Yup... another etap front derailleur thread. Sanity check.

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
ancker
Posts: 135
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 9:29 pm

by ancker

bikeboy1tr wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 4:16 pm
Maybe we should make a list of the bikes 11sp etap works properly on. Colnago V2R seems okay. Time RXRS not so much.
I think it's more complicated than that.

I had nothing but problems on a Cannondale SuperSix Evo and Extralite MC 52/36 chainrings.
Switched to Praxis 52/36 rings and now it's perfect.

bikeboy1tr
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 3:19 am
Location: Southern Ontario Canada

by bikeboy1tr

I guess way too many factors to make a simple list. Might be why this thread along with the other are so big.

Sent from my STH100-1 using Tapatalk

"Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving"-Albert Einstein
2018 Colnago V2R Rim Brake
2014 Norco Threshold Disc Brake
2012 Time RXRS Ulteam Rim Brake
2008 Time VXR Rim Brake
2006 Ridley Crosswind Rim Brake

by Weenie


1415chris
Posts: 1266
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:59 am
Location: Surrey UK

by 1415chris


ancker wrote:It's less about the seat tube itself, more about where the FD hanger is mounted in relation to the chainrings. Being off even 1 or 2 degrees drastically changes the angle of the FD cage. Sometimes, specifically on TT bikes, the hanger is mounted in a way that makes the cage tilt upwards too much. The small shim angles it down where it should be.
Maybe, but on S5 I didn't need any wedges to run QXL 52/36. There was plenty of room on its braze on for any derailleur adjuetmets. Even following Sram guidance I could have it set up by their books, still having a space for further tweaks. Originally on this frame was a crank with standard round 52/36 chainrings, again without any wedges.
So no, there is nothing extraordinary with its geometry, neither with its derailleur hanger placement.
After playing with my oryginal setup (QXL 52/36) for a long time I realised that, there was nothing more I or anybody else could do to prevent occasional overshiftings. I simply tried something different and it worked for me ;)



ancker
Posts: 135
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 9:29 pm

by ancker

1415chris wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 6:18 pm
ancker wrote:It's less about the seat tube itself, more about where the FD hanger is mounted in relation to the chainrings. Being off even 1 or 2 degrees drastically changes the angle of the FD cage. Sometimes, specifically on TT bikes, the hanger is mounted in a way that makes the cage tilt upwards too much. The small shim angles it down where it should be.
Maybe, but on S5 I didn't need any wedges to run QXL 52/36. There was plenty of room on its braze on for any derailleur adjuetmets. Even following Sram guidance I could have it set up by their books, still having a space for further tweaks. Originally on this frame was a crank with standard round 52/36 chainrings, again without any wedges.
So no, there is nothing extraordinary with its geometry, neither with its derailleur hanger placement.
After playing with my oryginal setup (QXL 52/36) for a long time I realised that, there was nothing more I or anybody else could do to prevent occasional overshiftings. I simply tried something different and it worked for me ;)
Sidenote:
TBH, I think when you run non-round chainrings, shifting issues are on the rings, not the group.
No matter how perfect the manufacturer says they are, they aren't what the group was designed for.

User avatar
Leviathan
Posts: 1187
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:49 am
Location: Mallorca, Spain
Contact:

by Leviathan

NickJHP wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Image
Sorry, dont really care about the shifting but you get Kudos for having "Gravity´s rainbow" in your bookcase. More, if you finished it..

1415chris
Posts: 1266
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:59 am
Location: Surrey UK

by 1415chris


ancker wrote:Sidenote:
TBH, I think when you run non-round chainrings, shifting issues are on the rings, not the group.
No matter how perfect the manufacturer says they are, they aren't what the group was designed for.
I have never pointed that there is an issue with Sram derailleur. I knew, that my setup is bit more challenging.
And I don't agree with your second sentence either.
So how would you explain the fact that it didn't worked perfectly with QXL rings, but with added wedge works like a treat wit much more extremely shaped Osymetric chainrings?
And frankly, I don't buy the slogan "designed for". If for all my cycling life I had followed "designed for or not designed for" I would have missed so many things which worked perfectly and I was very happy about.
To sum it up, what I am saying is, if I manged to make Etap FD working perfectly with such challenging as the Osymetrics can be for front derailleur chainrings, it can be done elsewhere.

