Chain outside widths?

I said:

What are the OUTSIDE widths of typical 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10-speed chains?

note. I appreciate that 8sp chain is NOW supplied for 5, 6 and 7sp bikes, but were chains ever
fatter on 5 and 6sp bikes?

~PB

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

Quoted message said:

I said:

What are the OUTSIDE widths of typical 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10-speed chains?

note. I appreciate that 8sp chain is NOW supplied for 5, 6 and 7sp bikes, but were chains ever
fatter on 5 and 6sp bikes?

~PB
Pete,

Just happen to have this bit of information to hand as I`ve been faffing around this afternoon
swapping old for new (chain) and discovering that Sram links can be removed by carefully pushing
rivet nearly out and then resetting rivet using chain tool and joining new chain in normal manner.
Most 6 speed and all 7 speed sprocket sets require "narrow" chains with outside width of 7.2-7.4mm.
these chains are adequate for most 8 speed sprockets but may be slightly noisier than the "super
narrow" chains which are always 7.2mm. wide, these can also be used on any other sprocket sets.
Nine speed chains measure 6.6-6.8mm. and they can also be used on other sprockets . This
information "lifted" from Barnett's at umdbike.comumdbike.comOpen ↗ and I hope that it's of some use to
you. Colin Nelson

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

Quoted message said:

I said:

What are the OUTSIDE widths of typical 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10-speed chains?

note. I appreciate that 8sp chain is NOW supplied for 5, 6 and 7sp bikes, but were chains ever
fatter on 5 and 6sp bikes?

~PB

Some are listed here: geocities.comweight.htmlOpen ↗

CHAIN MAKE & MODEL 1 LINK 108 LINKS WIDTH COMMENTS Sachs PowerLink II 3g n/a quick chain connector
Viking titanium 2.20g 237g Thanks, Richard Regina 50-SL 2.31g 250g 7.29mm used but clean Regina
50-SL 2.39g 258g 7.29 used and dirty Campagnolo Record 10s 2.40g 259g 2001 Campagnolo Chorus 9s
2.57g 277g used SRAM PC89R 2.58g 279g Shimano Dura-Ace 2.59g 279g 6.60 9 speed TAYA TB-500 2.68g
290g 7.32 cheap one: black outer, sil inner KMC SuperShuttle 2.69g 291g 7.09 CN-SS91S all silver
Shimano IG all silver 2.73g 295g 7.06 Sedis Sedisport GT 2.74g 296g 7.37 from Sachs New Success
group Sachs/Sedis PG 2.75g 297g 7.11 sil/blk, square riveted Shimano Dura-Ace 8s 2.76g 298g 7.16
sil/sil Sedis SC-R80 2.76g 298g silver, narrow 8 speed Sachs SC M 55 2.76g 298g 7.11 sil/blk, square
riveted Sachs PC41 2.76g 298g 7.16 gry/blk, step riveted, 8s Sachs/Sedis PG 2.77g 299g 7.11 sil/blk,
step riveted
D.I.D. Super Lanner 2.77g 299g bushless
D.I.E. SuperShift 2.77g 299g 7.21 SunTour XC-Pro AP 2.82g 305g small one TAYA TB-700 2.83g 306g 7.32
middle model: sil outer, blk inner KMC SuperShuttle 2.83g 305g Shimano CN-HG90 2.84g 307g
7.37 Ultegra. Sil/blk. Sedis Sedisport AT 2.86g 309g Campagnolo Contax 2.89g 312g 1992
Rholoff SLT-99 2.91g 314g 6.88 Shimano CN-HG70 2.93g 317g uncut Shimano CN-7400 2.95g 319g
7.34 Dura-Ace UG, sil/sil
D.I.F. Lanner Index 2.97g 320g Shimano 600EX UG 7s 2.98g 322g 1991 Regina CX 3.00g 324g 7.98 sil/blk
SunTour XC-Pro 3.03g 328g Izumi "Index" 3.04g 328g bushless, slotted sides HKK Z 3.06g 331g
7.62 for SunTour AccuShift 6s Sedis track 3.36g 363g 8.61 blk Izumi track 4.94g 534g all
chrome, drilled plates

Hollow pin 89r sram is 6.2mm and makes excellent sub for Campy 10s ( campy
is6.1mm)Tom

--
Bruni Bicycles "Where art meets science" brunibicycles.com
410.426.3420 Pete Biggs <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What are the OUTSIDE widths of typical 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10-speed chains?

Please list all/any you know (in mm).

Also, I assume the inside width for all of them is 3/32". Is that correct including 10sp?

thanks v much ~PB [x-posted to rec.bicycles.tech & uk.rec.cycling]

Colin Nelson said:

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

Quoted message said:

I said:

What are the OUTSIDE widths of typical 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10-speed chains?

note. I appreciate that 8sp chain is NOW supplied for 5, 6 and 7sp bikes, but were chains ever
fatter on 5 and 6sp bikes?

Quoted message said:

Just happen to have this bit of information to hand as I`ve been faffing around this afternoon
swapping old for new (chain) and discovering that Sram links can be removed by carefully pushing
rivet nearly out and then resetting rivet using chain tool and joining new chain in normal manner.
Most 6 speed and all 7 speed sprocket sets require "narrow" chains with outside width of
7.2-7.4mm. these chains are adequate for most 8 speed sprockets but may be slightly noisier than
the "super narrow" chains which are always 7.2mm. wide, these can also be used on any other
sprocket sets. Nine speed chains measure 6.6-6.8mm. and they can also be used on other sprockets .
This information "lifted" from Barnett's at umdbike.comumdbike.comOpen ↗ and I hope that it's of some
use to you.

I've recently got myself a new hill bike - a Cannondale Jekyll 700 - after riding a Scott Sawtooth
for fifteen years. Mostly I love the Cannondale, but I find myself wondering what the point of nine
cogs on the back really is. I find that if I tackle a steep slope on any normal surface (gravel,
mud, dirt) I'm losing traction long before I've got down into the bottom gear (which is
substantially lower than direct drive) - a hill you need that to pull up you can't go up anyway.

I also find I'm making some crunchingly bad changes. The Scott, which has the very first generation
Shimano indexed push-button gear levers and their associated mechanisms still - after years of abuse
- changes reliable and smoothly every time. I am, of course, exceedingly used to it, but my memory
is it always did. The Cannondale also has Shimanos, with fifteen years more development... and most
of the time, of course, they shift smoothly. But just now and then I bollox it up horribly with
awful crunching noises, and I'm wondering how much the relative weakness of the narrower chain has
to do with this. I also wonder about the fragility of that chain and how it's going to wear. Of
course, it may be that I'm not used to the new bike, and it may be that the adjustment of the
changers is just a bit off.

I'd hate to give you the impression I'm criticising the Cannondale. I'm not. I'm a lot faster on it,
both uphill and down, and can get through difficult sections which I just could not manage on the
Scott, and generally I'm having fun. But I'm wondering whether to swap the 9 cog cassete and changer
for seven cog ones, and whether this would give me a more robust and reliable transmission.

What are people's feelings? Is the progressive increase in numbers of rear cogs really a good thing?
Or are nine coggers just too fragile for thrashing through the forest?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

;; ... exposing the violence incoherent in the system...

If your changes are dodgy, check the length of your rear cable housing. If the loop is too tight it
makes changes sticky. Get a long lazy loop. I've found this terrific.

Quoted message said:

I find myself wondering what the point of nine cogs on the back really is. I find that if I tackle
a steep slope on any normal surface (gravel, mud, dirt) I'm losing traction long before I've got
down into the bottom gear (which is substantially lower than direct drive) - a hill you need that
to pull up you can't go up anyway.

Nine cogs isn't really considered a 'huge number' these days, it's virtually the norm. It is
possible to find a use for the lowest gear, although it does depend on factors such as surface,
steepness, load, and riding style including body position, and cadence. I must admit when I first
got my bike I thought low gear was so low I'd never use it but I have since discovered otherwise.

Quoted message said:

I also find I'm making some crunchingly bad changes.

...

