| |
Main
Date: 10 Jul 2007 23:02:08
From: still me
Subject: TA Cyclotouriste Triple Setup ?
|
I am trying to set up a TA Cyclotouriste as a triple. I have a fresh
set of triple .86 bolts from Sheldon-ville. I am bolting through the
80bcd holes.
Three questions:
- When I put this together, the inner chainwheel ends up with only
about 1mm of collar extending into it from the front - that's all
that's left after three chainwheels and two spacers are on there. It
seems like there should be more, perhaps 2-3mm. But, I can't see any
way to set it up to get more. Is this right? Since the inner wheel
bolts with a non-nesting bolt, it seems like it's a little insecure.
- Should the chainwheels all end up with the milled tooth edge facing
the same way, like this? :
http://www.blackbirdsf.org/ta/images/80-152.jpg
- Should the final spacing end up at about 7mm, tooth center to tooth
center?
Thanks,
|
|
| |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 02:49:48
From: NickP
Subject: Re: TA Cyclotouriste Triple Setup ?
|
That amount sounds about right if you are using the original spacers. I have
found that if you are using 9-speed chain on this setup, it works better if
you substitute slightly thinner spacers (~0.5mm thinner). The thinner chain
is less likely to skate between the chainrings when changing down if the
inter-chainring gap is reduced slightly.
And yes, all the chainrings should be mounted so that the side that has the
teeth stepped down from the chainring surface faces outwards.
I usually use these as a double with a small large chainring. e.g.
http://www.users.on.net/~njpayne/bikestuff/riv/pages/DSC02920.htm or
http://www.cyclofiend.com/cc/2007/cc301-nickpayne0507.html, which are
actually both Sugino PX cranks with Cyclotouriste chainrings.
Nick
"still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:2218939jl12n7rm5a1ue54g4ir3anqkip1@4ax.com...
>I am trying to set up a TA Cyclotouriste as a triple. I have a fresh
> set of triple .86 bolts from Sheldon-ville. I am bolting through the
> 80bcd holes.
>
> Three questions:
>
> - When I put this together, the inner chainwheel ends up with only
> about 1mm of collar extending into it from the front - that's all
> that's left after three chainwheels and two spacers are on there. It
> seems like there should be more, perhaps 2-3mm. But, I can't see any
> way to set it up to get more. Is this right? Since the inner wheel
> bolts with a non-nesting bolt, it seems like it's a little insecure.
>
> - Should the chainwheels all end up with the milled tooth edge facing
> the same way, like this? :
> http://www.blackbirdsf.org/ta/images/80-152.jpg
>
> - Should the final spacing end up at about 7mm, tooth center to tooth
> center?
|
| |
Date: 10 Jul 2007 21:59:59
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: TA Cyclotouriste Triple Setup ?
|
"still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:2218939jl12n7rm5a1ue54g4ir3anqkip1@4ax.com...
> I am trying to set up a TA Cyclotouriste as a triple. I have a fresh
> set of triple .86 bolts from Sheldon-ville. I am bolting through the
> 80bcd holes.
>
> Three questions:
>
> - When I put this together, the inner chainwheel ends up with only
> about 1mm of collar extending into it from the front - that's all
> that's left after three chainwheels and two spacers are on there. It
> seems like there should be more, perhaps 2-3mm. But, I can't see any
> way to set it up to get more. Is this right? Since the inner wheel
> bolts with a non-nesting bolt, it seems like it's a little insecure.
>
> - Should the chainwheels all end up with the milled tooth edge facing
> the same way, like this? :
> http://www.blackbirdsf.org/ta/images/80-152.jpg
>
> - Should the final spacing end up at about 7mm, tooth center to tooth
> center?
>
> Thanks,
>
The outer ring in the picture is a Criterium or half step model chainring
with a second set of bolt holes at a larger BCD.
There's no counterbores in the outer bolt circle in this chainring.
