Gear Question ( 9 speed )

Robbie Hewson said:

I have a Road bike, with 9 speed Shimano 105 group set.

Coming from a cheap bike, I wanted to ask about the gears.

Can I use all the gears ?
Ie the big front ring to the smallest rear ring ?

Does this stuff the chain big time or what ?

What should I set as the limits ?

............
Thankyou kindly for much needed advice.

Depending on the trimming of the derailers, you may find that you can't use all of the ratios. Specifically, the chain might rub against the front derailer in either or both of the large/large and small/small combinations because the chain-line becomes less straight when viewed from above. The large/small combination should be fine if set up correctly.

As for my own set-up, I like to use 7 out of the 9 in each front ring so there is plenty of overlap.

Ritch

ritcho said:

Depending on the trimming of the derailers, you may find that you can't use all of the ratios. Specifically, the chain might rub against the front derailer in either or both of the large/large and small/small combinations because the chain-line becomes less straight when viewed from above. The large/small combination should be fine if set up correctly.

As for my own set-up, I like to use 7 out of the 9 in each front ring so there is plenty of overlap.

Ritch

avoid if you can the big-big, and small-small combos. chainline is too extreme andyour derailleur aint gonna like that big-big one

"flyingdutch" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

ritcho said:

Depending on the trimming of the derailers, you may find that you can't
use all of the ratios. Specifically, the chain might rub against the
front derailer in either or both of the large/large and small/small
combinations because the chain-line becomes less straight when viewed
from above. The large/small combination should be fine if set up
correctly.

As for my own set-up, I like to use 7 out of the 9 in each front ring
so there is plenty of overlap.

Ritch

avoid if you can the big-big, and small-small combos. chainline is too
extreme andyour derailleur aint gonna like that big-big one

--
flyingdutch

Sometimes you might end up going big to big but it's better to change chain
rings before that happens. As the others said, it's not desireable, but at
the same time it won't cause your bike to self destruct. As long as the
chain is not too short things will be ok.

Marty

Quoted message said:

Sometimes you might end up going big to big but it's better
to change chain rings before that happens. As the others said,
it's not desireable, but at the same time it won't cause your
bike to self destruct. As long as the chain is not too short
things will be ok.

And the standard argument is also that small-small must be
avoided at all costs, because it has the highest chain-to-tooth
contact pressure, and hence will cause rapid wear. But ask
for data supporting that, even from guru Sheldon, and you'll
get zip. Personally, I doubt there is really much in it.

But then, my road bike has gears that were probably made by
Brinell himself.

Quoted message said:

Sometimes you might end up going big to big but it's better
to change chain rings before that happens. As the others said,
it's not desireable, but at the same time it won't cause your
bike to self destruct. As long as the chain is not too short
things will be ok.

And the standard argument is also that small-small must be
avoided at all costs, because it has the highest chain-to-tooth
contact pressure, and hence will cause rapid wear. But ask
for data supporting that, even from guru Sheldon, and you'll
get zip. Personally, I doubt there is really much in it.

But then, my road bike has gears that were probably made by
Brinell himself.

Glen F said:

> Sometimes you might end up going big to big but it's better

Quoted message said:

to change chain rings before that happens. As the others said,
it's not desireable, but at the same time it won't cause your
bike to self destruct. As long as the chain is not too short
things will be ok.

And the standard argument is also that small-small must be
avoided at all costs, because it has the highest chain-to-tooth
contact pressure, and hence will cause rapid wear. But ask
for data supporting that, even from guru Sheldon, and you'll
get zip. Personally, I doubt there is really much in it.

But then, my road bike has gears that were probably made by
Brinell himself.

shimano is fairly notorius for front derailleur noise in the small-small combo.
Of course such things NEVER happen with campag! (yeah, right!)

"Glen F" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

But then, my road bike has gears that were probably made by
Brinell himself.

Who is Brinell?

Marty

Marty Wallace said:

Who is Brinell?

J.A. Brinell

instron.combrinell.aspOpen ↗

"Glen F" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sometimes you might end up going big to big but it's better
to change chain rings before that happens. As the others said,
it's not desireable, but at the same time it won't cause your
bike to self destruct. As long as the chain is not too short
things will be ok.

And the standard argument is also that small-small must be
avoided at all costs, because it has the highest chain-to-tooth
contact pressure, and hence will cause rapid wear. But ask
for data supporting that, even from guru Sheldon, and you'll
get zip. Personally, I doubt there is really much in it.

It's one of those old ideas that just won't die. It comes from the Good Old
Days when your average 10-speed was bleeding edge. It's much, much less of
an issue with modern drivetrains.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

DRS said:

"Glen F" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
It's one of those old ideas that just won't die. It comes from the Good Old
Days when your average 10-speed was bleeding edge. It's much, much less of
an issue with modern drivetrains.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Have you asked your poor old chain that? "Owww, sideplate friction (wear) increasing as it comes off the chainring!!! angular load on the pins increasing!!! WHAT?!?!?! you want to SPRINT in that gear?!?!?! AAAGGGHHHHH!!!!! POP!"

Neutral chainline (i.e. no bend) falls ideally between 4 and 6 (8/9/10 spd)at the back (hypothetical chainline between chainrings). You have deflection of about 22mm from this to top cog on 9 speed. Add about 4mm for small/small combo, and you've got about 26 mm of deflection - over 410mm average chainstay length. With two significant friction points where the chain bends. On 650C triple c/set bikes I have built with x-short chainstays, I tell the owners definitely NOT to load up the small/small gear combo, or at least take a chain tool with them to salvage the inevitable breakage.

M"singlespeeds don't mess my head"H

"mfhor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

DRS Wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's one of those old ideas that just won't die. It comes from the
Good Old
Days when your average 10-speed was bleeding edge. It's much, much
less of
an issue with modern drivetrains.

Have you asked your poor old chain that? "Owww, sideplate friction
(wear) increasing as it comes off the chainring!!! angular load on the
pins increasing!!! WHAT?!?!?! you want to SPRINT in that gear?!?!?!
AAAGGGHHHHH!!!!! POP!"

That's less of an issue these days because chains are narrower. They're not
the great bulky inflexible things they were in the old days.

Quoted message said:

Neutral chainline (i.e. no bend) falls ideally between 4 and 6 (8/9/10
spd)at the back (hypothetical chainline between chainrings). You have
deflection of about 22mm from this to top cog on 9 speed. Add about
4mm for small/small combo, and you've got about 26 mm of deflection -
over 410mm average chainstay length.

Road bike or MTB? Since road bike rides tend to use the middle and big
rings more, and MTB riders the small and middle rings more, their offsets
differ and so any "ideal" chainline must also differ.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

"Glen F" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

And the standard argument is also that small-small must be
avoided at all costs, because it has the highest chain-to-tooth
contact pressure, and hence will cause rapid wear. But ask
for data supporting that, even from guru Sheldon, and you'll
get zip. Personally, I doubt there is really much in it.

Talk to any tourers/MTBers with sub-26 tooth triple granny rings and they'll
tell you that there's plenty in it. Experienced triple users often fit steel
granny rings rather than alloy. The alloy inner rings just wear out way too
quickly if you're climbing the mountains. I would expect the same principle
applies to little 11t cogs, but as they're steel the wear rate will be lower
than alloy chain rings.

Years ago when clusters came with separate sprockets you could go to your
LBS and pick out the desired sprockets to make up your cluster. When they
wore out it was invariably only the smallest 3 or 4 sprocket that needed
replacing. The larger sprockets just lasted much longer. And if you were
scrupulous about not using the small-small combination then you only needed
to replace 2-3 sprockets.

Oh for the good ol days when the shop had all the SunTour sprockets on hooks
the wall, from 12 to 30.

Cheers
Peter

I have 105 with Ultegra sprockets on rear. Shimano recommends with 105 that you never should use the two extreme sprockets so in my case don't use 53-21 or 53-19 or 39-12 39-13. However, in races I like to climb as much as I can on the big chain ring, so I use the 53-19 quite a bit. However I try to avoid that combo in training. The derailleur (front and rear) seem to handle it fine. I regularly check my chain.

Quoted message said:

Who is Brinell?

The Swedish engineer-metallurgist who essentially invented modern,
high-strength steel. He really did make the stuff, at a real
steelworks, and some was undoubtedly used for bike sprockets.

DRS said:

"mfhor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

DRS Wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's one of those old ideas that just won't die. It comes from the
Good Old
Days when your average 10-speed was bleeding edge. It's much, much
less of
an issue with modern drivetrains.

Have you asked your poor old chain that? "Owww, sideplate friction
(wear) increasing as it comes off the chainring!!! angular load on the
pins increasing!!! WHAT?!?!?! you want to SPRINT in that gear?!?!?!
AAAGGGHHHHH!!!!! POP!"

That's less of an issue these days because chains are narrower. They're not
the great bulky inflexible things they were in the old days.

Quoted message said:

Neutral chainline (i.e. no bend) falls ideally between 4 and 6 (8/9/10
spd)at the back (hypothetical chainline between chainrings). You have
deflection of about 22mm from this to top cog on 9 speed. Add about
4mm for small/small combo, and you've got about 26 mm of deflection -
over 410mm average chainstay length.

Road bike or MTB? Since road bike rides tend to use the middle and big
rings more, and MTB riders the small and middle rings more, their offsets
differ and so any "ideal" chainline must also differ.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

True, chains are narrower, but they also have less bearing surface to maintain a press-fit between pin and outer link, and so tolerances have to be tighter, and chains have to be joined with more skill, and/or a joining link/pin process. Also, less tolerance for extreme sideways loads, or moderate sideways loads with friction (silt/grit) added. Still not a good idea, IMO.

M "quartz sand is harder than most steel, ergo, worn MTB chains" H

mfhor said:

True, chains are narrower, but they also have less bearing surface to maintain a press-fit between pin and outer link, and so tolerances have to be tighter, and chains have to be joined with more skill, and/or a joining link/pin process. Also, less tolerance for extreme sideways loads, or moderate sideways loads with friction (silt/grit) added. Still not a good idea, IMO.

M "quartz sand is harder than most steel, ergo, worn MTB chains" H

Here's two cents...

Someone mentioned sprinting - you would never want to sprint in the small-small combo 'cos you spin out if the hill flattens out.

Otoh, if you can spin-out in the large-small combo (on a flat road), you're in line for a European pro contract.

Ritch