The obvious scenario to put beautiful parts on a bike is: You get a bike that you think is worth it. TA cranks can be finicky it's true. They were designed before there were standards. Otherwise they're sexy, strong and very good. They were the go-to crankset for the earliest mountain bikes because everything else would fail. I admit to a certain nostalgia (and francophilia) for them. But then again I appreciate a bike as an object as well as for its purpose. Furthermore I can't think of a more versatile crankset. The Rene Herse cranks on the other hand aren't any problem at all. They are truly as simple (and standard) as can be. I really don't know what you are talking about. I suspect that makes two of us. /sorry, that's more cheeky than tongue-in-cheek. And I do appreciate your taking issue with the claim of an indisputable best of anything. Perhaps. But I can't think of another rival for that title either.
On Thursday, April 5, 2012 12:08:48 PM UTC-4, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote: > > I know you're being tongue-in-cheek when you declare that anything is the > indisputable "best". I work on enough old bikes to kill whatever nostalgia > I may have once had for old parts or even for new parts that look old. I > can't imagine a scenario where I'd consider putting an antiquarian crank > like the TA or Compass RH crank on one of my bikes. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/g6Alynqr84AJ. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
