Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 188
  1. #1
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,308

    09 RIP9 / XT crankset clearance - updated w/pix

    If anyone else is using stock XT cranks with the outboard bearings on an 09 RIP9, could they post a pic of the clearance between the big ring and the drive-side seat stay for me? Thanks!

    (see below for pix of my issue)
    Last edited by pinkheadedbug; 05-05-2009 at 02:42 PM.
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  2. #2
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,041
    Told ya, already had a thread dealing with this, according to the poster who started it (I believe AZmtn) he had to remove the big ring because when torque was applied there was contact. Seems the try at more tyre clearance has created this issue. It may have been noticed by Niner in development and thought "not a problem" since most will use a double ring setup on the RIP9s Steve or Chris had chimed in on the other thread.

    'Cause I'm feeling nice today my 09 RIP in RAW
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  3. #3
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,308
    I looked at that thread and he doesn't have the same set-up. He's riding LX cranks. The response from Niner was that they've never had the problem in 30 builds. So I'm interested to see how it's working for other people rather than assuming it's a defect, as you do.

    You're a nice enough guy, Lynx, but you don't have to patrol every thread.
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  4. #4
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,041
    I don't mean to "patrol", but works not slow, more like dead for me right now, plus my backs giving me the shits, I'm bored and lusting after stuff I can't afford until a year or two down the line and without the ability to go ride, "patrolling" is the closets I can get Plus as you said I'm a nice guy and like to help if I can

    Quote Originally Posted by pinkheadedbug
    I looked at that thread and he doesn't have the same set-up. He's riding LX cranks. The response from Niner was that they've never had the problem in 30 builds. So I'm interested to see how it's working for other people rather than assuming it's a defect, as you do.

    You're a nice enough guy, Lynx, but you don't have to patrol every thread.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  5. #5
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,308
    OK, here are the pix of my set-up. This shows that the clearance between the big ring and the chainstay with the suspension unsagged is just over 1/16". I also show that I'm using the drive side spacer (none on the other side). You can see in one of the pictures a bright spot where the chain has been jammed against the chainstay.

    What happens in riding is that most of the time it's fine, but then you shift and the chain gets caught between the big ring and the chainstay while the suspension is compressed, and is sucked up ABOVE the chainstay, where it stays once the suspension uncompresses. It is basically impossible to get out at that point without breaking the chain.

    I am not very happy about this as I like having the big ring, and I think there is a possible (but remote) safety concern, since this can't be good for the chain and I could see it breaking if you were mashing. Would welcome a further response from Niner.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  6. #6
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,308
    So I spoked to Niner about this and one of the guys there measured the clearance on a bike there and came up with about the same measurement as mine. So it appears that the frame is in spec.

    He (?Brian) suggested that chainring wear may be causing the chainsuck and that seems possible since although the chainset isn't that old it has been through a lot of rocks.

    I guess I will check for bent and burred teeth.
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  7. #7
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,041
    If I might give a possible solution......unless you have to ride a lot of road to get to the trail or between trails consider going to a double or if you want the tripple go to a compact tripple (patent pending from yours truly ) and buy some new chainring in the form of a 40 or maybe 42 for the big ring. My compact tripple will be a 24/34/40 setup. Even using a 7 cogs setup I stil can get more than enough speed without killing myself right now running a 24/38 ring setup and a 34-15 cassette.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  8. #8
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,308
    I like the idea of the compact triple, but I may go to a bash ring if I can't fix it as some of the trails I ride are real ring-bashers.

    After talking to Niner I went back to the bike, cleaned it all up and inspected the big ring. There was one nasty inwardly bent tooth on the big ring where I must have augured into a rock. I straightened it out with a pair of pliers until I couldn't feel it with my eyes closed. So we'll see if that does the trick.

    I don't believe I'm getting any contact thru frame flex so the only reason for the chain to suck up would be ring-related.

    Brian also mentioned that the unsagged clearance may open up slightly with wear (as the shock unsticks I guess).
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  9. #9
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,308
    A bit more reading seems to indicate that gritty mud + worn chainrings = chain suck. The last ride was the epitome of gritty mud, wrangling the RIP9 through hub deep gunk. My chainrings are not at all hooked but as I said above, one was bashed inward through rock contact. I'll post results of the next ride, which will most likely be the same conditions.

    (I should say that I took the 07 version with the same chainrings to hell and back and never had an issue).
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  10. #10
    trail "cleaner"
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,381

    different, yet the same chainline..

    Yes, LX and XT outboard cranks are different but both operate off a 50mm chainline. One other option I posted was to install a 2nd spacer on the driveside cup to give you more clearance. The only issue I could think of is the more acute chainline you'd have if you run middle ring/large cog combination. Like I stated in my thread, I just pulled the large chainring and installed a bashguard. It is BTW an "All Mountain" bike.

  11. #11
    Underskilled
    Reputation: CaveGiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    4,118
    Quote Originally Posted by pinkheadedbug
    You're a nice enough guy, Lynx, but you don't have to patrol every thread.
    What lead you to that strange conclusion?





    edit: I thought I should mention pink, best signature ever, still gets a smile after reading it for the 400th time.

  12. #12
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,041
    And yet I seem to have contributed something helpful to his thread, which is in contrast very different to your fantasticly helpful post
    Quote Originally Posted by CaveGiant
    What lead you to that strange conclusion?.
    pinkheadedbug I like the idea of the compact triple, but I may go to a bash ring if I can't fix it as some of the trails I ride are real ring-bashers
    .
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  13. #13
    BMJ
    BMJ is offline
    "42 lbs and climbing!"
    Reputation: BMJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,025

    I'm curious Pink...

    If the rear triangle moves up and back when it compresses on the trail, couldn't you compress the suspension enough with your body weight so a budy could slip the chain back out? If alone, compress by hand and yank? You probably tried it, just thought I'd through it out there.

  14. #14
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,308
    Yeah I thought of that -- AFTER the ride. I think with a buddy it would be doable. Alone it might be a bit tricky but worth a try.

    I use powerlinks so it's not that much of a deal to break the chain.
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  15. #15
    Underskilled
    Reputation: CaveGiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    4,118
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx
    And yet I seem to have contributed something helpful to his thread, which is in contrast very different to your fantasticly helpful post
    I suppose it does make a change from your usual patronising posts.

    I am sorry to hear work is slow at the moment, it's a shame when bad things happen to good people.

  16. #16
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,041
    ............OR, carry a shock pump with you and if it happens again just deflate the shock and get the chain out, then re-inflate Once there's suspension on a bike I'm riding I always have 2 pumps with me. I normally don't have to use either of them, but it's amazing how many of the people I ride with do

    Quote Originally Posted by pinkheadedbug
    Yeah I thought of that -- AFTER the ride. I think with a buddy it would be doable. Alone it might be a bit tricky but worth a try.

    I use powerlinks so it's not that much of a deal to break the chain.
    CG, appreciate the thought and taken with sincerity
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  17. #17
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,308
    I'm thinking about your compact triple, Lynx. I'm one of those guys who changes as much on the front as the back, and a closer set of ratios could work for me.

    When I was riding slickrock I was really hurting for a smaller gear, in line with the 26ers. So I'm thinking of notching down the whole crankset and also closing up the ratios.

    Anyone done this?
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  18. #18
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,041
    I see no reason why it wouldn't work, but myself haven't found (once conditioning is there) the need for anything smaller than a 22t granny (personally prefer a 24t), but a 20/30/40 would shift very nice and offer loads of top end and low end. Check the recent threads somoene else was doing exactly this. And the guy who makes chainrings is working on a 40t with ramps. Check the 29er forum, saw it somewhere recent , maybe in a RIP9 related thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by pinkheadedbug
    I'm thinking about your compact triple, Lynx. I'm one of those guys who changes as much on the front as the back, and a closer set of ratios could work for me.

    When I was riding slickrock I was really hurting for a smaller gear, in line with the 26ers. So I'm thinking of notching down the whole crankset and also closing up the ratios.

    Anyone done this?
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    22
    Pink,
    I did the exact same thing on today's ride. I sucked the chain above the chainstay, I had to break the chain to get it back past the big ring. I'm running a brand new chain on brand new rings, 44T big ring. I'm not too stoked about the nasty gouge, the same as you show in your pic.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    10
    I'd appreciate if some of the Niner-guys could comment on this. I'm expecting my RIP to arrive the next few days and had planned building it with 2009 XT. Not too keen on having to deal with this on every ride.

    Edit: OK, just saw the thread Lynx linked to.
    Last edited by theDuke; 05-07-2009 at 03:57 AM.

  21. #21
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,308
    I just took a look at the 20-30-40 options and although it sounds great at first I can see a few problems. The best (only?) integrated approach is Middleburn R7 + 20-30-40 chainrings and while these seem like really excellent products, they are only available for ISIS BBs, which max out at 113mm. With 113mm BBs the chainline is 48mm, which is 2mm narrower than the XT/LX cranks.

    SO you get a smaller big ring but 2mm less clearance. I'm guessing you end up pretty much in the same place!

    If you want to retain the XT cranks it's hard to find 4-bolt chainrings to fill out the 20-30-40 chainset.

    It's probably the bashring for me, I'm thinking.
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  22. #22
    4 Niners
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,124
    I converted my Jet9 to 22-32 bash ring, but why couldn't you do 22-32-40? If you still want a big ring. I can pedal the 32-11 to 25 mph easily so I see no reason to have a big ring.

  23. #23
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,308
    well, I sort of feel that if I'm gonna fool around with the chainrings I might as well get what I really want. I don't much care about the top end but I definitely felt the lack of a bottom end when riding slickrock. That trail is different from most anything I had ever ridden before and seemed like it could take whatever (low) ratio I threw at it.
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MMcG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    9,604
    Run 2 Rings and a bashguard - problem solved. pink you are in EAstern Canada right?

    If your trails are similar to what we have down here in New England - you don't need the big ring for a bike like the RIP 9 IMO. Lose it and get a nice bashguard for it.

    Cheers,

    Mark

  25. #25
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,308
    I picked up a bashguard and a 36T ring from the parts bin at my LBS for $5 each. I think the bashguard is probably the answer for the moment but I'm still thinking about that Middleburn setup.
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14
    A big ring is something I use here in the Midwest so I'm still searching for an option to this issue. The shop I'm working with is thus far listening to Niner's suggestions to help the issue. Niner's first suggestion is to swap to a 42t with hopes to gains more clearance. Their second suggestion is to replace the cranks I use with a stiffer model. If I have to go with the second suggestion, I will be going with a 20-30-40 setup with either Middleburn or Surly Mr. Whirly cranks and I'm leaning towards Surly.

  27. #27
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,308
    I sucked my chain up again today. Compressing the suspension doesn't provide enough clearance to get it out. We had been riding deep mud and also sawing over a lot of fallen trees, so it's possible I bent another tooth and/or the mud was just too gluey.

    Bash ring it is, then. Was trying to put it on before the ride but I actually have to dismantle the damn crankset to get it on.
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    48
    I got my Rip almost 3 weeks ago and have had chain suck 5 times, Twice being in a race where I had to get off my bike and rip the chain through the bottom bracket and the big ring. The last chain suck was this past weekend. I was 8 miles into some back country and the cain sucked and it took my rear derailleur with it and snaped it. I made it into SS and took a fire road out. I love this bike but the chain suck is a huge negitive. It has been sitting in the BS for 3 days tryingt to figure out what the hell we are suppose to do. I have a call scheuduled with the manager of my shop and Brian at Niner to discuss this on Wed. I will post some pics when I get the bike back but as you can imagine my bottom bracket is aleady pretty ripped up and paint is scrapped bad. The manager at my shop called Niner 2 weeks ago when this 1st happend and they said they have not heard any problems with cain suck. Well I think they have now. I hope they come on this site and read up!! I have all brand new parts on this bike with a 175 XT crank so nothing out of the ordinary. I had to vent, thanks....

  29. #29
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,308
    I'm sure they're reading this thread. I would imagine the lack of a response is because they are still working on the solution. Jeez, I HOPE that's the case anyway.

