Chainring wear (pics, you decide)

blorg

I got this Ultegra 6603 chainset second hand for a decent price. I'm a bit concerned though by the wear on the big and middle rings, the middle in particular seems to have developed a definite sharp sort of tooth pattern. Also look on the back, I think you can see where the metal has been worn.

The granny ring seems fine.

It can sometimes be difficult to tell given the quite sophisticated shifting profiling.

What you reckon? OK? Replace the middle ring? Or you reckon I need to replace the bigger one too? Middle will not be too bad but the big one will work out expensive to the point of maybe not being worth it.

Explosive_Cornflake

It doesn't seem too bad.
I'd give it a run on a bike to see how it handles, shouldn't take too long to change that over.

DirkVoodoo

Looks like the granny ring has never been used.

I would probably replace the middle ring, the big one doesn't look too bad but that saw tooth pattern on the middle one is quite worrying.

tunney

blorg wrote: »

I got this Ultegra 6603 chainset second hand for a decent price. I'm a bit concerned though by the wear on the big and middle rings, the middle in particular seems to have developed a definite sharp sort of tooth pattern. Also look on the back, I think you can see where the metal has been worn.

The granny ring seems fine.

It can sometimes be difficult to tell given the quite sophisticated shifting profiling.

What you reckon? OK? Replace the middle ring? Or you reckon I need to replace the bigger one too? Middle will not be too bad but the big one will work out expensive to the point of maybe not being worth it.

Sorry it looks totally junked. Bin it, its worthless, actually its probably worse than useless. You can see the problem between the middle ring and the axle. There is an extra chainring there.

velo.2010

blorg wrote: »

I got this Ultegra 6603 chainset second hand for a decent price.

I'd like to know what Blorg thought was a decent price bearing in mind I got a once used standard Ultegra SL chainset for E110.

mloc123

/me hides

Dr_Colossus

I'd agree with the above, the outer ring doesn't look too bad although I wouldn't be inclinded to put a new chain on it for fear of prematurely wearing that also. The middle ring is very worn though and would need replacing, must have done alot of kms.

DirkVoodoo

Seeing as the middle chainring on the 6603 is going cheap on CRC I would buy it and swap it out without a second thought.

Raam

Blorg, if you want an alternative, I can ask my elderly neighbour if he can lend you his bus pass for a few days.

DirkVoodoo

Pink dress, bus pass.....I reckon you are running out of those one-liners?

Raam

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Pink dress, bus pass.....I reckon you are running out of those one-liners?

I've got loads more.

tunney

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Looks like the granny ring has never been used.

I would probably replace the middle ring, the big one doesn't look too bad but that saw tooth pattern on the middle one is quite worrying.

Big ring??? Big ring??? What big ring??? Thats a fooking 52.

DirkVoodoo

tunney wrote: »

Big ring??? Big ring??? What big ring??? Thats a fooking 52.

Ok, the bigger ring of the three??

blorg

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Seeing as the middle chainring on the 6603 is going cheap on CRC I would buy it and swap it out without a second thought.

Yes, that is where I was planning on getting it, £20.

The chainset from mloc was €45 which is very cheap but obviously if I'm going to need two new chainrings it is getting less good value, particularly as the big ones are £50. Brand new 6603 chainset on CRC is £80 but not in 175.

I've already bought Ultegra BB cups but as most of my bikes have Shimano Hollowtech cranks these could always be kept as spares (e.g. my cross bike has a FSA BB which will probably explode any day now.)

It is going on my touring bike which doesn't particularly need a new crankset at all but just liked the idea of putting an Ultegra one on it. Currently has a Bontrager Race crankset which is SRAM/Truvativ and has been fine. Chainrings are certainly in better nick. The rest of the drivetrain is Ultegra with 105 shifters so it was more about matching it all up than any actual need.

rflynnr

@ Blorg. This may be of no use but I have an unused big ring and small ring from a Sora crankset I bought (purely so I could use the middle ring and crankset for a single speed conversion). Yours for the price of a pint.

