is low Q, about 139 to 142 depending on the spindle. Sugino
made the high end Suntour cranks too (Superbe Pro & XC Pro, and
others).

Just received the first Energy from FSA. 34/50 double weighs 567gm.
ISIS-108-200gm. Sweet.
Tom

--
Bruni Bicycles
"Where art meets science"
brunibicycles.com
410.426.3420
gwhite <gwhite@hocuspocus_ti.com> wrote in message
news:40B42B38.DF794F5D@hocuspocus_ti.com...

Quoted message said:

Matt O'Toole said:

rocketman58 said:

I have a cold forged Ritchey crank that sports 41,30,20 rings. How's
that for compact? Set up with three rings, it still weighs about
625g. Ya, I know it's not the same "compact" as everyone has been
talking about here, but if ya need real low gears...

...and if you don't mind a little chainsuck...

Quoted message said:

I have a 110 XTR crank with 48,34 that I have been using for a number
of years. It is one of the best 110's ever made, in my opinion. I
have even used it with a 46,34,19 combo (19 via a MT Triple on the
inner location.)

It probably *is* the best 110 crank ever made. Cold forged, polished,

etc.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've never heard of one breaking, especially with people who have broken

several

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

other cranks.

These go for a lot of dough on ebay.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I hope we start seeing a lot more quality 110's become available. It
was getting hard to find them for a while.

They seem to be coming back some. Folks recognize there is no apparent
disadvantage, but yet some advantage. I wonder how many new bikes will
come with them OEM. The last 110 road crank that came on production
bikes was the RSX model -- it wasn't bad for a entry level component.
Keeping 110's as simply aftermarket items will lower the total quantity
greatly. We'll see how it shakes out.

Quoted message said:

Sugino has always made them. Ritchey and others are probably made by

Sugino

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

anyway.

The square taper Ritcheys are Sugino. That fact is not attempted to be
hidden. Sugino is embedded in Al on the back side of the arms. It too
is cold forged and highly polished. Very high quality. I think it is
about 550 g without rings/bolts -- about the same as Dura Ace of the
era. It is low Q, about 139 to 142 depending on the spindle. Sugino
made the high end Suntour cranks too (Superbe Pro & XC Pro, and
others).

"Matt O'Toole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

rocketman58 said:

I have a cold forged Ritchey crank that sports 41,30,20 rings. How's
that for compact? Set up with three rings, it still weighs about
625g. Ya, I know it's not the same "compact" as everyone has been
talking about here, but if ya need real low gears...

...and if you don't mind a little chainsuck...

In my experience (riding for almost 30 years) chainsuck is a product
of excessive drivetrain wear and/or poor maintenance. I have only
sucked a chain one time, and it was due to a worn alloy 28 tooth ring.
I have never sucked a 20 tooth ring, even with a narrow 9spd chain.
I only use steel 20 tooth rings since the alloy ones wear too fast. I
have even used "rings" as small as 18 teeth (adaptors using cassette
cogs) and never had problems with chainsuck.

rocketman58 said:

"Matt O'Toole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

rocketman58 said:

I have a cold forged Ritchey crank that sports 41,30,20 rings.
How's that for compact? Set up with three rings, it still weighs
about 625g. Ya, I know it's not the same "compact" as everyone has
been talking about here, but if ya need real low gears...

...and if you don't mind a little chainsuck...

In my experience (riding for almost 30 years) chainsuck is a product
of excessive drivetrain wear and/or poor maintenance. I have only
sucked a chain one time, and it was due to a worn alloy 28 tooth ring.
I have never sucked a 20 tooth ring, even with a narrow 9spd chain.
I only use steel 20 tooth rings since the alloy ones wear too fast. I
have even used "rings" as small as 18 teeth (adaptors using cassette
cogs) and never had problems with chainsuck.

Two things:

Smaller rings wear faster, because of higher torque and chain tension, and fewer
teeth to spread the wear among.

Second, the further you bend the chain, the longer it takes to bend it back.
This is especially true if the chain is dirty. There's a good reason Shimano
chose 22T for its Compact Drive instead of going all the way down to 20 like
Suntour. They wanted to match Suntour's marketshare-garnering "innovation," but
still keep shifting reliable. This was tested to death by Shimano engineers.
Back in the day when high end mountain bikes all came with Suntour, the Suntour
riders piled up at the base of all the hills, stopped dead by chainsuck. XC Pro
came with steel inner rings that didn't wear much, but they "sucked" even when
brand new and relatively clean. Ritchey even came up with the 2x9 system to
eliminate the inner ring entirely, especially for muddy riding. Middle rings or
larger inner rings can suck too, but the smaller you go, the more prone you
are -- and that's a fact. Note that Shimano has stuck with non-Compact sizes
for their flagship group, XTR.

Matt O.