Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Bicycle Mechanics
Reload this Page >

bike nerding - first build - fuji track 2007 chainline + chainrings...?

Notices
Bicycle Mechanics Broken bottom bracket? Tacoed wheel? If you're having problems with your bicycle, or just need help fixing a flat, drop in here for the latest on bicycle mechanics & bicycle maintenance.

bike nerding - first build - fuji track 2007 chainline + chainrings...?

Old 08-22-08, 07:18 AM
  #1  
Building a better Strida
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: toronto, canada
Posts: 1,107

Bikes: bianchi brava 1988. fuji track 2007, 2006 Bianchi Pista, 1987 Miele and a strida knock off

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
bike nerding - first build - fuji track 2007 chainline + chainrings...?

hey guys, ok so I am building up the drivetrain of a fuji track 2007.

got a few questions tho when i was digging up info on the chainline.

I need a flat normal chainring, as I didn't get one with the frame and stock 165mm cranks. It looks like the stock formula hub is some skinny formula that works OK with the stock bb and crankset.
However, should i upgrade the wheelset to something built on formula high-flange hubs, the chainline to the rear spaces itself out proper to 42mm (ideally)
Apparently tho, the stock bb/crankset doesn't appear to be compatible with this since its some road setup running at 46+mm on the outer chainring....

[EDIT]
I JUST CONFIRMED THIS LAST NIGHT. the stock crankset and 103mm bb run around 46mm. as some may know.. the stock fuji issued chainring is dished or flanged on an angle. so at 130mm bcd, it mounts to the outside of the crank, but the chainring is bent so that the chainline falls somewhere above or behind the crank's chainline center.


is there a way that doesn't require me to dish the rear wheel to compensate for a 46mm chainline? is there a bb that would swap in? I COULD RUN a flat normal chainring on the inside of the crank and get a 41mm chainline as well...?


soooo.. is there any non-expensive fix that can be applied so i don't have to purchase any new parts? ie, i don't want to buy a new crank or bb... or can i get away with the stock noodle crank/chainring but use a longer bb? can the stock bb be spaced out properly?

[edit] yes, respace the rear hub and then dish the wheel to compensate. i am looking at about 4-5mm to the left.... right?

thanks!
trueno92 is offline  
Old 08-22-08, 07:20 AM
  #2  
Building a better Strida
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: toronto, canada
Posts: 1,107

Bikes: bianchi brava 1988. fuji track 2007, 2006 Bianchi Pista, 1987 Miele and a strida knock off

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
also, what makes the FUJI TRACK 2007 stock FSA road cranks different from the sugino RD crankset?

I understand the sugino RD to be a road-double hence have road double chainline spacing? how come it is advertised to have a 42mm chainline with a 103mm bb?

thanks!
trueno92 is offline  
Old 08-22-08, 01:01 PM
  #3  
Senior Member
 
DannoXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Saratoga, CA
Posts: 11,736
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked 9 Times in 6 Posts
You have a 120mm rear-wheel? Can you put the chainring on the inside of the crank spider-arms?
DannoXYZ is offline  
Old 11-08-08, 08:20 AM
  #4  
cab horn
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 28,353

Bikes: 1987 Bianchi Campione

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 25 Times in 18 Posts
Originally Posted by trueno92
I understand the sugino RD to be a road-double hence have road double chainline spacing? how come it is advertised to have a 42mm chainline with a 103mm bb?

thanks!
It doesn't.

It has a 45mm chainline with a 103bb. That's why that crankset is a piece of crap and also why it's so cheap. There's no way of getting the chainline in further as 103 is the smallest length square taper bb you can buy.

You're overthinking this a bit much. You have two options

1) Dish the wheel over to get the 45mm with your formula hub setup
2) Get a 42mm crankset/bb combo
3) Put the chainring on the inside and get a longer bb

Spacing your bb out 2-3mm is pushing out. So don't do it.

The RD is basically a glorified double crank with horrible chainilne characteristics marketed to the fixed gear crowd as one of many crank options. Seems to be quite popular as well. For no good reason.

Last edited by operator; 11-08-08 at 08:28 AM.
operator is offline  
Old 11-08-08, 08:21 AM
  #5  
cab horn
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 28,353

Bikes: 1987 Bianchi Campione

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 25 Times in 18 Posts
Originally Posted by trueno92
as some may know.. the stock fuji issued chainring is dished or flanged on an angle. so at 130mm bcd, it mounts to the outside of the crank, but the chainring is bent so that the chainline falls somewhere above or behind the crank's chainline center.
There is no such thing. This is utter nonsense.
operator is offline  
Old 11-08-08, 08:32 AM
  #6  
Senior Member
 
Retro Grouch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: St Peters, Missouri
Posts: 30,225

Bikes: Catrike 559 I own some others but they don't get ridden very much.

Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1572 Post(s)
Liked 642 Times in 363 Posts
Originally Posted by DannoXYZ
You have a 120mm rear-wheel? Can you put the chainring on the inside of the crank spider-arms?
That's what I was thinking too. Should give him roughly 5mm difference. 46-5=41. That's close enough.
Retro Grouch is offline  
Old 11-08-08, 11:29 AM
  #7  
surly old man
 
jgedwa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Carlisle, PA
Posts: 3,393

Bikes: IRO Mark V, Karate Monkey half fat, Trek 620 IGH, Cannondale 26/24 MTB, Amp Research B3, and more.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 42 Times in 18 Posts
There is a lot of confusion floating around about chainline issues.

-The over-nut dimension of the rear axle and/or chainstay spread has nothing to do with chainline. Nothing. Chainline is measure from the center of the bike. The distance between the stays is precisely irrelevant.

-The Sugino RD crank, with a 103 mm BB with ring on the outside of the spider will give 45. I have always loved Sugino products; not sure what their rationale for this is. If you mount the ring on the inside of the spider (which is fine, but a little uglier) it will be 42mm. I would much rather do this than respace/redish a rear wheel. Bear in mind that if you respace it, it will not really be a flip-flop anymore.

jim
__________________
Cross Check Nexus7, IRO Mark V, Trek 620 Nexus7, Karate Monkey half fat, IRO Model 19 fixed, Amp Research B3, Surly 1x1 half fat fixed, and more...
--------------------------
SB forever
jgedwa is offline  
Old 11-08-08, 12:52 PM
  #8  
Senior Member
 
Retro Grouch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: St Peters, Missouri
Posts: 30,225

Bikes: Catrike 559 I own some others but they don't get ridden very much.

Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1572 Post(s)
Liked 642 Times in 363 Posts
Originally Posted by jgedwa
There is a lot of confusion floating around about chainline issues.

-The over-nut dimension of the rear axle and/or chainstay spread has nothing to do with chainline. Nothing. Chainline is measure from the center of the bike. The distance between the stays is precisely irrelevant.
I absolutely agree with your first statement. The proof is your second statement.

It doesn't matter where you measure from, what matters is that the chain is parallel with the bike's main frame.
Retro Grouch is offline  
Old 11-08-08, 01:00 PM
  #9  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brooklyn Zoo via 61ooo
Posts: 136
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
another thing you may want to consider:

the stock issue fuji chain ring is a road chain ring that is slightly elliptical. this is not something you want on a fixed gear setup. you want a track specific chain ring that is a perfect circle. otherwise, you're going to weaken your chain, wear your cogs out, possibly loosen your components, and basically get some wear that won't be fun. not to mention, you won't get the stiffness you want for a track setup. get a new non-fuji chain ring.

this was true about three years ago but I haven't done any research recently to see if fuji has corrected the problem. check it out for yourself, or anyone else want to chime in?
yahnming is offline  
Old 11-08-08, 03:18 PM
  #10  
Senior Member
 
Retro Grouch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: St Peters, Missouri
Posts: 30,225

Bikes: Catrike 559 I own some others but they don't get ridden very much.

Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1572 Post(s)
Liked 642 Times in 363 Posts
Originally Posted by yahnming
the stock issue fuji chain ring is a road chain ring that is slightly elliptical. this is not something you want on a fixed gear setup. you want a track specific chain ring that is a perfect circle.

this was true about three years ago but I haven't done any research recently to see if fuji has corrected the problem. check it out for yourself, or anyone else want to chime in?
I really doubt the issue is elliptical chainrings so much as the chainring not being concentric with the crank spindle.
Retro Grouch is offline  
Old 11-08-08, 07:59 PM
  #11  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brooklyn Zoo via 61ooo
Posts: 136
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
i agree with the grouch for your particular problem, but it's another thing to consider.
yahnming is offline  
Old 11-08-08, 08:46 PM
  #12  
surly old man
 
jgedwa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Carlisle, PA
Posts: 3,393

Bikes: IRO Mark V, Karate Monkey half fat, Trek 620 IGH, Cannondale 26/24 MTB, Amp Research B3, and more.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 42 Times in 18 Posts
Originally Posted by Retro Grouch
I absolutely agree with your first statement. The proof is your second statement.

