# 2x9, road or mtb cranks?



## RockStarRacing (Dec 30, 2006)

looking to go 2 x 9, noticed a lot of WC racers are using road triples to do it? is this the easiest way to get say 27/28 x 40 c/set?

other than middleburn, who do a full duo c/set does anyone do a specific 2x9 c/set?

or can you do it with a mtb c/set 4 bolt or 5 bolt? using standard or light weight rings?

any help would be great!


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

I run 2x9 using MTB triple cranks with a short spindle in my BB. I have run Race Face ISIS Next LP 5 bolt compact cranks (5x58/94) with Token 68x108 bottom bracket, with Boone Ti 44t and 29t rings, and now I'm running Storck Power Arms with the same BB and chainrings.


----------



## Cheers! (Jun 26, 2006)

FSA is releasing a 2x9 Kforce Light in 2008
Go see the interbike coverage by MTBR on FSA


----------



## smithy (Jun 28, 2006)

The good thing about the road triples is the really low Q-factor that can be achieved. I believe this is one of the reasons the WC guys run them. All the new MTB cranksets seem to have large Q's, and due to the outboard bearing design, can't be altered very easily.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Also road cranks at least the compact versions tend to use the old mtb standard 110mm 5-bolt pattern or the nearly as old mtb compact 94mm 5-bolt pattern. Its easier to find rings in good for 2x9 setups in these bolt patterns. Cannondale STILL uses the 94mm pattern for example on their SL SI cranksets with 29/44 rings.


----------



## matt_brodie (Mar 21, 2005)

only problem with the 110 bcd is the minimum size of chainring you can use.


----------



## ginsu2k (Jul 28, 2006)

Do you guys climb with these 2x9 setups? I run a 2x9, but I put a bashguard on the large chainring and run a 34t & 22t. Then I run a 11-27t cassette. This seems to save more weight than running a 44t &32t with a 11-34t cassette.

It seems that alot of you run the reverse and dump the granny ring. I don't know how you can climb with that kind of setup.



smithy said:


> The good thing about the road triples is the really low Q-factor that can be achieved. I believe this is one of the reasons the WC guys run them. All the new MTB cranksets seem to have large Q's, and due to the outboard bearing design, can't be altered very easily.


Why do you care about Q-factor on a MTB? Isn't that just for less aero drag?


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

34T for most chainring makers, 33T for some of the boutique makers (like Boone). 94mm only goes down to 29T. Then again most XC racers are perfectly happy with a 1 to 1 lowest gear using a 11-34/12-34 cassette. XC riders in the early 90s were running XTR cranks with a 34T middle and 46T big ring, removing the granny and running a 12-32 cassette.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

ginsu2k said:


> Do you guys climb with these 2x9 setups? I run a 2x9, but I put a bashguard on the large chainring and run a 34t & 22t. Then I run a 11-27t cassette. This seems to save more weight than running a 44t &32t with a 11-34t cassette.


Yes, some of us have this thing called "talent", alternatively known as "skill". Ever watched the TdF... the fact that certain riders are exceptional climbers (and doing it with a 39/23 low gear) isn't a fluke of nature or just good drugs. In my youth I was routinely climbing similar steep grades on gravel fire roads with a 28T biopace chainring and 30T granny cog, on a 32 pound fully rigid mountain bike. I routinely have among the highest geared bike on my weekly group ride and last week on the hilliest route we've done all year I was pulling away from people on every climb. After about 4kms of trail with a couple hundred meters of climbing and descending across three peaks along a ridgeline I had about over a 5 minute on the rest of the group.



> Why do you care about Q-factor on a MTB? Isn't that just for less aero drag?


Not everyone was born with fat/wide hips. Lower Q-Factor places the pedals closer together, which is beneficial to those of the narrow body issue. Wide Q-factor cranksets with those folks just feel really awkward and uncomfortable.


----------



## bobbyOCR (Feb 11, 2007)

DeeEight, you are right. Insensitive (just slightly) but right.

Climbing isn't a magical power granted by small elves, it takes hard work and time. After that, you can output something called power. When the ratio of that power to your system (bike and your own) weight becomes high enough, you will use what is commonly known as a 'higher gear'. With lots and lots and lots and lots of this hardwork, you might even be competitive in a 'race'. This is where lots of people who do lots of work gather with their 29-44 doubles to try to ride faster than each other.


