Most of the time I get away with not having to grab the backside with anything. Other times I need a thin flathead screwdriver slotted in there and risk scratching the crankarm. I do not like scratching things, those hidden arms are a pain in the patooty.
On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 9:32:19 AM UTC-8 Bill Lindsay wrote: > Yeah, this gets to the heart of it. If your gripe has anything to do with > the tool that fits the backside of a chainring bolt, then in my opinion you > are already doing it wrong. I change out maybe 20 chainrings a year, maybe > more, and I go years without touching that tool. To me there is precisely > one use-case for that tool: when disassembling an old crankset that was > set up by somebody who did it wrong. In order to set things up correctly > you don't need that tool. If things were set up correctly, you don't need > that tool to take things apart. 9 out of 10 times that I do need to touch > that tool, it's because I'm taking apart a used crankset, set up wrong by > the factory or the previous owner. The symptom is that you can rotate the > bolt and the nut part rotates right along with it. You get to this state > by setting things up wrong. > > Here's my set up: > > 1.The backside of a chainring bolt (the "nut" part) nestles into a recess > on the chainring. That interface is supposed to stay fixed as the bolt is > tightened. It is supposed to GRAB, not SLIDE. As such, it should be bone > dry and clean. If in 20 years corrosion makes it stuck, no biggie, whack > it out with a rubber mallet. No grease here! > > 2.The threads between the bolt and nut are supposed to slide freely and > it's bad if this interface ever binds or rusts. Grease goes here on the > threads (not threadlocker). > > 3. The head of the bolt slides against the chainring as it is tightened. > If that interface binds, you might not get it tight enough. This interface > should have a tiny bit of grease. > > 4. If the chainring bolt assembly is set up dry-grease-grease, then those > three interfaces will grab-slide-slide, and you can tighten the chainring > bolt as tightly as you like with no backside wrench. When you take it back > apart, the interfaces still grab-slide-slide and you can disassemble it > with no backside wrench. If/when the backside nut "breaks free" when you > are loosening, just press it with your fingertip while you continue > loosening the bolt. > > 5. The only modification of the above for "hidden" arms is you need > something thinner than your fingertip at step 4, and literally anything > will serve. A chopstick, a flathead screwdriver, an allen key, whatever > thinnish thing you have handy on your workbench will serve. > > That's the entire secret in my view. The four things I think people maybe > do wrong are: > > 1. doing any of this work not in a workstand. This makes every single > thing 5x more clumsy and awkward > 2. Doing any chainring assembly/disassembly with the cranks on the bike. > Take the crank arm off and do it right on a work surface. Swapping > chainrings with the cranks on the bike is at least 3x more awkward. If you > pull the crank arm you actually may get away with not having a workstand! > 3. Putting grease where it does not belong: the interface that is supposed > to grab > 4. Not putting grease where it does belong: the interfaces that are > supposed to slide > > Bill Lindsay > El Cerrito, CA > On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 7:51:24 AM UTC-8 Johnny Alien wrote: > >> I tend to think its a dual problem between the tool and the actual bolt. >> I think the design of those lends itself to needing special tools that >> don't really work effectively. Using wolftooth bolts on a 1x is problem >> free and great. I don't like working with those Sugino style bolts even on >> non-hidden arms. >> >> On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 9:48:38 AM UTC-5 Jock Dewey wrote: >> >>> Plus one Mr. Tapebubba. If any are holding NOS Logic silver @ 170 / >>> 172.5 I’ll take the misery off your hands. >>> >>> BTW, I seem to recall a thread, many threads way way back when re: Logic >>> arms prone to breaking. Is my memory faulty? >>> >>> Jock >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 6:11 AM Bill Lindsay <tape...