Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 63
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,310
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Clydesdale - advice on chainring for Sugino 75

    I'm investing in new cranks. I want something bomb-proof and high quality. I don't ride track, but I do up to 30-mile rides on some rough roads. I also weigh 250.

    All my research says Sugino 75's are my best bet... super stiff, reliable, high bang-for-buck. Given that... is the regular Sugino 75 chainring beefy enough? Is the Zen substantially stronger, in a way that would benefit me? Or, are there other, better options I haven't considered?

    TIA.

  2. #2
    ass hatchet slopvehicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,284
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    plenty of 200+ riders beat the hell out of cheap stamped cogs on low-end bikes. I wouldn't worry about the strength of either.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    5,317
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by schnee
    I'm investing in new cranks. I want something bomb-proof and high quality. I don't ride track, but I do up to 30-mile rides on some rough roads. I also weigh 250.

    All my research says Sugino 75's are my best bet... super stiff, reliable, high bang-for-buck. Given that... is the regular Sugino 75 chainring beefy enough? Is the Zen substantially stronger, in a way that would benefit me? Or, are there other, better options I haven't considered?

    TIA.
    Even at 250 you probably don't need a sugino 75 as crank flex will likely be masked by frame flex. Good chainrings and cogs on the other hand are a necessity since you will put a lot more stress on the teeth then a little guy will as well as the hub threading. 1/8" is advisable as is getting a larger size. By using a larger cr and cog you will move the mechanical advantage behind all the teeth that are likely to get notched and into the cog itself. An added bonus is you can look cool with a 53t ring even if there is a 21t cog in back to make up for it. Any decent track ring should be strong enough not to be crushed under your awesome power(but is is even more important that you buy a decent one since the larger size means a cheapo sugino or something would be more likely to catasrophically fail.)

  4. #4
    crown heights sucka
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    brooklyn!
    My Bikes
    pake
    Posts
    352
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i really really want to experience one of these catastrophic failures...just so I can say that I survived.

  5. #5
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    4,418
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by dutret
    1/8" is advisable as is getting a larger size.
    1/8" offers no advantages over 3/32"...

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,310
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Right now I have 45/17, but I was thinking 48/18.

    I know you're kidding about the 'awesome power', but I have taco'd MTB wheels in the past. My current cranks (FMF + FSA chainring) keep breaking loose at the crank bolts, and it's ticking me off. The crank spider has oblong bolt holes, which gives more play in comparison to track cranks.

    Despite blue loctite and extra care in centering the chainring on the crank, every six weeks or so I break 'em loose. The chainring goes off center, lurches forwards and backwards as I switch between pedaling and back-pressure, etc. I'm sick of it. I just want to buy an awesome set of cranks that will solve the problem for good, and won't cause issues because I pinched pennies.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    5,317
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by BostonFixed
    1/8" offers no advantages over 3/32"...

    wrong. We have had this discussion dozens of times.

    -1/8" teeth are fatter. Bigger stronger riders will mash notches into 3/32" when forced to mash a larger gear up a steep hills(as ss riding requires). This can happen in a few hundred miles and makes your whole drivetrain wear faster and not run smooth. The fatter 1/8" rings will better stand up to this abuse since the force is spread over a greater area. Using a larger ring and cog will as well since as I already pointed out it moves the mechanical advantage behind the fragile teeth.

    -In general 1/8" rings are fatter everywhere which means they are less likely to catastrophically fail. Such failures are pretty rare but being a bigger stronger rider increases the chances as does using a larger ring. Loose or missing bolts are probably a key factor in many of these failures too. An 1/8" ring certainly can't hurt here although the primary concern is the teeth.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    5,317
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by schnee
    Right now I have 45/17, but I was thinking 48/18.

    I know you're kidding about the 'awesome power', but I have taco'd MTB wheels in the past. My current cranks (FMF + FSA chainring) keep breaking loose at the crank bolts, and it's ticking me off. The crank spider has oblong bolt holes, which gives more play in comparison to track cranks.

    Despite blue loctite and extra care in centering the chainring on the crank, every six weeks or so I break 'em loose. The chainring goes off center, lurches forwards and backwards as I switch between pedaling and back-pressure, etc. I'm sick of it. I just want to buy an awesome set of cranks that will solve the problem for good, and won't cause issues because I pinched pennies.
    If you have the money why not get them.

    I would suggest 53/20,21 More skid patches(if that matters) and much better wear.

    I wasn't kidding about awesome power either. At 250 you *have* to have and apply awesome power compared to a 140lbs runt just to drag all that weight up hills and accelerate. Simply possesing the weight means that without pulling on the bars you can put more 80% force on the pedal then he can and your(probably) increased total body strength means even more.

