Larger pulleys.....
#26
Used to be Conspiratemus
I think this is a good techincal discussion over what's really happening in a bike drivetrain. Nobody's been insulting or condescending. I really do think that changing pulley sizes and cage length are both ways that derailleur engineers can increase or decrease chain storage in the derailleur, and I think my pictorial model has demonstrated that. But, if I've misinterpreted something, I hope we can keep the discussion going.
I'm here to learn!
I'm here to learn!
Nicely done, and I learned, too.
Likes For conspiratemus1:
#27
Excellent question.
So, it needs a longer chain, but does that translate to more wrap, or more slack?
Where does clutched fit in the wrap game, besides smashing your fingers the first time you remove a rear wheel?
If you can get the wrap, can you do the wrap? (Name that movie)
So, it needs a longer chain, but does that translate to more wrap, or more slack?
Where does clutched fit in the wrap game, besides smashing your fingers the first time you remove a rear wheel?
If you can get the wrap, can you do the wrap? (Name that movie)
Last edited by RobbieTunes; 10-08-20 at 03:04 PM.
Likes For RobbieTunes:
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Northern Shenandoah Valley
Posts: 4,176
Bikes: More bikes than riders
Liked 801 Times
in
591 Posts
An interesting twist to this conversation is the old SunTour XC derailleur:
SunTour XC derailleur (3 pulley system)
The "length" of the cage is equivalent to a short cage (draw a line between the upper and lower pulley), in terms of how the lower pulley would rotate forward and rearward during shifts. But it had larger wrap capacity because of a third pulley. I reckon that design had enough downsides (complexity, friction, cost, etc.) that it was dropped without further refinement.
SunTour XC derailleur (3 pulley system)
The "length" of the cage is equivalent to a short cage (draw a line between the upper and lower pulley), in terms of how the lower pulley would rotate forward and rearward during shifts. But it had larger wrap capacity because of a third pulley. I reckon that design had enough downsides (complexity, friction, cost, etc.) that it was dropped without further refinement.
#29
An interesting twist to this conversation is the old SunTour XC derailleur:
SunTour XC derailleur (3 pulley system)
The "length" of the cage is equivalent to a short cage (draw a line between the upper and lower pulley), in terms of how the lower pulley would rotate forward and rearward during shifts. But it had larger wrap capacity because of a third pulley. I reckon that design had enough downsides (complexity, friction, cost, etc.) that it was dropped without further refinement.
SunTour XC derailleur (3 pulley system)
The "length" of the cage is equivalent to a short cage (draw a line between the upper and lower pulley), in terms of how the lower pulley would rotate forward and rearward during shifts. But it had larger wrap capacity because of a third pulley. I reckon that design had enough downsides (complexity, friction, cost, etc.) that it was dropped without further refinement.
#30
blahblahblah chrome moly
-mb
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Northern Shenandoah Valley
Posts: 4,176
Bikes: More bikes than riders
Liked 801 Times
in
591 Posts
If you're talking about a traditional 2-pulley cage, and you're talking about bending the cage from what we see as a straight line into a "bent line", then it would make a difference (because it would effectively shorten it).
If you imagine a straight cage that's 4" in length, then the distance between the pulley wheels is 4". The length of chain stored by that cage will be somewhat more than 4", because it wraps around the pulleys, but the C-t-C distance is 4". Now imagine you bent that cage back 90 degrees (if that were even possible) midway between the pulleys. So you'd measure "down" from the top pulley 2", and then straight "back" from there 2"...you'd have a right triangle, yes? A^2 + B^2 = C^2. Instead of a 4" C-t-C distance, it'd be sqrt(8), which is about 2.8". Actual length of chain stored would be somewhat more than that because, again, the chain is wrapping around the pulleys. But we're not changing pulley size, here...we're simply changing the distance between them.
This is the opposite of the original discussion (pulley size), and really does get back to cage length. If you keep the pulley sizes the same, then shortening the cage (or reducing the distance between the pulleys) will reduce wrap capacity.
Anything that increases the length of chain that a derailleur can store (longer cage, larger pulleys, or even adding more pulleys) also increases the length of chain the derailleur can give back to the drivetrain system, which is really what chain wrap capacity is all about, right? (And, of course, the inverse is true about reducing storage.) With big-big and a straight-through derailleur, it's not really "storing" anything in the sense that you could theoretically remove it and make a single speed and the bike would still work. But as you take links away that the drivetrain needs by shifting to lower gears, those links have to go somewhere...and they "get stored" in the derailleur cage. Of course, wrap isn't a literal measurement of the number of links in a cage, but this measurement is a good way to compare the relative storage capacity of two different derailleur designs. And the more links (or length or however you wish to measure it) the derailleur can "store" in its cage system, the increased ability it has to keep chain tension when going towards the small-small combination.