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

I run a 42/29 on my 2x9 RaceFace NextLPs w/KCNC Sc 108 BB. This has been an excellent performer. I did all the races in the Minnesota State Championship series this year (I won my age group ) and I would say that there are only 4 races that I really needed my triple rig Kona for. If I could get a 27t on it that would be even better. FRM is out this month with a new 27/42 integrated CS @ 656g. Very expensive but that seems like the hot setup for XC IMO. Having said all that I'm thinking about going back to the DA RD on my new Pedal Force build with a 20/29/42 up front and the largest rear cassette that I can use with the DA RD. It will all depend on how long the hanger is on the PF frame but if I can't get at least a 29t cog to work out back I'll just go 2x9 again.


----------



## MGBYLR (Oct 2, 2004)

Stronglight also makes a 2x9 crankset that works with Isis and isn't very expensive.


----------



## kdiddy (Jul 14, 2005)

ginsu2k said:


> Why do you care about Q-factor on a MTB? Isn't that just for less aero drag?


The only real reason I can see using a 2x9 would be for the reduced Q-factor with road cranks. Look at how far apart your feet are when you walk, they are a lot closer than they are on a bike. That's roughly where your feet naturally want to be. The smaller q-factor should be better on your knees as a result. Weight savings is minimal compared to a 3X9 with a road cassette. Shifting may be better with a 2x9 as a result of using a shorter rear derailleur.


----------



## ginsu2k (Jul 28, 2006)

DeeEight said:


> 34T for most chainring makers, 33T for some of the boutique makers (like Boone). 94mm only goes down to 29T. Then again most XC racers are perfectly happy with a 1 to 1 lowest gear using a 11-34/12-34 cassette. XC riders in the early 90s were running XTR cranks with a 34T middle and 46T big ring, removing the granny and running a 12-32 cassette.


I can understand running a big/middle for racing purposes because you don't want to top out a 20mph, but for climbing I don't know how anybody could SUSTAIN 11.8mph! Definitely not in Oregon where you can climb all day if you want to.

all at 90 rpm cadence

Chainrings	
______ 39______ 44

Cassette/ Speeds (mph)
23______ 11.8______ 13.3

________________________________________

Chainrings	
______ 22______ 34

Cassette/ Speeds (mph)
23______ 6.7______ 10.3

________________________________________

Chainrings	
______ 34______ 46

Cassette/ Speeds (mph)
32______ 7.4______ 10.0

And, then comparing the (22/34 w/ 12/23 what I ride right now CNC cassette)
vs a (34/46 w/ 12/32 cassette) there's really not much difference in climbing, only 1mph, so if the weight benefits are there, which I'm pretty sure you can get my setup ALOT lighter than the (34/46) setup because you can run

DA RD @180g
CNC cassette @ 99g (or DA Cassette, much cheaper)
Big Ring deleted -80g Replaced with BBG bashguard + 50g = - 30g
Delete some chain links too - 20-30g

Not to mention, wayyy better shifting performance because of the short cage.



> Not everyone was born with fat/wide hips. Lower Q-Factor places the pedals closer together, which is beneficial to those of the narrow body issue. Wide Q-factor cranksets with those folks just feel really awkward and uncomfortable.


Those wide hips make for some serious leg muscles, watch out!!!


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

ginsu2k said:


> I can understand running a big/middle for racing purposes because you don't want to top out a 20mph, but for climbing I don't know how anybody could SUSTAIN 11.8mph! Definitely not in Oregon where you can climb all day if you want to.
> 
> all at 90 rpm cadence
> 
> ...


Like Dee-8 says it has to do with talent/conditioning. Don't forget one of the big benefits to a 2x9 system is eliminating the chances for chain suck due to all the shifting up front. This is the single best reason I can think of for a 2x9 system with quicker shifting coming in at a close second. As for a short cage DA RD shifting better?....not my experience. My medium cage XTR shifts at least as well as my DA RD did.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Not everyone lives in oregon is the obvious answer.... here the laurentian mountains go from around 100 meters above sea level as the "ground" level to around 400 meters as the highest local peak with mtb trails on it. Mind you, riding along the ridgelines with all the valleys between you can easily go down 100m and then back up 100m in the space of 1km of trail, and these are not nice groomed hardpack trails either... the local federal agency responsible for much of the trail networks has this habit of using a trail surface that's "soft" to say the least. Knowing the lines and how to keep your balance and traction consistent (rather than digging in for a few feet and then spinning out your tire) is where the skill comes in more than the fitness requirements. I'm not a good sprinter in races for example, but I can climb up slopes that other stronger riders end up having to walk, or they're swerving all over the place because they can't steer worth a damn as the front wheel is lofting on almost every power stroke.


