- 50.4 BCD, Like TA, Stronglight 49D, and a dozen other classic cranks.
- Q-factor around 139mm, among the lowest ever.
- Cold forged.
- 46/30 rings making a wide-range double. It has the range of a triple with less shifting and much less weight.
- 3mm more room between outer ring and crank arm (compared to classic TA) for easier front derailleur setup.
- Thicker chain rings for less flex than TA or other classic cranks.
- More VO chain rings coming later, or you can use TA rings
70517075-alloy CNC cut rings for super durability- Shifting pins on chain rings for faster shifts compared to classic rings.
- Weighs only 550g as shown.
- 5-10spd compatible.
- All-stainless hardware. All bolts/nuts are Allen head
- 165mm, 170mm, 175mm lengths.
- Single and triple models planned
- Standard JIS taper, standard extractor/dust cap thread, standard ISO pedal threads
- Super high polish front and back.
- We're shooting for June delivery.
- Around $175 as shown. (Yes, that's with the rings.)
Details on three new 110bcd VO cranks will be posted soon.
So, waddaya think?
Fantastic. Now if you can just get Sugino to make the faux Rene Herse crank I'll be in heaven.
ReplyDeletePhil Brown
Absolutely stunning. I'll hold out though until I can get the chainring combination I need for my derailleur. Thanks, Chris, for making this a reality.
ReplyDeleteTwo words: Thank you!
ReplyDeleteWon't somebody PLEASE make a high-Q crank?!
ReplyDeletehar. that's a beauty. nice work.
ADORE IT
ReplyDeleteMW
Looks like a winner!
ReplyDeleteLooks like a winner!
ReplyDeleteThis is what I've been waiting for. I have long found triples awkward and redundant and yet even compact doubles seemed a bit steep for normal, non-racing use. And it doesn't hurt that it's one of the most beautiful cranks I've ever seen.
ReplyDeleteLooks great, good job. Any idea of what length of spindle would be needed to use the dbl with a 130mm 8/9 speed cassette hub? How about a triple version?
ReplyDeleteNice. Thank you. 46-30 is a very useful setup.
ReplyDeletebeautiful!
ReplyDeleteAllan
WOW, it took me awhile to read the post because I was just staring at the picture. I would love a single 1/8th version on my track bike, it's current crank looks totally out of place. Actually I want this crank on any bike I would own.
ReplyDeleteI was okay with every single crank being ugly since that's all that was around, this changes everything.
Very nice. Would be a great addition on my Ebisu. Same question as one of the earlier posters: what BB spindle length will it require?
ReplyDeleteWhen will other size rings come? I am looking to use a 42/30 combo
Pedal threads should be French,
ReplyDeletethat way I can rethread them to English. TAs with English threads
is too confusing to me.
YES!
ReplyDeleteStunning; VO does it again!
ReplyDeleteStunning.
ReplyDeleteThis is a perfect crank. Thanks for making it happen.
ReplyDeleteI like really this detail: "standard extractor/dust cap thread"
Arguably VO's most dramtic component design yet. Congratulations.
ReplyDeleteBravo!!!
ReplyDeleteNice! please offer other chainring combos.
ReplyDeleteI think you've nailed it.
ReplyDeleteYummy, nice price too.
ReplyDeleteVery nice, sir.
ReplyDeleteWhen will chainrings be coming- june or later?
Beautiful. I'll have to wait for the triple, but in the meantime, how about a nice VO sticker for that hole. The laser engraving doesn't look great.
ReplyDeleteI like it. A lot. I will consider that crank for a future build.
ReplyDelete.....But not before seeing the 110 cranksets! Three of them coming! Wow.
Mark R.
don't you just love your job?
ReplyDeleteNice! I want one for my Salsa Cycles Fargo. 46/30T is perfect for gravel road riding.
ReplyDeleteWill you be offering chainrings for singles? (no ramps or pins) Also, these are gorgeous, but i would say that a foil sticker, even in orange would look much nicer than the laser engraved VO.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the deal with the bolts you're using? The Allen-key crank-to-outer bolts look nice, do they work with standard TA outer rings?
ReplyDeleteAre the outer-inner bolts standard for TA cyclotouriste, normal double bolts, or new to VO? Is the inner BCD the same as Cyclotouriste rings? Can you use TA inners on a VO outer with VO bolts?
It'd be nice if you could publish the full matrix of compatibility, and sell the bolts and arms separately too.
