Originally Posted by
e_guevara
I will not argue with you on this one, and I do agree that modern (new) derailleurs have stronger return springs.
However, I have had an older bike with an old RD (probably worn) way back then that exhibited that problem. So as a general rule, for me at least, I do not service derailleur systems with the bike upside down.
If you don't want to service your derailer upside down that is your choice. I probably wouldn't do it either but I have a workstand for that job at home. Out in the world, I wouldn't hesitate to turn the bike upside down.
However, just because you had an issue with an old rear derailer in the past that was worn out doesn't have any bearing on a new derailer.
Originally Posted by
e_guevara
You failed to understand my post completely. Lubing on the lower run with the bike right side up after chasing it with a rag minimizes the oil scatter than with the bike upside down. At most it will only drip onto the chainstay and probably the BB shell. With the bike upside down, it may drip on a lot more areas (saddle, seat tube, chainstay, seat stay).
Nope, understood you completely. But it doesn't matter. You shouldn't be putting on enough lubricant to get it all over the bike in the first place.
Originally Posted by
e_guevara
Please stop assuming I'm an idiot.
I'm assuming the original poster of that comment (trailangel) is somewhat of a retro grouch from his history of previous posts, and therefore was referring to the old-style brakes. The OP did find the answer with the Fuji del Rey.
trailangel wasn't the original poster of that comment. spectastic was. trailangel's comment's are more in line with yours about turning the bike upside down. But you can't "ruin" the brake cables on a modern shifter/brake lever combination. There's nothing that sticks up above the handlebars to ruin. Since spectastic is the original poster
and he is using a modern Sram derailer, I'm going to assume that he has the shifters to mate to it. So he has no cables that can be damaged...not that the old, old, old brake cables were that easy to damage in the first place.
Originally Posted by
spectastic
that's the first I've heard of this... you're saying we can make chains shorter with the 10-11 speed stuff, but we can't add links? I can't imagine there to be too much side to side play with the chain unless someone is putting down 400 watts while shifting down 3 a climb.
No, you can't add links like you could with 6 or 7 speed chains. The side-to-side force on the chain doesn't come from the power you put into the drivetrain but from the movement of the derailer. You are forcing the chain from one cog to the next. As chains have narrowed, they have had to go to a peened pin to keep the side plates from pulling off. When you press out a pin, you destroy the peening and also increase the diameter of the hole in the side plate. You are more likely to make the side plate slide off the pin when you shift...the chain will break.
Modern chains use master links or they use the Shimano replacement pin. Personally, I prefer the master link because it's easier to install and remove.
Originally Posted by
woodcraft
Disagree. "Botching a shift"= chain riding on the tops of the teeth? That already happened to get into the gear.
- B screw should be tightened so there is clearance between the cog & jockey wheel.
- Cable should run straight through clamping washer/screw, not under bent washer tab. There is a groove in the washer for the cable.
- Cable housing loop looks short- enters the RD at an angle instead of smooth curve.
Botching a shift can happen in any number of ways. If the chain is too short, you just don't have a lot of wiggle room.
Tightening the B-screw wouldn't do much since it would pull the derailer rearward. It's already stretched to the limit.
The cable is running where it should. I wouldn't wrap it around the post like that nor cut the inner cable that short but otherwise it's okay.
The cable housing loop is okay. A little longer wouldn't hurt but it's not the problem here.