[Closed] arrrrgh Inbred and chain suck!!!

You can try to space the chainset out a bit further and that will help. However it is a problem, which Brant knew about but didn't bother sorting out until the latest frames (if it is sorted now). My brothers (peterpoddy) chainstay snapped because of the clearance issue and I sold my bike before the frame was wrecked. My bro got Argos cycles to put a new chainstay on which was designed better but that was an expensive option of £150+ with the respray.

I have seen people modify the frame using a block of wood and a worryingly large hammer, to create an indent so the rings have more clearance. Although I can't see why anyone should have to do that

As I understand it the 'problem' is the lack of clearance which can lead to a lot of damage when chainsuck occurs rather than something wrong with the frame that actually causes chainsuck (unless there is some known problem that I'm not aware of). The new 456s have an indent in the chainstay which presumably improves clearance.

I have a spot of bother with chainsuck when my 853 Inbred was new (and apparently new chainsets can suck a bit until they wear in - or so I've heard) but I ended up changing the aluminium granny and middle rings on my XT chainset to cheaper, steel Deore ones and things seem to have been fine since. Oddly I also found that a change of lube helped too.

I've now got the chainstay armoured with inner tube, webbing and zipties just in case.

chainsuck doesn't happen "because" of frame design, although some frames don't help. It's caused by worn chain rings.

I have a row for cable ties on the cHainstay behind the front rings to protect it ! My 456 had sucked chain since I built it WITH NEW CHAIN AND GEARS.

Well both me and my brother had problems with brand new chainsets, so worn rings are not the problem. We all get chainsuck, but never notice it because if a frame is designed with adequate clearance the chain merely drops back into place. However the inbreds clearance is only 1-2mm at best so the chain gets jammed between the chsinset and chainrings. As you pedal the hardened steel chain gouges the softer steel chainstay. Do this a few times and it's goodbye chainstay.

I never had a problem with any other frame running exactly the same kit, so it figures the frame design is to fault. And this is backed up by quite a few people and openly admitted by the designer on STW. The attitude Brant had about the issue was such that I will never buy another one of his designs as I haven't the money to waste on cack designs that destroy themselves.

No problem with my Specialized now!!

I've never put chainsuck down to frame design. Muddied chains, worn chains, stiff links, worn chainrings - yes. But not the frame.

Id start with checking you had a short enough chain.

otherwise here's a couple of solutions

[img] ?1227116018[/img]
http://www.evanscycles.com/products/tektro/anti-chain-suck-plate-ec005423

[img] [/img]
http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/product-Third_Eye-Third-Eye-Chain-Watcher-6238.htm

Please read the other posts before you reply!!!

The frame design does not cause the chainsuck at all. However when it does happen, which it does to us all, the clearance issue means the chain gets jammed , damaging the frame as a result. Most frames have good clearance so you never notice the chainsuck when it happens.

Stoner, if I had kept the frame I would have bought the top one. I didn't realize people still made them!! Old school!!

I got one of those Ringle anti-chainsuck plates but the Inbred's extra wide, bridgeless stays make it hard to fit one. Equally I've heard that they can cause more harm than good as they can actually twist when hit, jamming things in harder.

I think that there are supposedly two types of chainsuck, a shifting type where the chain gets pulled up during over-shifts, which the Deda Dog Fang thing is supposed to deal with (I've got an [url= http://www.gvtc.com/~ngear/ ]N-Gear Jump Stop[/url] fitted) and a different type where the chain fails to disengage from the chaninrings and gets pulled up past the stays in which case you'll have to had something like the plate to knock it off.

that one's the tektro copy of what I imagine was the original Ringle one.

One of the easier bits of niche-kit to fabricate at home too.

One thing about the Inbred clearance is that without the minimal clearance you wont get the largest tyre clearance given the limitatinos of standard 47.5mm chainline standards. Hence the plate chainstay that Brant has incorporated into his new ragley to maximise the driveside tyre clearance which is limited by IS chsinline standards. The only previous solution was to use dimples on inside and outside of the chainstay which is what I have on my DN6 inbred, which incidentally has no chainsuck marks.

just be glad it ONLY happened on a fairly cheap frame.imagine how gutted you would be if like me it happened on a Cove Hummer resulting on a trip back to Litespeed for new chainstays!!!!!!cost ? £300 !!!! that i had to pay for because Cove wouldn't admit they had a problem with clearance and laid the blame at my door.lack of maintenance apparently .which i strongly denied .how could they know what my maintenance schedule (anal) is like? i've found since that i am not alone BTW.

Apparently Tektro jobber not currently available.

available from the states.
http://shop.ebay.co.uk/?_from=R40&_trksid=m38&_nkw=tektro+chain&_sacat=See-All-Categories

although as I say, probably one of the easiest things to knock-up at home in the shed.

i was led to believe that i had one of the newer frames (08 model)

if i was to "modify" the chain stay using a lump of wood would that help or am i likely to damage the frame even more and weaken it??

ive tried wedging my chainstay protector down behind it but the chain just cuts through it??

the only other thing i can do is move the spacer over from the bottom bracket so i have 3 on the drive side?? is this a good idea?

a g-clamp and some bits of wood would work. In fact I think that's how Brant did his prototypes.

I used to have issues with my 'original' stiffee. (some have the same issues with the hummer)
I think I have been around long enough to work out that all frames designed for 2.5-2.7 tyres will have problems with chain clearance, hence the suck in British conditions.

Unless rear wheels are spaced further apart & BB are made wider then I think the best idea is to stay with 'normal' tyres.

"Stoner - Member
a g-clamp and some bits of wood would work. In fact I think that's how Brant did his prototypes. "

That's how I stopped the chain jamming on my 456.
Photo below was taken before I re-painted the chainstay, but shows the indent I put in with the g-clamp.

[IMG] [/IMG]

All the new Ragley's (ti, steel and alloy) have the plate chainstay design which came from my wish to do a ti frame with big tyre and chainring clearance.

I never got chainsuck once on my Summer Season though, but perhaps that's because it was an FSA chainset with steel rings, and I was running a 105 short arm road mech.

If you try and mash your way out of chainsuck, then frankly, I'm sorry, but you deserve everything you get.

Vigilance when shifting at the front is key, and if it's sucking as you're riding along, your maintenance is tosh, and quite possibly your chainlube too sticky.

Fitting a new chain to a worn chainset will result in worse suck still.

http://www.fagan.co.za/Bikes/Csuck/

Indenting a frame isn't hard and can make a difference if you're getting suck problems.

I swapped the 44t for a 40t ring on my Hummer which gave more clearance & a big difference to the problem. As others have said - it's not the frame causing it, it's just that it doesn't deal with it as well as a frame with greater clearance.

On the plus side - you've got plenty of tyre clearance ;o)

a g-clamp and some bits of wood would work. In fact I think that's how Brant did his prototypes. "

I just hit it with a hammer.

So often I credit class where there is none.

🙂

nice work simon.

Maybve I was confusing your classy technique with Mr. Brant "farmer giles" Richards approach.

woo - hero!!

(aimed at brant)

So often I credit class where there is none.

You'll like this then... I think chainsuck on a bike is a bit like herpes. Once you've got it, it'll keep coming back.

Short chains, correct shifting, good chainlube... Not necessarily lots of maintenance (my 29er has the same profile chainstays and was positively abused but never sucked once, running Deore group).

Simon - you look to have done a good job there - though I'd not have bothered repainting in that area (as it'll just get scraped off by the chain when it sucks, no?

Brant, I've changed the chainrings since I had CS problems, from Truvativ alu ones to Deore steel, as well as puting the indent in.
And I've lost the chain a couple of times (not CS just dropped off the granny) and the paint has chipped, so the painting could have been a pointless exercise. I probably need to shorten the chain and/or fit a short cage rear mech.

I think steel rings rock. When I get 5mins I'm going to do some nice simple steel rings without fancy shifting ramps and pins shit and see how I get on. Nowt more than cut down teeth.

I generally only use steel Deore rings but I got the 24/36 Truvativ ones cheap with a bash guard.

Excellent, that's the month of April's Inbred/chainsuck/"frames don't cause chainsuck" thread out the way then. Roll on May 😉

brant, i have a lot of issues with chainsuck on my 456, replaced all drivechain chain is pretty short, lube is finishline green and new so not sticky (and no probs on any of my other bikes, 1st ride out fekkin chainsuck, my stay is pretty furked now, so im not sure its down to maintenance, and as for correct shifting i've no problems on any other bike ever..?
i love the 456, but the chainsuck is getting annoying and there doesnt seem to be any common denominator...?

maybe its time to break out the g clamp

FMH. When is it sucking?

normally when shifting down to the granny (note not under load, and normally when it does i can pre empt it and stop it going all the way through) but has happened in middle ring for no apparent reason (and i've bent several chains), would a shorter cage mech sort that out then?

If you have a new drive train, then really it can only be the lube at fault?
Bike design accentuates a problem, but surely the problem is the underlying cause?

what is this chainsuck of which you speak, i have never ever had it and just run whatever dodgy old gear i get handed down to me and i have a tatty old inbred which is without doubt my favourite bike.

i have 5 bikes, one lube for all of them, only one bike gets chainsuck..not the lube then, and as its a popular lube then surely thousands of people would be getting it and then no one would buy it..?
my 456 is also my favourite bike (just sold my heckler as it didn't get a look in) but this is getting to me a bit now.

Out of interest as Brant is on, why can't we just space the rear hub & increase the BB to suit wider tyres?

I know we are talking about yet another new industry standard, but they are always changing anyway, so why not one more?

[i]increase the BB to suit wider tyres?[/i]

Do you mean increase width of BB? If so, isn't the reason to do with Q factor...Sheldon explains [url= http://www.sheldonbrown.com/cranks.html#tread ]http://www.sheldonbrown.com/cranks.html#tread[/url]

Are you seriously telling me the lube I use makes the chain jam between the chainset and chainstay? Do you take me as some sort of retard?

I had bad CS on my 456 (Red) that wrecked 2 chains and damaged the chainstay. Changed the front mech and have not had a problem. The old front mech had been on my previous 2 inbreds which had no CS problems. I reckon part of the problem is that we tend to build inbreds ourselves and maybe we just dont get all the settings right.

robdob, think for a moment, chainsuck is only a problem once the chain continues to stay attached to the drive ring once it has past its lowest point.
So something is making the chain stay attached, what do you think makes it stay attached, the frames magnetic properties?

Anyway, if we can't increase girth as per sheldon brown to combat the problem, why can't we increase the wheelbase a few MM?

Do you take me as some sort of retard?

You are my 14yr old daughter and I claim my £5.

my inbred is a single speed; never a sniff of chainsuck. 8)

whats all this hammer,clamps,woods thing going on? like 2unfit2ride says,its the drive at fault. so why tweak something thats taking the brunt of another problem?

no drive at fault on my bike though..?

checked my rear mech and its pretty much a short cage but not a roadie mech, so i think i may take an extra link out (although i reckon my chain length is ok) to see if it helps any, failing that i may do the g clamp thing, how exactly do i achieve this without wrecking my frame? i assume you support the stays by wedging a bit of wood between them then belt the shite out of the stay untill a dent appears..? or wind the g clamp in till it starts to compress the metal (probably neater i guess!!)[b]

shaman...a front mech wouldn't cause CS.

my inner and middle ring are deore steels and fairly new so they aren't the problem.

i don't get suck under load ,only when cruising along under no pressure and it sucks like a whore earning her money!!!

drive train is probably a year old.

going to hit my frame with a ****ing big hammer see if that will cure it

renton, as i mentioned earlier i twisted a few chains, if its doing it very often then it'll be worth your while just checking over the chain and making sure there aren't any twisted links as this'll really make it suck like the whore you describe, my current chain has 3 power links from a ride a few weeks ago.

oh and its strange that my components came off my heckler on which i never ever got any problems (still prefer the 456 tho!!)

**** me this has gone down hill and im steaming drunk. im sure a retard somewhere will be offended. brant i for one would like to thank you for the inbred i used to run and the 456 i do now 😉 until i sober up and then i may not . lol

FWIW I have never owned an inbred, but I've only ever had chainsuck with worn Shimano rings (they seem to squash and deform creating little nibs to catch the chain, as well as wear down) and crazy SITS '08 mud. Never had a problem with Middleburn rings whatever state of wear, except for the SITS 08 time, but a bit of chainsuck in that event was fairly trivial compared to what others had.

brant, when are you selling these cheap simple steel rings?

*places order*

finish line green is sticky. tard.

