And Shimano said, 'Thou Shalt not Cross Chain...."

ugo.santalucia

meanredspider wrote:

Go read a bit about TRIZ - there's a technology flow identified in that which is spookily accurate and can be used to predict where any existing technology will go next (disrupters excepted).

Predictions work and don't work... 15 years ago they forecasted that the flexible display market would be worth billions by 2010... I have not seen a single flexible display for sale as yet...
The same is true for organic electronics... the field of OPV was supposed to be worth billions by 2015 and it's still in its infancy and might not happen at all, seeing how keen Trump is on renewables.

OLED lighting and TVs have happened, it took much longer than anticipated, but they are getting there... mainly thanks (almost solely) to Samsung

darkhairedlord

Garry H wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Makes total sense... di2 was introduced for those who can't shift gear (words from a mechanic I met recently), now they've made it idiotproof

That makes total sense - Di2 puts mechanics out of a job.

He loves it, says it avoids him having to do silly jobs on broken derailleurs/chains and can concentrate on the ones he prefers (and probably charges more for)

Changing inner tubes?

changing the air in the tubes, it goes stale otherwise.

darkhairedlord

bernithebiker wrote:

FWIW, Shimano has told me that this is the 'default' setting, designed to 'minimise chain and sprocket wear', but that it can be disabled.
A bit odd as I thought one of the things that Di2 was being originally sold for was the ability to auto-trim and allow (some) cross chaining.
If you have the Etubes app. Tick
If you have the new Bluetooth EW-WU101 Dfly sender. Tick
If you have the new internal battery BT-DN110. Tick
But because 9150 is not yet compatible with said Etubes app, you cannot access anything, you get an ERROR message.
Shimano says they're 'not ready' yet, and you'll just have to wait.
Pretty crap if you're paying 2.5 grand for a shifting set.

the pain of the early adopters

bernithebiker

darkhairedlord wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

FWIW, Shimano has told me that this is the 'default' setting, designed to 'minimise chain and sprocket wear', but that it can be disabled.
A bit odd as I thought one of the things that Di2 was being originally sold for was the ability to auto-trim and allow (some) cross chaining.
If you have the Etubes app. Tick
If you have the new Bluetooth EW-WU101 Dfly sender. Tick
If you have the new internal battery BT-DN110. Tick
But because 9150 is not yet compatible with said Etubes app, you cannot access anything, you get an ERROR message.
Shimano says they're 'not ready' yet, and you'll just have to wait.
Pretty crap if you're paying 2.5 grand for a shifting set.

the pain of the early adopters

I know. It's not something I normally do, but like a twonk I thought they'd have it sorted this time......

meanredspider

ugo.santalucia wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Go read a bit about TRIZ - there's a technology flow identified in that which is spookily accurate and can be used to predict where any existing technology will go next (disrupters excepted).

Predictions work and don't work... 15 years ago they forecasted that the flexible display market would be worth billions by 2010... I have not seen a single flexible display for sale as yet...
The same is true for organic electronics... the field of OPV was supposed to be worth billions by 2015 and it's still in its infancy and might not happen at all, seeing how keen Trump is on renewables.

OLED lighting and TVs have happened, it took much longer than anticipated, but they are getting there... mainly thanks (almost solely) to Samsung

You've read about TRIZ....? From your response, I'd say no but I might have misunderstood.

Hinaultscrapcousin

Well he did specifically name Samsung so maybe..?

I've spent a lot of time with people being told they have lung cancer, I really hope your daughter gets well as soon as possible.

StillGoing

Shortfall wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Bobbinogs wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Makes total sense... di2 was introduced for those who can't shift gear (words from a mechanic I met recently), now they've made it idiotproof

Not really true in this day and age though is it. SRAM is built to be able to cross chain without damage to the derailleurs. Yes it puts extra resistance on the chain line, but for that momentary extra gear when going up a short climb rather than changing down on the front, its perfectly acceptable these days. ...

Only really acceptable (in my book) if you also accept the fact that you greatly increase the risk of a broken chain. Far better to read the road (as in, there's a big hill) and shift accordingly. A setup should be able to deal with cross chaining in case of user error, but that doesn't mean it should be used as routine practice.

I'm not talking about a big hill that you know is coming. This is those situations where you get a temporary rise the in the incline, that takes a minute or two to get over and where cross chaining for that short time, is preferable to messing about changing on the front and the back to get the right gear. SRAM designed their group sets with just such a scenario in mind so there is no chain rub on the derailleur.

Yes, because moving 2 levers a fraction of an inch is such a faff. Or not.

