Re: [CR]Quadruple Chainrings

(Example: Racing:Beryl Burton)

Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:35:37 -0600
To: Jan Heine <>
From: "Mark Stonich" <>
Subject: Re: [CR]Quadruple Chainrings
In-Reply-To: <a052106e3be33cee85ee5@[]>
References: <> <000c01c510c9$294fe560$6601a8c0@Balboa>

At 2/12/2005 07:28 AM -0800, Jan Heine wrote:
>Like most April Fool's jokes (note the date on the proposed issue!), I
>hadn't thought this through. Of course, you'd need a constant percentage
>difference between chainrings, not constant-tooth. How about 50-45 (ca.
>10%) and 28-25 (ca. 10%)? Or maybe, to take the joke one further, how
>about half-tooth chainrings, like 25 1/2? A capable metalworker should be
>able to machine one for me! (In fact, the only solution is going with
>shorter pitch. If you make the teeth half as big, you can get the elusive
>25.5-tooth ring by making it a 56-51. Just need a new chain, too. Shimano
>has been there with their 10 mm (?) pitch components, they just weren't
>radical enough!)

Sorry, I didn't catch the April 1 reference. Most of the people I deal with are HPV types, who are dead serious when discussing much more outlandish drivetrain configurations. For instance, I'm meeting Florian Schlumpf on Wed. to discuss using one of his 2 speed unicycle hubs to build a replica of the Geared Dwarf Ordinary shown on the dust cover of Jim McGrurn's "On Your Bicycle"
>I can see that recumbents might need more gears, as many (but not all!) of
>them are very fast downhill and very slow uphill.

This may change as short cranked, lightweight recumbents become more common. On my 22lb 'bent, with 147mm cranks, I can outclimb stronger riders on conventional bikes, that I can't stay with on the flats. The perception will likely remain though, as IMHO 'benters tend to be less fit than most cycling enthusiasts.

To get somewhat back on topic; Does anyone have any classic era cranks in 150mm. TA, Campi or ???

Mark Stonich;
Minneapolis Minnesota