mlk3454 said:
I am patient. I cant build up for a few weeks while I wait for the rest of parts to come in anyways
Okay, first things first. The new JET and RIP frames for a triple pretty much are in the "happy territory" with a chainline of 50/51 - 51.5mm depending on ring size - outer ring that is. This is a bit more out to the right than prior years where mountain bikes were in the "happy territory" in the 47.5 - 50mm Shimano standard range.
And we do know this for the RIP 9 - Truvative Stylo has a 51-51.5mm chain line and produces no chain suck issues with a triple. It's when we get narrower than that 51.5mm - especially with 42 and 44T big rings that the stuck chain issues rear their ugly head.
There is a measurement called W-3 in the SRAM drivetrains which is the measurement from the center of the seat tube to the center of the outer ring. This illustration is for 2 x 9 or 2 x 10 drivetrains, but you get the picture of what W-3 is.
On my RIP 9 running a 40T ring on my triple Shimano XT, that measurement is 56.5mm. I have no chainstuck issues due to the smaller outer ring of 40T providing plenty of clearance between ring and yoke for anything to get stuck. And because of this, I run a shorter spindle 113mm BB and a 47.5mm chainline on my RIP. That gives me a Q-Factor of 171mm and you can see why I didn't really want to go wider with that. I tried 118 and 123 with the larger 44T ring and no go on the RIP as the chain would get stuck.
I went out and first tried a 110mm square taper (Race Face Taperlock Ti) BB. Way too short for a triple with a 42T to avoid chain stuck issues. Scratch. That W-3 measurement dropped way down to 47.5mm.
I then tried a 122mm Shimano square taper bottom bracket. That increased my W-3 measurement to 58mm - a full 1.5mm more than on my RIP's triple with the 40T. Got me right in the range of the 51-51.5mm chainline with what looks like acceptable clearance for a 42T large ring on the RIP. I did not mount up the other arm and take it for a spin to see if I could recreate chain stuck due to it raining. But for me, I would use the 121 or 122mm spindle length as my starting point with a 42T ring based on what I saw and measured this morning in the garage.
I don't have a 118mm spindle to try, so I can't determine if losing 1.5mm on the right side would work or not, but if you have a 118mm square taper with an adustable chainline where you could push it out to the right those 1.5mm - it should be good to go. I would certainly use zip ties around the yoke if going with the 118mm spindle length for extra insurance.
If you want to go weight weenie, White Industries makes an excellent
121mm Ti BB in square taper. Weighs 162g - or the steel one for 226g. They are not adjustable chainline, but the 121mm is working perfectly with a set of Race Face old school Turbines on my JET 9 with a 2 x 9 drivetrain that has a 42T ring as the outer ring which I am running in the middle slot. So I'm pretty confident the 73 x 121 White Industries Square Taper would be a good combo on the RIP for clearance. That's not to say it is a guarantee, but it sure looks like it to me. I just am more hesitant to recommend a 118mm length in case it was too narrow to prevent the 42T from getting a stuck chain. But if you've got one - give it a try before ordering the next length of 121 or 122mm. Going inexpensive with the tried and true Shimano square tapers - you can save a lot of money and they last forever (I've still got some working well from 1989). They just weigh a ton.
Hopefully that helps. I didn't take any photographs because my daughter doesn't know where she left my camera. Yikes!!!!
BB
Edit: P.S. Q-Factor with the Turbines and the 121mm spindle is 172mm which is certainly acceptable.