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

Here's the new FRM. 42/27 with a 34 in back you have the equivilant climbing gear to a 22/28 on a triple setup. I think it's kinda ugly, though. 656g. 165mm Q-factor.


----------



## Overkill (Mar 28, 2004)

I run a 2x9 with an 11-32 and I have no problems climbing. I did the transrockies race last August with this setup and could climb for hours without issue. In fact with this setup, I hardly ever use the 32 cog in the back. 

This year I've been riding single speed, and it is amazing how strong you will become when forced to push a big gear on the hills. There is only 1 or 2 climbs in my area that I can not do on my SS compared with my geared bike - and this is due to the trail having too much gravel opposed to the gradient being too steep.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

That FRM isn't just ugly, it looks like the chainrings are riveted like on cheap cranks. Classy touch there boys!


----------



## Broseph (Nov 9, 2006)

the big ring on the frm crankset looks like it would be really stiff. i wouldn't mind having a set if they weren't so expensive. my next lp 2x9 is working fine though.


----------



## smithy (Jun 28, 2006)

Yeah, the main issue for me with high Q-factor is really because I have narrow hips and they hurt my knees! Pedaling with 170mm+ Q factor cranks not only affects my knees but the pedal stroke doesn't feel as smooth. My road bike has 150 something Q and the pedal stroke is much more natural feeling. I'm going to fit a road compact setup to my MTB soon, with 42/28 setup (big ring removed), hopefully it will work out as planned. Q should be somewhere around 158mm. I only used the granny on my 44/32/22 setup in one race this year, so don't think it should be an issue moving to the dual setup.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

There's at least one world cup pro....hmm.... oh yeah, Nicolos Vouillion (sp?), umpteen time men's world DH champion.... he still races the Enduro DH races and he runs a road triple crank with basically that gearing with the big ring replaced by chainring protector.


----------



## RockStarRacing (Dec 30, 2006)

cheers for the info, but depending on what they weigh, i may have found my cranks, surly mr whirley, 5 bolt 94 bcd, used with external BB, gonna email nick to find out more.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

I just scored some square-taper 175mm raceface next lp's at a swap meet for $40cdn with raceface rings which were actually in good shape still. The red powdercoat has the usual shoe polishing/removal at the edges next to the carbon insert so I could either strip the powdercoat off completely and polish the arms (and less weight) or touch up the red using some red tooldip / brush-on electrical tape. They're the 58/94 compact pattern so it gives me multiple gearing options including a double ring setup as I own 6 NOS Coda Expert 29T rings.


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

DeeEight said:


> I just scored some square-taper 175mm raceface next lp's at a swap meet for $40cdn with raceface rings which were actually in good shape still. The red powdercoat has the usual shoe polishing/removal at the edges next to the carbon insert so I could either strip the powdercoat off completely and polish the arms (and less weight) or touch up the red using some red tooldip / brush-on electrical tape. They're the 58/94 compact pattern so it gives me multiple gearing options including a double ring setup as I own 6 NOS Coda Expert 29T rings.


I say strip 'em so you can tell me how to proceed. I've been thinking about doing this with my set this winter. This leads me to wonder what is entailed in 'ball burnishing" of raw aluminum as a possible protective measure?


----------



## EuroMack (Jan 15, 2007)

I'm intrigued by the wide range of the FRM 2x9, but I wonder if 27/42 is TOO much spread. 

I, like most, ride most trails in the 32-34t chainring. With 27/42, I think I might be shifting MORE than I would with a triple. 27x12 is not fast enough and 42x32 is no fun on climbs, so I think I would constantly be cross-chained or shifting rings. Somehow, I don't think shifting 27t to 42t is going to work well under load.

