[RBW] Re: Hollowtech Homer
Three cheers for using shorter cranks ! I use 150/152 with long legs and sz.14 feet. 36" pbh. Slightly forward of midfoot shoe placement. Not only no loss of power, but much more efficient use of it. I can climb seated now whereas with 170-185's I never could. I mostly ride road, but do ride on some local township "roads" that are as rough and irregular as any mtb trail, and often steep and super steep. Seated climbing the whole time ;-) . I may go even shorter to 140-145 with the next Andel triple cranks I get from Bikesmith Design, or another Origin8 double you can buy off the shelf. On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 5:56:52 PM UTC-4, Joe Bernard wrote: > > I've recently been experimenting with 165, 155, 152 and 145 cranks (80-ish > PBH). I can't vouch for dirt riding or climbing long monster paved hills, > but I detect no leverage difference in general town riding. I rock less on > the saddle and it saves my knees, I think shorter is better. -- 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/cde183ad-f593-488d-9247-1b036dea62f9%40googlegroups.com.
[RBW] Re: Hollowtech Homer
Been riding 165s on my ss mtb for years and always felt like I had enough leverage. It is only a ~6% difference in length going from 175 to 165. My breakfast likely matters more for leverage. Nice wide bars on the other hand did feel like an improvement. Clayton Scott HBG, CA On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 2:56:52 PM UTC-7, Joe Bernard wrote: > > I've recently been experimenting with 165, 155, 152 and 145 cranks (80-ish > PBH). I can't vouch for dirt riding or climbing long monster paved hills, > but I detect no leverage difference in general town riding. I rock less on > the saddle and it saves my knees, I think shorter is better. -- 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/0244b79a-9734-4f1f-b23b-562dcf650c16%40googlegroups.com.
[RBW] Re: Hollowtech Homer
Been riding 165s on my SS mtb for years and never felt like I was lacking leverage either. It is "only" a ~6% difference in length after all. My breakfast likely matters more. Clayton Scott HBG, CA On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 2:56:52 PM UTC-7, Joe Bernard wrote: > > I've recently been experimenting with 165, 155, 152 and 145 cranks (80-ish > PBH). I can't vouch for dirt riding or climbing long monster paved hills, > but I detect no leverage difference in general town riding. I rock less on > the saddle and it saves my knees, I think shorter is better. -- 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/8ee7bb38-7425-478a-be7d-783f2f77536e%40googlegroups.com.
[RBW] Re: Hollowtech Homer
I've recently been experimenting with 165, 155, 152 and 145 cranks (80-ish PBH). I can't vouch for dirt riding or climbing long monster paved hills, but I detect no leverage difference in general town riding. I rock less on the saddle and it saves my knees, I think shorter is better. -- 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/f969865b-a1b8-4b30-a502-ef9db29a22f9%40googlegroups.com.
[RBW] Re: Hollowtech Homer
Regarding crank length - I prefer them 165-170. Tried 175 but liked them less. Some of it may be what I am used to, although I have zero issues switching back and forth from 165 to 170. I am 6' tall and of average proportion. Unlike Rivendell, I feel like crank length is a matter of personal preference rather than rider height although rider height is likely a good starting point. Riding terrain, riding style, and bike matters more than rider height IMO. Shorter will always give more relative ground clearance. Clayton Scott HBG, CA On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 11:06:16 AM UTC-7, aeroperf wrote: > > > Thanks, and this is the discussion I was looking for. > > What I ended up with is the FD-3030 road derailleur when an outer > chainring of 46 teeth and up is installed, and an FD-M611 when an outer > chainring of 44 teeth or less is installed. This was more because the > geometry of my 51 Homer got the road cage close to the chainstay with a > small outer ring. I mentioned the Riv chainline because it was a “learning > experience”. > > The reason I went all the way back to the M590 crankset was because it > came in enough variations so I could mix and match chainrings. I’ve never > had a 650b bike, and it may take some wearing into shape. But I have > noticed that some 3x9-speed Shimano Deore quality parts are getting rare in > the US - like the FD-M591 or the M590 crank. Also, the “Trekking” sets I > mentioned only seem to be available in the EU. > > So I broadened the topic to 10-speed. There is now a raft of 10-speed > Hollowtech equipment, so I wondered who was using what. Longer cranks seem > to be getting popular, along with smaller outer chainrings and 2-speed > front ends. > I’ve noticed that as Shimano goes the industry tends to follow, so I want > to hear folks’ opinions. > -- 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/7f20bec4-e94f-4da7-abc7-8431364ef543%40googlegroups.com.
