Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

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.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-27-14, 08:04 PM   #1
Duane Behrens
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Duane Behrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Minnesota and Southern California
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac (carbon), Specialized Roubaix (carbon, wifey), Raleigh Super Course (my favorite), and 2 Centurion project bikes.
Posts: 623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Cranks moved left?

Hmm. 88 Schwinn World Sport 12-speed. Shimano FD and RD.

I replaced the bottom bracket's caged bearings tonight. No problems, much smoother pedal operation now and with no play. However, upon re-assembly the FD chattered and then sent the chain over the top of the big ring. It's as if the chain rings are now slightly closer to the bottom bracket.

Pretty sure I checked the orientation of the spindle during re-assembly. It appears to be the same length on both sides, the only difference is a raised band inboard of the cone on the drive side. I cleaned it well before re-assembling and applied a bit of grease at all threaded connectors. Did I tighten the right side too much? TIA.
Duane Behrens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-14, 08:08 PM   #2
rpenmanparker 
Senior Member
 
rpenmanparker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Posts: 21,631
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1573 Post(s)
Could you have used bearings larger than what you replaced? That would do it.
__________________
Robert

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAJ View Post
No matter where I go, here I am...
rpenmanparker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-14, 08:16 PM   #3
hueyhoolihan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Above ground, Walnut Creek, Ca
Bikes: 7⃥ 9 road bikes
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
if it is an old style caged bearing BB with a separate spindle, well, some of the spindles are asymmetrical. that would do it, if it were put in backwards, which is easy enough to do.
hueyhoolihan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-14, 08:32 PM   #4
HillRider 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Bikes: '''96 Litespeed Catalyst, '05 Litespeed Firenze, '06 Litespeed Tuscany, '12 Surly Pacer, All are 3x8,9 or 10. It is hilly around here!
Posts: 29,126
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 182 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hueyhoolihan View Post
if it is an old style caged bearing BB with a separate spindle, well, some of the spindles are asymmetrical. that would do it, if it were put in backwards, which is easy enough to do.
+1 that's a likely explanation. The usual rule was to install the spindle so that the engraving on it would read correctly from the rider's position if you could see through the bb shell.

However, I had a '92 Trek 7000 MTB that had to have the spindle installed "backwards" (longer side toward the non-drive side) to let the nds crankarm clear it's chainstay. This is very rare.
HillRider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-14, 09:04 PM   #5
FBinNY 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter
Posts: 30,916
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 921 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duane Behrens View Post
..... However, upon re-assembly the FD chattered and then sent the chain over the top of the big ring. It's as if the chain rings are now slightly closer to the bottom bracket.
.....
Reality check!

From the description it seems that you're talking about a barely noticeable change, evidenced only by overshifting on the FD. So we're talking less than 1mm, maybe only a few 10ths of a millimeter, and there are no other issues.

If that's right, you're greatly over thinking it. The crank may be slightly inboard simply because you pushed it higher on the taper by tightening more than before. So do the normal thing and simply adjust the FD to match the crank. You'll need to adjust the limits, and possibly the chain tension, both of which are minutes of work, and move on.
__________________
FB
Chain-L site

An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.

“Never argue with an idiot. He will only bring you down to his level and beat you with experience.”, George Carlin

“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN

WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
FBinNY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-14, 11:38 PM   #6
Duane Behrens
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Duane Behrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Minnesota and Southern California
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac (carbon), Specialized Roubaix (carbon, wifey), Raleigh Super Course (my favorite), and 2 Centurion project bikes.
Posts: 623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Double checked the spindle. It was installed correctly. Thanks, though, "Huey," that was my first guess as well.

Checked the bearing size; identical to those removed. Thanks, though "rpen." A good hypothesis.

Went to check the FD. Noticed that each chain ring has a ridge on one side only. (I'd taken them off to clean them.) Went back to the "as purchased" photographs. Realized I had the inside chain ring oriented in reverse; the ridge was on the inboard side. An easy fix and I'll take a bit more care in disassembly next time.

