Update old crankset with 11 speed chainrings?

[NHAero]

Can my old Sugino AT cranks work with 11 speed STI shifters if I update with 11 speed chainrings? Or has the spacing changed? Currently running 48-36-24 9 speed rings.
Thanks!

[ultraman6970]

IME the only way to know is just swap the chain for an 11 speed chain. Big chances that it will work fine. But since is shimano... I have no idea how it will work. Campagnolo uses a ratchet for the FD, and that makes a big difference when you have to do weird stuff because you can trim that at will.

[Kontact]

It will work with your current chainrings. There is no real difference in chainring spacing since 5 speed bikes.

If you want increased performance, buy some sort of large chainring with lifter ramps if your current large chainring doesn't have them. 8, 9, 10 speed rings will all work fine.

http://www.velonews.com/2015/03/bikes-and-tech/technical-faq/technical-faq-10-11-speed-drivetrain-component-compatibility_362722

[NHAero]

Very helpful, thanks!
It will work with your current chainrings. There is no real difference in chainring spacing since 5 speed bikes.

If you want increased performance, buy some sort of large chainring with lifter ramps if your current large chainring doesn't have them. 8, 9, 10 speed rings will all work fine.

http://www.velonews.com/2015/03/bikes-and-tech/technical-faq/technical-faq-10-11-speed-drivetrain-component-compatibility_362722

[11.4]

It may be a bit better, but you aren't getting everything you get with modern equipment overall. Your gears are small so there won't be much in the way of pins and ramps to support your shifting. However, your bigger rings won't be as stiff as the newer hollow rings you find on Dura Ace or Ultegra. Those are why Shimano front shifters overwhelm everything else in the market.

You may also find that because 11-speed cranksets have those fatter large chainrings, there's more spacing between their centerlines. If you put an 11-speed chain on your new 11-speed chainrings, you may find the chain will ride on the top of the smaller rings and not drop in quite as nicely.

Last, remember that BCDs and spider arrangements have changed for newer 11-speed chainrings, and tooth combinations have decreased. You may not find something to fit your current crank the way you want.

[Kontact]

But you don't need 11 speed specific rings to get good shifting with an 11 speed chain. Put a thoroughly modern 10 speed large chainring on and it will shift great.

11 speed has been with us for 9 years. All of these experiments have been tried long ago.

[oldpotatoe]

Can my old Sugino AT cranks work with 11 speed STI shifters if I update with 11 speed chainrings? Or has the spacing changed? Currently running 48-36-24 9 speed rings.
Thanks!

11s rings are a wee bit closer together..Chances are, with STI, it'll be fine. You 'may' get some chain to fder rub at highest or lowest geasr but I think'll they will be fine. Lots of CRs are labeled, 10/11 anyway.

Pic on left is 9s CR from Campag, right one is 10s CR, and how they removed some material to get the rings closer together..NOT the same spacing since 5s days...

[dddd]

Shimano's chainring spacing has actually become wider over the years, due to the profiling of the back side of the big ring, which keeps the chain from possibly falling to the right side of the small ring's teeth.
The profiling and wider spacing better controls the chain during downshifts, accommodating the tendency of the barely-tensioned upper run of the chain to bow inward as the chain falls to a smaller ring.

But, at least with their 5-arm cranksets, it is the small ring that determines the chain width that is suitable for the pair of chainrings, so for example, one can replace the small ring on a 9-speed crankset to make it more compatible with 10s chain, or vice-versa. There are Shimano "B-series" 39t chainrings available for properly converting their 8 and 9s and cranksets to 10s.

Campagnolo's 5-arm cranksets alternately use differing big rings to determine the chainring pair's compatibility with the chain's width, hence you'll see big rings with "10 Speed" printed on them, though it appears that perhaps nothing changed there when they rolled out 9s grouppos.

With MTB's now using very compact or single-chainring options, I don't know of any 110/74mm triple-chainring sets made for 11s use with the OP's chainring sizes, but perhaps 10s rings could be sourced that would likely shift well with an 11s chain. The Shimano rings aren't cheap though, so it might actually be cheaper in this case to find and buy one of their 10s trekking cranksets from an online discount retailer.