[RBW] Re: Hollowtech Homer
Thanks, and this is the discussion I was looking for. What I ended up with is the FD-3030 road derailleur when an outer chainring of 46 teeth and up is installed, and an FD-M611 when an outer chainring of 44 teeth or less is installed. This was more because the geometry of my 51 Homer got the road cage close to the chainstay with a small outer ring. I mentioned the Riv chainline because it was a “learning experience”. The reason I went all the way back to the M590 crankset was because it came in enough variations so I could mix and match chainrings. I’ve never had a 650b bike, and it may take some wearing into shape. But I have noticed that some 3x9-speed Shimano Deore quality parts are getting rare in the US - like the FD-M591 or the M590 crank. Also, the “Trekking” sets I mentioned only seem to be available in the EU. So I broadened the topic to 10-speed. There is now a raft of 10-speed Hollowtech equipment, so I wondered who was using what. Longer cranks seem to be getting popular, along with smaller outer chainrings and 2-speed front ends. I’ve noticed that as Shimano goes the industry tends to follow, so I want to hear folks’ opinions. -- 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/b48dc112-660d-43cc-958b-f4daf5443e71%40googlegroups.com.
Re: [RBW] Re: Hollowtech Homer
I forgive you Steve ... On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 12:56:19 PM UTC-4, Steve Palincsar wrote: > > > On 9/25/19 12:28 PM, Garth wrote: > > > > All I can say about front dérailleurs is that I've found that double > FD's work on triple cranks much better than triple FD's. > > > Not universally true*,* I've recently put a Tiagra FD4603F triple on my > Weigle, which has a 24/34/46 Herse crank (10 spd SRAM PG1070 12-32 > cassette). This particular derailleur seems to be made for gearing just > like mine and works amazingly well, better than any of the doubles I've > tried. Previously I had a Tiagra double which worked until the LBS messed > with it, and then simply wouldn't work properly any more no matter how they > adjusted or bent it, and before that a Campagnolo double that wouldn't > shift to the small ring at all and only reluctantly shifted between large > and middle. It's simply bloody amazing how well it works. > > Or, use the 10 spd Tiagra FD4603F and be amazed. > > -- > Steve Palincsar > Alexandria, Virginia > USA > > -- 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/28c57181-c171-4073-93f2-75c9ea4a5b8b%40googlegroups.com.
Re: [RBW] Re: Hollowtech Homer
This is an anecdote, if not a prescription. I made an early Dura Ace 74XX fd work on a Brontrager hollow-pipe triple by cutting off the little lever stop that limited outward throw. Serendipity arranged that the new, far greater throw corresponded exactly with the outer ring limit of the Bontrager crankset. I now use the DA sans stop on a wide range Logic double, where careful shifting (easy, in fact) and an large bash guard in the outer ring position have so far kept the chain from overshooting. I too like road fds for triples, though I have to say that the last MTB triple, a 9-speed-era LX, shifted as well as anything else I've used. -- 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/CALuTfgtX951u5iW897N5%2Be5C0yKe_m5uaoKuWaooFWdKfB0BKQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Re: [RBW] Re: Hollowtech Homer
On 9/25/19 12:28 PM, Garth wrote: All I can say about front dérailleurs is that I've found that double FD's work on triple cranks much better than triple FD's. Not universally true. I've recently put a Tiagra FD4603F triple on my Weigle, which has a 24/34/46 Herse crank (10 spd SRAM PG1070 12-32 cassette). This particular derailleur seems to be made for gearing just like mine and works amazingly well, better than any of the doubles I've tried. Previously I had a Tiagra double which worked until the LBS messed with it, and then simply wouldn't work properly any more no matter how they adjusted or bent it, and before that a Campagnolo double that wouldn't shift to the small ring at all and only reluctantly shifted between large and middle. It's simply bloody amazing how well it works. My Bombadil, which I ride the same as I would any road bike, for example, with a Andel 24/36/46 crank, chainline about 46 or so a 9-speed Shimano Tiagra 4400 double FD shifts swiftly and precise, it's simply excellent in every way ! I previously had used a 80's Deore MT60, which was slow and not so precise. *Triple cranks with rings in the 24-50 teeth range don't need triple FD's, assuming friction shifting.* The 4400 FD I'm using could easily handle a wider chainline also, as would most any road FD, at least from 9-10 speed and below. So use a road FD , and you'll grin from ear to ear ! Or, use the 10 spd Tiagra FD4603F and be amazed. -- Steve Palincsar Alexandria, Virginia USA -- 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/ff31297b-19f0-2941-8390-137cdd5c8995%40his.com.
