 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
If you need a BB shell spacer on HT2 does it go on the drive or non-drive side? I thought it went on the drive side but I noticed on my Salsa that it was on the NDS. This may have contributed to very low chainring clearance and caused the demise of the chainstay as detailed in the earlier thread.
Typically on the drive side as it takes up the space that might have been needed for the e-type front mech.
73mm 1 drive
68mm 1 drive, 2 non
68mm 1 drive, 2 non
Nope, other way round.
Agree w/davewalsh. Correct answer is
73mm 1 drive
68mm 2 drive, 1 non
Right. There was a very small gap between rings and chainstay which is why I think chainsuck was so bad on that bike and hence the stay got ruined.
Once the chain is taken along for a ride by the ring, does it matter how soon it hits the stay? I'm not sure how more spacing helps in a chainsuck situation - genuinely curious here, as I always set up my 1x chainring to run as close as possible to the chainstay.
On a 1x put them where the chain line is best for your setup.
Ooops. Apologies
I'm sensing a 'salsa put the spacer in the wrong place and now my bike is broken' theme going on here?
My view, clearance is clearance. Chainsuck is nothing to do with clearance (the chain will hit the stay regardless) and all to do with a worn drivetrain.
No, I built the frame.
My theory is that tight clearance meant that when it got stuck it got really bastard stuck, causing more damage. I've had far more chainsuck on steel frames in the past and never had this issue.
As for worn drivetrain - yeah, well a drivetrain can be just fine until you go out in the South Wales grit over a critical level of standing water, then it starts sucking immediately. So you get no warning. I'm not replacing rings every few months just in case.
Yeah clearance needs to be either ample or tiny, it is the in-between gaps that get chains stuck. I am not sure that designers factor that into their idea of ring/stay clearance though.
fwiw an 83mm is that same as 63 too.
just been through this on my bike when i notiecd the cranks were hard to turn. i disassembled it and found it was as follows:
non drive side - crank , spacer - BB non-drive/smaller thread size - plastic jobber - BB drive/larger thread size - wave washer -> drive side crank & chainring
and the drive side shell wasnt snugged all the way in
(this is an FSA comet crank on my 2018 marin b-17, 73mm shell, boost 148)
the important thing is chainline. measured from middle of frame (downtube) to the chainring. the larger thread size for the drive side bb shell is the hint that its where 2 spacers could go.
after much reading my bike should have been set up as follows to get right chainline. (and follow installation guide for the crankset!)
non drive side - crank, wave washer, BB non-drive/smaller thread size - plastic jobber - spacer - BB drive/larger thread size - -> drive side crank & chainring
so not only was the spacer on the wrong side, but so was the wave washer. plus the loose shell.. arg. i doubt this would have been picked up by a PDI in most places either.
so not only was the spacer on the wrong side, but so was the wave washer
The wave washer was placed correctly the first time. Its role is to remove any slight play the NDS bearing might have by preloading it.