Does anyone have experience shifting a 27/42 2x9? What derailleur and rings did you use?


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

Firing small balls at it with an air compressor, and its not something i'd do with cranks which have exposed carbon fiber.  As to removing the powdercoat, on the duke's I polished it was chemical stripper and a wire brush but I don't think I wanna spray that stuff on next to carbon fiber either.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

EuroMack said:


> I'm intrigued by the wide range of the FRM 2x9, but I wonder if 27/42 is TOO much spread.
> 
> I, like most, ride most trails in the 32-34t chainring. With 27/42, I think I might be shifting MORE than I would with a triple. 27x12 is not fast enough and 42x32 is no fun on climbs, so I think I would constantly be cross-chained or shifting rings. Somehow, I don't think shifting 27t to 42t is going to work well under load.


Shifting 34/50 works fine under load by TdF pro riders... so if they can do it, so can mere mountain bikers.


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

My 29/44 shifts great under *"some"* load with the Campy Record Titanium CT FD. I haven't tried it under "full" load, nor do I think I ever will.


----------



## RockStarRacing (Dec 30, 2006)

been offered a middleburn duo, but think im gonna do it different.....2 x 10, with a road triple(minus big ring), using a 10 spd block 11-27 sram force rr mech, sram DT flat bar shifters , and try and match up a 2 ring set up for offroad like 24t and 38t(not done a gear chart yet, will go to sheldon brown in a bit), i hope its possible......................


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

RockStarRacing said:


> been offered a middleburn duo, but think im gonna do it different.....2 x 10, with a road triple(minus big ring), using a 10 spd block 11-27 sram force rr mech, sram DT flat bar shifters , and try and match up a 2 ring set up for offroad like 24t and 38t(not done a gear chart yet, will go to sheldon brown in a bit), i hope its possible......................


Interesting, but why? You gain no more gear range over a 9 speed drivetrain and have less reliable shifting with a 10sp system in the gunk. 9 speed is already too touchy in the gunk, IMO. You could go with your 12/27 in a DA cassette/whatever RD and whatever shifters with a 24/38 on a 58/94 mountain triple and get there MUCH cheaper and more reliable.


----------



## RockStarRacing (Dec 30, 2006)

Axis II said:


> Interesting, but why? You gain no more gear range over a 9 speed drivetrain and have less reliable shifting with a 10sp system in the gunk. 9 speed is already too touchy in the gunk, IMO. You could go with your 12/27 in a DA cassette/whatever RD and whatever shifters with a 24/38 on a 58/94 mountain triple and get there MUCH cheaper and more reliable.


your prob right, just trying to be flash!

24/38 isnt to big a jump is it with a DA fr mech is it?


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

RockStarRacing said:


> your prob right, just trying to be flash!
> 
> 24/38 isnt to big a jump is it with a DA fr mech is it?


I would think a DA compact FD would handle that nicely. It's designed to make the jump from like a 30t to the 50t big ring on the CT DA crank.


----------



## RockStarRacing (Dec 30, 2006)

sorted it!

24/38t using an sram pg950 11-28 9spd gives me pretty much the same high and low gear as a 28/42t using an 12-34 and an alsmost identical spread through out.

and using 24/38 i reckon i can use my existing truvativ carbon stylo cranks!


----------



## Some Guy (Mar 27, 2005)

38 is a pretty small big ring though.


----------



## tolleyman (Mar 5, 2006)

Here in Virginia 1x9 does the trick. 29T up front with 11-30 on rear.


----------



## conrad (Jan 27, 2004)

*options cut the overall wieght*

Running two set ups 
a) 175mm cranks 30/42 & 11-34 XT on steel hard tail - was 29/42 12-32 8 speed 24lb 
b) 180mm cranks 20/30/42 11-27 DA on 18lb rigid ti, hardley ever us the 20.
The ti climbs much better in the 30/27 than the steel 30/34. dropping the weight on the bikes made the biggest difference. Same sized frame.


----------



## G-Live (Jan 14, 2004)

Some Guy said:


> 38 is a pretty small big ring though.


Only if you use the 44-11 a lot. But then you can use the 38 x 32/34 more often because cross chaining is not as big of a deal.