Hmm Shiny!
ReplyDeleteit looks like the Ticno crank! does it have those tooth notches like on shimino?
ReplyDeleteI like it when you guys reproduce something that is no longer available, such as this crank, rather than something still in production. This crank is great. It definitely fills a need. Good job.
ReplyDeleteGlad to see a triple is planned. I use all three rings on my bike pretty frequently.
ReplyDeletePerfect.
ReplyDeleteEvery part is designed be interchangeable with Cyclotouriste cranks, rings bolts, etc. But, to be honest, I've not actually mounted the VO rings on a TA crank and ridden it yet. Still need to test various combinations.
ReplyDeleteWe will sell the rings and bolts separately as well.
BB length is 116mm on a racing/rando frame, probably longer on a MTB or Camper.
More rings and triple and dedicated single versions are planned for fall 2010.
The crank looks spectacular, but a Q that narrow plays havoc with my knee and IT band. Wish you'd also make a crank that light and beautiful, with the same gearing options, but with a Q closer to the standard Sugino XD (ie, 165-170mm).
ReplyDeleteI can dream at least.
Wow. At that weight you're nearly as light as the octalink version of the sugino cospea (I've always been tempted by that but am not dying to buy an octalink crank in 2010!) I love that this is square taper, beautiful, and lighter than the FSA compact doubles / external BBs that come stock on many modern cross bikes. Who says you can't be stylish, a little retro, and shave a few grams at the same time!?
ReplyDelete-Tim
I like these. I bemoan the fact that nobody seems to want to offer cranks in the 172.5. I feel like these are suitable for such a wider range of riders. I understand the cost thing of making/stocking more sizes, but my feeling is you'd sell a lot more 172s than 165s. Oh well.
ReplyDeleteNow, that is class. Wish I had that crankset in the L'Eroica in Italy last October. You could look at it for ages!
ReplyDeleteVO never ceases to amaze. Any chance 180mm's will ulimately be offered (fingers crossed)? At this price point I could/would buy a few sets.
ReplyDeleteDustin,
ReplyDeleteHarris Cyclery used to sell an
adapter for riders who need a wider
"Q". It screws into the crank and
the pedal screws into it. Maybe
you don't have to dream.
Preston
Stunning!!
ReplyDeleteAMAZING! Cannot wait to ride them!
ReplyDeletegreat , will there be any dust caps too ?
ReplyDelete+1 on the pedal adapter. Since virtually every other modern crank is wide Q, Chris chose right by sticking with the narrow Q to offer something fairly unique to the market. The TA crank was/is nice, but too expensive and incompatible with modern standards hardware and threading standards...
ReplyDeleteEchoing most people feelings here - great job. I'll be spreading the word before and after I get my hands on a set in a smaller chainring combo for my crazy chainring combo (27 or 28 or 29 with 40 or 41 or 42) for my Rawland Drakkar that is coming "in a few months" :)
ReplyDeleteI can only hope that a lower q-factor than my current Ultegra cranks and my heel rub on the cranks because of bowed legs will help with knee issues i've been having.
Silly musculoskeletal issues.
Nice work - don't need one right now, but may just buy one to have for future use.
ReplyDeletemagnifique. I can quite scouring e-bay for a beautiful old crank.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dustin, this crank already exists (TA), while a wide Q version does not. I tried the spindle extenders (Knee Savers) and found them to be too wide, the narrowest adds 40mm! I finally gave up and just went back to a triple (hangs head in shame).
ReplyDeleteLooks awesome and 46/30 is my favorite combination, but I doubt I'll buy unless you make a 172.5mm model. It's hard to believe 2.5mm matters, but it does!
ReplyDelete170 doesn't feel right at all, 175 is OK, but 172.5 is the sweet spot for me. Plus I've got a stash of 175 Sugino PX cranks already.
Still, awesome looking cranks. Good Job!
How does the weight compare to the TA and Sugino PX? Not really a weight weenie, just curious.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea if 550g is high or low or average.
+1 172.5
ReplyDeleteThat is smoking Chris ... I'm still recovering from a neck injury. But assuming that all goes well, I'm picking one up for a AD Vent Noir.
ReplyDeleteBTW, what BB did you use to determine the q-factor?
Awesome. I love the 46/30, I love the low-Q, allen bolts, common threading, etc. 172.5 is the sweet spot for me too, but probably won't preclude me buying a set of these(just a note for second production runs).
