-
Just to centralize reports on an experiment that are spread over other transmission threads:
I fitted a new KMC X8 chain 2000km ago and decided to dedicate it an experiment to determine how good the factory chain lube is and, beyond that, whether in a close-fitting but not sealed chain case the factory lube is good beyond the 700 miles Sheldon Brown claimed, presumably on information received from a factory rep, that it is good for.
The setup is a Utopia Kranich with a Rohloff hub gearbox. There is thus a "single speed" 16T sprocket of Rohloff manufacture, driven by a KMC X8 chain from a Surly stainless steel 38T chainring. The chain runs in a well-fitted long Rohloff-specific Hebie Chainglider.
Elsewhere on this board are several threads in which I describe my chaincase experiments; they conclude that I can recommend without reservation only Hebie's Chainglider.
You may argue that I don't need the X8, which is built to survive the flexing of derailleur chains, that I could make do with the cheaper single-speed Z8, but in fact I can buy the X8 cheaper than the Z8, so I take the superior chain. I doubt it makes much difference to the experiment or to the overall cost for a private buyer; at a manufacturing scale it could make an accounting difference.
The previous KMC X8 lasted 4605km before being replaced due to wear. It was used with a steel Amar crankset, which showed just about zero wear but was replaced by the Surly stainless item because the Surly went better with my new, smart cranks. Cheaper chains, sprockets and ali chainrings lasted around a third as far (on different, more overtly sporting bikes), so I conclude, by comparison with the tales here of awesome distances on a single chain, that I'm heavy on transmission.
***
I've reported earlier at a few hundred miles that the factory lube seemed good, and there was no visible or measurable wear on the chain.
***
There was very occasional skipping at gear changes from the fitting of the new crankset forward but I had quite serious medical problems that prevented me bending over the bike, so it wasn't until a few months ago that I tightened a chain that was set too slack by moving the rear axle back in the sliders (this particular bike doesn't have an eccentric bottom bracket, like a Thorn, it has long rear-facing slots, like a track bike, in which the Rohloff-designed axle hangers slide). This might have caused a spot of extraordinary wear but, again, nothing visible.
***
JULY 2013 at 2000km
The chain has now travelled precisely 2000km (near enough 1200m). I opened it up when I cleaned the bike, and closed it again. There is no visible wear on the chain, the factory lube seems good with no metallic filings in it, and no odd shiny bits on the chain. The sprocket, which has done a total of about 6500km doesn't seem worn either. The chainring seems unmarked, but then you would expect that as stainless steel is just running in at a couple of thousand klicks. I didn't see that it was worth measuring as there clearly is no chain wear that a crude instrument like the normal chain-"stretch" gauge can measure. No action, chaincase closed up again. I'll check it again at 500km intervals.
***
While the interest here seems to be in the chain lube and chain, just a gentle reminder: The experiment isn't really about the chain lube, or the chain, both of which are the cheapest components under discussion. (KMC X8 chain about 14 euro landed, Oil of Rohloff chain lube about 5 euro a bottle, and it lasts years as you use only a couple of drops inside a chaincase, and rarely at that.)
The experiment is about a maintenance-free bike, and about cleanliness. A chain without added oil is less likely to spread filth everywhere, I thought, and so it has proved. What is visible of my chainring inside the Chainglider no longer spreads oil to my trouser bottoms, and when I wiped it for the first time in months just now to see if there is anything worth reporting, it hardly made the kitchen roll I used grey.
On my bike the gear change click box (supposed to be serviced at 500km intervals -- my views on this, and an experiment to discover how long the service interval can intelligently be, are elsewhere on this board) and the chain are the last items requiring regular service, except for the gearbox oil change, and who will begrudge Herr Rohloff less than an hour a year to keep his marvelous box running.
In that sense, with the chain already outlasting my earlier, only slightly cheaper chains (at delivered price) without any service being required, the experiment is already a success for someone who is used to getting under 2000km out of a chain. If the factory lube in combination with the Hebie Chainglider will carry the chain to the same distance of 4605km as the previous KMC X8 chain without causing undue wear to the expensive sprocket and chainring, the experiment will point to a major advance for hub gear bikes.
****
FINAL REPORT, 26 April 2015
The test was aborted at 3562km on 26 April 2015 when the Bafang QSWXK front motor on my bike gave up the ghost and was replaced by a Bafang BBS01 mid-motor (on which the 38T Surly chainring couldn't be made to fit), the new motor in a new test receiving its own brand new KMCX8 chain.
Just a reminder. The purpose of the test was to run a KMC X8 chain 4506km on the factory lube, inside a Hebie Chainglider, with a Surly stainless steel chainring and the normal Rohloff sprocket at the rear. The 4506km was set as a target by the previous chain, also KMC X8, running in a Utopia Country chaincase (similar to the Chainglider), but with Oil of Rohloff added every 500 or 1000km, reaching 4506km before visible "stretch" was found (less than 0.5mm). The ulterior, overall motive of the test was not to save a few Euro on chains but as a step towards a near-zero maintenance bike.
(http://www.coolmainpress.com/miscimage/Kranich_kmcx8_factory_lube_3500km_0-5mm_worn_800pxh.jpg)
A gilmpse inside the famous Jute Laboratories.
That's the 0.75mm side of the gauge, so the chain wear, eyeballed, could be around 0.5mm
The KMC X8 chain ran on the factory lube inside the Hebie Chainglider together with a Surly 38T stainless steel chainring and a 16T Rohloff OEM sprocket, without any other lube being added at any time, or any cleaning being performed, for 3562km before the test was aborted, as described above. During this time the wear on the chain, measured as "stretch", was less than 0.75mm, eyeballed on the rough gauge as around 0.5mm. There is no doubt in my mind that the KMC X8 would have made 4506km by the time it required replacement at 0.75mm "stretch".
However, I'm happy to replace chains, the cheapest component in my transmission, at the first sign of measureable wear, which is around 0.5mm, so in that sense the factory lube fell short of the same chain under roughly the same circumstances serviced with Oil of Rohloff, 3562km to 4506km.
No excessive wear of the Surly stainless steel chainring or the Rohloff sprocket was observed. In fact, there is no wear observable. (This is very unlike my previous installations of Shimano Nexus transmissions, in which in around a 1000m/1600km I would use up a chain, a sprocket and a crankset because the chainring was in unit with the crank.)
The late, great Sheldon Brown once said that the factory lube was good for 700 miles. In my two experiments the factory lube plus Oil of Rohloff chain went 944km further than the factory-lube only chain. That, if scaled up to the full 0.75mm wear, is pretty close to Sheldon's 700 miles!
Now, I know, some of you think that 3500km and 4500km on a chain isn't much chop, the mileage of a wrecker. But I'm over the moon with these mileages. Considering that previously I rarely got over a thousand miles (1600km) out of a chain, two and three times that distance per chain is exceptional.
I'm very happy to declare these two experiments, 8068km altogether, a success.
They have confirmed my belief that the only enclosed chaincase that I can in good conscience recommend is the Hebie Chainglider, that KMC makes high commendable chains, and that Oil of Rohloff is the light chain oil of choice. I suspect that another thing they indicate is that a precision chainline is worth setting up with repayment for the effort in extra chain mileage.
With thanks to all who helped with advice, and to everyone for their patience in waiting for these results.
This is Andre Jute signing off with only slightly oily hands.
-
Outstanding followup report, Andre, and all going in the hoped-for direction; indeed an advance toward the totally maintenance-free bike (or very close to it).
I didn't see that it was worth measuring as there clearly is no chain wear that a crude instrument like the normal chain-"stretch" gauge can measure. No action, chaincase closed up again.
Not to quibble, but if you should happen to need service (unlikely), I'd sure be interested to see a measurement of the chain's overall length compared to the half-inch pitch standard, which would give an indication of actual wear that wouldn't necessarily be picked up by using a "chain checker" on a short run. Surely, there must be *some* wear, and it appears to be evenly distributed along the chain's length.
I do think a good part of your success comes down to:
• The chaincase.
• Rohloff's straight chainline and and no sideways deflection in shifting, as is the case for derailleurs.
• Absence of tensioners.
I've never had much luck running only the factory lube with my chains on derailleur drivetrains, even though my most-used gears are large in diameter and very close to perfect chainline (M-3 in my half-step arrangements). They're exposed to the environment, which has a lare effect, and then there's the double-back chain run through the 10t (sealed bearing alu) derailleur pulleys. The most I've gotten on factory lube before the increasing noise drove me crazy was ~300mi/480km, so I admire your results to date.
I just yesterday received an update email from the Friction-Facts.com website with a link to their recent test of oversized derailleur pulley efficiency. As expected, larger pulleys have less friction than smaller ones. The test report download is free, available here: http://www.friction-facts.com/test-results/free-reports/oversized-pulley-test?utm_source=July+2013+Friction+Facts+Test+Results+Update&utm_campaign=July+Newsletter&utm_medium=email Please note, one does have to register to download, but I've never been spammed as a result. I do believe derailleur pulleys contribute considerably to drivetrain friction (as the FF test results support) and the small-diameter of the pulleys and double-folding of the chain ad a great deal of wear. Compound that with the inherent sideways shifting action and deviant chainlines, and the reasons behind your results are obvious.
As a side note, Hebie informed me in correspondence they expect the chain will be lubed with a mixture of oil (to lube the chain) and grease (to minimize friction in the chaincase and allow it to "glide" more freely on the chain). This sounds very much like the mix that accounts for factory lube. I've often thought if Hebie were to make a 36T Chainglider (unlikely; they are still asking me for proof Rohloff have relaxed their gearing recommendations and say they have no plans to expand their line), I would try lubing my chain with Phil Wood grease to see what might happen. Phil grease has an interesting quality of turning to oil quickly in bearing tracks and under load, while remaining "greasy" to make a seal in areas of lower friction. It would be ideal for this sort of experiment, I would think. A moot point for me, given the Chainglider's unavailability in that size, but an interesting thought nonetheless.
Thanks again, Andre, for such a thoughtful compilation and update in one place. Nicely done.
Best,
Dan. (...who would dearly love to measure Andre's current overall chain length and compare it to new)
-
I do think a good part of your success comes down to:
• The chaincase.
• Rohloff's straight chainline and no sideways deflection in shifting, as is the case for derailleurs.
• Absence of tensioners.
Absolutely agree. I would add
• Quality Rohloff sprocket (compared to fast-wearing Shimano Nexus sprockets).
• Even an inexpensive steel chainring, like the Amar I used before the Surly stainless steel chainring, helps to preserve the chain by not itself wearing and thereby changing the operating length of the transmission.
However, until we can somehow quantify all of this, I would put the chaincase keeping out grit at No 1. Jobst Brandt once observed that grinding paste is nothing but dust and oil, of which an unprotected bicycle chain manufactures its own... And at No 2 I would put the absence of tensioners and their associated jockey wheels. They're the devil's invention.
....I'd sure be interested to see a measurement of the chain's overall length compared to the half-inch pitch standard, which would give an indication of actual wear that wouldn't necessarily be picked up by using a "chain checker" on a short run. Surely, there must be *some* wear, and it appears to be evenly distributed along the chain's length.
....
Dan. (...who would dearly love to measure Andre's current overall chain length and compare it to new)
I thought of taking the chain off and stretching it out next to a new chain, but the problem was that all the handling from removing it, and fitting it back on, would remove at least a significant amount of the factory lube, which is now quite soft and oily. A fraction smaller than 1/8in in length between two chains is difficult to measure accurately among other reasons that no amount of fiddling gets the beginning ends of two chains perfectly aligned; I measured the chain I wore out against a new one, so I'm not talking through my neck. If much greasy oil were removed, I'd have to stop the experiment and start over with a fresh chain. It would be an unnecessary interference in an experiment that clearly doesn't require it, because we are already at 45% (or greater) of the furthest distance the chain will run before the cruder instrument will measure change (I'm assuming on no evidence whatsoever that the factory lube will not beat the Oil of Rohloff previously used...). And, as you say, the wear, however much it is, is very likely evenly distributed, so we won't learn very much for succumbing to premature curiosity. I just wish I did a higher mileage, so we could learn the outcome sooner.
Your Phil experiment sounds interesting. Perhaps after this factory-lube only experiment concludes... The factory lube's operating mode appears to be exactly as you describe. It's quite sticky, dryish stuff, more grease-like than oil, in its natural state, but in use it becomes liquid and even stickier. By comparison the Oil of Rohloff is face cream. But the factory lube doesn't creep out. And, amazingly, it seems to prefer the metal of the transmission to the plastic of the Chainglider. For practical purposes, the inside of my Chainglider, after several thousand kilometers, is clean.
Andre Jute
-
I thought of taking the chain off and stretching it out next to a new chain, but the problem was that all the handling from removing it, and fitting it back on, would remove at least a significant amount of the factory lube, which is now quite soft and oily.
<nods> Yes, I understand the problem, Andre. A bit like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle ( http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/science-questions/quantum-suicide2.htm <-- There's a free book plot in there for you, Andre; maybe even a title) applied to bicycle chains. In attempting to measure the chain, one would corrupt the experiment and therefore the validity any data it might produce.
In this case, it is Enough to learn things are still looking very good indeed in there, Andre. And...if things do go bad, all you're likely to be out is a chain which you would otherwise have replaced long ago with any other lube.A fraction smaller than 1/8in in length between two chains is difficult to measure accurately among other reasons that no amount of fiddling gets the beginning ends of two chains perfectly aligned
The solution? Hang 'em both on the same (headless cabinet) nail driven straight into a wall or old board, then measure the difference in the ends. The weight of the length of chain will cause it to pull to its full length thanks to gravity.
I am so intrigued by your experiment. This is one of the most-overlooked aspects of long-distance touring to remote regions, where one is almost guaranteed to be away from regular parts resupply chains. Who needs a low-maintenance/high-reliability drivetrain more? This is something that would benefit all cyclists, but tourists and commuters would see the most gains in terms of longer parts life and greatly reduced maintenance costs -- particularly at bike-shop prices.
I do so very much hope Hebie will someday see the light and produce a Chainglider for 36t 'rings. For that matter, I'm surprised at how few Adventure tourists have adopted Rohloff's relaxed ratio requirements, and until the number of adoptees reaches critical mass, we're unlikely to see a chaincase to address this need. I've got my fingers crossed, but am not holding my breath.Your Phil experiment sounds interesting.
If you find yourself in need of more Phil Waterproof Grease or some Phil Tenacious Oil, give me a shout, Andre, and I'll ship it to you at cost.
Nice work and a very welcome report and followup; many thanks.
All the best,
Dan.
-
Thanks for the tip on hanging the chains from the same nail, Dan.
Andre "Duh" Jute
-
Not to hijack the thread but based on your results Andre I am seriously considering adding a Herbie to the Tour. My question is I am running a 110bcd crank with a thorn 38t chainring. Any sugggestions on which chainring to go for or would I need to change the crank to a 104 to take the Surly.
I am running a 17t sprocket so that should be good to go.
Cheers
Andy
-
Andy,
Though you addressed your question to Andre, I have the info fresh from Surly and Hebie at hand in my correspondence folder.
The Surly stainless chainrings are available in a whole range of sizes if you need one for a 5-arm 110BCD/PCD. Sizes are much more limited at present if you require a 4-arm 104 BCD, and 36T is the largest currently available in that diameter.
As Surly say here: http://surlybikes.com/parts/drivetrain/stainless_steel_chainrings
Sizes: 94mm BCD x 30t, 31t, 32t, 33t, 34t, 35t and 36t
104mm BCD x 32t, 33t, 34t, 35t and 36t
110mm BCD x 34t, 35t, 36t, 38t, 39t, 40t, 42t, 44t, 46t, 47t, 48t, 49t and 50t
130mm BCD x 38t, 39t, 40t, 42t, 44t, 46t, 47t, 48t, 49t and 50t
* Our 94bcd,104bcd and 110bcd x 34/35/36t chainrings are made with a 2.2-2.3mm thick stock plate and work best with 5-8 speed chains. Many folks are using these on 9 speed drivetrains but this can often results in a "tight fit" right out of the box (This will loosen up and shifting should improve after the chain breaks in). The 110bcd 38-50t and all 130bcd chainrings are machine finished to have a 2.1mm tooth thickness and thus work fine with 9spd chains.
The 17T sprocket would be fine at the rear if matched with the compatible Hebie Chainglider tailpiece, no problem. However, Hebie advice me that at present they have no plans to produce a Chainglider in sizes smaller than their present 38T model.
Hoping this helps,
Dan.
-
Hi Dan
Thamks for that. I think I must have been having a slow brain morning. For some reason I was thinking it was the 104 chainring availability for the 110. I think I may just be going mad.
Thanks for the help Dan. As always much appreciated
Andy
-
I am getting similar results to Andre.
I have been running a Surly SS 38, Rohloff 17, Rohloff chain in a Hebie chainglider, all from new, for almost a year now with probably close to 1000 miles ridden.
I had to take a link out of the chain and adjust the eccentric not long after fitting as everything bedded down.
I thought I might need to adjust the eccentric after nearly a year so off came the Hebie, but to my surprise and delight the chain is in new condition and not needing the eccentric adjusting yet.
Definitely the way to go if you can use any chainring/sprocket combination the Hebie fits.
Julian.
-
Definetly added to my wish list.
Thanks guys
Andy
-
Not to hijack the thread but based on your results Andre I am seriously considering adding a Herbie to the Tour. My question is I am running a 110bcd crank with a thorn 38t chainring. Any sugggestions on which chainring to go for or would I need to change the crank to a 104 to take the Surly.
I am running a 17t sprocket so that should be good to go.
Cheers
Andy
Andy: Dan has already given you a comprehensive answer about availability, so I'll add some opinion from my experience:
104mm PCD may have a lot of choice in cranks because it is an MTB standard but 110mm is a good old road standard and the narrowest treads (Q factor) are available in 110mm, also the prettiest cranks. So at 110 the Surly SS chainring and the Hebie all work together at the tooth count I want which is 38T, same as you.
Your chain will probably last a wee bit longer on a 17T sprocket than on the 16T I have fitted.
Andre Jute
-
I am getting similar results to Andre.
I have been running a Surly SS 38, Rohloff 17, Rohloff chain in a Hebie chainglider, all from new, for almost a year now with probably close to 1000 miles ridden.
I had to take a link out of the chain and adjust the eccentric not long after fitting as everything bedded down.
I thought I might need to adjust the eccentric after nearly a year so off came the Hebie, but to my surprise and delight the chain is in new condition and not needing the eccentric adjusting yet.
Definitely the way to go if you can use any chainring/sprocket combination the Hebie fits.
Julian.
Did you add any lube, Julian, or are you too still running on the factory lube?
Andre Jute
-
Andre,
I did not oil the chain when I installed it, so it has run for nearly a year on the original grease/oil as put in by Rohloff and it still looks new.
I did wipe out the chainglider when I took it off recently - and I just oiled the chain with Rohloff chain oil - more to give the chainglider some new lubrication or glide factor than for the chain.
So not quite the same experiment as you are running.
I would now expect at least twice the chain life using a chainglider and probably more.
I have been surprised just how much muck is deposited on the outside of the chainglider as run off from the rear mudguard/wheel near the seat tube. Much more than came past the front mud flap. No wonder bare chains get so gritty.
Julian.
-
Oh! Julian's added report of success makes me wish even more for a Chainglider to fit a 36x17T combo, but in correspondence as recent as 27 March, Hebie's representative tells me [extracted]...
At the moment we have no plans in order to produce a 36T chainglider.
At the moment the use of a 36T gearing in the market is not sufficient to do so.
As soon as we change our plans in this I will inform you.
I send you the actual information from Rohloff as we know them. In these overviews I do not find a change to 36T in combination with Rohloff. [Emphasis Dan's]
If you have other information please share it with us!
http://www.rohloff.de/de/technik/werkstatt/entfalltungstabelle/index.html
http://www.rohloff.de/fileadmin/rohloffde/produkte/speedhub/kettenuebersetzung/rohloff_shimano.de.pdf
http://www.rohloff.de/fileadmin/rohloffde/produkte/speedhub/kettenuebersetzung/shimano_rohloff.de.pdf
I sent them these links myself late last year, and a 36T for 26in wheels is mentioned as Rohloff-approved in the first one.
I also sent these links from Rohloff announcing their new, warranty compliant ratios allowing a 36T chainring used with a 17T cog and 26in wheels:
SPEEDHUB 500/14 revised permitted transmission factor now 2.1!
11.12.2012
http://www.rohloff.de/en/news/news_rss/news_in_detail/archive/2012/11/december/article/SPEEDHUB_UEbersetzungsfaktor_von_mind_235_auf_ak/index.html
...and...
http://www.rohloff.de/fileadmin/rohloffde/download/beschreibung/speedhub/Entfaltungstabelle_Speedhub_Solofahrer_13_17_Primaer_2_1.pdf
Perhaps those interested in adding a Chainglider to their own 36T chainring Rohloff drivetrains can join me in asking Rohloff to consider adding a front section to accommodate this newly available gearing, ideal for those living in hilly terrain, doing mountain touring, or carrying expedition loads -- the very conditions where drivetrain cleanliness would pay tremendous dividends, especially away from ready service opportunities. Hebie's representative is a gentleman named Ron Hout, available via their website contact form here: http://www.hebie.de/Contact.11.0.html?&L=1 Referencing the above inks might convince them to offer a 36T Chainglider.
Best,
Dan.
-
...I just oiled the chain with Rohloff chain oil ... I would now expect at least twice the chain life using a chainglider and probably more.
Yes, I also plan to use the Oil of Rohloff if necessary, but cannot say if or when it will become necessary. At present it seems possible that the factory lube, protected inside the Chainglider, might go the target distance, set at 4605km by my previous chain.
Andre Jute
-
It's becoming pretty clear that my Chainglider/Surly SS/KMC X8 setup is an economy measure! Yeah, I know... On my previous setups, whether open derailleur or cased chain hub gearbox bikes, I would go through three cheap chains and Nexus cranksets and Shimano sprockets in the 4605km my first KMC X8 lasted, with no noticeable wear to the Rohloff sprocket or the steel chain wheel. So, because I'm heavy on transmission gear, even though my motive wasn't saving money but convenience, I'm ahead under 5000km. (In part because I bought a batch of KMC X8 at a deep discount CRC sale for just about the same as cheap Shimano/SRAM chains had previously cost me.) I would expect the rest of you, who're all apparently lighter on your transmissions than me, to see financial advantage in a Chainglider at around 10,000km.
My experience leads me to conclude that it wouldn't be smart to cheapen your chain or chainring when you buy a Chainglider. The better the gear that you cover up, the greater the benefit. Bit counterintuitive, but I think the soft Nexus ali was grinding away fast enough to destroy the cheap chains I had, even inside the Dutch chain cases, whereas my current Surly stainless steel chain works much more happily with the quality steel of the KMC chain. There's less to grind internally, and very little gets in from outside through the Chainglider's defences.
In this perspective the Chainglider is starting to seem like a bargain.
Andre Jute
-
Due to starting a new and demanding job in January, not had much time to use my Thorn with the Chainglider.
But my old 5-speed bike with Chainglider, used in all weather for shopping, local trips, etc., hasn't needed any maintenance at all for 9 months. This is a non-optimal setup, 1/8 inch chain, so thicker rear sprocket, TA 1/8 inch chainring slightly too thick for the Chainglider, and all the transmission parts already well worn.
So I expect the Thorn to do even better, with stainless steel chainring and new 3/32 inch transmission.
Using just the factory lube on a derailleur bike, I got good trouble-free service for the first few hundred kilometres during my 2011 Spain trip, so long as I was riding on tarmac roads in good weather. This changed as soon as I had a bit of rain and started using unsealed tracks.
-
Dan,
I hope Hebie do the decent thing and extend the size range to include 36 chainrings.
I forgot to mention pleasure at the lack of mucky chain maintenance - the original reason I think that Andre started his experiment.
An added benefit is the covered chain means that putting the bike in a car or accidentally dropping your favourite garment on the chain has fewer drawbacks.
Julian.
-
Ok you chain case specialists, I'm considering taking the plunge next time I renew the transmission. I found that replacing chain every 5000 miles and sprocket and chain ring every 10,000 miles seems to be an economical way of operating I'm thinking of a 38 x 16 setup to match the hebie. Has a concensus emerged on chain ring type and chain type to fit the chain glider?
-
Has a concensus emerged on chain ring type and chain type to fit the chain glider?
On the Thorn, I have a Surly stainless steel chain ring. Thinner than most alloy rings, so rubs less on the Chainglider. This is combined with a SRAM PC890 8-speed chain, but I think any 3/32" chain should work OK.
On my old 5-speed hub bike I have non-optimal thicker TA alloy ring and wider 1/8" chain. This rubs a little (small noise if I remember to listen out for it) but is acceptable (for me). I reckon the chainring and Chainglider will eventually each wear a little over time. Actual friction seems to be pretty negligible.
-
Ok you chain case specialists, I'm considering taking the plunge next time I renew the transmission. I found that replacing chain every 5000 miles and sprocket and chain ring every 10,000 miles seems to be an economical way of operating I'm thinking of a 38 x 16 setup to match the hebie. Has a concensus emerged on chain ring type and chain type to fit the chain glider?
38x16 is the lowest you can go in Chaingliders. If you're young, strong, fast, you may want to consider that there are other Hebie Chainglider sizes that work with the Rohloff rear end. All this ferment for a 36 tooth Chainglider is from overload tourers, old guys and so on. I use 38x16 but I'm old and live on a steep hill in very hilly countryside, and I spin out under 40kph. I don't mind sitting up coasting, but riders with roadie backgrounds may feel guilty if they're not pedaling to purpose. On the other hand, better to coast down the steepest hills than suffer the indignity of having to push. A Rohloff rider whose bike is set up right for his personal circumstances and geography and ambitions should never have to push!
It is a pity that the very desirable Thorn chainring, for which many here have already paid, is too thick to fit a Hebie. The Surly stainless chainring seems to be the best choice. It should last longer than even the best aluminium chainring; note that we don't know how much longer it will last yet, but by analogy with a steel chainring, I expect mine to outlast several ali chainrings, which will easily justify the extra cost. I bought mine simply as another step in developing an ultra-low maintenance, ultra-clean bike and am well pleased with it. So are the other riders here who've since bought the Surly.
I've been well pleased with the KMC X8 chain, which in combination with a first a chaincase and then steel and now stainless chainrings has progressively improved chain life by a multiple, whole factors, over the Shimano Nexus setups I used to be satisfied with. (Even at my mileages, that's a significant saving, recouping the cost of the fancier gear in about 5000km; for a heavy commuter with established procedures to enhance chain life (that is, the guys who get tremendously long chain life), the saving could be significant from the end of the first year forward.) The makers of my bike, Utopia of Germany, test everything; they are well pleased with the slightly cheaper KMC Z7 (the discounters' price for the X8 is often lower than the Z7). Some people here have gone the whole hog on KMC, and are trying the much more expensive X1, which is claimed by some to be a replacement for the obsolete Rohloff chains, which offered tremendous longevity.
Andre Jute
-
Thanks Andre, I currently run a 40 x 16 which gives ratios I am happy with, but chain gliders only come for 40 or 38 tooth rings. On balance I would probably rather go down than up in gearing. I suppose I could use a bigger sprocket and go for 42 x 17?
-
Thanks Andre, I currently run a 40 x 16 which gives ratios I am happy with, but chain gliders only come for 40 or 38 tooth rings. On balance I would probably rather go down than up in gearing. I suppose I could use a bigger sprocket and go for 42 x 17?
Go to my Bicycling page http://coolmainpress.com/BICYCLING.html and you'll find that on the page reserved for an as yet unwritten Chainglider article I've put my gear-inch decision tree for the Rohloff/Chainglider combo. You can calculate from there by adjusting for your preferred cadence and chosen tyre circumference. Or, if you tell me your preferred cadence and the circumference of the tyre you use, I can make a table especially for your situation.
Andre Jute
-
Very nicely done, Andre, and a valuable resource thanks to your generosity; thank you!
Now...if only we had need for you to add resources for a 36x17. Hebie! Where's my 36T Chainglider? Rohloff says it's okay now!
Those of us with hummingbird cadences can simply double the speeds listed for each combo (120RPM vs. 60RPM); nice.
Best,
Dan.
-
Thanks Andre, I currently run a 40 x 16 which gives ratios I am happy with, but chain gliders only come for 40 or 38 tooth rings. On balance I would probably rather go down than up in gearing. I suppose I could use a bigger sprocket and go for 42 x 17?
A 42x17 is a gnats willy away from the 40x16 you have now. On a direct drive 26" wheel - 65" compared to 64.2".
BTW, I am an overloaded tourer, trending much closer to the grey shade, and like to spin (90rpm sees me wanting to change down a gear) but I have no desire to use a 36t chainring. Crikey, I hit top gear at about 45kmh now and find that is fine.... a bit low for a gentle descending road with a strong tailwind but I can cope. 36t would see me spinning out at 35kmh !!
-
Very nicely done, Andre, and a valuable resource thanks to your generosity; thank you!
Now...if only we had need for you to add resources for a 36x17. Hebie! Where's my 36T Chainglider? Rohloff says it's okay now!
Those of us with hummingbird cadences can simply double the speeds listed for each combo (120RPM vs. 60RPM); nice.
We'll wait for Geocycle to tell me his cadence and tyre circumference, and when I make a table for him, perhaps it will be a near generic 26in setup, or I can at that time make a more generic table for 559 touring tyres as well.
Or, as Il Padrone has just pointed out, you can make the decision based on the gear inches in the 1:1 gear, 11th gear. It answers the question: what do I want to pull on the flat?
Actually, there's a possibility, now permitted, that I don't have on my table: 38x17, because it was streng verboten when I made the original table from which I adapted a section for Geocycle.
Andre Jute
-
Hi Andre, Thanks for your useful table. I'm using 26" wheels with 26x1.6 Schwalbe marathon supreme tyres. Circumference is 2010mm or 79.1 inches. I have never measured my cadence but I guess about 70-80.
-
Hi Andre, Thanks for your useful table. I'm using 26" wheels with 26x1.6 Schwalbe marathon supreme tyres. Circumference is 2010mm or 79.1 inches. I have never measured my cadence but I guess about 70-80.
The table is now somewhat differently constructed to make it a bit easier to change the tyre diameter and cadence. http://coolmainpress.com/BICYCLING.html There are two new tables, both for Schwalbe 26x1.6in tyres at cadences of 80 and 120rpm. Note that the 36T chainring rows are only for Dan, as there are no Chainglider components to suit. All the other combinations fit available Chaingliders and are at least notionally touring combos, though you should choose the biggest toothcount for the longest life.
Andre Jute
-
Note that the 36T chainring rows are only for Dan, as there are no Chainglider components to suit.
My! Thanks so much, Andre; I truly appreciate your thoughtfulness. What a very nice thing to do!
And, what a very valuable resource for all.
All the best,
Dan.
-
Right, spent a pleasant hour fitting new rolhoff sprocket, surly chainwheel, new chain and a Hebie chainglider. All went very well, even taking the old sprocket off. The chainglider needed no cutting and seems to be fairly smooth and properly fitted. I haven't had time for a ride yet but I think it's fine, just seemed a bit too easy!
Next weekend i will tackle the cabling.
-
Andre, thanks for this -- very thorough, clear & accessible as always. Useful for me as I expect to make my frame/forks/wheel & components orders in the next few weeks. The 26 x 1.6 @ 80 RPM is close enough for my reckoning.
You mention the KMC X-8 chain, used with your Rohloff hub. KMC lists several X8s: e.g., and X8-93 for an 8-spd cogset, and an X8-93, also for an 8-spd cogset but in silver. Both are 3/32 width. Were either of these the X8 you've used? The more expensive X1 is shown as THE ITEM for a Rohloff, but if the X8 does the job, the price is half that of an X1. Or does the X8 look like a false economy?
Cheers,
J.
-
Right, spent a pleasant hour fitting new rolhoff sprocket, surly chainwheel, new chain and a Hebie chainglider. All went very well, even taking the old sprocket off. The chainglider needed no cutting and seems to be fairly smooth and properly fitted. I haven't had time for a ride yet but I think it's fine, just seemed a bit too easy!
Next weekend i will tackle the cabling.
Stretching out a pleasant job to make it last, eh? Good for you!
-
KMC lists several X8s: e.g., and X8-93 for an 8-spd cogset, and an X8-93, also for an 8-spd cogset but in silver. Both are 3/32 width. Were either of these the X8 you've used? The more expensive X1 is shown as THE ITEM for a Rohloff, but if the X8 does the job, the price is half that of an X1. Or does the X8 look like a false economy?
I bought three chains to rotate on my Rohloff drivetrain, two and a half years ago. They were this one, the KMC X8-99 (http://www.bike24.com/1.php?content=8;navigation=1;product=14774;page=1;menu=1000,2,83;mid=172). At that time I recall it was 11 Euro which I thought was great economy, and the X1 was more than twice as much. The X8-99 has full nickel plating which I prefer.
The chains have been rotated on and off. So far the bike has done 17,000kms. The current chain may last another 1-2000kms, then I will swap on the third and it should do for another 4-5000kms. So I reckon I'll get 24-25,000kms from three chains. I could push it further if I don't mind really trashing the sprocket and chainring - a new ring, sprocket and Chainglider will go on the bike after that.
-
Andre, thanks for this -- very thorough, clear & accessible as always. Useful for me as I expect to make my frame/forks/wheel & components orders in the next few weeks. The 26 x 1.6 @ 80 RPM is close enough for my reckoning.
You mention the KMC X-8 chain, used with your Rohloff hub. KMC lists several X8s: e.g., and X8-93 for an 8-spd cogset, and an X8-93, also for an 8-spd cogset but in silver. Both are 3/32 width. Were either of these the X8 you've used? The more expensive X1 is shown as THE ITEM for a Rohloff, but if the X8 does the job, the price is half that of an X1. Or does the X8 look like a false economy?
Cheers,
J.
John, all those KMC X8 are the same chain as to construction; it is the many thoughtful details of the construction that makes the X-series so long lasting. All that differs is the amount of plating. X8-93 is half plated, gray and silver, half-nickel. X8-99 is fully nickel-plated, silver-silver. Which you actually need depends on which other components you specify and where you ride and park the bike.
Note also that the X8 is the top 8sp derailleur chain on which I happened by an accident in the supply line, An alternative is the Z8, which is cheaper, but is plenty good if it is good enough for Utopia, makers of my bike, Germans who test everything exhaustively before they fit it to their bikes.
Whether the extra flex in the X8 as compared to a singlespeed chain is a plus on a hub gear installation, I don't know, but I suspect it is. The X8 certainly increased my chain mileage by multiples (not percentage points, literally several times), so I am not inclined to experiment. Also, the X8 is such a popular chain that the deals that come around, which is when I stock up because I give this chain away to pedal pals, usually makes the X8 cheaper than the Z8 or not very much more. (Not true right now. Z82 is much cheaper at CRC than X8-93, cf http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/ie/en/kmc-z82-7-8-speed-chain/rp-prod46601 with http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/ie/en/s?q=kmc+x8 )
My current spare chains are X8-93 which are grey and silver, meaning half plated. It makes zero difference inside the Hebie Chainglider on a bike that is stored in a heated room, even with my ongoing zero-added lube, factory lube-only experiment, presently at over 2000km. The chain never gets wet, though I presume a certain amount of condensations finds its way to the innards. So there is no point in me buying the X8-99, though in the past I have because that was what CRC offered the deal on. The first chain when I removed it was shiny bright, zero rust.
If the chain will be exposed to the elements on your bike, get the fully-nickeled X8-99 version. If you're going to use the bike in the Canadian winter even with a Chainglider, it's probably overkill, but if the bike will be stored in unheated space, especially for extended periods, I'd definitely get the fully nickeled version.
About the X1 Rohloff specific chain. The KMC X8 has improved my bike's chain life to where at least I'm in the room with Stuart (posts signed Stutho, if you want to look them up), who was moderator here before Dan, who is famous for making chains last truly stupendous mileages; before I got one-tenth to one-fifth Stuart's mileage, and now with the KMC X8 I'm up to 45% with hopes of reaching the halfway mark, which, given my history with chains, will put me too in the lower levels of the stupendous class. It is another reason not to mess with success, especially as I don't see how the X1 can possibly increase my chain mileage over the X8 in proportion to it's cost; if it did, I'd leave Stuart far, far behind, and I don't think anyone here believes that likely or even possible. We await reports from those here who have the X1, but meanwhile I'm very happy indeed with the X8.
-
I reckon I'll get 24-25,000kms from three chains. I could push it further if I don't mind really trashing the sprocket and chainring - a new ring, sprocket and Chainglider will go on the bike after that.
That's pretty impressive. I'd be over the moon to get 8k+ from a chain.
-
Thanks, Andre and Pete, for this. Reading your replies, I realize I'd made a typo, using X8-93 twice, when one was obviously an X8-99; and of course you weren't fooled! Either of these chains seems suitable; and for sure, I won't be using them in an Ottawa winter--I close down 2-wheeled activity between early Dec and early March, as a rule, because of the snow & ice as much as the cold. My bikes live out those winter months safe, dry & warm in my basement.
Anticipating buying Thorn forks & frame in the next couple of weeks--have been lurching between a New Raven and a Nomad X, currently tilting towards the former for the versatility it offers. Then, between October & December will assemble components for wheels & hubs, BB, cranks, bars, headset & stem, etc., plus accessories like lights & mudguards, with a view to getting the lot built in January, in time for the Return of The Sun & the Great Thaw in March... The forum threads have been very useful indeed, augmented by advice from individual riders, based on personal experience.
Fotos to follow in due course, with thanks to all for advice.
J.
-
The chain glider got tested today on a ride on some mixed surfaces. I am generally happy with it. It was very easy to fit and I felt no drag. It remained very secure even after some rough sections. At times it was almost silent, at others it was a bit like a slightly loose mudguard. I think I can put up with this slight noise, which aft all is less than the rolhoff in gear 7. The benefits for a bike used every day on gravelly old rail paths should be great. Thanks to Andre for his recommendation.
Here are a few pics of the chain glider and a nice view from the saddle from today's ride.
-
Very useful post. Thanks for that. Lovely photos too. Mawddach by any chance?
-
Wonderful report and lovely photos, Geo', very helpful to those of us contemplating doing the same.
Cue the "Danneaux Need.Want. Litany" for a 36T Hebie Chainglider. Woe-oh-oh, woe-oh-oh.
All the best,
Dan.
-
Very useful post. Thanks for that. Lovely photos too. Mawddach by any chance?
No but there are similarities aren't there! This is Arnside in south Cumbria.
-
Looks good.
I used to live at Storth, about 2 miles away towards Milnthorpe.
That railway bridge looks a lot different at high tide!
Has the cycle way across the railway over to Grange progressed?
Julian.
-
Super photographs. Those blue hills in the background call to me. Thank you for sharing.
-
Looks good.
I used to live at Storth, about 2 miles away towards Milnthorpe.
That railway bridge looks a lot different at high tide!
Has the cycle way across the railway over to Grange progressed?
Julian.
Alas, the plans for cycleway seem to be shelved. Its a real shame as it would be a great crossing and bring together Arnside and Grange. Indeed I would have visited the Hazlemere(?) cafe to test their 'vanilla slice of the week' Instead I went to leighton Moss RSPB reserve who do a good coffee cake.
-
Many thanks. I recall that has far as having to cut the chain glider or not, one factor is the size of front and rear cog.
Whoa, Matt. The number of teeth on the chainring and the sprocket have nothing to do with whether the Chainglider has to be cut. All that matters about the number of teeth on the wheelies is that they don't break Rohloff's maximum torque spec (don't worry about it, no combo that the Chainglider can make breaks the Rohloff rule) and that they suit your riding style. There are tables at http://coolmainpress.com/BICYCLINGHebieChainglider.html to help you choose chainring and sprocket combinations to suit the gearing you prefer, and if you have a wildly different cadence or tire size, tell me and I'll twist Bill Gates' arm to make Excel come up with a table especially for you. Doubleclick on the tables to enlarge them.
The Chainglider comes in two parts. The one is a Rohloff-specific back end. There is only one fitting and it suits 15-16-17T Rohloff sprockets. The other fitting is the front end and there are six possibilities:
-- 3x choices of chainring size 38-42-44T each of which requires a different front end
-- 2x lengths of front end for each permitted tooth count, one for chainstays with an axle distance of 445-475mm, the other one 70mm longer for longer chain stays up to an axle distance of 530mm.
Here a German dealer with an English page lays it out as the rear end (you want the Rohlloff!) http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/hebie-chainglider-for-rohloff-15-17t-for-38t-black-prod22354/ followed by the 6 front ends according to chainring and chainstay length at http://www.bike-components.de/products/info/p29665_Chainglider-350-Vollkettenschutz-Vorderteil-.html?xtcr=1&xtmcl=chainglider I can recommend this dealer; I bought my Chainglider from him; very cheap delivery charges.
So you specify the kit order as:
0350R S15 1x Rohloff rear end
0350F TT YY 1x Rohloff front end TT [tooth count] YY [length, standard or extra long]
My front end for instance is "0350F 38 XL Rohloff front end 38T Extra Long".
More information in English at http://www.hebie.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/2012/CG_flyer_10x10_2012_en.pdf and workshop instructions in German at http://www.hebie.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Broschuere_Chainglider_08_web.pdf
***
Don't agonize about the cutting. It's the easiest task of the entire operation, except for the fitting, as Geo has observed. Any old hacksaw will do. Don't even agonize over measuring to cut. The front end of the Chainglider slips into the rear end of the Chainglider and clips in on a row of ridges, so there's not need for precision; you're not butting up parts for the Great Engineerng Exhibition; normal tidiness will suffice. I just eyeballed mine, measured along my thumb to roughly the first joint, and sawed with a carbon blade because it lay to hand (I saw everything with it that doesn't require a power tool). Worked a treat. A couple of quick swipes with a sanding block and Bernd's your uncle.
What you want to take more care with is getting the right length of Chainglider front end in the first instance. But I bet there is someone with the same model and size of Thorn as you have who already ordered a Chainglider and knows which one you need. If not, Dan probably knows where Mr Blance keeps the table of chainstay lengths that correspond to various bike sizes. Or, of course, as a last resort, you can do it the easy way with a measuring tape, measuring from centre of the bottom bracket axle to the centre of the Rohloff axle.
Or, even easier, buy it from SJS and let them be responsible for sending you the right size. They offer a 42T set http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/hebie-chainglider-for-rohloff-15-17t-for-42t-black-prod19788/ and a 38T set http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/hebie-chainglider-for-rohloff-15-17t-for-38t-black-prod22354/ and I presume they'll get you a 44T set if you insist.
Hope this helps.
-
Andre and All;
My corespondence with Hebie and the measurements from their tables indicate my 590M Nomad would require the "Long" front piece, same as Andre's Utopia Kranich. My Nomad has extraordinarily long chainstays.
Best,
Dan. (...who still wishes Hebie'd make the thing for a 36T chainring)
-
Got to thinkng more about a Hebie guard and then remembered how my chain runs on the slack side.
I recently tightened it up but it was just a job I found myself doing when I had a few minutes to spare. The bike was running fine with the slack.
How would this square with the Hebie on?
Matt
-
Got to thinkng more about a Hebie guard and then remembered how my chain runs on the slack side.
I recently tightened it up but it was just a job I found myself doing when I had a few minutes to spare. The bike was running fine with the slack.
How would this square with the Hebie on?
No problem. I routinely run a slack chain — you should on a Rohloff — and I've never noticed any complaint from the Hebie.
-
Ah, I see now that I answered your questions on 20 September 2013 at http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=6813.msg46901#msg46901 Never mind, I've written another reply and there are some additional links and information in this post.
Also, I note you say you fitted it to a 38/17 combo but the SJS page for the CG says 39/18-22.
Is there a guide from Hebie saying that 17 goes with 38?
I am thinking of going for the 38/18 combo.
But when I look on the SJS site, the rear rings are only 13 15 16 & 17 teeth!
What am I missing?
Matt, a Chainglider consists of two parts that may be mixed and matched to suit the bike and its gearbox, a front part consisting of the chainring cover with two integral arms to cover the chain, and a rear part to cover the sprocket. Within each of those two parts there are several different models available, and you must take care to order the right bits or to find a supplier who knows his oats.
At the front, you can get Chainglider front ends that fit 38, 42, and 44 tooth chainrings; these are three different Chainglider components; choose one; when you get a different tooth count on your chainring, buy another Chainglider front end.
At the back you can get different Chainglider sprocket covers that suit different hub gearboxes. There is only one that works with a Rohloff.
(I don't know where SJS got a Chainglider for a 39T chainring from -- perhaps you mistyped. But the 18-22 tooth sprockets you mention belong to the Shimano hub gearboxes and is covered by a Chainglider rear end that will not fit your Rohloff and is likely to damage it.)
What you need is the specific Chainglider rear end for the Rohloff. That one component takes the Rohloff sprockets that have 15, 16 or 17 teeth; nobody except the makers of little folding bikes wants to know the 13T sprocket and one gets the idea Herr Rohloff would rather not own up to paternity of it. Martin appears to be of the opinion that the higher tooth counts may lift the arms of the Chainglider higher on the chain, presumably making it run lighter and more silently. Makes sense to me. In any event, the higher tooth counts do not require the chain to bend so sharply and may improve chain life. (Obligatory on-topic remark!)
It would be smart for you to buy your Chainglider from Thorn or another dealer who knows what he is doing, and to specify it precisely as "for a 38T chainring and a Rohloff hub gearbox with 17T sprocket".
There is an additional complication. There is in addition to various Chainglider front ends for 38, 42 and 44T chainrings, two lengths of front end. If your bike is particularly large, in particular if it is a long wheelbase bike with the chainstays scaled in proportion, you may need the Chainglider front end with the longer set of arms. I haven't actually heard of anyone on the forum having to order the longer-legged front end for a Thorn, but I got them for my Kranich, which is over two metres long and scaled in proportion with custom-made tubes by Columbus. The long front end is available for 38, 42, 44T chainrings.
Note that there is no 36T front end at present and apparently no intention by Hebie to introduce one.
Here is a pictorial reference:
Rohloff Chainglider rear end, the only one that will work with a Rohloff:
(http://www.zweiradnetz.de/images/stories/virtuemart/product/Hebie_Chainglide_4ff18aeaf25bc.jpg)
38T Chainglider front end standard length for a chainstay up to 455mm:
(http://www.zweiradnetz.de/images/stories/virtuemart/product/Hebie_Chainglide_4ff17fae27f2d.jpg)
The long Chainglider front is for a chain stay up to 525mm. The measurement is centre to centre of bottom bracket axle to rear hub axle.
Either front end can have a bit chopped off each arm -- your wife's breadknife or a metal saw is good -- to suit the particular length of your chain stays, but this isn't critical as the arms slide into sockets on the rear end.
Here's a page with a video demonstrating how easy it is to fit a Chainglider, and particularly how the pieces fit together.
http://www.hebie.de/en/protection/chainguard/chainglider/350/
Scroll down this page for all the available Chainglider parts, including some that will damage expensive bits on your bike, see above:
http://www.hebie.de/en/protection/filter-cg/
All the part numbers you need are on the page above.
Hope this helps.
EDITED 21 August to remove reference to the Chainglider front end for 48T chainrings, which does not fit the Rohloff rear end. Thanks to Macspud for spotting it!
-
(I don't know where SJS got a Chainglider for a 39T chainring from -- perhaps you mistyped. But the 18-22 tooth sprockets you mention belong to the Shimano hub gearboxes and is covered by a Chainglider rear end that will not fit your Rohloff and is likely to damage it.)
Many many thanks.
All info a great help
I had been looking at a non Rohloff specific CG on the SJS site - sorry :(
Since I plan to do the whole job myself - I will need a Crank Puller.
Does the Raven have square or Splined cranks?
Matt
-
Many many thanks.
All info a great help
I had been looking at a non Rohloff specific CG on the SJS site - sorry :(
Since I plan to do the whole job myself - I will need a Crank Puller.
Does the Raven have square or Splined cranks?
Matt
You don't need to remove the cranks to fit a new chainring or chainglider. I suppose you might if you wanted to add a spacer to change the chain line. I found on the raven tour it wasn't absolutely necessary. The raven has a square taper bottom bracket.
-
You don't need to remove the cranks to fit a new chainring or chainglider. I suppose you might if you wanted to add a spacer to change the chain line. I found on the raven tour it wasn't absolutely necessary. The raven has a square taper bottom bracket.
Thanks. As well as both rings and new chain, I will renew the EBB. Its very scored and marked.
So, square it is. Thanks again.
Matt
-
At the front, you can get Chainglider front ends that fit 38, 42, 44 and 48 tooth chainrings
Andre, are you sure that the 48 tooth front end can be used with the Rohloff 0350R S15 rear? I had thought so but looking again at the Chainglider site, it appears that it only fits the 0350R D16 rear, which is for 16-18 tooth cogs and doesn't appear to be Rohloff specific?
See attached screen shots below.
-
Andre, are you sure that the 48 tooth front end can be used with the Rohloff 0350R S15 rear? I had thought so but looking again at the Chainglider site, it appears that it only fits the 0350R D16 rear, which is for 16-18 tooth cogs and doesn't appear to be Rohloff specific?.
You're so right! Thanks, Macspud!
I wrote all that in my long post above from memory, and at the last moment spotted the relatively new 48T front end and just threw it in without checking (ouch!) which is why I spoke of "three" front ends but listed four. I've now changed that post to remove reference to a Chainglider for 48T chainrings to avoid confusing innocents. Thanks again.
*****
FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF CONFUSION:
The Rohloff owner can choose among the following Chainglider components, and only these:
1x Rohloff-suitable Chainglider rear end which will take 15, 16 and 17T Rohloff sprockets, one size fits three sprockets. You can change Rohloff sprockets merrily inside the Chainglider Rohloff rear end, as long as you stick to 15, 16 and 17 teeth, without having to buy a new rear end.
3x Chainglider front ends to suit respectively chainrings of 38, 42 or 44 teeth. If you change your chainring, you need a new Chainglider front end.
It is strongly suggested that Rohloff riders don't conduct experiments outside these parameters. Hebie introduced the Rohloff rear end (and rear ends for each of several other hub gearboxes too) specifically because of the danger of a "universal" rear end scarring expensive hubs.
-
(http://www.coolmainpress.com/miscimage/chainglider_inside_at_3500km_800pxw.jpg)
My Chainglider at 3500km, still on the factory lube. There has been no extra lube of any kind. There has been no service or cleaning of any kind. The chain is KMC X8-93. Notice how clean everything is. It looks like this setup will make the target of 4605km set by the previous KMC chain.
-
Very impressive advert for the 'glider, Andre! Did you find any wear from the chain ring on the inside of the 'glider sheath covering the rear part of the ring?
Incidentally, after adjusting the tension of my rear brake cable, I gave the cranks a spin with the bike on the stand, and listened carefully for any noise or friction from my newly-adjusted 'glider -- barely any noise at all, at most a whispery hiss, so I think the extra "slop" in the system (quelle horreur!) seems to be working as well as Oil of Rohloff in keeping things quiet & content.
-
LATER NOTE: As we shall see below, my response here is based on the belief that John is referring to the rearmost part of the Chainglider, the hub-sprocket cover. He is not, so I will address what he's actually talking about in a separate post further down this thread. I'm however leaving my remarks on the thread, embarrassing as the misunderstanding may be, because they may be of value to cyclists wanting to know how one adjusts the sprcket cover on a Chainglider.
Did you find any wear from the chain ring on the inside of the 'glider sheath covering the rear part of the ring?
The rear part of the Chainglider is under a pannier basket which, like everything on my bike, is thief proof; that unfortunately also makes it a bit time-consuming to remove, and I had only moments between returning from a ride and being called for dinner. So I opened up only what you see in the photo, to see if the chain is okay.
I'll make a complete inspection when I give the bike its biennial clean, in which everything gets taken off, unbolted, etc.
However, I do not expect to find any wear whatsoever in any part of the Chainglider. First of all, there is no noise from the Chainglider, zero; a good test is to ride on the painted line on smooth tarmac on a quiet country road, which kills the sussuration of the tyres, and so lets you hear everything else working. (My bike is totally silent; you can hear the air being moved by the fat tyres and the spokes, and that's it, zero mechanical noise.) Secondly, if there was any wear, the evidence of it would be carried throughout the Chainglider as at least a little mess. As you can see, no mess inside, just a veeeeery little of the same dust that has gathered on the top of the Chainglider.
Incidentally, after adjusting the tension of my rear brake cable, I gave the cranks a spin with the bike on the stand, and listened carefully for any noise or friction from my newly-adjusted 'glider -- barely any noise at all, at most a whispery hiss, so I think the extra "slop" in the system (quelle horreur!) seems to be working as well as Oil of Rohloff in keeping things quiet & content.
Has anyone told you yet that the chain is supposed to be quite slack, ideally 10mm of depression between front and back? This is a Rohloff requirement, nothing to do with the Chainglider. If you look closely at my photo above, you'll see that chain is slack once off the chainring.
I was surprised when I read about wear in the Chainglider. The back of the Chainglider rear section is not supposed to touch the sprocket teeth. Fitting it is not that much of a precision job. The ribs on the lock of the rear to the front halves of the CG are well spaced to let you find a position where the sprocket cover has equal space of between 1/8—1/4in around the sprocket. My experience is that a proper fit is silent: one rib out from the right one is loose and will rattle, one rib in from the right one is noisy, though not necessarily very noisy. You want to hear very noisy for reference, make the top or bottom one lock ridge shorter than the other side.
*** I've removed the confusing reference to Oil of Rohloff from my post above; it referred to another setup. There is no Oil of Rohloff on the current chain, nothing but the factory lube.
I don't think Oil of Rohloff or any other lube will make your transmission run quieter inside a Chainglider. If it did, after 3500km I would see quite bit of the liquefied factory lube spread around inside my Chainglider, and the rest of the guys would see lots of whatever lube they use spread around the Chainglider; it would be a commonplace. It isn't. I think what matters in a Chainglider installation, next to getting precisely the correct match of chainring and Chainglider front end, together with precisely the correct rear Chainglider cover for you hub and sprocket, is fitting it right, wriggling the parts together until you have a silent installation, wet or dry matters not.
-
The rear part of the Chainglider
I think John is referring to the rear part of the chainring, the part where there isn't any chain. Certainly the chainglider is a bit skinnier there, since it isn't covering any chain there.
What kind of chainring are you using, John? If is a little too thick, that could be causing the wear. Got to be some difference somewhere!
-
Thanks, Jim and Andre.
1) Wear within the 'glider: The part on my 'glider that shows wear is the sheath covering the rear of the chain ring, as Jim says, i.e., that part of the 'ring not covered by the chain. I noticed the wear last fall when I disassembled and cleaned the 'glider. The sheath appeared to have been rubbing on the ring on both its inner and outer parts. It wasn't a big deal, but it did appear that there was some friction, hence drag, in that area.
No problems anywhere else, and as mentioned, increasing the slop play at the forward part of the 'glider seems to have reduced whatever drag there might have been.
2) Chain: I use a KMC 8.93, same as Andre. It seems very content, clean & still nicely lubed. I did add a little lube during my 3-week trip in Scandinavia last year -- just couldn't get over the habits of a lifetime...
My chain is fairly slack. Would have to go back and double-check it, but following the Thorn chart, I adjusted it so that at tight spot & at midpoint between EBB centre & rear hub centre, there's 35 mm difference between its narrowest measurement (upper and lower runs squeezed together, measurement within the two runs of the chain so's not to include the width of the chain plates) and widest measurement (upper and lower runs stretched apart). Up-and-down displacement of the upper run at the tight spot is about 15-20 mm.
So all seems in good order. I just figured that my 'glider was a bit snug where it should be slack. Who knows why? the open jaws of the sheath at the back of the ring seemed closer together than they should have been, so that they closed slightly on the ring as it was revolving. Since my fix of gentle persuasion-plus-tape, they've backed off their grip.
My experience in these matters is that the item in question rarely "just bolts on, sir", so rather than get myself bent out of shape about the 'glider's mysterious ways, I decided to bend the 'glider slightly out of its original shape. Seems to work so far. The challenge will be, when I have to remove it, reassembling it in its non-standard form :-) ('Course, maybe I could just reassemble it as designed, and it would perform exactly as advertised, shamefaced after its timeout...)
-
Impressive pictures of your clean chain Andre. My glider wasn't quite as successful on my raven tour as moisture had got in and there was some surface rust on the chain, but minimal wear. I'm still without a glider as it didn't fit onto my RST perfectly so will require some whittling at some point. I also lost patience trying to centre my surly 'not very round' chain ring and reverted back to the good old thorn. One day I'll put it back on as I do appreciate the benefits.
-
Impressive pictures of your clean chain Andre. My glider wasn't quite as successful on my raven tour as moisture had got in and there was some surface rust on the chain, but minimal wear. I'm still without a glider as it didn't fit onto my RST perfectly so will require some whittling at some point. I also lost patience trying to centre my surly 'not very round' chain ring and reverted back to the good old thorn. One day I'll put it back on as I do appreciate the benefits.
Same here. I think some moisture got in a surface rust appeared. Chain in mint condition otherwise.
Not sure if milage.
But ' glider fitted last autumn so dampness in shed and genera winter riding may have caused the rust.
Surely it cannot be airtight?
Very impressed with the ' glider. And cannot think of riding without it now.
Matt.
-
Thanks, John, Jim, Geo and Matt.
But ' glider fitted last autumn so dampness in shed and genera winter riding may have caused the rust.
Surely it cannot be airtight?
I don't quite see how any chaincase could be airtight without umpteen seals that are bound to troublesome. But I would expect much less rust on the chains of Chainglider users than one would see on an open chain. I'm surprised that my chain, on which every second link is plain steel, not nickel-plated, just like John's, doesn't show more rust. But my bike lives in a heated room, and hardly ever gets wet anyway. (The sort of water I cross is narrow, a tiny stream perhaps, so that the exposure of the tightfitting Chainglider is never long.)
I think that, from Hebie's viewpoint, we may be misusing the Chainglider. They made the Chainglider a neat chaincase to keep oil off the trousers of office-dressed commuters. I use the Chainglider as a zero-maintenance device. Many of you use it to extend transmission life (I have already done that with 3x success, now I'm trying to repeat that trick without any maintenance). From Hebie's viewpoint, we're probably a bunch of chancers demanding the impossible. And that doesn't even count Dan harassing them for not keeping up Chainglider chainring compatibility with Rohloff's latest permitted ratio spec (heh-heh!).
-
And that doesn't even count Dan harassing them for not keeping up Chainglider chainring compatibility with Rohloff's latest permitted ratio spec (heh-heh!).
:D
And...I have never owned a bike with a rusted chain, Andre! Amazingly, even when I was commuting daily with the bike outside in the rain all day and never quite becoming fully dry, have I ever had rust start or develop on a bicycle chain. I keep them well-lubricated, then bounce the water off by gently lifting the bike a couple centimeters and then dropping, so the excess is shaken off, but not much more.
Maybe living where the roads aren't salted in Winter helps?
Best,
Dan. (...who has nearly given up hope a 36T Chainglider will ever be produced)
-
John, sorry for the misunderstanding. Now that Jim and you have straightened me out about what exactly you're talking about, it becomes easier to make a comparison.
No wear is visible in the rear part of the chainring cover of my Chainglider. It's damned difficult to photograph meaningfully, so this is the best I could manage:
(http://coolmainpress.com/miscimage/andre_jute_kranich_chainglider_chainring_back_5_apr_2015_800pxw.jpg)
You're looking at the inside of a Chainglider at the back of the chainring. Neither Chainglider nor the Surly stainless chainring nor the KMC X8 chain have ever been cleaned in about three years and a bit over 3500km. You can see the imprint of 3500km of factory-lube-only running. The Chainglider, whose inside I couldn't avoid touching becuase at that point it is just flat rubber I'm bending away to photograph, left a very light oil smudge on my fingertips. (I was wearing Winsor & Newton's artist's barrier cream because I couldn't find my Swarfega or a tube of poncily perfumed Lidl barrier cream that I usually keep for bike use.)
-
And...I have never owned a bike with a rusted chain, Andre!
I'm happy to join you in that select group, Dan. I've never owned a bike with visible rust on the chain.
By golly, my hypocrisy chokes me up — with laughter.
-
Thinking back on the occasional Forum reports of wear or noticeable noise from the Chainglider, I do see a possible correlation between seatstay interference and the Chainglider. Several members have indicated some interference between the upper run of the chain case and the inner part of the stay just above the dropout. If the Chainglider were unable to ehm, "glide" and was tipped as a result, that could account for some internal wear. As I recall, Julian reported trimming a small notch in his Chainglider, solving all conflicts with his eXP R: http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=9617.msg67215#msg67215
A friend sent me a photo last week, showing his problematic installation on a road-bike frame, since converted to Rohloff. The dropouts were cranked in such a way the Chainglider could not possibly be accommodated. His wails and screams of disappointment could be heard 'round the countryside, though most mistakenly reported it as the keening of high storm winds. I knew better. ;)
Not all applications are equally copacetic. :-\
All the best,
Dan. (...who still wants one, in size 36 Long, please)
-
I think it possible that John's problem with the Chainglider could arise from manufacturing tolerances but doubt it. All the same, there are more than one generation, possibly already several, of Chaingliders, so we shouldn't forget that anything is possible.
However, I think it is more likely that John's problem lies not so much with John's Chainglider as with his chainring. The Chainglider demands a pretty narrow (literally, as in few units of measurement) chainring; it is well known that the attractive, longlasting Thorn chainring is too thick and causes drag, and presumably wear. It is also well known that the Surly stainless steel chainring is thin enough to fit the Chainglider, though the Surly's known out-of-round problems may cause other problems, as for Geo.
