bulgie 

If I remember right, the Nervar Star moniker was reserved for the one with the Campy-style 5-arm spider, with the 128 mm BCD.
The 5-pin 50.4 mm cranks didn't get "Star" in the name.

Because I was a racing snob at the time, I thought the Star crank was the only one for Real Men, and I looked down my nose at the 5-pin. But nowadays I would trade my Star cranks for the same thing in the 5-pin style for sure — so much more versatile.

A nice example of a Star:


Mark B

JaccoW

Today in adventures in 11-speed:

I wanted to shoot some more pictures of what you can run into when using these cranks with modern 11-speed gearing.

Now these are modern Spécialités TA Pro 5 chainrings, one of which I still had lying around the other I ordered because I wanted a smaller inner chainring. The cranks were originally a triple and came with the mounting bolts for a triple. So I ordered a bolt set for double chainrings and this is what happened:





Essentially the way the chainrings mount means there is slightly too much room between them and the 11-speed chain can (but not always) drop between them. Damn.

Now for those not familiar with it, all deraileur chain from the past 30-40 years or so fits on "3/32-inch chainrings" but with denser cassettes in the rear the chain has become narrower.

So where 6 to 9-speed chain is all about 7mm (9/32″) wide, modern 11-speed is often 5.5mm (7/32″) wide and newer 12-speed chain is even 5.3mm (13/64″) or even 4.9mm (3/16") for 13-speed Campagnolo.
(and don't get me started on the weird numbers this makes in inches. My first instinct is to convert it all to 18/64", 14/64", 13/64" and 12/64" for ease of comparison.)

Now if you think this means the chain must be getting weaker because it's so thin... think again. Modern 12-speed chain lasts twice as long in testing compared to it's 11-speed counterparts and three times as long as the 9-speed versions.
Then again, it better be. A €90 MSRP chain ($108) versus a Shimano HG95 Ultegra chain that's available for less than €30 ($36) is a big difference in price. Even though the 12-speed last three times longer.
This is all down to modern materials engineering, metal hardening and coating treatments. You could argue we could get similar longevity if they applied that knowledge to 9-speed chain... but AFAIK nobody makes those.


Source: CyclingAbout.com & Zerofrictioncycling.com

Anyway, I'm getting off-track here. So my 11-speed chain is 1.5mm narrower than the chainrings were designed for so it drops inbetween. So how thick are those spacers? As it turns out; 3.6mm.
It doesn't help that they are a weird ø12mm x 7.15mm x 3.6mm size.

I mean I can easily find -a2/din-125a-[-]-a2-[-]-m6]M6 rings, which are 12mm x 6.4mm and a 7.1mm drill bit but if two of those stacked are 3.2mm it doesn't make a lot of difference.
Perhaps the easiest way is to simply sand down the aluminum spacer rings to a thickness just over 2.1mm and see what that does. The ones I got are from Velo Orange so if I mess up they aren't that expensive and offer bigger 10mm stainless steel bolts.

Expect an update in the future.

philbob57

When I assembled my triple, I found my triple bolts had 6 spacers that were 3.51-3.54 mm thick and 6 spacers that were 2.7-2.8 mm or so (should have written the number down). Check your spacers - if you've got narrower spacers, and 0.8 mm narrower spacing will help your shifting, you may already have a solution.

(The above comes from this thread: TA Cyclotouriste triple assembly question.)

oneclick 

If you like I can make you a set of six 2.1mm (have a lathe) - and if they don't work you still have the thick ones.

Bogester

Here’s a half-step/granny on my Paramount. With a 14-32 5 speed on the back it’s a perfect setup for hilly Seattle.

ReidH

Hi Jacco, I'm sure thinner spacers can be found to accommodate for the thinner 11 speed chain. The front shifting will suffer from the lack of ramps and pins on the rings.

Reid

Bogester

I’ve also got a “compact” 48/36 setup on my Hetchins. Not super high or low but it’s a good rider.

JaccoW

That would be great. I'll send you a PM.

JaccoW

Yeah I figured as much. I have a triple where the 26T innner shifts into the 42T middle ring and that can be slow at times but I attribute that to the low chain tension. I can always throw on a smaller outer ring. Maybe even one of the pinned and ramped ones by Velo Orange.

I do know a 20T difference is a lot. Most derailleurs have a maximum of 16T. But I do believe a better shaped cage might help here. A 2x11 Shimano Ultegra FD-R8000 has a narrower and more shaped cage with some extra guides on the inside. I could drop down to a 44/28T and still have a fairly good gear range of 457% or 24.3 to 111 gear inches.

did something similar but he uses a 46/30T chainring so it's within spec.

ReidH

Pins and ramps really do come in handy when you use 10 speed chain and up.
I have a Pro 5 Vis with a SunXCD spider and a triple ring ring setup on a Jack Taylor Tandem. It worked perfectly with 9 speed chain. Upgrading to 10 speed and it didn't shift properly at all. I had to replace the middle ring with the appropriate ramped and pinned ring for middle position use and then things were fine.