ReplyDeleteIs each length its own forging, not just drilling the pedal hole in a different spot? Looks like it from the picture, awesome! Also, the flutes on the outer ring are a nice touch.
That's a daisy Chris! A 165mm single would be just the ticket on the 1x7 commuter I'm building right now. I hope you can make it happen
ReplyDeleteStunning! I have a TA 46/30 and a Sugino PX with TA 48/28 rings. Both of those combinations work great for me ( a 70 year-old) in the S.F. Peninsular area .
ReplyDeleteThank you Chris.
Make a 160mm and a 172.5mm version of this crank.
ReplyDeleteWhat about 180mm?
ReplyDeleteHi Chris,
ReplyDeleteGreat job!
Is it possible at this point to provide a price for the chain rings sans arms? I recently found a nice T/A crank set but need to replace the existing chain rings.
Best,
Scott
Well, a typical old-style racing frame has a 112 mm asymmetric bottom bracket, or a 115 symmetric bottom bracket. Is there anything you can do to make this crank stick 1 mm further outboard, so that I can just dump my old campagnolo junk and bolt this thing onto my campy compatible (NOS 112 or new 115) bottom bracket ?? That would be the pièce de résistance.
ReplyDeleteRegarding other sizes, since they would sell in much smaller quantities they would be much more expensive to justify tooling costs. Maybe $120 more? Could we sell 500 180mm cranks a year? Not a chance.
ReplyDeleteAlso, no one I know can ride a bike and tell me if a crank is 170mm or 172.5 without looking, no one. I've heard guys who fit bikes for top level racers say that only a very very few of those experienced racers can spot a difference of 2.5mm. This issue is related to what researchers call the "nocebo effect". If you know a crank is 2.5mm shorter you just think it must not feel as good.
These are modern JIS, not ISO, taper cranks, so if you have an old Campy or TA BB it would be best to replace it.
Wait a few days and you'll see a new crank with a wider Q-factor and 46/30 rings that will cost $100.
Gorgeous!!!
ReplyDeleteVery exciting!
ReplyDeleteBeautiful. I'll be having one of those!
ReplyDeleteI'll need to replace my ISO crank, per your last post. I know that front derailleurs are fairly forgiving but any idea if it will work with a Campy triple (9-speed) front derailleur?
I've been waiting for this (and the forthcoming posts) for a long time! These look fantastic. I can't wait to get one on my bike.
ReplyDeleteI would've purchased a 172.5 as many other posters have said, but I completely understand your reasoning for not offering the sizes you're not.
Can't wait for the Single ring crank! Particularly with the possibility to run rings around 34t w/bashguard for narrow chainline fixed/sturmey archer setups, or outer position for wide chainline 8/9/14 speed gearhub setups...
ReplyDeleteIt shouldn't cost that much more to make other sizes, you just drill the hole in a slightly different spot. Maybe you should make them undrilled like you used to do for fenders.
ReplyDeleteCustomers could then achieve the scientifically proven optimum crank length of 173.141593mm.
(this is why 172.5 is so popular, it's gets as close to 17π as you can get in 2.5mm increments ;-)
Seriously, 172.5 is a very popular size, certainly more than 165 which you offer. It would probably even sell better than 170.
I'll leave Chris to comment on whether this is true of this design, but those thinking of these for a single ring setup need to remember that generally speaking cranks with small center spiders like 50.4 need the support of a smaller ring to keep the large ring from getting stressed and bent by lateral forces. I've seen large single rings on small spiders fold before, even done it once myself on a steel ring, and it's not hard to see that human body weight + the roughly 2:1 advantage of a standard crank is going to put a hurting on a thin, tall chainring with no lateral support. This is less of a concern if you're riding gears and not going to have to stand on a tall gear at every start as with a singlespeed, but I'd be careful unbolting the small ring unless you don't weigh much and don't ride very hard.
ReplyDeleteI'm with Chris that anyone who thinks they can tell a 170 crank from a 172.5 is up a tree, but it seems like far more people are accustomed to this size than 170 -- for better or for worse 172.5 has been the standard on most road bikes from 54-61 for the last decade or so. Maybe a more sensible size run would be 165, 172.5, 180. The 180 tooling might not pay for itself per se, but if you're budgeting for 3 sets of tooling you're probably satisfying more picky constituencies that way, while the rest of us who would have bought at 170 will just buy the 172.5 anyway, and the 165 remains for smaller riders and people who have their reasons for wanting a shorter crank. Probably too late now, but something to think about.
I understand your point about one's ability to notice a difference of 2.5 mm in crank length, but if you follow that logic, then making a 172.5 would replace both the 170 and 175. Not complaining though--the crank is beautiful.
ReplyDeleteOh, and also, stick with the engraving. I can't think of anything less attractive than a foil sticker (well, maybe screen printed logos). Reminds me of an early 70's Gitane--not all that is French was good!
ReplyDeleteChris, what's the alloy these cranks are made of?
ReplyDeleteWell, at least I was able to enjoy a few hours of low-Q, high quality, reasonably priced 180mm fantasies. Now it’s back to ebay.
ReplyDeleteThese cranks look perfect! I can't wait for the singles. Now all you need to do is provide me with an affordable 650b ss-fg rear wheel ;)
ReplyDeleteseriously, great job! Nobody is doing things like this. You should be proud.
Manuel Labor
On the crank length issue: I cannot discern any significant difference between my TA 170mm crank and my Sugino PX 175mm crank. I agree with Chris that no one can tell the difference in 172.5mm cranks and 170mm.
ReplyDeleteSuggestion to Chris, I think you are very much right about the small difference being undetectable to most riders. However, the placebo effect is so tremendously strong, no 172.5 rider will be satisfied with anything else.
ReplyDeleteThe solution? Lie to them. Just take a bunch of the 170s and re-label them. To be fair to the rest of us, next production run just make 172.5's and label them 170 and 175.
Could we see the chainring group from the inside? One thing that's always prevented me from getting my spindle as short as I'd like is TA's hex-head chainring screws, which threaten to buzzsaw through my driveside chainstay. A lower-profile screwhead (button-head, probably) might permit me to get down to a 122/123mm spindle on a triple.
ReplyDeleteYes, some of us like triples.
And on the triple subject: What range of chainring sizes will be available? I use a half-step setup with a 6/7-speed freewheel, so inner wheels in the low-to-mid 40s and grannies 30T and under are lifesavers.
Most importantly, how tough are the chainring and bolt alloys? I'd love to cut down on the flex in the bigger wheels, and I've torn off a couple of screwheads on TA's flimsy screws recently. It would be nice to have a stock of screws that will take more punishment.
Peter
The allen head fasteners (nut and bolt) are stainless and you should be able to get an adequate torque range on them without rounding out the hex socket. They are commonly found threaded fasteners for easy replacement at most fastener houses, home depot, or a 3rd world hardware store.
ReplyDeleteWe specifically used a thicker 7075 alloy for the chainrings to reduce flex and increase the strength on larger chainwheels. A wider chainring also supports the chain better.
172.5 yes, is a funny length, and I could most likely ride a 170 and be fine, but for the amount of miles that I ride, combined with the fit and position that I find comfortable for those miles, a 172.5 fits me best. The 160mm is a size that is lacking and used to be offered, and there are a number of people that could use a crank that size.
ReplyDeleteSince VO is going through the trouble to remake this very versatile crank design, why limit the function and value by locking out other lengths for future runs? Why limit the products to the basic 3 sizes that are generalized to work for people? It seems that having this new iteration of the crank be as versatile as the old TA and Stronglight's would not only add value to the item, but to VO as well. But what do I know. It is not my money.
I like it, I will have to look at the gear chart to see how the gears play out, but the style is good, a bit extra fluting to differentiate it, better than the Electra one in detailing.
ReplyDeleteNow, my only nit is that the 50mm fasteners are not counterbored a bit into the ring, not knowing the limitations of space, that is my only nit. Even a partial counterbore would make the fasteners look designed in, not applied.
Indstrial Design crit off.
Don't lie to us, we'll measure ;-)
ReplyDeleteIt's not just 2.5mm, that translates into about 15mm round trip!
I weighed my 175mm Sugino PX arms plus 46 & 30 tooth TA rings (current production) and got 590g WITHOUT the huge pile-o-bolts, so probably around 100g less. Randonneuring weight weenies rejoice!
ReplyDeleteAlso on the PX, I get about 135mm "Q" with a 113 BB. Assuming you're measurement of 139 is with a 116 BB, they're pretty darn close.