Fortunately, I didn't try to adjust that error out by adjusting the FD. Had I tried that approach, I'd still be out there. Reality check.

Anyway. Thanks for the comments. All appreciated. DB.
Duane Behrens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-14, 08:12 AM   #7
shelbyfv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 2,962
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
Your snippy reply to FB is uncalled for. His advice was correct based on the info you gave in your original post. If you recall, you made no mention of having disassembled the crankset. Happy it all worked out for you but don't abandon good manners when you approach the keyboard, you are here asking to learn from others.
shelbyfv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-14, 09:47 AM   #8
rpenmanparker 
Senior Member
 
rpenmanparker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Posts: 21,631
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1573 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by shelbyfv View Post
Your snippy reply to FB is uncalled for. His advice was correct based on the info you gave in your original post. If you recall, you made no mention of having disassembled the crankset. Happy it all worked out for you but don't abandon good manners when you approach the keyboard, you are here asking to learn from others.
I didn't get that from Duane's reply. I thought he was just being matter of fact. Yes, the disassembly information might have shortened the analysis some, but I didn't sense any lack of gratitude for all the ideas offered.
__________________
Robert

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAJ View Post
No matter where I go, here I am...
rpenmanparker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-14, 10:00 AM   #9
FBinNY 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter
Posts: 30,916
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 921 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by shelbyfv View Post
Your snippy reply to FB is uncalled for. His advice was correct based on the info you gave in your original post. If you recall, you made no mention of having disassembled the crankset. Happy it all worked out for you but don't abandon good manners when you approach the keyboard, you are here asking to learn from others.
Thanks for the endorsement, but I don't get offended by stuff like this.

My response was based on the fact that the amount of difference was too small to be explained by any change related to a reversed BB or misinstallation. This is why I stated with the reality check reference.

Had the OP mentioned that he also took apart the crank, removing and replacing the rings, probably all responders would have mentioned a reversed ring as a possibility.

One thing is strange though, the OP says the chain overshifted. Since it's very rare to reverse the outer ring, it implies that the outer limit is misadjusted. So either the crank is a hair more inboard, or the limit was slightly off all along.

I cannot repeat enough that the key to getting a decent analysis of a mechanical problem is to provide complete information, which didn't happen here.
__________________
FB
Chain-L site

An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.

“Never argue with an idiot. He will only bring you down to his level and beat you with experience.”, George Carlin

“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN

WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.

Last edited by FBinNY; 02-28-14 at 10:14 AM.
FBinNY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-14, 11:33 AM   #10
HillRider 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Bikes: '''96 Litespeed Catalyst, '05 Litespeed Firenze, '06 Litespeed Tuscany, '12 Surly Pacer, All are 3x8,9 or 10. It is hilly around here!
Posts: 29,126
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 182 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FBinNY View Post
I cannot repeat enough that the key to getting a decent analysis of a mechanical problem is to provide complete information, which didn't happen here.
This is a very common occurrence here. You get some but not all of the information you need to answer the original question and it takes some real digging to get the rest. This thread wasn't nearly as bad as the ones that start with something like; "My bike won't shift. What should I do?" Fifteen posts later we get the info we should have had at first.
HillRider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-14, 11:47 AM   #11
FBinNY 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter
Posts: 30,916
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 921 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by HillRider View Post
This is a very common occurrence here. You get some but not all of the information you need to answer the original question and it takes some real digging to get the rest. This thread wasn't nearly as bad as the ones that start with something like; "My bike won't shift. What should I do?" Fifteen posts later we get the info we should have had at first.
Yes, it's very common which is why I said we cannot say it enough. OTOH, I don't know what's worse. Getting very sketchy info, or getting very detained info that's missing a key bit. The the second is like a magicians slight of hand, focusing attention in the wrong place.
__________________
FB
Chain-L site

An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.

“Never argue with an idiot. He will only bring you down to his level and beat you with experience.”, George Carlin

“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN

WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
FBinNY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-14, 12:59 PM   #12
hueyhoolihan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Above ground, Walnut Creek, Ca
Bikes: 7⃥ 9 road bikes
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
just goes to show that symmetry, all things being equal, is, in general, a good thing, even lowly chainrings and spindles. simplifies life.

