ONLY 150? ONLY 160? Any q-factor zealot worth their salt would give both of those numbers the same name: "doing the splits!" teehee! :) Joke! Playful! Grin!
You are mostly right that you can get pretty narrow with modern parts and wide tires. I too have a 10-sp rear end 130 OLD bike, with 650x42B tires, metal fenders, 10mm clearance all around and 140mm Q (now that's deserving of an ONLY haha grin!). But at some point the thing that stops you from going narrower is that your heel hits your R der or chainstay, or your crankarm is too close to the chainstay, both of which get a little more room with a narrower OLD. The flipside is that you probably can go too narrow, at least for chainline. Trust me, I'm not in a big rush to order a custom 120mm rear end bike, nor am I going to go snap up a 1960s Cinelli and do a restoration. I think what I was getting at was that Grant did stick with 6/7 cogs for a very long time, with B-stone and early Riv. More than 7 was just stupid and superfluous. 8? ok, I guess that's only one too many, but 9 or 10 or 11? that's just crazy (or so the thinking went). My hypothetical was that if there were no component choice constraints, would he have stopped at 7? I think he might have. And if he did stop at 7, would he still gone to 135? Maybe he would have, because it does yield a strong dishless rear wheel. Patrick, you love your racer-history: Do you remember what Eddy Merckx' favorite freewheel cogs were? On Monday, September 23, 2013 11:03:49 AM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote: > > It's hard to analyze Grant's mind, since we are not Grant, but I say that > it is possible to have both more cogs and less Q since OL spacing > contributes relatively little to Q. > > Q is determined mostly by crank arm angle and only relatively little by > rear OL spacing. Hell, how wide apart your feet are is determined more by > the type of pedal you use than by OL spacing -- after all, from 120 to 135 > is exactly 1.5 cm or .6 inch, and a wide platform pedal compared to, say, > the Dura Ace SPDs I use, is more than that. I've run a 145 mm Phil spindle > on a 135 OL frame with stays wide enough for 60s + fenders + mud, and the Q > was only 150. > > I ran a 10 sp on my 130 spaced custom with a Q of 130. Now that was with a > single ring on a Pro 5 Vis and a 113 mm bb spindl, but even a double would > have meant a Q of no more than 115 -- and this on a rather wide stayed > frame. Even the X2D or XD2 on the Fargo, which accepts 65 mm tires with > fenders and gap, is only 160 mm, with room to take out at least 5 mm if not > a whole cm, if only you could find the right bb and crank combination. > > > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Bill Lindsay <tape...@gmail.com<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> Jim >> >> Since you know the history as well as most people, let me ask your >> opinion on a hypothetical: >> >> We both know Grant was an early low-Q-factor guy. We both remember he >> resisted going from 126 to 130 on the RB's, and resisted going from 130 to >> 135 on the MBs. He reluctantly went wider. Rivendell pretty consistently >> has said that anything more than 7 cogs in back is unnecessary, and is even >> preferable if you want to use friction shifting. >> >> So, the hypothetical is: >> >> Assume 120mm, 126mm, 130mm and 135mm rear hubs were widely available at >> all price and quality levels >> Assume all length cassette bodies were available for every number of rear >> cassette cogs from 1 to 11 cogs >> Assume cassette cogs were available to build all conceivable custom >> combinations >> Assume nice narrow Q-factor cranksets were available in singles doubles >> and triples at all price points and quality levels >> >> If all those things were true, do you think Grant would be designing >> almost exclusively 135mm (Roadeo=130) rear end bikes? Or do you think >> Grant would be saying that narrow Q-factor is valuable and you don't need >> so many cogs? Would Rivendell be selling a 2x5 tenspeed? Or a 3x5 >> 15-speed? I don't know for sure. >> >> On Sunday, September 22, 2013 9:52:59 PM UTC-7, Jim Thill - Hiawatha >> Cyclery wrote: >>> >>> Fortunately, most Rivs are 130 or 135 mm! >>> >>> On Sunday, September 22, 2013 10:17:47 AM UTC-5, Bill Lindsay wrote: >>>> >>>> Compass Bikes just posted the availability of new Grand Boris branded 5 >>>> and 6 speed cassette hubs for 120mm rear spacing. That's a pretty >>>> exciting >>>> development for a lot of folks. They have the cog sets as well. I hope >>>> the freewheel hoarders aren't angry about it. >>>> >>>> If I understand the manufacturing relationships, we'll probably see >>>> these hubs under a couple other labels as well >>>> >>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "RBW Owners Bunch" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to >> rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > > > -- > *RESUMES THAT GET YOU NOTICED!* > Certified Resume Writer > http://resumespecialties.com/index.html > patric...@resumespecialties.com <javascript:> > http://www.linkedin.com/in/patrickmooreresumespec/ > > Albuquerque, NM > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