    The possible solutions appear to be

    1. Bash ring
    2. Smaller big ring, possibly smaller chainset overall

    The Middleburn cranks look nice but the chainline is smaller than the XT and I strongly suspect it won't solve the problem. And I LIKE the XT cranks.

    The bash ring works OK for me in my local riding but it would be a PITA on some fireroad stuff when I'm out west and I'm not really happy about it as a solution. However the bike is marginal to ride without it.

    It would be a horrible shame if such an awesome frame got a bad rap because of such a stupid niggle. The bike absolutely rocks in every other respect.

    /edit -- I've had four cases of chain suck
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    48
    If not for chain suck I would say this is the best bike I have owned period. I have owned or riddend most manufactures out there. I climb faster on this bike than I did my Ibis Mojo and that was 5 lbs lighter. And decending... forget about it, its not even close After my call with Niner tomorrow I will give an update on this link.

  31. #31
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,308
    Agreed... the 07 Rip was easily the best bike I'd ever ridden, and the 09 is (chain suck aside) MUCH better, especially downhill and over the gnar.
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    48
    There was another guy on line from AZ that had a RIP, is that you?

  33. #33
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,308
    No, I'm in Ontario. The other guy is in this thread. There are other guys with clearance issues in this thread.
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  34. #34
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,041

    We the people ...

    Sitting back and watching this thread ...........
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PaloComadoGrinder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    53
    It's looking like my decision to go with a 2x9 set-up on my '09 RIP 9 was a lucky one. While out riding today I was thinking about this thread and while on a slightly descending, fairly smooth fireroad I put it in my top gear ratio and cranked it up to about 27 mph before needing a taller gear. For me, that's all I need. But, it's totally unacceptable that a standard 3x9 setup isn't working for you guys. I've got the Shimano SLX M665, 22/36 Crank Set with a bash guard up front and an 11-34 cassette. It's working well for the riding that I do.
    Last edited by PaloComadoGrinder; 05-14-2009 at 04:35 PM.

  36. #36
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7,939
    Gotta love early adopters that love bleeding edge technology and get to sort all the headaches out for the rest of us. I'm sure when Niner has a solution, they'll make an announcement. I'm wondering if it will be a redesigned rear triangle with a bit less wheel space for less to no chain suck?

    Maybe with this being v2.0 of the RIP, I'll buy a new one with v 2.1 or 2.2. I have to say I do love the one I got and the way it rides on everything except granite spines. That's the only condition I notice the flex in the frame /rear triangle, which is quite rare.

  37. #37
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,041
    Just saw in another thread a guy having trouble running a 36t double ring combo on a new Niner HT so it seems that Niner has gone out of their way to increase tyre clearance and/or have shortened up the chainstay length which is causing these new problems Has anyone measure the CS length on the new RIP9s? According to Niner's site Geo for the new RIP9 the CS is still 17.9", same as the old RIP9, but I still wonder what's causing all these new issues - Can't run a tripple on the RIP9, Can't run a double using a 36t on the new AIR9.....WTF is up?
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  38. #38
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,308
    The issue is to do with the chainstay yoke rather than the chainstay length. It is designed for tons of lateral clearance. You could run a massive tire in there. This makes the yoke very square which brings it up against the chain ring. The yoke is also pretty beefy just there.

    These are all good qualities in and of themselves, but everything gets very tight and busy 'down there'.

    It looks to me as though they need to tweak the yoke design. It is only about a mm or two from being totally fine. I'm guessing that running a 40t big ring would solve it too (if you can find one).

    It also probably has to do with the chainline on the crankset. This is the distance from the middle of the BB to the middle ring. On XT stuff it is 50mm. The Middleburn R7 is 48mm which I imagine is going to make things even tighter.

    The problem could also be solved by offsetting the BB by a few MM but I can't imagine that being an optimal solution.

    This photo shows the yoke pretty clearly. You can see that the chainstays are burly and straight, and then the yoke is pretty darn square. This gives bags of clearance for the tire but not for the big ring.



    And here's the previous version... you can see the yoke is much less square.

    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    10
    Niner, please give us some input on this issue. Ain't lookin' too good, I must say...

  40. #40
    4 Niners
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,124
    Pink-look at the previous pictures. The large ring is outside the link area and the hits are on the chainstays. It is obvious that Niner beefed these parts up substantially in order to make the Rip very stiff. Now they have a couple of contianers full of bikes that have a problem that didn't surface during testing that is actually happening in real world use. I am sure they are frantically trying to figure out what the best solution is. It might be that they give Rip buyers a 40 tooth ring. I can't immagine needing anything larger with 29er wheels and the potential to use an 11 in the rear. Even on my Jet I took the 44 off and put a bash guard on. I am a spinner, but can get up to 25 with a 32-11 so see no need for a larger ring.

    The current design optimized stiffness, short chainstay, and large tire to the limit. I would take all that and a 40 tooth limit, but some would probably complain so Niner will probably end up redesigning the rear triangle and one of those 3 items will be less optimal, but the winers will be able to get a 44 ring to work. I am led to wonder if Lance could turn a 44-11 on a Rip with 622-55 rubber.

  41. #41
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,308
    The close-up pix are of my bike. The impact is on the yoke. The scratches on the chainstay are from the chain suck. The 2mm clearance is between the big ring and the yoke. But whatever.

    I agree with you that a 40t big ring and the current set-up would be fine. I really like what they have done with the rear triangle. The problem is finding a 40t ring that works with your particular crankset. (Ideally I'd like a 20-30-40t set-up that was guaranteed to work with the RIP and didn't involve having to compromise anything in the rear triangle design).
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Niner Bikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,177
    Guys,

    thanks for the pics and posts. We obviously hate having issues with our frames, any of them and understand your frustration. Here's the reality, it's obviously an issue and people are having problems with big ring chain suck, but we have a lot of these frames out on the market and the cases are pretty isolated. We understand the chainring gap is close, and it's really trying for us to produce prototype after prototype with no issues, and then have something like this pop up on production frames. We even built 25 or so 'pre-production' frames for Interbike last year and didn't have a single case of chain suck during the entire dirt demo using the same chainstay yoke and cranks with the same (50mm) chainline. These bikes are still out in demo fleets across the country and being ridden with no issues. It's not a case of something being different with the new frames, clearance is the same, it's a case of more people riding them in more varied situations. At any rate, we're doing everything we can to figure out this issue and solutions for it. If you are having issues with your frame, contact us and we'll take care of you and your needs. It isn't right for you to have to make concesions and additional purchases based on issues like this and we'll do what we can to make it right.