Quoted message said:

most of the time, of course, they shift smoothly. But just now and then I bollox it up horribly
with awful crunching noises,

This could be due to how you're using the gears or it could be due to adjustment. You don't want to
be using big-big or small-small combinations. If you do the chainline will be bent and the change
may not be smooth. It can also depend on when you change - if you only change when your cadence and
speed has dropped to a virtual standstill and try to rapidly drop down a number of cogs - clicking
through too many gears at a time - you'll get this.

Quoted message said:

and I'm wondering how much the relative weakness of the narrower chain has to do with this. I also
wonder about the fragility of that chain and how it's going to wear.

I don't think you can say nine speed chains are fragile or weak. Even ten speed chains can take the
power output of the likes of Armstrong and Ullrich, or if you prefer, the output of any of the
leading off-road XC riders, whoever they are. Used correctly, your chain and gears are surely able
take all the power you're capable of putting through it.

....

Quoted message said:

. I'm a lot faster on it, both uphill and down, and can get through difficult sections which I
just could not manage on the Scott, and generally I'm having fun.

Well there you are then!

Quoted message said:

But I'm wondering whether to swap the 9 cog cassete and changer for seven cog ones, and whether
this would give me a more robust and reliable transmission.

Doubt it. You would be going to expense to downgrade your bike, and may lose the benefits you say
you have found with it. What's the point of that?

Quoted message said:

What are people's feelings? Is the progressive increase in numbers of rear cogs really a good
thing? Or are nine coggers just too fragile for thrashing through the forest?

Unless you have the strength and weight of a gorilla, they surely aren't too fragile for thrashing
through a forest!

Rich

Richard Goodman said:

Quoted message said:

I also find I'm making some crunchingly bad changes.

...

Quoted message said:

most of the time, of course, they shift smoothly. But just now and then I bollox it up horribly
with awful crunching noises,

This could be due to how you're using the gears or it could be due to adjustment. You don't want
to be using big-big or small-small combinations.

No, no, I know this...

Quoted message said:

If you do the chainline will be bent and the change may not be smooth. It can also depend on when
you change - if you only change when your cadence and speed has dropped to a virtual standstill
and try to rapidly drop down a number of cogs - clicking through too many gears at a time - you'll
get this.

...and this (although, of course, when you hear a nasty noise you _do_ back off and this may make
things worse).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and I'm wondering how much the relative weakness of the narrower chain has to do with this. I
also wonder about the fragility of that chain and how it's going to wear.

I don't think you can say nine speed chains are fragile or weak. Even ten speed chains can take
the power output of the likes of Armstrong and Ullrich, or if you prefer, the output of any of the
leading off-road XC riders, whoever they are. Used correctly, your chain and gears are surely able
take all the power you're capable of putting through it.

Yebbut, the good Mr Armstrong has a team of mechanics who probably pretty much rebuild his machine
every night. You can be pretty sure he has a new chain every morning. The same goes, to a slightly
lesser extent, for those 'leading off-road XC riders'. My chain gets a lube every two or three days
and a clean once a fortnight or so. On my old bike I fitted a new chain on average once a year. How
often am I going to need a new nine-speed chain? I'm not saying it _will_ be more often. I just
don't know. But the chain on an XC bike is exposed to dust, grit and mud, all things which
accelerate wear. What works for highly maintained works team racing machines for a day or two may
nevertheless not be durable and forgiving enough for more casual use over several months.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But I'm wondering whether to swap the 9 cog cassete and changer for seven cog ones, and whether
this would give me a more robust and reliable transmission.

Doubt it. You would be going to expense to downgrade your bike, and may lose the benefits you say
you have found with it. What's the point of that?

_If_ it made it more reliable, that would be a benefit. You obviously think it would not, which is
useful to know.

Thanks for your comments, by the way. If my response seems aggressive, it isn't meant that way.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

;; ... exposing the violence incoherent in the system...

