Chainline fudging/nudging?
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 4,074
Bikes: Velo Orange Piolet
Liked 2,013 Times
in
972 Posts
Chainline fudging/nudging?
I have a 3x10 with 48, 36, 22 chainrings. Let's assume I use the 48t 30% of the time, 36t 50%, and 22t 20%.
Would it make sense to remove one of the BB spacers on the drive side (or relocate the spacer to the other side), moving the chainrings inward a hair? The assumption is this will reduce cross chaining on average given that the small chainring is used infrequently.
(of course if this causes clearance issues that negates the idea, but it doesn't look like it will cause any clearance issues.)
Would it make sense to remove one of the BB spacers on the drive side (or relocate the spacer to the other side), moving the chainrings inward a hair? The assumption is this will reduce cross chaining on average given that the small chainring is used infrequently.
(of course if this causes clearance issues that negates the idea, but it doesn't look like it will cause any clearance issues.)
#2
Senior Member
IMO, it wouldn’t make enough difference to be worth the effort.
I might consider it while replacing the BB though.
I might consider it while replacing the BB though.
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 13,321
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder
Liked 4,331 Times
in
2,788 Posts
To my mind, chainlines aren't sacred. (More so if you are running 1/8" chain and single cogs but still, a few mms make very little difference. On a geared setup, even more so. If fudging it a little to improve the chainlines you actually use and you can live with the extremes (either they are usable, just noisier, say or you just plain don't use them, go for it.
Now, this is my thought. I ride my bikes until they die. I have yet to sell a bike. I've recycled a few. So I am not concerned with what others think. It is just me riding it. And as I get older, I am starting to think of my knees as a bigger investment than my cogs (or even the paint on my chainstays).
Ben
Now, this is my thought. I ride my bikes until they die. I have yet to sell a bike. I've recycled a few. So I am not concerned with what others think. It is just me riding it. And as I get older, I am starting to think of my knees as a bigger investment than my cogs (or even the paint on my chainstays).
Ben
#4
Really Old Senior Member
I tend to use the smaller cogs more, so I just use a slightly longer BB. (I use sq. taper)
Same idea as yours. I assume you are locked in to a specific BB because of your crank?
Same idea as yours. I assume you are locked in to a specific BB because of your crank?
#6
Senior Member
I don't think it makes sense
especially if it makes other gears in the drivetrain have problems for the odd times you do need them.
Rather, if you're gears usage is so biased
this is really just an indication that your cassette/sprockets are the wrong sizes for you.
I'd look into changing those around before messing with the BB and chainline.
especially if it makes other gears in the drivetrain have problems for the odd times you do need them.
Rather, if you're gears usage is so biased
this is really just an indication that your cassette/sprockets are the wrong sizes for you.
I'd look into changing those around before messing with the BB and chainline.
#7
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 4,074
Bikes: Velo Orange Piolet
Liked 2,013 Times
in
972 Posts
I don't think it makes sense
especially if it makes other gears in the drivetrain have problems for the odd times you do need them.
Rather, if you're gears usage is so biased
this is really just an indication that your cassette/sprockets are the wrong sizes for you.
I'd look into changing those around before messing with the BB and chainline.
especially if it makes other gears in the drivetrain have problems for the odd times you do need them.
Rather, if you're gears usage is so biased
this is really just an indication that your cassette/sprockets are the wrong sizes for you.
I'd look into changing those around before messing with the BB and chainline.
#8
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 4,074
Bikes: Velo Orange Piolet
Liked 2,013 Times
in
972 Posts
As an aside:
Funny thing is, I soaked my chain in solvent then lubed it with Triflow, and now I can really hear the chain. When it's aligned it's nearly silent, but when it gets angled I can hear it. The greater the angle, the louder it gets.
So I have chainline on my mind. It's kind of interesting to hear the cross chaining.
(new chain, cassette, and BB are on the way - I won't be able to hear the cross chaining when the new chain is installed.)
Funny thing is, I soaked my chain in solvent then lubed it with Triflow, and now I can really hear the chain. When it's aligned it's nearly silent, but when it gets angled I can hear it. The greater the angle, the louder it gets.
So I have chainline on my mind. It's kind of interesting to hear the cross chaining.
(new chain, cassette, and BB are on the way - I won't be able to hear the cross chaining when the new chain is installed.)