[RBW] Re: Hollowtech Homer
All I can say about front dérailleurs is that I've found that double FD's work on triple cranks much better than triple FD's. My Bombadil, which I ride the same as I would any road bike, for example, with a Andel 24/36/46 crank, chainline about 46 or so a 9-speed Shimano Tiagra 4400 double FD shifts swiftly and precise, it's simply excellent in every way ! I previously had used a 80's Deore MT60, which was slow and not so precise. *Triple cranks with rings in the 24-50 teeth range don't need triple FD's, assuming friction shifting.* The 4400 FD I'm using could easily handle a wider chainline also, as would most any road FD, at least from 9-10 speed and below. So use a road FD , and you'll grin from ear to ear ! As for frames, a frame is a frame is a frame . period. Adorn it with whatever you want, call it whatever you want .a road bike, mtb, gravel bike, yo' mamas bike, whatever bike it's still the same frame as it ever is . Smile and ride with Joy with it all !!! -- 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/a56375f4-e9d1-4ea0-b475-eea57de764dc%40googlegroups.com.
[RBW] Re: Hollowtech Homer
The Hollowtech II bottom bracket is a class of external ball bearing bottom brackets. The Hollowtechs have the advantage of being able to run a hollow and larger diameter crank axle: more axle strength with a comparable or lower weight than a square taper BB while still being compatible with standard BSC/ISO/English threaded bottom bracket shells. The disadvantages are the ball bearings are smaller and the large, exposed seals that could fail prematurely, taking the bearings with them. > When I built up the Homer, the M590 bottom bracket specified a spacer combination to make it MTB spacing (73mm, 50mm chainline), and again the road derailleur was struggling. In this case I rearranged spacers to move the entire BB and crank 3mm left to solve the chainline problem. The chainline for the FD-3030 is 45mm ( https://bike.shimano.com/en-EU/product/component/sora-r3000/FD-R3030-F.html) so you moving the chainline to 47mm moved the front rings closer in line with its intended use. The chainline on external bearing bottom brackets are adjusted just as you did, by moving spacers between the drive- and the non-drive sides of the bottom bracket, and works fine as long as your small ring still clears your chainstay. Also, note that the FD-3030 is spec'ced at 20T capacity (the largest and smallest rings can't differ by more than 20 teeth) and the differential between top and middle rings can't exceed 11T. All options for the stock M590 crankset ( http://media.canyon.com/download/manuals/Manual_FC-M590_EN.pdf) come with a 22T differential and a top-to-middle differential of 12T. Maybe that's why you're having front shifting problems? If so, Jeremy's suggestion with replacing the Sora with an M590/M591 FD ( https://www.bike-components.de/en/Shimano/Deore-FD-M590-FD-M591-66-69-3-9-speed-Front-Derailleur-p22104/) with its 22T capacity and 12T top-to-middle differential could fix that. > The latest Shimano Deore stuff seems to be heading towards 10-speed and 175mm crank arm length. Rivs don’t like a 175mm crank due to the low bottom bracket, so I’m stuck with 170mm. 170mm is my preferred crank length and I have no problems finding one for any of the "modern" drivetrains. I think if you prefer 165mm or 180mm, that may be a bit more challenging. For many offroad, non-MTB applications, the "adventure compact double" 46T-30T paired with a wide range rear cassette (11T-34T on my Ultegra 6800; 11T-42T coming up more often with off-the-shelf RDs) is the preferred choice for gearing. Here's Russ from Path Less Pedaled on gearing for mixed terrain gravel riding, covering light to fully loaded touring (caution: long video and very bike nerdy): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL7HLXR3O9U . > But are folks putting 10-speed equipment (cassette and chain) on a Riv? If so, what problems have you run into? [lack of shifters?, etc.] It's just a matter of selecting drive train components (FD, RD, shifters, crankset, BB, and rear cassette) that work together on your target frame, whether or not it's a Riv. The 68mm BB shell/135mm rear spacing/28.6 seat tube clamp diameter is so ubiquitous that your AHH will not be your limiting factor. The problem will be if you'd like to keep some of your old drivetrain (and other components) as you add in that 10 speed group to your existing 9 speed group. (The answer is likely nothing practical, and it's most cost effective to upgrade everything at once.) > I know this is all heresy. This is not heresy: this is orthodoxy. Glad to see you playing around, and hope the tinkering works out in the end. --Ed C. -- 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/a0d67a31-8de6-48a4-b0c4-4ca4575992c0%40googlegroups.com.