Simon Brooke said:

I've recently got myself a new hill bike - a Cannondale Jekyll 700 - after riding a Scott Sawtooth
for fifteen years. Mostly I love the Cannondale, but I find myself wondering what the point of
nine cogs on the back really is. I find that if I tackle a steep slope on any normal surface
(gravel, mud, dirt) I'm losing traction long before I've got down into the bottom gear (which is
substantially lower than direct drive) - a hill you need that to pull up you can't go up anyway.

That's not because you've got nine cogs but because some of those cogs are too large for your liking
(or because the granny chainring is too small).

Ok, if you are happy with the top gear, find the bottom too low, and don't want the gears any more
closely spaced, then nine sprockets may be too many for you. Obviously not everyone likes that many
gears. They're at least good for road cycling, though, where a wide range AND closely spaced gears
really help maintain a good steady cadence.

Quoted message said:

I also find I'm making some crunchingly bad changes. The Scott, which has the very first
generation Shimano indexed push-button gear levers and their associated mechanisms still - after
years of abuse - changes reliable and smoothly every time. I am, of course, exceedingly used to
it, but my memory is it always did. The Cannondale also has Shimanos, with fifteen years more
development... and most of the time, of course, they shift smoothly. But just now and then I
bollox it up horribly with awful crunching noises, and I'm wondering how much the relative
weakness of the narrower chain has to do with this.

Nothing.

Quoted message said:

I also wonder about the fragility of that chain and how it's going to wear.

9sp chains are still strong enough for the most powerful riders. They might wear slightly faster
(I'm not sure) but it's nothing to worry about,
IMO.

Quoted message said:

Of course, it may be that I'm not used to the new bike, and it may be that the adjustment of the
changers is just a bit off.

You and your gears are bound to improve! :-)

~PB

In article <[email hidden]>, "Richard Goodman"

Quoted message said:

I don't think you can say nine speed chains are fragile or weak. Even ten speed chains can take
the power output of the likes of Armstrong and Ullrich, or if you prefer, the output of any of the
leading off-road XC riders, whoever they are. Used correctly, your chain and gears are surely able
take all the power you're capable of putting through it.

I know that tends to sound impressive, but many tourists put out as much or more power than pros.
Pros have a high power to weight ratio, tourists do not even though their absolute power may be
every bit as much as the pros. Their chains are under higher tension because they're winching a lot
more weight up the hills- not unusual for a touring bike and rider with luggage to weigh 2 to 2 1/2
times a pro on a pro-caliber bike.

In short, a tourist is more likely to find the weaknesses in a drivetrain component than a pro is.

Tim McNamara said:

I know that tends to sound impressive, but many tourists put out as much or more power than pros.

Highly doubtful. Power, no; chain tension, yes. As you said, tourists can generate higher chain
tension because they have much smaller gears [and weigh more].

Joe Riel

Tim McNamara said:

I know that tends to sound impressive, but many tourists put out as much or more power than pros.

That doesn't sound impressive, that sounds ridiculous. If you see a tourist that can generate 400
watts for an hour, you're not looking at a tourist.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA terrymorse.combikeOpen ↗

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "Richard Goodman"

Quoted message said:

I don't think you can say nine speed chains are fragile or weak. Even ten speed chains can take
the power output of the likes of Armstrong and Ullrich, or if you prefer, the output of any of
the leading off-road XC riders, whoever they are. Used correctly, your chain and gears are
surely able take all the power you're capable of putting through it.

I know that tends to sound impressive, but many tourists put out as much or more power than pros.
Pros have a high power to weight ratio, tourists do not even though their absolute power may be
every bit as much as the pros. Their chains are under higher tension because they're winching a
lot more weight up the hills- not unusual for a touring bike and rider with luggage to weigh 2 to
2 1/2 times a pro on a pro-caliber bike.

In short, a tourist is more likely to find the weaknesses in a drivetrain component than a pro is.

That's due to _force_, not power. I doubt many tourists can put out 400 watts even for a short
sprint, while a top pro can do 400 for an hour or more. A top pro sprinter can put out over 1800
watts for a few seconds.

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

Joe Riel said:

Highly doubtful. Power, no; chain tension, yes. As you said, tourists can generate higher chain
tension because they have much smaller gears [and weigh more].