The Cyclotouriste chainrings only have 1 set of bolt holes for mounting
the middle and inner rings.
On later TA outside chainrings the 6 bolt holes for attaching the middle
and inner rings have a counterbored recess like this:
http://www.blackbirdsf.org/ta/refcy205.html
I measured the hollow ref. 86 bolts and they are 15mm long. They come up
flush in the backside of the mounting holes in my TA triples.
The Yellow Jersey lists ref. 87 chain ring bolts for ring to ring half
setup triple chainrings.
You might want to check back with Harrison and also Andrew Muzi at Yellow
Jersey to see if the ref. 87 bolts are any longer.
I emailed you some pictures of my TA cranks.
Chas.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 17:59:49
From: still me
Subject: Re: TA Cyclotouriste Triple Setup ?
|
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 21:59:59 -0700, "* * Chas"
<verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com > wrote:
>http://www.blackbirdsf.org/ta/refcy205.html
Yes... I actually have one of both styles - one early with no counter
bore on the outer ring and with the with the criterium(?) holes, and
one with the later counterbore without the extra holes. The
non-counterbore ring actually accentuates the problem since the .86
bolts (which are later style) don't nest in that extra mm or so.
I'd actually prefer to use the non-counterbore ring for other reasons,
but it looks like it increases the issue here. I can't tell if they
changed the length of the triple bolt (collar part) for the change in
rings. It looks like they should have. FWIW - the measurements of <1mm
for the inner ring mount is when using the newer style rings to match
the newer style bolts.
However, there are other oddities... the spacers that they supply are
a little too large to nest into the counterbores on the back side of
the middle and inner rings, which would reduce chainwheel to
chaninwheel spacing by 1mm on the inner ring if it did. It would not
affect the middle to large ring spacing because there is no
counterbore involved on the back of the outer ring, it's on the front.
I looked up some old TA catalog diagrams I just remembered I had, and
there is actually a different part # for the middle ring. I'm
wondering is a combination of different spacers and rings was in use
in the days of old. They also show the .87, not the .86 bolts in use.
>I measured the hollow ref. 86 bolts and they are 15mm long. They come up
>flush in the backside of the mounting holes in my TA triples.
Is that from the collar inside edge to the end of the barrel? In other
words, the length of the smaller diameter part? Or is that the
complete unit ?
>The Yellow Jersey lists ref. 87 chain ring bolts for ring to ring half
>setup triple chainrings.
>
>You might want to check back with Harrison and also Andrew Muzi at Yellow
>Jersey to see if the ref. 87 bolts are any longer.
I will check there. This is much more complicated than first
anticipated.
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 13:48:48
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: TA Cyclotouriste Triple Setup ?
|
"still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:l74a931v5lvcdcfgfh371420u4161qptim@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 21:59:59 -0700, "* * Chas"
> <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com> wrote:
>
>
> >http://www.blackbirdsf.org/ta/refcy205.html
>
> Yes... I actually have one of both styles - one early with no counter
> bore on the outer ring and with the with the criterium(?) holes, and
> one with the later counterbore without the extra holes. The
> non-counterbore ring actually accentuates the problem since the .86
> bolts (which are later style) don't nest in that extra mm or so.
>
> I'd actually prefer to use the non-counterbore ring for other reasons,
> but it looks like it increases the issue here. I can't tell if they
> changed the length of the triple bolt (collar part) for the change in
> rings. It looks like they should have. FWIW - the measurements of <1mm
> for the inner ring mount is when using the newer style rings to match
> the newer style bolts.
>
> However, there are other oddities... the spacers that they supply are
> a little too large to nest into the counterbores on the back side of
> the middle and inner rings, which would reduce chainwheel to
> chaninwheel spacing by 1mm on the inner ring if it did. It would not
> affect the middle to large ring spacing because there is no
> counterbore involved on the back of the outer ring, it's on the front.
