BBs for triple to double on mtb
07-30-03, 10:02 AM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 86
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
BBs for triple to double on mtb
I was wondering, if I decide to drop the large ring on my mtb for a bash ring, should I use a longer BB axle to reset the chainline for a double? Is this the reason DH bikes have a 118mm standard axle versus 113mm for triple-equipped bikes?
08-01-03, 01:29 AM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Margaritaville
Posts: 212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Nope.
DH bikes have a wider spindle to accomidate the wider chainstays. It's all about crank arm clearance.
If you are removing the large ring for a bash guard, you do not need to get a wider spindle.
It would throw your chainline off.
I can toss this slightly into perspective for you.
I ride a 2003 Banshee Scream (https://www.bansheebikes.com/bikes_scream.php) and it requires a 68 (the BB shell) x 118 (spindle) for the crank arms to clear the frame. I run a triple ring for the moment (Going to run an E-13 DRS once I get the money), and there is no problem.
Keep the spindle length as it is and get a bash guard.
DH bikes have a wider spindle to accomidate the wider chainstays. It's all about crank arm clearance.
If you are removing the large ring for a bash guard, you do not need to get a wider spindle.
It would throw your chainline off.
I can toss this slightly into perspective for you.
I ride a 2003 Banshee Scream (https://www.bansheebikes.com/bikes_scream.php) and it requires a 68 (the BB shell) x 118 (spindle) for the crank arms to clear the frame. I run a triple ring for the moment (Going to run an E-13 DRS once I get the money), and there is no problem.
Keep the spindle length as it is and get a bash guard.
08-01-03, 08:08 AM
#4
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: the south
Posts: 15
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally posted by BAC5.2
Nope.
I ride a 2003 Banshee Scream (https://www.bansheebikes.com/bikes_scream.php) and it requires a 68 (the BB shell) x 118 (spindle) for the crank arms to clear the frame. I run a triple ring for the moment (Going to run an E-13 DRS once I get the money), and there is no problem.
Keep the spindle length as it is and get a bash guard.
Nope.
I ride a 2003 Banshee Scream (https://www.bansheebikes.com/bikes_scream.php) and it requires a 68 (the BB shell) x 118 (spindle) for the crank arms to clear the frame. I run a triple ring for the moment (Going to run an E-13 DRS once I get the money), and there is no problem.
Keep the spindle length as it is and get a bash guard.
08-01-03, 08:18 AM
#5
feros ferio
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: www.ci.encinitas.ca.us
Posts: 21,796
Bikes: 1959 Capo Modell Campagnolo; 1960 Capo Sieger (2); 1962 Carlton Franco Suisse; 1970 Peugeot UO-8; 1982 Bianchi Campione d'Italia; 1988 Schwinn Project KOM-10;
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1392 Post(s)
Liked 1,324 Times
in
836 Posts
Chainstay-to-chainring clearance is fundamental. Unless you have a very poor chainline between your inner ring and smaller cogs, keep your 113mm spindle.
__________________
"Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." --Theodore Roosevelt
Capo: 1959 Modell Campagnolo, S/N 40324; 1960 Sieger (2), S/N 42624, 42597
Carlton: 1962 Franco Suisse, S/N K7911
Peugeot: 1970 UO-8, S/N 0010468
Bianchi: 1982 Campione d'Italia, S/N 1.M9914
Schwinn: 1988 Project KOM-10, S/N F804069
"Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." --Theodore Roosevelt
Capo: 1959 Modell Campagnolo, S/N 40324; 1960 Sieger (2), S/N 42624, 42597
Carlton: 1962 Franco Suisse, S/N K7911
Peugeot: 1970 UO-8, S/N 0010468
Bianchi: 1982 Campione d'Italia, S/N 1.M9914
Schwinn: 1988 Project KOM-10, S/N F804069
08-01-03, 08:24 AM
#6
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 86
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Thanks guys. To respond to a few points:
BAC5.2: surely I'd want the double chainline to align between the 2 rings (as per road bike), rather than on the middle ring as with triple, hence the question. But then again, maybe not.
Boudreaux: this isn't downsizing a DH bike - short spindle not an issue
John E : not an issue for me, I never cross-chain in this way.
Maybe I'll just stick to a 113mm, anyway.
BAC5.2: surely I'd want the double chainline to align between the 2 rings (as per road bike), rather than on the middle ring as with triple, hence the question. But then again, maybe not.
Boudreaux: this isn't downsizing a DH bike - short spindle not an issue
John E : not an issue for me, I never cross-chain in this way.
Maybe I'll just stick to a 113mm, anyway.
Last edited by doonster; 08-01-03 at 08:52 AM.
08-01-03, 04:46 PM
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Margaritaville
Posts: 212
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Simply, replace the big ring with your bashguard. Road bikes and Mountain bikes are different. Aligning the chain between the two will keep you at a slightly canted angle, and considering most riders are in the middle ring more than either of the other two, I want my chain line setup in the middle ring.
Keep it how it is.
The stock chainline is optimized for a triple ring. Because you lose the big ring, doesn't make it any less optimized. 113 is fine.
Road bikes are setup with the chain line in the between the two rings because of the huge difference between the rings. a 22-32-BG setup is not a significant step up and a wider stance is only going to cause problems. Don't go wider than necessary.
Keep it how it is.
The stock chainline is optimized for a triple ring. Because you lose the big ring, doesn't make it any less optimized. 113 is fine.
Road bikes are setup with the chain line in the between the two rings because of the huge difference between the rings. a 22-32-BG setup is not a significant step up and a wider stance is only going to cause problems. Don't go wider than necessary.
