custom chainring for reduced chain drop?
Comments
-
That's two more ruined angels, good for you.ricardo_smooth wrote:Yes. It allows the growt as it the suspension platform coupeled with the correct chain length. Hence why your chain has the same chance of a snap with a clutch mech as a normal one. Why have there not been tons of chain snaps as a result of people fitting clutch mechs if this wasn't true?
VPP, virtual pivot point, is used on (very nearly) all non single-pivot bikes. It just means that the pivot isn't a real, physical one.
However, you also get chain growth on single pivot bikes. It's a necessary part of mountain bike suspension philosophy.0 -
You seem upset that I'm putting forward a valid point related to clutch mechs? I was using the patented example of VPP in my example of a design that has lots of chain growth.
I hope the angels can see their sacrifice is for the greater good.0 -
Not at all. I'm annoyed when you start making claims about "VPP", when in fact the range of behaviours that VPP covers is vast, and making generalisations just hints at an incredibly limited knowledge of, and/or misunderstanding of suspension.ricardo_smooth wrote:You seem upset that I'm putting forward a valid point related to clutch mechs0 -
I think he means VPP as in that patented by Santa Cruz and Intense and is not referring to all VPP as used by other designs with 'non-physical pivots'.0
-
100% correct ^^^^^^^^ I'm talking about the platform of which I am familiar with and using the branded name that it goes by. My point has been made more than once as to why I have used the VPP as is found on Santa Cruz bikes in my point. So my 'claims' are in fact right as I am talking about specific Multi linkage design in this particular instance .
I am aware that other Multi linkage platforms have a scientifically named VPP's that cover lots of behaviours and would welcome you to give us a detailed account on all the ins and outs of their design, if you so wish to share your claimed in depth knowledge of all mtb suspension platforms. You are obviously out to show this off and have made an assumption on my posts (which is wide of the mark).0 -
-
YeehaaMcgee wrote:The santacruz system doesn't even have exceptionally large chaingrowth.
Not so much on the newer bikes. The older system did, so I suppose my use of the words 'horrendous chain growth' are also wide of the mark. APP suffers much more.0 -
Look, it depends on the design of a particular bike, that's my contention. You can bandy around catchphrases and marketing terms all you want, but each bike design has differing characteristics.0
-
The rest of us understood. Have you a comprehension problem?YeehaaMcgee wrote:Look, it depends on the design of a particular bike, that's my contention. You can bandy around catchphrases and marketing terms all you want, but each bike design has differing characteristics.0 -
As all suspension experiences chain growth except those odd designs where it pivots around the BB shell (kona bass?), damping on the mech should add resistance to the characterstics of all sus bikes. Do you know of a particular design Yeehaa which suffers more than others? And I assume you could adjust the shock to compensate unless it's particularly severe.0
-
I can't abide by this "VPP does this" nonsense. It's baseless crap. Show me that VPP bikes have more chaingrowth than anything else, or GTFO.bennett_346 wrote:
The rest of us understood. Have you a comprehension problem?YeehaaMcgee wrote:Look, it depends on the design of a particular bike, that's my contention. You can bandy around catchphrases and marketing terms all you want, but each bike design has differing characteristics.0 -
I've already told you APP has more (up to 24mm vs VPP up to 17).....I never said it had the largest.0
-
ricardo_smooth wrote:I've already told you APP has more (up to 24mm vs VPP up to 17).....I never said it had the largest.
:roll:0 -
There is only you in this thread who doesn't get it. I have also noticed you are slating these posts, but declining to answer questions asking you to clarify which particular bikes/platforms are problematic.... These seems to be an unpleasant aroma coming from your posts. That wafting smell that Karl Pilkington's fantasy super hero power would be all over
0 -
I suspect it is due to the fact he owns a bike with VPP. He's getting defensive about it despite the fact none of us have slated VPP
Bless.0 -
We almost ALL ride VPP bikes. Basically, everyone except Orange 5s, and Trek ABP designs.bennett_346 wrote:I suspect it is due to the fact he owns a bike with VPP. He's getting defensive about it despite the fact none of us have slated VPP
Bless.