    In the case of the Air 9 not fitting a 36t chainring, we can't design our frames to work for every set up. We have to make sure they work and work well within a normal range of use, and we can't forsee every single different configuration that a given frame might be built around. For us, tire clearance was more critical than giving it up for the very small percentage of people who will run a 36t middle ring.

    Steve
    Niner Bikes

  43. #43
    trail "cleaner"
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,381

    Ok...

    So, I was the first to report of this particular problem back in April.. One thing I suggested was if a Triple chainring is mandatory, add one more spacer on the driveside BB cup for additional clearance. I opted to just remove the 44 tooth chainring and install a bashguard. Has anyone that 'requires' a triple chainring set up done what I have suggested with the spacer??
    Attached Images Attached Images

  44. #44
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,041
    I'd have to say the biggest problem here is - There's no commercially available 40t ramped and pinned chainrings out there. I think what Niner should do is put a warning/statement that although a normal 22/32/44 triplle can be used it isn't guarenteed and the prefered is a tripple using a 42t ring or smaller.

    For the intended purpose of the bike I think the re-design was needed and a HUGE improvement and even though there are those that say I'm anti-Niner, on this one I'd have to say non issue, just needs to be clearly stated in the literature and by dealers - I'll take better clearance and stiffness anyday!
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  45. #45
    4 Niners
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,124
    +1 I think it is a non-issue also.

  46. #46
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,041

    Caution;  Merge;  Workers Ahead! Let's clarify.........

    ............Future Non Issue! But for those who bought the build kits with the expectation of using a tripple it's an issue for them because of the lack of a 40t big ring.

    What I would suggest for those people would be for Niner maybe to contact the guy in the 29er forum who makes the 30t and 20t rings and was talking about doing the 40t and get him to make a bunch for them, even have them lazer etched with the Niner logo. Then if Niner was nice they could give them out as a "thanks", but they could also offer them for sale and I'd bet they'd sell pretty good. Heck get him to make the complete "compact" ring set for them, etched and all.

    Quote Originally Posted by yourdaguy
    +1 I think it is a non-issue also.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  47. #47
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,308
    Quote Originally Posted by AZmtncycler
    So, I was the first to report of this particular problem back in April.. One thing I suggested was if a Triple chainring is mandatory, add one more spacer on the driveside BB cup for additional clearance. I opted to just remove the 44 tooth chainring and install a bashguard. Has anyone that 'requires' a triple chainring set up done what I have suggested with the spacer??
    On XT Hollowtech II cranks at least you can't just add a spacer, or at least you can but it's not a good idea. The crank spindle is a certain length and if you add spacers the non-drive crank will no longer fit properly. The plastic tension screw does not have much thread on it, and the spindle spines will no longer be snug in the crank arm. Also the plastic tube which connects the two BB cups inside the frame will no longer mate up. I think this will apply to most external BB cranks.

    /Edit -- this would have been possible on the previous RIP9 because it had a 68mm BB and used 3 x 2.5mm spacers, one on the non-drive and two on the drive. By moving the left hand spacer over you could shift the crankset to the right by 2.5 mm. However the new version has a 73mm BB and only uses one spacer, on the drive side. There's no way to shift it over.

    With certain cranksets this may also take the chainline outside the specs of the front derailleur (on an XT crankset it would take it from 50mm to 52.5mm), meaning that the FD will no longer reliably change up to the big ring.

    Lynx is correct that there is no currently commercially available 40t pinned and ramped big chainring.
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  48. #48
    Bodhisattva
    Reputation: The Squeaky Wheel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,444
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx
    What I would suggest for those people would be for Niner maybe to contact the guy in the 29er forum who makes the 30t and 20t rings and was talking about doing the 40t and get him to make a bunch for them, even have them lazer etched with the Niner logo. Then if Niner was nice they could give them out as a "thanks", but they could also offer them for sale and I'd bet they'd sell pretty good. Heck get him to make the complete "compact" ring set for them, etched and all.
    I agree. And I suggest Niner also anodize them in various colors to match the frame colors.

  49. #49
    Supersonic Garfield
    Reputation: Trond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    554
    TA Specialites makes middle 38/40/42 ring pinned and ramped. I have a 38 on my 2009 RIP with no issues, ill take a picture tonight on the clearance

    http://cyclecomponents.com/1/sv/arti...-104-mm-2.html

    I use TA for the inner ring as well, running 28-38. Wicked setup.

  50. #50
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,308
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx
    ............Future Non Issue! But for those who bought the build kits with the expectation of using a tripple it's an issue for them because of the lack of a 40t big ring.

    What I would suggest for those people would be for Niner maybe to contact the guy in the 29er forum who makes the 30t and 20t rings and was talking about doing the 40t and get him to make a bunch for them, even have them lazer etched with the Niner logo. Then if Niner was nice they could give them out as a "thanks", but they could also offer them for sale and I'd bet they'd sell pretty good. Heck get him to make the complete "compact" ring set for them, etched and all.
    That would be nice, or get Middleburn to OEM some maybe. I wonder if there is a problem getting to 40t with a 4-bolt set-up though? Do you have a link to the thread?
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  51. #51
    4 Niners
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,124
    It might only take a 42 to solve the problem and 42 is readily available.

  52. #52
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,308
    42 would be about 1/3" smaller in diameter than 44. That would bring in the teeth about 1/6" radially (4mm). You're right, it might be enough. I think a 40 would be nice though...I'd actually prefer it.
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  53. #53
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,308
    A Niner 20-30-40 ring set up is something I could REALLY get behind!
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  54. #54
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7,939
    Maybe all 2009 Niner RIPS should come from the factory with cranks and triple ring gear supplied. If you don't want the triple, install your own bash guard. If you don't like their cranks, use your own, at your own risk.


