# Crud, Mud and stuff



## minnsy (22 Oct 2007)

Cables...have an Spesh Epic and the cables (as with most bikes) run down the underside of frame, under the BB and then along the whatsit and then to the derailleur. And boy do they get covered in stuff... and then the indexing/changing goes all a bit wrong - and that is the most annoying thing I find about MTB'ing in winter (I can put up with rain, mud, fox turd, pretty much anything...but gears not working...)

Option is to re-route the cable (fully enclosed in outer), along the cross bar, and then down the whatsit (note this is a differnent whatsit than the one mentiond above) and to the derailleur, thus potentially keeping the cable mud and glitch free. 

What I want to know is if any like minded mudaholics have done this and whether it made the slightest difference... 

Thoughts... (and getting a Roloff (sp) like my geeky colleague is not an option)


----------



## barq (22 Oct 2007)

Exposed cable routing under the BB on MTBs is prone to problems. Re-routing along the top-tube and down the seat-tube is one option, although you'd need to check if your front mech is top-pull, bottom-pull or both.

An alternative is to keep the existing routing and use a sealed system like Avid's Flakjacket or Transfil's MudLovers Gear Cable Set. (Both are available from online stores like Wiggle.) Sealed routing does make a significant difference for bikes with down-tube cable routing. A friend of mine converted his Epic using the Flakjacket kit a couple of years ago. It seems to work well for him - which I find impressive given the frequently disgusting state of his bike!


----------



## User482 (22 Oct 2007)

I have Transfil mudlover cables on my commuting and mtb bikes. Highly recommended. Like you, I get fed up with having to strip down & lube cables in winter - these beauties solve that problem.

Only problem is that the pack didn't have quite enough outer cable for my MTB - so I just did the rear mech.


----------



## Steve Austin (22 Oct 2007)

Treat it to some new cables. I'm currently using Jagwires which are working reet nice, but flakjackets have worked well for me in the past.

I don't generally get many problems with the downtube routing or the under BB bit. Its the huge tight loop of cable at the rear. A rollamajig or a New XT rear mech will sort this, as the cable loops less


----------



## bonj2 (22 Oct 2007)

<smug>
go full length outer ftw! 
</smug>


----------



## bonj2 (22 Oct 2007)

Steve Austin said:


> I don't generally get many problems with the downtube routing or the under BB bit. Its the huge tight loop of cable at the rear. A rollamajig or a New XT rear mech will sort this, as the cable loops less



or just get a sram x9 or x0. My x9 has a routing thingy on it which effectively makes it so that the cable needs to come in from the front top, which is where it naturally comes from.


----------



## Steve Austin (22 Oct 2007)

but don't Sham parts fall to bits at the mere sight of mud?

And wouldn't that mean buying new shifters as well?

and buying wholly unreliable parts?

and i thought you suggested full length outers, and how do you route them under the BB?


----------



## Steve Austin (22 Oct 2007)

and you do not need to quote each part of your answer Bonj.
four separate answers in your next post will be fine.


----------



## minnsy (22 Oct 2007)

Well, not going to change from XT mech and XTR shifters to SRAM. LBS suggested changing sleeve and cable regularly, rather than a re-route (which make sense) . So it is currently running as smoothly as very smooth thing. 

Will look into Flakjacket and other suggestions - thanks for those...

Back to the mud..


----------



## bonj2 (22 Oct 2007)

Steve Austin said:


> but don't Sham _(sic)_ parts fall to bits at the mere sight of mud?
> 
> And wouldn't that mean buying new shifters as well?
> 
> ...



no, yes, no, and why do they _need_ to go under the BB? Mine just run under the entire length of the top tube and down the seat stay.


----------



## bonj2 (22 Oct 2007)

Steve Austin said:


> and you do not need to quote each part of your answer Bonj.



you mean as in ...



Steve Austin said:


> four separate answers in your next post will be fine.



... this style? why don't you like that?


----------



## Elmer Fudd (23 Oct 2007)

minnsy said:


> Cables...have an Spesh Epic and the cables (as with most bikes) run down the underside of frame, under the BB and then along the whatsit and then to the dérailleur. And boy do they get covered in stuff... and then the indexing/changing goes all a bit wrong - and that is the most annoying thing I find about MTB'ing in winter (I can put up with rain, mud, fox turd, pretty much anything...but gears not working...





barq said:


> Exposed cable routing under the BB on MTBs is prone to problems.


I've always wondered why they route gear cables under the frame on serious M.T.B. bikes when they know that someone who pays that much for a bike isn't going to use it to nip to the shops on a Sunday morn.

