Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: I'm...

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: damnitman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,288

    I'm...

    ...contemplating getting rid of the dangly-bits and trying a 3X1 on my fatty for this winter. Has anyone tried anything like this?
    If Huffy made an airplane, would you fly in it?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,818
    I'm thinking of making my SS into a dingle or tringle speed for winter.

    I need really low gears for deep snow. Currently I can do 22/22 but I'd really like to try 22/32. Of course that gearing is so low that's it's a pain where there's no deep snow so the other ratio would be 32/22. The attraction of a 3rd gear is that when there's snow around it's often not possible to drive the bike to a suitable spot, so a higher gear for road transits would be useful, and I reckon 38/16 would do the job.

    Those 3 ratios would mean I could use the same chain length and not have to faff around with adjustment.

    It would work like this. Ride to trailhead on 38/16. Drop rear wheel, put chain onto 32/22 or 22/32 depending on depth of snow. Go ride.

    Biggest problem is finding a 32 rear sprocket I'm prepared to put on the rear. I can pull one off an old cassette, but they're so thin that the freehub would get chewed up, plus the teeth are relieved so the chain can be easily derailed - don't want that happening.

    Does anyone know if a carrier is being made for freehubs that will allow me to bolt a 32 front chainring onto it?
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: damnitman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,288
    ...thanks...
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    If Huffy made an airplane, would you fly in it?

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: damnitman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,288
    I'm in a similar situation...I essentially "need" a 20x34 granny in many winter conditions. However, many times (i.e. more frequently than those necessitating 20x34) conditions are cold, hard and flat...sometimes with one heck of a tailwind. I'm currently running five-bolt 20, 34, bash x 11-34 (-13 for clearance). I really think I typically run 3, maybe 5 specific ratios for the majority of the winter. The simplicity and durability of a 1x1 is ridiculously appealing but I have neither the legs nor the lungs to do so...consequently...3X1 seems a viable option. So, ratios to meet my needs...dunno exactly.
    If Huffy made an airplane, would you fly in it?

  5. #5
    dvn
    dvn is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dvn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    659
    How about running a 30 or 32 up front with a General Lee out back?
    "Either way it doesn't really matter, I just got back from a bike ride."
    > dbhammercycle

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,606
    I'm...




    ...not reading any more threads that are titled like this one.

  7. #7
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,729
    Quote Originally Posted by Velobike View Post
    I'm thinking of making my SS into a dingle or tringle speed for winter. It would work like this. Ride to trailhead on 38/16. Drop rear wheel, put chain onto 32/22 or 22/32 depending on depth of snow. Go ride.

    Biggest problem is finding a 32 rear sprocket I'm prepared to put on the rear. I can pull one off an old cassette, but they're so thin that the freehub would get chewed up, plus the teeth are relieved so the chain can be easily derailed - don't want that happening.

    Does anyone know if a carrier is being made for freehubs that will allow me to bolt a 32 front chainring onto it?
    No known carrier, but it struck me that a Surly Cog would be a good base for one. The 22t (max size) is about 89mm diameter at the chainline - which means that no chainring could mount to it without an intermediate adapter. An adapter plate could be drilled for the "lightening" holes and a chainring - which would mount the chainring in line with the cog chainline.



    I note that my dinglespeed uses 2 Surly Cogs with the extended center parts facing each other to match the mid-high spacing on the Whirly Spider I use. Hub width of a Surly Cog is 4.35mm. They don't give the chainline, but I'm assuming it's 0.9mm from the close face since normal 8/9 cassette cogs are 1.8mm thick.
    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  8. #8
    drev-il, not Dr. Evil!
    Reputation: Drevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,509
    Use that single cog 32T cog (and a little drilling) with this:

    Problem Solvers
    "Keep your burgers lean and your tires fat." -h.d. | bikecentric | ssoft

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Drevil View Post
    Use that single cog 32T cog (and a little drilling) with this:

    Problem Solvers
    Thanks, I'll look at that. I like that I can use cheap cogs with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by damnitman View Post
    ...thanks...
    Sorry, what do you mean by 3X1 then?
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  10. #10
    will rant for food
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,016
    I don't see how you could have a 3x1 on a standard triple crank without dangly bits. Something has to take up that tension, and I'm not sure I trust Sturmey Archer, all the bikes I've seen them on personally have been on trikes.

    I'd recommend gear hubs, but honestly, I'm not made of Rohloffs, and I'm getting sick of sorting the alternatives out.

    Long term I'm working on a solution but it is slow coming and-- depending on who you ask, either practical or wacky, I think the former.

    Stick a 1x10 in a box, yo. Move the drive cog side to side to accomodate the very short drivetrain distance. Run another chain to the rear. Boom. Low cost transaxle-gearbox using known components (save for the crazy handle-lots-of-torque-while-sliding-side-to-side-in-a-dirty-environment part, oh wait, does that kind of sound like a Lefty to you?).

    But none of that fanciful thinking solves your immediate question...

    You could feasibly put the danglies in a different place with a Yess ETR-B or something similar (preferably stronger and with more travel) but in that case you still have exposed jockey wheels to clog up, and worse, they're close to the tire which in your case is chock full of snow and grime.