BTW, i confess that even if the OP mentioned that he or she had removed the chainrings, i don't think it would have occurred to me that inadvertently reversing them on reassembly was what was causing the problem.

*scratch head* no i don't.

Last edited by hueyhoolihan; 02-28-14 at 01:06 PM.
hueyhoolihan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-14, 09:07 PM   #13
Duane Behrens
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Duane Behrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Minnesota and Southern California
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac (carbon), Specialized Roubaix (carbon, wifey), Raleigh Super Course (my favorite), and 2 Centurion project bikes.
Posts: 623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hueyhoolihan View Post
just goes to show that symmetry, all things being equal, is, in general, a good thing, even lowly chainrings and spindles. simplifies life.

BTW, i confess that even if the OP mentioned that he or she had removed the chainrings, i don't think it would have occurred to me that inadvertently reversing them on reassembly was what was causing the problem.

*scratch head* no i don't.
First off, apologies for any "snippiness." Guess the "REALITY CHECK!" shout struck me as condescending. Silly me.

Second, we were all wrong. Flipping the inside chain ring around didn't help. [insert cuss word here]

Here's more info that should have been included in my first post: a) The bottom bracket spindle was equadistant on both sides. Odd, something I'd never seen. b) the left retaining ring was spinning loose on the left cup threads. The left cup itself was loose as well, which was probably the primary cause of the intermittent chunking I was feeling and hearing down there, and the reason I took it apart.

Okay, now newly armed with a bit more information, I'm in the garage last night trying to correct a chain that, with the new bearings properly adjusted, NOW insists on grinding on the small ring and in the smallest 3 or 4 cogs, getting slightly caught on the large ring before it settled back down onto the small. Unrideable. No adjustment helped. Frustrated, I loaded it up and took it into the LBS with my hat in my hand. As always, the guys at Safety Cycle in Torrance were understanding and helpful, unlike my own insulting bad self (BTW, did I apologize? If not, apologies.)

They called me this morning and I went down for a confab. They'd also tried flipping the rings with no luck. Their proposed fix? They want to order spacers to move the large chain ring farther from the small. What does this have to do with spindle length. :-) I know - nothing. Stay tuned.
Duane Behrens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-14, 09:25 PM   #14
hueyhoolihan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Above ground, Walnut Creek, Ca
Bikes: 7⃥ 9 road bikes
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duane Behrens View Post
First off, apologies for any "snippiness." Guess the "REALITY CHECK!" shout struck me as condescending. Silly me.

Second, we were all wrong. Flipping the inside chain ring around didn't help. [insert cuss word here]

Here's more info that should have been included in my first post: a) The bottom bracket spindle was equadistant on both sides. Odd, something I'd never seen. b) the left retaining ring was spinning loose on the left cup threads. The left cup itself was loose as well, which was probably the primary cause of the intermittent chunking I was feeling and hearing down there, and the reason I took it apart.

Okay, now newly armed with a bit more information, I'm in the garage last night trying to correct a chain that, with the new bearings properly adjusted, NOW insists on grinding on the small ring and in the smallest 3 or 4 cogs, getting slightly caught on the large ring before it settled back down onto the small. Unrideable. No adjustment helped. Frustrated, I loaded it up and took it into the LBS with my hat in my hand. As always, the guys at Safety Cycle in Torrance were understanding and helpful, unlike my own insulting bad self (BTW, did I apologize? If not, apologies.)

They called me this morning and I went down for a confab. They'd also tried flipping the rings with no luck. Their proposed fix? They want to order spacers to move the large chain ring farther from the small. What does this have to do with spindle length. :-) I know - nothing. Stay tuned.
the LBS's recommendation strikes me as one kludge on top of another. reminds me of some of the guys i used to work with. instead taking the time to find the root cause, they focused on addressing the symptom, usually introducing additional and more severe problems... this involved software, but the principal is the same.