I mean, it's gonna get covered in shite, maybe bounced off logs and rocks, so what is the logic behind it ?


----------



## User482 (23 Oct 2007)

Elmer Fudd said:


> I've always wondered why they route gear cables under the frame on serious M.T.B. bikes when they know that someone who pays that much for a bike isn't going to use it to nip to the shops on a Sunday morn.
> 
> I mean, it's gonna get covered in shite, maybe bounced off logs and rocks, so what is the logic behind it ?



On the other hand, top routed cables mean that water and dirt runs down the exposed inner on the seat stay, and then sits in the loop before the rear mech. Pros and cons to both approaches...

But I repeat - it doesn't matter if you use Mudlover cables: the system is completely sealed, and neater and lighter than full length outer.


----------



## barq (23 Oct 2007)

Elmer Fudd said:


> I mean, it's gonna get covered in shite, maybe bounced off logs and rocks, so what is the logic behind it ?



Originally MTB front mechs were the bottom-pull variety, so the easiest way was to route underneath because if you went over the top, a seat tube mounted pulley was needed to change the direction of cable pull.

I suspect that the bottom routing is still in use on some full suspension bikes where cables would foul the rear suspension, or where there is no continuous seat tube to route along (e.g. unconventional Y shaped frames).


----------



## bonj2 (23 Oct 2007)

User482 said:


> On the other hand, top routed cables mean that water and dirt runs down the exposed inner on the seat stay, and then sits in the loop before the rear mech. Pros and cons to both approaches...


Again, not if you have full length outer. The only place my inner is exposed is where it comes out of the ferrule right near the mech, which is pointing downwards, so mud doesn't tend to run into it.



User482 said:


> But I repeat - it doesn't matter if you use Mudlover cables: the system is completely sealed, and neater and lighter than full length outer.



hmmm... probably only lighter by about a couple of grams or so.
Personally I think full length outer is neater than not, as it's simpler - no intermediate ferrules. But personal preference I suppose.
You _could_ have full length mudlover cables...


----------



## Peyote (23 Oct 2007)

minnsy said:


> Well, not going to change from XT mech and XTR shifters to SRAM. LBS suggested changing sleeve and cable regularly, rather than a re-route (which make sense) . So it is currently running as smoothly as very smooth thing.



You could always change your current rear mech for an XT Shadow one, they have routing similar to SRAM mechs so there's no huge loop of cable to catch cr*p in at the back.


----------



## User482 (23 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> Again, not if you have full length outer. The only place my inner is exposed is where it comes out of the ferrule right near the mech, which is pointing downwards, so mud doesn't tend to run into it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I agree - but full length outer is a non-standard mod - I was talking about the cons with the systems as they are designed to be used. There'd be no point to full length mudlovers - defeats the point of the system.

Main problem with full length is you either have to file out the cable stops, or zip tie the outer to the frame.


----------



## User482 (23 Oct 2007)

Peyote said:


> You could always change your current rear mech for an XT Shadow one, they have routing similar to SRAM mechs so there's no huge loop of cable to catch cr*p in at the back.



CRC and Wiggle have them for £35. Bargain!


----------



## bonj2 (23 Oct 2007)

User482 said:


> I agree - but *full length outer is a non-standard mod* - I was talking about the cons with the systems as they are designed to be used. There'd be no point to full length mudlovers - defeats the point of the system.
> 
> Main problem with full length is you either have to file out the cable stops, or zip tie the outer to the frame.


LOL  on _your_ bike maybe...my mtb had FLO as standard


----------



## bonj2 (23 Oct 2007)

User482 said:


> I agree - but full length outer is a non-standard mod - I was talking about the cons with the systems as they are designed to be used. There'd be no point to full length mudlovers - defeats the point of the system.
> 
> Main problem with full length is you either have to file out the cable stops, or zip tie the outer to the frame.



If you had a really narrow round file, the best bet would be to file out just the narrow bit of the cable stop that the ferrule sits against, then they would be exactly like the ones on my bike where the outer fits through. tbh i would probably be looking at doing that if my bike wasn't designed like that.


----------



## User482 (23 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> LOL  on _your_ bike maybe...my mtb had FLO as standard




Come on Bonj - how many bikes are designed for FLO?!


----------



## bonj2 (23 Oct 2007)

User482 said:


> Come on Bonj - how many bikes are designed for FLO?!



well, probably not many- I didn't imply they did, did I?
I'm just saying mine happens to be one that is.


----------



## barq (23 Oct 2007)

I believe you can make the modification with a Dremel. But to be honest I wouldn't bother since the Flakjacket is designed for unmodified cable stops. That said I run a full length outer on my winter bike because it has guides rather than stops. From a gear-shifting-in-the-mud point of view both systems work well.