(http://www.coolmainpress.com/miscimage/andre_jute_kranich_fit_of_surly_chainring_inside_chainglider_800pxw.jpg)
There does seem plenty of tolerance in the Chainglider in every direction except the thickness of the chainring. Here's my installation at rest, photographed with the crankbolt hardcentred by my Olympus camera's software. Notice that chainring is not centred in the Chainglider. You can judge by how much the chainring can move inside the Chainglider by three years worth of chain factory lube visible in the lower right quadrant.
In motion the Chainglider comes near to centring itself but photographing that would require contortions that are beyond me.
I would have expected a toothed, moving mechanism that can wander that much to mark the reinforced rubber of the Chainglider, precisely as John has experienced, but that isn't what happens in practice, at least not on my installation.
It would be really useful if we knew how the Chainglider works. The name is clearly misleading (if it weren't, there would be much more oil everywhere inside my Chainglider). I wonder if there is some sort of Bernouli effect, which is basically a very thin air layer between moving components, generated by their differential speed.
-
Very interesting experiment Andre. I've been contemplating installing a Chainglider on my RST for some time now, it would doubtless be beneficial for my commute to work which I do year round whatever the weather. I'm always quite surprised to hear of chains being renewed after relatively low milages. I look after my bike but don't pamper it to extreme and I would be dissapointed if my chain lasted less than 6,000 miles. My chainring and sprocket have been reversed and I'm expecting to get about 20,000 miles out of them.
I'm keeping a close eye on this thread, mind you I bought a Thorn Chainring very cheaply that SJS had put on ebay during one of their clearing out sprees so it might have to wait until I hit the 40,000 mile mark, us Welsh can give the Scots a run for their money regarding thriftiness you know. :D
Regards,
Neil
-
...us Welsh can give the Scots a run for their money regarding thriftiness you know. :D
I had a Scottish grandmother, and my beloved late mother-in-law was Scottish. I'll be watching you, young Neil. Heh-heh!
I'm always quite surprised to hear of chains being renewed after relatively low milages. I look after my bike but don't pamper it to extreme and I would be dissapointed if my chain lasted less than 6,000 miles.
I think it is relative, and the cyclist might have something to do with, and the quality of transmission consumptibles that he buys. When I ran open derailleur transmission and took whatever chain the LBS thought right to fit, usually SRAM PC1 and its predecessors, I never saw more than a 1000 miles on a chain. I just assumed that people who talked of thousands on RBT, a place full of trolls, were lying. Then I decided to get serious about cycling but assumed that Gazelle would fit the best, and my successive hub gearbox bikes from Gazelle and Trek came with Nexus transmission groups. I know now that they're cheap rubbish, but back then I was disappointed to get about the same 1000 miles on a complete transmission of chainring, chain, sprocket, maybe 1100 if I was lucky. I was infuriated at the inefficiency and the waste of my time (which was two grand an hour the last time it was available by the hour, decades ago). So I looked into it, and the Rohloff chain is one of the things that interested me in the Rohloff gearbox, which led me to the Thorn forum because Andy Blance, unlike so many bike "designers", isn't a bullshitter. (He's definitely an honorary Scotsman!)
And here I met Stu (moderator before Dan) and others, guys who clearly weren't trolls and weren't liars, talking about getting 10K miles on a chain like it was a commonplace. It was becoming clear that I am exceptionally heavy on my transmission, perhaps because I'm not a cadence pedalist but a masher. I'm a pretty solid guy, a retired rugby and polo player, and I just know I'm never going to make those big round mileages, in the first instance because I started cycling too late to learn a hummingbird cadence. (By contrast, the roadies point me out to each other. "That guy on the green bike has eight thousand on his tyres, and he says they'll make ten.")
So when by buying quality transmission components, including the chain, and enclosing the chain correctly (did I mention that the 1000m Nexus rubbish was run inside a big Dutch plastic chaincase and white-waxed and spotless, not grinding mud in the open), I achieved 4506km, near enough 3000m, I thought I was doing pretty good. I know, by your standards, I'm a wrecker, but by my previous standard, 3000m on a chain is nearly as good as a hummingbird cadence.
***
I suspect therefore that it isn't my mileage on a chain you want to watch so much as the relationship to my previous mileage, and then to apply the multiplier to your own circumstances and history. I also expect that guys who already get huge mileages are doing so much more right that I am not, and may not even know about, that they won't get the full multiplier. It stands to reason that cyclists who are already getting really exceptional mileages out of transmission components cannot expect more than marginal improvements, whatever else they do.
***
Thing is, real quality components don't cost all that much more than rubbish. If I were a high-mile commuter like Stu or some others we hear from occasionally, I would have paid for the entire transmission chain (chainring, sprocket, chain, Chainglider) in the first year, because I started from so far back. I'm not in this for the cost-saving -- my kick is a maintenance-free bike -- but all the same that's a statistic that's bound to impress any quarter-Scot.
-
Very interesting experiment Andre. I've been contemplating installing a Chainglider on my RST for some time now, it would doubtless be beneficial for my commute to work which I do year round whatever the weather. I'm always quite surprised to hear of chains being renewed after relatively low milages. I look after my bike but don't pamper it to extreme and I would be dissapointed if my chain lasted less than 6,000 miles. My chainring and sprocket have been reversed and I'm expecting to get about 20,000 miles out of them.
I'm keeping a close eye on this thread, mind you I bought a Thorn Chainring very cheaply that SJS had put on ebay during one of their clearing out sprees so it might have to wait until I hit the 40,000 mile mark, us Welsh can give the Scots a run for their money regarding thriftiness you know. :D
Regards,
Neil
You might struggle with a glider on the RST. The clearances are a bit tight meaning it doesn't sit very loosely and can rub the paint off the inside of the frame. The larger sizes might be better. It doesn't need to be much bigger and whittling can help.
-
Thanks for that, I had read on previous threads that the Chainglider wasn't a perfect fit for the RST. It's a real shame but I wouldn't want to risk damaging the paintwork.
I'm afraid I hadn't thought about different riding styles affecting chain wear but you are right Andre. Fortunately I am a spinner so that would put less strain in the links. I am currently using a KMC X1 and it's the best chain I've used to date.
Neil
-
I am currently using a KMC X1 and it's the best chain I've used to date.
You know of course that we're keenly interested in how well the X1 goes in your hands.
-
After reading various accounts of Rohloff users maintenance schedule I decided that I would replace my chain every 5,000 miles and reverse the chainring and sprocket after 10,000. I used SRAM PCS 890 chains for the first 10,000 then which were more or less at their wear limit (75% on my Park Tools Chain Checker). I decided to change to the KMC X1 when I reversed the chain rings and sprocket, to be honest there was a fair bit of noise for the first 100 miles after reversal due to worn teeth and a new chain but it soon quietened down and became silent by 150 miles. I've just checked my chain at 13,500 miles and it is 50% worn so perhaps I won't get many more miles than the Sram although it feels/looks better quality if you know what I mean. I'm hoping to get 20,000 in before I replace the ring and sprocket then maybe I'll try a new method.
I don't really know how I compare to other Rohloff users chain/sprocket wear but I would be interested to hear what other people's methods are, I suppose that as the Rohloff is relatively new people are still experimenting. Of course one of the many reasons I decided Rohloff was the way to go was that the upfront costs would be recouped as the miles racked up so obviously the more miles I get out of components the better. I would much rather be peddling than meddling.
I will keep you updated on the X1 Andre.
Regards,
Neil
-
Thanks, Neil. Fascinating to see how the other half lives and cycles.
I will keep you updated on the X1 Andre.
Looking forward to it. I was hoping/expecting that, considering the extra cost, and the claims for the X1, that it would do better than this, compared to experience with your previous chain. Of course, the X1 might possess an unequally distributed wear pattern, fairly fast wear on first being fitted, then a very slow decline.
I would much rather be peddling than meddling.
+1
-
I put a X1 chain on my Raven last October.
At the same time, new sprockets and a chainglider.
Only done 500 miles since then.
In June I will tour fully loaded for 2 months.
I'll report back here in August on chain wear and performance of ' glider.
Matt
-
I put a X1 chain on my Raven last October.
At the same time, new sprockets and a chainglider.
Only done 500 miles since then.
In June I will tour fully loaded for 2 months.
I'll report back here in August on chain wear and performance of ' glider.
Matt
Looking forward to it, Matt. In two months at 200 miles a day you'll get a good idea of how the X1 behaves too.
-
... at 200 miles a day ...
Is Matt aware of this requirement?
- Dave
-
Is Matt aware of this requirement?
- Dave
:o
My tour is along the Pamir Highway.
2,000 miles over 2 months. So 200 miles per day would be too fast.
;)
Rough milage calculations are 5 days cycling a week at 60 miles per day.
Equals 2000/300 = 7 weeks.
We are cutting it a bit fine so are prepared to catch a lift on the home run, which is a repeat of our outward leg.
I'll start a tour a tour page here to keep folks up to date.
Matt
-
Is Matt aware of this requirement?
Aw, Dave, I wasn't going to let on to Matt until it was too late.
:o
My tour is along the Pamir Highway.
2,000 miles over 2 months. So 200 miles per day would be too fast.
;)
Rough milage calculations are 5 days cycling a week at 60 miles per day.
Equals 2000/300 = 7 weeks.
We are cutting it a bit fine so are prepared to catch a lift on the home run, which is a repeat of our outward leg.
I'll start a tour a tour page here to keep folks up to date.
That's a magnificent tour, Matt. We'll be hanging on your lips, trying to stow away in your panniers.
-
FINAL REPORT, 26 April 2015
The test was aborted at 3562km on 26 April 2015 when the Bafang QSWXK front motor on my bike gave up the ghost and was replaced by a Bafang BBS01 mid-motor (on which the 38T Surly chainring couldn't be made to fit), the new motor in a new test receiving its own brand new KMCX8 chain.
Just a reminder. The purpose of the test was to run a KMC X8 chain 4506km on the factory lube, inside a Hebie Chainglider, with a Surly stainless steel chainring and the normal Rohloff sprocket at the rear. The 4506km was set as a target by the previous chain, also KMC X8, running in a Utopia Country chaincase (similar to the Chainglider), but with Oil of Rohloff added every 500 or 1000km, reaching 4506km before visible "stretch" was found (less than 0.5mm). The ulterior, overall motive of the test was not to save a few Euro on chains but as a step towards a near-zero maintenance bike.
(http://www.coolmainpress.com/miscimage/Kranich_kmcx8_factory_lube_3500km_0-5mm_worn_800pxh.jpg)
A gilmpse inside the famous Jute Laboratories.
That's the 0.75mm side of the gauge, so the chain wear, eyeballed, could be around 0.5mm
The KMC X8 chain ran on the factory lube inside the Hebie Chainglider together with a Surly 38T stainless steel chainring and a 16T Rohloff OEM sprocket, without any other lube being added at any time, or any cleaning being performed, for 3562km before the test was aborted, as described above. During this time the wear on the chain, measured as "stretch", was less than 0.75mm, eyeballed on the rough gauge as around 0.5mm. There is no doubt in my mind that the KMC X8 would have made 4506km by the time it required replacement at 0.75mm "stretch".
However, I'm happy to replace chains, the cheapest component in my transmission, at the first sign of measureable wear, which is around 0.5mm, so in that sense the factory lube fell short of the same chain under roughly the same circumstances serviced with Oil of Rohloff, 3562km to 4506km.
No excessive wear of the Surly stainless steel chainring or the Rohloff sprocket was observed. In fact, there is no wear observable. (This is very unlike my previous installations of Shimano Nexus transmissions, in which in around a 1000m/1600km I would use up a chain, a sprocket and a crankset because the chainring was in unit with the crank.)
The late, great Sheldon Brown once said that the factory lube was good for 700 miles. In my two experiments the factory lube plus Oil of Rohloff chain went 944km further than the factory-lube only chain. That, if scaled up to the full 0.75mm wear, is pretty close to Sheldon's 700 miles!
Now, I know, some of you think that 3500km and 4500km on a chain isn't much chop, the mileage of a wrecker. But I'm over the moon with these mileages. Considering that previously I rarely got over a thousand miles (1600km) out of a chain, two and three times that distance per chain is exceptional.
I'm very happy to declare these two experiments, 8068km altogether, a success.
They have confirmed my belief that the only enclosed chaincase that I can in good conscience recommend is the Hebie Chainglider, that KMC makes high commendable chains, and that Oil of Rohloff is the light chain oil of choice. I suspect that another thing they indicate is that a precision chainline is worth setting up with repayment for the effort in extra chain mileage.
With thanks to all who helped with advice, and to everyone for their patience in waiting for these results.
This is Andre Jute signing off with only slightly oily hands.
-
Many thanks Andre.
I am using a Hebie with Surely Stainless front ring on my Raven Rholoff.
Only had the new chain KMC x1 and new sprockets on for a few hundred miles.
No lube added. Factory lube left on. Fitted all 3/ parts at the same time.
Had 2 internal inspections and find the chain pretty clean and tidy.
I go away on a long tour at the end of the month so will report back in August on state of play.
I can't imagine riding without a covered chain now.
Makes so much sense to me.
One Nomad rider I told about my set up, said he liked to see what his chan was doing at all times!
I told him it was quite easy to pop off the Hebie but he wasn't sold.
Thanks again
Matt
-
I can't imagine riding without a covered chain now.
Quote of the week, that one.
One Nomad rider I told about my set up, said he liked to see what his chan was doing at all times!
I told him it was quite easy to pop off the Hebie but he wasn't sold.
Cycling is the last refuge of the luddites. Very traditional and conservative. You took up the Chainglider idea so easily because you're new to cycling, Matt. In fact, the number of experienced cyclists on this forum who took up the Chainglider is probably very much higher than anywhere else, because for some reason the membership is much more progressive than most other groups of cyclists.
I pass the baton to you guys. It'll be a couple of years before I report on my new experiment (when I decide what it is!), so I look forward keenly to your reports, starting with Matt's long tour when he goes bush this summer.
-
All sorts of old sayings can be adapted to Life with a 'Glider: "Outta sight, outta mind." "No fuss, no muss." "A chain's only as strong as its 'glider." Etc., etc. ;-)
-
Thanks for your kind comments Andre.
Your last picture shows clearly your spoke nipple rim arrangement.
On comparing to my own, yours is much neater.
Could you please give us the spec?
My own spokes do not sit as neatly into the rims.
Matt
-
In order to avoid censure by the thread purity police, I replied to you, Matt, in a separate thread at http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=10979. (http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=10979.).
-
In order to avoid censure by the thread purity police, I replied to you...
Well done, Andre. Future generations will thank you.
:D
All the best,
Dan.
-
Thanks for making your chaincase experiment such an interesting thread Andre, I'm sure you contributed to many Thorn owners purchasing a Chainglider for their bike.
I'm still running the KMC X1 chain on my unprotected RST, it's now done 4,425 miles and still showing 50% wear. it seemed to stretch quite quickly at first, maybe it was because I reversed the chainring and sprocket at the same time and there was a fair bit of tooth/chain misalignment for the first 120 miles or so but it soon settled down, it is totally silent now.i think I could well get 6,000 miles out of it which would be slightly better than the SRAM PCS890, I will then but another X1 on and run the ring, chain and sprocket into the ground, my forecast is at approximately 22,000. I think my Dan like humming bird cadence probably helps preventing premature wear on the transmission.
Will keep you updated on how I get on and looking forward to your next experiment.
Regards,
Neil
-
Thanks, Neil. I look forward to your K1 reaching the big one, 10,000km.
-
OK. Chainglider blues about to set in :(
I bought a Hebie Chainglider soon after building up my Thorn Nomad, fitted it, then on the first ride discovered to my dismay that there was a shed-load of drag in the drivetrain. I removed it (to be able tio complete the ride without exhaustion setting in), and discovered a nice rub in the black anno on the Thorn double-sided chain-ring. I realised that I need a thinner steel ring. So now, after 25,000 kms I have worn out the three chains and the sprocket and chain-ring. New drivetrain has been fitted, complete with a Surly ss chainring.
Now I fitted the Chainglider up, but straight away discovered a whole lot of drag still evident in the drivetrain. Grrrrr!!!! >:( ???
What am I doing wrong here? You folks running the Chainglider, are you just putting up with a greater drag-loading and getting really fit ?? Or is there some peculiarity to the fitting of the 'glider that I am just missing?
I would dearly love to run the thing to keep the drivetrain cleaner and even longer lasting, but as it stands, there is no way I would even consider riding with that sort of drivetrain drag.
Pete
-
If the chainring is thin enough (and the Surly stainless chainring is, by general experience), and the Chainglider is the correct size and has the Rohloff rear end, all that remains is an assembly problem. In general, the Chainglider script points to the outside of the bike, and the red button on the sprocket cover should be on the same side as the script; notice that the connecting section between the two arms just in front of the sprocket isn't symmetrical; if necessary check the assembly illustrations on Hebie's netsite.
1. Size. Check that you have a Rohloff rear end to the Chainglider. Check that the Chainglider front end matches the tooth count of your chainring.
2. Assembly. Check that all parts point their flat surface the right way. Try the bike. If you still find drag or noise:
3. Pull forward the connector that sits between the two chain-covering arms one notch so that it hangs in the two arms without touching any other part of the bike. Try the bike.
4. If there is still drag, pull the rear end of the Chainglider, that is, the sprocket cover, back one notch. It isn't supposed to touch the back of the sprocket.
5. Now it should be free-running. If there is noise, however low, especially a sort of rattle, just wriggle the back end of the Chainglider until it goes away. If wriggling doesn't fix it, try moving the back cover in or out only one notch on only one arm, and if that doesn't solve the problem put it back in the original position and try on the other arm.
A smooth-running Chainglider is pretty near silent, doesn't mark the inside of the Chainglider against the chain, and doesn't require any lubrication to work with the chain. As it says on the tin, it glides on the chain.
Good luck.
-
Following Andre's notes, Pete, an observation from my experience:
On my Raven, I've used a 38 x 17 combination with a 'glider on my Raven for the past 18 months, with a Surly stainless 'ring at the front. The 'glider has been generally fine, with just one negative: the section covering the rear part of the chainring was binding a bit on the 'ring, just near the top where the cover met the upper arm of the 'glider, encasing the chain. The friction wasn't noisy, and I guess it didn't matter that much when the bike was under way--not as serious as yours sounds--but it was bugging me.
So, before the start of this season, I introduced a bit more slop into the system: i wanted to try to clear up the friction just described, and also to get a bit more top-to-bottom and fore-and-aft play, especially around the chainring. So, I took all but one or two of the fixing tabs out of their slots around the chainring, thus loosening the two halves of the 'glider (i.e., the inside half, closest to the frame, and its mate on the outside.) I then used hockey tape to hold the two halves in place, and to seal any gaps. This generally worked well -- no crud got into the 'glider from the front, and I had the extra play that I wanted, both up & down and fore & aft.
A bodge like this might be more bother than it's worth to you. Then again, it took me about 20 minutes max, and cost me nothing. (One could use black plastic electrician's tape, of course--hockey tape works better, though, as the adhesive works well across a wide range of temperatures. Also, it's wider.)
The one area where the binding persisted, however, was at the top of the portion covering the rear of chainring. Dunno why, but when I took the 'glider off to replace the 38T ring with a smaller 36T ring, there was evidence of the binding -- the 'glider was a bit worn on the inside of both halves covering the rear of the 'ring, just below the junction with the upper arm of the 'glider.
Had I stayed with the 38T ring, I think I would have cut out the part of the 'glider encasing the rear of the chainring. That would expose the chain to some dust--a problem in Oz, I'd guess--but where I live (Eastern Ontario) the issue is rain & grit from the front wheel, so I think I could still get most of the protection I want from a modified 'glider.
I might still use the 'glider modified in this way, even though it looks weird with the 38T model mounted on a 36T ring.
What ring/sprocket combination do you have on your Nomad, btw?
As a final note: Matt Newton used his 'glider on his recent trek through the 'stans, on his Raven with a 38 x 17, and was very happy with its performance. Matt seems to have had no issues similar to mine.
Good luck, John
-
OK, thanks for the advice. I have refitted the Chainglider and it seemed to be a bit better. Took it for a ride around the block and the drag is much less. I have been playing around with the rear section, clicking it in and out along the 'teeth' on the front section. I can see that small adjustments can make a large difference in the amount of drag.
I will give it a run riding to work this week and see how it affects my commute ride. Hopefully things will pan out well, as I really do want to be able to preserve the life of my drivetrain.
The drivetrain is a 42 x 17 by the way, using a Surly SS chainring.
-
Is your Chainglider silent now? A good test is riding on the painted line on smooth tarmac on an otherwise deserted road. My first Chainglider, by this test, on almost-slicks was silent, definitely the optimum installation for me. I've noticed that the latest design of Chainglider (without the separate over-clip at the front of the chainring) is a bit noisier, perhaps because not so tightly held together, than the second series (the first Rohloff-specific one).*
One more thing. You should inspect the entire length of your Chainglider installation carefully to see that it does not touch the frame anywhere. There was a post on this forum a while ago about someone who had to notch a Chainglider to make it fit a particular model of Thorn; if it was a general problem, we would have heard more about it. Still, Sod's Law determines that the problem will affect only high-mileage cyclists, who need the Chainglider more... It strikes me that if the Chainglider is bent even slightly around the seat stay, it is possible that the chain will drag inside it.
* Why, oh why, is it that German gear is so often perfectly designed for Version 1 and V1.5, and then the "new, improved" V2 goes all wrong, and V3 through V5 look and work like something a Chinese poodle choked up?
-
* Why, oh why, is it that German gear is so often perfectly designed for Version 1 and V1.5, and then the "new, improved" V2 goes all wrong, and V3 through V5 look and work like something a Chinese poodle choked up?
Murphy's Law at work this time, Andre, Corollary 47, which deals with (over-)engineering, specifically Sections b) through h), which are written entirely in Deutsch...
Glad to hear you're making progress, Pete.
-
One more thing. You should inspect the entire length of your Chainglider installation carefully to see that it does not touch the frame anywhere. There was a post on this forum a while ago about someone who had to notch a Chainglider to make it fit a particular model of Thorn; if it was a general problem, we would have heard more about it. Still, Sod's Law determines that the problem will affect only high-mileage cyclists, who need the Chainglider more... It strikes me that if the Chainglider is bent even slightly around the seat stay, it is possible that the chain will drag inside it.
Andre that was me.
My expr has inward sloping seatstays which pushed the unmodified Chainglider off vertical.
I had to be bold with a hacksaw and surform and then some black tape to cover the small hole which resulted (in the Chainglider not the expr!), but the result is that the chainglider fitted properly and works a treat.
Between the Rohloff and the Chainglider I have almost forgotten what bicycle maintenance is…
Julian.
-
One more thing. You should inspect the entire length of your Chainglider installation carefully to see that it does not touch the frame anywhere. There was a post on this forum a while ago about someone who had to notch a Chainglider to make it fit a particular model of Thorn; if it was a general problem, we would have heard more about it. Still, Sod's Law determines that the problem will affect only high-mileage cyclists, who need the Chainglider more... It strikes me that if the Chainglider is bent even slightly around the seat stay, it is possible that the chain will drag inside it.
Andre that was me.
That was me too. However, in hindsight, I'm not sure that I needed to notch the Chainglider.
When I originally installed it on my Nomad, I found that it was pushing the chain towards the centre of the bike because there wasn't enough room between the chain and the seat stay. So I cut out a bit of the Chainglider right at the seat stay. As a result, the Chainglider was very quiet, but not silent. A year later, I had taken off the Chainglider to check the chain. When replaced the Chainglider, it was noticeably quieter, almost silent. I don't remember for sure, but it seems that my curved notch in the Chainglider no longer perfectly aligned with the seat stay. So perhaps, I didn't need the notch in the first place.
I have the Chainglider off right now, because I needed to replace the chain, and our weather has been so perfect (less than 5 days of light rain in the past 3 months) that I haven't put it back on.
I have learned that adjusting the Chainglider to minimize the noise is a bit of a black art. There are so many ways to adjust it. But if you can find that sweet spot, it should be almost silent.
- Dave
-
Me as well on the RST. had no problems on the RT but the tighter frame on the sports tour wouldn't have it. The glider needs whittling but I was also not happy with the surly chain ring as I couldn't get it installed without a tight spot. So I've been glider less for about 6 months :-\
-
Thank you for the reminders, gentlemen. Three cyclists (perhaps even more) who had to make adjustments either speaks to our adaptability or to the fact that Hebie isn't quite finished developing the Chainglider. Maybe, at the next iteration, they'll catch up with 36-tooth chain-ringers as well.
-
Is your Chainglider silent now?
I rode it to work, and it was a beast on the first steep pinch (10%) out of home. I was forced down a gear to get up it. Riding home I got sick of it and was about to pull it off, but I fiddled with the rear section on the notches - tried pulling it out one (worse), back (meh!) then in one. Suddenly it was a good bit freer. I rode on home and it felt like normal (almost).
I shall persevere
One more thing. You should inspect the entire length of your Chainglider installation carefully to see that it does not touch the frame anywhere. There was a post on this forum a while ago about someone who had to notch a Chainglider to make it fit a particular model of Thorn; if it was a general problem, we would have heard more about it. Still, Sod's Law determines that the problem will affect only high-mileage cyclists, who need the Chainglider more... It strikes me that if the Chainglider is bent even slightly around the seat stay, it is possible that the chain will drag inside it.
* Why, oh why, is it that German gear is so often perfectly designed for Version 1 and V1.5, and then the "new, improved" V2 goes all wrong, and V3 through V5 look and work like something a Chinese poodle choked up?
Yes, I was a little bit concerned about the possible effect of the right-side rack mounting bolt protruding against it. It does not seem to push it hard, but is a dick of a thing when removing the rear cover as it hooks an edge on the outside of the rear cover piece. I may have to shorten that bolt-end.
-
One question. Such a small movement of the rear Chainglider section made such a difference to drag. How do you go when you need to adjust chain tension? With the EBB this will alter the drivetrain length so the Chainglider will need to be lengthened to avoid drag..... yes??
Is this a problem at all?
-
One question. Such a small movement of the rear Chainglider section made such a difference to drag. How do you go when you need to adjust chain tension? With the EBB this will alter the drivetrain length so the Chainglider will need to be lengthened to avoid drag..... yes??
Is this a problem at all?
In theory yes you are right. In practice the glider greatly reduces the wear of the chain and therefore, the number of adjustments needed. It's a good product, probably the best available, but not quite perfect yet!
-
The rack-mount bolt actually does not touch the Chainglider when fitted. It's just an obstruction when removing the rear cover. And a little bit of chain-lube between the Chainglider and the chain-ring, as well as in the hole at the top, and she's positively spinning. All looking much better :D
-
The chaingliders are still working smoothly on the 3 bikes I fitted them to:
1 - Raven tour with Rohloff, not yet had very much use due to work commitments.
2 - Raven tour with Nexus 8 Premium, regular utility use, but I've not had this bike very long.
Both the Ravens have "optimal" chainglider setups with Surly chainrings and 3/32" chains.
3 - Old 650B wheel size bike with Sturmey Archer 5-speed. This is the uitility bike that the Raven tour with Nexus was intended to replace. The old bike has actually seen more use than the Thorns recently, as I have been using it for survey work on a contract not far from my home (fewer qualms about leaving an old bike locked up). The Chainglider was particularly useful, as the survey was in the coastal sand dunes, in wet weather a lot of sand built up on the outside but so far the chain has continued running smoothly.
The chainglider setup on this bike is non-optimal, fairly thick 1/8" TA chainring and 1/8" chain and rear sprocket. It made a rubbing sound for the first few hundred kms, but didn't seem to add significant friction. Now I don't notice any noise or rubbing.
The chainglider has been on this bike for a tad over 3 years, I had the chainglider off once (in October 2012) to change the chain because I started the experiment with a nearly worn out chain, so I put a slightly less worn chain on. Since then I have peeked inside the Chainglider a couple of times, but not done any drive train maintenance. I'll probably overhaul the transmission this autumn, in case any salt water has got in during the coastal survey work.
-
Yes, that's my experience too: once you have the Chainglider set up, you don't touch it again for a long time, and you don't have to service the chain inside; my last chain went 3562km on factory lube alone without any service whatsever, and the experiment was aborted at that point for entirely extraneous reasons.
Welcome to the Clean Club, Il Padrone. Glad to hear you managed to adjust your Chainglider so it works smoothly.
-
Just be aware of the difference between "maintenance-free" and "requires some maintenance, and it is easy to forget to do it".
I have had a Chainglider on my Nomad since I got the Nomad just over 2 years ago. Last November, during my ride home from work, I was accelerating from a stop sign when my pedals started to spin freely. It was like my transmission was in neutral. I moved the shifter through all the gears, and nothing worked. At first I thought that my shift cables had broken, but they looked fine. I feared the worst: I would need to disassemble my rear wheel and send the Rohloff back to Germany for warranty work.
I walked home that day, in a bad mood, and I didn't look at the bike until after supper. With my hand, I rotated the cranks, and noticed that the rear sprocket was not turning. Because of the Chainglider, I could only see a few teeth of the sprocket, and hadn't noticed that the sprocket was not turning when I was on the ride. Hmmmm... sprocket not turning? There could only be one cause of that.
Sure enough, the problem was merely that the chain had come off the sprocket. If I didn't have the Chainglider, I would have seen the problem (and fixed it) in an instant while on my ride.
The reason why the chain had come off was that it was very slack, almost touching the chainstay. Again, I didn't notice the condition of the chain because of the Chainglider.
Moral of the story: While the Chainglider does reduce the need for chain maintenance, it also makes it harder to keep an eye on the chain to see if it needs maintenance.
Perhaps we need a transparent Chainglider. :)
- Dave
-
Perhaps we need a transparent Chainglider. :)
Showoff! :D
-
Hi Andre,
Are you running this experiment again with your new set up?
It would be interesting to see what difference there is, if any, from having the power from the electric motor going through the drive chain compared to the front wheel drive motor.
-
Hi Andre,
Are you running this experiment again with your new set up?
It would be interesting to see what difference there is, if any, from having the power from the electric motor going through the drive chain compared to the front wheel drive motor.
Well, I think the point was proven: inside a Chainglider, you can run a good chain on the factory lube only for its entire life without suffering any huge loss of mileage.
However, in effect I'm running the experiment again, this time with a mid- rather than a front-motor, and with one of Bafang's pressed steel dished chainrings rather than the Surly stainless steel (which couldn't be made to fit -- that is why the previous experiment was abandoned before completion). But I'm not sure it is worth announcing: the weather has kept me inside, and it looks increasingly like this year's rides will add up to less than a thousand kilometers, not even miles. Monitors will die before this experiment is concluded.