G


----------



## RockStarRacing (Dec 30, 2006)

sauser uses a 42/28 on a 12-34 , if its big enough for him, a 38 x 11 is big enough for me


----------



## bobbyOCR (Feb 11, 2007)

about the pg950 cassette......It weighs 440+ grams.


----------



## notubes_pete (Dec 12, 2006)

Did anyone see these cranks at interbike 
http://www.lightningbikes.com/Cranks of Carbon.htm


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

notubes_pete said:


> Did anyone see these cranks at interbike
> http://www.lightningbikes.com/Cranks of Carbon.htm


That's a nice weight for the triple, but I wonder what rings they are using to get the 640g weight?


----------



## RockStarRacing (Dec 30, 2006)

bobbyOCR said:


> about the pg950 cassette......It weighs 440+ grams.


no it doesnt.


----------



## bobbyOCR (Feb 11, 2007)

RockStarRacing said:


> no it doesnt.


Do you want me to take a picture? Mine weighs 445g. (it is 11-34) Though you are using an 11-28 which would drop a fair few grams. They are a tank of a cassette (more flex than a spider based cassette too)


----------



## bobbyOCR (Feb 11, 2007)

notubes_pete said:


> Did anyone see these cranks at interbike
> http://www.lightningbikes.com/Cranks of Carbon.htm


These have been around for a while. Specialized licensed and/or commissioned Lightning to make their SWorks road cranks (I think they made some for MTB too. Liam Killeen was running them)


----------



## ginsu2k (Jul 28, 2006)

Axis II said:


> Like Dee-8 says it has to do with talent/conditioning. Don't forget one of the big benefits to a 2x9 system is eliminating the chances for chain suck due to all the shifting up front. This is the single best reason I can think of for a 2x9 system with quicker shifting coming in at a close second. As for a short cage DA RD shifting better?....not my experience. My medium cage XTR shifts at least as well as my DA RD did.


I did some calculations on what it takes to sustain 7mph and 12mph on a 30degree slope, and it comes out to 2hp and 3.5hp respectively.

Now, I can see myself putting out 2hp for a brief period of time, but I cannot see anybody putting out 3.5hp for that same amount of time. Not even Lance.

That means you can never run a 12-23/25/27 road cluster on a 2x9 with a mid/big combo, so it proves that the granny/mid combo will always save more weight, which is the point I was really trying to make.


----------



## kdiddy (Jul 14, 2005)

A 30 degree slope works out to be a 57% grade!!! 
http://www.geocities.com/sidestreetluge/grade.html
I don't think there are too many sustained climbs that steep on ridable trails. TdF routes typically don't go much past 20% and those are usually brief sections. Those riders can only put out about .5 HP or 375 watts for any amount of time longer than a sprint, and top sprinters might reach 2 HP (1500 watts) for a few seconds. Lance was estimated to put out about 450 Watts on a climb. Power to weight is what really matters though.
Also, gearing technically doesn't factor into the power calculation - some can produce more power by slow grinding where as others can do better spinning. 
Also, you will get the best shifting when you pair a road cassette with a road derailluer, and a mountain cassette with a mountain derailluer. The pulley to cassette spacing stays more consistant over the range of gears that way.
What gearing is fastest comes down to the course and the rider. Adam Craig has run a Single speed in some of the pro short track events and done quite well.


----------



## Slobberdoggy (Sep 26, 2005)

*29t and Power Arms*



BlownCivic said:


> I run 2x9 using MTB triple cranks with a short spindle in my BB. I have run Race Face ISIS Next LP 5 bolt compact cranks (5x58/94) with Token 68x108 bottom bracket, with Boone Ti 44t and 29t rings, and now I'm running Storck Power Arms with the same BB and chainrings.


Did you modify your cranks to run the 29? Doesn't the 29t make the chain contact the bolt loops?

I'd sure like to go 2x9 - it really seems ideal despite the weight. I have to admit I've felt the rathe of dropped chains, chain suck, fouled up granny gears from the former and coming in last as a result rft: I also understand the benefits of the mtb cassettes in terms of a wide gear range. Road cassettes are great for flat regions but in hills/mountains you have to shift up or down 3 gears when the terrain changes suddenly.

I plopped a Action-Tec 30t on to the back of my Dura Ace Cassette while eliminating one of the single cogs higher up. I might go even lower with a 32 or 34.