Similar situal with a Rene Herse crank running a 46/30 without ramps and pins. Were slow unpredictable shifts. WIth the ramped and pinned 46T ring installed, it shifted instantaneously.

Reid

noglider 

@JaccoW, I installed a new 11-speed derailleur and shifter on my tandem. The new derailleur design is pretty fantastic.

ReidH

Since I have a number a of bikes with Pro 5 Vis cranks, I though a few pictures were in order.

Jack Taylor tandem - TA Pro 5 Vis cranks with SunXCD spider and TA ramped and pinned chainrings

Jo Routens Randonneur - Stronglight 49D cranks with TA Cyclotourist rings

Alex Singer Tandem - Stronglight 49D cranks with Cyclo Rosa Chainrings. TA sync rings on opposite side.

1940's Randonneur - Maxiplum cranks, period 80 BCD spider and TA chainrings

Reid

clubman 

Wow, a cottered Campy spindle. Hollow? Don't see that everyday.

fliplap

Sugino made the 50.4 Super Maxy in 180mm, I have a set in the bin. Originally a triple with 46-36-28 chainrings. They came off a 26” wheeled, SR branded, tourer.

Sugino also made the PX in 175mm, which I run on my tourer as double with the 46 and 28 rings from the Super Maxy.

non-fixie 

Thanks for your post, Reid! Much appreciated. This picture I find particularly interesting, as I currently have these on my desk. I was thinking of combining them into a similar setup for an upcoming build. The steel rings are fairly hefty, though. I believe you were the one who identified my rings as Cyclo-Rosa a number of years ago. Now I know why.

ReidH

Hi non-fixie, you have a very nice example of a Cyclo-Rosa chainring set. They work well with Stronglight 49D cranks.
Most I have seen are plated steel in 1/8" or 3/32" chain size. They were sold early on by Cyclo, possibly 1920's and certainly sold from the 30's through 50's. There were Alu versions also, but any I have seen were worn out.
Recent Stronglight 110BCD chainrings with a SunXCD spider are a good facsimile of these old Cyclo rings. See the pic of my Jack Taylor. I mistakenly identified the rings as TA, but I could see in my own picture that they are Stronglights.
Reid

iab

The image is from a 1950 Bozzi catalog. The "pickle" is not in the 1949 or 1933 Doniselli catalog. Prior to 1930, the "5 Vis" was not common in Italy. Standard was the 3 pin with the 98mm BCD. I'm not saying the pickle didn't exist prior to 1950, I just don't have it in a catalog.

iab

The latest and greatest for me. FB. As seen in the 1933 Doniselli catalog.

Paglianti 01 by iabisdb, on Flickr

JaccoW

Update on the spacers that @oneclick made for me.

They seem to have solved the problem of the 11-speed chain on this crankset dropping in between chainrings. The 3.6mm thick spacer were replaced with 2.1mm thick ones (which is because 11-speed chain is 1.5mm narrower than 9-speed chain.

Shifting performance seems good but I need to check it under load while riding tomorrow. For those interested I could shoot a video to show how shifting performance is on a 48/28T x 11-34 setup without pins and ramps.

Road Fan

With a set of rings that small on a relatively standard road frame, you can (depending on the frame) get close to having the front mech cage interfere with the chainstay. Several factors:

1. with a smaller chainring radius, the cage moves closer to the BB since they seem to work better with just a few mm gap between the cage and teh big ring.
2. One of the ways to design a cage that can handle a 16 tooth (46-30, 50-34, et cetera) is to make a long cage that sticks out far behind the BB axis, and closer to interference with the chainring.
3. The chance for interference is worse with a larger BB drop. With an 8 cm drop the chainstay sweeps up higher than for the now more common 6.5 cm geometry.

If you look back at Jan Heine's bike designs you can see he designed a short, deep cage that does not hang out behind the chainring. I think this is the best way to go for a 40-24 or 42-26, or smaller.

juvela

-----

"LUXE" chainwheel as seen on Galibier folder from Belgium, 1967 -




-----

Sierra

26/36/46/56
Just for ***** & giggles.
I'll never use it on anything. I just like looking at it.

noglider 

@Sierra, I would use that on my tandem. The bottom gear can never be too low, and the top gear can never be too high.

juvela

-----

SPECTA used to show these at their trade show booths in the seventies & eighties

have never seen one offered for sale or listed in any catalogue

might have been a bit of a challenge BITD to locate une derailleur avant with enough lateral travel to accommodate it...


-----

bulgie 

We made at least one quad-ring crank that I remember, at Santana in about 1977, using TA Pro 5-vis rings. I didn't take pictures unfortunately

Here's a pic I found somewhere of a Singer tandem with quad-ring drive:



This one uses a Huret parallelogram front derailleur. Whether the mech needed to be modified to cover the spread, I don't know.

Here's a Rebour drawing of a Singer single bike with a quad. Bespoke Singer derailleur:


It makes more sense on a front-drive tandem though, since chainline between the crank and the freewheel becomes very unimportant, almost a moot point. And no tire clearance issue, no diverging chainstay that needs an indent to clear the inner ring, problems you usually have with a rear-drive tandem or a single bike.

Mark B