Why is my chainline off?
#1
car dodger
Thread Starter
Why is my chainline off?
I recently put dura ace 7402 8spd cranks on my merckx, along with the matching 7400 bottom bracket (113mm, italian). Shimano specs say the chainline should be 43.5mm but I get closer to 48mm. I measured the spindle (113) and the bottom bracket shell (70), spindle is in correct orientation, and cranks are fully torqued. The shifting is good apart from a tiny bit of chainrub against the big ring when in the small/small combo. So nothing is really wrong but I thought it odd the chainline would be that far off. Last pic shows 4mm offset from center.
__________________
1989 Schwinn Paramount OS
1980 Mclean/Silk Hope Sport Touring
1983 Bianchi pista
1976 Fuji Feather track
1979 raleigh track
"I've consulted my sources and I'm pretty sure your derailleur does not exist"
1989 Schwinn Paramount OS
1980 Mclean/Silk Hope Sport Touring
1983 Bianchi pista
1976 Fuji Feather track
1979 raleigh track
"I've consulted my sources and I'm pretty sure your derailleur does not exist"
#4
car dodger
Thread Starter
Crank and BB are matched as per shimano tech bulletin I posted. Both JIS I think.
__________________
1989 Schwinn Paramount OS
1980 Mclean/Silk Hope Sport Touring
1983 Bianchi pista
1976 Fuji Feather track
1979 raleigh track
"I've consulted my sources and I'm pretty sure your derailleur does not exist"
1989 Schwinn Paramount OS
1980 Mclean/Silk Hope Sport Touring
1983 Bianchi pista
1976 Fuji Feather track
1979 raleigh track
"I've consulted my sources and I'm pretty sure your derailleur does not exist"
#5
Senior Member
That’s a head scratcher. The pic kind of looks like you’re measuring from the center area of the spider. If that’s the case, I’d say move the measurement to the top of the inside chainring.
#6
car dodger
Thread Starter
I did another measurement from the top center of each chainring to seat tube (28.6), and split the difference, and got 47.8mm chainline.
__________________
1989 Schwinn Paramount OS
1980 Mclean/Silk Hope Sport Touring
1983 Bianchi pista
1976 Fuji Feather track
1979 raleigh track
"I've consulted my sources and I'm pretty sure your derailleur does not exist"
1989 Schwinn Paramount OS
1980 Mclean/Silk Hope Sport Touring
1983 Bianchi pista
1976 Fuji Feather track
1979 raleigh track
"I've consulted my sources and I'm pretty sure your derailleur does not exist"
#8
car dodger
Thread Starter
maybe 6 -7mm but the chainstay is indented. I tried fitting a 110mm phil wood symmetrical bottom bracket prior to this and clearance there was only 1 or 2mm.
__________________
1989 Schwinn Paramount OS
1980 Mclean/Silk Hope Sport Touring
1983 Bianchi pista
1976 Fuji Feather track
1979 raleigh track
"I've consulted my sources and I'm pretty sure your derailleur does not exist"
1989 Schwinn Paramount OS
1980 Mclean/Silk Hope Sport Touring
1983 Bianchi pista
1976 Fuji Feather track
1979 raleigh track
"I've consulted my sources and I'm pretty sure your derailleur does not exist"
#9
Senior Member
Spindle in backwards? Is the distance between the crankarm and the chainstay the same on both side or does one come closer? I would have thought that a DA crankset would use a 108 or 110mm spindle.
#10
Passista
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,783
Bikes: 1998 Pinarello Asolo, 1992 KHS Montaña pro, 1980 Raleigh DL-1, IGH Hybrid, IGH Utility
Liked 825 Times
in
458 Posts
According to the Shimano specs posted by the OP, the spindle is indeed 113mm and longer on the drive side, so it's assembled correctly.
#11
Senior Member
Typical expected chain line from the bottom bracket centerline was 43.5 mm to the center of the gap between the chainrings to the center of the main 28.6mm tubes.
‘that centerline is a monster to measure correctly, BUT measuring to the tangent of the seat tube for argument’s sake would yield, 43.5 - 14.3 = 29.2 mm to the midpoint between the rings
I will let you measure that. Account for paint thickness, and 29.0 mm would be pretty good.
from the provided image and the high fidelity scale used… I cannot tell where the centerline is.
‘that centerline is a monster to measure correctly, BUT measuring to the tangent of the seat tube for argument’s sake would yield, 43.5 - 14.3 = 29.2 mm to the midpoint between the rings
I will let you measure that. Account for paint thickness, and 29.0 mm would be pretty good.
from the provided image and the high fidelity scale used… I cannot tell where the centerline is.
#12
Passista
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,783
Bikes: 1998 Pinarello Asolo, 1992 KHS Montaña pro, 1980 Raleigh DL-1, IGH Hybrid, IGH Utility
Liked 825 Times
in
458 Posts
What's the cassette chainline? If it's the same as the crankset chainline (within 1.5mm), I'd leave it as it is. You said that the chain already rubs on small/small combo, so if you move the chainrings inboard it will rub still more.
#13
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 2,277 Times
in
1,393 Posts
The problem would be less prevalent with a 48mm chainline since the small-small angle is not as severe. (Edit: With a 43.5mm, it would be worse.)
Just wondering, how does the chain line up with the center of the freewheel/cassette?
John
Last edited by 70sSanO; 10-20-23 at 11:04 PM.
#14
car dodger
Thread Starter
Typical expected chain line from the bottom bracket centerline was 43.5 mm to the center of the gap between the chainrings to the center of the main 28.6mm tubes.
‘that centerline is a monster to measure correctly, BUT measuring to the tangent of the seat tube for argument’s sake would yield, 43.5 - 14.3 = 29.2 mm to the midpoint between the rings
I will let you measure that. Account for paint thickness, and 29.0 mm would be pretty good.
from the provided image and the high fidelity scale used… I cannot tell where the centerline is.
‘that centerline is a monster to measure correctly, BUT measuring to the tangent of the seat tube for argument’s sake would yield, 43.5 - 14.3 = 29.2 mm to the midpoint between the rings
I will let you measure that. Account for paint thickness, and 29.0 mm would be pretty good.
from the provided image and the high fidelity scale used… I cannot tell where the centerline is.
__________________
1989 Schwinn Paramount OS
1980 Mclean/Silk Hope Sport Touring
1983 Bianchi pista
1976 Fuji Feather track
1979 raleigh track
"I've consulted my sources and I'm pretty sure your derailleur does not exist"
1989 Schwinn Paramount OS
1980 Mclean/Silk Hope Sport Touring
1983 Bianchi pista
1976 Fuji Feather track
1979 raleigh track
"I've consulted my sources and I'm pretty sure your derailleur does not exist"
#15
car dodger
Thread Starter
Hard for me to get exactly but using a long steel rule the current chainline is about the 4rth cog up. Should be at 4.5. But it shifts fine through all the cogs.
__________________
1989 Schwinn Paramount OS
1980 Mclean/Silk Hope Sport Touring
1983 Bianchi pista
1976 Fuji Feather track
1979 raleigh track
"I've consulted my sources and I'm pretty sure your derailleur does not exist"
1989 Schwinn Paramount OS
1980 Mclean/Silk Hope Sport Touring
1983 Bianchi pista
1976 Fuji Feather track
1979 raleigh track
"I've consulted my sources and I'm pretty sure your derailleur does not exist"
#16
Senior Member
Right or wrong I’ve never bothered measuring the chainline. As long as the inner chainring doesn’t rub the chainstay and I get good shifting through all the cogs, I’m happy.
__________________
Semper fi
Semper fi
Likes For sloar:
#17
Senior Member
Op only specifies it's oriented correctly which often means setting the lettering so if they were visible to the rider they would be readable while sitting in the saddle. However, I have come across spindles that were printed upside-down and only figured it out when measuring the space from the crankarms to the stays. Although that typically means the crank sits too far inboard, it doesn't mean you shouldn't rule out all possibilities. And regardless of what the paper says, I still don't remember them using that long a spindle, I may be remembering wrong, but that still seems wide for a DA spindle.
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,959
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Liked 681 Times
in
520 Posts
Typical expected chain line from the bottom bracket centerline was 43.5 mm to the center of the gap between the chainrings to the center of the main 28.6mm tubes.
‘that centerline is a monster to measure correctly, BUT measuring to the tangent of the seat tube for argument’s sake would yield, 43.5 - 14.3 = 29.2 mm to the midpoint between the rings
I will let you measure that. Account for paint thickness, and 29.0 mm would be pretty good.
from the provided image and the high fidelity scale used… I cannot tell where the centerline is.
‘that centerline is a monster to measure correctly, BUT measuring to the tangent of the seat tube for argument’s sake would yield, 43.5 - 14.3 = 29.2 mm to the midpoint between the rings
I will let you measure that. Account for paint thickness, and 29.0 mm would be pretty good.
from the provided image and the high fidelity scale used… I cannot tell where the centerline is.
There's also the question of whether the frame is aligned correctly in the first place.
Likes For Road Fan:
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,959
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Liked 681 Times
in
520 Posts
Is there a riding or chain tracking problem? It's not clear if your measurement is accurate enough. Maybe your chainline should not get fixed, just for the sake of "blueprinting."
#20
car dodger
Thread Starter
I am not seeking to fix the chainline, I am just pointing out an observation I made. Also the driveside crankarm clears the chainstay by 10mm, non-driveside by 9mm.
Last edited by norskagent; 10-21-23 at 08:04 AM.
#21
Senior Member
#22
Passista
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,783
Bikes: 1998 Pinarello Asolo, 1992 KHS Montaña pro, 1980 Raleigh DL-1, IGH Hybrid, IGH Utility
Liked 825 Times
in
458 Posts
Op only specifies it's oriented correctly which often means setting the lettering so if they were visible to the rider they would be readable while sitting in the saddle. However, I have come across spindles that were printed upside-down and only figured it out when measuring the space from the crankarms to the stays. Although that typically means the crank sits too far inboard, it doesn't mean you shouldn't rule out all possibilities. And regardless of what the paper says, I still don't remember them using that long a spindle, I may be remembering wrong, but that still seems wide for a DA spindle.
#23
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 2,277 Times
in
1,393 Posts
The "why" is always an odd phenomenon. I built some bikes where things should, or shouldn't, fit exactly how they ended up, but function takes precedent.
I have read that early DA used ISO, Campy, but I have always thought that was 7200 and 7400 was JIS. I ran 7400 cranks for a long time with, oddly enough, a Performance individual cartridge bearing BB and had no issues. All I remember is that I ordered out of a catalog and in my ignorance it all worked.
But if you really want to, do a search for Shimano FC-7400 jis iso and you will find enough conflicting info to make you head hurt.
John
#24
car dodger
Thread Starter
I think I read somewhere that 7400 was JIS "low profile" which is similar to ISO enough to substitute one for the other. Anyway that is why I chose the o/g 7400 bottom bracket, to avoid non- compatibility issues!
Last edited by norskagent; 10-21-23 at 12:41 PM.