Old 06-25-22, 01:42 PM
  #6  
venturi95
Firm but gentle
 
venturi95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oregon
Posts: 588

Bikes: 2005 Litespeed Tuscany, Soma Pescadero, Pure Cycles disc road, Jamis hybrid

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 159 Post(s)
Liked 104 Times in 60 Posts
Originally Posted by Andrew R Stewart
Rear der max cog capacity is also controlled by the der hanger length. Back in the day when horizontal slots were the standard one could change this dimension by moving the wheel forward or back in the slots to get the guide pulley to cleat the cog underside. With today's many vertical dropouts this is no longer possible (although I have seen slight hanger length differences between OEM and aftermarket hangers that fit the same bike).

I also like the rear der cage designs that place the guide pulley off center from the cage pivot. This allows the guide pulley to raise or fall WRT the cogs as the cage plays out or takes up chain slack. The bigger the cog the more the pulley drops giving room for that cog. The 591 ders (and most all previous Shimano ones for decades) have this design. With the guide pulley and the cage pivot on the same axis the chain length no longer influences the pulley/cog gap.

So my suggestion is to not use the 592 version. Andy
Thanks for this, I had a XT Shadow rear derailleur a drop bar bike (Fargo) with a double up front and it worked great, thus my choice of rear mech. Newer is always better, just check out the road forum *smiley face emoji*.
venturi95 is offline