Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Sat May 26, 2018 7:35 am

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 6:10 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:29 pm
Posts: 476
Location: derbyshire
Apart from the obvious whats the difference function wise etc?

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 13, 2012 7:56 pm 
Gold Trader / rb Rider / Special
Gold Trader / rb Rider / Special
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 12:26 am
Posts: 16165
Location: Rurally close.
I believe long cage mechs ar eto take up the slack that happens in the difference between the front rings on an mtb. I think difference/size of rings dictates how long you whould have really.

Road bikes get away with short cages as there isnt much difference between the chainring size, or smaller difference rather.

Think thats right.

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 9:23 am 
Gold Trader
Gold Trader
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 1:29 pm
Posts: 10820
Location: Manchester, UK
Just checked Sheldon Brown (again!) and here's a summary:

The longer the cage, the larger the capacity a rear mech can handle...

Capacity relates to the amount of chain slack the mech can take up, and is equal to the front range plus the rear range. Thus, if you have a 52/42/30 crank set (difference of 22 teeth) and a 12-28 (16 tooth difference) cluster, the total capacity required would theoretically be 38 teeth (22 front difference + 16 rear difference). Manufacturers specify this fairly conservatively. They must do so, because they have to assume that some of their deraillueurs will be sold to incompetent cyclists, who will abuse their drive trains by using the smallest chainwheel with the smaller rear sprockets.

Competent riders can considerably exceed the official rated capacity, since they will not misuse the granny ring by running it with the smaller rear sprockets, so it doesn't matter if the chain hangs slack in those gears. Rear derailleurs are also commonly designed for a particular maximum size of rear sprocket. If you exceed this size by too much, the jockey pulley may rub against the sprocket when using the lowest gear.

Rated maximum rear sprocket size, however, is also commonly much lower than what actually works. For instance, Shimano's models designated as "road" derailers are generally listed for a "maximum" sprocket of 27 teeth...because 27 teeth is the largest size that they make in a designated "road" cassette. However, in almost all cases, these derailleurs, even the short-cage models, will handle rear sprockets as large as 30 teeth in practice. (This somewhat depends on the design of the frame's derailleur hanger, so once in a while you will find a particular installation where you can't use a 30, but I've never seen one where a 28 wouldn't work.)

In MTB practise, if I have a normal 11-34 cassette and am using a single 32t chainring I would use a short cage derailleur... if I refitted my granny ring to create a 2x9 set up with 22/32t I'd use the same rear mech. The short cage mech is not spec'd for 34t bottom gear but it would work.

If I changed the middle ring to a 36 or 38t (greater capacity) I'd consider using a medium cage rear mech.

With a triple ring (22/32/42 or 44) set up I'd use a long cage with the 11-34 cassette.

If I were to change rear cassette to a closer ratio - ie a 12-28 - and had a standard 22/32/42 or 44 chainset I could run a short or medium cage. If I changed the rings to give a wider set of ratios - ie 22/34/48 - I'd use medium or long.

As a general rule of thumb run your chain - as with gear and brake cables - as short as possible ie the shortest cage you can! The chain and rear mech are always at their most stretched out when you engage biggest cogs front and rear, but when would anyone in their right mind ever do this - it bends the chain laterally and is a school-boy/girl error! So for example on my Surly I have an 11-34 cassette with a 22/34/48 chainset giving me a huge range of gears. Obv. this necessitates using a long cage mech* But I have cut chain short to stop it flapping about... therefore it would break the rear mech if I tried to engage big/big.

* IIRC around the early 2000s long cages got even longer. So an M760 rear mech's cage is longer than an M750.

Last edited by Dead Rats on Mon May 14, 2012 9:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 8:07 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 4580
Location: Near Southampton
There is some sort of formula somewhere on involves calculating the rear cassette range and the front chainset....basically if your running 11-32 at the rear and 22-42ish front long cage...and yeah the differing length are due to chain tension/slack on differing setups...

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 11:24 pm 
Old School Grand Master

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 1:55 pm
Posts: 9011
Location: New Forest, UK
The capacity of the mech is the total difference is has to handle: so add the range of front and back. Usually there is a bit more leeway as Shimano build in some safety margin in their recommendations.

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: tufty and 19 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group