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

_ I have to admit I've felt the rathe of dropped chains, chain suck, fouled up granny gears from the former and coming in last as a result rft: I also understand the benefits of the mtb cassettes in terms of a wide gear range. Road cassettes are great for flat regions but in hills/mountains you have to shift up or down 3 gears when the terrain changes suddenly. _

Yes, I learned this the hard way as well and if it's at all possible I'll run my 2x9 any day rather then my triple. I probably could have had a podium finish in at least two more races this year if it wasn't for some gnarly chain suck on my triple. If you do the double setup just go ahead and get a 34t cassette in the back. You'll thank yourself later with the bigger range and the larger jumps to bigger/small gears for "heat-of-the-battle" race shifts.


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

Slobberdoggy said:


> Did you modify your cranks to run the 29? Doesn't the 29t make the chain contact the bolt loops?


Yes, as crazy as it may sound to some, I did grind down the mounting ears for the 94mm bolt circle to clear the chain when in the 29t ring. However, I bought my Power Arms used for about 1/3 of their "new" price and their cosmetic condition was less than "ideal", so had no qualms about doing it.


----------



## thetschappats (Mar 27, 2007)

*Controltech double play carbon crankset*

I am interested in moving to a double crank, and am having all the normal questions as to what stup is best. The new ControlTech double play crankest looks perfect, although I do not knwo the weight. It is a nice looking crankset with my favorite 94mm bolt circle. I do not know why the industry has moved away from the 58/94 standard. This is one of the first dedicated MTB double cranks I have seen.

I have been impressed with Controltech parts quality and performance, but they can be hard to find. Their saddle looks great, but I have only found a couple of sellers, and they want over $200 for it, and if the double play crankset can be found it will probably be full retail (I hate paying retail).

I think Tune and Cook Brothers (the classic E-Crank) have 58/94 cranks. I am currently running a set of Hershey Racing 58/94 cranks on one of my bikes and they weigh about 390-400 grams (square taper arms only). I am putting KCNC Isis on my other bike.


----------



## cyclemanpat (Jul 26, 2007)

Tolleyman..............on your 1X9 set-up, does your chain stay on without any device, or do you use a chain-guide thing to help the chain stay on? I am going to do a 1X9 set-up on my new Pedal force build(32T front and 12-34 rear). You have any pics of your set-up? 

Axis.....whoi makes that 29T ring you have? where can you buy it at?


----------



## tolleyman (Mar 5, 2006)

*Chain retention*

For almost a year I used no chain device at all and only had the chain come off a couple of times on rough downhills. I am now using the N-gear chain stop because I have started racing and don't want to risk it. They're only about $10 and completely solve the problem. I have heard that if a single speed front chain ring is used, the problem will happen less often too. I've just been using 9 speed rings.


----------



## cyclemanpat (Jul 26, 2007)

is your chain tight? Did you cut your chain as short as possible to avoid chain slap to help the chain stay on? So you can barely get to your 29T front and 30T on your cassette?

this N-Gear device is put in place of your front derailleur? You dont have a front derailleur installed withg your 1 ring set-up i assume?


----------



## Cheers! (Jun 26, 2006)

The control tech products these days looks like re-badged Taiwanese parts. For example... I could swear the Control tech scandium handle bar is the same as the KCNC SC Bone, and the control tech stems look like KCNC stems. I'm willing to bet that the double MTB control tech cranks are either token or KCNC cranks with a control tech logo.


----------



## thetschappats (Mar 27, 2007)

*ControlTech similar to KCNC and Token*

ControlTech products do look very similar to some select KCNC or Token parts. I have the scandium flat bar, and it looks the same as the KCNC (but not the Token).

BUT... I have not seen any other company selling something similar to the doubleplay crankset with the 94mm 5-arm bolt pattern. I think it is a needed product, but I wonder if I will ever see it being sold anywhere.


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

thetschappats said:


> ControlTech products do look very similar to some select KCNC or Token parts. I have the scandium flat bar, and it looks the same as the KCNC (but not the Token).
> 
> BUT... I have not seen any other company selling something similar to the doubleplay crankset with the 94mm 5-arm bolt pattern. I think it is a needed product, but I wonder if I will ever see it being sold anywhere.


