WhatsYoCadence

Which cranks do you guys prefer and why?

taras0000

Although I prefer the DA 7600, I'm currently running some Sugino 75s and a vintage pair of Campy Record Pistas.

dunderhi

I went with Shimano D-A 7710 in 165, 170, & 172.5mm. Why? I've been riding Shimano D-A on the road for a couple decades, so it just seemed natural to stay with Shimano D-A.

Pantani98

I'm rockin' the D-A 7710. I've only heard great things about them and you can't go wrong with Dura-Ace.

zizou

Miche for me, came with the bike and had no reason to change it.

myth001

Miche here for a newbie, bought it to replace an entry level FSA that came with my bike. My LBS praised the Miche, but looks like here it's not even in the top few of choice.

Quinn8it

There is not a person on this board- myself included, who could tell the difference between any of the cranks listed- other than the possibility that some have quite different Q-factors..

gtrob

Im on rotor's now.

IMO, cranks are the least felt part of the bike. If they install well, dont make noise, and don't flex, I really don't care what they are. Bars/frame/pedals/tires/hubs, etc are something to dwell on.

wens

I could certainly feel omniums, but that's because I was bashing my ankles on them. Other than that, if they come in the right length, whatever.

queerpunk

srsly

Brian Ratliff

Miche is fine - I used them for a while. They are just entry level and the bottom bracket that goes with it sucks. Now I use Sugino 75s with DA rings. Good combo.

Quinn8it

hmmmmm- that's funny, I use DA Cranks with Sugino 75 Rings..

Where do you stand on the Big/Big Vs Small/Small ring cog combo argument?

dunderhi

Mongo like Big/Small.

Hida Yanra

I'm an enduro-sort, so can't much tell a difference anyway.

I've used 4-5 different ones now, they pretty much all work.
Some tend to be more "round" than others, more precise - helps keep the chain line in plane, but that's about the only thing I really much noticed.

700wheel

My mechanical design handbook delves into chain drive efficiency; basically larger tooth cogs result in less chain friction and better chain load distribution (to me this means less cog wear) than smaller sprockets.

myth001

That's interesting, I bought mine online, and my LBS was still praising the Miche BB (well, compared to the FSA one that with the bike anyways). Oh, well! Already installed it now. perhaps something to keep in mind next time...

Never thought the 'roundness' could be such a noticeable factor! Shouldn't they all be pretty well computer designed and cut, and hence pretty 'round'?
Which ones in your opinion are 'rounder' that others?

I'm assuming that the larger cogs don't let the chain bend as much, and hence less friction. Is that right? Or is there some different logic to this?

Brian Ratliff

The bearing itself is okay, probably better than the stock FSA bearings. The problem is because it is threaded into the frame without tightening against the shoulder of the bottom bracket shell, it tended (for me anyway) to start backing itself out of the frame. Basically, the whole crank assembly would start shifting to the non-driveside as the non-driveside cup backed out.

I believe you can replace it with a Sugino 75 bottom bracket which would solve this problem. I was in the middle of considering this when I found a good deal on a very lightly used Sugino 75 crankset, and so made the switch. -EDIT: scratch that... Miche uses JIS, not ISO. I'm either remembering wrong or I was contemplating some hashy setup combining an ISO bottom bracket with a JIS crankset.

The only problem I see with the Shimano crankset is the bottom bracket attachment. I don't hold with that crazy tiny spline Ocalink thing where if you use the wrong "version" you risk stripping your crank (this happened to a friend). They are also crazy expensive for what they are. Shimano rings are second to none though (IMHO).

carleton

It's kinda like the difference between cooking with I Can't Believe It's Not Butter and cooking with Butter. If that's all you've had, you won't notice any problem...till you taste Butter

It's a quality control thing.

A chainring that is slightly off center or warped will cause the chain to pulsate up and down as it gains and loses tension. Most do it ever-so-slightly. The more expensive ones don't. Why don't they?

- They use higher quality machining tools that have better precision.
- The tools are probably maintained more often
- Quality assurance throws out those that don't past tests

All of which means that manufacturing costs are slightly higher. Hence the higher price.

Lower-end companies will sell chainrings that Campy or Sugino will destroy.

Being that track bikes don't have a derailleur, there is nothing to take up the slack. So you have to set it with the rear wheel placement. If your chainring is perfectly round, the chain will not pulsate. If it is, then you'll have to set the wheel in a spot that doesn't make the chain too tight or too slack.

So, your chain is like pants belt:
- A derailleur would be an elastic belt that maintains the same tension even if your belly expands and contacts.
- A slack track chain would allow your pants to slide down
- A tight track chain would be constricting
- If your waist pulsated you'd pulsate between slack and a tight belt.

Brian Ratliff

Ha! The question for the ages. I've taken to enjoying the 13 and 14... But the 15 is so smooth for those long races .

carleton

I really have experienced smaller chainring/cog combos feeling like smaller gears.

People say it's a myth. But, perception is reality in many respects.

Just like some people can't tell if their cleats are twisted or if their saddle is 1 inch lower, other people can.

Brian Ratliff

I'm actually with you. People, underestimate just how sensitive the human body is. Apparently we can detect texture differences in the nanometer range.

And, I still hold that a small-small combo is going to be more responsive and more lossy due to the smaller diameter of the chain path (less inertia-more responsive, shorter bend radius-more lossy) and the higher tension on the chain (less backlash-more responsive, higher link friction-more lossy).

I would like to see someone come out to a world class sprint meet sporting a 58/15 combo sometime...

nspace

How much of an issue does slight out of roundness really cause? Especially with a bit of slack in the chain. I ask because I've raced singlespeed mountain bikes for years and never noticed this pulsating (but maybe thats because I'm using splined rings). But even some guys are running Rotor Q rings, going over bumpy terrain, at some high cadences, and no one is dropping chains.

I like my Miche cranks (older style Primato), but the harder to find BCD of 135mm is what will likely prompt an upgrade just based on chainring availability.

Brian Ratliff

It's no real problem unless the roundness is so extreme as to cause problems positioning the wheel. I've seen some cheap rings that were so out of round that there was a very narrow region between the slack being too slack to ensure the chain staying on the rings and the tight being so tight as to bind the wheel. Combine that with a cheap, used, alloy frame that has gouged trackends, and you start having to plan your gear changes half an hour in advance (as me how I know this...).

TurtleRacer

+1. I was convinced of this when I saw how much the bottom-bracket flexes when riding in my trainer (even at 200 watts). Even if there were any flex in my cranks it would be insignificant compared to the flex in the BB.

Soil_Sampler

New Miche JIS, old Miche ISO.