It doesn't matter where you measure from, what matters is that the chain is parallel with the bike's main frame.

It matters very much where you measure from: one measures from the centerline of the bike. No other dimension is at all relevant for chainline.

I suppose it is right that the chain is supposed to be parallel to the frame of the bike. In fact, you could interpret "centerline of the bike" to mean just that. But using your language suggests a rather coarse measurement is all that is needed here. I am not overly doctrinaire about perfect chainlines, but just a few mm's can make a difference in noise. A few mm's more make a difference in wear and efficiency. Therefore, one has to measure (or at least eyeball) from the center of the hub to the cog teeth and compare that to the center of the BB shell to the chain teeth.

The over-locknut to locknut measurement of the hub has nothing to do with this. Consider, for a moment, that if you stretch a 126 frame to fit a 130 hub, the chainline is not effected one bit. And, if you compress a 130 frame to fit a 126 hub, chainline is again not effected one bit.

To put it numerically, if you are going for a 42mm (from center) chainline, it makes no difference what happens beyond those 42mm's. Does the axle keep on going to 65mm (for a 130) or only to 63mm (for a 126)? Does not matter at all. Those extra 23mm or 21mm (respectively) are not within the scope of the center to cog measurement. Instead that extra distance is the difference between cog and the inside of the chainstays. As you will notice, chainstays are not parallel to the main frame of the bike. And, so by your own reckoning, it is not relevant.

jim
__________________
Cross Check Nexus7, IRO Mark V, Trek 620 Nexus7, Karate Monkey half fat, IRO Model 19 fixed, Amp Research B3, Surly 1x1 half fat fixed, and more...
--------------------------
SB forever
jgedwa is offline  
Old 11-09-08, 06:00 AM
  #13  
Senior Member
 
Retro Grouch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: St Peters, Missouri
Posts: 30,225

Bikes: Catrike 559 I own some others but they don't get ridden very much.

Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1572 Post(s)
Liked 642 Times in 363 Posts
Originally Posted by jgedwa
The over-locknut to locknut measurement of the hub has nothing to do with this. Consider, for a moment, that if you stretch a 126 frame to fit a 130 hub, the chainline is not effected one bit. And, if you compress a 130 frame to fit a 126 hub, chainline is again not effected one bit.
OK, let me try one more time with a real life example.

On a typical Shimano octalink triple, with 130mm dropouts the bottom bracket spindle is 118mm in order to keep the chain parallel with the main frame when in the middle of the cassette.

I also own a tandem with a dishless rear wheel and 160mm dropouts. The bottom bracket spindle for that bike has to be 129mm in order to get the chain line correct because the cassette is way out to the right.
Retro Grouch is offline  
Old 11-09-08, 07:11 AM
  #14  
surly old man
 
jgedwa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Carlisle, PA
Posts: 3,393

Bikes: IRO Mark V, Karate Monkey half fat, Trek 620 IGH, Cannondale 26/24 MTB, Amp Research B3, and more.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 42 Times in 18 Posts
I strongly suspect that we both have the same concept of chainline in mind, and a discussion at this level is not needed. It is true that wider stays typically go with wider hubs (or at least more dished hubs), and therefore wider chainlines, so there is some indirect reason to link the two measurements.

But, the jerk in me has to try to get the last word in. So, thanks for your patience with me.

The tandem you have has a wider chainline because of (I would guess) a wider hub. Not wider stays. Your own numbers show this. The difference of half of each stay width in your examples is 15mm. The difference of half of each spindle length in your examples is 5.5. If OLD had anything to do with chainline then this would suggest that one of bikes had a chainline that was about 10mm (15mm-5.5mm) off. I bet both are much closer to straight than that.

This is a bit oversimplified, since different cranks sit on those spindles in different ways; a triple compared to a double for example. And it is a bit presumptious of me to assume that one of the two bikes in your example has a straight chainline, which therefore means that the other would have to be off by 10mm if OLD was relevant; each could be off 5mm in opposite directions which could spread the difference acceptably between both bikes.

jim
__________________
Cross Check Nexus7, IRO Mark V, Trek 620 Nexus7, Karate Monkey half fat, IRO Model 19 fixed, Amp Research B3, Surly 1x1 half fat fixed, and more...
--------------------------
SB forever

Last edited by jgedwa; 11-09-08 at 07:14 AM.
jgedwa is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.