    I feel ya. Riding snow, sh!t I don't need to lecture you. Go fast! Go slow! Now go REALLY slow. Now go fast! Now go slow for several miles and push your bike. Now go fast!

    You know what's a raw deal? Making a two speed crank is a relatively simple business. Look at the guts for a Hammerschmidt or Metropolis Patterson crankset. Easy enough. Add a third gear in there and things start getting weird.

    I think a three speed, internal, durable, wide-overall-range crank could fit a standard fat frame. But who is going to make it? My experiment with the Hammerschmidt was a "close but no cigar, I need one more gear".
    Latitude: 44.93 N

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    I don't see how you could have a 3x1 on a standard triple crank without dangly bits. Something has to take up that tension...

    I think a three speed, internal, durable, wide-overall-range crank could fit a standard fat frame. But who is going to make it? My experiment with the Hammerschmidt was a "close but no cigar, I need one more gear".
    I've come to much the same conclusion, hence the thoughts of tringle speeds. I don't need to change gear, just be able to put it in the appropriate ratio for the rest of the ride and leave it there.

    I may have to put my S-A 3 speed into action though, but there's not such a wide range available.

    Anything rather than use a derailleur.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: damnitman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,288
    Velobike, I mean 3 front, single in back...
    My goal is to minimize things that are susceptible to breaking/icing-up in winter...my rear mech, shifter and cable definitely qualify...So, I guess I'm looking for a tensioning system that dangles less than a rear derailleur but will work with a variable chainline...I'll try to sort-out rings:cog ratio later...
    I've looked at a few tensioners such as Misfit Psycles BONER Singlespeed Tensioner - PSYCLESTORE but Peter said it probably won't do what I am wanting. I like the looks of the ETR/D / bike chain tensioners and other goodies / your friends at yess labs but I have not heard back re how much slack it will take-up/how well it compensates for variable chainline. The Paul tensioner specifically says it will work with multiple chainrings and differences of up to 20 teeth, but it still hangs pretty low...
    If Huffy made an airplane, would you fly in it?

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Schott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    586

    I'm...

    Anything that takes up the slack on a triple, if they have such things, is going to hang low....because that's a lot of chain to tension.you really are trying to do something that isn't done, and isn't done because there are better options. From what I gather from your wants, you desire an IGH. Save up for a good one.


    "You're like a Ferrari engine driving a dump truck"

  14. #14
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,729
    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Diller View Post
    Low cost transaxle-gearbox using known components (save for the crazy handle-lots-of-torque-while-sliding-side-to-side-in-a-dirty-environment part, oh wait, does that kind of sound like a Lefty to you?).
    Actually, it sounds like a sealed linear bearing:
    Name:  69-18092006-778465L.gif
Views: 239
Size:  9.6 KB

    Quote Originally Posted by Schott View Post
    Anything that takes up the slack on a triple, if they have such things, is going to hang low....because that's a lot of chain to tension.
    I have seen a long arm "push up" tensioner that mounted on the BB shell - but all I can find right now are short ones.
    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Schott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    586

    I'm...

    Quote Originally Posted by wadester View Post


    I have seen a long arm "push up" tensioner that mounted on the BB shell - but all I can find right now are short ones.
    I'm trying to picture it. When pushing up, and in the smallest ring, there isn't very much room for it to push to. Also, if it is pushing up, then it is below the chain, and if it is below the chain, and mounted on the bb, then when in the biggest ring it is hanging pretty low, and in a way more susceptible spot than any derailleur.




    "You're like a Ferrari engine driving a dump truck"

  16. #16
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,729
    I still can't find the one I'm thinking of - but here's a pic of a short-arm style:

    I'm...-6m97m.jpg

    The longer arm I recall had the pivot closer to the BB, so it still wrapped close to the chainring. There was a wide roller rather than a cog to allow side-to-side movement. The parts were in line and protected by the chainring, as well as trailing from their mount rather than leading like all the rear mounted tensioners I've seen.

    I can see that the amount of chain take-up would be limited by the chainstay, no matter what.
    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Velobike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,818
    The avoidance of tensioners is why I'm looking at Dingle or Tringle speed. In the days before suitable dropouts were common on mtbs, I tried the BB mounted tensioners because they are much tidier, but they don't actually have enough take up to allow use with a big gap between cog sizes, maybe 1 or 2 teeth difference at most.

    For those who don't know what Dinglespeed means, you have a double up front, and 2 cogs at the rear, and each set of cogs should add up to the same number of teeth.

    Hence a 32/22 and a 38/16 both have 54 teeth in total, so by having a double front cranset of 38 and 32 with a 16 and a 22 on the rear, you'll never have to change adjustment. Obviously you can only use each set with itself.
    As little bike as possible, as silent as possible.
    Latitude: 5736' Highlands, Scotland

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    32
    I run a 32/24-22 and 28/24 on my Pugs for summer. Winter I use 24/22-20 and that works for me (out here in Valdez where the tracks are not usually too hard packed- mostly soft and deep).
    As far as the big rear cogs, Action tech makes them up to 30 something but they cost you a fortune- I have a 24 and 28 rear cog and it hurt to pay for it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •