Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

Changing gearing affecting singlespeed chain tension

Started by Sheldon Brown · · Last activity · 2 posts · 530 views

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
24 September 2006
Last activity
24 September 2006
Original author
Sheldon Brown
Posts
2
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
530
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–2 of 2
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Anthony DeLorenzo wrote:

    "I have a vertical dropout frame I converted to singlespeed. I lucked
    into a 40 x 18 combination that yields ideal chain tension, to the
    point where I had to tweak the chainring bolts to eliminate those last
    few binding sections.

    "I want lower gearing for the winter. According to Sheldon, I could add

    one link and go to a 36x18 or add two links and go to a 32x18 or maybe
    a 36x22. http://sheldonbrown.com/singlespeed.html#vertical "

    That's AWFULLY low gearing. How about 39/19, or even 38/20.

    "My question: How exact is this formula (1 link = 4 teeth)?"

    As others have pointed out, it isn't _perfectly_ accurate because it
    doesn't take into account the changing angle of the upper/lower chain
    run, but this is a pretty small effect. In any case, going to lower
    gears would only make it slightly looser.

    Peter Chisholm suggested:

    "Why not get a chain tensioner...easy, quick and not expensive or make
    one out of 1/2 of an old RDER..single speed...no problem and you can
    use any combo you want."

    I can't agree. It's true that pulley type tensioners work after a
    fashion, but they're really mono-buttocked and kludgy. Also, it is
    possible to have chain jump when using sprockets not intended for
    derailer use, if you have a spring loaded tensioner.

    Sheldon "Dunno Why Google Groups's Quoting Stopped Working" Brown
    +----------------------------------------------------+
    | A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of |
    | explanation. --H.H.Munro ("Saki"😉(1870-1916) |
    +----------------------------------------------------+
    Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
    Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
    http://harriscyclery.com
    Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
    http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

  2. Sheldon Brown said:

    Anthony DeLorenzo wrote:

    "I have a vertical dropout frame I converted to singlespeed. I lucked
    into a 40 x 18 combination that yields ideal chain tension, to the
    point where I had to tweak the chainring bolts to eliminate those last
    few binding sections.

    "I want lower gearing for the winter.

    A 40/18 is a pretty low gear. 58" by my calculator. Are you talking
    about commuting in snow? For that, yes, maybe you would want something
    lower, but depending on where you live that might be a sometime thing.

    To minimize the incompatibility, I would switch both sides, say a 42/20
    or 44/21, depending on how much smaller you wanted the gear to be, rather
    than just downsizing the chainring. There, the 4-teeth/link calculation
    will break down, since you are changing the chain angle too much. Of
    course, you will need a new chain in that case, but those are the breaks.
    You might just add a link, consisting of one inner link plus a second
    master link, and that way you can remove it and go back to the 40/18 for
    warmer weather.

    But my rain bike is a 48/20, bigger than your gear, and I live in hilly
    country. Anything smaller would be really slow, IMO. My dry-weather
    commuter has a 48/19 fixed (or an 18; it's a double-sided hub).

    --

    David L. Johnson

    __o | Deserves death! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve
    _`\(,_ | death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to
    (_)/ (_) | them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.
    -- J. R. R. Tolkein

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.