Symmetrical Chainring Teeth Question
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Detroit
Posts: 566
Bikes: '72 Paramount 15-9, '74 Schwinn Paramount P10-9, '73 Schwinn Super Sport, 1983 Schwinn Voyageur SP,17 Motobecane Cafe Noir, 1970 Raleigh Competition Tourist, 1999 Rans V-Rex
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 220 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 83 Times
in
45 Posts
Symmetrical Chainring Teeth Question
Can you chime in why different sized/ flat teeth are reportedly a shifting advantage on a chain ring?
I've a Shimano triple. I noticed two teeth both on opposite sides on the middle ring are flat and somewhat shorter. I've been told it helps shifting.
Please explain.
Thanks!
I've a Shimano triple. I noticed two teeth both on opposite sides on the middle ring are flat and somewhat shorter. I've been told it helps shifting.
Please explain.
Thanks!
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 18,053
Bikes: Stewart S&S coupled sport tourer, Stewart Sunday light, Stewart Commuting, Stewart Touring, Co Motion Tandem, Stewart 3-Spd, Stewart Track, Fuji Finest, Mongoose Tomac ATB, GT Bravado ATB, JCP Folder, Stewart 650B ATB
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4194 Post(s)
Liked 3,837 Times
in
2,295 Posts
This tooth shaping was called "W Cut". An early attempt to reduce the front shifting effort.
When a chain is told to move to another cog/ring it has to be able to lift up off the current teeth it's on before being able to be prodded laterally to the next set of teeth (cog/ring). If the shifting to cog/ring is larger the chain is readily lifted up off the first teeth but has to climb up to the tops of the next set before settling in on that set. If the next cog is smaller the chain still has to lift up and over the first set of teeth.
When the teeth height is lessened the amount of lifting the chain needs is less. Hense less energy used in the chain's movement.
If you look at the "classic" chainring tooth shapes/profiles (Campy NR, TA, Stronglight, Sugino, Shimano, and others prior to the 1980s) the teeth are all the same height and of a taller amount on average than today's profiles. Give credit to Shimano that they did a lot of engineering work of shifting and how to reduce the effort. The current rings with their lift pins and shaped teeth specific to shifting ease do shift easier than the old classic stuff.
But one can improve their symmetrically shaped teeth chainrings. By filing down pairs of teeth at a few points (I like 5 roughly aligned with the chainring bolts) to about half their OEM height a W Cut like feature can be done. I've done this to a number of customer and personal rings with good results and no drawbacks that we have found later. Andy
When a chain is told to move to another cog/ring it has to be able to lift up off the current teeth it's on before being able to be prodded laterally to the next set of teeth (cog/ring). If the shifting to cog/ring is larger the chain is readily lifted up off the first teeth but has to climb up to the tops of the next set before settling in on that set. If the next cog is smaller the chain still has to lift up and over the first set of teeth.
When the teeth height is lessened the amount of lifting the chain needs is less. Hense less energy used in the chain's movement.
If you look at the "classic" chainring tooth shapes/profiles (Campy NR, TA, Stronglight, Sugino, Shimano, and others prior to the 1980s) the teeth are all the same height and of a taller amount on average than today's profiles. Give credit to Shimano that they did a lot of engineering work of shifting and how to reduce the effort. The current rings with their lift pins and shaped teeth specific to shifting ease do shift easier than the old classic stuff.
But one can improve their symmetrically shaped teeth chainrings. By filing down pairs of teeth at a few points (I like 5 roughly aligned with the chainring bolts) to about half their OEM height a W Cut like feature can be done. I've done this to a number of customer and personal rings with good results and no drawbacks that we have found later. Andy
__________________
AndrewRStewart
AndrewRStewart
#3
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Detroit
Posts: 566
Bikes: '72 Paramount 15-9, '74 Schwinn Paramount P10-9, '73 Schwinn Super Sport, 1983 Schwinn Voyageur SP,17 Motobecane Cafe Noir, 1970 Raleigh Competition Tourist, 1999 Rans V-Rex
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 220 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 83 Times
in
45 Posts
Andy, thanks for the response. Greatly appreciated!