Thought I might chuck a comment in here, having read robdob's question about him being a retard. I have a prototype frame that I bought from Brant, a 567, which is a somewhat overbuilt 456, (obviously). All the bits bar forks came from a Hummer. At the time, there were lots of threads on here about Hummers and chainsuck, a problem I suffered from myself.
Using the exact same drivertrain on the Inbred I have the same problem. It's usually when the chain gets a bit dry or gritty, but not always, the chain sticks to the middle ring when changing to the granny causing the chain to pull up between the ring and stay. To blame Brant is frankly bloody childish, he has designed a frame using existing tubes to get the largest possible tyre between the stays. If the drivetrain causes problems then that's where the fault lies. You're obviously not old enough to remember when chainsuck plates were a standard feature on frames because of the continual problem. Many Inbreds have been sold, very few seem to suffer the chainsuck problem. This should give you a clue. FWIW, my drivetrain is six year old SRAM X9 front and rear, with RF Turbine ISIS cranks, an RF ISIS Signature BB, also six years old, and RF middle and granny rings with a bash. Now, it could be that changing to an external bearing BB might well put the cranks out far enough to give the bit of extra clearance to stop it happening. Perhaps Brant could confirm. I can't afford to ditch an otherwise perfectly good drivetrain, so I'll see about getting a chainsuck plate, at the moment I've just got a couple of jubilee clips around the stay to protect it.

thank god im not the only one that can remember my chainstays getting creamed in 1991 way before i could blame brant 😉

Interesting stuff on chainsuck here:-
http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=507203

count zero ,you really need to read the whole thread
im not saying the frame is the reason im getting chain suck but because of the clearance issues between frame and chainset when you get chainsuck it is tearing the frame apart.

now i realize i need to have a look at my drive train and see if its worn im looking for some sort of way of preventing it happening on the inbred as i happen to really like the frame!!

i already run lx ht2 chainset with external bearings and have steel inner and middle rings.

Brant is obviously aware of the problems people are having with the frame as he has now changed the design and put a "dent" in the frame where it occurs.

FWIW I had some problems with chainsuck on a Mk1 Soul, sorted out by moving from a 113 to 118 BB. I'm using Octalink though, the same option isn't there with HT2, you'd just end up shifting the whole crank assembly to the right to get more clearance and you won't be able to do it at all on a 73mm BB shell without reducing the crank/spline interface.
[img] [/img]

My maintenance and lubing habits have not changed much over the last 10 years, but I am pretty sure that my geared Inbred suffers worse from chain jamming than other frames (Kona, and Kinesis Maxlights) did. I understand that the chain stays hooked to the ring as a result of being dirty, worn or whatever, but a lack of clearance does clearly make the problem more dramatic. (I'm sure there are things I could do to stop it happening, the point is simply that I have not done those things while running other frames and have not had the problem to the same extent.)

It's not usually a great problem anyway as long as you're paying attention, the only time it's really had a go a spoiling my day was Hit The North.

I might try socking it with a hammer at some point though... 😀

[url= http://www.shedfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/upthebum-300x225.jp g" target="_blank">http://www.shedfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/upthebum-300x225.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

MBA had it sussed way back at the endo of the 80's when Zap said elevated chainstay bikes are the future 😆 - cos you don't get chainsuck (or at least the effects), and you can use shorter chainstays. Come on brant, how about an e-stay Ragley.

[img] [/img]

oh and its strange that my components came off my heckler on which i never ever got any problems

I should think you never noticed the chainsuck on your Heckler, because of the elevated stays. I miss my SC Superlight and Scott Endorphin for that very reason; no chainsuck!

I've had some chainsuck problems on my 456 in the past but it stopped all together when I changed my RaceFace Race Rings chainrings to Middleburn Hardcotes. The tight chainring/chainstay clearance on the older 456s just exemplifies the problem when it happens.

Is there going to be a steel or aluminium version of this beauty brant?

BD. Both.

Had mental chainsuck on day one of my 853 build. However common sense says that the frame can't make the chain stick to the rings and draw it up into the space between the frame and rings.
Re built it, checked all the alignments and checked for wear. I replaced the middle XT ring with a deore steel job and hey presto no more chainsuck ever again.
Routine maintenance and inspection keeps chainsuck at bay, did plenty of solo 24's on mine with no problems.
BTW the green finish line in the black bottle is hellishly sticky, I end up with half my local trails in my drivetrain with that stuff.

im using Fenwicks wet lube which i got cheap and have noticed that its quite sticky stuff so that might not be helping!!!

ive done the frame mod using a ball hammer and it seems to have give me a bit more clearance.

fingers crossed

ive done the frame mod using a ball hammer

Good lad!