Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

Fixed gear chainrings -- how round is round enough?

Started by kevinkiller · · Last activity · 9 posts · 623 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
20 May 2005
Last activity
7 June 2005
Original author
kevinkiller
Posts
9
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
623
Views / 30 days
0

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

Showing posts 1–9 of 9
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Hi,

    I've just finished converting my commuter bike to fixed gear and since it
    has vertical dropouts I had to be very careful about choosing the right
    chainring/sprocket combos to give me the gear-inches and chain length I
    needed. It turns out that 42/15 with 49 links @ 73.2 gear-inches and 41/14
    with 48.5 links (you can buy a half-link) @ 76.6 gear-inches both have a
    chain length of 43.792 cm which works great on my Jamis Aurora frame with
    just a litte bit of filing in the drop-outs.

    So I have a road double crank with the 42/41 chainrings, a fixed/fixed hub
    with the 14/15 sprockets, a chain with 2 power-links and 2 small sections of
    chain; one with the half-link and one without. To change gears I have to
    flip-flop the wheel and then swap the small section of chain using the 2
    power-links. I know, I know it's not as nice as a bike with horizontal
    dropouts, but it serves me.

    Taking Sheldon Brown's advice
    http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/chainrings/130.html#rocket I got rocket rings
    in 41 & 42.

    Now I notice that when I'm using the 41/14 combo that the chainring is out
    of round by about 1 to 1.5 mm. This is enough to cause a pretty big change
    in chain tension as the crank rotates. The transition from loose to tight
    tension causes the chain's vibration frequency to ramp up very quickly and
    can be felt in the pedals as a kind of grinding sensation.

    In the 42/15, the problem still exists but to much smaller extent.

    So finally to the question: Is it reasonable for chainrings to be out of
    round this much? My LBS guy seems to think so, but I can't see how
    chainrings made especially for singlespeed, fixed gear, or bmx bikes can get
    away with this much slop. What do you think?

    Do I have to live with it or do you think I'll have better luck if I order
    another 41T. Sheldon says my choices are either: Sugino, Vuelta, or Rocket
    Ring. Are any one of these manufacture's rings more likely to be more round
    than another?

    Thanks,

    J.

  2. kevinkiller said:

    Hi,

    Now I notice that when I'm using the 41/14 combo that the chainring is out
    of round by about 1 to 1.5 mm.


    Are you sure all the bolts are centered in their holes? In other words,
    that the ring is exactly centered on the spider?

  3. kevinkiller said:


    Now I notice that when I'm using the 41/14 combo that the chainring is out
    of round by about 1 to 1.5 mm. This is enough to cause a pretty big change
    in chain tension as the crank rotates. The transition from loose to tight
    tension causes the chain's vibration frequency to ramp up very quickly and
    can be felt in the pedals as a kind of grinding sensation.

    That's a long way out of round; assuming you've tried it in all 5
    positions and done the usual trick of getting the bolts thumb tight
    and turning it to find a sweet spot (the ring might float a little,
    though if it's well made and the base circle is snug on the spider
    shoulders, this should be negligible), then I'd send it back. Based on
    my experience with screw adjusters on my horizontal dropouts (a
    quarter turn on a M4 screw is a lot of difference in chain tension),
    I'd want chainrings to have a radial runout of less than 0.1mm.

    I'd also expect the runout tolerance on the spider shoulders of track
    cranks to be about the same, but there's no need for such close
    tolerance on a road crank, and this might be contributing to the
    problem. You don't say which crank you're using, but I doubt if
    low-end square taper cranks are very accurately made.
    Kinky Cowboy*

    *Batteries not included
    May contain traces of nuts
    Your milage may vary

  4. kevinkiller said:

    So finally to the question: Is it reasonable for chainrings to be


    out of

    Quoted message said:

    round this much? My LBS guy seems to think so, but I can't see how
    chainrings made especially for singlespeed, fixed gear, or bmx bikes


    can get

    Quoted message said:

    away with this much slop. What do you think?

    I think you should use some sort of a tool, never fingers, while
    checking chain tightness for the purpose of adjusting chainrings for
    roundness, so that your digits don't get sucked into the space between
    chain and rotating cog/chainwheel teeth. I think you should never
    forget to use a tool for this job. Or they'll start calling you
    "Stumpy" or something else you'd prefer not to be known as.

