- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
feature
crosschain.jpgIs cross-chaining disastrous? Find out what the manufacturers say
Generations of cyclists have known that cross-chaining is A Bad Thing. It's one of those rules you get taught very early on. Ride with the chain on the small chainring (on the chainset, the component your pedals are attached to) and the smallest sprocket on the cassette (the cluster of cogs attached to the hub of the rear wheel) – as in fig 1 above – or on the large chainring and the largest sprocket – as in fig 2 – and anyone you're riding with is likely to alert you to the fact in seconds. People love to point it out.
But is cross-chaining really all that bad, or does it just get a bad rap? We asked some of the biggest component manufacturers for their views. You might be surprised at some of the things they said.
Read more: When should I replace my chain?
Shimano
The most efficient chain line occurs when the chain is running in a straight line. This minimises friction. When you run big-big you're pushing an uneven power transmission to the rollers, plates and bushings, especially at the points where the chain line alters (the points where the chain meets the sprocket and the chainring). This uneven load causes extra friction which increases the wear on the chain and longer term leads to less than optimum gear shifting.
For these reasons Shimano recommends avoiding extreme gear positions.
Ben Hillsdon, PR Officer, Shimano Europe
Shimano says you should avoid running the chain in this big-big combination (above).
Campagnolo
Cross-chaining is a practice to be avoided as it is less efficient than a straighter chainline (increased friction, less free motion of links etc).
We all might find ourselves cross-chaining during the heat of the battle during a race. However, we shouldn't make a habit out of it as there is generally a similar metric development gearing position available on a larger/smaller chainring.
Extreme chain crossing can add wear and tear on chainring and cassette teeth as the severe angle of the chain brings the external or internal part of the chain in direct contact with chainring/cassette teeth as opposed to a straight chainline which keeps friction to a minimum and limits contact to the rollers located on the axles of each chainlink.
Joshua Riddle, Press Manager, Campagnolo
Read our guide to understanding gears.
SRAM
At SRAM we love big-big. Amongst mechanics on the NORBA and Mountain Bike World Cup circuit (many years ago!), we called big-big the 'pro gear’, because professionals would ride it all the time, no matter what their mechanics told them. The same applies to pro road racers. They'll stay on the big ring as long as possible.
There are very good reasons to stay on the big chainring, even as far as the big sprocket:
• Chain management on rough terrain.
• Access to tallest gears without have to shift in front.
• Front shifts are slower than rear and much harder on the chain.
So we would encourage your readers to ride big-big if they like, as long as they don’t experience chain rasp on the front derailleur cage. SRAM 2x11 drivetrains, specifically the Yaw front derailleurs, are designed to accommodate this.
Very little efficiency is lost when cross-chaining. And in the case of big-big, minuscule efficiencies lost to cross-chaining are offset by efficiency gained because of larger bend radii for the chain. Better chain management and easier access to tall gears certainly outweigh any efficiency loss.
A few words on efficiency measurements. There are enormous differences between the efficiency measured on a loaded drivetrain and an unloaded drivetrain (what your hand feels when spinning the crank on a bike in a workstand). The sluggishness that cross chaining sometimes appears to cause on a bike in the stand disappears when the drivetrain is under load. It’s analogous to lubes in loaded and unloaded mechanical systems. Light oil generally feels better than heavy grease when a system is worked by hand, but when the system is loaded the heavier lube will be more efficient.
Similarly, cross-chaining is not a concern for premature component wear unless of course your chain is wearing through your front derailleur.
JP McCarthy, Road Product Manager, SRAM
Check out our beginner's guide to groupsets here.
FSA
In the last decade cross-chaining has become increasingly common with many people running the chain in the big chainring and big sprocket, especially with the advent of electronics which is much more permissive regarding cross-chaining.
This means that today's chains are subjected to much higher stresses than in the past. That’s why we decided to invest in the development of much stronger chains.
We have a stable supply of raw materials allowing us always to offer a product with a very high level of reliability and performance.
Here at FSA we understand well the importance of cross-chaining. Our latest introduction in this field is the 48/32 Adventure chainset. This is a new super compact standard that allows combination like 48/21 – 48/18. It’s a possible solution to avoid crossing because the chain works more linearly.
