I've never used a chainguide before. My new Nomad has ISCG05 tabs and I was thinking of running dual-ring + bash (probably Race Face) + Blackspire Stinger. I've read plenty of posts that suggest that this is a good setup to reduce dropped chains. Great for when I'm downhilling. But, I'll be riding this where there are also lots logs across the trail. Will I have problems with the Stinger's roller coming into contact with the logs and bending or rotating the backing plate? Is contact with rocks and logs just part of the deal when using a chain tensioner?
Chainguide newbie query
knotyetdead
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Joined
·
47 Posts
I've never used a chainguide before. My new Nomad has ISCG05 tabs and I was thinking of running dual-ring + bash (probably Race Face) + Blackspire Stinger. I've read plenty of posts that suggest that this is a good setup to reduce dropped chains. Great for when I'm downhilling. But, I'll be riding this where there are also lots logs across the trail. Will I have problems with the Stinger's roller coming into contact with the logs and bending or rotating the backing plate? Is contact with rocks and logs just part of the deal when using a chain tensioner?
Joined
·
11,459 Posts
I hit mine on rocks from time to time. It just rotates the stinger up towards the chainstay. Mine is BB mounted though, not iscg. I run a 22-32T set up, so the roller sits lower than the bashring when set to about 7-8:00 position. I'm certain if I were running a 36T big (middle) ring this would not be a problem. Not sure if a 34T would still be an issue.
I could (and still may) fix this by Dremel-ing out the adjustment slot for the Stinger roller and grinding or cutting off the excess length. Then I could slide the roller up flush against the chainring, like it is supposed to be.....and that should make it's lowest point higher than the lowest point of the chainring. (did that make any sense?)
I could (and still may) fix this by Dremel-ing out the adjustment slot for the Stinger roller and grinding or cutting off the excess length. Then I could slide the roller up flush against the chainring, like it is supposed to be.....and that should make it's lowest point higher than the lowest point of the chainring. (did that make any sense?)
Joined
·
47 Posts
I'll be running same setup - 22-32T (with bash allowing up to 34T.) I wasn't aware that the Stinger might not allow me to slide the roller right up against the bash but extending the slot sounds easy enough.eatdrinkride said:
Where I ride I encounter logs 1-2.5 ft in diameter several times during every ride, so my guess is I'll be constantly fiddling with the roller angle of the Stinger. Maybe I should use bash only (no Stinger) except for trips to Whistler, Northstar and the like.
Thanks for the info.
Joined
·
11,459 Posts
I have a 32T bash. I think the roller will snug up to a 34T bash, and hopefully will sit higher than your bashring.
Post back the results if you would as I'm curious about the results.
Post back the results if you would as I'm curious about the results.
Joined
·
47 Posts
Front derailleur position
Once I replace my big ring with the bash, should I reposition my front derailleur lower or leave it where it is? Seems I see both approaches used on other peoples' bikes.
Once I replace my big ring with the bash, should I reposition my front derailleur lower or leave it where it is? Seems I see both approaches used on other peoples' bikes.
Joined
·
11,459 Posts
My advice.knotyetdead said:
Leave it in place but adjust the limit screw so you cannot shift past the biggest ring...what was your middle ring.
Joined
·
201 Posts
this typically leads to the best results. Other option is a 2 ring specific front d, like a 2 ring SLX or a sainteatdrinkride said:
Joined
·
10,053 Posts
As far as I know the thing that is really so special about those 2 ring versions is the shift profile is different to shift better from the granny to a larger 36t ring. For a 22/32 or 22/34 I don't really see any reason to buy one of those special FDsThe_Pitbull said:
Joined
·
201 Posts
they are also slightly wide, allowing you to avoid rubbing across the whole range of 9 speeds while in the mid ring, whereas you typically will rub in the biggest 1 or 2 in the rearboomn said:
Joined
·
47 Posts
...finally got the parts, but discovered that the Truvativ Stylo crankset and BB doesn't work with the Stinger. Chain rubs against the Stinger all the way around. The Nomad has a 73mm BB shell and the Truvativ BB bearings mount without spacers on either side. I'm not sure if I can add a spacer on the drive side and solve the problem.
Joined
·
47 Posts
It seems that the only way that the Stinger can work with my frame, crank and BB is if I could add a spacer to move chain rings away from the frame by about a mm. I'm not sure if that's possible since it would mean fewer threads for the non-drive side crank arm bolt to grab onto.
Joined
·
10,053 Posts
i believe the threads aren't the problem. Truvativ cranks have to have a specific distance between the bb cups because the spindle has a stop in it that pulls up against the non drive side bearing. If you space one cup out further the stop wouldn't be able to make contactknotyetdead said:
Joined
·
47 Posts
Thanks for the info, boomn. I guess that means I won't be using the Stinger unless and until I have some reason to swap out my cranks and BB.
The GXP system from Truvativ allows for a 73mm BB E-type setup, despite not needing a spacer normally. Sram officially insists that it will work, and I have personally confirmed that a newer Stylo OCT crankset works with a 73mm shell and additional 2.5mm of spacing (DRS).
I have heard stories about the Stinger having a near 3mm thick backplate (I havn't personally measured it...and it might only be with older versions), which may cause binding in the bearings. If your BB shell isn't faced to 73mm (almost exactly) this might also contribute to chain wearing on the backplate.
-philip @ e*thirteen
I have heard stories about the Stinger having a near 3mm thick backplate (I havn't personally measured it...and it might only be with older versions), which may cause binding in the bearings. If your BB shell isn't faced to 73mm (almost exactly) this might also contribute to chain wearing on the backplate.
-philip @ e*thirteen
Joined
·
47 Posts
The documentation I found for the Truvativ GXP bottom bracket and cranks says they are compatible with a 49mm chain line whereas Santa Cruz says that the Nomad requires a 50-51mm chain line. Therein lies my problem. The Truvativ GXP chain line is too close to the frame. It would be nice if SC sold the Nomad with a recommended crankset/BB:madman:
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
