Forum search & shortcuts

1 x 9 pic
 

[Closed] 1 x 9 pic

Posts: 9301
Free Member
 

Superstar have a new one out that looks very nice.


 
Posted : 15/10/2010 10:48 am
Posts: 61
Full Member
 

I'm not running a bash guard but that's a good solution Tom DB. I'll try and get a pic of mine without the bash this evening.


 
Posted : 15/10/2010 11:07 am
Posts: 1223
Free Member
 

is it just me or does that bit that sticks out the top on the SS/E13/MRP et al guide look really fugly. I really dont like it at all becuase of that.


 
Posted : 15/10/2010 11:13 am
Posts: 464
Free Member
 

is it just me or does that bit that sticks out the top on the SS/E13/MRP et al guide look really fugly.

I might saw that bit off as well now that it's in the right position.


 
Posted : 15/10/2010 11:49 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

First attempt at 1x9 on my new Ridgeline 29.
Using the standard XT ring for a few weeks while I decide if 32T is ok...
12-36 at the back and a short mech.

[IMG] [/IMG]

More pics here...

http://s573.photobucket.com/albums/ss172/paulS_album/Ridgline/

Paul.


 
Posted : 15/10/2010 12:23 pm
Posts: 1223
Free Member
 

paulS - that is one nice looking bike. I think you have helped me to decide that the Paul's Components Chain Keeper is the way forward for me. Any issues with chain falling off yet?


 
Posted : 15/10/2010 12:38 pm
Posts: 61
Full Member
 

You wouldn't see it if you go for a 40T chainring at the front 😆

Tom dB - web monkey

is it just me or does that bit that sticks out the top on the SS/E13/MRP et al guide look really fugly.

I might saw that bit off as well now that it's in the right position.

I thought about doing the same but was concerned it might weaken it and if the chain did snag cause more trouble than it's worth. Tbh I think I can live with it and it's less fugly than a front mech. I agree that Paul's 'Paul' is a more elegant solution.


 
Posted : 15/10/2010 12:41 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Put the fist 20 miles on last night, no problems so far - but will give it a proper test over the weekend.
Just need to dial the forks in first, but feeling smooth so far...

Paul.


 
Posted : 15/10/2010 1:03 pm
Posts: 1223
Free Member
 

Don't forget to report back PaulS on how you get on with the chain keeper in a proper test


 
Posted : 15/10/2010 2:32 pm
Posts: 61
Full Member
 

Here's an image of my SS chain device without bash guard as promised....

[img] [/img]

Not pretty but doing the job.


 
Posted : 16/10/2010 3:42 pm
Posts: 3388
Free Member
 

what cassettes are people using?
am planning on going 1x9, but am also moving to morzine for the next few years, and want a low enough gear to pedal up hills ok... i've seen deores which go up to 36t, but (in 9 speed, 'better' than deore) nothing bigger than 34t. 32:36 would be fine i think, but otherwise i think i'm going to be looking for 30t rings?


 
Posted : 16/10/2010 3:56 pm
Posts: 24441
Full Member
Topic starter
 

34 on one bike 36 on the other


 
Posted : 16/10/2010 3:58 pm
 dobo
Posts: 3
Free Member
 

i'd have thought 34:34 would get you up almost anything ridable


 
Posted : 16/10/2010 4:05 pm
Posts: 1
Free Member
 

the chainring in the OPs original posting looks really close to the chainstay. might be an idea to shift it to the outter position on the cranks. it would look neater and maybe offer a better chainline.

not sure why so many people are running small (29-32t) chainrings on a 1x9 set-up. I used to run 36 or 38t which offered an excellent compromise.


 
Posted : 16/10/2010 4:18 pm
Posts: 3388
Free Member
 

not sure why so many people are running small (29-32t) chainrings on a 1x9 set-up. I used to run 36 or 38t which offered an excellent compromise.

cos i like to ride up alps, as well as down them...
deore the only 9 speed 36t cassetes out there then?


 
Posted : 16/10/2010 4:49 pm
Posts: 24441
Full Member
Topic starter
 

the chainring in the OPs original posting looks really close to the chainstay. might be an idea to shift it to the outter position on the cranks. it would look neater and maybe offer a better chainline.

close but far enough away,the renthal chainring has longer teeth than a standard ring, this helps retain the chain without a bashguard, chainline is spot on too thanks 😉


 
Posted : 16/10/2010 5:13 pm
 GW
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Dr_Bakes - Member
Here's an image of my SS chain device without bash guard as promised....

Not pretty but doing the job.

it'd be a fair bit prettier and do it's job better if fitted properly. 😛
Looks like you've left too big a gap above the chainring (chain can bounce/ride up onto top of chainring teeth and jam/derrail) and it doesn't look like you've rotated forward enough at the bottom bracket. the lower cage edge doesn't follow the curvature of the chainring either but that may just be bad design (to accomodate too large a range of chainring sizes?). is the angle of the cage adustable separately from the mounting plate? or is it a fixed slot? if adustable, rotate it down so curve of the cage follows shape of your chainring closer.

not a SS guide but any top guide should look more like this:
[img] [/img]


 
Posted : 16/10/2010 5:38 pm
 GW
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Rocketdogs chain retention solution is rubbish


 
Posted : 16/10/2010 5:40 pm
Posts: 1
Free Member
 

Rocketdogs chain retention solution is rubbish

and then again there are those who have run 1x9 with a nice unramped chainring mounted in the outside position 🙂 with no inner or outer chain retention device, using a shorter cage rear mech. and good chain tension alone.


 
Posted : 16/10/2010 5:46 pm
Posts: 24441
Full Member
Topic starter
 

if rubbish means the chain hasn't come off on the last 5 rides since taking the front mech off and cost me £8.99 for the n-stop (which i might take off anyway) then i like rubbish 🙂


 
Posted : 16/10/2010 5:53 pm
 GW
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

mmm.. all this talk of small easily chewed meat is making me hungry.


 
Posted : 16/10/2010 5:53 pm
Page 2 / 2