Doubleplay CS??? Show me please.


----------



## Cheers! (Jun 26, 2006)

Axis II said:


> Doubleplay CS??? Show me please.


I first saw it on the chain reaction online website looking at other control tech products.

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=24151

that was last week. Now since they have removed it from the chain reaction site. And the 2008 products link on control tech's own manufacturer's website has been removed.

Also here is info about control tech when I was trying to search for their crankset. 
"Taiwan's Wei Hau Picks Up Parts Maker Control Tech
Publication: Bicycle Retailer
Date: Wednesday, May 15 2002
You are viewing page 1
BY JOHN CRENSHAW

PORTLAND, OR?The owners of component maker Control Tech sold the brand name and its intellectual property to Wei Hau, the Taiwanese manufacturer of Pazzaz components.

"So many Taiwan companies buy brands that then disappear and fizzle, so I want the world to know that Control Tech is back," said Brad Hughes, president of Brad Hughes Marketing.

Hughes imports and markets Pazzaz products in the United States and will manage Control Tech and handle sales and service for the brand."

ref: http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-trade/miscellaneous-retail-miscellaneous/4154112-1.html


----------



## thetschappats (Mar 27, 2007)

Great Info Cheers!

I found the link to the 2008 new products at ControlTech:

http://www.controltechbikes.com/sec-8/newproduct.html

They say it is a 94mm bolt circle, but the picture makes it look like a 4-Arm crank. Maybe a 5th bolt screws into the arm.


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

From the chainreaction website....

"This item has been discontinued and is no longer available to purchase."


----------



## chequamagon (Oct 4, 2006)

ginsu2k said:


> I did some calculations on what it takes to sustain 7mph and 12mph on a 30degree slope, and it comes out to 2hp and 3.5hp respectively.
> 
> Now, I can see myself putting out 2hp for a brief period of time, but I cannot see anybody putting out 3.5hp for that same amount of time. Not even Lance.
> 
> That means you can never run a 12-23/25/27 road cluster on a 2x9 with a mid/big combo, so it proves that the granny/mid combo will always save more weight, which is the point I was really trying to make.


it seems you do too many calculations and not enough riding. if you rode a lot, you would know that nobody rides on 30 degree slopes. That is 66% grade dude. At most, road riders will see 25% grade (12.3 degrees), and MTB riders will lose traction around 35% (16 degrees). Even the infamous Slickrock trail in Moab only experiences a 43% grade at the greatest.

So your calculations of a sustained climb at 66% are completely bogus and useless.

On a non-technical note, I am not a very good rider and I still ride 2x9 all the time. 29-42 rings on a 29er wheel. Here in WI we have very short, steep climbs. Nothing really sustained. Out of the saddle for 30 seconds sprint up kinda stuff. Ive ridden with Axis, and he is probably 30% faster than me, yet I still do the 2x9 thing.

It really has little to do with calculating gear inches and all to do with how you like your riding style and how big of gears you want to push.


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

chequamagon said:


> Ive ridden with Axis, and he is probably 30% faster than me, yet I still do the 2x9 thing.
> 
> I think that day we rode I was also on my 2x9 26er VooDoo/Fournales rig. By my calculations I was 30.3457888% faster then you.  I'm in the process of dropping down a few "unlean mass" pounds before the start of next season. I think I will be able to go into next season at least 10 pounds lighter combining my on-bike weight loss (new Pedal Force rig) and the loss of unlean body mass. My calculations indicate a net velocity gain of 12.98753% over baseline with this adjustment. Oh hell, let's just ride Ojibwa, Brah.:thumbsup:


----------



## BlownCivic (Sep 12, 2006)

thetschappats said:


> They say it is a 94mm bolt circle, but the picture makes it look like a 4-Arm crank. Maybe a 5th bolt screws into the arm.


That is in fact probably 4 x 94 bolt pattern. FSA also recently showed a new crankset in 4 x 94, double configuration (44/29).


----------



## DeeEight (Jan 13, 2004)

And people complain about shimano introducing non-standard stuff.


----------



## Axis II (May 10, 2004)

DeeEight said:


> And people complain about shimano introducing non-standard stuff.


Yes, this way peoples must come to us for chainring needs.....we make more dollar.


----------