I don't think it's even chain tension. The amount of chain tension is directly a result of the
amount of power the cyclist generates on the down-stroke but the higher torque to the wheel is a
result of better leverage from the lower gearing.

--Bill Davidson
--
Please remove ".nospam" from my address for email replies.

I'm a 17 year veteran of usenet -- you'd think I'd be over it by now

why would you revert to 10 year discontinued components. No there is absolutely no advantage to this
and no there is no strength advantage to yesterday's chains. In fact the old ones are weaker and
made from inferior alloys. Indeed you first should invest in an avid rollamajig ($20) and get an
adjustment. The more cogs the better with smoother transitions possible. If you don't need the high
or low gears then get a different cog and perhaps chainring set. Obviously it sounds as though you
bought a bike with predetermined parts or you took what you were offered. That is the problem with
purchasing a mass produced bike from a shop that thinks enmass rather than individual set ups for
each rider. Next time get a custom kit. You will be much happier.

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

Quoted message said:

Colin Nelson said:

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

Quoted message said:

I wrote:
> What are the OUTSIDE widths of typical 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10-speed chains?

note. I appreciate that 8sp chain is NOW supplied for 5, 6 and 7sp

bikes,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

but were chains ever fatter on 5 and 6sp bikes?

Quoted message said:

Just happen to have this bit of information to hand as I`ve been faffing around this afternoon
swapping old for new (chain) and discovering that Sram links can be removed by carefully pushing
rivet nearly out and

then

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

resetting rivet using chain tool and joining new chain in normal

manner.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Most 6 speed and all 7 speed sprocket sets require "narrow" chains with outside width of
7.2-7.4mm. these chains are adequate for most 8 speed sprockets but may be slightly noisier than
the "super narrow" chains which are always 7.2mm. wide, these can also be used on any other
sprocket sets. Nine speed chains measure 6.6-6.8mm. and they can also be used on other sprockets
. This information "lifted" from Barnett's at umdbike.comumdbike.comOpen ↗ and

I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

hope that it's of some use to you.

I've recently got myself a new hill bike - a Cannondale Jekyll 700 - after riding a Scott Sawtooth
for fifteen years. Mostly I love the Cannondale, but I find myself wondering what the point of
nine cogs on the back really is. I find that if I tackle a steep slope on any normal surface
(gravel, mud, dirt) I'm losing traction long before I've got down into the bottom gear (which is
substantially lower than direct drive) - a hill you need that to pull up you can't go up anyway.

I also find I'm making some crunchingly bad changes. The Scott, which has the very first
generation Shimano indexed push-button gear levers and their associated mechanisms still - after
years of abuse - changes reliable and smoothly every time. I am, of course, exceedingly used to
it, but my memory is it always did. The Cannondale also has Shimanos, with fifteen years more
development... and most of the time, of course, they shift smoothly. But just now and then I
bollox it up horribly with awful crunching noises, and I'm wondering how much the relative
weakness of the narrower chain has to do with this. I also wonder about the fragility of that
chain and how it's going to wear. Of course, it may be that I'm not used to the new bike, and it
may be that the adjustment of the changers is just a bit off.

I'd hate to give you the impression I'm criticising the Cannondale. I'm not. I'm a lot faster on
it, both uphill and down, and can get through difficult sections which I just could not manage on
the Scott, and generally I'm having fun. But I'm wondering whether to swap the 9 cog cassete and
changer for seven cog ones, and whether this would give me a more robust and reliable
transmission.

What are people's feelings? Is the progressive increase in numbers of rear cogs really a good
thing? Or are nine coggers just too fragile for thrashing through the forest?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

;; ... exposing the violence incoherent in the system...

Joe Riel said:

=20

Quoted message said:

Highly doubtful. Power, no; chain tension, yes. As you said, tourists can generate higher chain
tension because they have much smaller gears [and weigh more].

Bill Davidson said:

I don't think it's even chain tension. The amount of chain tension is directly a result of the
amount of power the cyclist generates on the down-stroke but the higher torque to the wheel is a
result of better leverage from the lower gearing.

You're getting power, tension and torque confounded, and they're all=20 different things.

