Help! Chain/tire rub problem with my Susie build

[David Wadstrup]

Hello,

I've been building my Susie over the past couple of days, and just discovered I've got an issue with the chain rubbing the rear tire when I'm in the lowest gear.  It's a Shimano 2x12 drivetrain, and seeing as it's not a square taper BB, and has more than 9 speeds, I'm out of my league.  The tire is a 2.6 Teravail.  Does anyone have experience with this kind of problem?  

The only real solution I can think of is to add a 2.5mm spacer to the BB's drive side.  The chain just ever so slightly touches the tire now, and so I'm hoping that moving the chainrings out 2.5mm will be enough to solve the problem.  BUT.... 

A part of me wonders whether this is advisable.  Will my shifting be compromised due to altering the chainline of the crank?  Will widening the space between the BB's cups harm the BB due to lessening the thread engagement?  Will it harm the cranks for the same reason? Is this solution more of a problem than the rubbing problem? 

What about other solutions?  Does anyone have any advice?  This is driving me crazy, and I'd really love to hear any and all suggestions!

Thank you!

[Mark Roland]

Sorry to hear you are having this problem. I had heard that running the full 2.8" tire can cause this, but bummed to hear it with the 2.6, which I was hoping would let me avoid the issue (also planning on Teravail--Honchos?).

I can't really give specific advice, but I will be following this thread, as I plan to run a triple up front, 8 speed cassette. I guess we'll see, but would be nice  if the prototypes could be tweaked to avoid this, if the bike is advertised for 2.8" tires. I do think with the modern 9-10-11 speed skinny and flexible chains, dead nuts chainline is not so much of an issue. Maybe I'll do 8 of 10 and leave some spacers on the high end--would get the flexy chain with that solution too. People do seem to worry about q factor, which will take a small hit with your various solutions.

[aeroperf]

You say it’s not square taper.  Is it Hollowtech II?  In that case, you may have a road bike BB/crank where a mountain BB/crank might be required.
Rivs tend to come with a 68mm bottom bracket shell (the road standard), but have a 135mm rear dropout width (an older mountain bike standard).  The chainline is not 45mm as specified for “road”, but 47.5mm.  So inner rings on a road crank tend to be close to the frame.  With square taper BB you buy a slightly wider bottom bracket.  With Hollowtech II you get a mountain BB and adjust the left/right position with shims.  The front cranks come in two specific widths, so you have to run a mountain crank with a mountain BB.

I ride a Sam, so I’m not familiar with the Suzie.  But with a derailleur shifting system, “chainline” is a flexible concept.  Try to find out the distance from the bike’s center to between gears 6 & 7 of your rear cluster, and adjust the front to that.

After that, rubbing means your tires may be too big.  Hope this helps.

[David Wadstrup]

Thanks, Mark,

Yes, you’re right, they’re the 2.6 Honchos. Dropping down a size in the back(2.4?) will probably be the easiest, most effective solution. It’s not something I really want to do, though, so I’m going to hold out for another fixe that might present itself.

I’ll keep you posted as it sounds like you might come up against the same.

[David Wadstrup]

Thanks, aeroperf,

Yes, Hollowtech II. The BB and crank are definitely both mountain — a part of their XT lineup. And the Susie’s shell is actually 73mm. Apparently, the XT cranks give a 48.8 chainline.

Extra shims were included with the BB, but I figured they were there for the use with a 68 shell. What do you think... would adding one to the drive side have any negative repurcussions?

[Joe Bernard]

My experience with outboard bearings is limited but that's probably going to be a widespread situation on this board soooo...

I would say put the spacer on and screw that baby in there and see how much thread it looks like you engaged. You'll know if it seems like it's got a pretty good purchase or dangling off the end. In my limited opinion!

[Ed Carolipio]

On the 73mm bb shell, only one 2.5mm spacer should be installed on the drive side. The non-drive side should just be flush with the shell - see page 11: 

https://si.shimano.com/pdfs/dm/DM-TRFC001-01-ENG.pdf 

(The 1.8mm in the diagram is for bb-mounted bracket, hence the 0.7mm spacer to make up the 2.5mm gap.) Hope that fixes the problem.

--Ed C.