  9. #9
    Geek Extraordinaire sivat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    My Bikes
    Bianchi Advantage Fixed Conversion; Specialized Stumpjumper FS Hardtail
    Posts
    1,769
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The main difference between the zen rings and the regular 75s is precision. The zen rings are made to be as close to perfectly round as possible. If you've got the extra money, the zen ring is the way to go. If you don't, the standard 75 ring should be perfectly adequate.
    I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

    Sintesi Conversion Serotta Track

  10. #10
    Ho-Jahm Hocam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Manchester, NH
    Posts
    4,228
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sivat
    The main difference between the zen rings and the regular 75s is precision. The zen rings are made to be as close to perfectly round as possible. If you've got the extra money, the zen ring is the way to go. If you don't, the standard 75 ring should be perfectly adequate.
    Wouldn't a perfectly round chainring stress the teeth more evenly than a slightly oblong one?

  11. #11
    jack of one or two trades Aeroplane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Suburbia, CT
    My Bikes
    Old-ass gearie hardtail MTB, fix-converted Centurion LeMans commuter, SS hardtail monster MTB
    Posts
    5,635
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by schnee
    I know you're kidding about the 'awesome power', but I have taco'd MTB wheels in the past. My current cranks (FMF + FSA chainring) keep breaking loose at the crank bolts, and it's ticking me off. The crank spider has oblong bolt holes, which gives more play in comparison to track cranks.
    I hate to be a downer, but those FMF cranks are absolute ****e. I had a set and they lasted me about 6-months on my mountain bike. I weigh about 160. Nothing ridiculous. I'd bet that any decent crankset will do you well.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Irwin Goldstein
    Men should never ride bicycles. Riding should be banned and outlawed. It is
    the most irrational form of exercise I could ever bring to discussion.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    5,317
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Hocam
    Wouldn't a perfectly round chainring stress the teeth more evenly than a slightly oblong one?
    no the chain is flexible so all that matters is how evenly the teeth are spaced.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,310
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I hate to be a downer, but those FMF cranks are absolute ****e.
    Dunno if it makes a difference, but I don't have the low-rent versions... I have the forged 'race' versions which were $140 for the crank arms, and supposedly a lot stiffer.

  14. #14
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    4,418
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by dutret
    wrong. We have had this discussion dozens of times.

    -1/8" teeth are fatter. Bigger stronger riders will mash notches into 3/32" when forced to mash a larger gear up a steep hills(as ss riding requires). This can happen in a few hundred miles and makes your whole drivetrain wear faster and not run smooth. The fatter 1/8" rings will better stand up to this abuse since the force is spread over a greater area. Using a larger ring and cog will as well since as I already pointed out it moves the mechanical advantage behind the fragile teeth.

    -In general 1/8" rings are fatter everywhere which means they are less likely to catastrophically fail. Such failures are pretty rare but being a bigger stronger rider increases the chances as does using a larger ring. Loose or missing bolts are probably a key factor in many of these failures too. An 1/8" ring certainly can't hurt here although the primary concern is the teeth.
    Millions of people ride on 3/32" without issue. 3/32" chains on derailleur bikes are under more stress than on fixed gear bicycles. I agree on the chain wrap/teeth.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    5,317
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by BostonFixed
    Millions of people ride on 3/32" without issue. 3/32" chains on derailleur bikes are under more stress than on fixed gear bicycles. I agree on the chain wrap/teeth.
    Did I once mention chain strength as being an issue? No.

    Let me explain again.

    The issue is that with the normal gearings people use for their ss and fg street bikes you are forced to put far more force on the pedals and consequently the teeth of the chainring. Hardly ever on geared bikes are people pushing as hard as they can with one foot while pulling as hard as they can with the other and there arms. The may be putting more tourque on the wheel then the ss rider but thanks to the mechanical advantage afforded by low gearing. The force on the teeth is a fraction of the ss rider mashing up a really steep hill, or a standing start.

    A big strong rider will put so much force on the teeth that they will deform on a 3/32" chain ring amazingly quickly. If the ring is smaller it will happen even faster. This is a fact.

    Therefore, a 250lbs guy or even a stronger(not necessarily faster) 180lber needs a 1/8th ring so they aren't trashing rings every 100miles. The need for a 1/8" chain is only to accomadate the larger teeth on the chainring.

  16. #16
    velo cult k3nho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    My Bikes
    basso track, guerciotti road, revolution track
    Posts
    264
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    if you're not worried about weight, you could put profile bmx cranks+chainring w/euro BB on your rig .. . . super beefy, steel, indestructible, no chainring bolts to worry about. but heavy. people put em on ss mtb's sometimes

    i can't find it now, but there was a pic of a black pista concept with profiles on here once. . it belonged to a clydesdale messenger, iirc. looked siiiick. . . .

  17. #17
    velo cult k3nho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    My Bikes
    basso track, guerciotti road, revolution track
    Posts
    264
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    like this:

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,310
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks, but I'm a bit burned on BMX right now. I think I know what you're talking about, though... it was a black bike, gold chain, and the chainring looked like a solid disk with the suits of cards outlined in gold, right? I swear I had that picture somewhere, can't find it.

    Anyway, I think I prefer the track aesthetic more now. I've seen plenty of guys at the track that were big and/or ripped running track stuff, and if they can push themselves on 59/15 with acceptable amounts of flex, so can I.

  19. #19
    velo cult k3nho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    My Bikes
    basso track, guerciotti road, revolution track
    Posts
    264
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i see lots of guys at the track rockin sugino 75's and fsa's (carbon) with no probs. . . . some are ex bodybuilders, some are ex olympians, etc!

    i think secretly i wish i was a clydesdale so i would have a legitimate reason to run profile bmx cranks. . . but i only weigh 145

  20. #20
    Paste Taster Retem's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Denver, Co
    My Bikes
    1970's kobe, Jury Bike, Dahon Boardwalk S1, Moto Outcast 29, Scrambler v3
    Posts
    4,390
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    shnee here we go I was 250 but am now 215 and still kill parts like crazy here are my favorites

    rings

    sugino zen
    sugino mighty
    sugino 75
    fsa track rings

    cogs

    eai cogs
    suntour superbe
    phil wood
    eai super cogs


    hubs

    phils
    formula
    dia compe - look good haven't tested em yet

    anything else I can help you with let me know and I will gladly tell ya what works for me

    my current cranks are fsa vigorelli's love them but the chainring jb weld thing I am not so crazy about if you go fsa get the carbon pros they say that the problem is fixed with them and mine are in the mail will report back
    I am dyslexic so bear with my posts.... [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  21. #21
    ÖöÖöÖöÖöÖö Dannihilator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Annandale, NJ.
    My Bikes
    2014 Surly Steamroller, 1977 Puch Pathfinder
    Posts
    18,836
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Need to voice in. Not in the Clydesdale class per say, but do produce a lot of power.(Feel like pedaling a 40 pound ss hardtail up a hill with 36-15 gearing?) Can get away with 3/32 easily here on my Pista. How smooth are you on the pedals? It is possible to produce a lot of power, while having a smooth pedal stroke.

    For the rear cog, I seem to like the dura-ace in the 3/32 sizing, but would try the 1/8th if given the possibility.
    Strike like an eagle and sacrifice the dove.
    Words and Stuff.

  22. #22
    Paste Taster Retem's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Denver, Co
    My Bikes
    1970's kobe, Jury Bike, Dahon Boardwalk S1, Moto Outcast 29, Scrambler v3
    Posts
    4,390
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have to say I hate da cogs they are made poorly and I have stripped hubs because of bad cog threads
    I am dyslexic so bear with my posts.... [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  23. #23
    Paste Taster Retem's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Denver, Co
    My Bikes
    1970's kobe, Jury Bike, Dahon Boardwalk S1, Moto Outcast 29, Scrambler v3
    Posts
    4,390
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by BostonFixed
    Millions of people ride on 3/32" without issue. 3/32" chains on derailleur bikes are under more stress than on fixed gear bicycles. I agree on the chain wrap/teeth.
    I have broken teeth both on rings and cogs on 3/32" sorry dude but it doesn't jive with me
    I am dyslexic so bear with my posts.... [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,310
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Retem
    cogs

    eai cogs
    suntour superbe
    phil wood
    eai super cogs
    Are these in descending order of quality, i.e. rating EAI and Suntour cogs over Phil? If so, how much more... because I was going to get Phil strictly for the polished bling value...

    Quote Originally Posted by KonaRider24
    How smooth are you on the pedals?
    I think I have a pretty decent pedal stroke. I ride MTB, and most of my rides include steep technical climbing. You know - granny gear, leaning as far forward as possible, picking lines between ruts and over roots and rocks. The kid where my balance is so precarious, one lurching pedal stroke and I fall over backwards or spin out the rear wheel. I don't have 'Cat 5+ skills' by any stretch of the imagination, but I've definitely left some of my weekend warrior friends in the dust.

    I don't have a strong opinion about 1/8 vs. 3/32, but I'll probably go 1/8 just because I can.

  25. #25
    Paste Taster Retem's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Denver, Co
    My Bikes
    1970's kobe, Jury Bike, Dahon Boardwalk S1, Moto Outcast 29, Scrambler v3
    Posts
    4,390
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by schnee
    Are these in descending order of quality, i.e. rating EAI and Suntour cogs over Phil? If so, how much more... because I was going to get Phil strictly for the polished bling value...

    ok in order
    suntour superbe - forged cnc'd and old school
    phil wood - awesome at the price and strong as well as being local
    eai super cog 50 bones and garunteed silent - you thing the phil is bling this thing comes with its own little pouch and don't look directly at it

    eai standard cog tough and cheap
    I am dyslexic so bear with my posts.... [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •