[Closed] On-one Scandal chainstays

which I've solved by denting the chainstays with a ball peen hammer.

[img] [/img]

Nice.

Sure it wasn't your chainrings? Middleburn chainsuck like mad.

I think it was an approved mod in the owners handbook...

My Scandal is a couple of years old now. The chainstays are heavily scarred by chainsuck (Shimano rings). I don't worry about it though 😐

Could be the two ring set up. I ran Duo's on an Explosif years back and the chain clearance was scary. Changed to a ScandAL and found the clearance to be a bit better. Changed to a three ring XT setup and I've got maybe 1 to 1.5 cm clearance now. More than enough and I've never had chain suck. Much better solution than the Duo's too. I'm pretty sure that Brant designed the bike with XT in mind. I'm sure he'll chip in if that isn't the case!

And you're right about being concerned with hammer-based user solutions to clearance issues! Resist that urge 😉

i've got XTs on mine and never experienced chain suck with my setup.

Never got chain suck on my Middleburn tough coat rings, even when it was that muddy that the only useable rear sprocket was the 32 so effectively I was riding a 3 speed.

Yeah, should say that my tough coat MBs never chain-sucked either on both bikes. Might be worth dropping an email to On-one, Ragley or Cy at Cotic. See what they think. All offer great frames. Personally speaking I'd build the drive system around the frame rather than the other way around.

i've got one of the very first scandals with full xt of that same era. i have never had a single incident of chainsuck on it in the whole time i've had it. in fact it looks good as new all over. what a great bike it is too.

never had chainsuck on anything isnt it to do with bad set up or maintenance?

Chainsuck is well known on the inbred frame - search the forum. Thats why the latest 456 incarnations have a relieved area behind the chainrings. Many people have altered the chainstay profile with either a g-clamp, or gentle persuasion with a ball peen hammer.

The clearance behind the rings when using a 36t middle ring is probably about 2mm as standard - not enough!

Is anybody running a 36t middle on a scandal with success? I would hope to run XT cranks with a 24 / 36 setup (No outer ring).

I'm running XT 26/36/48t. Brilliant setup on the ScandAL and no concerns over any ring clearance.

Thanks for that mangatank. Roughly how much clearance is there behind the 36t ring? Any chance of a quick photo of the clearance?

I'll get one up here today. Check back at 1400ish 😉

Cheers, thats brilliant!

26in or 29in? What chainline? All matters.

I had a Scandal and it never really suffered with chain suck. Ran the same kit on a Inbred and it just sucked. Same BB, chainset, chain ..... No idea why. (inbred was before the Scandal by the way)

Scandal is a great bike, very light and climbs really well.

Hi Brant, it would be a 26in scandal, running a HT2 XT chainset with 24t/36t no outer ring. Would you recommend an extra spacer on the BB, or should it be fine as is?

For double set ups, I'd always try to move the "chainline" dimension to be between the two rings where possible. Makes sense if you think about it.

Sure does. Going back to my original question for a minute, are the chainstay profiles and clearance the same on the inbred and scandal? (Sorry to be asking you an on-one question...)

I haven't worked at on-one for a year and a half. I have no idea, sorry.

No problem, I knew it was a bit of a cheeky question...

you could try calling On-One on this number 01709 38 66 66. They'll answer your question. Or email them. They do get back in touch. Besides, you've got to their site to have a look at that white carbon 456...God it's lovely! And that Ti 456...wow.

Anyway, distracted. Here are the images:

[IMG] [/IMG]

[IMG] [/IMG]

The top image shows the clearance being around 1cm. Certainly enough to keep fear of chain suck at bay. The second image shows the surface of the chainstay after cleaning. No scores or scratching at all.

Thing is though, with the Carbon 456 coming in at a slightly lighter weight than the ScandAL, I'd be tempted to go for that instead. Looks like a true do-it-all frame.

Thanks for the pics mangatank, looks like the scandal has a fair bit more chainring clearance than the inbred.

Not sure on the looks of the Carbon 456, and it does cost twice as much!

I love the geometry of my inbred, just wish it was a bit lighter - hence looking at the scandal.

I don't understand what chainring clearance has to do with chainsuck. Can someone clarify pls? Sure if there isn't much clearance and your chain sucks it will prob jam in there, but that isn't the cause of the chain suck is it? Isn't it more down to worn chainring / chain or grit causing the chain not to release from the ring.

Remember that touring chainsets - 26-36-48 have longer bb axels so sit out further ....dh guys used to mod them for 83mm bb frames

Yeah, I'm 'interpreting' chainsuck as the chain slipping off the small ring and becoming jammed between it and the frame. That would certainly 'suck' Actual chainsuck is the chain becoming stuck on the ring and wrapping around it. Only experienced it once in heavy mud. .

Yes, the frame isn't the cause of the chainsuck, the peak district winter mud and grit is. But on an inbred there is so little clearance, that any chainsuck almost certainly results in scarred chainstay.