BTW, it sounds like the whole BB, chainring/chainline issue might have been pretty much whacked even before the bearings were replaced.
hueyhoolihan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-14, 09:51 PM   #15
FBinNY 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter
Posts: 30,916
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 921 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hueyhoolihan View Post
the LBS's recommendation strikes me as one kludge on top of another. reminds me of some of the guys i used to work with. instead taking the time to find the root cause, they focused on addressing the symptom, usually introducing additional and more severe problems... this involved software, but the principal is the same.
+1.

My Reality check, was a reminder that the responses weren't logical based on the report that the chainrings "seemed" to be more inboard than before, and it was time to reconsider the initial premise.

From the description you were talking about too small a change than anything in the BB would produce, and in any case would be addressed by adjusting the FD.

Then you started flipping chainrings, which made as little sense, since most rings have counterbores for the bolt heads and can only be mounted one way.

So, time for another reality check and start from the beginning with ALL the relevant info.

1- did the chain/chainrings and FD work correctly before you started, or are we possibly dealing with something that was this way all along?
2- what is the chainline now? Measure either across to a tube, and add the radius, and/or lay a straightedge (edgewise so there's no flex) against the face of the outer ring on a secant to establish the plane, and carry back to the cassette. Correct for the offset to the centerline between the rings, (usually 8mm or so) and see where it lines up on the cassette.
3- what else did you possibly change? If the system worked before and doesn't now, that is the most important question because stuff doesn't change unless somebody changes it. So the key to the puzzle is what is different now than before? This doesn't apply if the system wasn't working before.
4- what is the distance from the tips of the inner ring teeth and the inside face of the outer ring?
5- what kind of crankset, and what chain?

Increasing chainring separation, may solve a problem you shouldn't have, but unless you did something, or are using a very modern crankset, 6s chainring spacing is already very generous.
__________________
FB
Chain-L site

An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.

“Never argue with an idiot. He will only bring you down to his level and beat you with experience.”, George Carlin

“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN

WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
FBinNY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-14, 11:36 PM   #16
Duane Behrens
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Duane Behrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Minnesota and Southern California
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac (carbon), Specialized Roubaix (carbon, wifey), Raleigh Super Course (my favorite), and 2 Centurion project bikes.
Posts: 623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
When I get the bike back, I'll check for a countersunk side to the small chain ring. I don't recall seeing one; pretty sure it would have been obvious. Anyway, I eventually sussed out the proper direction by looking at the wear on the teeth. A bit more wear was visible on one side of most teeth, indicating the back side of the rotation. ODDLY, the LBS said I still had it backwards and turned it back the other way. Grinning now. I'll post pictures when I get it back.

The FD and chain rings DID work correctly before I took it apart. However, the BB was clearly loose. Cranks had play and there was an occasional "caChunk" noise from the spindle Which is why I took the BB apart. The bearings were worn - tiny little scars and flattening visible on most of the caged bearings. And as noted, the lock ring was almost off and the lefthand threaded cup was loose.

No other changes, and I didn't try to adjust the RD until after the chainring swap didn't make a difference. Can't take the measurements until the bike comes back. Sugino MP crank. Pic shown is as purchased. Thanks. DB

Attached Images
File Type: jpg Sugino MP.JPG (98.4 KB, 9 views)
Duane Behrens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-14, 08:40 AM   #17
Duane Behrens
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Duane Behrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Minnesota and Southern California
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac (carbon), Specialized Roubaix (carbon, wifey), Raleigh Super Course (my favorite), and 2 Centurion project bikes.
Posts: 623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Want to keep this thread alive.

I picked the bike up from the LBS. The shop foreman said, "It's better, but we're not that happy with it." I took a spin around the shop and immediately understood what he meant. 1) At least it SHIFTS now! :-) Much better than before. Good. (2) And it indexed into all gears properly. (Shimano stem mounted indexed shifter). Good. (3) Unfortunately, it still hesitates when changing the front rings - either way. It's almost as if they're having a noisy committee meeting down there before electing to move the chain onto the desired ring.