[Garth]

David, Of course I don't know your specific cassette or ring combo or anything about what gears you ride.

That said, As an option to widening your front chainrings, which only increases the chain angle and friction, you can lessen your cassette cog number by one. If like me, you have no use for a 11 or 12 tooth small cog, take it off, measure it's width, and place a spacer of that width not where it used to be, but in the last position, nearest the spokes where your largest cog would be. Torque down the cassette as usual. A serrated cog is not necessary, proper torque is. Off the top of my head I believe I used a 3.5mm spacer. Familiarize yourself with how many turns it takes a lockring to bottom out without a cassette, it's depth. That helps to ensure the cassette is snug without bottoming out the lockring. 

[David Wadstrup]

Good morning.

Thanks, Joe.  I think that's what it's going to come to.  I'd bet it'd be ok. I just know know whether it'll move the chainline out far enough, and whether it would impact shifting.  Moving the crank out 2.5 will likely only buy me about 1.7 or so at the chain/tire point of contact. And I'm betting shifting would be impacted.

Thanks, Ed.  I really appreciate you taking the time to look into Shimano's specs. Thank you!  The set up you describe is exactly how I have it set up now.  I've got one 2.5mm spacer on the drive side and none on the other.  I'm wondering... what would putting a second 2.5 spacer on the drive side do?  Would it solve the problem or create more problems?  My hunch is it would create more problems.

Thanks, Garth.  Swapping a rear cog out for an inboard spacer is a solution I read about last night.  I am like you, and don't have a great need for that tiny little cog.  But, I'm reluctant to take this course of action.  Like most people here, I strive for a degree of simplicity and an avoidance of over complication in my bikes.  But with this particular build I've decided to embrace whole hog Shimano's current 12 speed, super complicated technology.  I figured it'd be interesting, at least.  Because of this, I wouldn't be super excited about modifying their parts and loosing a cog to make something work that doesn't work.  I think I'd rather(though very reluctantly) just choose a narrower rear tire.  But I sincerely do appreciate the suggestion and hope to hear more.

I can't thank you all enough!

[Garth]

  Yeah David I'm with you on a not so wide tire as they have their own quirks as you've found out. I was all set on getting a 2.6 tire for my Susie at first, then realized I'll be riding it on pavement a whole lot more that off so I settled on a Vittoria Mezcal 2.25 as more than good enough for now. Those tires run if anything to spec or larger.

[David Wadstrup]

This might be too much information, but for those who are curious, I just measured for chainline on the Susie.  Shimano's claim of a 48.8 chainline on its 2x12 crank is spot on -- I measured 48.7.  The measurement in back, however, turned out to be approx. 41.5.  That's a touch over a 7mm differential from front to back.  From what I've gathered on the internet just now, a differential in mtb drivetrains is to be expected.  But, I also gathered that 7mm isn't a small differential, and that extra wear and noise may result(still waiting on my FD before I can install the chain and test it out.)  Sooooo, it seems moving the chainrings outboard to get the chain to clear the tire isn't going to work -- it'll increase the already sizable differential.  Looks like a narrower tire is in order.  I'll continue the build as is and see how it all works while riding and not just in the stand.  Hopefully the rub will either disappear or not be such a big deal.  If it doesn't disappear and it does turn out to be an issue, I'll just buy a new narrower, 2.4 version of the Honcho and sell the spare 2.6 I'll have.  That should move the drive-side side of the rear tire inboard about 2.5mm, which should be enough.

Anyways, keep the suggestions on fixes coming, and let me know if none of this makes any sense.

Thanks again!

[David Wadstrup]

Oh... two other things of note....

1) my 2.6" Honchos measure 2.55" on Cliffhangers when inflated to 20psi.

2) regarding that differential... the Susie's beautifully long chainstays will help mitigate any issues, I would think and hope.  The longer the stays the straighter the chain, right?

[kim young]

Hi David.

I was wondering with the long stays and chain if there isn’t going to be a lot of chain flop when I go off-road?

I wasn’t planning on going bigger then 2.5 when I ordered, but I had wondered about chain grab. I  was going to use a shark tooth anyway, just in case.