His claim that his bike, or a Santacruz bike has more chaingrowth is baseless nonsense, unless he can back it up with facts, which he can't.
It's a crass generalisation.0 -
And 4 bar.YeehaaMcgee wrote:
We almost ALL ride VPP bikes. Basically, everyone except Orange 5s, and Trek ABP designs.bennett_346 wrote:I suspect it is due to the fact he owns a bike with VPP. He's getting defensive about it despite the fact none of us have slated VPP
Bless.
There are a hell of a lot of bikes that are not a virtual pivot point rear suspension design, enough so that his comment made sense.0 -
More chain growth than what? Where do I say it has more chain growth than A N other? I say it suffers chain growth and my clutch rear mech hasn't caused my chain to snap. A claim that you are making is that clutch mechs cause chain breakage. This makes your claims a baseless nonsense. As do all your posts claiming vast suspension knowledge as you can't back up any of it. I gave a statement based on my experience of Santa Cruz VPP. I didn't need to drivel on about all types of VPP as Aaron knows what bike I ride (as do you if you read the thread properly). I think you wanting to argue clutch mechs are going to make your chain break is the biggest pile of rubbish spouted on this whole thread!0
-
Right here...ricardo_smooth wrote:Where do I say it has more chain growth than A N other?
And I'm saying, it doesn't.ricardo_smooth wrote:VPP suffers horrendous chain growth compared to most suspension platforms
I'm also saying that VPP is something that almost all bikes used, but, even in your context (SantaCruz), I maintain that you're incorrect.
"Suffering" chaingrowth is also a misnomer, it's a necessary part of the design.
And that's it, I'm not fussed about clutch mechs, although I'm dubious why we can suddenly eradicate rotation on a joint that's always been deemed a requirement in the past, and what problem they try to solve. It is conveivable that they could cause issues with some frames, but it's far more likely that the clutch would be knackered before the chain.0 -
I missed this earlier.bluechair84 wrote:As all suspension experiences chain growth except those odd designs where it pivots around the BB shell (kona bass?), damping on the mech should add resistance to the characterstics of all sus bikes. Do you know of a particular design Yeehaa which suffers more than others? And I assume you could adjust the shock to compensate unless it's particularly severe.
I can't think of one off the top of my head, I just suspect it's plausible that there's frames out there that could cause problems.
I was wrong earlier when I mentioned Trek's ABP, as well. That's not actually the bike I was thinking of.
ABP is the one where the chainstay and seatstay-ish link pivot at the axle, isn't it. Hmm. I was trying to remember what that bike is with the swingarm pivoting around the BB.
How much resistance can the clutch provide, and how much does it limit movement?0 -
YeehaaMcgee wrote:How much resistance can the clutch provide, and how much does it limit movement?
The resistance is adjustable, but even on high it's not massive. People describe it as a lockout but that's not the case, it's more like a very stiff spring. TBH I'd doubt it has much effect on suspension movement at all... Only suspension bike I've used one on was a specialized camber though so not a huge amount of chain growth there, wouldn't want to jump to any conclusions off that.
Thing is though these are cropping up on a lot of bikes now and I can't think of anyone ever complaining of it messing with the suspension, anyone else?Uncompromising extremist0 -
If Shimano hadn't called it a clutch (which it isn't) and called it a damper (which it is, all be it a friction damper) maybe people would understand it better.