If only it were that simple. :roll:

shortfall

philthy3 wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Bobbinogs wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Makes total sense... di2 was introduced for those who can't shift gear (words from a mechanic I met recently), now they've made it idiotproof

Not really true in this day and age though is it. SRAM is built to be able to cross chain without damage to the derailleurs. Yes it puts extra resistance on the chain line, but for that momentary extra gear when going up a short climb rather than changing down on the front, its perfectly acceptable these days. ...

Only really acceptable (in my book) if you also accept the fact that you greatly increase the risk of a broken chain. Far better to read the road (as in, there's a big hill) and shift accordingly. A setup should be able to deal with cross chaining in case of user error, but that doesn't mean it should be used as routine practice.

I'm not talking about a big hill that you know is coming. This is those situations where you get a temporary rise the in the incline, that takes a minute or two to get over and where cross chaining for that short time, is preferable to messing about changing on the front and the back to get the right gear. SRAM designed their group sets with just such a scenario in mind so there is no chain rub on the derailleur.

Yes, because moving 2 levers a fraction of an inch is such a faff. Or not.

If only it were that simple. :roll:

Isn't it?

dennisn

Flasher wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Makes total sense... di2 was introduced for those who can't shift gear (words from a mechanic I met recently), now they've made it idiotproof

so all of the pro peloton then :roll:

They ride what they're told to ride, there is no choice.

Also I would mention that simply because you're a pro rider, this doesn't mean you can't be an idiot too.

DavidJB

Bobbinogs wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Makes total sense... di2 was introduced for those who can't shift gear (words from a mechanic I met recently), now they've made it idiotproof

Not really true in this day and age though is it. SRAM is built to be able to cross chain without damage to the derailleurs. Yes it puts extra resistance on the chain line, but for that momentary extra gear when going up a short climb rather than changing down on the front, its perfectly acceptable these days. ...

Only really acceptable (in my book) if you also accept the fact that you greatly increase the risk of a broken chain. Far better to read the road (as in, there's a big hill) and shift accordingly. A setup should be able to deal with cross chaining in case of user error, but that doesn't mean it should be used as routine practice.

Ride 12,000 miles a year including racing every week, regularly cross chain because I'm lazy...had 1 broken chain in my 9 years on a bike.

shortfall

DavidJB wrote:

Bobbinogs wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Makes total sense... di2 was introduced for those who can't shift gear (words from a mechanic I met recently), now they've made it idiotproof

Not really true in this day and age though is it. SRAM is built to be able to cross chain without damage to the derailleurs. Yes it puts extra resistance on the chain line, but for that momentary extra gear when going up a short climb rather than changing down on the front, its perfectly acceptable these days. ...

Only really acceptable (in my book) if you also accept the fact that you greatly increase the risk of a broken chain. Far better to read the road (as in, there's a big hill) and shift accordingly. A setup should be able to deal with cross chaining in case of user error, but that doesn't mean it should be used as routine practice.

Ride 12,000 miles a year including racing every week, regularly cross chain because I'm lazy...had 1 broken chain in my 9 years on a bike.

Without knowing how often you change your chains and cassettes, what type you use and what kind of lubrication and maintenance regime you have, it's impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions. You may be benefitting from the expensive luxury of being able to run new chains the whole time or maybe you've just been lucky? Either way, it still doesn't mean that crossing your chain is a good idea if you want to extend the lifespan and prevent breakages and premature wear in the whole of your drivetrain.

bianchimoon

dennisn wrote:

Flasher wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Makes total sense... di2 was introduced for those who can't shift gear (words from a mechanic I met recently), now they've made it idiotproof

so all of the pro peloton then :roll:

They ride what they're told to ride, there is no choice.

Also I would mention that simply because you're a pro rider, this doesn't mean you can't be an idiot too.

The quote was the idiots who can't change gear not 'generic' idiots in the pro peloton

bianchimoon

Flasher wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Makes total sense... di2 was introduced for those who can't shift gear (words from a mechanic I met recently), now they've made it idiotproof

so all of the pro peloton then :roll:

They ride what they're told to ride, there is no choice.

yeah right :roll: tell that to Cancellara and Hesjedal last year who favoured mechanical groupset over electronic

ugo.santalucia

bianchimoon wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Flasher wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Makes total sense... di2 was introduced for those who can't shift gear (words from a mechanic I met recently), now they've made it idiotproof

so all of the pro peloton then :roll:

They ride what they're told to ride, there is no choice.

Also I would mention that simply because you're a pro rider, this doesn't mean you can't be an idiot too.