    As a suggestion to Niner... perhaps you should list the known good combos of cranks you did use on your 25 demo's that did work, that you didn't have drive line/chain suck problems with?

    I wonder how the big boys like Giant and Santa Cruz get around problems like this.... oh wait as sec, they don't make 29'ers with short chain stays. D'oh!

  55. #55
    Bodhisattva
    Reputation: The Squeaky Wheel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,444
    Quote Originally Posted by RandyBoy
    Maybe all 2009 Niner RIPS should come from the factory with cranks and triple ring gear supplied. If you don't want the triple, install your own bash guard. If you don't like their cranks, use your own, at your own risk.


    As a suggestion to Niner... perhaps you should list the known good combos of cranks you did use on your 25 demo's that did work, that you didn't have drive line/chain suck problems with?
    There is precedent for this in the wonderful world of road biking. For example, the Specialized Tarmac can be purchased with no BB and regular threads or with the integrated Shimano crankset (which is their proprietary version of the BB30 standard).

  56. #56
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation: 2melow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,682
    Quote Originally Posted by RandyBoy


    As a suggestion to Niner... perhaps you should list the known good combos of cranks you did use on your 25 demo's that did work, that you didn't have drive line/chain suck problems with?

    Truvativ Stylo 3.3.

    I know of 5 shops that have these bikes still in their demo fleet and none of them have had anyone complain of chain suck, or have visible chain suck marks. The RIP9 I was riding for a few weeks had no problems either running Stylo's.

    Brett
    Niner Bikes
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Front Range Forum Moderator

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: olekz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    52
    Brett,

    Were any spacers used on the drive side?

    I have had my 09 RIP for just a couple weeks and it has happened to me a few times. I chalked it up to operator error , but after reading this thread maybe not. I have to tell you one time it was a real B@#$% to get it out .

    Regardless, I took Steve's advise and gave Niner a call. It was the first time I needed to call Niner and the experience was very positive.

  58. #58
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,041
    Yes, an excellent idea and even though I still see it as a non issue, I can't believe that Niner would test any bike without testing it with one of the most popular cranksets on the market, the Shimano XT to me that's just crazy to only test it with your build kit crankset and leave out the most popular crankset

    Quote Originally Posted by RandyBoy
    Maybe all 2009 Niner RIPS should come from the factory with cranks and triple ring gear supplied. If you don't want the triple, install your own bash guard. If you don't like their cranks, use your own, at your own risk.

    As a suggestion to Niner... perhaps you should list the known good combos of cranks you did use on your 25 demo's that did work, that you didn't have drive line/chain suck problems with?

    I wonder how the big boys like Giant and Santa Cruz get around problems like this.... oh wait as sec, they don't make 29'ers with short chain stays. D'oh!
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  59. #59
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,308
    By a complete fluke I have a Stylo 3.3 on its way to me for a bike I'm building up for a friend. It should be here in the next day or so. I will fit it to the bike and take some pix. The specs say it has a 50mm chainline like the XT cranks but it will be interesting to see if there's any difference.

    By the way, the Stylo pic shows it on one of the gusseted prototypes, not the final production model. Was there any difference in the rear triangle between that model and the one that shipped?
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  60. #60
    4 Niners
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,124
    That crank (Stylo) uses a different bottom bracket than regular external bb cranks. The hole in the non drive side is smaller than the hole in the drive side which is the same size as both holes in other bottom brackets. My Jet has a 68mm bb and it uses a spacer on each side with the Stylo so the 73mm Rip would probably use no spacers (spacers are generally 2.5mm). Many bottom brackets use 3 spacers on a 68 and 1 on a 73 setup so it is likely that the drive side cup is effectively thicker on this particular crank. If most of the prototypes used this crank, there never would have been an issue until production and other cranks came into the picture.

  61. #61
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7,939
    Quote Originally Posted by 2melow
    Truvativ Stylo 3.3.

    I know of 5 shops that have these bikes still in their demo fleet and none of them have had anyone complain of chain suck, or have visible chain suck marks. The RIP9 I was riding for a few weeks had no problems either running Stylo's.

    Brett
    Niner Bikes
    Thanks Brett.


    Were these built in house by Frank or Joe? Any way to get the shim configuration or a pic of the prototype builds, so we know how many shims or shim on the drive side and on the non drive side, if any? A picture is worth 1000 words, let's get the news out with pics of what does work, in the interest of keeping all these people riding.


    And as a heads up, I have a 2008 Stylo crank and ring gears on my Niner RIP v1.1 with gusset. I have completely shark toothed the middle ring gear on it in just under 2 months and 700 miles of riding. It is toast and slipping dangerously only under heavy load. If you stand up and mash, or you practice single speed tactics and gearing while climbing on your geared 9 speed bike, you need to know that if you are a Clyde, it fries your skinny little 9 speed chain and ring gear in short order, turning them to waste and scrap metal quite quickly. I'm taking the weight penalty and going with steel ring gears for the small and middle ring gears from here on out.

    Chain is SRAM 970 and rear cassette is SRAM 990. Everything has to go and be replaced now. Ring gears too, already did the chain and cassette.
    Last edited by Boyonabyke; 05-14-2009 at 03:52 PM.

  62. #62
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7,939
    Maybe it's time for Niner to get some LX, XT and XTR Three ring cranks in house, as well as some Middleburns, Stylo and Firex models, strictly for test before going in to production? Fit all 5 of them, in Small, medium, large and XL for demo's before going into production with any new model frame?

    Next question... is this going to be an issue for the more All Mountain WFO only being able to run 2 ring versus 3 ring cranks? Anyone at Niner tested that yet, with various cranks? Has there been any rear triangle design swapping between the two models?
    Last edited by Boyonabyke; 05-14-2009 at 04:21 PM.