[Kontact]

11s rings are a wee bit closer together..Chances are, with STI, it'll be fine. You 'may' get some chain to fder rub at highest or lowest geasr but I think'll they will be fine. Lots of CRs are labeled, 10/11 anyway.

Pic on left is 9s CR from Campag, right one is 10s CR, and how they removed some material to get the rings closer together..NOT the same spacing since 5s days...

That's only .25mm narrower for Campy. And it got slightly wider for Shimano and SRAM (SRAM spacing increased for cross chaining clearance). If you buy a Rotor crank it stayed the same.

I think it is unwise to interpret the minuscule variations in chainring spacing as having to do with chain compatibility rather than refinements to specific chainring's shifting action or cross chaining. 11 speed chains are all the same inner and outer width, so Shimano and SRAM going wider while Campy narrowed all with the same chain means that there is no real issue.


My personal experience is that the front derailleur design has more to do with great front shifting than the difference between one pinned chainring and another.

I would definitely breath life into a lovely old Sugino crank with a modern 9/10/11 speed outer ring and ride with confidence. Just make sure you get a chainring with a drop pin behind the crankarm if the original chainring had one.

[dddd]

...I think it is unwise to interpret the minuscule variations in chainring spacing as having to do with chain compatibility rather than refinements to specific chainring's shifting action or cross chaining. 11 speed chains are all the same inner and outer width, so Shimano and SRAM going wider while Campy narrowed all with the same chain means that there is no real issue...

I think that you might have missed my point about the chainring spacing not being just about where the teeth are.
With the more or less cone-shaped inner profile of Shimano's big rings from the recent 10s and 11s era, the critical spacing becomes more about the spacing between the small ring's teeth and the smooth inner face of the big ring than how far out that the big ring's teeth are spaced from the small ring. The inner and outer ring's teeth are spaced further apart, but the narrower chain is still guided tightly by the inner face of the big ring as it falls onto the small chainring during a downshift.

And yes, the spacing was also increased to provide greater cross-chaining clearance for the larger 16t size difference between rings on typical newer compact cranksets.

Often, but not always, a minor change in chain width is well tolerated by an existing crankset, but I've also seen cases where even the correct chain managed to eventually cut a step into the tips of the small ring's teeth, which a narrower chain would be only more likely to cause.

Minor corrections to the effective chainring spacing as measured at the tips of the small ring's teeth can be effected by turning the cranks with a file held against one side of the small ring's teeth at a beveling angle. This won't be effective with the big ring though, and holding the file in the right spot while keeping your hand and arm out of the way of the turning cranks must be done carefully.
I often use this as a final step after correcting any bent inner chainring or teeth, but it can also be used to better accommodate a narrower chain with respect to downshift engagement. This process can also be used to correct the above-mentioned notch wear of a small chainring's teeth.

Picture below illustrates the positioning of the file while the cranks are turned, but either side of the small ring's teeth can be beveled slightly depending on the needs of the moment. In this case I was correcting a tendency for the 9s chain to fall to the inside of the 9s small ring's teeth during downshifts, and the bike is no longer dropping it's chain. Often it is just small burrs or other invisible damage to the tips of the teeth that causes the chain to suddenly start preferring to drop to one side or the other instead of centered on the teeth, so only a trace(!) of metal needs to be removed to make the chain engage reliably.
I've modified many vintage bike chainrings over the years using similar methods to accommodate narrower modern chain, in part because in many cases there will be no newer chanrings available to fit a vintage crankset's bolt circle configuraton.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5498/30447649233_f4546b5305_c.jpg

[Kontact]

I think that you might have missed my point about the chainring spacing not being just about where the teeth are.
With the more or less cone-shaped inner profile of Shimano's big rings from the recent 10s and 11s era, the critical spacing becomes more about the spacing between the small ring's teeth and the smooth inner face of the big ring than how far out that the big ring's teeth are spaced from the small ring. The inner and outer ring's teeth are spaced further apart, but the narrower chain is still guided tightly by the inner face of the big ring as it falls onto the small chainring during a downshift.

And yes, the spacing was also increased to provide greater cross-chaining clearance for the larger 16t size difference between rings on typical newer compact cranksets.