We will have this new range of chainsets available in 2017, from the carbon SL-K to our entry level Vero Pro.
Maurizio Bellin, General Manager, FSA
There's a range of views from the big brands, then; what do you think? Is cross-chaining perfectly acceptable? Or do you avoid it because of greater inefficiency and component wear and a higher chance of dropping your chain? Let us know your thoughts and experiences.
Mat has been in cycling media since 1996, on titles including BikeRadar, Total Bike, Total Mountain Bike, What Mountain Bike and Mountain Biking UK, and he has been editor of 220 Triathlon and Cycling Plus. Mat has been road.cc technical editor for over a decade, testing bikes, fettling the latest kit, and trying out the most up-to-the-minute clothing. He has won his category in Ironman UK 70.3 and finished on the podium in both marathons he has run. Mat is a Cambridge graduate who did a post-grad in magazine journalism, and he is a winner of the Cycling Media Award for Specialist Online Writer. Now over 50, he's riding road and gravel bikes most days for fun and fitness rather than training for competitions.
Latest Comments
- FionaJJ 11 min 51 sec ago
ICE cars are getting heavier, increasing the particulate pollution from them too....
- David9694 52 min 51 sec ago
I like how drivers make the case for making monitoring covert, not overt.
- andystow 1 hour 5 min ago
She seemed a bit upset about a minor misjudgement that could have killed someone and is going to cause months of stress and inconvenience.
- Backladder 1 hour 10 min ago
No we don't agree, personally I would take primary, even if only for a short period although I can understand why some riders might not want to...
- brooksby 1 hour 32 min ago
And which looks very like the bag produced by indy bag manufacturer Wizard Works…...
- HoarseMann 1 hour 43 min ago
If it was a 'no vehicles' sign (all white circle centre), it would mean cyclists could ride in the hours that HGVs and disabled drivers are allowed...
- stonojnr 3 hours 13 min ago
The bit at the start and end looks like a cycle lane, but the bit they drive on looks just like a patched filter lane for traffic lights.
- JOHN5880 3 hours 13 min ago
Hey, you 4 execs helped run a company into the ground and have no jobs anymore... Come work for us because you have great experience in the...
- Oakhambike 3 hours 58 min ago
£11.5k for a bike weighing over 8kg that's 2 fingers to customers let alone UCI
- Dnnnnnn 4 hours 13 min ago
I'm going to show my bike a picture of this shed and tell it, "If you don't behave..."
Add new comment
145 comments
I use 50/32 alot, NEVER had a problem with it, and ask my friends I do it alot! And here in Belgium there are alot of hills that are to short to use the 34. Also i've read is that big/big sprockets are more efficient and u loose less energy.
Also it's weird that Shimano says this, because the DI2 front derailleur auto-adjust when u go the bigger sprockets on the rear cassette.
Don't forget that there is alot of development that went in to cycling, those rules are from when triples still where used alot (and those sucked when u cross-chained), alot of compontents are alot stronger now.
Sure enough SRAM say nothing about gear wear in cross chaining, only that the "pros do it".
But "the pros" do not have to pay for their gear (which gets replaced regularly for free), they only have to win the race.
So Shimano and Campagnolo give the correct answer to the question and SRAM are just telling half truths. Besides, they profit all the more so if your gear needs to be replaced sooner rather than later.
Exactly...
Other people can cross chain if they want, I don't care. But it puts additional stresses on everything and wears everything out faster and there's no need if you use your gears properly.
Exactly!
What is a small chainring?
Bit binary and simplistic, this.
What the 'pros' also do is fret about watts and not wasting them. You'd think they'd weed out anything that would needlessly burn energy, so presumably they cross chain because they just love the noise it makes?
So then we have component wear. They wear out at some point due to myriad causes. Are the cross-chain naysayers also the people who take hours on their components and their degreasing, meticulously lubing, placing in dissolved wax etc etc? Do components reach immortality via this fannying about? Conversely, are modern chains so fragile that, under less-than-perfect alignment, they become as delicate as a 'snowflake' in the face of a Shane Sutton caveman boogie? No - they are going to wear out, regardless. Prepare for it.
