Chainstay philosophy?

[old_school]

Truly excellent stuff, Dave (and Obtuse) ... really made me rethink things.

Extended a bit, this also helps to explain the thought behind the Terraplane system (if I am not mistaken) - straight round chainstays/bend seatstays.

That funky looking rear triangle is suddenly looking a lot more attractive to my old bones and young heart.

[dreadpiratetim]

Dave - I think you just pushed my next bike from Ti to Steel.

Obtuse - I think I get what you're saying about the dropouts, but wouldn't some of your concern be alleviated by the axle? Essentially the rear hub (with axle) makes a triangle out of the rear end. Or not. Can someone please educate me here?

Thanks, in advance!

[David Kirk]

You are correct in that the rear axle completes the triangle but unfortunately the axles, and more importantly their interface with the dropouts, is pretty wimpy. The 10mm axle standard should go away but I doubt that will happen anytime soon.

If the rear axle was say 20mm in diameter, you could make a very light, very stiff set up.

Dave

[saab2000]

Originally Posted by David Kirk

The 10mm axle standard should go away but I doubt that will happen anytime soon.

I don't know much about this standard, but I think the traditional BB standard should go away too. Cannnondale and Specialized have a larger standard. It seems to me that the new outboard BB bearings and the associated crank designs are full of compromises forced on the component manufacturers to work around a standard size BB shell which came into existence 50 or more years ago.

Thoughts on that too?

Anyway, this is a very interesting topic. I have also always been told that stiffness comes from the downtube. It is interesting to hear other thoughts on that. This is the reason this is such a good forum. Keep it coming!!

[michael white]

I'm not sure I ever equated dt stiffness with drivetrain stiffness.

I have a match Paramount with a big-*** downtube, and slightly bent stays, and the feeling is that there's some flex in the fork and rear end, but the wheels are connected in line. As opposed to some bikes with more of a hinge in the middle. Now, were I to get David or someone to build a custom, I doubt I would specify big oversize tubes like that; enough is enough. But it's not really a bad thing, either.

I think the better builders were always wise to the issue of drive-train stiffness (or "snap"). Many would substitute SP chainstays (and dt) on Columbus frames built for competitive riders, who never cared much about weight in those days.

[mso]

Do the oversized chainstays cause (contribute) to the stiffness that gives a bike that "Pocket Rocket" out of gate fast acceleration be it for real or a feel?

[Louis]

All this talk about changing standards bothers me.

Considering how little coordination there is between the various players in this game I suspect that changing "the standard" will actually mean no standard, with everyone going their own way 1) as a marketing gimmick so they can claim that theirs is better than the other guy's and 2) so the user (that's us) is locked in to a particular system with no other options. All of this to shave a few more grams (and a very small percentage of the entire system's weight).

Louis

[Tom Kellogg]

Originally Posted by David Kirk

Hey,

This is a favorite subject of mine.

I'll say up front that I have no idea what bike you might like best. I'll leave that alone.

First I'll say something that you won't hear from many builders.......curving or bending the stays into any configuration other than straight will make the stays flex more. There are very few absolutes in life but this is one of them. Curved stays flex more than the equivalent stay without the bend. They won't flex a lot more......just a little. It depends on the type of bend and the degree of bend. One thing is for sure, the bent stay can never be stiffer due to it's bend. The biggest reason to bend a stay is to allow for better clearances with tire and chainring. This is a bigger deal on mountain bikes than road but true nonetheless.

In any given material, stay diameter is the biggest factor in determining the stiffness. The bigger the diameter, the stiffer the stay. The problem is that if you make the stay bigger in diameter you run into clearance issues with both the chainrings and tire. So..... most stays are about the same in this regard. One can use huge stays (Big Leg Emma) but then you need big, deep dents to allow for the clearance room and the dents go a long way to negating the gains in stiffness made by the larger diameter stay.

There is a current trend in frame design to control BB flex with a big-arse downtube. This may feel like a good thing at first and it will certainly help with front derailer rub but in the end it does not make for a stiffer bottom bracket. It's often overlooked but it's the chainstays that make the drivetrain stiff. A big downtube might be good for other reasons but it doesn't do squat to make for a stiff drivetrain. A Slingshot frame is a great example of this. It's simple when you think of it. The energy goes into the frame at the BB and goes to the rear wheel.........and the only thing between the BB and the wheel is the chainstays. This is one of the big issues in designing a good Ti bike for a big or heavy rider. Titanium is much more flexible than steel. The way to make it as stiff as steel is to make the diameter much larger. But this has it's own clearance issues. So they make the stays oval (making them stiff in the vertical direction and soft laterally.......not ideal) or they put in huge dents which has it's own issues. So most Ti builders compensate for the wimpy stays with a huge downtube. And like I stated above this has little effect on true drivetrain stiffness. This is one of the reasons that many larger folks feel that Ti bikes don't have the snap they are looking for and why it's fallen out of favor with many racers.