>
> I looked up some old TA catalog diagrams I just remembered I had, and
> there is actually a different part # for the middle ring. I'm
> wondering is a combination of different spacers and rings was in use
> in the days of old. They also show the .87, not the .86 bolts in use.
>
> >I measured the hollow ref. 86 bolts and they are 15mm long. They come
up
> >flush in the backside of the mounting holes in my TA triples.
>
> Is that from the collar inside edge to the end of the barrel? In other
> words, the length of the smaller diameter part? Or is that the
> complete unit ?
That's the overall length.
All of my TA stuff is from the late 70s and early 80s. The hollow bolts
come all the way through the chainrings and are flush inside the
counterbores.
BTW, I'm running Sedisport chains from the early 1990s on both TA cranks.
Chas.
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 21:12:59
From: still me
Subject: Re: TA Cyclotouriste Triple Setup ?
|
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:48:48 -0700, "* * Chas"
<verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com > wrote:
>All of my TA stuff is from the late 70s and early 80s. The hollow bolts
>come all the way through the chainrings and are flush inside the
>counterbores.
How thick are your spacers?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 22:36:33
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: TA Cyclotouriste Triple Setup ?
|
"still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:rtha9399tihep7ntksss0mts0qd6g613be@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:48:48 -0700, "* * Chas"
> <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com> wrote:
>
> >All of my TA stuff is from the late 70s and early 80s. The hollow bolts
> >come all the way through the chainrings and are flush inside the
> >counterbores.
>
> How thick are your spacers?
I have a stack of TA chainrings and I made some measurements on them and
some of the other components. This will make thinks a lot less clear.
All spacers are 4mm
All my outer chainrings and most inner ones are 4mm thick. All have 1mm or
1.5mm counterbores and all except one have a 3mm thick area around the CR
bolt holes inside where the spacers sit.
One older 40T inner CR is 3.5mm thick with 1.5mm counterbores and no
thinner area for spacers around the bolt holes.
Granny gears 30T > are 3mm thick.
All of the teeth on these CRs are 2mm thick.
The double is 10mm from the outside of the outer CR to the inside of the
inner CR. I didn't have an easy way to measure the width between the
rings. Same thing with checking the triple.
One suggestion, get extras of the little CR mounting bolts, they break
easily when tightening.
Chas.
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 03:42:00
From:
Subject: Re: TA Cyclotouriste Triple Setup ?
|
On Jul 10, 6:02 pm, still me <wheeled...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> I am trying to set up a TA Cyclotouriste as a triple. I have a fresh
> set of triple .86 bolts from Sheldon-ville. I am bolting through the
> 80bcd holes.
>
> Three questions:
>
> - When I put this together, the inner chainwheel ends up with only
> about 1mm of collar extending into it from the front - that's all
> that's left after three chainwheels and two spacers are on there. It
> seems like there should be more, perhaps 2-3mm. But, I can't see any
> way to set it up to get more. Is this right? Since the inner wheel
> bolts with a non-nesting bolt, it seems like it's a little insecure.
>
As long as you have four or more threads engaged
and it is reasonably tight, your worry can only serve
to shorten your lifespan.
> - Should the chainwheels all end up with the milled tooth edge facing
> the same way, like this? :http://www.blackbirdsf.org/ta/images/80-152.jpg
>
Won't matter.
> - Should the final spacing end up at about 7mm, tooth center to tooth
> center?
Given that the old 5/6 speed rears are slightly more
than 5mm, that seems a tad large, but not obnoxiously
so, given the mechanics of shitfing.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 18:01:07
From: still me
Subject: Re: TA Cyclotouriste Triple Setup ?
|
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 03:42:00 -0000, illoai@gmail.com wrote:
>Given that the old 5/6 speed rears are slightly more
>than 5mm, that seems a tad large, but not obnoxiously
>so, given the mechanics of shitfing.
I am running wider chains (PC-48). Do you think I could get away with
less space or is 7mm the right way to do it? 1mm less on each would
solve some of my issues.
|
|