"FBinNY" - and all here - thank you again for both your tips and your questions above. I've got both wheels off at the moment - am upgrading the bike with "hand-me-down" wheels and tires from the Nishiki. Once it's cleaned up, I'll take those measurements you've suggested. With gratitude. Best. DB
Duane Behrens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-14, 09:09 AM   #18
rpenmanparker 
Senior Member
 
rpenmanparker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Posts: 21,631
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1573 Post(s)
And FB's advice to just adjust the FD for a ring closer to the BB doesn't work? If that is the case, then sometimes you have to forsake "why" and just do an empirical fix. If a small spacer like 1 mm or less between the fixed cup and the BB shell will take care of your problem after FD re-tuning and not totally screw up your chain line, why not just do it? You can drive yourself crazy trying to figure out the right direction for the rings and other things. No matter how dubious any of us are about woulda, shoulda. or coulda, if a spacer fixes it, isn't that all you care about?
__________________
Robert

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAJ View Post
No matter where I go, here I am...
rpenmanparker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-14, 06:47 PM   #19
Duane Behrens
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Duane Behrens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Minnesota and Southern California
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac (carbon), Specialized Roubaix (carbon, wifey), Raleigh Super Course (my favorite), and 2 Centurion project bikes.
Posts: 623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rpenmanparker View Post
And FB's advice to just adjust the FD for a ring closer to the BB doesn't work? If that is the case, then sometimes you have to forsake "why" and just do an empirical fix. If a small spacer like 1 mm or less between the fixed cup and the BB shell will take care of your problem after FD re-tuning and not totally screw up your chain line, why not just do it? You can drive yourself crazy trying to figure out the right direction for the rings and other things. No matter how dubious any of us are about woulda, shoulda. or coulda, if a spacer fixes it, isn't that all you care about?
Rather than fix things, tightening everything up seemed to create problems. It's a guess, but the bike as purchased (well-used) was loose at the crank. After re-building the BB, the chain climbed over the big ring and also ground away at the big ring when on the small. My guess - and it's only a guess because I'm clearly not as smart as you - is that the LBS may have backed off on the tightening torques to compensate for a replacement spindle that was too short. I'm not sure. What I KNOW is that the fix was two-fold: (a) A 1 mm spacer at the fixed cup and (b) a 1.5 mm spacer between the chain rings. I did measure the width of the chain - 7.5 mm on the Schwinn vs. 7.2 mm on the somewhat older Nishiki.

Anyway, all is well now, apparently. I've only had it for short rides around my house but will take it out on a long ride - including a 1200 foot, 4 mile climb -tomorrow evening.

"Rpen," sorry if i was an annoyance. :-) To the rest of you, thanks again for your input. As always, I learned a lot.

Last edited by Duane Behrens; 03-09-14 at 06:50 PM.
Duane Behrens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-14, 06:50 PM   #20
rpenmanparker 
Senior Member
 
rpenmanparker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Posts: 21,631
Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1573 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duane Behrens View Post
Rather than fix things, tightening everything up seemed to create problems. It's a guess, but the bike as purchased was loose at the crank. After re-building the BB, the chain climbed over the big ring and also ground away at the big ring when on the small. My guess - and it's only a guess because I'm clearly not as smart as you - is that the LBS may have backed off on the tightening torques to compensate for a replacement spindle that was too short. I'm not sure. What I KNOW is that the fix was two-fold: (a) A 1 mm spacer at the fixed cup and (b) a 1.5 mm spacer between the chain rings. I did measure the width of the chain - 7.5 mm on the Schwinn vs. 7.2 mm on the somewhat older Nishiki.

Anyway, all is well now, apparently. I've only had it for short rides around my house but will take it out on a long ride - including a 1200 foot, 4 mile climb -tomorrow evening.

"Rpen," sorry if i was an annoyance. :-) To the rest of you, thanks again for your input. As always, I learned a lot.
Excellent.
__________________
Robert

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAJ View Post
No matter where I go, here I am...
rpenmanparker is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:18 AM.