The quote was the idiots who can't change gear not 'generic' idiots in the pro peloton

There was no idiot in the original statement... it said "those who can't shift gear"... of which there are many... some of them are idiots and try to do stupid things too, some of them are not

bianchimoon

ugo.santalucia wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Flasher wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Makes total sense... di2 was introduced for those who can't shift gear (words from a mechanic I met recently), now they've made it idiotproof

so all of the pro peloton then :roll:

They ride what they're told to ride, there is no choice.

Also I would mention that simply because you're a pro rider, this doesn't mean you can't be an idiot too.

The quote was the idiots who can't change gear not 'generic' idiots in the pro peloton

There was no idiot in the original statement... it said "those who can't shift gear"... of which there are many... some of them are idiots and try to do stupid things too, some of them are not

I apologise, speed replying to dennis's statement

fat daddy

not sure I believe in cross chaining anymore ..... don't get me wrong, I believe its possible to go from small to small or big to big ... I just don't believe its the spawn of the devil.

(1) Yes 34-11 does angle the chain more and it probably wears quicker .. but then 34-12 wears it quicker and so does 34-13 .. infact any angle other than a straight line will increase the wear .... so why is 34:11 unacceptable and not 34:14

(2) single speeds ... the majority position the single ring on a standard crank with standard spacing, so at one extreme there will be a "cross" ... 1xdrive chains are not causing excess breakages

(3) Sram make a front deurailure that has "yaw" to account for "cross chaining" and keep the derailure out of the way of the chain ... kind of goes a long way to saying its not really an issue

It think cross chaining probably harks back to ye olde days where chains were made of coal and this ingrained belief that its wrong is just another hangup of cyclists unable to move with the times .. but its the way its always been done

bernithebiker

fat daddy wrote:

not sure I believe in cross chaining anymore ..... don't get me wrong, I believe its possible to go from small to small or big to big ... I just don't believe its the spawn of the devil.

(1) Yes 34-11 does angle the chain more and it probably wears quicker .. but then 34-12 wears it quicker and so does 34-13 .. infact any angle other than a straight line will increase the wear .... so why is 34:11 unacceptable and not 34:14

(2) single speeds ... the majority position the single ring on a standard crank with standard spacing, so at one extreme there will be a "cross" ... 1xdrive chains are not causing excess breakages

(3) Sram make a front deurailure that has "yaw" to account for "cross chaining" and keep the derailure out of the way of the chain ... kind of goes a long way to saying its not really an issue

It think cross chaining probably harks back to ye olde days where chains were made of coal and this ingrained belief that its wrong is just another hangup of cyclists unable to move with the times .. but its the way its always been done

1) because a chain can bend laterally only so much. The more you displace it the more stress there is on it. 34:11 is significantly worse than 34:14

2) If you mean single chain ring, a la 1 x 11, then this chainring is set to be right in the middle of the cassette, not to one side like a double would be (eg. 50 to the right, 34 to the left)

3) Yes, SRAM are less concerned about cross chaining than Shimano. Me too, it's no big deal worth losing too much sleep over, but it seems that the new 9100 and 9150 'Shadow' rear mechs have less ability to take up chain slack than before. Therefore it SEEMS (it's early days yet) that it's more a question of chain tension than traditional 'cross-chaining'.

shortfall

fat daddy wrote:

not sure I believe in cross chaining anymore ..... don't get me wrong, I believe its possible to go from small to small or big to big ... I just don't believe its the spawn of the devil.

(1) Yes 34-11 does angle the chain more and it probably wears quicker .. but then 34-12 wears it quicker and so does 34-13 .. infact any angle other than a straight line will increase the wear .... so why is 34:11 unacceptable and not 34:14

(2) single speeds ... the majority position the single ring on a standard crank with standard spacing, so at one extreme there will be a "cross" ... 1xdrive chains are not causing excess breakages

(3) Sram make a front deurailure that has "yaw" to account for "cross chaining" and keep the derailure out of the way of the chain ... kind of goes a long way to saying its not really an issue

It think cross chaining probably harks back to ye olde days where chains were made of coal and this ingrained belief that its wrong is just another hangup of cyclists unable to move with the times .. but its the way its always been done

Surely it's just common sense to try and avoid cross chaining for the obvious reason that you're putting load through the drive train in a way that is going to to increase friction and stress at precisely the point where the chain is least able to absorb the load? I don't think this has anything to to do with being stuck in the past or not wanting to move with the times but just possessing some basic mechanical sympathy?

dannbodge

I cross chain quite a lot but only for short sharp climbs (50-28), mainly because I find it faster to grind up the hills than I do to spin up them.
I rarely cross chain the other way though (34-11).