----------



## bonj2 (23 Oct 2007)

flakjacket?


----------



## barq (23 Oct 2007)

The Avid Flakjacket was one of the suggestions at the start of the thread. It's similar to the Mudlover cables you and User482 were discussing.


----------



## User482 (23 Oct 2007)

barq said:


> The Avid Flakjacket was one of the suggestions at the start of the thread. It's similar to the Mudlover cables you and User482 were discussing.



Of course there's nowt new under the sun - I was using Gore-tex cables 12 years ago!


----------



## goosander (29 Oct 2007)

Not sure that full length outers are a good thing.

One of my bikes has FLO and I find gummed up cables to be much more of a problem on it than my other bike which doesn't. I think this is because most of the crud gets in where the cable terminates on the rear mech which isn't sealed. 

On the bike with standard cables, you can easily detach the rear cable loop and clean it, whereas on the bike with fully enclosed cables you can't clean them easily so the crud just works its way further up the cable.

Do these mud resistant cables people have mentioned have seals to stop crud getting in at the rear mech?


----------



## bonj2 (29 Oct 2007)

goosander said:


> Not sure that full length outers are a good thing.
> 
> One of my bikes has FLO and I find gummed up cables to be much more of a problem on it than my other bike which doesn't. I think this is because most of the crud gets in where the cable terminates on the rear mech which isn't sealed.
> 
> ...



Mine's never suffered from mud getting in at the mech end. Not sure whether it's got a special seal. Think it must have.


----------



## User482 (30 Oct 2007)

goosander said:


> Not sure that full length outers are a good thing.
> 
> One of my bikes has FLO and I find gummed up cables to be much more of a problem on it than my other bike which doesn't. I think this is because most of the crud gets in where the cable terminates on the rear mech which isn't sealed.
> 
> ...



The mudlover cable has a thin plastic sheath that fits snugly over the inner wire and runs through the full length of the outer. It terminates just before the rear mech anchor point so that the cable can travel back & forth to move the mech. There's no sign of any crud getting in.


----------



## Kirstie (6 Nov 2007)

Nokian cable outers. All jointed, metallic and weird looking, and extremely expensive. But they work very well.


----------



## goosander (21 Nov 2007)

User482 said:


> The mudlover cable has a thin plastic sheath that fits snugly over the inner wire and runs through the full length of the outer. It terminates just before the rear mech anchor point so that the cable can travel back & forth to move the mech.



Thats what I thought. Whilst I can see this type of cable preventing crud ingress where a standard cable changes from open to enclosed, I'm not sure that provides much benefit in practice as in my experience the only area where crud is a problem is the rear cable loop.

I'm not sure that a close fitting inner sheath would do any better at keeping out crud at the rear mech end than than the rubber boots etc used on standard cables, so I'm not tempted to splash out £35 or so to find out. At some point though, I'll probably give the new XT shadow mech a try and see if the improved cable routing make a difference.


----------



## User482 (21 Nov 2007)

goosander said:


> Thats what I thought. Whilst I can see this type of cable preventing crud ingress where a standard cable changes from open to enclosed, I'm not sure that provides much benefit in practice as in my experience the only area where crud is a problem is the rear cable loop.
> 
> I'm not sure that a close fitting inner sheath would do any better at keeping out crud at the rear mech end than than the rubber boots etc used on standard cables, so I'm not tempted to splash out £35 or so to find out. At some point though, I'll probably give the new XT shadow mech a try and see if the improved cable routing make a difference.



The main problem I've found with the rear cable loop is dirty water entering from the top - the mudlovers prevent this. All I can go on is my personal experience - they do seem to be much better at keeping the dirt out of the cable than standard ones.

I've just bought a shadow rear mech (my old one was worn out) so time will tell on the effectiveness of the new cable arrangement.


----------



## goosander (21 Nov 2007)

User482, hopefully the shadow mech will help. 

For my hardtail, I've gone for a more drastic solution and ordered a rohloff hub. The cables are full length and being a push pull system it should be more resistant to crud but I'm also considering using silicon sealant or similar to seal the ends of the cables to the shifter & hub.


----------



## User482 (21 Nov 2007)

goosander said:


> User482, hopefully the shadow mech will help.
> 
> For my hardtail, I've gone for a more drastic solution and ordered a rohloff hub. The cables are full length and being a push pull system it should be more resistant to crud but I'm also considering using silicon sealant or similar to seal the ends of the cables to the shifter & hub.




Wow, that really is drastic! Still, your investment should last for years to come.


----------