A clutch when engaged is designed to lock input and output together (though some designes may slip during the engagement process like a conventional manual car clutch) others do not (dog clutch) and some slip only one way (sprag clutch), a damper is designed to add a resistance to motion in one or both directions and this is what the shimano plus mechs have, interesting the very original car dampers were similar (even if the plates were made of leather and required frequant adjustement due to wear), weather the clutch works more in one direction (the one where chain weight will drag the chain down onto the stay) or not, or whether it's designed to have a floodgate style blow-off (during shifts for example) I don't know.Currently riding a Whyte T130C, X0 drivetrain, Magura Trail brakes converted to mixed wheel size (homebuilt wheels) with 140mm Fox 34 Rhythm and RP23 suspension. 12.2Kg.0 -
I've heard of at least one person having issues with a Whyte 146 and a Sram Type 2 mech. Was on here infact http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12864730&p=17724565
I'm sure I've seen something similar on STW as well.0 -
Oh well.peter413 wrote:I've heard of at least one person having issues with a Whyte 146 and a Sram Type 2 mech. Was on here infact http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12864730&p=17724565
I'm sure I've seen something similar on STW as well.I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
peter413 wrote:I've heard of at least one person having issues with a Whyte 146 and a Sram Type 2 mech. Was on here infact http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12864730&p=17724565
Ah, Sram ones, haven't actually played with one of those yet. Are they adjustable for tension?Uncompromising extremist0 -
This is why I imagine you'd be able to dial the damping of the shock to compensate. But I'm not sure I'd want the mech to be taking some of the shock's duties!The Beginner wrote:If Shimano hadn't called it a clutch (which it isn't) and called it a damper (which it is, all be it a friction damper) maybe people would understand it better.
We've side-tracked massively, but I've never heard of any complaints about the mech and it's effects on suspension other than those raised and linked here. And it makes sense to have 'sprung' parts on a bike damped so they aren't flailing around. If it really does affect sus that much, I imagine designers will start taking it into consideration in future.0 -
It doesn't, which was my original point that the suspension design police came in with full riot gear to patrol!0
-
I've tried to keep up with the topic but excuse me if I'm deviating.
I have gone 1x10 and use a non ramped front ring and 'clutch' XTR mech and my bike is also a VPP Santacruz Blur LTc.
On the first two rides it dropped it's chain after some fast bumpy decents (one being a flight of stairs).
I installed a MRP single chain guide and it's not dropped one sinse. The bike is silent over the roughest ground and the clutch has no effect on the suspensions suppleness.
I'm sure the friction on the shock bushings would equate to a lot more force to overcome by the suspension than the clutch (friction plate) in the mech.
I agree that the wear of the clutch is a concern that I'm sure I'll have to resolve in the future.
Will0 -
milfredo wrote:I've tried to keep up with the topic but excuse me if I'm deviating.
Sorry, you've missed the boat on reasoned discussion, were into headbutting and bottling now
Naw, all sounds reasonable to me. I think the people who have experienced a clutch on a particular design (yourself and smoothy) are going to be the ones who can best comment on how it affects it. I myself am moving to SC/I VPP as I've loved it in the past, but won't be going clutch on that in the foreseeable future.
If clutch potentially has a negative impact on suspension, I wonder if it's more pronounced on longer travel...0 -
I don't think it's a cae of having a negative effect on suspension, it's just a possible point of failure, if the mech's movement is being restricted too stringently.bluechair84 wrote:milfredo wrote:I've tried to keep up with the topic but excuse me if I'm deviating.
Sorry, you've missed the boat on reasoned discussion, were into headbutting and bottling now
Naw, all sounds reasonable to me. I think the people who have experienced a clutch on a particular design (yourself and smoothy) are going to be the ones who can best comment on how it affects it. I myself am moving to SC/I VPP as I've loved it in the past, but won't be going clutch on that in the foreseeable future.
If clutch potentially has a negative impact on suspension, I wonder if it's more pronounced on longer travel...
I'm not going to a clutch mech for the foreseeable future, but it has nothing to do with any concerns - I've just got a non-clutch 9-speed XT setup fitted earlier this year, and it's got plenty of life in it yet.
Chances are that the next one I get (in a few years, since they generally last a while) will be a clutch mech.0