When pedaling a bike out of the saddle chainstays are asked to do a number of different things. They undergo compression which is easy for almost any stay design to deal with as the loads are low. They undergo a torsional (twisting) load which most stays deal with fairly well regardless of shape. Larger diameter helps a good bit with the torsion. The other thing that happens to stays is that they see a lateral bending load as the BB is pushed from one side to the other. This is where ovalized stays can get in trouble. An oval tube has a major diameter and a minor diameter. There is a pretty good rule of thumb that addresses how an oval tube will flex compared to a round tube. The oval tube will flex about the same as a round tube that has the same diameter as either the major or minor diameters of the oval. In other words if you have an oval tube that is 30mm by 17mm in cross section it will flex about the same as a 30mm round tube in one direction and about the same as a 17mm tube in the other direction. So if you think of oval chainstays you in effect get the lateral stiffness of a rather small round tube.

For all the above reason I feel that a round stay is best. You get the most bang for the buck in ever direction. You get good clearances with minimal denting and you get a nice stiff stay and drivetrain.

Wow............that's more writing than I thought it would be. Thanks for sticking with me.

Dave

Dave:

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!

For years, I have taught young builders, others in the industry and even competitors exactly what you bring up here. Some got it but most just kept at the down tube fixation. Granted, the down tube can offer a bit of lateral stiffness, but only from the bottom third of it’s length. (Headset bearings do not make much of a fixing point). Yes, down tubes can also offer some torsional help, but they are not very well fixed at their upper end.

Chain stays, on the other hand are oriented exactly in plane with a “fixed” structural member (the rear axle). They tend to be relatively short as well, plus there are two of them. What a gift! If one is looking for the ultimate in mechanical efficiency, a straight chain stay is ideal. “The shortest distance between two points is a straight line” and a longer stay is going to be more flexible.

As noted, clearances are almost always an issue here though. Joe Breeze used to call chain stays the most dimensionally challenged tubes in a frame. That is what he was talking about. You have to fit the chain stay between the tire and a chain ring somehow. The wider the tube section you can get in there, the better.

As others have noted, there have been a number of ways to squeeze things in there over the years. Currently, most manufacturers use some sort of combination of artful bending and ovalizing or dimpling. When Shimano and eventually Campy went from 8 to 9 speed, the front chain lines went outboard, giving us a few more mm to work with. Since then, it has been much easier to use less of whatever clearance technique we were using back in the day. Merlin’s 7/8" stays used to have that curve just behind the chain rings for just that reason. When nine speed chain lines became standard, we switched to straight stays since we had no need to bend them any more.

Now, with one inch stays, Merlin and we have taken two somewhat different approaches. Because our frames are all custom, and we know what cranks, rings, tires, etc. each of our customers might be using, we leave our stays straight and dimple only as much as we need to, but no more. Merlin, on the other hand has to satisfy a “stock market.” (Mostly) They do the curving and dimpling thing so that their owners can use Campy 44 tooth rings with large 25mm tires. They also concern themselves with the occasional size 46 foot.

Obtuse: Yes, Yes! Rear dropouts are just as much part of the structure. That space between the rear end of a chain stay and the rear axle is very important. Trying to save weight or look cool in there is counter productive.

You guys have no idea how happy this thread has made me this Sunday afternoon. Now, I am off to do two hours on the trainer ... Well, you can’t have everything on a Sunday afternoon, huh?

[Ray]

Originally Posted by Tom Kellogg

Chain stays....<snip>....there are two of them. What a gift!

Give Cannondale a couple of years. Then we'll have a "lefty". Can't wait to hear about all of the benefits!

-Ray

[old_school]

Originally Posted by Tom Kellogg

Joe Breeze used to call chain stays the most dimensionally challenged tubes in a frame.

Joe Breeze's Breezer Lightning circa early/mid 90s

Very cool stuff ... thanks again to all.

[dirtdigger88]

I Dave-

jason

[David Kirk]

Originally Posted by dirtdigger88

I Dave-

jason

That's creepy........have you forgotten about the restraining order?

Dave

[Archibald]

Originally Posted by David Kirk

You are correct in that the rear axle completes the triangle but unfortunately the axles, and more importantly their interface with the dropouts, is pretty wimpy. The 10mm axle standard should go away but I doubt that will happen anytime soon.

If the rear axle was say 20mm in diameter, you could make a very light, very stiff set up.

Dave

Exactly. That rear axle is held in the dropouts by the equivalent of of one 5mm screw. Bolted axles make a huge difference in rear end rigidity. Another reason why Phil hubs are so cool.

[abqhudson]

I repeat - this is a great forum.

Jim

[Archibald]

gradient butted, optimized shaping, tire clearance, heel clearance, and stiffness. You can have it all.