Actually, feck it: yours for free.

Lumen

tunney wrote: »

Big ring??? Big ring??? What big ring??? Thats a fooking 52.

You'll love this: Compact Triplelizer Chainring.

blorg

@rflynnr- I really appreciate the offer but if I keep it I'll go for Ultegra chainrings I think! Wouldn't me much of an upgrade otherwise.

tunney

Lumen wrote: »

You'll love this: Compact Triplelizer Chainring.

Can't view that page. My firewall blocked it as "obscene material".

cdaly_

Incidentally, while I understand the benefits of shifting ramps and pins, I don't understand what the pin on the outside of my big ring is for. Any idea?

LastGasp

cdaly_ wrote: »

Incidentally, while I understand the benefits of shifting ramps and pins, I don't understand what the pin on the outside of my big ring is for. Any idea?

I thinks it's supposed to be lined up with the crank so the chain can't fall off the outside and get jammed between chainring and crank.

cdaly_

LastGasp wrote: »

cdaly_ wrote:

the pin outside of my big ring

I thinks it's supposed to be lined up with the crank so the chain can't fall off the outside and get jammed between chainring and crank.

Ah. So when I took off my chainring to straighten it and put in back in a different orientation I guess I negated that bit.


Ooh, I wonder does that mean the middle to big shift ramps are now out of sync too or is that only with sprockets?...

at1withmyself

blorg wrote: »

I got this Ultegra 6603 chainset second hand for a decent price. I'm a bit concerned though by the wear on the big and middle rings, the middle in particular seems to have developed a definite sharp sort of tooth pattern.

Yes that middle ring definitely needs to be changed or you'll see one of either two issue's

1. You will have chain slip on the middle ring when you apply pressure while pedaling

2. You won't see the above but your chain will wear into the pattern from the middle ring and then cause this issue on your cassette and other chain-rings, then when you go to change anything on the drive train your gaurenteed chain-slip

It's normally referred to as shark-tooth syndrome as that is what they are starting to resemble if you look closely at them.

Hope this helps............

blorg

@at1withmyself- yes I gathered that on the middle. What you think about the big ring?

at1withmyself

blorg wrote: »

@at1withmyself- yes I gathered that on the middle. What you think about the big ring?

Sorry never even looked at it, yes it's on its way out so if your going to use it regularly I would change it as you'll only regret it in the long run.

LastGasp

Funny coincidence. Coming home from work this evening, big "clunk" pushing off at the lights. Had a close look at Chainrings and the middle one is hooked to hell, and the big one is starting to go too ! Currently on 53, 39 (don't look Tunney) 30. Would this be a typical Triple set up ? I know my old standard double used to be 52/42. I'm not particularly strong for pushing big gears so thinking would it be worth changing big ring to a 50 or 52, and not sure what if anything to change on the middle one. Current (inherited) cassette is 11/21, but thinking of changing to 11/25 or something like that. Suggestions ?

DirkVoodoo

If you have a triple setup then I would keep the cassette at as close ratios as possible. On a compact or double it makes sense to spread out the cassette to give you more usable gears, but with 3 chainrings up front this becomes slightly redundant. I would get something like a 12-25 or 12-23 if you can.

Maybe go for 52 up front then.

I think 52-39-30 is the modern standard triple gearing, for pink dress wearing old age pensioners (not my words!).

cdaly_

I'm running 52/42/30 with 11-28 on the back. You'll barely notice the difference between 53/52.

I used to grind 52/15 but these days I'm more likely to be spinning 42/14 or 15. I'm now finding the 3-tooth jumps in the lower gears a bit of an issue but I'm reluctant to change to an 11/21 and give up the option of a 30/28 for cycling up walls and stuff.

Lumen

LastGasp wrote: »

Funny coincidence. Coming home from work this evening, big "clunk" pushing off at the lights. Had a close look at Chainrings and the middle one is hooked to hell, and the big one is starting to go too ! Currently on 53, 39 (don't look Tunney) 30. Would this be a typical Triple set up ? I know my old standard double used to be 52/42. I'm not particularly strong for pushing big gears so thinking would it be worth changing big ring to a 50 or 52, and not sure what if anything to change on the middle one. Current (inherited) cassette is 11/21, but thinking of changing to 11/25 or something like that. Suggestions ?

13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21-23-25

Junior Ultegra cassette.

Nietzschean

cdaly_ wrote: »

I'm now finding the 3-tooth jumps in the lower gears a bit of an issue but I'm reluctant to change to an 11/21 and give up the option of a 30/28 for cycling up walls and stuff.

walls? where in commuter land* could you come across a situation of needing a 30 - 28? 11 - 28 has a massive spacing, 12 - 25 would probably be more useful...

* where anywhere with a road bike?

blorg

Nietzschean wrote: »

walls? where in commuter land* could you come across a situation of needing a 30 - 28? 11 - 28 has a massive spacing, 12 - 25 would probably be more useful...

* where anywhere with a road bike?

My own smallest gear is 30-27 but I certainly used this carrying 20kg of luggage on the back up the Pyrenees; indeed any tour I have used it. I would not even consider a touring bike without a triple. Makes a lot of sense for a commuter that is going to be carrying loads too, in fact you would have to invert the question and ask why you would even think of a double in that circumstance.

cdaly_

Nietzschean wrote: »

walls? where in commuter land* could you come across a situation of needing a 30 - 28?

Mostly nowhere. Except when doing circuits of Howth.






Some day, some day...

IM0

Nietzschean wrote: »

walls? where in commuter land* could you come across a situation of needing a 30 - 28? 11 - 28 has a massive spacing, 12 - 25 would probably be more useful...

* where anywhere with a road bike?

and this is also coming from the same guy who said there is *no* difference between a 53/52 :eek: put those two on an 11 and get back to me when you change your mind

blorg

I have 53 one one bike, 52 on another, there is very little difference. A tooth at the back makes far more of a difference.

kona

blorg wrote: »

I got this Ultegra 6603 chainset second hand for a decent price. I'm a bit concerned though by the wear on the big and middle rings, the middle in particular seems to have developed a definite sharp sort of tooth pattern. Also look on the back, I think you can see where the metal has been worn.

The granny ring seems fine.

It can sometimes be difficult to tell given the quite sophisticated shifting profiling.

What you reckon? OK? Replace the middle ring? Or you reckon I need to replace the bigger one too? Middle will not be too bad but the big one will work out expensive to the point of maybe not being worth it.

Shimano are using composites for their higher end cranksets, they seem to be made of cheese. Id price up a new set of chainrings. Bear in mind that work parts on a drivetrain will put more wear on the good parts.

blorg

kona wrote: »

Shimano are using composites for their higher end cranksets, they seem to be made of cheese. Id price up a new set of chainrings. Bear in mind that work parts on a drivetrain will put more wear on the good parts.

That's not actually true, Shimano don't use composites in any of their road cranks, it is alloy all the way. SRAM and Campagnolo use carbon on their higher end cranks.

Lumen

niceonetom

Did those cranks actually go into production Lumen? I remember something about shimano prototying carbon cranks but I didn't think they followed through with it... (stiffness being the problem IIRC).

Anyway, I suspect that Kona meant "composite" to mean alloy - only the most pathological weightweenies are mental enough to even consider making actual chainrings out of composite (by which I mean carbon fibre). Sram are the only ones who make chainrings out of cheese as far as I know...

Anyone care to volunteer an opinion as to roughly how long a normal alu chainring might be expected to last under normal Irish riding conditions? 10,000k? 20,000? More? I'm looking at mine suspiciously now...

Lumen

niceonetom wrote: »

Did those cranks actually go into production Lumen? I remember something about shimano prototying carbon cranks but I didn't think they followed through with it... (stiffness being the problem IIRC).

usually ships in 1-2 working days

niceonetom wrote: »

only the most pathological weightweenies are mental enough to even consider making actual chainrings out of composite (by which I mean carbon fibre).