But, since we're discussing it, I don't actually expect the current chain to last the full 4506km set as a benchmark (for me, all other circumstances etc) by the original master KMC X8 chain; I think the chain in the aborted experiment, which made 3562km with less than 0.5mm wear, would have made the 4506km without excessive wear, no problem. But, as you so say, quite a bit more oomph is now going into the chain, and the software is crude enough to jerk if you're careless, not hard enough to worry about the Rohloff but perhaps hard enough if you're careless on a regular basis to matter in chain life, though by how much I wouldn't like to guess. Of course, if you ride mainly on the throttle as I do, with the pedelec (a sort of auto-changer) working only when I forget to switch it off before I set off, the difference may be small enough to disappear in the noise floor of such small-scale statistics, with me anyway, but with someone who routinely rides on the pedelec, which is the default mode, I expect a noticeable shortening of chain life. In any event, that the throttle allows for a noticeably smoother power takeup than the pedelec software is a new consideration.
Thanks for asking.
-
Chainglider as fitted. Running much nicer now.
(http://i1327.photobucket.com/albums/u666/petesig26/Stray%20shots/Nomad%20in%20NZ_zps1ysykuzg.jpg) (http://s1327.photobucket.com/user/petesig26/media/Stray%20shots/Nomad%20in%20NZ_zps1ysykuzg.jpg.html)
-
Black'n'yellow, I'm melting with lust!
-
Pete, that's a great picture. You've done a nice job setting up your bike, and it gives me ideas of what I can do on my bike (also a yellow Nomad). But I must point that you (and several others) seem to have put your mirror on the wrong side. :)
- Dave
-
Very smart, Pete, great foto. Glad your 'glider's fitted and working, & just in time too, to judge from the slick paving stones.
-
Great looking bike.
Thanks for posting.
Could I see your handle bar set up please?
And does it allow for a mirror?
I think I have the same Ergon grips and have not been able to fit a mirror on the end of mine.
Matt
-
But I must point that you (and several others) seem to have put your mirror on the wrong side. :)
It's just one of those things that happen Down Under, Dave. As much point in worrying about it as in worrying about another strange Ockerfact, that the bathtub plughole swirls the other way in Melbourne than it does in Toronto. And, as my girlfriend at the Australian Tourist Authority said, "If it doesn't, you should stay in a better class of hotel."
-
Great looking bike.
Thanks for posting.
Could I see your handle bar set up please?
And does it allow for a mirror?
I think I have the same Ergon grips and have not been able to fit a mirror on the end of mine.
Bar set-up. For the mirror I have the B&M Cyclestar but clamp it using the strap-mount.
(http://i1327.photobucket.com/albums/u666/petesig26/Stray%20shots/P1000805_zpsda0dc91a.jpg) (http://s1327.photobucket.com/user/petesig26/media/Stray%20shots/P1000805_zpsda0dc91a.jpg.html)
-
What a classy, clean cockpit!
-
As I've mentioned before, I like the rotary bell on the left that mirrors the Rohloff shifter on the right! :)
Best,
Dan.
-
Oh! Julian's added report of success makes me wish even more for a Chainglider to fit a 36x17T combo
There might soon be another way of getting similar low ratios with existing Chainglider parts. In the link below, Rohloff announces new splined sprockets for 2016 in 13-19T, plus in 21T.
http://www.rohloff.de/en/news/news_in_detail/news/detail/News/product-news-2016-eurobike-2015/index.html
Surly make their stainless steel chainrings in 42T and 44T as well as the 38T I have (this is for the 5 arm 110 mm cranksets)
Chainglider front parts are available in 38T, 42T, 44T and 48T.
A Chainglider rear part is available for 18-22T, this is the 0350R D18. I have this on two bikes (Sturmey Archer 5 speed and Nexus Premium 8 speed), it works nicely with 21T or 22T sprockets, not tried smaller.
So I reckon 42x21 or 44x21 should work, the latter is pretty much the same gearing as 36x17 and the larger chainring/sprocket combination should wear even better.
Only caveat is that the 0350R D18 is not specific for Rohloff, so may need a bit of modifying to stop it from rubbing on the hub shell. It might be worth asking Hebie if it is Rohloff compatible "as-is"
My current combination is 38x16, at the time I got my Raven Tour this was the lowest Rohloff-approved combination that would fit a Chainglider.
If buying now I would go for 44x21 instead, with the added advantage of easier sprocket removal with the splined system, which would be a big plus if needing to reverse or replace the sprocket on a really long tour.
-
Well spotted, Martin. It looks like there will soon be a Chainglider for everyone, every use, every dream.
-
Thanks for this, Martin.
A while back, exploring options for lower overall gearing with a 38T 'glider-compatible Surly ring, I noticed that my current 'glider model, for a 38T ring, showed on the inner-back side of its rear piece, a note saying that it would suit a 15-18T sprocket.
At that time, there was no 18T sprocket available. Since then, I've chopped my 'glider and fitted a 36T chainring, so that I now have a 36 x 17 ratio, and all's good. The reduction is 2.117.
It does seem that a 38 x 18 would be possible with one of the new splined sprockets. That ratio is 2.111 -- the same, for all practical purposes.
Dan, looks like you may be home free!
-
Dan, looks like you may be home free!
Oh! If only!
Martin, I do so appreciate your efforts and the followup by John, but there are some economic barriers I must overcome to go this route.
You see, I went for the Shimano Deore external-bearing crankset with 104mm BCD on my Nomad...and then added a Phil Wood sealed-bearing bottom bracket. Currently, Surly only makes stainless chainrings up to 36t in the 104BCD size ( http://surlybikes.com/parts/drivetrain/stainless_steel_chainrings ), so now I must convince Surly to produce the 'rings in larger sizes -- likely a more fruitful task than my efforts so far to convince Hebie to offer a wider range of Chainglider sizes.
Alternatively, I will need to switch to a different BB and crankset plus purchase a new chainring and the Chainglider, so it may take awhile before I'm home free...and I suspect it won't be free! :D Ah, well, Good Things take work and commitment, so I'll get there eventually.
Thanks, fellows!
All the best,
Dan.
-
Dan, d'you think that you might try my mod on your 38T 'glider (do you have one of those?) to adapt it to your 36T ring on the Nomad? Might also be worth attempting the additional mod, relocating the cut-out piece further back, and securing with sugru, etc., to give you some extra coverage in very dusty conditions such as the Oregon Outback.
-
Well, John, this is exactly the thing -- I need a Chainglider, perhaps more than most given the severe environments where I most often tour. I'll often see a mix of snow, crushed lava dust, blowing corrosive alkali dust, and rain from thundershowers for hours at a time. Despite a generously long mudflap on my front fender (mudguard), my chain does get dirtier than I like, and it would be nice to be freed from going at evening flossings with an old toothbrush and mascara brush intended for the purpose.
MartinF's suggestion is spot-on for workability, and I'd love to employ it, but economics argue against it. In Rohloff component lifespans, my drivetrain is just a kid, so buying a new BB, crankarms, chainring, and sprocket/carrier and adding a new (longer) chain *plus* Chainglider is a bit steep for me right now compared to buying just a Chainglider itself. I'm not legendarily tight, but I am frugal, so it goes against the grain to trash an otherwise usable setup just to get a chain case. On the other hand...it sure would be nice. The main thing I need to confirm *for myself* is the absolute silence or near-silence and drag-free operation of the Chainglider in normal use. I'm the guy who uses a freewheel grease injector on my other bikes so I can sneak up on bears and such, and prize a quiet bike above almost all other criteria. If it can't be rigged for near silent running, I'l have to pass despite the other benefits. I believe Andre, yet I'd love to have one to try or see firsthand to be *sure* before prising open my wallet for such a sizable purchase.
I've got a few other Danneaux'mad Projects which are past the nascent stage in the works: A sea change in bottle design will force me from my Blackburn B-52 "Bomber" bottle cages to a more flexible alternative; the Blackburn Outpost Cargo Cage is emerging as the leading candidate once the strap system is heavily modified. Then, there is the Trelock RS 451 Balloon NAZ ring-lock with 72mm tire/mud/playa clearance and both plug-in cable for touring and 8mm chain for at-home security -- and milling the offset mounting brackets for it, since the Nomad's generous 19mm OD stays are both too large and too far apart for direct mounting. Then there is the trickle-down of parts from the Nomad to the most-favored of the Rando bikes -- the AXA Defender and the Cyo R plus the installation of a long-held but unused B&M e-Werk on a custom billet mount with full internal frame wiring. Ah, the projects that await! It'll be Spring before I can attack many, as I am still dealing with matters related to my fathers estate.
Given this, the idea of buying "just" a Chainglider and modifying it appropriately is very appealing, as I don't yet own one. I'm also exploring the viability of jumping from a Hebie to the Idworx version, which is optimized for 35t, 39t, or 43t chainrings and is reported to provide excellent fit and service, but need to first nail down how it is mounted and if the claims would hold true in my application. If so, it could well be the "plug and play" solution I'm seeking. Looking closely at the illustration, it appears it might be co-located with the external bottom bracket's right-hand bearing cup, and it looks like it is the lower-rear portion that removes for wheel changes. I have many questions, including whether it could be adjusted to allow for different chainstay lengths, though I know it will accommodate an eccentric BB: http://www.idworx-bikes.de/de/informationen/parts.php
All the best,
Dan. (...whose hopes for a full-coverage chaincase spring eternal)
-
MartinF's suggestion is spot-on for workability, and I'd love to employ it, but economics argue against it. In Rohloff component lifespans, my drivetrain is just a kid, so buying a new BB, crankarms, chainring, and sprocket/carrier and adding a new (longer) chain *plus* Chainglider is a bit steep for me right now compared to buying just a Chainglider itself.
That's a bit beyond a cheap experiment, even putting aside the waste of components with thousands of miles of life left in them, which leaves a sour taste in a cyclist's mouth.
The main thing I need to confirm *for myself* is the absolute silence or near-silence and drag-free operation of the Chainglider in normal use. I'm the guy who uses a freewheel grease injector on my other bikes so I can sneak up on bears and such, and prize a quiet bike above almost all other criteria. If it can't be rigged for near silent running, I'l have to pass despite the other benefits. I believe Andre, yet I'd love to have one to try or see firsthand to be *sure* before prising open my wallet for such a sizable purchase.
We still haven't anything like a good grip on how the Chainglider performs its magic. My first installation of the front-clip model Chainglider was dead silent almost from the beginning, my second installation of the current model took considerably more time to quieten by persistent small adjustments, and hasn't quite reached that exceptional quiet yet, though it is good enough not to be heard by my pedalpals.
However, that I'm satisfied the Chainglider is silent, in keeping with the nature of my bicycle, is no guarantee that it will be silent on your bike, Dan. Other Thorn riders have had varied experience along the path to arriving at a satisfactorily silent installation. Who knows what other components may have an influence? You've just had a vibratory experience with a wheel/hub dynamo/?other components? that's baffled you for quite a while. I keep returning to the belief that we'd all arrive at nirvana faster if we knew how the Chainglider works.
***
The Idworx chaincase seems sturdy but, having seen and [not] heard the Chainglider magic, I'm no longer impressed by chaincases that need any kind of attachment to the frame. The Idworx chaincase to me appears to be merely a sturdier Utopia Country, or even a cross between a Dutch plastic case and a Chainglider. Fixing it to the frame is a retrograde step even if it is made of materials that won't rattle (that is the great advantage of the Country, that it is by design dead silent, which in turn brings with it consumable rubber parts...). Also, the Idworx price, Euro 150, well over two hundred dollars by the time you land it in the States, is outrageous, same as Utopia's expensive Country.
-
Dan, in your search for a 'glider: I seem to recall Frank Revelo saying he'd thrown his away...but where, I wonder? Somewhere in the Northern California forest? If so, it might be melted by now.
Would used items be sold anywhere? One option might be to buy a new one from, say, starbike, and get a bulk order of Rohloff oil at the same time, to offset the shipping cost, as it were.
On the noise & drag factors: With my chopped version, this is what I notice (or sometimes don't, if you get my drift):
on reasonably smooth tarmac, my Marathon Supremes' hum covers any brushing noise from the 'glider, and whenever I'm in the lower range of the Rohloff, that does the same.
I notice drag from the 'glider when the bike is on the stand and I turn the cranks by hand, or if, when I'm standing & about to clip in, I spin the cranks with my toe. You can spin the cranks easily with a derailleur, and also (but less so) with a 'gliderless Rohloff, but at these slow & non-riding speeds, the 'glider's magic isn't yet working. When I'm cycling, even at low speeds, I'm hard-pressed to notice either noise or drag from the 'glider. (Maybe it's like steering a canoe?--you need some measure of forward motion first?)
on my chopped 'glider, I've noticed that the lower forward fixing tab (that is, the one about 4 o'clock as you look at the crankarm spider) between the inner & outer halves keeps coming out of its slot. (Weird--none of the other slots-'n'-tabs have this problem.) When this happens, the inner & outer halves sort of slouch a little apart--not opening, just loosening--so that seen from above, the lower front section of the 'glider is all-of-a-sudden about 1/3 wider than its nearby sections. When that happens, I can hear the chain rattling on (that portion of?) the 'glider, even at higher speeds, say 11th gear. My fix has been Gorilla black duct tape, stretched along a 10 cm length of the 'glider on both sides of the tab-and-slot. Black plastic electricians' tape didn't work at all, and for, uh, aesthetic reasons (!?) I decided against hockey tape this time. The Gorilla seems to have done its job, as advertised. One more bit of stuff to add to the tool kit; although as a rule, when I remove the rear wheel, I don't have to split the front half of the 'glider. (The Gorilla tape has other uses, of course, and a few inches wrapped around a popsicle stick weighs virtually nothing.)
[/list]
-
Andre, John...thank you gentlemen for relating your thoughts and specifics on these aspects of the Chainglider; it has all been most helpful and has moved me further forward in terms of the knowledge I see.
Many times in my cycling career, I've found my particular use, riding style, or mileage has made my experiences "different" from others. Those other cyclists weren't wrong -- far from it, for their experiences were as valid and honest for them as mine were for me. No, the problem is I've often found myself cycling as an outlier. For well over a decade, my annual mileage was at or close to 12,000mi/19,000km. By trial and error, I've found what parts really do last in continued high service, and I hew to them because economics are part of the equation (I do things and live a life besides cycling; the monetary pie is only so large and only a fraction is dedicated to cycling. For example, quite a lot of cycle-travel can be funded for the cost of a complete replacement 9-sp drivetrain. When one can burn through three in a single summer, it adds up). Because I started "cycling with intent" as a means for rehabilitating some injuries related to a car wreck, I can't pedal with a lot of force but I spin like mad, so any drivetrain noise is repeated much more often than for others. I ride almost exclusively alone and in quiet places without earphones and enjoy nature, so low sound levels are important to me. Because I go alone into remote areas, I really do need to avoid things that can cause problems and delay or prevent my ready return on schedule with "enough" food and water remaining else things can quickly go Bad -- faster if I get hurt. At the same time, things that ensure a timely and safe return rise to the top of my kit wish list.
The mass of positive Chainglider reports on this list are moving this item further up my list, tempered by the knowledge my cycling and use are not always "typical".
We still haven't anything like a good grip on how the Chainglider performs its magic.
<nods> Surely this is part of the attraction and intrigue of the thing, but the research methodologist in me likes repeatably quanitifiable results. This is balanced by your caution....that I'm satisfied the Chainglider is silent, in keeping with the nature of my bicycle, is no guarantee that it will be silent on your bike, Dan. Other Thorn riders have had varied experience along the path to arriving at a satisfactorily silent installation.
Exactly! This is what has stayed my hand, combined with the "problem" of having strayed from a more common Rohloff drivetrain configuration by using a 36x17 combo *and* an outboard-bearing BB. The unfortunate result is I'm locked out of some parts that would make trying a Chainglider both an easier and less expensive commitment and tend to make it an expensive and far riskier "all or nothing" proposition. For example, I have no idea why Surly has so severely their stainless chainring offerings in 104mm BCD.
Like you, Andre, I have for years (decades) ridden on the while line marking the edge of the traffic lane on country roads -- but because it is quieter and the bike runs even more silently. After years of rolling my own, I now wear Cat-Ears wind deflectors http://www.cat-ears.com/ ) so I can hear closing traffic and birdsong and animals even better. Do you know happily dining porcupines sound like a small child who has swallowed a kazoo? You've just had a vibratory experience with a wheel/hub dynamo/?other components? that's baffled you for quite a while.
Yes, this one has me baffled at the moment. The vibrations seem to be the result of the fork/steerer being excited by the hub's magnetic eddy currents at certain speeds, transmitted through the axle-dropout connection. I've not yet figured how to address this problem. The SON28 is a huge step forward from my previous Sanyo Dynapower BB dynamo, especially in wet or muddy conditions -- no slippage or fouling -- but the Sanyo never introduced similar vibrations when running and of course had no drag when off. I keep returning to the belief that we'd all arrive at nirvana faster if we knew how the Chainglider works.
Surely! The Idworx chaincase seems sturdy but...
Exactly; it is even less proven in the experience of others -- at least across a range of non-Iworxian bikes, so even more of an Unknown Quantity for me, and also more expensive and "not intended" for my specific application. It would make an expensive ornament on the Mantle of Failed Expectations if it didn't work.
From John...
I seem to recall Frank Revelo saying he'd thrown his away...but where, I wonder? Somewhere in the Northern California forest? If so, it might be melted by now.
Despite the spate of recent wildfires, I've not given up hope! I've found more perfectly preserved "old things" in the backcountry than I can count, many seemingly out of place or context. Why would someone leave an electric bread toaster in the middle of Nevada's Black Rock Desert? Seemingly in perfect condition, there were no tire tracks around it. Too big for crows to carry, unlikely prey of raptors, it just...was.
There's a wealth of things to be found far more relevant to cyclists, and I've surely tried. For an example of the bounty and the scenery showing the places I go, see: http://rideoregonride.com/7-bikes-7-wonders/ When the initial video finished playing, click on the 7 more showing what was on offer (all have now been found). Would used items be sold anywhere?
I've surely considered this and pursued it to a degree without success. It appears my size 590M Nomad would require a longer front section than is standard, thanks to its extended chainstays when the EBB is at greatest forward rotation. on reasonably smooth tarmac, my Marathon Supremes' hum covers any brushing noise from the 'glider, and whenever I'm in the lower range of the Rohloff, that does the same.
Ah! The "brushing noise" is what I'd like to avoid. Hearing it 120 times a minute could quickly get old. My Rohloff is virtually silent (and likely destined to last forever) 'cos I nearly always ride/cruise in my direct-drive Gear 11 with my current gearing setup. When I'm cycling, even at low speeds, I'm hard-pressed to notice either noise or drag from the 'glider.
Useful information indeed. My contact at Hebie tells me they recommend actively greasing the chain to reduce both noise and drag over oil alone. I would imagine the grease is slathered over a well-oiled chain, most likely for the purpose of increasing "glide" -- though I've never heard of anyone doing this in practice, even among my all-weather cycling pals in The Netherlands and Germany. {...when the case halves go a bit awry in closure] I can hear the chain rattling on (that portion of?) the 'glider, even at higher speeds, say 11th gear.
Ah, yes. The Chainglider does seem to have been made in at least two iterations, differing in part by the number and placement of the joining tabs. I have read occasional reports that one version worked better than another on a given rider's bike, resulting in a measurable degree of disappointment or elation, depending on the outcome.
Thanks again, fellow; all most helpful.
All the best,
Dan. (...who might be better off saving for a 3-D printer)
-
One more thing, Dan. It is true that I trebled my chain mileage with the Country and then the Chainglider, but part of that was simply switching to steel gears and KMC chains from particularly soft Shimano Nexus chains and gears. Others have also reported gains in chain life on switching from bare chains to Chainguards.
However... What wears a chain, Sheldon and Jobst used to say, was grit and oil under the rollers. Since you floss your chain daily, you should consider how close to the natural maximum chain life you are, that is, how much extra mileage you can realistically expect from enclosing your chain. I would expect it to be less as a percentage, possibly less as a mileage, than almost everyone else on the board, precisely because you're obsessive about these things.
That makes recovery of any investment in a chain cover longer, even with a higher annual mileage, and possibly makes the whole idea uneconomical, a luxury. I'd do it all the same, for the convenience, because I don't believe in that roadie nonsense that a cyclist must suffer, but you clearly order your priorities differently. I was impressed when I first arrived on this board by the huge range of mileages cyclists get on chains, so the numbers have to be run for each individual cyclist.
BTW, I don't understand why you use 9-speed chains. (Typo?) Rohloff clearly would prefer you to use an 8-sp chain, and it is cheaper and stronger and might well last longer. Whichever you use, the chain is the cheapest consumable on your bike.
-
Then again, from my POV, it becomes a question of, how do I want to spend my time? We venture now into the domain of what are called First-World Problems (Issues for the Global North, in a different political economy, but never mind, and back to the thread...) I decided long time back, that as as motorcyclist I really didn't much like being nibbled to death by
ducks chains, and swore "enough, already". So I bought a BMW twin, c/w driveshaft (and one that's more reliable, I'm told, than the high-end items now on the roads.) On a parallel track, I found myself still getting nibbled to death by ducks derailleurs and sought refuge once more in German technology & engineering, this time the Rohloff. Then--lo!--I found I didn't have to fuss much with chains, either, 'cos I could hand that business off to a 'glider.
What I most like to do at the end of the day is pitch camp, brew a cuppa, add a really over-the-top slug of condensed milk, and think thoughts about whatever I like. I gather that both the Rohloff and the 'glider were intended for cold-dark-wet-grimy-slushy streets in the Northern European winter, but if as a ripple effect they free me from chain maintenance beside a lake on an Ontario summer evening, well, I turn to the East, nod (as a lapsed catholic, we no longer kneel, y'know), and raise my cup of tea.
Now, 'tis true, I don't trek about the high deserts of Eastern Oregon and Western Nevada, and indeed my canter through those parts a couple of years ago left me wondering--"Jeezus, Mary an' Joseph, what if I had an electrical fault and fire here, of all places, on my airhead? All they'd find would be a mess of melted plastic, twisted metal, and some calcium, and even that, only after years had passed." Still & all, I'd risk a 'glider & forego the daily fiddling with the chain--at the very least as a pilot--and, I dunno, instead brew a cuppa and ponder the mysteries of the high deserts. I wouldn't worry about my "brushing" sound, Dan--didn't mean to alarm you--'cos I notice it only when the bike's on the stand, or motionless, when I spin my cranks. That is, for all practical purposes, never.
So, go for it, sez I. Mind you, a quality 3D printer could probably pay for itself over a winter -- I'd buy a purpose-built 36T 'glider, so long as it had a bit more clearance for the back end of the 'ring than Hebie's off-the-shelf model. ;)
-
BTW, I don't understand why you use 9-speed chains. (Typo?) Rohloff clearly would prefer you to use an 8-sp chain, and it is cheaper and stronger and might well last longer.
Hi Andre!
No, not a typo, just sloppy writing on my part. What I intended to say (and my mind went faster than my fingers, a particular problem when I'm really cooking along on the smartphone with its small screen and autocorrect, which often distracts me and requires editing after the fact) was that 9-speed drivetrains last a short time in my service, and I can't afford them 'cos replacement intervals are so pitifully short. I really can wear through up to three sets of chain, cassette ('cos the things are riveted together now and most-used cogs aren't available and can't be replaced individually), and at least two chainrings in the course of a long summer's touring and day riding.
I do indeed use 8-sp chains on my Nomad, and source 6-/7-/8-speed chains for the derailleur bikes -- precisely because of their longer service life.
One of the reasons I'm such a devotee of 5-/6-speed freewheels and 7-speed cassettes -- all with half-step gearing -- is that approach means I use the middle and large chainrings almost equally, spreading the wear between two chainrings instead of mostly one. Both middle and high (thick, unramped) chainrings are large in diameter (more teeth so more surface area; the granny low gear is usually stainless and used relatively little and then only with the bottom 3 or 4 cogs), and I can get proportionally more usable gear combinations with fewer, thicker cogs (13 of 15 gears, 15 of 18 gears, and 18 of 21 available gear combos with no duplicates). Best of all, my most used gear combinations are in a straight line or just one cog or chainring to either side, so I enjoy many of the lifespan benefits of a single-speed or IGH. If I converted to Shimano Altus derailleurs with larger 13t and 15t jockey and tension pulleys, I'd probably see a discernible increase in chain life.
Of course, the same holds true with 8-sp chains on the Nomad with its Rohloff hub.
A child of Depression-era parents, I learned early on the best form of recycling is preventive maintenance, followed by repair and reuse instead of the R&R (remove and replace) we see so often today.
I don't have to clean my chains too often if I'm touring on pavement or gravel, thanks to my use of very long front mudflaps on my bikes and I do well on gravel , but the playa dust blowing across dry lakes really settles in if I don't keep up the flossing routine in camp. Also, heavy or continuous rains means I relube the chain pretty religiously to get maximum life, so that routine gets a bit old as well.
Yes, a Chainglider would sure be nice and I'm pining for one. I'm still hoping Hebie produces a version for my smaller chainring so I can save some money in the conversion. As John says, I'd love the additional freedom from maintenance it offers. Meanwhile, I'll soldier on with what I've got for awhile longer as I dream Hebie dreams at night in my little tent while touring.
All the best,
Dan.
-
You will recall that I had some friction concerns on fitting my Chainglider a little while back. Well, all running very nicely now with something over 700kms done. Checked the chain inside it a few days ago - all looking very clean and shiny. I wiped the chain and gave it a touch of the Purple Extreme.
The chain runs quite freely (not quite as free as without the 'glider) and there is no noise from it at all. The only time I have noticed noise was the last week, as the chain had stretched a little and its rubbing on the 'glider told me it might be time to tighten tings a little. Probably could have held off a bit longer though really.
I'm a happy Rohloff/Chainglider user.
-
The SON28 is a huge step forward from my previous Sanyo Dynapower BB dynamo, especially in wet or muddy conditions -- no slippage or fouling -- but the Sanyo never introduced similar vibrations when running and of course had no drag when off.
You must have the lucky Sanyo Dynapower then. The one on my road bike has the rattles of a horde of sick banshees when it is switched on, and still rattles away even when off. :(
I recall the ones I used on my old touring bike were always getting mucky with dirt and began to rattle a lot.
-
Hi Pete!
Thanks for the additional data point on Chainglider success. Yes, I followed your initial difficulties and was heartened to see them all resolved with a simple adjustment. Terrific! You must have the lucky Sanyo Dynapower then.
I seem to, fortunately. I have a whole box of them, including several that are NOS/NIP. ...the ones I used on my old touring bike were always getting mucky with dirt and began to rattle a lot.
Yep and exactly so. The dirt flung by the tire builds up in a crust that makes them hop and rattle. I carried a scraper with me to "prep" them before use. A pain at times, and they also slip when wet (depending on the tire and amount of water); bonus points! :P
However, they did provide light for a budget price and worked reliably most of the time I needed them in my regular commuting years (and before hub dynamos were even as inexpensive and/or reliable as they are at present. I remember an old Sturmey-Archer that left much to be desired).
All the best,
Dan.
-
There are at least two series of Hebie Chaingliders, and by this I mean functionally different designs, not just rear ends adapted for different hub gearboxes, front ends sized for various tooth counts on chainrings. and different chain cover arm lengths to account for different chainstay lengths.
The two designs I have offer a different component count, three for the newer one, four for the older one. The older one has a loose clip which holds its furthermost front end together around the forward edge of the chainring. The later model performs the same function with slots and ridges cast into the cover itself, without the separate enveloping clip.
Merely on my description, most people will believe the later design is progress, the absence of a small part which therefore cannot be lost. They'd be wrong. The older design is superior.
In practice, the second design is less functional. I never had any problem with the older design but the newest design simply doesn't hold together at that point. The ridge keeps coming out of its slot. It is only a moment's work at the beginning of a ride to clip it together again, and there isn't a gap where any dirt can get in because the two halves are still held together by the other ridges and slots, but all the same one pays for German engineering in the expectation that it will fit together and stay together.
I don't think I'll be selling my currently "resting" first series Hebie Chainglider on...
-
...the newest design simply doesn't hold together at that point. The ridge keeps coming out of its slot.
That's been my experience, Andre -- though only since I chopped my 'glider to fit the 36T ring (and get rid of a bit of friction at the rear of the 38T ring at the same time.) Strange bizness.
It is only a moment's work at the beginning of a ride to clip it together again
Maybe...I found that the tab/slot separation was a persistent problem. First time I noticed it, I stopped the bike, pushed the two sides of the 'glider together, inserted tab into slot, and set off, pleased to see that it was just a momentary thing. 'Cept it wasn't: tab deserted slot after a few kms of road buzz & shocks, so I left it as is 'til I got home, and tried 2 or 3 varieties of tape. As described, black Gorilla duct tape does the business -- not quite as elegant as a clip, I guess, but it's held for a few hundred kms now, and I expect it will be in place more or less indefinitely, as Gorilla products are tough. (How do I know? Not from 'glider applications alone. I have a pair of mid-calf insulated leather work boots which I used when I worked at a building supplies store in my last years in high school. Those boots have been resoled and re-heeled, and I can't bear to part with them, even though I don't use them a whole lot any more. I bought them in 1964 from the store where I worked, $14.95 as I recall, 'cos they were the top of the line. Brand: Gorilla -- doubt it's the same Gorilla, though. Slogan beside the logo: "Brutally tough." JS' quick review: Comfortable in all 4 seasons, repairable & indestructible.)
-
Thanks for the Gorilla tape tip, John. For the moment I'll just leave it, as there is no gap for dirt to get in, and see what develops.
-
The older one has a loose clip which holds its furthermost front end together around the forward edge of the chainring. The later model performs the same function with slots and ridges cast into the cover itself, without the separate enveloping clip.
Mine must be the newer design. I haven't noticed a problem... not that I have been paying any particular attention!
-
The older version:
(http://www.rideyourbike.com/images/hebiechainglider.jpg)
-
Thanks, Il Padrone.
-
I think I must have the older version.
Do you have any snaps of the newer version?
Thanks
Matt
-
sorry for the terrible photo! I can never figure out how to control this camera! But this should give the idea of the front joint on the new version...
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r6/kukulaj/Nomad/IMG_2412_zpss09qwoay.jpg)
-
I think I must have the older version.
Do you have any snaps of the newer version?
Thanks
Matt
What Il Padrone shows is the older version. It is identifiable by the proudstanding clip to hold it together at the front. The newer version doesn't have the clip, as in Jim's photo. In my opinion the older version is superior, more reliable.
-
Thanks André.
Yes, I have the old version and have had no problems.
If it ain't broke, why did they ' fix' it?!
-
Thanks André.
Yes, I have the old version and have had no problems.
If it ain't broke, why did they ' fix' it?!
'Cos they're German. They routinely invent, design and make something superior, and then fuss with it until the second edition is not so good. Another example is the BUMM Cyo lamp, of which the first edition was the first grown-up, adequate hub dynamo bicycle lamp, the second edition was rubbish, and from there they gradually recovered until the current edition (Premium) is at last superior to the first edition. You have to pick your German components' production date carefully...