#9
Factory chainline works really well when you shift as intended. The people that complain about the way the drivetrain was designed are generally using it "wrong" and crosschaining when it would make more sense to shift the front derailleur.
If you solvent clean a chain you are unlikely to ever get the type of excellent lubricant that comes from the factory back into the rollers. Hence the extra noise.
If you solvent clean a chain you are unlikely to ever get the type of excellent lubricant that comes from the factory back into the rollers. Hence the extra noise.
#10
Banned.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Land of Enhancement
Posts: 426
Bikes: ...
Liked 383 Times
in
334 Posts
I learned a lot from this when I was looking trying to figure out the 142+ spacing on my Enduro.
I run a 1x setup, but I think it's applicable.
https://www.oneupcomponents.com/page...-and-non-boost
I run a 1x setup, but I think it's applicable.
https://www.oneupcomponents.com/page...-and-non-boost
#11
Senior Member
Let's say 'unsuited' for your riding habits.
pick a different gearset that has your most used gears in the middle; that's where the shifting works best.
#12
Most people ride in the middle or low ring more than the others. That's normal.
#13
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 4,074
Bikes: Velo Orange Piolet
Liked 2,013 Times
in
972 Posts
That's the way it is now: most used gears are in the middle (of both cassette and chainrings). We're still stuck with the fact that the granny gear is used much less than the other chainrings.
#14
Really Old Senior Member
I've got bad knees, ankle, back, sciatica on both sides, emphysema and will be 70 in a couple weeks.
I basically ride my 3X9 as a 1X9, since I don't have hills to deal with.
The granny has still come in handy a few times when a strong head wind came up. I had an new "low range" with closely spaced gears. Someday I hope to have a strong tail wind and see what the large ring is like.
My large ring is only 6T more than my middle and get used once in awhile when out of the city (stop lights/signs) and can actually just ride and a bit of a tail wind.
Use what works for you and don't worry about justifying it to anyone else. They probably won't understand anyway.
#15
Mostly harmless ™
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Novi Sad
Posts: 4,435
Bikes: Heavy, with friction shifters
Liked 222 Times
in
134 Posts
I have a 3x10 with 48, 36, 22 chainrings. Let's assume I use the 48t 30% of the time, 36t 50%, and 22t 20%.
Would it make sense to remove one of the BB spacers on the drive side (or relocate the spacer to the other side), moving the chainrings inward a hair? The assumption is this will reduce cross chaining on average given that the small chainring is used infrequently.
(of course if this causes clearance issues that negates the idea, but it doesn't look like it will cause any clearance issues.)
Would it make sense to remove one of the BB spacers on the drive side (or relocate the spacer to the other side), moving the chainrings inward a hair? The assumption is this will reduce cross chaining on average given that the small chainring is used infrequently.
(of course if this causes clearance issues that negates the idea, but it doesn't look like it will cause any clearance issues.)
#16
I'm good to go!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 16,142
Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020
Liked 5,404 Times
in
3,729 Posts
Never hurts to experiment. Sometimes you have to keep quiet about it though less you be denounced and ridiculed by the "Cycling Inquisition", similar to Galileo Galilei and the Roman Inquisition.
#17
Advanced Slacker
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 6,252
Bikes: Soma Fog Cutter, Surly Wednesday, Canfielld Tilt
Liked 2,571 Times
in
1,451 Posts
That sounds like pretty well distributed usage to me.
If you are really that worried about optimum chain alignment, you could achieve far greater impact simply with gear combo selection.
I would not bother moving the crank over. I would rather keep the q-factor of the pedals the same on each side.
If you are really that worried about optimum chain alignment, you could achieve far greater impact simply with gear combo selection.
I would not bother moving the crank over. I would rather keep the q-factor of the pedals the same on each side.
#19
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 4,074
Bikes: Velo Orange Piolet
Liked 2,013 Times
in
972 Posts
As I said, after I soaked my chain I can hear the cross chaining. I CAN'T LET IT REST! MUST MINIMIZE CROSS CHAINING!!! (until I get a new chain, then my cross chain audio feedback feature will be gone)
#20
working on my sandal tan
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 22,670
Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers), All-City Space Horse (hers)
Liked 2,600 Times
in
1,593 Posts
The fact that there are bottom bracket spacers on this bike *now*, indicates to me that the chainline (and/or bottom bracket length) has already been fudged with. Just removing them doesn't strike me as a mortal sin.
