Well heck, if you need to use a device to keep the chain on why not
just use a derailler ? If a shifter and a cable is just too much to deal
with Better off with a single speed. . . lol.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW
Owners Bunc
On Sun, 2011-10-09 at 09:53 -0700, charlie wrote:
> Finally something making a little sense..I can't see any chain
> coming off a chain ring assuming there is tension from the rear
> deraileurI've been scratching my head wondering what the heck all
> the chatter is about. There have been qu
Finally something making a little sense..I can't see any chain
coming off a chain ring assuming there is tension from the rear
deraileurI've been scratching my head wondering what the heck all
the chatter is about. There have been quite a few 1x5's 1x7's 1x9 set
ups made over the years and
Are you using the stock rings on the crankset? If you decide to go the
derailerless route I'd make sure you were using singlespeed specific rings
(which you should be able to get in both 32t and 42t) or old rings from the
era before there were ramps and pins and "profiled" teeth. Having unifor
I hear ya about the bumpity-bump. I don't plan on any major mountain biking,
but it IS a country bike, and China Camp IS part of a loop I ride. Riding one
of the calmer trails there is a possibility, which tells me I'm gonna wish I
had mounted that derailer. Thanks for the feedback, folks.
--
I concur. If you ride the bike only on smooth roads you should be fine, but
if you ride on bumpy surfaces you will eventually drop the chain. I run a
single chainring on my 29er MTB and on my cyclocross racing bikes, with
inner and outer chainguards. Without the guards I would drop chains all the
t
I'm inclined this way, too, at least for shorter distance vehicles:
have my trike set up currently as a 1X7 (the seven sp only because
that's what the thing came with and it's a jolly pain to remove the
freewheel: have to remove the left axle to do so. I expect I'll
eventually go to a 1X5 with 100-
*Why the aversion to a front derailleur? *
**
Simplicity, clean looks, the likelihood that I'll stay in a harder gear
longer instead of downshifting, the chance to stop and stretch at
upshift/downshift points.
*
*
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R
Many years ago, I tried this on a mountain bike. It didn't work well
precisely because of what Allan in Portland mentioned, that is the
normal/routine bumps and jarring can derail the chain, sometimes at
the most inopportune time. Because my mountain bike at that time had
a 11-28, the chain had t
The more I think about it, the more I think it'll work ok. I'm not going to
use a shorter spindle - the BB spec'd for these is already pretty short - so
the two remaining rings will still be in the same position relative to the
freewheel, and I already use the 32 to cover the complete range. I'm
My initial reaction was "I'd be a little wary", but as I think about it, I'm
not sure why. There's no intrinsic reason I can come up with. The FD might
help to keep the chain on, and I do know folks who still have one in place
with a single ring setup to use as a chain keeper.
There are prob
Probably not, but ultimately I think depends on your chain line.
I had a 9 speed cassette with a Sugino 3 ring in front. I moved the outer
ring the center position, put a chain guard on the outer position, and left
off the front derailer. Riding in the middle and large end of the cassette
gears
12 matches
Mail list logo