    More Sheldon, and this roundness adjustment drill is what they showed
    me when I was brand-newbie at the track:

    http://sheldonbrown.com/fixedb.html#tension

    IME, works well on Campy and SugiNo.

    Chainline: For winter bikes especially, I've used total [censored] old
    worn-out cogs, chains, chainwheels on fixed, chainlines off by miles,
    and chain run loose so it would run <g>, all without tossing a chain.
    Since seeing a couple of thrown chains at the velodrome, I don't do it
    that way anymore. Sheldon has good chainline info, if you haven't
    checked it out. Also (John Dacey's Business Cycles, track supply
    specialist/frequent contributor to r.b.t.):

    <http://www.businesscycles.com/tr-refspec.htm>

    BTW, I had an already kinked metric steel tape lying about that I broke
    a couple of short sections off right at "10" mm lines; that made it
    easy to measure to tube and cog/chain centers.
    I just realized you didn't mention chainline problems, so 'scuse please
    if you've already got that set. --D-y

  5. Jay S. Hill said:
    kevinkiller said:

    Hi,

    Now I notice that when I'm using the 41/14 combo that the chainring is
    out
    of round by about 1 to 1.5 mm.

    Are you sure all the bolts are centered in their holes? In other words,
    that the ring is exactly centered on the spider?

    Jay,

    Thanks for the reply. To answer your question, yes. I've tried the
    Sheldon Brown loosen the crank bolts and bang the chain. That may work
    for 1/4 mm or so, but I'm talking 1 to 1 1/2 mm ... there is no where
    near the kind of slop in the chainring holes.

    John.

  6. jack sprat said:
    Kinky Cowboy said:
    kevinkiller said:

    Now I notice that when I'm using the 41/14 combo that the chainring is out
    of round by about 1 to 1.5 mm. This is enough to cause a pretty big change


    I don't understand how rotating the crank holes through the spider arms
    can make any sort of difference other than moving the tight/loose spot
    relative to the crank arm itself even considering for the possibility of
    out of round spider arms. I suppose if the spider arms were out of
    round as well as the chainring, then I guess you could find an
    orientation that would cancel out. Is that what you mean?

    Yep.

    Quoted message said:


    Does anyone know where I can get a nice round 130 bcd 41T chainring?

    TA do a 130bcd 41t in normal 3/32" format
    Kinky Cowboy*

    *Batteries not included
    May contain traces of nuts
    Your milage may vary

  7. Quoted message said:

    I think you should use some sort of a tool, never fingers, while
    checking chain tightness for the purpose of adjusting chainrings for
    roundness, so that your digits don't get sucked into the space between
    chain and rotating cog/chainwheel teeth. I think you should never
    forget to use a tool for this job. Or they'll start calling you
    "Stumpy" or something else you'd prefer not to be known as.

    Or you could check it by pushing from the outside of the chain, instead of
    the inside. Worst that can happen then is getting sucked through the
    derailer.

    Jasper

  8. Jasper Janssen said:

    Or you could check it by pushing from the outside of the chain, instead of
    the inside. Worst that can happen then is getting sucked through the
    derailer.

    No derailer, this is fixed gear. Checked on top, forward rotation,
    chain taut. Fingers away. --TP

  9. [email hidden] at [email hidden] wrote on 6/7/05 7:04 AM:

    Quoted message said:
    Jasper Janssen said:

    Or you could check it by pushing from the outside of the chain, instead of
    the inside. Worst that can happen then is getting sucked through the
    derailer.

    No derailer, this is fixed gear. Checked on top, forward rotation,
    chain taut. Fingers away. --TP

    I usually squeeze the top and bottom chain run together about midway between
    the chainring and rear sprocket (from the outside). No/Little give = good.
    Start with the driveside crank at 12 o'clock, turn quarter turn - squeeze -
    turn quarter turn - squeeze - turn quarter turn - squeeze. That usually
    ferrets out any binding or looseness.

    Just make sure the ferrets don't get on the inside of the chain. Big mess.

    -- Jim

    --

    CycloFiend

    to reply directly, replace the dashes to create the name above

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.