Pondering front mech designs (sad but true) can anyone help me debunk the following truisms?
1) Bottom swing is the original design of front mech, and pretty much all road bikes still have them, even those with triple chainsets
2) Top swing was originally developed to help with the band placement on full suss bikes, and also found favour on bikes with short seat tubes especially if one wishes to avoid the bottle cage bosses getting in the way of the mech's band around seat tube
3) Bottom swing is more robust and shifts better
4) Bottom swing mechs look nicer, and are easier to clean!
5) Bottom swing mechs allow the cage to sit further inward than a top swing, by as much as 8-10mm
Finally an actual question... which swing type (presuming I have two mechs that both suit my MTB frame ie correct clamp size and pull type) would work better on a wide ratio chainset - 22/36/48 - and be less likely to cause any rub while in the granny ring? Based on truism # 5) I'm thinking a bottom swing... do front mechs have capacity ratings like rear mechs? :?
1) Bottom swing is the original design of front mech, and pretty much all road bikes still have them, even those with triple chainsets
2) Top swing was originally developed to help with the band placement on full suss bikes, and also found favour on bikes with short seat tubes especially if one wishes to avoid the bottle cage bosses getting in the way of the mech's band around seat tube
3) Bottom swing is more robust and shifts better
4) Bottom swing mechs look nicer, and are easier to clean!
5) Bottom swing mechs allow the cage to sit further inward than a top swing, by as much as 8-10mm
Finally an actual question... which swing type (presuming I have two mechs that both suit my MTB frame ie correct clamp size and pull type) would work better on a wide ratio chainset - 22/36/48 - and be less likely to cause any rub while in the granny ring? Based on truism # 5) I'm thinking a bottom swing... do front mechs have capacity ratings like rear mechs? :?