"Wait a few days and you'll see a new crank with a wider Q-factor and 46/30 rings that will cost $100."
ReplyDelete110/74 double?
Please make it in 185 length, as TA had, and you'll have my undying gratitude!
ReplyDeleteIan, maybe, but I'm hoping for a 94bcd double. It'd look better.
ReplyDeleteI'd love a 94 bcd double so much that I'd buy spares compulsively until my wife beat me to death with one. But unlike the 110/74 double, I've never seen a photo of a 94 double on this blog.
ReplyDeleteI'm very excited about this, especially that there will be a single ring version as well. It's looks wonderful, has all the features anybody could need in a crank, and it looks proper! I would love to see a Sugino 75 style bottom bracket produced for use with this crank, even though you've already got a good selection of bottom brackets to choose from. There's just something funny about using a Shimano cartridge type BB on a crank such as this!
ReplyDeleteThat's beautiful enough to make me think about building up a bike just to have one. :)
ReplyDeleteOrder lots.
ReplyDeleteFantastic looking cranks!
ReplyDeleteWhich if any current front derailleur will work with these? I checked the VO store and didn't see any Mavic, or old style Campagnolo or similar. Will there be a VO FD?
Who manufactures these cranks?
ReplyDeleteSweet. Do you plan on offering just crankarms?
ReplyDelete"There's just something funny about using a Shimano cartridge type BB on a crank such as this!"
ReplyDeleteWell, what about a Phil BB? that's a cartridge unit.....
GREETINGS,
ReplyDeleteWHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE IN THE WASHINGTON,DC AREA? JUST WHEN I HAD LOST ALL HOPE, YOU GO AND COME UP WITH SOMETHING USEFUL. GO FIGURE.
BEST REGARDS
Greg, The FSA and Shimano compact-specific front ders would work perfectly with these. Maybe not "classic" enough for some people but solid units with pretty good finish for $20-40. VO doesn't carry them but you can get them anywhere
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 1:22
ReplyDeleteI was led to believe that the ramps/bulges on the inside plate were what got in the way (litterally) of proper shifting with this style of crank/rings. Is this not the case with the compact FDs?
I notice the FSA FDs look less bulgy than the Shimanos ones.
Greg,
ReplyDeleteI'm building up my chrome Voyageur 11.8 with a new wheelset from VO using an SRAM 850 11-28t cassette and (when available) will use this 46/30 crankset. I purchased an Ultegra FD-6603 (triple) and an RD-6600 (long cage). I shopped around and spent about $90 on both including the aftermarket clamp to fit the braze-on FD to my 28.6 tube.
Possibly other front derailleurs will work fine, but I purchased a triple to be safe. The Ultegra stuff shouldn't look too out of place alongside the vintage and VO parts. FYI, I use friction shifters.
Compelling. The devil is in the details. I can't tell if the grooves are cut or forged. Cut, like Campy Nuovo Record is probably cooler, visually. Forged, like Stronglight and TA are probably better structurally. The metal finish needs improving. I'd like to see 172.5 mm offered. The VO logo etching on the crank oval doesn't do it for me. The chainrings are nice. Made in USA, China, Taiwan or Japan? Kudos for the effort.
ReplyDeleteTodd Teachout
Are there going to be issues on some frames (specifically modern fat-tire-oriented ones made with current wide-Q norms in mind) with a longer-than-ideal spindle being needed to avoid crank/chainstay interference, thereby pushing the chainline out? It certainly seems like there are a good amount of such bikes out there with current road cranks that just barely clear with a safe margin for flex as it is.
ReplyDeleteMaybe when it comes time, you could publish some numbers for where the inside of the ends of the crankarms end up, so people can plan around this?
Gutsy move but well worth the risk! Smart to have a JIS taper...can I order a 175mm in advance?
ReplyDeleteNathan:
ReplyDeleteI'm running a TA on a 130mm-spaced bike with clearance for 45mm fenders. The spindle is 120mm, which gives a good chain line and safe (but close) clearance for the stays.
The problem with my setup is that the chain just grazes the end of the crankarm when I'm in my smallest cog (I'm using a 7-speed Suntour freewheel). It's a fixable problem, but it's something to keep in mind with a crank like this.
Fantastic!!
ReplyDeleteBeautiful Chris,
ReplyDeleteNow I just gotta dump my crappy TA's and pick up a set! (I kid)
Now I just gotta get an all VO build porteur built around the Polyvalent frame. (not kidding)
This ought to be a very nice crank for builds of the up-coming VO Randonneur as well.