It isn't only pros who can afford to give their drivetrain a tough time, and some people are into cycling more for the actual 'riding', and less for the garden shed geekery over things that cost beer money.
The SRAM guy is a product manager and we have marketing and PR wonks from Campag and Shimano. As far as speaking half-truths goes, who's more likely to know their shit, and who's more likely to be toeing a party line or dishing out the kool-aid? Which two had the least technical attempts at responses?
I'm on board with the SRAM response because it seems more in keeping with 'just ride your bike' rather than some of the usual onanism that occurs on here over some fucking cogs. Each to their own.
I really would like to see an experiment to see exactly how much wear and tear 'misuse' really results in. Probably way less than the doomsayers make out. The way some people carry on you'd think chainrings were made of balsa wood and chains were sandpaper.
If I'm commuting - especially this time of year - then the bike stops, I open the garage door, in it goes and maybe I'll clean things at the weekend. No way I am getting bucket of soapy water out at -1. Dirty chain it is.
I changed from Shimano to SRAM recently, for reasons I can't quite remember, but the lack of sensitivity to cross chaining has been the biggest positive, and to a suprising extent.
So much so I changed my wife over to SRAM, and it's made a huge difference to her. She was constantly struggling with her standard cadence crossing the normal change over point. Not being a dedicated cyclist, she found the whole cross chaining conversation bonkers, and a pain. Now sorted.
Sure, take it easy now.
Maybe that's it: one company makes components to survive real world usage and stands behind them; the others seek to influence riding style through marketing in order to preserve their tinfoil crap.
I don't have any SRAM kit. At all. I have one full Campag (Record) and three Shimano bikes. Suspect that'll change soonish.
Disagreeing with you ≠ losing it.
IMO the 50/34T compact chainset is largely to blame - folks want to make x1 shift but instead have to make x4 in order to match cadence and as a result are reluctant to shift into the smaller ring.
Fair enough, each to their own!
This is a new departure for SRAM, 10-speed or 11 speed wife?
I always thought, and still think, that if the chain is doing an angle alpha relative to being straight, and you apply a force F to the pedal, then F*sin(alpha) is "lost", well, more properly said does not contribute to the foward movement. Is it neglectible compared to other sources or inefficiency?
Did not learn much with that article.
Onanism indeed. I cross chain sometimes, but quite frankly who cares. I run compact+11-28 or compact+11-32 (depending on whether I think I might encounter some mountains), both di2 and mechanical. The drivetrain is there to make me go forward when I pedal. Don't care what it's doing really, any possible friction losses or slight extra wear on the chain are lost in the noise of day-to-day variations of riding anyhow. I look forward to someone calling me out for it, so I can call them out for being a nobend.
If the tendency is to cross chain in the big-big because most people like to stay in the big ring up front, why not shift the crankset further inboard so it's mostly a 1x plus granny? Or as someone else who used the term said, a 1x plus climbing.
This would also help the chain life by making the chainline straighter in the smaller ring and lower gears which is when the chain tension is going to be that much greater because of the extra leverage from a smaller ring.
If someone is barely ever in the highest gear, this also decreases the wear on the chain even when in the big ring.
I think that ideally, the big ring would be best aligned so it was a straight chainline to the median used cog in back. And I doubt that current chainline setup is optimized this way. As with everything, it really depends on the rider, their riding (terrain and style), and their selection of gears.
The drawback/feature is that it may prevent cross chaining from small to small since the chain might rub up against the big ring, and possibly try to shift up to it depending on the shift ramps and other features built into that ring.
Obviously, the same goes for the smaller ring, but since there is a set distance between the two rings, one should probably choose the ring that is used the most. Actually choose the ring that is used the most, but biased towards the smaller ring by bigTeeth/smallTeeth because of the greater chain tension again. I'm sure there are ways to optimize this even more (such as using time average force in each gear), but I'm not thinking well right now...
I dig your happy go lucky approach.
