The A18 Ridgewood Express ride that I am scheduled to lead this Sunday, the 9th of January is cancelled due to injury. The good news is there is another club A ride scheduled on that same day. See you in the spring. Thanks. -Peter
Cancelled - Sunday, 1/9/05 Ridgewood A ride
Tue, 01/04/2005 - 9:59am
Tue, 01/04/2005 - 10:26am
#1
Injury
>See you in the spring
That doesn't sound good, what does the other guy look like?
I hope you get well soon.
Wed, 01/05/2005 - 11:02am
#2
Irv and I also hope you get better soon.
Thu, 01/06/2005 - 1:35pm
#3
What's wrong with this picture?
"
Dude, where's my pedal?
With a broken crank comes a broken clavicle.
~Peter
P.S. Chuck, Irv & Hindy, et al - thanks!"
Thu, 01/06/2005 - 1:59pm
#4
Ouch.
Sorry to hear (and see) it.
What kinda crank was that?
Thu, 01/06/2005 - 2:42pm
#5
Ultegra 6500 (nm)
Thu, 01/06/2005 - 2:32pm
#6
Hope you have a speedy recovery, Peter
"Is that Shimano Dura-Ace? The same kind of failure as in the picture on the crank failures page.
I assume it broke when you were standing up on the pedals?
"
Thu, 01/06/2005 - 2:54pm
#7
"Ultegra 6500 (look at the spider - DA is less ""organic"") I think. (Ooops, I see that Peter posted that too.) It looks to me like a stress fracture failure caused by a stress riser from a shoe/cleat scratch on the crank arm. It's in the right spot for that kind of failure.
Sorry to hear about your injury. That's a stinky kind of failure. Get well soon. At least you picked the right season!
- Christian"
Thu, 01/06/2005 - 3:37pm
#8
scratches & chain ring options
Those scratches are superficial, i.e they're undetectable running ones fingers across the crank arm. If that were really the case, such failures would be endemic. Nonetheless, good guess, Christian. (Looks can be deceiving, especially with that close-up shot. Granted it's not the best shot this 1 arm bandit can manage and w/ the broken crank arm facing the wall while on the bike rack.)
My guess is the failure is due to fatigue coupled with a less than ideal Aluminum casting/fabrication. There's approximately 35K miles on them.
I'm now debating whether the next crank is a triple or a compact double. Keep in mind my current gearing setup is a 39/50-12/27; plenty of enough high gear for me;more low gears sought. Any opinions?
Thu, 01/06/2005 - 7:14pm
#9
If you stick with Shimano, you can put an XT cassette on the back and go up to either a 32 or a 34 tooth cog. That way you can stick with the double. (You can also go titanium on the cassette, if you've a mind to.)
Fri, 01/07/2005 - 4:42am
#10
Compact
"""If you stick with Shimano, you can put an XT cassette on the back and go up to either a 32 or a 34 tooth cog.""
Compact 50 x 34 cranks are a more elegant solution.
""Chainwheel"""
Fri, 01/07/2005 - 7:36am
#11
"Not sure that I agree.
If you look at the spacing on a 12-27 with a 50-34 (or 50-36), you have gear changes right in the heart of the order (60""-80"") in the 13% range. I think compact cranks work better with a 12-23 cassette, as the absence of a 16t sprocket on the 12-27 is an issue. That said, I spent half the year riding a 48-36 compact with a 12-27, so it can't be all that bad.
In this case, I think retaining 53-39 cranks and going to Sheldon's 13-30 ""Century Special"" might be a good idea. (Also, this cassette, in contrast to an XT cassette, will allow you to continue to use your current Ultegra rear derailleur.)
Alternately, if Peter wants really low gears, and small steps in between, I'd recommend a 110/74 bcd compact triple with a 48-36-24 chainset and a 12-23 cassette. This results in very nice gearing.
Regards,
- Christian"
Fri, 01/07/2005 - 8:24am
#12
gearing decisions
The ideal gearing for me would be a 50-39-xx triple up front; with that setup I could use a tighter spaced cassette. Finding compatible smaller outter/middle chain rings to swap from Shimano's current 9spd triple offerings and without making front shifting kludgy may be an impossibility. I don't know of anyone who has and rather not be a guinea pig myself.
More realistically, it looks like a compact double is the wat to go. A 48t big ring is tempting, but for A rides it may be insufficient high gearing for me.
I think I would not mind the extra shifting w/ a 50/34 - 12/27 setup. Most of my time is spent riding the 50 upfront and one of the middle cogs in the rear. That gives a real nice chainline while cruising on the flats. I predominately use the small ring for cimbing only, i.e. 27/24/21. Additional shifts to low gear is less troubling for me than the hill I'm about to encounter. :-)
Fri, 01/07/2005 - 8:37am
#13
Derailleurs, experience says which is best?