ReplyDeleteChris, If you keep making these kind of retro cool upgrades I will NEVER have my bike built
ReplyDeleteI really like this crank. It would be much better though, with a 92.7bcd, 3 arm of course, 187.6 length and hand polished mirror finish with double clear anodizing with gold inlayed graphics that are only visible to those 'in the know'.
ReplyDeleteIf you can meet these completely ridiculous requests for under 150 dollars, I promise to buy one. Maybe.
Nathan, Ian:
ReplyDeleteI had the problem you describe -- inside of TA crank arm touching the chain. I was using a 118mm b.b. spindle and had to change it to a 122mm.
Wonderful piece of work - just hope Freshtripe (the only UK outlet for VO goods, to my knowledge) choose to import it.
ReplyDeleteThat's a thing of rare beauty and the 46-30 combo is a smart move.
Thanks for making a new crank I thought I'd never see.
Cheers
Eddie
http://theeverydaycyclist.wordpress.com/
Greetings,
ReplyDeleteI applaud your effort in bringing this crank into production. I prefer the older products, not only for functionality but for beauty. The TA knockoff is good, the Hearse crank would be the better.
Best regards
How about a single version for FG/SS/Track bikes?
ReplyDeleteOr just sell compatible no ramped/pinned chainring!!
Very cool, especially in a 175 length!
ReplyDeleteNote to those that want all sorts of other lengths besides 165, 170, and 175: I sell lots of very nice cranksets, both vintage and current production ones. The vast majority are 170, 172.5, or 175. Occasionally a 165, but that's it. About three times per year per length I get a question about 177.5 or 180. 167.5 seems to be in a no-desire-whatsoever zone, and maybe one customer per year asks about 185s. I'm fairly sure it just wouldn't be feasible to do all sorts of lengths for a super-low volume specialty item like these cranksets....
So what's the deal with medium size people running these ridiculous long cranks anyway? When I started out, a guy my size (5'10", 30" inseam, ride 56 cm frame) ran 170 mm on road and 165 mm on track. When I tested a Surly Cross-Check it came in road configuration with 175s. It was so weird I almost didn't buy the frame. I suspect the additional knee excursion cannot be good for you, and it certainly has to make you tend toward pedaling squares. (I built up the Surly with Campy Super Record cranks at 170 mm.) I watch the newer riders bounce-butt down the road and I think, "Dude, you need some cranks sized to your leg length."
ReplyDeleteSeems like 165, 170, 175 would be the best choices. It would always be possible to make a run of some other length as long as there's enough meat in the forging to drill at a different length. 2.5 mm off center would, I think, be barely discernible.
Wow, I love the crank... I'm excited to put it on my 9-spd STI bike to bring the gearing into my range for long climbs. Switching out the 52-39 for 46-30 is the perfect solution and I love the the chainrings. Also, it looks great - an aesthetic equal to the Mavic Starfish I'll be replacing. Thanks Chris.
ReplyDeleteThanks Chris! Great work.
ReplyDeleteAre these the same make as the Electra Ticino shown at Interbike?:
http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/interbike-electra-unveils-ticino-classic-bike-line-23346
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_1Zb7K43b1D4/SuM9kgsYilI/AAAAAAAAD8c/2SijqTFznJ4/s400/ticino_cranks.jpg
Pictures of VO stuf from Nahbs 2010:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/arsbars/sets/72157623398748925/
and
http://www.flickr.com/groups/nahbs2010/pool/
Thanks Chris, they look great!
ReplyDeleteAre they made by the same company as the Electra Ticino unveiled at Interbike last year?
Lots more nice pic's of VO stuff at Nahbs 2010 showing up at flickr!
/Pete
The VO cranks are not the same as the Electra cranks. We have our own molds and they are made in a different factory. There are many refinements in the VO cranks. If you compare the quality and details side-by-side many differences will be obvious. The Electra cranks were made for their beach cruiser-style bikes; VO's were made for serious long distance cyclists.
ReplyDeleteThanks Chris for the clarification!
ReplyDeleteI'd be sure to order a set and some rings for the Nervar set I scored on 'bay awhile back.
My biggest worry is that you'll be all out by the time I get around to!
Keep 'em coming! / Pete
I will definitely be adding these to the components list for a future build.