If you imagine a straight cage that's 4" in length, then the distance between the pulley wheels is 4". The length of chain stored by that cage will be somewhat more than 4", because it wraps around the pulleys, but the C-t-C distance is 4". Now imagine you bent that cage back 90 degrees (if that were even possible) midway between the pulleys. So you'd measure "down" from the top pulley 2", and then straight "back" from there 2"...you'd have a right triangle, yes? A^2 + B^2 = C^2. Instead of a 4" C-t-C distance, it'd be sqrt(8), which is about 2.8". Actual length of chain stored would be somewhat more than that because, again, the chain is wrapping around the pulleys. But we're not changing pulley size, here...we're simply changing the distance between them.
This is the opposite of the original discussion (pulley size), and really does get back to cage length. If you keep the pulley sizes the same, then shortening the cage (or reducing the distance between the pulleys) will reduce wrap capacity.
Anything that increases the length of chain that a derailleur can store (longer cage, larger pulleys, or even adding more pulleys) also increases the length of chain the derailleur can give back to the drivetrain system, which is really what chain wrap capacity is all about, right? (And, of course, the inverse is true about reducing storage.) With big-big and a straight-through derailleur, it's not really "storing" anything in the sense that you could theoretically remove it and make a single speed and the bike would still work. But as you take links away that the drivetrain needs by shifting to lower gears, those links have to go somewhere...and they "get stored" in the derailleur cage. Of course, wrap isn't a literal measurement of the number of links in a cage, but this measurement is a good way to compare the relative storage capacity of two different derailleur designs. And the more links (or length or however you wish to measure it) the derailleur can "store" in its cage system, the increased ability it has to keep chain tension when going towards the small-small combination.
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Utah
Posts: 9,015
Bikes: Paletti,Pinarello Monviso,Duell Vienna,Giordana XL Super,Lemond Maillot Juane.& custom,PDG Paramount,Fuji Opus III,Davidson Impulse,Pashley Guv'nor,Evans,Fishlips,Y-Foil,Softride, Tetra Pro, CAAD8 Optimo,
Liked 6,267 Times
in
2,011 Posts
Sorry if I confused folks. I do have a way of doing that sometime, LOL!
__________________
Steel is real...and comfy.
Steel is real...and comfy.
Likes For jamesdak:
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Utah
Posts: 9,015
Bikes: Paletti,Pinarello Monviso,Duell Vienna,Giordana XL Super,Lemond Maillot Juane.& custom,PDG Paramount,Fuji Opus III,Davidson Impulse,Pashley Guv'nor,Evans,Fishlips,Y-Foil,Softride, Tetra Pro, CAAD8 Optimo,
Liked 6,267 Times
in
2,011 Posts
I think this is a good techincal discussion over what's really happening in a bike drivetrain. Nobody's been insulting or condescending. I really do think that changing pulley sizes and cage length are both ways that derailleur engineers can increase or decrease chain storage in the derailleur, and I think my pictorial model has demonstrated that. But, if I've misinterpreted something, I hope we can keep the discussion going.
I'm here to learn!
I'm here to learn!
__________________
Steel is real...and comfy.
Steel is real...and comfy.
Likes For jamesdak:
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Utah
Posts: 9,015
Bikes: Paletti,Pinarello Monviso,Duell Vienna,Giordana XL Super,Lemond Maillot Juane.& custom,PDG Paramount,Fuji Opus III,Davidson Impulse,Pashley Guv'nor,Evans,Fishlips,Y-Foil,Softride, Tetra Pro, CAAD8 Optimo,
Liked 6,267 Times
in
2,011 Posts
Man, I go out for a ride and come back to realize I was a buzz kill on an excellent thread. Never intended that, thoroughly enjoying this thread. Don't let my ignorance stop it.
I will say I've always understood things to work the way hokiefyd keeps explaining it.
I will say I've always understood things to work the way hokiefyd keeps explaining it.
__________________
Steel is real...and comfy.
Steel is real...and comfy.
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Northern Shenandoah Valley
Posts: 4,176
Bikes: More bikes than riders
Liked 801 Times
in
591 Posts
I don't "get" most of them, either. It does seem that the popcorn icons come out right before threads get locked...not that one causes the other, but I think it's sort of an internet "inside joke" that popcorn being hauled out implies the environment is getting toxic and the thread will get closed down.
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Murrieta Ca.
Posts: 537
Bikes: Teledyne Titan, Bob Jackson Audax Club, Bob Jackson World Tour, AlAn Record Ergal, 3Rensho Katana.
Liked 623 Times
in
245 Posts
Both of these wrap the same amount of chain and shift slicker than owl snot, but I think the 7703 looks better doing it.
Dura Ace 7703 GS 9 speed triple
20200418_182918 (1) by nemosengineer, on Flickr
Dura Ace 7803 GS 10 speed triple
20191020_145506 by nemosengineer, on Flickr
: Mike
Dura Ace 7703 GS 9 speed triple
20200418_182918 (1) by nemosengineer, on Flickr
Dura Ace 7803 GS 10 speed triple
20191020_145506 by nemosengineer, on Flickr
: Mike
__________________
Booyah Hubba-Hubba!!!
Booyah Hubba-Hubba!!!
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Mission Viejo
Posts: 6,006
Bikes: 1986 Cannondale SR400 (Flat bar commuter), 1988 Cannondale Criterium XTR, 1992 Serotta T-Max, 1995 Trek 970
Liked 2,278 Times
in
1,393 Posts
It’s not chain wrap for big-big. You can always make any chain long enough for the big-big to work with any derailleur.
You need the wrap for the small cog (small-small) so the derailleur doesn’t fold back on itself. That is where you need to take up the excess chain.
John
You need the wrap for the small cog (small-small) so the derailleur doesn’t fold back on itself. That is where you need to take up the excess chain.
John
Last edited by 70sSanO; 10-08-20 at 07:54 PM.
Likes For 70sSanO:
#38
I don't "get" most of them, either. It does seem that the popcorn icons come out right before threads get locked...not that one causes the other, but I think it's sort of an internet "inside joke" that popcorn being hauled out implies the environment is getting toxic and the thread will get closed down.
#39
Extraordinary Magnitude
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Waukesha WI
Posts: 13,766
Bikes: 1978 Trek TX700; 1978/79 Trek 736; 1984 Specialized Stumpjumper Sport; 1984 Schwinn Voyageur SP; 1985 Trek 620; 1985 Trek 720; 1986 Trek 400 Elance; 1987 Schwinn High Sierra; 1990 Miyata 1000LT
Liked 1,791 Times
in
988 Posts
Chain wrap.
Glamorous:
620 Build Derailleurs by Dave The Golden Boy, on Flickr
1985 Trek 720 by Dave The Golden Boy, on Flickr
Then there's the 'triple pulley' theory- which works great- it wraps colossal amounts of chain, it's basically an elbow- the triple pulley isn't engaged until the elbow moves back far enough for it to engage- and you don't have to have a great big ol' arm swinging around and coming 3" off the ground.
I like the look of the red Bullseyes...
Suntour XC by Dave The Golden Boy, on Flickr
Compare that to the Le Tech- which was a triple pivot derailleur- and just happened to have a huge long arm, but normal sized pulleys.
Suntour Derailleurs by Dave The Golden Boy, on Flickr
And then Suntour went all out for the outrageously long cage AND the outrageously huge 15T pulley.
2nd Generation Mountech by Dave The Golden Boy, on Flickr
Glamorous:
620 Build Derailleurs by Dave The Golden Boy, on Flickr
1985 Trek 720 by Dave The Golden Boy, on Flickr
Then there's the 'triple pulley' theory- which works great- it wraps colossal amounts of chain, it's basically an elbow- the triple pulley isn't engaged until the elbow moves back far enough for it to engage- and you don't have to have a great big ol' arm swinging around and coming 3" off the ground.
I like the look of the red Bullseyes...
Suntour XC by Dave The Golden Boy, on Flickr
Compare that to the Le Tech- which was a triple pivot derailleur- and just happened to have a huge long arm, but normal sized pulleys.
Suntour Derailleurs by Dave The Golden Boy, on Flickr
And then Suntour went all out for the outrageously long cage AND the outrageously huge 15T pulley.
2nd Generation Mountech by Dave The Golden Boy, on Flickr
__________________
*Recipient of the 2006 Time Magazine "Person Of The Year" Award*
Commence to jigglin’ huh?!?!
"But hey, always love to hear from opinionated amateurs." -says some guy to Mr. Marshall.
Commence to jigglin’ huh?!?!
"But hey, always love to hear from opinionated amateurs." -says some guy to Mr. Marshall.
Likes For The Golden Boy:
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Northern Shenandoah Valley
Posts: 4,176
Bikes: More bikes than riders
Liked 801 Times
in
591 Posts
I like that way of thinking. Big-big doesn't need any chain storage, and could be setup to be truly straight through the derailleur. Wrap is to store excess chain given up by the drivetrain so the tension doesn't go slack. The more links a derailleur can store in its cage system, the more links it can take up from the drivetrain...and more capacity there is for wider gearing ranges.
Likes For hokiefyd:
#42
Full Member
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Denver Metro, CO
Posts: 394
Bikes: 1972 Fuji The Finest | 1990 Bianchi Giro | 1999 LeMond Buenos Aires
Liked 303 Times
in
134 Posts
This is fascinating. Love this discussion, the illustration is awesome and bulgie's explanation finally sealed my opinion. If anyone wants to entertain an example...
So I have a ~94 Record 8s RD that I swapped the short Record OR cage onto (cheap, gets a little more wrap, and only one of any length I could find). So if I keep my upper pulley the same, I can get the biggest rear cog size possible. If I increase the size of the lower pulley, I can potentially add a tooth or two of additional wrap, right?
I haven't got this on the bike yet as I need to do some frame de-rusting and then figure out which shifters I'm gonna use (8s Record through and through or 10s Chorus with a 10s Shimano cassette?). But I may just have to play around with this, as I like the lower gearing on my other bike so much. Gotta start hunting on eBay for some 11, 12, or more tooth pulleys, and maybe some spacers to get the width right, and see what I can fit in there. Eyeballing it, looked like lots of room for more teeth.
So I have a ~94 Record 8s RD that I swapped the short Record OR cage onto (cheap, gets a little more wrap, and only one of any length I could find). So if I keep my upper pulley the same, I can get the biggest rear cog size possible. If I increase the size of the lower pulley, I can potentially add a tooth or two of additional wrap, right?
I haven't got this on the bike yet as I need to do some frame de-rusting and then figure out which shifters I'm gonna use (8s Record through and through or 10s Chorus with a 10s Shimano cassette?). But I may just have to play around with this, as I like the lower gearing on my other bike so much. Gotta start hunting on eBay for some 11, 12, or more tooth pulleys, and maybe some spacers to get the width right, and see what I can fit in there. Eyeballing it, looked like lots of room for more teeth.
#43
#44
Senior Member
Do the italics on the derailleur on the left have any impact on chain wrap?
Likes For madpogue:
#45
Don't worry, you had it right. Going back at least 20 years, has always meant simply "this is interesting, I'm gonna grab some popcorn, sit back and watch (read)". Any interpretation involving conflict is a misinterpretation. Granted, "interesting" exchanges _sometimes_ become controversial, but that's coincidental.
Do the italics on the derailleur on the left have any impact on chain wrap?
Do the italics on the derailleur on the left have any impact on chain wrap?
Likes For RobbieTunes:
#46
Extraordinary Magnitude
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Waukesha WI
Posts: 13,766
Bikes: 1978 Trek TX700; 1978/79 Trek 736; 1984 Specialized Stumpjumper Sport; 1984 Schwinn Voyageur SP; 1985 Trek 620; 1985 Trek 720; 1986 Trek 400 Elance; 1987 Schwinn High Sierra; 1990 Miyata 1000LT
Liked 1,791 Times
in
988 Posts
I don't think so- but the one on the right is clearly more aerodynamic.
__________________
*Recipient of the 2006 Time Magazine "Person Of The Year" Award*
Commence to jigglin’ huh?!?!
"But hey, always love to hear from opinionated amateurs." -says some guy to Mr. Marshall.
Commence to jigglin’ huh?!?!
"But hey, always love to hear from opinionated amateurs." -says some guy to Mr. Marshall.
#48
Mike Schwab
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Springfield, IL
Posts: 6
Bikes: Burley Django, Rans VII w/ xtracycle, Sun EZ-1, Waterford road bike
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Reduced Friction
Bunkie
I'm not an engineer but I have stayed in a Holiday Inn I would say the chief reason larger pulleys are touted as "better" is that they reduce the angle/bend of the chain when it goes around the pulleys, thereby reducing friction. I'm sure they have some kind of fancy bearing in them that further reduces friction but I don't know that to be a fact. As far as increasing chain wrap, it would be the same as it was with smaller pulleys; only a greater distance between the pulleys (center to center) would do that.
I'm not an engineer but I have stayed in a Holiday Inn I would say the chief reason larger pulleys are touted as "better" is that they reduce the angle/bend of the chain when it goes around the pulleys, thereby reducing friction. I'm sure they have some kind of fancy bearing in them that further reduces friction but I don't know that to be a fact. As far as increasing chain wrap, it would be the same as it was with smaller pulleys; only a greater distance between the pulleys (center to center) would do that.
Likes For maschwab:
#50
curmudgineer
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago SW burbs
Posts: 4,417
Bikes: 2 many 2 fit here
Liked 112 Times
in
70 Posts
I remember seeing an infrared video from this research project www dot georgeron dot com slash 2007 slash 11 slash bicycle-efficiency-boosters dot html . Despite several searches, it doesn't look like it is available anymore. It showed a little heat on the chainring, a little more heat on the cassette, and the most heat on the jockey wheels. The heat generated is directly proportional to the angle the individual chain link has to turn to go around that pulley.