# Ultegra cranks on my fixed gear too ugly?



## palu (Aug 14, 2008)

I'm building up a cheap fixed gear for someone and was thinking I'd use my current Sugino RD2 cranks on that, and get something else for my bike. I have a line on an Ultegra 6600 crankset (external BB) for cheap. I just love Ultegra/DA Shimano cranks. Had them on my old Trek 5500 (DA 6700). Love the lightweight and stiffness. My question is, will they look out of place on my Steamroller? Too ugly? My bike is not pretty like some of yours, but not butt-ugly, either. And I understand beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I think we can agree some things are just ugly, period.

I'll probably buy the cranks, even if I don't end up using them on my bike, it's nice enough to have on hand for future projects and the price is right. Option 2 is to wait for some older DA cranks to show up or get Sugino 75's.

Here is a pic of an Ultegra 6600:


----------



## roadfix (Jun 20, 2006)

Don't worry, even ugly cranks take a whole new look when converted to single ring use.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

> And I understand beauty is in the eye of the beholder,


This is true



> but I think we can agree some things are just ugly, period.


This is not true, and cannot be if the earlier statement is true.

What looks beautiful or ugly in industrial design is entirely a matter of cultural conditioning. I see nothing ugly about that crank. I think you can install it without fear of rejection.


----------



## vismitananda (Jan 16, 2011)

I;m also planning to get an Ultegra 6600 on summer. I don't find it ugly at all.


----------



## waldo425 (Sep 22, 2008)

I don't think that they would look ugly. 

I have a pair of old Dura Ace cranks on my bike and they look pretty cool.


----------



## rcnute (Dec 21, 2004)

JCavilia said:


> This is true
> 
> 
> This is not true, and cannot be if the earlier statement is true.
> ...


But it's only not true if ugliness falls within the class of beautiful things that are beheld.  

palu: I think the Ultegras look okay. But old Dura Ace would be beautiful?


----------



## vismitananda (Jan 16, 2011)

waldo425 said:


> I don't think that they would look ugly.
> 
> I have a pair of old Dura Ace cranks on my bike and they look pretty cool.



Which is better on an SS Roadie? Dura Ace or Ultegra?
I will definitely use a 16T Dura Ace sprocket, but I can't decide on a chainwheel. Maybe you could help?


----------



## waldo425 (Sep 22, 2008)

vismitananda said:


> Which is better on an SS Roadie? Dura Ace or Ultegra?
> I will definitely use a 16T Dura Ace sprocket, but I can't decide on a chainwheel. Maybe you could help?


For chainrings I use just about the cheapest I can get. Since this is my commuter/ training/ crap weather bike. If I were getting a new 144 BCD chainring it would be a Dura Ace ring or FSA


----------



## palu (Aug 14, 2008)

rcnute said:


> But it's only not true if ugliness falls within the class of beautiful things that are beheld.
> 
> palu: I think the Ultegras look okay. But old Dura Ace would be beautiful?


Yeah, been looking for an old DA, but they're hard to come by. There is an old Record crankset that popped up for sale recently ($90), so may pick that up. I'll have to see how these Ultegra's work out.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

rcnute said:


> But it's only not true if ugliness falls within the class of beautiful things that are beheld.


A carefully made point. But as long as we're chopping logic here, I think you beg the question when you refer to "beautiful things that are beheld." If beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder, then it does not subsist in the object. Thus, no object is inherently incapable of being beheld as beautiful by some eye. Thus, there is no such thing as objective "ugliness," or "beauty," for that matter.

To anticipate a response to my point, I will concede that the OP did say "I think _we_ can agree" that some things are plain ugly (italics added), which could imply that the observation is limited to a particular cultural group (road cycling freaks), and there could be universal (or at least very broad) agreement about a particular standard of ugliness in that group.

Nobody really notices this stuff, anyway, except the guy who owns the bike ;-) We're all truly obsessive-compulsive about bike parts.


----------



## palu (Aug 14, 2008)

You guys are making me relive the nightmares of Philosophy 110.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*cheaper?*

Not ugly, but if it were me, I'd rather run a single chainring crank intended for fixed. In all likelihood, to get the right chainline, you'll have to run a single ring on the inside, with the spider arms on the outside of the ring. That's sorta ok, but a little off. I'd just run something like this instead, which I've seen on sale for about $28.

https://www.nashbar.com/bikes/Product_10053_10052_501424_-1_201774_10000_200376


----------



## UrbanPrimitive (Jun 14, 2009)

palu said:


> My bike is not pretty like some of yours, but not butt-ugly, either. And I understand beauty is in the eye of the beholder


Word.


----------



## vismitananda (Jan 16, 2011)

waldo425 said:


> For chainrings I use just about the cheapest I can get. Since this is my commuter/ training/ crap weather bike. If I were getting a new 144 BCD chainring it would be a Dura Ace ring or FSA


I see, but this is only the bike I have. Maybe I should find a good quality, but cheaper chainring. Any Shimano brand will do.


----------

