Originally Posted by
Pb_Okole
I was actually adressing Yaniel's post more than ptle's. I was just too lazy to scroll back up to his post figuring that most could follow the whole thread and not just a portion of it. Apparently I was mistaken and apologize for the confusion.
Silly me, I thought you were referring to the post that you quoted. I can't believe I made such a stupid mistake
Originally Posted by
Pb_Okole
SO to clarify, if they were running 53/34 or36 then thay had to be running 110 BCD (compact crank) arms as a 34 or 36 will not fit on a 130 BCD (standard crank).
Of course
Originally Posted by
Pb_Okole
If they were in fact running 110 BCD cranks then they were running compact cranks and Bob's statement was untrue thus negating the whole discussion.
It negates Bob's statement, but not the discussion of the thread.
Originally Posted by
Pb_Okole
I guess it all hinges on what you consider "compact" cranks. I consider a crank that with a 110 BCD a compact crank.
That is pretty much the generally accepted definition. Without getting into touring, MTB, etc. cranks, it's pretty much either 130BCD "standard" cranks or 110BCD "compact" cranks.
Originally Posted by
Pb_Okole
You could put 39 and 53 tooth rings on these cranks so I guess then they would not be compact cranks anymore by my definition.
By your definition they would still be compact cranks as they would still have a 110BCD.