Often, but not always, a minor change in chain width is well tolerated by an existing crankset, but I've also seen cases where even the correct chain managed to eventually cut a step into the tips of the small ring's teeth, which a narrower chain would be only more likely to cause.

Minor corrections to the effective chainring spacing as measured at the tips of the small ring's teeth can be effected by turning the cranks with a file held against one side of the small ring's teeth at a beveling angle. This won't be effective with the big ring though, and holding the file in the right spot while keeping your hand and arm out of the way of the turning cranks must be done carefully.
I often use this as a final step after correcting any bent inner chainring or teeth, but it can also be used to better accommodate a narrower chain with respect to downshift engagement. This process can also be used to correct the above-mentioned notch wear of a small chainring's teeth.

Picture below illustrates the positioning of the file while the cranks are turned, but either side of the small ring's teeth can be beveled slightly depending on the needs of the moment. In this case I was correcting a tendency for the 9s chain to fall to the inside of the 9s small ring's teeth during downshifts, and the bike is no longer dropping it's chain. Often it is just small burrs or other invisible damage to the tips of the teeth that causes the chain to suddenly start preferring to drop to one side or the other instead of centered on the teeth, so only a trace(!) of metal needs to be removed to make the chain engage reliably.
I've modified many vintage bike chainrings over the years using similar methods to accommodate narrower modern chain, in part because in many cases there will be no newer chanrings available to fit a vintage crankset's bolt circle configuraton.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5498/30447649233_f4546b5305_c.jpg

It isn't that I missed your point, I simply don't see the relevance considering that the Shimano 4 hole rings won't mount on a Sugino crank.

The only question we need to ask ourselves is if a 9/10 speed crank will work with an 11 speed chain. The point I was making is that the breadth of 11 speed cranks have more, less and the same spacing as 10, which suggests that the variation isn't critically important to work with a 11 speed chain and the variations are only there to service specific design goals of each crank.

[dddd]

I did say "from the 10s and 11s era", and the 10s ones are 110mm 5-arm, but some of the comments from earlier seemed to be referring to typical compact doubles.
Shimano's road triples never came offered with a 110mm bolt pattern.

And of course Shimano never made "a 9/10 speed crank", but I don't think that you intended to say that they did.

But I guess more importantly, the OP is running a triple of specified ring sizes, so unless he wants to test out using a 9s or 10s Trekking crank's rings on the AT crankarms, he might end up having to buy aftermarket rings singly. I mentioned the Trekking cranks for the specific rings that they come with, because these entire cranksets seem to occasionally turn up at a lower price than what the rings might sell for, and I have a personal preference for matched sets of Shimano rings.

I believe that the AT crank's spider tabs are of equivalent thickness to modern 5-arm Shimano. The granny ring's position happens to be held by means of removable spacers on the AT crank, so that at least allows the 1-2 ring spacing to be tailored as needed.

I wouldn't rule out that the existing 9s rings might work perfectly with the 11s chain, but I would be fully prepared to file slightly, and if necessary even bend the smaller ring's teeth outward toward the bigger ring as needed. I've done this using both methods and have found it easy to bend the teeth slightly using an adjustable wrench, but the rings will need to removed for any tooth-bending session.

[Kontact]

I did say "from the 10s and 11s era", and the 10s ones are 110mm 5-arm, but some of the comments from earlier seemed to be referring to typical compact doubles.
Shimano's road triples never came offered with a 110mm bolt pattern.

And of course Shimano never made "a 9/10 speed crank", but I don't think that you intended to say that they did.

But I guess more importantly, the OP is running a triple of specified ring sizes, so unless he wants to test out using a 9s or 10s Trekking crank's rings on the AT crankarms, he might end up having to buy aftermarket rings singly. I mentioned the Trekking cranks for the specific rings that they come with, because these entire cranksets seem to occasionally turn up at a lower price than what the rings might sell for, and I have a personal preference for matched sets of Shimano rings.

I believe that the AT crank's spider tabs are of equivalent thickness to modern 5-arm Shimano. The granny ring's position happens to be held by means of removable spacers on the AT crank, so that at least allows the 1-2 ring spacing to be tailored as needed.

I wouldn't rule out that the existing 9s rings might work perfectly with the 11s chain, but I would be fully prepared to file slightly, and if necessary even bend the smaller ring's teeth outward toward the bigger ring as needed. I've done this using both methods and have found it easy to bend the teeth slightly using an adjustable wrench, but the rings will need to removed for any tooth-bending session.

The whole world isn't Shimano. I said 9/10 because there are non-Shimano cranks that bridged 9 to 10, just like there are now cranks that work for 10 and 11. It is little different from how there was never really a "9 speed" rear derailleur.



Going back to the OP, there are no triple 11 speed shifters, but you can mix the shifters between 3x10 and 2x11. I don't know if the OP is planning on keeping his triple or dropping the small ring, but if he's just keeping the gearing he has, 9 speed lifter rings are not different from 10. Leave the rings and use them. And that shouldn't require filing anything. I would be floored if the OPs current set up didn't work.

[NHAero]

dddd and Kontact, thanks for sharing your understanding and experience. Here in more detail is what I'm trying to accomplish:

I'd like to switch my Anderson from bar end shifting to integrated STI shifting, and I want to retain hydro discs (using TRP Hylex now). That seems to push towards the 11 speed world, with the RS685 shifters and the RS785 calipers. With 11 speed, I could get almost all of the gear range I have now with 2x11. I've been running TA Zephyr 9/10 speed rings for the 48T and 36T. I have a tab mount for the fd so I can't lower the fd much more, so I'm kind of stuck with the 48T as the smallest outer ring. I run that now with a 13T small sprocket giving a 101 inch gear with the 37-622 tires. I'm looking into whether I can build a 13-34 11 speed cassette (maybe starting with an IRD 12-34, if I can swap the 12-13 for a 13-14), in which case I'd run a 48-34 double. (There is some irony - this is exactly the gearing I started with on my Bob Jackson when I built it in 1972, on a TA Cyclotouriste). I still have to verify the White Industries MI6 rear hub accepts an 11 speed Shimano cassette, BTW.

If I had the ability to drop the fd lower, I'd set the bike up 44-34 and use the stock IRD 12-34 cassette. I may look into what it would take to move that fd tab.

The BB I run the Sugino AT on is a Phil Wood and it's actually biased a bit out to the right as currently set up so that the 24T ring clears the chainstay. Dropping that ring off the crank would let me move the crank in slightly to get a chainline suited to a double.

So, what I envision is that I'd get the following for the conversion:
- RS685 shifters and the RS785 calipers
- RD-R8000-GS medium cage rear derailleur
- IRD 12-34 cassette, modified if possible
- 34T TA Zephyr inner ring (110 BCD)

Does this make sense?
Thanks very much!

[cmbicycles]

Maybe running an adapter that let's you drop the front derailleur would work... something like this

https://wickwerks.com/products/fit-link-adapter/

[NHAero]

That's cool, thanks so much!
Maybe running an adapter that let's you drop the front derailleur would work... something like this

https://wickwerks.com/products/fit-link-adapter/

[NHAero]

Looking some more at the Wickwerks site, I see that they have a 41-33 110 BCD set of rings, that with the Fit Link would let me use a stock 11-34 11 speed cassette and get my 26-101 gear-inches range with less fussing overall - cool! I wonder what front derailleur works best with a 41T ring and an 11 speed STI shifter?
Update - Wickwerks suggests a modified short cage fd by Gevenalle (https://wickwerks.com/short-cage-front-derailleur-solution/)

Maybe running an adapter that let's you drop the front derailleur would work... something like this

https://wickwerks.com/products/fit-link-adapter/

[oldpotatoe]

That's only .25mm narrower for Campy. And it got slightly wider for Shimano and SRAM (SRAM spacing increased for cross chaining clearance). If you buy a Rotor crank it stayed the same.

I think it is unwise to interpret the minuscule variations in chainring spacing as having to do with chain compatibility rather than refinements to specific chainring's shifting action or cross chaining. 11 speed chains are all the same inner and outer width, so Shimano and SRAM going wider while Campy narrowed all with the same chain means that there is no real issue.


My personal experience is that the front derailleur design has more to do with great front shifting than the difference between one pinned chainring and another.

I would definitely breath life into a lovely old Sugino crank with a modern 9/10/11 speed outer ring and ride with confidence. Just make sure you get a chainring with a drop pin behind the crankarm if the original chainring had one.

Pretty sure I said or meant the same thing but was commenting on the wee bit about same as '5s' crank era..

[Ralph]

I used a Sugino AT crankset for many years. Used it both as a triple and a double. Triple was on a bike I used for credit card touring way back years ago. Double took a shorter axle than when I used it as a triple. So had two axles for it. Had chainrings for it from 28 to 52, and about everything in between. It worked well in it's day. As I recall....what I did not like about it as a triple was how much it stuck my right leg further out. Not worth updating with modern rings IMHO. Just too easy to buy a modern square taper triple with equal "Q" (for want of a better way to describe) on both sides.

[NHAero]

Ralph, I'm totally open to suggestions as to which 110BCD modern crankset you (or others) recommend!

I used a Sugino AT crankset for many years. Used it both as a triple and a double. Triple was on a bike I used for credit card touring way back years ago. Double took a shorter axle than when I used it as a triple. So had two axles for it. Had chainrings for it from 28 to 52, and about everything in between. It worked well in it's day. As I recall....what I did not like about it as a triple was how much it stuck my right leg further out. Not worth updating with modern rings IMHO. Just too easy to buy a modern square taper triple with equal "Q" (for want of a better way to describe) on both sides.

[Ralph]

http://00eda5d.netsolhost.com/cranks.html Something like this as an example. Scroll down to the Sugino XD Triple. Also available other places. Uses a "more" modern cartridge BB. Rings are ramped and pined. Uses very common (and good and cheap) Shimano JIS tapered cartridge BB's. Not sure how it works with 11's chain. Believe these triple cranks are described as for 9/10 use. Beautiful crankset though. had this in double once.

[NHAero]

Since I will either use the TA rings I have, or change to the Wickwerks 41/33, I would only need cranks. I'm interested in the idea that a modern crank can have the same Q as the old AT. It's true that the left side crank is closer to the centerline of the bike than the right side crank, but since the right side crank can't get any closer to the centerline (at least with the 24T ring, and in any case the chainline is pretty normal as is), the only way I see to make the offset from centerline equal on each side is to increase Q by moving the left side out, and I know I don't prefer to do that. I've been riding with this assymmetrical crank setup for decades and it works for me.
Have I misunderstood what you were saying when you suggested a modern crankset? That's entirely possible!

http://00eda5d.netsolhost.com/cranks.html Something like this as an example. Scroll down to the Sugino XD Triple. Also available other places. Uses a "more" modern cartridge BB. Rings are ramped and pined. Not sure how it works with 11's chain.

[Ralph]

I don't like any crankset that puts one foot further away from center line than another. Has the effect of making the "further out" leg ride shorter. I get a wear spot. Doesn't work for me. maybe for you.

Example of what I mean.....On original Campy Racing T Triple.....8 speed.....they used same non drive arm as the double.....and with the 111 symmetrical axle....with triple right leg pedaled further out.

Somewhere around the 9 speed Racing T era, they put a "dog leg" in left arm, so with same 111 symmetrical BB, both sides the same.

With the advent of the 04 or so Chorus and Record Triples.....left side crank arm stayed the same as double, so to make both sides equal....Campy made the Record/Chorus BB 111 BB ASYMETRICAL with extra 3 mm on non drive side. So what I mean is....one way or another.....modern triples are same both sides. If that not important to you, that's fine also.

EDIT addition....Also....I would not assume that a triple with both sides equal has a wider Q than the Sugino AT Triple which used the same non drive arm as it's double version.

[NHAero]

Thanks once again for the explanation.
I think I need to look again at my setup and see how much clearance I have to the chainstays. I think the only way Q gets reduced with a modern crankset is for the chainline to stay the same and the drive side arm moves inwards, and it's hard for me to picture that, since the AT arm is straight and fairly narrow as well. It almost seems like it would require an inward dogleg to achieve, but maybe I am confused.

I don't like any crankset that puts one foot further away from center line than another. Has the effect of making the "further out" leg ride shorter. I get a wear spot. Doesn't work for me. maybe for you.

Example of what I mean.....On original Campy Racing T Triple.....8 speed.....they used same non drive arm as the double.....and with the 111 symmetrical axle....with triple right leg pedaled further out.

Somewhere around the 9 speed Racing T era, they put a "dog leg" in left arm, so with same 111 symmetrical BB, both sides the same.

With the advent of the Chorus and Record Triples.....left side again stayed the same, so to make both sides equal....Campy made the Record/Chorus BB 111 BB asymmetrical with extra 3 mm on non drive side. So what I mean is....one way or another.....modern triples are same both sides. If that not important to you, that's fine also.

EDIT addition....Also....I would not assume that a triple with both sides equal has a wider Q than the Sugino AT Triple which used the same non drive arm as it's double version.

[dddd]

You're right, and the AT doesn't have a big Q measurement.

It does use a much longer spindle than newer designs, which translates to less ankle clearance at the bb end of each crankarm. It is not a "low-profile" design as most cranks became heading into the 90's, so with triple rings the bb spindle is a whopping 127.5mm or so.

Again though, you are right and the crankarm/pedal is not spaced very far out from the large ring on this crankset.

I would try using a symmetrical 127.7mm bb, which should position your feet symmetrically about the bb shell.
I would then try adding a fixed-cup spacer, only if needed, for chainring clearance to the chainstay or for getting the front derailer to pull to the granny ring with sufficient authority.

[NHAero]

Thank you. It shifts fine as is on the front, and dropping to a double should help. I think the BB in there is a 127.5mm where there is an extra 5mm on the drive side.

You're right, and the AT doesn't have a big Q measurement.

It does use a much longer spindle than newer designs, which translates to less ankle clearance at the bb end of each crankarm. It is not a "low-profile" design as most cranks became heading into the 90's, so with triple rings the bb spindle is a whopping 127.5mm or so.

Again though, you are right and the crankarm/pedal is not spaced very far out from the large ring on this crankset.

I would try using a symmetrical 127.7mm bb, which should position your feet symmetrically about the bb shell.
I would then try adding a fixed-cup spacer, only if needed, for chainring clearance to the chainstay or for getting the front derailer to pull to the granny ring with sufficient authority.

[NHAero]

I looked carefully at the current set-up, and have about 1/8" clearance between the left crank arm and the chainstay, and just below 1/2" on the drive side. It's a bit biased to the drive side because the clearance to the 24t ring fastening bolts is so slim - in fact, I had to swap bolts to ones with lower profile heads to make it work. So once I get the 11 speed double to work, I should be able to shift the whole BB a bit to the left, perhaps as much as 1/8", and get a more symmetrical set-up.

[NHAero]

Reporting back after getting the bits in house, in case someone else ever wants to do something similar. It would have been much harder to do this without the info people helped me out with.

That CS-HG800-11 cassette is one problem solver that allows an 11 speed cassette on a 10s rear hub. I put that on my White Industries MI6 hub, and installed a RD-R8000GS Ultegra rear derailleur to shift it. My issue with a cassette that starts with an 11 is that I don't need more than a 100 inch gear, which means a 41 or 42T ring on a range of 700C tires. But the braze on tab on my frame won't let the FD drop enough. Someone suggested the Wickwerx Fitlink to drop the FD. It was clear that the existing Ultegra FD wouldn't work because the cage is too long and would hit the chainstay.

Someone suggested a CX70 cross FD. That's a 10s, so I didn't know if it would work with an 11s shifter and it's tight but it's working on the stand anyway. It clears the chainstay by about 3mm when lowered. I have it as high as it will go on the Fitlink, and it clears the 41T ring by about 1-1/2mm. I don't think a 42T ring would work, because the FD can't go higher (all this depends on the actual vertical location of the braze-on tab).

I bought the Fitwerx Junior Solution, which is a matched pair of 41T/33T rings. They come in several bolt circles, and one fits the 5 bolt 110mm configuration of the Sugino AT crank I run. By losing the inner 24T ring, I was able to move the Phil Wood BB to the non-drive side to get the chainline right while lessening the asymmetry of the crank arms from the centerline of the bike. The 41-33 is a nice tight set of rings and seems to shift easily. With the 11-34 out back, and 37-622 tires, I have gears of 26 to 101 gear-inches.

The next step is getting the hydro lines fitted to the bike, filled and bled. Another day!

Hope this helps someone!