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> The hidden arm was definitely invented just to make a different look, >>>> and we were supposed to think that look was preferable. There's nothing >>>> better from a performance standpoint with the hidden arm, and it does >>>> indeed make it a TINY bit more work to change a chainring if you are doing >>>> things right*, and substantially harder if you are doing things some other >>>> way. I think it's a logical and good thing that Rivendell designed Silver >>>> cranks with a normal 5-arm setup. >>>> >>>> That said, it works out great for me that so many people seem to have >>>> such a hard time with hidden bolt cranks, because I've never had a problem >>>> with it, and your shared struggles has got to help drive the price down >>>> for >>>> me. Walking around my garage, there are four bikes with hidden arm >>>> Ritcheys, three with hidden arm Sugino, and two with hidden arm Campy. If >>>> there are any of you out there at your wits-end about it and want to ship >>>> me your unwanted 172.5mm cranks, let me know. >>>> >>>> Maybe I should do a YouTube to show how to deal with it the right* >>>> way? That would probably be pointless because in general it seems that >>>> those who have made up their minds that they are terrible seem to have >>>> their minds completely made up. >>>> >>>> There is no question that the hidden arm does not make it EASIER to >>>> replace a chainring. It makes it a tiny bit harder. I'd put it on par >>>> with tying my shoes. My BOA shoes are the easiest to install onto my feet >>>> and extract from my feet. Lace-up shoes are harder to install and harder >>>> to extract than BOA shoes. That's a fact. Still, I know how to tie my >>>> shoes, and I do include lace-up shoes in my closet. I imagine it would be >>>> logical to boycott lace-up shoes and label shoelaces as the worst thing >>>> ever, and limit oneself to strictly BOA shoes (and slip-ons). That would >>>> be a principled stance. From my perspective, it's a baby and bathwater >>>> situation. >>>> >>>> My guess is that there are three reasons Rivendell designed the Silver >>>> cranks with normal 5-arms: >>>> >>>> 1. their customers vocally complain about the hidden arm >>>> 2. there is no performance benefit to the hidden arm >>>> 3. the post-forging machining steps are more complicated and costly >>>> with the hidden arm >>>> >>>> There's no reason to make an already expensive product even more >>>> expensive by adding a valueless feature that your customers will bellyache >>>> about. >>>> >>>> I've got guesses at how and why people struggle with the hidden arm, >>>> and it's probably a combination of 4 things. >>>> >>>> Bill Lindsay >>>> El Cerrito, CA >>>> >>>> *by right, I mean the way that was obvious and self-evident when I >>>> first ran across them in the late 1980s, but it seems what was obvious and >>>> self evident to me is not universal. >>>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 11:27:41 PM UTC-8 Joe Bernard wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Probably too much of a pain to deal with." >>>>> >>>>> Precisely. It's not in the product descriptions anymore but at the >>>>> introduction of Silvers much was made of how fiddly that hidden chainring >>>>> bolt is when installing/swapping rings on the Sugino cranks Riv sold. As >>>>> a >>>>> many-years owner of many 'hidden arm' Suginos, I can attest they are a >>>>> pain >>>>> in the patooty. >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:57:20 PM UTC-8 R. Alexis wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Was walking past one of my bikes the other day and thought the Sugino >>>>>> AT cranks and the Specialized Flag cranks bare some resemblance to the >>>>>> upcoming Silver 2 cranks. On another note, I was surprised that >>>>>> Rivendell >>>>>> didn't go with a hidden arm crank ala Ritchey. Probably too much of a >>>>>> pain >>>>>> to deal with. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Reginald Alexis >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:30:58 PM UTC-5 Bill Lindsay wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I stumbled upon the News Blog on rivbike.com and was glancing at >>>>>>> Roman's Legolas. He and I ordered ours in the same size at the same >>>>>>> time, >>>>>>> so I always regard his as the twin sibling to mine. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyway, there's a sneak peek of a lighter, road-ish, Silver2 >>>>>>> crankset. Looks pretty cool! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.rivbike.com/blogs/news/romans-57cm-legolas-865cm-pbh >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bill Lindsay >>>>>>> El Cerrito, CA >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com. >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/811af3a8-ddb6-4271-af46-0d49f6059e7dn%40googlegroups.com >>>> >>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/811af3a8-ddb6-4271-af46-0d49f6059e7dn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>> . >>>> >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/4bc06b65-ed95-4198-857f-5dc5883fde84n%40googlegroups.com.