Well I'm bringing up the next generation not to cross chain. The little one has a 24 " wheel drop bar bike with front and rear derailleurs ( why did I agree to fit the front one I don't know) and between the length of the front cage and the short chain stays cross chaining is so noisy even she has twigged it's not a good idea
totally. The rot set in when 52/42 went out of fashion.
"Similarly, cross-chaining is not a concern for premature component wear unless of course your chain is wearing through your front derailleur."
The SRAM guy is probably right, SRAM chains are by far the poorest quality and have such short lifespan that it probably makes no difference for an SRAM chain.
I cross chain on my commuter with great regularity. 50/30 or 50/32 being the default gearing for the last third of my morning commute.
I have done this for at least 7 years since first getting a compact setup.
Do I go through drive train components faster than on my other bikes?
Yes, but it's probably as a function of a less frequent and rigourous cleaning regime on my commuter and the fact that it rides every day regardless of the weather. I get 1500- 2000 miles to a chain and 5-6000 to a cassette.
But why cross chain anyway ? The ratios are duplicated elsewhere in the gears anyway so there's really no need.
I only do it by accident - I'd not do it intentionally.
Just out of interest, how do I work out the ratios so that I can figure out where on the rear cassette I should be moving down to the little ring/ moving up to the big ring?
I have a spreadsheet somewhere, and there are a number of online gear calculators available, but here is just one I use:
http://cycleseven.org/bicycle-gear-inch-calculator
It's worth taking a few minutes to jot down the figures for your particuar bike(s).
Thanks for this, I have just done the calculations and I am shocked at the amount of duplication that there is on my 53/39 11-32 11 speed set up
Presumably bikes with longer chainstays are less affected by cross-chaining? It's surprising none of them mentioned that. Mine are reasonably long as my frame is based on a CX design.
That said, I tend to cross chain less than I used to. I try to use the little ring if I want to drop below big ring and 3rd biggest sprocket. I don't think I've ever used big ring - biggest sprocket. That does seem a bit wrong. Apparently there is a small wattage expense for extreme cross training. But I do get what peeps are saying about keeping it going in the big ring on short climbs.
I stopped smoking nearly forty years ago, so I don't have an actual fag packet to work it out on the back of, but here's the set up on my 'jazzy' bike:
When I'm on the big ring I go up the cassette as high as the 21T sprocket to find my preferred gear range, which on this bike is 62.8 inches in old money. Even here there is a degree of cross-chaining going on.
If I go barmy I could go to the 24(?)T sprocket to get a 55.0 gear (but why bother? I can do a double shift - crikey, these days even out of the saddle - and get a gear 10" below with far less chain deflection).
Going any higher up the cassette whilst on the big ring - initially to get a gear of 50.7" - would make me a silly sausage: on the 34T chain ring I have 52.8 & 47.2 either side of the centre of the cassette.
To go big-big I will get a 44.0" gear, but on the 34T chain ring I have 42.7 & 37.4 right where they're meant to be and almost perfectly aligned.
So, no, I don't cross-chain. Er, well, not if I can avoid it.
"At SRAM we love big-big. Amongst mechanics on the NORBA and Mountain Bike World Cup circuit (many years ago!), we called big-big the 'pro gear’, because professionals would ride it all the time, no matter what their mechanics told them." - JP McCarthy, Road Product Manager, SRAM.
Well given that the silly buggers you work for don't seem to make triple chainsets I hope you'll forgive me for not being swayed by this, JP
Gear calculator.JPG
@woldsman: that's an excellent discription of what you do and don't do, but less satisfactory is the why. You're not on your own there.
I don't think anyone's saying they cross-chain for the sake or love of it. The two camps seem to be 'I avoid cross-chaining' and 'I don't avoid cross-chaining - so what?'.
It's not as if cycling's received wisdom isn't thrown out of the window every now and then (fatter, lower pressure tyres being a recent rewriting of it), so just saying something's a bad idea doesn't float, in these days of easy measurement.
If you avoid cross-chaining: why?
I have to admit to being completely unaware of the cross chain rule and have learnt a lot from this thread.
The most shocking revelation to me was the amount of cross over between the small cog and big cog.
So I would pose the question: If crossing your chain is not a bad thing why is there such a large amount of duplication between the small cog and big cog?
Pages