The chain tension is a function of only three things:

=95How hard you press on the pedal

=95Crank length

=95Chainring radius

This thread may have actually suffered excessive snippage, but I think=20 we're still talking about
stresses as they relate to chain wear and=20 potential chain breakage. These stresses are directly
proportional to=20 chain tension, but have no particular relationship to either power or=20 torque.

Sheldon "Took Physics In High School, So He Knows This Stuff" Brown
+--------------------------------------------+
| We hardly find any persons of good sense |
| save those who agree with with us. |
|- Francois, Duc de la Rouchefoucauld |
+--------------------------------------------+ Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts Phone
617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041 harriscyclery.comharriscyclery.comOpen ↗ Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
captainbike.comcaptainbike.comOpen ↗ sheldonbrown.comsheldonbrown.comOpen ↗

Sheldon Brown said:

You're getting power, tension and torque confounded, and they're all different things.

The chain tension is a function of only three things:

•How hard you press on the pedal

•Crank length

•Chainring radius

Specifically,

T = F*L/R

T = chain tension L = crank length R = chain wheel radius

L is more or less the same for all cyclists. Given that the maximum force is essentially body
weight, a big guy with a tiny chain ring should be able to generate the highest chain tension.

Joe Riel

Sheldon Brown said:

Joe Riel said:

Quoted message said:

Highly doubtful. Power, no; chain tension, yes. As you said, tourists can generate higher chain
tension because they have much smaller gears [and weigh more].

Bill Davidson said:

I don't think it's even chain tension. The amount of chain tension is directly a result of the
amount of power the cyclist generates on the down-stroke but the higher torque to the wheel is a
result of better leverage from the lower gearing.

You're getting power, tension and torque confounded, and they're all different things.

The chain tension is a function of only three things:

•How hard you press on the pedal

•Crank length

•Chainring radius

This thread may have actually suffered excessive snippage, but I think we're still talking about
stresses as they relate to chain wear and potential chain breakage. These stresses are directly
proportional to chain tension, but have no particular relationship to either power or torque.

Tension I agree. Wear I'm not so sure of. Wear has got to be influenced by the amount of dust/grit
in the environment and the frequency (and efficiency) with which the chain is cleaned. Given that
the bearing surfaces of a narrower chain are smaller, the pressure on those bearing surfaces, given
they're tranmitting the same amount of load, must be higher, so it seems likely that the damage done
by a given quantity of, uhhhmmm, environmental abrasive will be worse.

Mountain bike chains run in pretty hostile environments.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

Age equals angst multiplied by the speed of fright squared.
;; the Worlock

"Dan O'Brasky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

why would you revert to 10 year discontinued components. No there is absolutely no advantage to
this and no there is no strength advantage to yesterday's chains. In fact the old ones are weaker
and made from

inferior

Quoted message said:

alloys. Indeed you first should invest in an avid rollamajig ($20) and

get

Quoted message said:

an adjustment. The more cogs the better with smoother transitions

possible.

Quoted message said:

If you don't need the high or low gears then get a different cog and

perhaps

Quoted message said:

chainring set. Obviously it sounds as though you bought a bike with predetermined parts or you
took what you were offered. That is the

problem

Quoted message said:

with purchasing a mass produced bike from a shop that thinks enmass rather than individual set ups
for each rider. Next time get a custom kit. You will be much happier.

It's interesting that you can surmise that he "obviously" bought a bike with predetermined parts.
Moreover, so what? His problem doesn't sound like it has anything to do with whether the parts were
"predetermined" or "custom". Parts is parts. Within certain parameters (which most shops understand)
and with a few exceptions (road shifters/mountain fd) most modern parts work together exceptionally
well. If his gearing is a little on the low side then all he has to do is swap the cassette out for
one that isn't quite so low. Or set the bike up for a little loaded touring where those low gears
will come in handy 🙂. As for the occasional grinding sound while shifting, I can't see why the
"predetermined" vs. "custom" dilemma would even come into play. That problem, if there is one, is
more likely to be that his derailleur needs a little adjusting or that his chainline isn't what it
should be or that his shifting style needs a little modification.