Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Blog NEW Galleries NEW FAQ Contact About Impressum
It is currently Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:07 am
Recently the board software has been updated and there are some known bugs/failures:
- Avatars are currently not being displayed ✔ FIXED
- Tapatalk connection is currently broken ✔ FIXED
- Avatars cannot be uploaded ✔ FIXED

Please note that we will soon do some changes in WW board template design in case to get a fully mobile/desktop responsiveness board!
If you find more errors please post it here: http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=139062


All times are UTC+01:00





Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 5:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:06 pm
Posts: 387
Location: Yorkshire - God's Own Country
I have recently purchased a set of Praxis rings for my Cannondale Super-six Evo. Previously it was fitted with FSA rings on a compact 110 BCD Hollowgram SiSL chainset, using DA 7900 mechs and cassette etc. and everything worked fine.

With the Praxis rings fitted I have problems: when in the small ring I am unable to use the 4 smallest rear sprockets without the chain rubbing on the inside surface of the outer ring. Looking at the 2 chainrings it appears that they are very close together - there is little spacing between them. As I say, everything worked fine with the FSA rings and the rear wheel is centred in the dropouts with no chain-line problems apparent - the frame is nearly new.

I assume this is something which must have occurred before. Can anyone advise on a remedy? Would shims on the chainring bolts to increase the space between the rings be a feasible fix?


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 8:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 229
I have had the same issue with Praxis versus DA rings...although through many adjustments, the rubbing on the large ring has been limited to the lowest two gears on my cassette (12-13). In reality, the same thing happened with the Praxis rings on my DA 7950 cranks. Didn't get appreciably worse switching to the Cannondale crank arms.

I hope someone has a fix...

_________________
2011 Tarmac Pro SL3 Project Black (gone but not forgotten)
2012 Parlee Z5 SLi (just because)
2014 Colnago C59 (why not)


Top
   
Posted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 8:36 pm 


Top
   
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 09, 2013 4:12 pm 
Offline
Shop Owner

Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 4:02 am
Posts: 1980
Location: NoVA/DC
The issue is that Praxis designs their rings "old school" in which the horizontal distance from one ring's teeth is pretty close to the other ring's teeth. With 7900, Shimano moved the outer ring teeth to the right, and to prevent the chain from jamming between the two, took up the extra space with ramping. Not only do you get to cross-chain more with this setup, it also greatly reduces the chance of dropping the chain to the inside when shifting to the smallest ring.
If Praxis made all their rings like that, then it would be difficult for their rings to work on an older Sram group, or Shimano 7800, or Campy. Hopefully they come out with a different option, but these are forgings, not just a different cnc code.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 4 Beta


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jun 09, 2013 9:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:06 pm
Posts: 387
Location: Yorkshire - God's Own Country
Understand that 7900 chainring spacing is sl wider but don't understand how groupset is relevant as chain position is relative to chainrings and sprockets not mechs.

Front chainline is 42mm on my bike. This is less than the industry 43.5 standard as I understand it. Can anyone else with an Evo and Hollowgram confirm this or is my BB/chainset insertion a bit off?


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jun 09, 2013 11:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:06 pm
Posts: 387
Location: Yorkshire - God's Own Country
Ha! Found this:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=114357

Confirms my thoughts re chainline distance of 42mm being too small eg the chainrings are too close to the midline on this design and the Praxis rings are not the fundamental problem.

Don't suppose Cannondale are likely to be sympathetic to the point of offering to ease my way to a new BB spindle. ...


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:16 am 
Offline
Shop Owner

Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 4:02 am
Posts: 1980
Location: NoVA/DC
Like you said, with the same cranks and FSA rings it was fine.
Having the rings farther apart means that, when in the small ring, the chain can be at at greater angle back-and-out before the chain rubs the large ring. the FSA rings probably say N-10 or DA79. Those rings are close to Shimano's spec of having the teeth of each ring farther apart .

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 4 Beta


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 1:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:06 pm
Posts: 387
Location: Yorkshire - God's Own Country
Have ordered 109mm SISL2 bearing and spindle kit. Expensive way to solve the problem but at least it is a 'proper' solution, not a bodge job. Makes the Praxis rings bloody expensive though!


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 11:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:06 pm
Posts: 387
Location: Yorkshire - God's Own Country
Update. Installed 109 mm spindle - left original BB in situ. Found needed 4 shims on drive side to get chainline spot on. Consequently had to file several mms off non-drive spacer to get correct preload.
Only problem now is that there is considerable bearing shield friction vs the bearings where they rotate with spindle (despite greasing spindle surface and correct spring washer compression). Maybe this will settle after a few miles. Alternatively I could fit the ceramic bearings that came with the spindle. ....


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 229
Update on my version of the issue as discussed above. I contacted Praxis and they swapped out the large (52 ) chain ring, indicating they have done some recent redesign, but unfortunately the problem of chain rubbing on the inside surface of the outer ring in my lowest 3-4 gears is not improved. I think I'm going to put the Shimano 7950 50/34 crankset back on so I can use all my gears (until I can afford the 9070 upgrade).

My setup is as follows:
Praxis 52/36 rings
Cannondale Hollowgram SL crank arms
SRAM PF30 BB
Dura Ace 12-27 cassette
KMC X10SL DLC chain
Parlee Z5 SLi frame

_________________
2011 Tarmac Pro SL3 Project Black (gone but not forgotten)
2012 Parlee Z5 SLi (just because)
2014 Colnago C59 (why not)


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jul 07, 2013 8:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:06 pm
Posts: 387
Location: Yorkshire - God's Own Country
Interesting, wasn't aware that Praxis have modified their design...
Might give them a call.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:08 pm 
Offline
in the industry

Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 8:32 pm
Posts: 157
Hi Svetty,

Why not move the two chain rings ~1mm apart? Use 5 tiny spacers, one at each mounting bolt.

Cheers,

_________________
Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager, Road Bikes
Cycling Sports Group, Cannondale
Ex-Kestrel, ex-Velomax, ex-Trek, ex-Cervelo


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jul 07, 2013 2:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:47 pm
Posts: 2196
Location: Santa Cruz, California, USA
You can get chainring spacers as thin as .6mm. They're in the QPB catalog so any LBS should be able to get them.
I have used them to solve this same problem on other cranks.

http://www.ebikestop.com/chainring_chai ... %29469.php


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 8:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:56 pm
Posts: 1238
Location: Canada
Based on this thread, I installed the 0.6mm spacers on my compact Quarq Elsa with praxis 52/36 rings. Before I had rubbing on last three cog. Now only happens on last cog. Everything else is fine including slope and zero offset. I used the problem solvers 0.6 spacers.

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 4 Beta

_________________
My RCA


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 8:16 pm
Posts: 443
I have Praxis 52/36 rings on an SiSl SRM with 7970 Di2.

Would it be best to space the rings out a little to replicate that distance between teeth that Shimano use?


Top
   
Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:54 am 


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 12:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:56 pm
Posts: 1238
Location: Canada
Yes. Based on my experience the 0.6 spacers are a bit too thin. Looks like. 1.0 would do the trick.

_________________
My RCA


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. Carbon ti rings versus praxis rings

in Road

coppercook62

7

809

Wed Apr 20, 2016 6:17 am

KCookie View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Hollowgram SISL chainset on new PF30 Focus Izalco Max?

in Road

KH

5

652

Thu Apr 14, 2016 7:00 pm

ms6073 View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Specialized S-Works crankset, Praxis rings

[ Go to page: 1 2 3 ]

in Road

Birdman

30

2925

Thu Dec 01, 2016 5:02 pm

qorwlch View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Supersix Evo BB choices for SISL

in Road

tarmackev

9

522

Sun Jul 03, 2016 5:27 pm

tarmackev View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Standard chain rings to semi compact chain rings = new crank?

in Road

stockae92

11

554

Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:27 pm

topflightpro View the latest post


All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: darnellrm, doogie2304, fa63, handler, MichaelB, MSNbot Media, nohands and 44 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited