Update old crankset with 11 speed chainrings?

[NHAero]

That's cool, thanks so much!

Originally Posted by 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]

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-fro...leur-solution/)

Originally Posted by 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/

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by Kontact

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!

Originally Posted by 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.

[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!

Originally Posted by 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. 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.

Originally Posted by 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 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.

Originally Posted by 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]

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!