|   Are TA Specialties Chainrings ramped and pinned? | DIRT BOY
Apr 14, 2003 4:58 AM | | How is the shifting?
Anyone know the weight of the 44T and 32T rings?
Thanks!
DIRT BOY |
| Yep... | Mateo
Apr 14, 2003 6:53 AM | | My 32 is ramped and pinned. My 42 has some pins as well. I can post pics if you really want. The 32 has two teeth cut short every eight teeth near the ramps and pins. It's kinda cool.
22T = 21g
32T = 34g
42T = 68g |
| Pics... | Mateo
Apr 14, 2003 12:06 PM | | I have yet to use them so I don't know about shifting yet. Here are some pics... |
| Pics... | Mateo
Apr 14, 2003 12:07 PM | | 42T |
| 44/32 combo w/their black rings is 112g, been running them for | TomFL
Apr 14, 2003 12:17 PM | | a little bit. They are lighter than the RF stuff I took off, but they are not wearing as well.
Also yesterday at Quiet waters my chain kept dropping off the big ring over roots & such. Happened 4 or 5 times during the race, and was really distracting. Shifting seems OK, but not as quick as the RF stuff.
Haven't had time yet to look at front der., but will post if it turns out to be that or adjustment rather than the rings. Was shifting/running trouble free with the RF stuff, though.
-T |
| Maybe check spacing... | B R H
Apr 15, 2003 9:06 AM | | I had to add spacers between my middle and big ring to get good shifting up front. Apparently the T/A rings don't quite line up like the RaceFace ones do. It's not just the thickness, it's also how the ring is made (teeth are not centered). This was with Next LP 9 speed cranks and 8 speed shifters. Now it shifts very good.
Also, regarding the durability. In a recent race I really bashed the big ring hard (seriously hard) on a rock and it did bend a little and part of one tooth was broken off. My RaceFace rings had many missing teeth from less solid rock contacts but they never did bend. I suppose this could mean that the T/A rings are slightly less hard (less brittle) and may wear a bit faster. So far they are wearing normally as far as I can tell (a bit more than 3 months on them). They are MUCH lighter than RaceFace and have a very quality look and feel. More refined than RaceFace if a bit less industrial, if that description is useful to anyone. |
| What size spacers? Where didi you get them? | DIRT BOY
Apr 15, 2003 10:05 AM | | How do they shift compared to other rings you have tried, Shimano?
DIRT BOY |
| | B R H
Apr 16, 2003 9:06 AM | | I used 0.6 mm and my girlfriend's is going to need about 1 mm. I think mine would have been perfect if I could have found 0.8 mm, but no luck there. I got some 0.6 mm and 1.2 mm aluminum spacers from Warhawk Industries (http://www.warhawkindustries.com) per a request for help on Everything Drivetrain. I had to contact them via e-mail to order. I was really looking for 1.0 mm and they said they had them, but they turned out to be the same 1.2 mm I could have obtained at my LBS (although I think those were steel). I suppose most people don't care about that 0.2 mm difference. They were very nice people though and they included some extras (extra spacers and chain lube) because they were late shipping my order.
I can't say that I really noticed any big difference in shifting quality between the T/A and RaceFace. If anything the T/A may shift a bit smoother, but it could be that it felt that way only because my RaceFace rings were getting a bit used when I switched to the T/A. The only Shimano rings I've used were on my old 7 speed hardtail so I'm not sure I can compare. That old all original 7 speed still shifts better than anything I've tried since in very dirty conditions even after all these years. I've had no chainsuck at all yet with the T/A rings while I experienced that quite a bit with the RaceFace rings when muddy. I suspect that has more to do with wear than the brand though. I am currently using 8 speed and it is performing better when dirty than the 9 speed I previously used. 8 speed also saves weight and yields better gear ratios for me, but that's another topic. |
| |