Which derailleurs to use for a compact crank setup?
For a 50/34 - 12/27 setup, it exceeds the max capacity of a Shimano short cage rear derailleur by 2. I know there may be some slack in that max spec and its unlikely I'd use big ring-big cassette. I'm inclined to use a long cage just to be safe and for the possibilty of using a large cassette like Carol suggested for rides like Whiteface.
For the front derailleur, with a 50/34 setup, I'm 1 tooth over the specified limit for a double front derailleur.
The math tells me to use triple versions for both front and rear. On the flip side, does having too much der. capacity make shifting sluggish? Christian, what do you recommend? Thanks. -Peter
Fri, 01/07/2005 - 9:32am
#14
It depends...
...on the location and orientation of the derailer hanger, and it's a trial-and-error process.
I put on a 30t cog followed by a 12-26 SRAM cassette minus the 14t cog, with a 33x48 compact double and a DA double rear derailer. This combo is waayyyy outside Shimano's spec but shifts (almost) perfectly - it hangs up occasionally shifting from 13 to 15 (Shimano 12-27 cassette worked better than the SRAM 12-26).
Someone reported being able to use a 32t cog w/ DA double RD which worked perfectly on one of his bikes but not another, a function of the RD hanger.
Downside - the gaps between gears. You either hate it or learn to live with it.
Fri, 01/07/2005 - 10:32am
#15
New Campy Compact Derailleurs
"As you all may already know, Campy has just released a new line of derailleurs for the Compact. I've heard that Shimano is working on this now too.
http://www.campagnolo.com/groupsets.php?gid=1&cid=2&pid=209"
Fri, 01/07/2005 - 10:41am
#16
I'd not run 50-34, as it's a 16t gap. I'd perfer a 36, both because of the 14t gap and the resultant gear ratios and rollout. If you get a TA Carmina from Peter White, you can specify exactly the chainrings you want. Even 48-33 or something equally wacky. (Hi, Evan!)
With a 50-36, I'd probably use the standard 105 double front derailleur. It has a shorter tail than the Dura-Ace unit which will allow you to clamp it lower on the seat tube. (The Dura-Ace fd will contact the chainstay when you try to shift to the 36 if you have a low bb.) I _think_ the Ultegra fd has the same cage shape as the 105, not the DA, but be sure. The 105 is the cage shape you want. I'd probably try that with a 50-34, too, since I think the shaped inside of a triple cage would make for pretty horrid shifting. If the 105 proved to be a dud (which I doubt), I would use the XT designed for 48 big rings (M752 I think, but I'd have to have a look to be sure.)
For the rear, I'd use the mid-cage Ultegra (this all assumes 9sp) I think there were 3 versions of the 6500 rd, SS, SGS, GS, and the SGS model is the mid-cage one. I used that on my Rambouillet for two years. I now have a short-cage on my Pegoretti. There is no discernible difference in the shifting performance, whatsoever. (That rd is on Ivy's commuting bike now -- I'll go have a look and give you the part no.)
So yeah 105 front, 9sp Ultegra mid-cage rear. And you can probably fudge the Ultegra short-cage to work -- Shimano derailleurs can usually be overrun a little in terms of capacity (and don't use the 50-27, eh!).
Besides, with a 50-36 and 12-27 you're looking at 33 tooth wrap. That's within spec for the short-cager.
Home sick today,
- Christian
Fri, 01/07/2005 - 8:42am
#17
interesting pic, Mordecai
"Interesting that such crank went ""soft"" in contrast to my ""snap"" experience."
Fri, 01/07/2005 - 7:42am
#18
Lawsuit
You might have a legitimate lawsuit here....
Fri, 01/07/2005 - 10:21am
#19
> You might have a legitimate lawsuit here....
Oh for god's sake. He got 35,000 miles out of the crank and without examining it further we have no idea if it failed from a stress fracture (my hypothesis) or a manufacturing flaw (Peter's).
It's unfortunate that the crank broke and more unfortunate that Peter got hurt, but the idea that we should all go around suing bicycle manufacturers seems a bit out there.
I mean, it's not like there's been a rash of Ultegra cranks breaking, and furthermore, even if there had, it's not like I'm running out and buying old Record cranks and busting them at the pedal eye and suing Campy just because I can.
Lightweight, high performance bicycle components have a finite service life. We can argue whether that service life should exceed 35,000 miles for a set of cranks, and we can diligently inspect our cranks for cracks. But running around suing Shimano isn't going to make anything better.
Peter, I'd ask for a warranty replacement, though. Even if they're past the warranty period, Shimano USA is pretty generous.
- Christian