ReplyDeleteFor the couple of folks looking for a single version of this ring - if looks are the big deal, IRD just came out with a similar styled crankset for fixed/ss setups:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.interlocracing.com/cranks.html
Soma carries it online.
Personally, I'll wait for a single version of this from VO, as the track-style 144 BCD ends up a being a little limiting for me - AllCity is the only place I know making smaller rings for 144, and only in colours.
I'll definitely be looking to get one of these for my derailleur bike when they arrive though
I love these, as I love my old TA's. It is good to have the practical improvements as well. However, I think these cranks would be even more attractive with 42/26 rings, now that a 11-28 would be the most obvious Shimano cassette to partner them with. It would take them where no other modern crank can go, and in the real world a 26-28 is far more relevant than a 46-11.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the ETA? I will buy one.
ReplyDeleteYea, baby ... those cranks look sharp!
ReplyDeleteAre there any updates? We are all getting impatient. And as I said earlier, with smaller rings these would be even more relevant.
ReplyDeleteI agree with WillemJ. I would like a smaller big ring, say, 42 or even smaller. The 30 is okay, but even smaller would be better.
ReplyDeleteSign me up!
ReplyDeleteI'm looking for a 42/28 crankset.
ReplyDeleteI notice that I am not the only one who is craving for smaller rings. My preference would still be for 42-26, or maybe even 40-26.
ReplyDeleteyou're not the only one wanting smaller chainrings. 38-26 or anything even smaller would fit the bill.
ReplyDeleteOn these cranks 26 is the smallest possible. Anything smaller would have had to be a double crank with a 110/74 mm bcd. In many respects that would have been a more practical approach (plenty of rings), but let us be grateful for what we have been given.
ReplyDeleteAs for the larger of the two rings, I am not sure how small this can be without getting into trouble with the front derailleur. This cannot be lowered at will without hitting the chainstay.
Willem
June has come and gone, and these cranks have not arrived yet. I have a bicycle in pieces patiently waiting ...
ReplyDeleteBeautiful! What a great contribution to the market, and your thoughtful development process was a pleasure to watch.
ReplyDeleteLet me say how impressed I am that you are able to offer these in three separate sizes. Has been interesting to read all the comments asking for 172.5 but I suspect this thread ends up vastly over-estimating both 1) how many people can't need 172.5 and 2)how much difference 2.5mm makes.
Looking closely at the photo it looks like you've widened the space between arm and ring to accommodate current design front deraileurs. Smart. My front ders are old school but useful to others.
In the thread spirit of "please guess how I want it made and make it exactly like I want it" I would have prefered a larger outer chainring. I'm running 50/30 on a couple TAs and it's perfect for me. I have use for a 50x13 for part of every ride (spinning) and don't like or approve of cogs smaller than 13 ;-) But that's just me. 46/30 sounds like it works for most people and would probably be a good dirt road combo for me. Plus there's likely to ve a VO 50t eventually.
Thanks Chris and Tom!
Now available, and boy do they look nice.
ReplyDeleteWillem
I wonder if there are any experiences to report yet. I wondered about FD compatibility, and possible chainstay clearance issues.
ReplyDeleteFinally, I wondered if there is any news yet about other rings sizes, and a 42-26 combination in particular.
well done, well done, well done.
ReplyDeleteI just put one of these on my Boulder Bicycle, and I like it a lot. It did require a 122mm BB to clear the fixed flange on the cartridge. The front derailleur is also bit of an issue. When I'm on the 46, running any rear cogs larger than 23t makes the chain hit the top of the derailleur cage--a definite disadvantage on a 14-29 cassette! I'm using an IRD compact right now; I'll swap it out for a FSA Gossamer in the next week or so and report back.
ReplyDeleteWhat did you have before, and what is stopping you to raise the derailleur a bit? Or could it be a chainline problem because you have used a longer BB?
ReplyDeleteI checked the chainline, and it is fine with a 122mm BB. Just out of curiosity, I fiddled with the IRD derailleur today to see how high it would have to be to not rub when on the 29t rear, and the outer cage stood 8mm proud of the teeth on the big ring. That's a lot. It still shifted, but not nearly as well as when I had it set at 3mm. This'll take some experimenting.
ReplyDelete46-29 is a combination that i sperhaps to be avoided in any case. Does 46-27 work better (perhaps with an only slightly raised FD?
ReplyDeleteWillem