HELP! problems with Praxis rings on SISL chainset

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
Svetty
Posts: 493
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:06 pm
Location: Yorkshire - God's Own Country

by Svetty

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?

User avatar
carlislegeorge
Posts: 229
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 4:13 pm

by carlislegeorge

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)

thisisatest
Shop Owner
Posts: 1980
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 4:02 am
Location: NoVA/DC

by thisisatest

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

Svetty
Posts: 493
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:06 pm
Location: Yorkshire - God's Own Country

by Svetty

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?

Svetty
Posts: 493
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:06 pm
Location: Yorkshire - God's Own Country

by Svetty

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. ...

thisisatest
Shop Owner
Posts: 1980
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 4:02 am
Location: NoVA/DC

by thisisatest

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

Svetty
Posts: 493
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:06 pm
Location: Yorkshire - God's Own Country

by Svetty

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!

Svetty
Posts: 493
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:06 pm
Location: Yorkshire - God's Own Country

by Svetty

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. ....

User avatar
carlislegeorge
Posts: 229
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 4:13 pm

by carlislegeorge

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)

Svetty
Posts: 493
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:06 pm
Location: Yorkshire - God's Own Country

by Svetty

Interesting, wasn't aware that Praxis have modified their design...
Might give them a call.

DamonRinard
in the industry
Posts: 229
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 8:32 pm
Location: Connecticut, USA

by DamonRinard

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

eric
Posts: 2196
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, California, USA
Contact:

by eric

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

goodboyr
Posts: 1390
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:56 pm
Location: Canada

by goodboyr

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

Dammit
Posts: 443
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 8:16 pm

by Dammit

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?

goodboyr
Posts: 1390
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:56 pm
Location: Canada

by goodboyr

Yes. Based on my experience the 0.6 spacers are a bit too thin. Looks like. 1.0 would do the trick.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post