Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

triple chain line question

Started by Reid Priedhorsky · · Last activity · 7 posts · 775 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 2007
Last activity
22 May 2007
Original author
Reid Priedhorsky
Posts
7
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
775
Views / 30 days
0

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

Showing posts 1–7 of 7
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Hi folks,

    Is it possible to rig a triple crankset such that the large ring has okay
    chainline to all the cogs and only the middle and lower are restricted?

    If so, how many cogs could I expect to lose due to chainline issues on the
    middle and lower rings?

    I measured my current triple, and while the derailer cage itself has 7-8mm
    to go before it bumps the seat tube, there is a roller with only 1-2mm
    left.

    Many thanks,

    Reid

  2. Reid Priedhorsky said:

    Hi folks,

    Is it possible to rig a triple crankset such that the large ring has okay
    chainline to all the cogs and only the middle and lower are restricted?

    If so, how many cogs could I expect to lose due to chainline issues on the
    middle and lower rings?

    I measured my current triple, and while the derailer cage itself has 7-8mm
    to go before it bumps the seat tube, there is a roller with only 1-2mm
    left.

    You'll need to move the crankset inwards by using a BB with a shorter
    spindle. I think you'll find the biggest problem in doing this isn't
    the deraileurs, but the inner chainring rubbing the right chainstay.

    Cheers

    Joel

    --
    Human Powered Cycles | High quality servicing
    [email hidden] | Low cost 2nd hand bikes
    www.humanpowered.com.au | Bicycle re-use centre

  3. Joel Mayes said:
    Reid Priedhorsky said:

    Hi folks,

    Is it possible to rig a triple crankset such that the large ring has okay
    chainline to all the cogs and only the middle and lower are restricted?

    If so, how many cogs could I expect to lose due to chainline issues on the
    middle and lower rings?

    I measured my current triple, and while the derailer cage itself has 7-8mm
    to go before it bumps the seat tube, there is a roller with only 1-2mm
    left.

    You'll need to move the crankset inwards by using a BB with a shorter
    spindle. I think you'll find the biggest problem in doing this isn't
    the deraileurs, but the inner chainring rubbing the right chainstay.

    Cheers

    Joel


    I think this setup would want a longer range mountain bike dérailleur in
    the rear to cover the extra range. I tried a 22-36-58 front with a 14-39
    rear (Antique Sun Tour Alpine gear) and found that at the limits the
    chain was either way loose (22/14) or bound up (58/39), even though
    those gears don't make much sense. It was Ebay's fault for putting such
    tempting bike stuff up there.
    Off set is a real problem since I have found at least 3 different
    offsets on square mount crank sets. I have one that is a real odd duck
    that has the square hole turned 45 degrees from the normal.
    If you want to experiment, spend a little on some stuff from Ebay, but
    be careful to ask if the individual chain rings are changeable and not
    just a Chinese tack weld.
    Ride, mechanic, ride some more, repeat.
    Bill Baka

  4. Bill said:
    Joel Mayes said:
    Reid Priedhorsky said:

    Hi folks,

    Is it possible to rig a triple crankset such that the large ring has okay
    chainline to all the cogs and only the middle and lower are restricted?

    If so, how many cogs could I expect to lose due to chainline issues on the
    middle and lower rings?

    I measured my current triple, and while the derailer cage itself has 7-8mm
    to go before it bumps the seat tube, there is a roller with only 1-2mm
    left.

    You'll need to move the crankset inwards by using a BB with a shorter
    spindle. I think you'll find the biggest problem in doing this isn't
    the deraileurs, but the inner chainring rubbing the right chainstay.

    Cheers

    Joel


    I think this setup would want a longer range mountain bike dérailleur in
    the rear to cover the extra range. I tried a 22-36-58 front with a 14-39
    rear (Antique Sun Tour Alpine gear) and found that at the limits the
    chain was either way loose (22/14) or bound up (58/39), even though
    those gears don't make much sense. It was Ebay's fault for putting such
    tempting bike stuff up there.

    I think the OP wanted to be able to use all the rear cogs with the outside
    chainring while maintaining a reasonable chainline. Nothing was said about
    the size of the rings being used (could be running 36,37,38 chainrings for
    all we know).

    Cheers

    Joel

    --
    Human Powered Cycles | High quality servicing
    [email hidden] | Low cost 2nd hand bikes
    www.humanpowered.com.au | Bicycle re-use centre

  5. Joel Mayes said:


    I think the OP wanted to be able to use all the rear cogs with the outside
    chainring while maintaining a reasonable chainline. Nothing was said about
    the size of the rings being used (could be running 36,37,38 chainrings for
    all we know).

    Yes, something like 46-36-24 with a 12-34 or somesuch in the back. Right
    now I have 52-42-30, and with an 11-32 in the back I don't have too much
    use for the 52-tooth chainring, but a lower granny would be great.

    I guess the main question is, how can I know how short a BB I can get away
    with before buying one and trying it out?

    Thanks and take care,

    Reid

  6. Reid Priedhorsky said:
    Joel Mayes said:


    I think the OP wanted to be able to use all the rear cogs with the outside
    chainring while maintaining a reasonable chainline. Nothing was said about
    the size of the rings being used (could be running 36,37,38 chainrings for
    all we know).

    Yes, something like 46-36-24 with a 12-34 or somesuch in the back. Right
    now I have 52-42-30, and with an 11-32 in the back I don't have too much
    use for the 52-tooth chainring, but a lower granny would be great.

    I guess the main question is, how can I know how short a BB I can get away
    with before buying one and trying it out?

    Thanks and take care,

    Reid

    Measure the current clearnance + current BB length and do some math :-)
    There are two many variables to get an answer here

    You do need to think about why you want to do this though, I can't see
    any advantage in using the outer chainring of a triple predominately.

    Cheers

    Joel
    --
    Human Powered Cycles | High quality servicing
    [email hidden] | Low cost 2nd hand bikes
    www.humanpowered.com.au | Bicycle re-use centre

  7. Joel Mayes said:
    Reid Priedhorsky said:
    Joel Mayes said:

    I think the OP wanted to be able to use all the rear cogs with the outside
    chainring while maintaining a reasonable chainline. Nothing was said about
    the size of the rings being used (could be running 36,37,38 chainrings for
    all we know).


    Yes, something like 46-36-24 with a 12-34 or somesuch in the back. Right
    now I have 52-42-30, and with an 11-32 in the back I don't have too much
    use for the 52-tooth chainring, but a lower granny would be great.

    I guess the main question is, how can I know how short a BB I can get away
    with before buying one and trying it out?

    Thanks and take care,

    Reid

    Measure the current clearnance + current BB length and do some math :-)
    There are two many variables to get an answer here

    You do need to think about why you want to do this though, I can't see
    any advantage in using the outer chainring of a triple predominately.

    Cheers

    Joel

    I have to side with the math solution since I have seen too many
    variables on BB length and cranks.
    A 52/11 is only good at my strength level for extra speed on downhills
    and even that is questionable. On the flat roads it is good for maybe a
    really lazy 10 MPH while still building up some strength in the legs.
    A cadence of only 25-30 is a bit low, but good for those lazy days.
    Bill Baka

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.