- 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. We send him off around the world to get all the news from launches and shows too. 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
- ubercurmudgeon 1 sec ago
I've had a couple of their bikes, and still got one. It'd be shame if it went under....
- KDee 21 min 2 sec ago
Have you seen the news about the new EU rule requiring each new home to have storage for 2 bikes? Think GCN reported it yesterday....
- chrisonabike 28 min 8 sec ago
A good point - cyclists are somewhere between pedestrians and motorcyclists (a few - electric motorcycles mainly, which are not legal) in terms of...
- David9694 53 min 14 sec ago
Retired policeman from Swanley fined after forgetting to display blue badge at free Bluewater car park...
- Rendel Harris 2 hours 41 min ago
Welcome - probably didn't show as they tagged it "not near miss of the day"?
- David9694 10 hours 1 min ago
Cambridgeshire boy, 13, crashes Audi into garden wall after taking it from home...
- Dogless 12 hours 4 min ago
You're defending bombing hospitals and refugee camps and starving children.
- mattw 14 hours 44 min ago
Used car salesman is a complete attention-seeking plank....
- tubasti 15 hours 1 min ago
I don't know if they're any better, but they's certainly become more boring.
- FionaJJ 15 hours 27 min ago
At risk of being cynical, and stereotyping the police, it's so they don't have to leave the comfort of their panda cars and pursue on foot when...
Add new comment
145 comments
ClubSmed, that's how multi chain rings have always worked, my ancient but lovely 3X7 XT seems to only have a range of 11 or 12 gears, and my 3X9 XTR maybe 14 or 15. Could be one of the reasons the 1X thing has taken off. I wish my next bike to have a Rohloff.
Doesn't chain length have something to do with this? When setting up the length of chain, Shimano say to set the chain on big big, without derailleur, the chain should be straight with a small V in a couple of links or straight and add a couple of links. If I were then to ride big big wouldn't my rear derailleur be very stretched out, almost horizontal, and in small small there is so much slack that the chain rubs on the chain on the jockey wheels. Less of an issue on doubles I guess.
Dude 12!
Actually sadly probably 8.
I'm a serial cross-chainer and masher (I blame BMX growing up). I never think about it and no one has ever pointed it out. Maybe the guys I ride with are too polite.
closer gear ratios, shorter mech cage, shorter chain
I often cross chain
It does not complicate it
noise does not bother
oh wait, wrong thread...
The most shocking revelation to me was my spelling of 'description'. Oh the shame.
Does anyone know any figures that show the loss of efficiency on cross chained? I suspect it's a lot less than shaving your arms.
My personal take is that cross chaining 'myths' come from back in the day when I started racing and a 6 speed cluster was a new, crazy boundary pushing idea. The chains then were much wider and stiffer in the sideways movement, and there werent' shaped teeth and you were more likely to get snagging and chain wear in cross chained. Nowadays with the narrower more mobile chains I'm pretty sure it's not a real issue. Campy and Shmano have nothing to lose by toeing the line of 'well, this has always been best advice' whereas SRAM with 1 x 12 has something to gain bygoing the other way. Both Campy and Shimano' s answers revolve entirely around the efficiency argument. I'd be really interested to know what the figures are on that.
The first question Jerome, is what is it 'lost' to? Heat? Deformation? wear of the mating surfaces? You are talking about force, and if it requires force to deform the chain to that extent, then yes you would lose Fsin(alpha), but your idea lacks acknowledgement of the chain's structure. The losses are orders of magnitude smaller than you suggest.
Why do manufacturers give you the option to do it if their kit won't stand up to it?
I'm running crumby Sram Apex (10 speed) and I've noticed there's a trim shift on the big chain ring but none on the small. Makes sense! Glad I read this piece, thanks.
Its interesting that the two companies with the smoothest, most precise chains and chainrings are not recommending cross-chaining. The two companies that don't manufacture as strict tolerances don't seem too concerned about it.
Personally I'd go with the Shimmy & Campy recommendations.
I know there is no exchange of energy if a force is applied but everything remains static (object placed on a table, magnet stuck to a piece of iron). But I also know by experience that my body does not work the same, and if I apply force on a wall, I loose energy and my arm fatigues even if the wall does not move. So even if the chain/sprocket deform elastically (or do not deform at all) and there is no heat dissipation, that F.sin(alpha) does not look to be completely free for my body.
That is a complete unkown to me, really, and I would be happy to see figures.
Spot on madacrew. Not for the first time, jerome has demonstrated that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. His F. sin alpha formula merely demonstrates that the first tooth on each cog experiences a sidways force of F.sin alpha. But this is a force, not a loss. It is friction on these two teeth controlling the direction change which cause the increased losses. To understand the loss, you need to multiple this force by the coefficient of friction between chain link and tooth, then multiply by the contact area as the chain disengages from the tooth. Not a trivial calculation because the tooth/chain area change is quite complex during disengagement. Nevertheless you can see that irrespective of Jerome’s force, if you get yourself a nice perfect ceramic, frictionless tooth, then the losses would be zero. For a practical chain/tooth combination, the losses would be very much less than F.sin alpha, unless of course you forget to lube the chain.
That is interesting. How are you measuring smoothness and precision? Have any measurements you'd care to share?
OMG I am dangerous
It is only dangerous if you thing that that amount of little knowledge is the full truth, which I never implied to have in that particular case.
I also noticed you reworded your comment to make it more correct, and in fact it is rather convincing till the final part that says "the losses would be very much less than F.sin alpha" that spoils a bit the demonstration.