  63. #63
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,308
    I had a Stylo GXP on my SIR9 when I originally built it a couple of years ago and for me it was nothing but trouble. I couldn't get the crank arm to stay on. At that time I had a 10 mile each way commute and no matter how hard I tightened it at the beginning of the ride, it was loose by half way. That's what turned me on to XT cranks which have been absolutely bombproof... my heart sinks at the thought of going back to Stylos. However I will fit them and see what happens.
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  64. #64
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7,939
    Quote Originally Posted by PaloComadoGrinder
    It's looking like my decision to go with a 2x9 set-up on my '09 RIP 9 was a lucky one. While out riding today I was thinking about this thread and while on a slightly descending, fairly smooth fireroad I put it in my top gear ratio and cranked it up to about 27 mph before needing a taller gear. For me, that's all I need. But, it's totally unacceptable that a standard 3x9 setup isn't working for you guys. I've got the Shimano SLX M665, 22/35 Crank Set with a bash guard up front and an 11-34 cassette. It's working well for the riding that I do.


    I do a loop called Los Pinetos in Santa Clarita. On it, near the end, there's a paved downhill section. I need all three ring gears, I've had it up to 40 or 41 mph there. Sometimes, that's the reality where I ride.

    http://trail.motionbased.com/trail/activity/7475217

    This one is all dirt.

    http://trail.motionbased.com/trail/activity/7237692

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    10
    Must say this kinda sucks, so to speak. Can't really believe you didn't do proper tests with the XT crankset, if that's the case. Anyway, the frame's here, and I'm sure it rocks, so I guess it's bashguard time. No Stylo for me, that's for sure.

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: D.F.L.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,840
    The suck could be from misalignment, like on the old Fisher Sugars.

    Any additional spacers behind the drive side BB cup would only increase chainline (which is already bad on these modern cranks) and likely increase chainsuck and wear.

    I don't have a Niner, but I do have the new XT crank and I've never had chainsuck with it, despite a year of use. It's great.

    150mm hubs should be the future.

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation: olekz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    52
    So RB, what would (should) a Clyde put on....details please.

  68. #68
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,308
    I don't think the suck is from misalignment. The 2mm big ring clearance with suspension unsagged is apparently correct.
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation: D.F.L.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,840
    Quote Originally Posted by pinkheadedbug
    I don't think the suck is from misalignment. The 2mm big ring clearance with suspension unsagged is apparently correct.
    Nah, I didn't mean that the 2mm is due to misalignment. Misalignment could cause all that suck, and the 2mm is just making an aggravating problem much worse when it all jams.

    I just threw it out there because I still have vivid memories of all those sucking, misaligned Sugars.

    Oh, and a 20T granny wears faster and is more prone to chainsuck due to the smaller diameter. Look for a good STEEL one (try ActionTec) and keep your chain fresh.

  70. #70
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    7,939
    Quote Originally Posted by olekz
    So RB, what would (should) a Clyde put on....details please.
    I'll let you know when I find a good working solution. I'm going with steel rings this time.

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by 2melow
    Truvativ Stylo 3.3.

    I know of 5 shops that have these bikes still in their demo fleet and none of them have had anyone complain of chain suck, or have visible chain suck marks. The RIP9 I was riding for a few weeks had no problems either running Stylo's.

    Brett
    Niner Bikes
    Truvativ Noir 3.3 GXP

    The issue is happening for me with the slightly different model from your experience as reported in AZmtncycler's thread "my 09 RIP in RAW". I've complained, called and started working on a resolution with Niner and the bike shop where it was purchased and built.

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Niner Bikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,177
    Guys, just to be clear, we did and continue to prototype frames with both SRAM and Shimano product. My personal RIP 9 has seen XT cranks on it for most of it's life and I've had no issues with chain suck. The model in the computer is built around Shimano's XT cranks, from the 3d files supplied by Shimano to us for checking clearance issues. The tolorance from the computer matches the tolorance in the real world and we've found no appreciable difference in clearance or function between Shimano and SRAM (Truvativ) drivetrains. We were only stating that the bikes we built up for Dirt Demo didn't have a single chain suck problem, and they were mostly running Stylo cranks. We currently have RIP 9's built up with XT and XTR cranks, also without issue. Our design goal was to increase stiffness and have good tire clearance while maintaining our relatively short chainstays over a longer travel bike. Obviously we are looking back into this to solve this issue for people who are having it.

    Steve
    Niner Bikes

  73. #73
    Over the Hill
    Reputation: dstepper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,752
    Personally I think you all are being to picky. I have built up a number of custom builds from different bike companies and I normally have some small compatibility issues with parts and different frames. I always just wrote that off as the way it is when I pick the parts I want instead of buying a pre-built bike from Giant, Trek..ect....

    Small issue and another reason to run Middleburn Cranks where you have tons of gearing options and Phil Wood bottom bracket where you can adjust the chainline..

    Dean

  74. #74
    Feeding your addiction
    Reputation: Ventanarama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    2,663
    Quote Originally Posted by pinkheadedbug
    I just took a look at the 20-30-40 options and although it sounds great at first I can see a few problems. The best (only?) integrated approach is Middleburn R7 + 20-30-40 chainrings and while these seem like really excellent products, they are only available for ISIS BBs, which max out at 113mm. With 113mm BBs the chainline is 48mm, which is 2mm narrower than the XT/LX cranks.
    .
    FYI, there are 118mm SKF bottom brackets. Might be others too, but SKF is the only ISIS BB worth using anyway.

    Larry
    www.mtnhighcyclery.com
    "It is inhumane, in my opinion, to force people who have a genuine medical need for coffee to wait in line behind people who apparently view it as some kind of recreational activity". - Dave Barry

  75. #75
    Supersonic Garfield
    Reputation: Trond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    554
    Here are pics of the 28-38 TA Specialites setup. I can keep a cadence at 50km/h using 38-11 so for me 2 rings are even more versatile than a 3-ring setup. If I ever get that speed on a trail I will have other problems than pedaling Even while I was racing downhill (top 10 nationally) I never maxed out my pedalling on a 38-11 setup.

