i like cunning stunts Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 Just been discussing this in the angry thread i am having trouble with the chain line on a limey mod i have just got. Basically ive had to put a 118 bb in the frame to try and solve the problem but even with the short bb the chain is still very close to the stay.. I have not got a bashring or spacer on the cranks, my freewheel is hard up against the crank arm. So now i have got the problem of my tensiles hitting the maggys because i am running this super short bb.. Anyone else had the same problem and what was the soution? I might just wack a hope on the rear and i think i will be ok but still its a pain in the a**. Pictures are with the short bb and the chain not tensioned properley.. Notice the chain line thats carved in the frame.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 Can't really see what sprocket you're running there, but you could flip your sprocket and run it the other way over so the teeth are nearer your spokes. Equally, you could try and run a thin spacer between your freewheel and cranks. As long as you've got a fair bit left on there threads-wise it shouldn't be an issue. As a side note: Danger chain! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyBazz (: Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 I have a similar problem on my ice.. Run a 12t profile up rear and a 16t up front, when I run a short bb (118 or something) my cranks catch badly on the pistons, when I run 128, my chainlines off and my chain skips badly.... Cant seem to sort this problem out? Help would be appreciated xxx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i like cunning stunts Posted March 21, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 Can't really see what sprocket you're running there, but you could flip your sprocket and run it the other way over so the teeth are nearer your spokes. Equally, you could try and run a thin spacer between your freewheel and cranks. As long as you've got a fair bit left on there threads-wise it shouldn't be an issue. As a side note: Danger chain! Shadow halflink as a danger chain?? First time i have heard that off anyone. Tried running the sprocket the other way the chain line is like a banana with a 128 bb and plus the chain is touching the spokes.. Like i said i am now running a short bb which is narrower than a wide bb with a spacer/bashring so what were onza thinking when they were designing this frame? It cant be run with a 128bb. I have a similar problem on my ice.. Run a 12t profile up rear and a 16t up front, when I run a short bb (118 or something) my cranks catch badly on the pistons, when I run 128, my chainlines off and my chain skips badly.... Cant seem to sort this problem out? Help would be appreciated xxx Exactly the same problem mate so now i have to fork out for either a rear hope or a new set off cranks with a 35mm or more offset.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 Shadow halflink as a danger chain?? First time i have heard that off anyone. Seen plenty of them break when being used on BMXs. They stretch loads, they're not particularly high quality - just generally not great chains. They absolutely batter sprockets too. Couple of other options I guess - TR sprockets are more centrally located so might help, and maybe a 122.5mm BB might be a good compromise between a 128mm and a 118mm? EDIT: A Lite or 810 would also be narrower so give you more clearance. Shadow chains are fat bastards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i like cunning stunts Posted March 21, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 Seen plenty of them break when being used on BMXs. They stretch loads, they're not particularly high quality - just generally not great chains. They absolutely batter sprockets too. Couple of other options I guess - TR sprockets are more centrally located so might help, and maybe a 122.5mm BB might be a good compromise between a 128mm and a 118mm? EDIT: A Lite or 810 would also be narrower so give you more clearance. Shadow chains are fat bastards Ive heard nothing but good things about the shadow chains ! to be honest honest i don't like halflinks as i think there flawed as they always go on the crease but whats the alternative as you will know to get the right tension and wheel placement you generally need a half lnik to do it.. On the chain line thing running a 122 bb i know for definate the chain would be hitting the frame so i am just gonna have to bite the bullet and buy a hope rear brake and run the shorter bb.. Unless someone with a limey has a better solution?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revolver Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 New cranks! Or, a narrower rear rim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 Ive heard nothing but good things about the shadow chains ! to be honest honest i don't like halflinks as i think there flawed as they always go on the crease but whats the alternative as you will know to get the right tension and wheel placement you generally need a half lnik to do it.. On the chain line thing running a 122 bb i know for definate the chain would be hitting the frame so i am just gonna have to bite the bullet and buy a hope rear brake and run the shorter bb.. Unless someone with a limey has a better solution?? TR sprocket would give you a bit more clearance. A Trialtech or similar freewheel spacer would help give you a few mm too. A narrower chain like the Trialtech Lite or 810 would give you more room, then if you need a half-link just run an individual Try-All 3/32" half-link. The 122mm BB would also give you a bit of clearance too, and should stop your cranks from hitting the cylinders too. It's all the little changes added together that should hopefully give you a bit more clearance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i like cunning stunts Posted March 21, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 TR sprocket would give you a bit more clearance. A Trialtech or similar freewheel spacer would help give you a few mm too. A narrower chain like the Trialtech Lite or 810 would give you more room, then if you need a half-link just run an individual Try-All 3/32" half-link. The 122mm BB would also give you a bit of clearance too, and should stop your cranks from hitting the cylinders too. It's all the little changes added together that should hopefully give you a bit more clearance Seems like a lot of hassle though doesnt it.. For a frame that should be designed to run a 128 bb with tensiles aswel as its onza why do you have to do this.. Need to find someone who has this frame and what setup they are running.. Or is it all onzas that are designed this badly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cahill Trials Kid Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 Pretty much every limey 2.0 has had this problem i think. They have fixed it on the limey 320 so it doesnt rub on the frame, but the chain line can be improved, Ive been told to turn my sprocket round and a use a BB spacer next to it. You could also run a even smaller BB to what you have now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i like cunning stunts Posted March 21, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 Pretty much every limey 2.0 has had this problem i think. They have fixed it on the limey 320 so it doesnt rub on the frame, but the chain line can be improved, Ive been told to turn my sprocket round and a use a BB spacer next to it. You could also run a even smaller BB to what you have now. Even smaller bb! is that even possible lol think the crank arms would be touching the frame then on the bb area! All i can say is shame on you onza the designers must of 'designed' these frames on a fri night on there way out the building. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 I agree that the chainline could've been better, but not many frames are designed around a 128mm BB, especially as most complete 20" bikes seem to be coming with 122mm BBs these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i like cunning stunts Posted March 21, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 I agree that the chainline could've been better, but not many frames are designed around a 128mm BB, especially as most complete 20" bikes seem to be coming with 122mm BBs these days. (JT in the angry thread posted : All mods are designed to take a 128mm BB, you might want to post up a picture in a separate thread in trials chat and people can be able to tell you what's wrong. But you shouldn't need to buy new cranks. ) So the onza was designed around a 122 bb? would be good to hear someone from onza explain this to us seeing as though they have made a lot of money around some badly thought out frames. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh barker Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 I had this exact problem on my 320, i could only run a 118 bb in mine, today i took 3-4 milimetres off of my rear screw on sprocket on my t-master hub. i run a narrow kmc z610 hx chain and i managed to pop in a 128 bb today and i am very pleased with it!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i like cunning stunts Posted March 21, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 (edited) So it seems quite a lot of people are having 'issues' with onza frames.. not good. Edited March 21, 2010 by Jake-Ansell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Poyzer @ Onza Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 I am afraid that the issues are with the Tensile cranks and not the frames. The Tensiles were designed around 2003 and had a lower Q factor (offset) than many cranks. We know that this now causes problems with modern frames, which have very low backstays. In conjunction with current super wide rims ie. 49/50 mm. this causes cranks, particularly 170 and 175mm to catch the brakes. The solution is to use wider BB's but this affects the chain line, throwing it too far out. We need to re design the cranks and have done so twice. The problem is that the current forged billet will not allow an increased offset before CNC machining, so tooling costs are astronomical. We want to make sure we get it right before making that sort of investment. The straightness of Tensile cranks is one of the reasons why they are so stiff, so increasing the offset could reduce that stiffness. In addition we are looking at different B/B styles ie int. or ext. bearings, etc. which can affect the width. Unfortunately this is a work in progress as there are so many variables and a solution is not immediate. As a short term fix we are looking at a screw on bashguard with a built in extension and a new thread which allows use of a 127 or even a 135 bb, but leaves the freewheel in the same position. When we build a bike these days with these issues we suggest a narrower rim. ie a 42/43 Hog or a Ronnie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revolver Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 Your options for rear rim include the monty 221 ti, the alex DX32, and the Echo SL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i like cunning stunts Posted March 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 (edited) Your options for rear rim include the monty 221 ti, the alex DX32, and the Echo SL. I am running the MONTY rim at the moment! Thanks for some input mike but clearly there is a flaw with the frames not just the cranks . ( even though am running both so ive got twice the problem i would have) Like i said i am running a 42mm monty rim at the moment with a 118 bb okay i might have a wide chain like a shadow and also no spacer between the freewheel and crank arm, but still the chain is sooo close to the top stay.. I would love to know how the new limey frame compares on these clearance issues.. with pics if anyone has any.. See in the last pic i posted why couldn't you have just made the frame with more clearance here? Would of saved a lot of people un due hassle and you probably would of sold more frames because of it.. Also these frames are designed to take a 128 bb are they not? I would love to see one of these with a wide bb in, there is no chance of running one. Edited March 22, 2010 by Jake-Ansell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weirdoku Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 Echo tr sprocket like mark said or you could just take the sprocket off and sand it down a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i like cunning stunts Posted March 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 Echo tr sprocket like mark said or you could just take the sprocket off and sand it down a bit. I have tried that way but the chain line is like a banana so its not possible... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 Like I said - freewheel spacer, thinner chain, TR sprocket. Three simple solutions that'd solve most of the issues you're having. You've got to remember you're running a fairly extreme setups in terms of clearance. That's a pretty wide chain, with a sprocket that's spaced out as far as possible, with a freewheel that's as outboard as it's possible to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i like cunning stunts Posted March 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 I have sorted the problem like i have mentioned quite a few times, i am running a hope on the rear ( solves the cranks hitting the brake issue ) and also am running the narrow bb which should just get away with it.. I basically just want to know now what other people are running and the onza lads to answer why and what they designed the frame to run because it seems lots of people are having clearance issues with these frames. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh barker Posted March 22, 2010 Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 (edited) I had this exact problem on my 320, i could only run a 118 bb in mine, today i took 3-4 milimetres off of my rear screw on sprocket on my t-master hub. i run a narrow kmc z610 hx chain and i managed to pop in a 128 bb today and i am very pleased with it!! like i said here, my freewheel was rubbing my bb cup so tight when i tightend my crank up, so i put the sprocket on a lave then took 3-4 mill of popped my 128 bb in my frame. works fine will solve your problem! you will be able to run a maggie again too mate Edited March 22, 2010 by josh barker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i like cunning stunts Posted March 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2010 This wont solve the problem if i took 3-4mm off the sprocket on the back and stuck the 128bb in, yes my cranks would miss the maggy but the chain would either still be rubbing on the frame or the chain line would be like this /. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.