However I suspect that, for the human body, applying a force always requires energy, even if that force produces no work. See my previous comment about pushing a wall. This is no more newtonian physic here, this is about what happens in the human body to produce the said force.
Has anyone done any definitive lab tests under controlled conditions? Shouldn't be too hard - just time-consuming and a tad expensive.
My personal opinion is that additional wear on the chain would not be significant. I rather suspect the main effect is greater wear on chainrings and sprockets with the angled chain rubbing more on the sides and edges of the teeth.
Too many uncontrolled, unmeasurable variables to use personal experience as evidence.
Cheers
Adrian
I've heard of only one study. It was mentioned on the CTC forum where a bloke who seems to know his stuff discredited it. I'll have a fish around later...
Oh, thanks.
Oh.
I note that even the position taken by Sheldon Brown (may he rest in peace) on cross-chaining has been revised. I wonder if to his original words "The worse the chainline, the worse the mechanical efficiency of the drive train" the sentence "though research has shown the loss to be minor, at least with modern, flexible chains" was added after his death.
I'm prepared to accept that increasingly skinny chains will flex more laterally without the world coming to an end, but as I say I'll put together some stuff on such research that I've read about on the other forum. It is an interesting topic, isn't it?
It is indeed, and one of those where embedded bias and experience and prejudice lead to entrenched positions. I'm happy my position that it doesn't really matter is spot on. Can I prove that? Nope
HMMMMmmmm, I'm now wondering how easy it would be to swap my wife for a new groupset. Maybe I could swap the kids for a set of Zipps.......
I should really swap over to single speed 53x11..........
chains are chains and putting them under unneeded stress will prematurely wear them. SRAM are shameless in taking this as an opportunity to market their front derailluers. Pros have a ready supply of high quality components and mechanics to replace them. I dont.
It is a stateement of the bleedin obvious that cross chaining should be avoided, butyit should not spell disasterif you ocassionally do it.
I used to be in a club where the old sweats would change onto the small ring in late October and not use the big ring again until the chainys started in spring. They'd spend all winter tutting at those that used the big ring and making gloomy prognostications about averaging faster than 16mph over 60 cold miles....
A bunch of us started going out in the big ring and blasting 40 mile intervals instead. It soon became a committee issue and we ended up leaving the club.
I run a compact these days so tend to use only a couple of cogs on the back anyway on most rides.
fascinating eh?
Eh? You're accusing the company at the forefront of 1x chainsets of shamelessly plugging front derailleurs? Think that one through.
It might be 'a statement of the bleedin obvious' and 'a chain' might indeed be 'a chain' but where's the actual argument? It's this kind of noddy 'common sense' that's leading me to think this pearl of wisdom is an old wives' tale. By how much does cross-chaining diminish your power or efficiency, or wear your gear out more quickly?
Besides, selling components that aren't up to abuse, then encouraging punters to abuse them, is a piss-poor business model in a competitive environment - especially when Shimano must have the lion's share of OEM components? If they really don't stand up to the wear they say they will, it'll spell the end of SRAM.
The alternative perspective might be to suggest that Shimano and Campag are encouraging punters not to subject their delicate componentry to some real world harshness.
As a bike mechanic I often see the results of cross chaining, the wear and tear is dreadfull. Absolutely every part is running at an angle and thus getting more strain and less efficiency. One other point I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that there is an overlap in the gears meaning there will be a more suitable and efficient gear in there somewhere so why do it?
Over 80 posts on cross chaining? Riding much this winter, people?
Y'know the Shimano shifters with indicators on?
Lots of snobbery against them, but I think they are/were a good idea. Not only did it prevent cross chaining (as it's easier for me to see something on the shifters in front of you than glancing down) but I found it useful to help newbies. Saying to keep the indicators in reasonably the same place on meant they didn't take their eyes off the road to figure out what gear they're in.
Always thought it was a shame they didn't install something similar in higher end groupsets. I still don't like looking back to check which gear I'm in.
Doom and gloom seem to be part and parcel of hobbies and various ways of practicing them. A couple of my other hobbies are photography and playing the guitar. Fuck me, there's some pedantic bastards in the photo world. I remember being one of the first to get a proper digital SLR and for a few years the die-hard film lot mumbled on about inferior quality etc. A few years later they'd joined the gang except they mumbled on about anyone who didn't have the latest cutting edge DSLR and your gear was more important than your pictures.
Same with guitars. You can't play this style with that neck or those humbcuckers or that amp. No shredding on Jaguar please, don't use a digital effects pedal, don't self teach, always get a teacher.
Same with cycling.
Yeah, people have mentioned it. And it's not as if cross-chainers (myself included) prefer cross-chaining: it's more that if it's one shift to do it for a while, to get over a short ramp or whatever, or fish around with 4 shifts, it'll do. So that's why it's done - sometimes it's just more convenient and momentum-maintaining.
Even if that more efficient ratio is available - how much more efficient are we talking? My bet would be you lose jack-all through cross-chaining.
What additional wear and tear is obviously attributable to cross-chaining?
Frequently on the big-big on my road bike (50x32) but never small-small and it seems that Shimano are inviting me to cross-chain that with the half-click on the front derailleur.
Occasionally big-big on MTB (44x32) if I know the hill is short but less often because the triple chainring means there's more potential for wear on the front derailleur cage
Big-big. Often, especially when climbing in the big ring (52) and you need to get over the top and not lose speed.
Small-small. Never, unless I forget.
Right, so I think I have got it now.
This is the synopsis of what I think I have learnt from this:
Do I have this right?
Pages