    I am waiting for a Blackspire Ring God bashring (light at 70grams) to complement the setup, should come in today
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Trond; 05-14-2009 at 11:58 PM.

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation: olekz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    52
    Thanks for the photos, could you take one of the final setup when its complete?

    I think I'm going to try the TA Specialites 42t as a triple setup. But you really have me thinking about the double 28/28 with a BR. I should know the ETA today on the 42t.

  77. #77
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,308
    Thanks, Larry. The SKF BB looks pretty great. That plus the Middleburn 20-30-40 set-up could rock.
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  78. #78
    Bodhisattva
    Reputation: The Squeaky Wheel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Ventanarama
    Might be others too, but SKF is the only ISIS BB worth using anyway.
    oxymoron....can't use ISIS & "worth using" in the same sentence

  79. #79
    trail "cleaner"
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,381

    agree 100%

    Quote Originally Posted by The Squeaky Wheel
    oxymoron....can't use ISIS & "worth using" in the same sentence
    I blew up three SKF ISIS BB's shells after destroying multiple 'Other" branded ISIS BB's. After the third SKF... I threw in the towel on ISIS altogether.

  80. #80
    4 Niners
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,124
    The Isis design is flawed. The bearings are too small. Even the very high grade SKF bearings eventually bite the dust. Please don't buy any Isis stuf so this inferior standard can die.

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    310
    I rode a pre-production model 2009 RIP 9 out in Moab as a rental for 3 days back in March and logged 100 hard miles on it. I wore that thing out and experienced zero chain suck. I do know that it had the Stylo cranks on it. I loved that bike so much I ordered one up. If you are in Moab....hit Uranium Bicycles and see Lynus!!!

  82. #82
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,041
    Not sure if you guys know this, but the truvativ cranks run a 51mm chainline and even though that's only 1mm more than the XTs that still would take the chain that smidge outboard it might need to give enough to not chainsuck - could be the reason none of the demo bikes suffered from this. I just got a set in for somoene and while installing noticed this.

    Quote Originally Posted by 2melow
    Truvativ Stylo 3.3.

    I know of 5 shops that have these bikes still in their demo fleet and none of them have had anyone complain of chain suck, or have visible chain suck marks. The RIP9 I was riding for a few weeks had no problems either running Stylo's.

    Brett
    Niner Bikes
    Attached Images Attached Images
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  83. #83
    4 Niners
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,124
    Good Catch LyNx. It is a hit/no hit situation and with the curvature of the chainstay that 1mm could make all the difference. The 44 tooth chainrings are definately the same size between Shimano and SRAM. If this is all it takes to solve the problem then a 43 or smaller chainring on the other cranks would probably solve the problem too.

    Maybe Niner needs to have an approved crank list with certain bikes like they have an approved front derailer list with certain models. For the 5 or so people that have had problems so far, Niner could offer to buy them the SRAM crank-bottom backet of their choice in exchange for their current crank that is causing problems. Then Niner would have a collection of various cranks to try out on new models.

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BRUZED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    152
    Correct me if I'm wrong, my definition of "chain suck" is when the chain does not release from the ring (gets stuck).

    The clearance between the rings and the chain stays does not cause chain suck, but it can cause a frustrating side effect of chain suck. Moving the chain line out will help the chain stay/ring clearance issue but it MIGHT aggravate the chain suck issue.

    I would like to know when the chain suck occurs;
    shifting from big to middle?
    from middle to little?
    JRA in middle? big? little?
    ???
    Has anybody checked the frame alignment? Ninner?
    The first gen Trek Fuels had the same issues, it was caused by frame alignment.

    I will have 40t 104bcd chain rings W/shift ramps available soon, and will be testing my 30t and 40t rings on a '09 RIP with XT cranks ASAP. I will keep you posted on the results.

  85. #85
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,041

    Good job!

    Bruzed, thanks for coming and chiming in. I couldn't for the hell of me remember who it was doing the custom rings. Definitely let us know when you have those rings ready - looking for a 24/32/40 compact for myself - as I'm sure that mnost on here are interested in them.

    Quote Originally Posted by BRUZED
    Correct me if I'm wrong, my definition of "chain suck" is when the chain does not release from the ring (gets stuck).

    The clearance between the rings and the chain stays does not cause chain suck, but it can cause a frustrating side effect of chain suck. Moving the chain line out will help the chain stay/ring clearance issue but it MIGHT aggravate the chain suck issue.

    I would like to know when the chain suck occurs;
    shifting from big to middle?
    from middle to little?
    JRA in middle? big? little?
    ???
    Has anybody checked the frame alignment? Ninner?
    The first gen Trek Fuels had the same issues, it was caused by frame alignment.

    I will have 40t 104bcd chain rings W/shift ramps available soon, and will be testing my 30t and 40t rings on a '09 RIP with XT cranks ASAP. I will keep you posted on the results.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  86. #86
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,308
    Quote Originally Posted by BRUZED
    I would like to know when the chain suck occurs;
    shifting from big to middle?
    from middle to little?
    JRA in middle? big? little?
    ???
    Has anybody checked the frame alignment? Ninner?
    The first gen Trek Fuels had the same issues, it was caused by frame alignment.
    For me it is shifting from little to middle and usually in muddy conditions.

    I did a long, hard ride with the bash ring today and I definitely miss the big ring for some reason. I am used to shifting into big front and middle ring back for downhills to tighten up the chain. I did shorten the chain radically when I took off the big ring so maybe it is just something I need to get used to. I could see having a couple more teeth on the front rings making sense with this set-up, but I am more convinced than ever that 20-30-40 is the way to go.
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  87. #87
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by BRUZED
    I would like to know when the chain suck occurs;
    shifting from big to middle?
    from middle to little?
    JRA in middle? big? little?
    ???
    I've only been able to "flex" for lack of a better word a 44t Truvativ Noir 3.3 GXP chainring into the chain stay yoke while climbing out of the saddle. I have not had a chain suck thus far, but it sure wouldn't be a happy day to have to break the chain to remove it if it happens...

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jncarpenter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,824
    One additional option would be to use the 78mm spindle XT cranks. You could redistribute the extra 5mm as you see fit, only those super sensitive to a specific Q factor would even notice the difference.


