This is an interesting discussion. Some years ago I bought one of Riv's Sugino triple cranks that they modified into a two-plateau (may I use that word nowadays?) "wide/low," replacing the outer chainring with a chain guard. I really like the set up and i works perfectly for one of my bike's applications. So, reading through these threads I had to go take a look at the Sugino crank and noticed that it does, indeed, have a chainring bolt hidden behind the crank arm. BUT, I noticed another thing: the smallest inner chainring is steel instead of the usual aluminum which got me wondering if Sugino used steel for that chainring because it would be less likely to wear out and need replacement before the outer chainring(s), requiring one to fiddle with that "hidden" bolt. Or if the folks at Riv did that...
On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 12:16:02 PM UTC-6 Bill Lindsay wrote: > I comprehend that perspective. and it's an evergreen retort to "doing it > right". You should be able to "do it wrong" and still get optimal > results. If there is a "right way" to do it, then it's already > disqualified. I disagree with that perspective, because there's always an > even more wrong way to handle any subassembly. The old saying goes "Idiot > proof? They'll just make a bigger idiot". > > The fact is that 95% of bicycles made in the last half-century with > multiple chainrings have bolts of this type. All of them have an > equivalently bad design, right? This has nothing to do with hidden bolts, > or Silver cranks. It's every thing except after-market two-headed > chainring bolts like Wolf Tooth makes. My XTR M985 cranks also came with a > two-headed chainring bolt design. Folks that hate traditional chainring > bolts will be free to use a two-headed design on their Silver or Silver2 > cranks, so they are golden. > > Bill Lindsay > El Cerrito, CA > > On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 9:51:28 AM UTC-8 Johnny Alien wrote: > >> All of that being necessary is still a sign of bad design. If its not >> clear or takes very specific processes to be done correctly then there is a >> problem somewhere. I think that problem is 100% the design of that bolt >> system. Most 1x bolts are a breeze and require no specific instructions. >> And I have swapped chainrings right on the bike with the crankset installed. >> >> On Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 12:39:35 PM UTC-5 Joe Bernard wrote: >> >>> 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/77d68b1b-cabc-4fe7-a4a4-daa7adb796fdn%40googlegroups.com.