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 3597
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

Just look at the dearth of eTap/non-round combos on social media vs Shimano/non-round. Everyone here knows that Nefarious86 and I have spent a stupid number of hours trying to get it working with any sort of consistency. He elected to just trash eTap for Di2 is while I’ve just gone back to round rings for the time being.

The Yaw FD just sucks and they should just use straight cages with auto-trim. The main reason they haven’t done that is because they just plan on ditching the FD altogether in the next update cycle.

1415chris
Posts: 1266
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:59 am
Location: Surrey UK

by 1415chris

Delete pls
Last edited by 1415chris on Wed May 08, 2019 10:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

1415chris
Posts: 1266
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:59 am
Location: Surrey UK

by 1415chris

Well I don't want to discuss which is better for non-round chainrings, as I don't have experiance with Shimano. And I don't need social media to tell me what works, what does not. That is entirely up to my experiance, which says it can work perfectly. Unfortunately I cannot point what is the magic ingredient, whether the Osymetrics are so good for Etap, or it was added wedge.
If I have more time and maybe bit more desperation I would go beck to QXL with added wedge to see whether I can replicate the same good results.
Don't get me wrong, I fully agree that Etap FD is far from to be perfect, otherwise we wouldn't have this conversation.



RocketRacing
Posts: 691
Joined: Thu May 10, 2018 2:43 am

by RocketRacing

I finished my setup. I seem to shift better from mid casette, the chain now gois to the chainring in all but the top 2-3 climbing gears. Not an issue as i do not cross chain. I might hve my lbs look at it to verify if there is more to be done. The changes i did were just by the book stuff.

I will take it on a few rides and see if on field setup tweaks will be required.

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 3597
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

RocketRacing wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 5:50 am
I finished my setup. I seem to shift better from mid casette, the chain now gois to the chainring in all but the top 2-3 climbing gears. Not an issue as i do not cross chain. I might hve my lbs look at it to verify if there is more to be done. The changes i did were just by the book stuff.

I will take it on a few rides and see if on field setup tweaks will be required.

"Not an issue." I wouldn't take my bike off the stand if I couldn't shift into the big ring in all gear combinations. If you're this sloppy with set-up, eTap is going to be a nightmare for you.

RocketRacing
Posts: 691
Joined: Thu May 10, 2018 2:43 am

by RocketRacing

TobinHatesYou wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 6:20 am
RocketRacing wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 5:50 am
I finished my setup. I seem to shift better from mid casette, the chain now gois to the chainring in all but the top 2-3 climbing gears. Not an issue as i do not cross chain. I might hve my lbs look at it to verify if there is more to be done. The changes i did were just by the book stuff.

I will take it on a few rides and see if on field setup tweaks will be required.
So where to go next then? I have not adjusted rd limit screws. I am also at 5mm fd to big ring teeth clearance as the fd is bittomed on the braze on adaptor. The onky way to get lower is to shave netal off the braze on derailier.

Any tips would be appreciated?


"Not an issue." I wouldn't take my bike off the stand if I couldn't shift into the big ring in all gear combinations. If you're this sloppy with set-up, eTap is going to be a nightmare for you.

jlok
Posts: 977
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 3:30 am

by jlok

Sth like this to fix "braze on adaptor too high" problem?
https://wickwerks.com/products/fit-link-adapter/
Litespeed T1sl Disc / BMC TM02 < Giant Propel Advanced SL Disc 1 < Propel Adv < TCR Adv SL Disc < KTM Revelator Sky < CAAD 12 Disc < Domane S Disc < Alize < CAAD 10

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 3597
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

RocketRacing wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 7:26 am

So where to go next then? I have not adjusted rd limit screws. I am also at 5mm fd to big ring teeth clearance as the fd is bittomed on the braze on adaptor. The onky way to get lower is to shave netal off the braze on derailier.

Any tips would be appreciated?

5mm is "fine." Your problem is almost certainly an incorrect yaw angle, which also leads to bad limit adjustments based on that incorrect yaw angle.

NickJHP
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2018 2:22 am
Location: Canberra, Australia

by NickJHP

jlok wrote:Sth like this to fix "braze on adaptor too high" problem?
https://wickwerks.com/products/fit-link-adapter/
Sugino also make an FD adaptor for lowering the FD. I used that - you can just see it in the image I posted previously. When I was building up the bike I asked Wickwerks if their adaptor was compatible with eTap and they said no, but that they were going to make a compatible one.

Dolan sell the Sugino adaptor.

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post