Bicycle Mechanics - Weird 22-32-44 crankset question

Hey. I am noticing on my SLX crankset that I tend to use the 32t ring with most of the cogs on the outside of my cassette, which basically means I am running that small ring with correspondingly small cogs -- which might explain why I'm not getting great chain life. (Note: it's a mountain crankset being used on a surly LHT)

Question: Is it at all smart to move the 44t onto the middle position and run this triple as a 22-44 double? I would imagine the front derailleur (the SLX made for the crankset) would shift just about the same, but I thought this might cause problems I'm not considering or something......could I use the outer ring position for a bash guard?

Thanks,:thumb:

Do you have the 44-tooth ring installed now? Why not just shift into it?

Otherwise, your idea is interesting. You'd just have to try it out and see, imho.

Yeah, I have the ring and could just shift to it. I was thinking along the lines of having it in the middle position to get better chainline.

I just tried it and it doesn't quite work with the SLX because of the way the rings are machined. The 44 in the middle lines (the bolts) up too closely to the 22 granny ring and I would imagine I'll get chain rub.

Worth a tinkering try though ;)

I've never understood why some riders insist on using a given chainring when another they already have would work better. Use the 44T ring with the appropriate cogs and get better chain and cog life. Chainline isn't that critical unless it's way off and, as you said, your chain life is already very poor so using the 44T will only make it better.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you hope to gain. As you say, you use the 32t with the outer cassette sprockets indicating that these are favored ratios. How would getting rid of them do you any good? Consider replacing the 44t ring with a bashguard and keeping the 32t, or if you need higher ratios, consider whether you use the 44t with the outermost sprockets.

If you are not using your highest gears - the 44t with the smallest few sprockets - calculate the ratio of the highest gear you do use, and figure what size chainring would duplicate that with the smallest. Odds are you'll find that replacing both the 32t and 44t with something in between like a 38t will give the most usable spread of gears you actually use, and still leave room for a bashguard.

I agree with FBinNY. ditch that 32 and get a 38t atleast. I never understood these compact cranks. on my MTB with a 28, 38, 48 and a 12-28 in the back the 38 ring was perfect for almost everything.

what advantage does a 22, 32, 44 with a 12 (or 11) 26 give you?

Here's a thought: once you figure out what size ring you need, check out a Surly Stainless Steel ring. I know they are available up to 36t. I use them and they are long lasting. Designed for SS, but should work fine in the configuration you are contemplating. I have mine in a 22/35/48 setup for my tourer with 11-34 9spd. the 22 and 35 are Stainlesss.:thumb:

what advantage does a 22, 32, 44 with a 12 (or 11) 26 give you?

Most MTBs come with a 22/32/42 or 22/32/44 and a 11/32 or 11/34 cassette. The advantage is a tiny low gear but a high gear that's still respectable for road use (or big offroad downhills). For the MTBing I've done, a 28-28 low gear would not be low enough.

I'm still not sure what the issue is. 32:12 is a ratio of 2.67. Using the 44 tooth you get the same ratio with the 16 tooth cog. That's typically either the 4th or 5th step up on the cassette and very permissable to use from a cross chaining standpoint. Millions of riders use the 44 and a mid size rear gear every day and this sort of cross chaining isn't an issue to chain life. Chain life for these cases is related more to the number of teeth in contact with the chain rather than chain line.

Another possible option, if your crankset arms and rings have some excess clearance to the chain stay, would be to substitute a BB with a slightly shorter axle to move the rings inwards a few mm's. Similarly if you play with the axle spacers at the rear to position the hub and cassette with the least possible spacing to the drive side dropout you can often pick up a couple of mm's of better chainline there as well. Again this would allow using the larger ring up front and mid ring at the rear.

And finally if you still want to "gild the lily" there's the option of going with a 42 big ring on some crankset OCD sizes.

Either way putting the big ring on the middle position isn't a superb idea. Even if it doesn't cause any issues with shifting the big size difference will cause a lot of chain rub if you try to use any but the two or maybe three largest rear cogs with the granny.

Yeah, no problem. I'm just running it as is 22-32-44. I thought that the slight cross chaining of using the 44 most of the time would lessen chain life, but apparently it's not a problem.

No issues. ;)

Okay, newer mountain bike cranksets (like the afore mentioned SLX) have a very wide chainline anyway; so, using the middle chainring with the smaller cogs isn't all that bad. I've seen a shimano SLX double crankset that had 22 and 36 rings. Perhaps the rings are still available.

I thought that the slight cross chaining of using the 44 most of the time would lessen chain life, but apparently it's not a problem.
You're right, it isn't. The cross chaining you are doing now using the 32T chainring with the small cogs is worse and will wear the chain, chainrings and cogs even faster since the load is being shared by fewer teeth on all of them.