  89. #89
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,041
    Not sure what chainline that would give you, but I assume more than 50mm and @ 50mm chainlines are already screwed and limit good possible gear combos. I think that would be a bad solution that could create even more problems because of the $hitty chainline.

    Quote Originally Posted by jncarpenter
    One additional option would be to use the 78mm spindle XT cranks. You could redistribute the extra 5mm as you see fit, only those super sensitive to a specific Q factor would even notice the difference.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  90. #90
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,308
    I dunno, Lynx. The 50mm chainline is OK. Moving out by one 2.5mm spacer would probably lose you one big ring gear and perhaps gain you one little ring gear.
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  91. #91
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,308
    I got the Stylo 3.3 GXP today which I had ordered for a friend's bike. As Lynx correctly noted, the chainline is 51mm. I was going to try it on the RIP but when I opened it up I was hit with a wave of unpleasant memories of the way it CONSTANTLY came loose on my SIR9, and could not bring myself to do it.

    I put it on my friend's bike as he'd requested and also remembered the insane torque you are supposed to apply to the crankarm bolt... 400 in lbs or more. I only managed it by taking the wheels off the bike and using the crankarm as a lever on the ground. Even so it was tough to get it up to torque. If it comes loose on the trail you have no chance whatsoever of getting it back to torque. Basically I just don't like their brute force method of attachment. The XT system is so much nicer. So I'm staying with the XT and bash ring for the moment.
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    9
    I have the FireX 3.3 with the 51mm, the 44 is still very close to the chain stay.

    By moving to a 20/30/40, would there be a lot more of the chain hitting the lower part of the derailleur cage when in the 20 chain ring?

  93. #93
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,308
    I think the 20 would cause plenty of what you describe, which is giving me second thoughts.

    I'm also nervous about how close the bolts are to the chain ring on the 20/30 4-bolt designs I've seen.

    I guess the 42 or 40 big ring is the way to go.
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  94. #94
    4 Niners
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,124
    Daddyrod: you would move the FD down with the 40 more than the 20 would lower the chain when on the small ring. When you sit on the bike the suspension compresses and the chain will generally not rub on the FD except when the suspension is extended.

    All in all though, I am fairly certain that just changing to a 42 will solve the problem. None of the pre-production bikes had this problem with 44's that were aparently spaced 1 mm further out so a 42 should do it.

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    9
    You are correct. I would have more room to move down the derailleur. Good point.

    Has anyone had any chain problems using a 42T large ring?

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    9
    I went ahead and ordered a Middleburn 42T from www.mtbtandems.com, he said he has had several orders for the 42T from Niners.

    I will shoot a pic once I get it installed.

  97. #97
    MTB B'dos
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,041

    Cool-blue Rhythm

    Good luck, hope it helps and don't forget to let all the air out of your shock and cycle the suspension to make sure the stay doesn't contact the derailleur cage.

    Quote Originally Posted by daddyrod
    I went ahead and ordered a Middleburn 42T from www.mtbtandems.com, he said he has had several orders for the 42T from Niners.

    I will shoot a pic once I get it installed.
    One day your life will flash before your eyes, will it be worth watching??

  98. #98
    Closekids.com
    Reputation: BoomingSooner's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    891
    Quote Originally Posted by PaloComadoGrinder
    It's looking like my decision to go with a 2x9 set-up on my '09 RIP 9 was a lucky one. While out riding today I was thinking about this thread and while on a slightly descending, fairly smooth fireroad I put it in my top gear ratio and cranked it up to about 27 mph before needing a taller gear. For me, that's all I need. But, it's totally unacceptable that a standard 3x9 setup isn't working for you guys. I've got the Shimano SLX M665, 22/36 Crank Set with a bash guard up front and an 11-34 cassette. It's working well for the riding that I do.
    I've been looking at building up my RIP with the M665, but can't for the life of me figure out why it weighs a friggin 1000g???

    Shouldn't it be lighter?

  99. #99
    Out there
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,308
    I think because it uses a steel small chainring as opposed to aluminum, and an aluminum middle as opposed to steel/carbon on the XT. The difference is only about 150g.

    Oh yeah, and bashguards aren't light (even plastic ones).
    All problems in mountain biking can be solved by going faster, except the ones that are caused by going too fast.

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14
    A quick update as to my attempts at finding a solution with help from the bike shop and Niner:

    Quote Originally Posted by Uaskedforit
    Niner's first suggestion is to swap to a 42t with hopes to gains more clearance.
    The amount of clearance gained was almost not measurable with the 42t, but I decided that Memorial Day weekend riding would be the real test. There was grinding of the big ring into the chainstay/yoke on almost every climb out of the saddle and one chain suck (first time for chain suck with my setup...) that required the chain to be broke during two days of riding with zero mud. My chainstay/yoke went from having a mark that took a keen eye to spot after two full days of riding to one that looked like it's been through a war from two more days...

    Quote Originally Posted by Uaskedforit
    Their second suggestion is to replace the cranks I use with a stiffer model. If I have to go with the second suggestion, I will be going with a 20-30-40 setup with either Middleburn or Surly Mr. Whirly cranks and I'm leaning towards Surly.
    I finally received all the parts to put together a 20-30-40 setup with Surly Mr. Whirly cranks tonight. I can say this setup takes some modifications to get to work as I could not find a BB (Surly, Chris King, etc.) that fits inside the Middleburn inner chainring without contacting the BB cup. I also tried a Race Face chainring I picked up to replace the rings on a friend's old Specialized this weekend, but it didn't fit either. Some filing of each bolt tab on the Middleburn tonight and it fits over the BB cup with what seems like room to spare.

    Other notes on the 20t setup: LyNx comment on cycling the suspension was spot on to be certain the front derailleur doesn't contact the chainstay. Setting up the FD clearance over the 40t and parallel alignment caused the FD to contact the middle ring. So clearance over the middle ring was used giving more than enough clearance over the 40t.

    If the rain doesn't close our trails here, I hope to fine turn and test the new setup this weekend.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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