Re: [CR]filing cranks - now question of "value"

(Example: Framebuilders:Jack Taylor)

Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 09:51:01 -0500
From: "Joe Bender-Zanoni" <joebz@optonline.net>
Subject: Re: [CR]filing cranks - now question of "value"
To: FujiFish1@aol.com, classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
References: <193.25739bbb.2d573e85@aol.com>


The lack of a radius at the spider/arm transition is a design error by Campagnolo. ANY good engineering practice says to avoid this situation. Strangely, Campy never corrected the problem. Sugino did.

As to value, those of the hanger queen persuasion will favor uncracked unradiused cranks. These will cost more because they are new or lightly used. Others will radius every crank they put on a bike to fix a design error and stop a problem before it starts. If I had a nice uncracked unradiused set I was going to sell though- I'd leave them unradiused.

As to radiusing, this is not rocket science. Any sharp 1/8" or 3/32" chainsaw file will do and and just a few light strokes at the end to get a good finish. How large a radius you put in is not very critical.

Joe Bender-Zanoni Great Notch, NJ "Spent a lot of time arguing and calculating expensive radii on aircraft parts"


----- Original Message -----
From: FujiFish1@aol.com
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 2:25 AM
Subject: Re: [CR]filing cranks - now question of "value"



> This thread brings out a question that I have pondered, since the first time
> I read about filing Campy cranks. What is the opinion of the group regarding
> the resale value enhancement, or reduction for modified cranks that otherwise
> are in "Absolut Top" condition?
>
> My vintage bikes get ridden with a bit of care, and mostly with lot of
> spinning, so I have yet to try out this alteration for myself.
>
> Ciao,
> Mark
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> In a message dated 2/8/2004 2:07:13 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> classicrendezvous-request@bikelist.org writes:
>
> > Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:17:58 -0700
> > From: Chuck Schmidt <chuckschmidt@earthlink.net>
> > To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> > Subject: Re: [CR]filing cranks
> > Message-ID: <4025AA5A.AC2394A1@earthlink.net>
> > References: <20040208035815.10566.qmail@web41010.mail.yahoo.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > Precedence: list
> > Reply-To: chuckschmidt@earthlink.net
> > Message: 12
> >
> > r cielec wrote:
> > >
> > >>From discussions in the list, I am familiar with the filing fix but do not
> > fully understand where nor extent of fix.
> > >Any one have any before and after photos?
> >
> >
> > I don't have any photos, but once you get in there with a small, round
> > Swiss pattern file taking off the knife edge of material at the web
> > formed by the crank arm and the spider, it will be obvious what kind of
> > shape you need, to make the transition as "soft" a compound shape as
> > possible.
> >
> > Don't forget to polish out all the file marks as they are stress risers
> > and can propagate cracks.
> >
> > Chuck Schmidt
> > South Pasadena, Southern California