Shimano XTR Chainset M970 From €317.51

"Market standard front shifting performance (when combined with a Shimano front derailleur) is taken even further by the precision molding and machining of the composite carbon fiber and titanium middle chainring"

niceonetom

Wow, didn't realise that carbon duraace actually made it to the market. Pricey for what seems like a bit of carbon wrap on a normal hollowtech crank.

And those xtr rings do have a bit of carbon on them, yes, but the teeth are Ti, so I'm not counting them. We are talking about wear here, so the teeth are what's at issue. I was talking about this sort of nonsense:



and I doubt Kona would be under the impression that shimano are making their chainrings like that. Surely.

Lumen

niceonetom wrote: »

Wow, didn't realise that carbon duraace actually made it to the market. Pricey for what seems like a bit of carbon wrap on a normal hollowtech crank.

They're doing the same with those CL wheels. The cranks are numbered 7800, so it may be a passing phase.

niceonetom wrote: »

I was talking about this sort of nonsense

Ah yes. You would have to be nuts.

niceonetom wrote: »

and I doubt Kona would be under the impression that shimano are making their chainrings like that. Surely.

One cannot know the mind of Kona.

blorg

The carbon DA cranks were never really marketed, they were absurdly expensive for absolutely no benefit. The middle chainring on my own MTB (Shimano XT) is composite with steel teeth. The idea there is actually to _increase_ durability while not adding weight; the outer and inner chainrings are alloy which will wear faster than the composite+steel combo (the middle is the most used ring.)

kona

blorg wrote: »

That's not actually true, Shimano don't use composites in any of their road cranks, it is alloy all the way. SRAM and Campagnolo use carbon on their higher end cranks.

Thats suprising, I assumed that they would for all you weight junkies , well they do on their XT and XTR and they seem to be poor.

kona

niceonetom wrote: »

Anyway, I suspect that Kona meant "composite" to mean alloy ..

I ment Non-metallic , I was basing it on the XT , XTR range, I went LX because of the bad reports of poor wear of the composite rings.

DirkVoodoo

It's a carbon ring with titanium teeth though?

kona

niceonetom wrote: »

and I doubt Kona would be under the impression that shimano are making their chainrings like that. Surely.

I should really multi quote

No, I didnt mean carbon or glass fibre, but as Ive said, when I was shopping around and comparing, Shimano said the Middle ring was composite, the reviews said that it was crap!

however, by composite I've no idea what they meant, or what it was made of:)

Lumen

Carbon fibre (in the usual sense of "carbon fibre reinforced plastic") is itself a composite.

Laminating one material on another also produces a composite.

Titanium on carbon fibre is therefore a composite of a composite. It's also a bit of a strange idea for chainring teeth since titanium wears out faster than steel.

Those carbon DA cranks look sexy though.

Yay, it's Friday.

blorg

The XTR middle chainring is carbon fibre with titanium teeth. The XT one is "composite" with steel teeth. AFAIK carbon fibre is a type of composite so I can only imagine this suggests the XT version is a cheaper type of composite, presumably not reinforced with carbon fibre.

Lumen wrote: »

Titanium on carbon fibre is therefore a composite of a composite. It's also a bit of a strange idea for chainring teeth since titanium wears out faster than steel.

But wears slower than alloy which is what chainrings are usually made of, and is lighter than steel. The carbon+ti combo is meant to increase durability over the previous alloy chainring.

kona

The funny thing is, in 10 years, with technology trickling down, just like disc brakes, BSO will have developed their own hollowtech.


****Shudders****


back on topic,

I was guessing that the "Composite" from shimano was a bit bogey, as if it was any use, they would state exactley what it was.

It all boild down to weight it seems, I wonder what they use to bond the Teeth to the body of the ring?

Lumen

kona wrote: »

I wonder what they use to bond the Teeth to the body of the ring?

Glue.

niceonetom

you see? I knew kona knew what he was talking about! They don't let just anybody work in halfords you know...