Small to small big to big

[GrumpyGregry]

The chain is a different thickness

As you increase the number of cogs in the same space, the distance between becomes smaller, and to tuck into that space the chain width decreases.

This is achieved with narrower rollers, but also narrower plates. narrower means a loss of lateral stiffness

This picture shows a single speed chain, and a multi speed chain next to each other

and the loss of lateral stiffness does what for efficiency when riding crossed up?

and what level of inefficiency are we talking vs middle of the block? 10%? 1%? .1%? .01% and what level of inefficiency is material to people who ride bikes vs cyclists vs Cyclists?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Only in your head though. I think it's fairly clear from my post #26 that the antonym of 'good' I was thinking of was 'ineffective' or 'inefficient'. Whereas you, in post #40, introduced from nowhere the concept of 'evil' as the antonym of good. Hmmm.

efficient = good
marginally less efficient by a vanishingly small margin = bad

It's a valid pov.

 

[Dogtrousers]

By the way, SRAM advertise 22 useable gears with their 2x11

Now, if you read the road ahead, and change at the front accordingly it shouldn't be necessary, but if you don't then - in that case at least - you'd be within the manufacturer's guidelines.

 

[Ajax Bay]

Just ride your bike.

My post was designed to demonstrate that I had just ridden my bike.

am I meant to be impressed or cowed?
Playing the "I ride a long way therefore I know of what I speak and unless you ride a long way you know nothing" card seems a bit Cyclist to me.

Cowed, but you're imagining the card being played. I might have just done a club run. Everyone can aspire to being a Cyclist, if by that you mean taking an interest and pride in cycling efficiently and enjoying themselves. I'm sure you so aspire.

 

[Justinslow]

I don't see how cross chaining would put your mech into the spokes. That sounds to me like your low limit screw was not set properly. Surely cross chaining would, if anything, pull the mech slightly away from the spokes.

I'm not advocating it, mind.

Dunno, it hadn't been an issue up to that point and I had done several TT's on that same route using the same technique, whether I hit a pot hole at the exact time I crunched up to the biggest ring on the back or whether the bike was flexing badly at that moment (entirely possible as its a cheap carbon) or the screw could have been adjusted incorrectly, I don't know. But the LBS said that the likely cause was cross chaining AND giving it the beans up a hill, just crap riding really, now I know better I will use the little ring on the front if I know it's going to be a heavy hill, the biggest ring on the rear is only for pootling, definitely not for "high load" situations.

 

[ufkacbln]

The last time I broke a chain it was a pair of ladies' knickers!

Early morning through the waterfront near Fareham, when my drive just locked, damaging the Rohloff chain tensioner and the chain snapped.

On inspection there was a pair of Sloggi knickers wraped up in the remains!

 

[slowmotion]

If you take force vectors for a 3 degree out of alignment chain, I think that you'll find that 99.863% of the force is transmitted compared to a perfectly aligned one.
I'd be worried sick.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

My post was designed to demonstrate that I had just ridden my bike.

Cowed, but you're imagining the card being played. I might have just done a club run. Everyone can aspire to being a Cyclist, if by that you mean taking an interest and pride in cycling efficiently and enjoying themselves. I'm sure you so aspire.

99.999% of people who ride bikes don't aspire to being a Cyclist. Most cyclists don't even aspire to being Cyclists.

Self included.

The whole cycling efficiently thing in this context is beyond parody. Elitist "you are doing it all wrong" nonsense.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

If you take force vectors for a 3 degree out of alignment chain, I think that you'll find that 99.863% of the force is transmitted compared to a perfectly aligned one.
I'd be worried sick.

To be fair, over long distances, or at the limits of human performance on a bike, or both, the missing 0.1whatever could make a significant difference. 100km vs 99.863km, for instance. Which one might overcome by giving it some beans over the last km. Or losing weight. Or etc..

But for the avg poster in cc, not so much.

 

[slowmotion]

To be fair, over long distances, or at the limits of human performance on a bike, or both, the missing 0.1whatever could make a significant difference. 100km vs 99.863km, for instance. Which one might overcome by giving it some beans over the last km. Or losing weight. Or etc..

But for the avg poster in cc, not so much.

Yebbut, personally I'm not aiming at the limits of human performance. I'm an old git bumbling about on a bike blissfully unconcerned about my chain line and it's terrible, shocking inelegance.

 

[lutonloony]

If you take force vectors for a 3 degree out of alignment chain, I think that you'll find that 99.863% of the force is transmitted compared to a perfectly aligned one.
I'd be worried sick.

I need all the help I can get, that missing .137% could be the straw that breaks the camel's back

 

[slowmotion]

I need all the help I can get, that missing .137% could be the straw that breaks the camel's back

You and me both...

 

[raleighnut]

Does cross chaining have a moral dimension?

Once upon a time, in the early days of multispeed freewheels there may have been good technical reasons to avoid it. But things have since moved on.

Flat tyres, cross chained, bso, slack chain, poor technique, etc, dont care so long as they are riding bikes.

Cross chaining only became an issue once you went beyond 6 gears on the back, in the 'early days' of 10spd 'racers we used the whole lot.

 

[ufkacbln]

To be fair, over long distances, or at the limits of human performance on a bike, or both, the missing 0.1whatever could make a significant difference. 100km vs 99.863km, for instance. Which one might overcome by giving it some beans over the last km. Or losing weight. Or etc..

But for the avg poster in cc, not so much.

Or taking corners differently


My commute is mainly right turns on the way in and left turns on the way home. The Garmin consistently shows the route home to be shorter

Taking the shortest route across a corner (a racing line), as opposed to following slavishly to my side of the road on corners and taking roundabouts the wrong way would save me a fair distance

How far do we take this "Good Practice" and efficiency?

Here is a classic example where the professional take the roundabout onthe wrong side illustrating how professionals would efficiently take a roundabout

 

[Ajax Bay]

Cross chaining only became an issue once you went beyond 6 gears on the back, in the 'early days' of 10spd 'racers we used the whole lot.

And the cassettes got wider and wider and cross chaining angles got greater and greater. On a 5 speed block the angle 'fully cross chained' was only 1.8 degrees.
And what about the wear? So little attention to the wear. It's not all about efficiency, you know, it fact that's the side benefit to sensible avoidance of cross chaining.