__________________
RUSA #7498
Originally Posted by noglider
People in this forum are not typical.
Last edited by ThermionicScott; 01-08-18 at 01:50 PM.
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Munising, Michigan, USA
Posts: 4,131
Bikes: Priority 600, Priority Continuum, Devinci Dexter
Likes: 0
Liked 55 Times
in
37 Posts
I have a 3x10 with 48, 36, 22 chainrings. Let's assume I use the 48t 30% of the time, 36t 50%, and 22t 20%.
Would it make sense to remove one of the BB spacers on the drive side (or relocate the spacer to the other side), moving the chainrings inward a hair? The assumption is this will reduce cross chaining on average given that the small chainring is used infrequently.
Would it make sense to remove one of the BB spacers on the drive side (or relocate the spacer to the other side), moving the chainrings inward a hair? The assumption is this will reduce cross chaining on average given that the small chainring is used infrequently.
Another option is to look at chainring bolt spacers. I have used them on a couple one-by setups to dial-in the chainline.
#23
Ride, Wrench, Swap, Race
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern California
Posts: 9,326
Bikes: Cheltenham-Pedersen racer, Boulder F/S Paris-Roubaix, Varsity racer, '52 Christophe, '62 Continental, '92 Merckx, '75 Limongi, '76 Presto, '72 Gitane SC, '71 Schwinn SS, etc.
Liked 1,390 Times
in
925 Posts
I've been in the same boat a few times, where I went for the limits of a shorter bb while having to respect both chainring clearance with the chainstay and the ability of the front derailer to still shift to the smallest chainring with authority.
I have a preference for using the biggest chainring as much as practically possible.
The bigger ring has the chain moving faster and under less tension, so shifting is faster and can be completed under a higher level of sustained power without slippage.
As well, the big ring keeps the chain better under control when off-roading, or when crossing railroad tracks at speed for instance, so there will be less slapping of the chain onto the chainstay.
And then there is the consideration of drivetrain reactivity lost to elasticity of the entire complex load path from chain to chainstay. Did you know that a 10% reduction in chainring tooth count actually causes a 22% increase in drive elasticity between the pedal and the road? I'm betting that you heard it here first!
Lastly, many of us, as mentioned, end up using bikes for riding where the smallest ring just doesn't get much use, and a chainline modification can be the cheapest fix as long as there is still chainring clearance and the front derailer can still pull inward far enough to shift to the smallest ring.
I have a preference for using the biggest chainring as much as practically possible.
The bigger ring has the chain moving faster and under less tension, so shifting is faster and can be completed under a higher level of sustained power without slippage.
As well, the big ring keeps the chain better under control when off-roading, or when crossing railroad tracks at speed for instance, so there will be less slapping of the chain onto the chainstay.
And then there is the consideration of drivetrain reactivity lost to elasticity of the entire complex load path from chain to chainstay. Did you know that a 10% reduction in chainring tooth count actually causes a 22% increase in drive elasticity between the pedal and the road? I'm betting that you heard it here first!
Lastly, many of us, as mentioned, end up using bikes for riding where the smallest ring just doesn't get much use, and a chainline modification can be the cheapest fix as long as there is still chainring clearance and the front derailer can still pull inward far enough to shift to the smallest ring.
Last edited by dddd; 01-08-18 at 05:34 PM.
#24
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 4,074
Bikes: Velo Orange Piolet
Liked 2,013 Times
in
972 Posts
As I understand it, it's a 68mm bracket and fits a road crank without spacers, but with a mountain crank (which mine is) it needs spacers. Currently there are (IIRC) 3 spacers, 2 left, 1 right.
#25
Banned
count teeth, do the math (Yet?)
a 16t gap like 40 to 24 offers maybe 4 ratios lower than the 40:34..
so rather than shift to that 5th gear on the 24t, double shift to a similar gear ratio on the 40t.. middle.
>You may have different tooth count numbers < but the idea is transferable.
.....
a 16t gap like 40 to 24 offers maybe 4 ratios lower than the 40:34..
so rather than shift to that 5th gear on the 24t, double shift to a similar gear ratio on the 40t.. middle.
>You may have different tooth count numbers < but the idea is transferable.
.....