—-I had asked about the options if I ever wanted to go wider re: how to build for that, grant sent me this info:

The standard thing-to-do is to use the 2.5 on drive side. We haven't set up a ShimanoBranded crank, but the Silver 2pc is made to the same std as Shimano. We've had 2.Eights Teravail tires with single rings, and Silver normal triples and the chain barely clears the tire (I've ridden it in low gear). So a 2.6 should be better. But still, a single ring will have more clearance.

The thing is, the close chain is a problem only on bumpy downhills, when you climb in low and forget to shift out of it for the ride down. Then, the tire tread can brab the chain and pull it down. If there's a chainwidth-or-less clearance btw tire and chainstay, it can jam up. You won't skid. because the chain can't lock up the wheel. It'll just make noise and drag.

BUT the Hillibikes have tons of clearance, even with a 2.8, so the chain can't get jammed. I haven't pulled a chain below the chainstay, but I bet it would just pop up and out again. I mean, what else could it do?

——————-

from kim in az

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/9cbe902a-00ed-4594-9517-9f69f247be3co%40googlegroups.com.

[Joe Bernard]

Hmm, let me see if I can decipher some stuff here.

1. It sounds like that BB is already using a 2.5mm spacer, my recommendation is therefore moot, I don't think adding a second one is going to be safe.

2. I think Grant's note "2.5 driveside" references that one spacer (not a tire).

3. Grant's note about a little chain rub on the tire not mattering in low gear under power is probably accurate, I see chainline stuff in my work stand that goes away under the load of a rider pedaling. Just shift up before the descent!

[David Wadstrup]

Hi Kim,

I've ridden other long wheelbased Rivs offroad and have never noticed or had any kind of problem with the chain flopping around.  And I'm definitely not worried about it happening with the Susie.

Thanks for passing the info along!

[David Wadstrup]

Also, I'd just like to say generally that I am EXCEPTIONALLY happy with and excited about this bike!  The chain issue I was seeking help with has in no way altered my appreciation of this unbelievably smart and well made bike.  I feel really fortunate to be the proud owner of one and am super grateful to Rivendell for making it.  I'm also really grateful to everyone here who's helped me expand my amateur bike mechanic skills.  Thank you!

[Jeffrey Arita]

Hi David,

I saw your OP and read thru the responses....I believe I can at shed a little bit of info that will help explain why you are having this issue:  Several years ago bikepacking became quite popular and hit the mainstream.  Wider tires combined with "29er" sized wheels were becoming normal.  When when throws all of this together and tries to jam this into the rear triangle, things got really, really tight.  Thus, another new standard was born - Boost 148.

Boost 148 basically allows geared bicycle drivetrains to work well with wide(r) tires.  It essentially moves the entire drivetrain outboard several milimeters.  To give you an idea, the chainline for a Boost 148 bicycle is on the order of 53 to 54 mm.  In addition to maintaining a decent chainline, it moved the chain away from the wide(r) tires when in the low-low gear combo.  While they were at it, the designers also widened the hub flanges of a Boost 148 rear hub (relative to say 135 mm OLD 'mountain bike' hubs).  This small detail helped make the 29er wheels just as strong as 26" wheels since the bracing angle was increased.

I know all of this from actual experience.  Back in January 2017 I decided to build up bikepacking bicycles for my wife and I for the GDMBR.  We chose bare frame and forks so I could build them up to our specs and what the GD requires.  In addition, if any issue arose, I could understand the problem since I assembled them.  The frame and forks we ended up getting were Salsa Fargos.  The frames came with Salsa's 'Alternator Plates' already set up for Boost 148.  Since I wanted 29er wheels (vs. 27.5) the Boost 148 standard made perfect sense.....unfortunately I knew nothing about Boost 148.  I had to learn ALL about it.  Here is a fairly decent write-up:

  

https://reviews.mtbr.com/tech-talk-boost-148-explained 

++++++++++

After learning about all of this, I built up rear wheels with Boost 148 hubs (hard to find at that time since the standard was just becoming mainstream).  Combined with this, I purchased Shimano 2x (SLX-model) Boost 148 cranksets, carefully following Shimano's installation guide for the bottom brackets.  After getting it all together, the drivetrains obviously worked very, very smoothly.  Mind you, for me, it was a lot of checking, double-checking, and verification of specs before proceeding.  But, after all was said and done, it all began to make sense to me why Boost 148 came about.

A quick aside: I assembled all of our wheels and the rears are strong due to the increased bracing angle.  2,700+ miles on the GD and the wheels never suffered any issues [Wheelsmith DB spokes x 36 x 3-cross + Wheelsmith brass nipples].  The people who came together to develop the Boost 148 standard really did a decent job of thinking this through. 

I do not know what your Susie has regarding the drivetrain and clearances and limitations.  I do know that Salsa (and Surly) issue frame/fork specs for each of their models which clearly note specifics.  I attached an example for the 2017 year model Fargo:

++++++++++ 

Regarding the GD, my wife and I wholeheartedly recommend the route to anyone.  It took us 2 seasons (2017 and 2018).  We went northbound, starting a bit late in the season (early July).  We ran out of season when we got to Butte, MT.  We hit the pause button and returned to Butte in 2018....lifechanging!

Good luck!

Jeff

[Jeffrey Arita]

David,

They say "a picture is worth a thousand words."  I attached a photo of my wife's Fargo.  It is a view from above the chain, crankset, rear wheel and right chainstay.  The chain is in the low-low combo.  After viewing this, IMHO Boost 148 simply means the following: The chainstay is the limiting factor for tire width - nothing else (such as a chain).  Hope this helps!

Good luck,

Jeff

[Jim Whorton]

This conversation is over my head technically, so what I have to contribute is more of a confession than a suggestion.  Some weeks ago I posted that I was having a similar problem on my Clem, which is totally stock, including the tires.  Chain touched rear tire in low-low combination.  Got lots of patient advice and some commiseration.  Later I was looking at it on the stand again and saw that the chain only dragged on the bottom, going towards the rear derailleur.  On the top, going towards the front ring, no drag.  So I adjusted the limit screw on the rear derailleur, problem solved.  Embarrassing to admit, but I simply had the RD out of adjustment.

Someone told me in that thread that long chainstays = less clearance between chain and tire, which did not make sense to me until I finally sat down and drew it on paper.  Yep, it's true, clearance is tight but the stock Clem is fine when the RD is adjusted right.

I've learned a lot from this group.

Jim

On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 8:39:33 PM UTC-4, David Wadstrup wrote:

[David Wadstrup]

Jeff,

Thanks so much for such a detailed explanation!  This really put all the technologies and standards in perspective and helped me wrap my head around everything.  What a experience that ride must have been!  I'm thoroughly jealous.

Best,

David

[Kurt Manley]

Maybe not the solution you are looking for but if I was in your situation I would change to a 1x setup for a bit more clearance. A 135 rear and a 2.6 is going to be a challenge. A 1x 12 speed can have all the range you'll need. You could run a 49mm chainline with a 1x and the ring would be at 49mm, where your inner ring with your 48 chainline is probably closer to 44mm right now.

I've also had major issues with chain suck on my 2x setups on long stay bikes ridden offroad. 1x would mostly eliminate that since it mostly happened while shifting. A clutch RD seems like a major advantage here too.

I run those exact tires on my bike and it's worth some effort to run them.

[Abcyclehank]

David,

As just an average mechanic I decided to let RBW deal with the build on my Susie. I also purchased a Gus that I intended to build up as a 1x12 SRAM setup but am now questioning the endeavor.

My XL Susie has a SILVER 184 triple (44x34x24 chainrings). A Shimano XT front derailer, Shimano HG 9 speed rear cassette (CS-HG201-9) and Sunrace R90 rear derailer.
Running 29 x 2.8 Teravail Coronado tires w Tubes.

Following is the clearance available in Small Large with good clearance on top of chainstay 5-6mm underneath only 2-3mm.

Enjoying and learning so much from others expertise about gearing, clearance, 73/68bottom brackets etc.

I personally think it would be a shame to ride anything narrower than a 2.6” tire. Good combinations will surface and riders Will absolutely love these bikes.
The arrival of my two new Hillibikes will release 3 bikes back to the wild. A 64 Clem L frame and fork, a 64cm Bombadil I never expected to ever sell, and a 25+LWB Jones with original 135mm rear MTB rear stay distance.

Sincerely,
Ryan Hankinson
West Michigan

[Jeffrey Arita]

David,

You are most welcome - at least from our perspective for a completely different bike and drivetrain and wheelset....

I would encourage anyone to try the GD.  If one doesn't have the time to tackle the entire route in one go that is completely understandable.  Consider doing a section.  We met several folks that were on their third or fourth seasons as they return again and again to ride the different sections.  It is not impossible and as many cyclo-tourists can attest, once you are out there, you simply find your rhythm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqCYE-Smqf4  

[Bill Lindsay]

Come on Ryan!  The clearance shots are informative, but give us the canonical full profile.  Slap me in the face with a big orange bike!  Sock it to me!

Bill Lindsay

El Cerrito, CA

[Ed Carolipio]

For the OP, if you want to continue experimenting, you can try switching to a boost front, which moves the front chainline outboard by +3mm. Depending on your current crankset, that may mean a new crankset (expensive) or a new set of boost chainrings (not as expensive, but still expensive) that adds the boost offset via the chainrings themselves. (Boost cranksets use the same bb as their non-boost counterparts.)

I used to have a Krampus Ops with 3.0 Knard tires, 73mm bb shell with Hollowtech II equivalent bb, a 135mm rear hub, and short chainstays. I ran it 2x10 using the stock Surly OD crankset which had a 51.4mm chainline and didn't experience tire rub. Surly cautioned that, to run a 2x front with a plus tire on the Krampus , one *had* to run that crankset, and that pre-dates the 148mm boost rear spacing. One caution: a 12sp cassette and longer chainstays on your Susie moves the chain closer to the tire than on the Krampus so that may still not work.

--Ed C.

[Hetchins52]

Hey Ryan,

Thanks for the pictures. (Yes, show us the whole bike!) 

Couple of questions:

What cassette combination did they set you up with for the triple? 11--36?

Do you know what bottom bracket was used? Length? Shimano or Tange or ..?

David Lipsky

Berkeley, CA

(my new MD Susie frameset is currently in repose on the LR couch)

On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 2:49:48 PM UTC-7, Abcyclehank wrote:

 

[David Wadstrup]

Good morning.

Thanks, Kurt.  I I struggled with the 1x vs 2x decision for a long time before committing to the 2x.  And I was pretty confident I made the right decision until now.  I think you're right, the 1x would solve my problem  --  that 1 ring would sit, I think, almost exactly where my current big ring now sits.  And I get no chain rub while in the big-big combo.  Not a ton of clearance, but it's definitely not touching.  The only problem, and this is a huge one, is that I've already bought and mounted all the 2x parts -- crankset, cassette, derailer, and even left hand shifter.  These would all have to be replaced at great cost, unfortunately.  So, as much as I might be wishing I'd gone 1x, I think either a new skinnier tire, or simply not using the low-low gear of the 2x makes a lot more sense money-wise.  Now, if it turns out that I don't get good shifting with this set-up, or if chainsuck becomes and issue, you just might see a bunch a lightly used 2x12 XT parts for sale on eBay to fund new 1x stuff.

Glad to hear that you like the Honchos!  Oh, and can you explain what a "clutch derailer" is?  I've looked at the differences between Shimano's 12 speed XT RDs and neither mentions a clutch.  The only difference, as far as I can tell, seems to be capacity.  Am I missing something? What is a clutch?

Thanks, Ryan.  Thank you for the photos.  I agree with everyone else here and think you should also send along a couple of the complete bike.  Wow... you mean a Bombadil might come up for sale?  That's going to be very tempting to many.  Why are you reconsidering your idea for a 1x12 Gus?  Sounds like it would have been great -- you'd get all the benefits of a 1x set-up, plus the ability to run the widest tires these bikes can handle.  Just curious...

Thanks, Ed.  You know, that was the first potential solution I thought of, and the one which sent me down the path to discovering what in the world "Boost" was.  But I ended up quickly discounting it because it seemed(wrongly it turns out) that running a Boost crank required also running a Boost rear hub.  So, essentially it would move my inner chainring outboard by 3mm, correct?  If so, and I just learned this, I don't know whether it'd be enough to get the chain to clear the tire.  I just measured the chain/tire clearance while in big-big.  It is only 3mm.  But the big ring in about 6mm outboard of the inner ring.  So, if moving the ring out 6mm gives only 3mm of chain clearance, how much will moving the ring out only 3mm, I wonder?  1.5mm?  Less?  This is definitely a preferable solution(if it works) to shrinking the tire, so thank you for it!  But my one concern is the increased chainline differential.  I currently have 7mm, and this would make it 10mm.  Does anyone know what a sound limit is before getting sub-optimal shifting performance?  I'd really love to know.

Thanks so much to everyone!  This really has been a fun education!

[dgstringfield]

Hi David,

In addition to switching to Boost cranks, you could add 5mm of spacers to the non drive side of the hub and re-dish the rear wheel.  I think this would effectively move the tire over about 2.5mm in relation the to crank. The OLD would go from 135mm to 140 and make reinstalling the wheel a little harder unless you have the rear triangle coldest to 140mm. However, I’ve never had issues installing a 135mm wheel in a 130mm spaced frame. Or you could have a rear wheel built with a tandem hub and have the rear triangle cold set to 145mm. 

Good luck. 

Dareck

Hamden, CT

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/5961dee6-8d08-44a8-b640-d765fdd4debdo%40googlegroups.com.

[iamkeith]

A comment on chainline based on my experience with my Clem. (My susie was one with the incorrect fork, so i won't have the opportunity to play with it for a while):

The super-long chainstays pretty much negate the normally-important concerns related to offset chain line, extra chain wear, or cross-shifting (big chainring/big cog or small chainring/small cog). The angle is minimized so much by the increased length that the chain links aren't really tweaked significantly. This, in my opinion, is one of the best but most un-sung benefits of the long stays.

The susies do have marginally shorter stays, but I'm counting on the effect being similar. The two-piece crank obviously complicates things in this case but, if it's possible to move the right crank outward, I'd just do it and not worry.

[David Strong]

Bottom Bracket spacers are made for exactly that purpose and wont mess up the integrity of the BB as long as you are following the recommended configurations. Having an external bb and 2x12 drivetrain might just inherently conflict with 2.6" tires on this frame unfortunately. What does Riv say is compatible? I wouldnt be surprised if they have a trick to make it work

[Joe Bernard]

David,

What cassette do you have, and what number of teeth on the big ring? If the gearing is low enough overall you indeed may be ok with not using the lowest gear in the small ring. Although I think Grant's theory is correct: in practice the big/small won't rub enough to bother you anyway.

[John Philip]

This is my XL Gus build.  I used the Riv Low Low double with supplied BB using one spacer on the drive side.  Cassette is 13-38 IRD 8speed. Silver2 shifters.  RD is Altus with Road Link   FD current Deore. Tires are 2.8 Teravail Coronado.  I have about 2mm space between the chain and tire in the low low.  Everything is working smoothly and the bike is a joy to ride.

[David Wadstrup]

Thanks so much for the continued ideas!

Hi Dareck,

I just read up on redishing wheels -- could be a good solution that lets me have may cake and eat it too.

iamkeith,

I'm hoping the chainstays will do exactly what you think they will -- minimize the any issues that larger differentials might give rise to.

DSTRONG,

The BB did come with additional spacers, but I wasn't sure I could use them.  I followed Shimano's specifications when installing in a 73mm shell, but they said nothing else about being able to use more to tweak chainline.  Do you know whether this is something people commonly do?

Joe,

I'm using Shimano's XT 10-45 cassette.  Simply not using that gear is the easiest solution requiring no alterations or work arounds.  And I'll probably be just fine without it.  I think you're right about Grant's theory about the rubbing not being such a big deal in practice -- I might not even notice it, and shouldn't have any issue as long as I shift prior to descending.

Beautiful bike, John!

[Abcyclehank]

Sorry everyone. Primarily post pics to my IG account and did not think that most of you had not seen the complete bike pics.

Here is Susie in her full figured Orange Beauty.

FYI-I will definitely build up in the 1x12 if it will not force me to downsize the tire capability. Will likely solicit someone far more experienced than I for the bottom bracket install.
Everything is so simple when using 68mm square bottom brackets and running old school 8 speed cassettes on 12 of your 14 bikes 🤦🏻‍♂️.

Sincerely,
Ryan Hankinson
West Michigan

PS Gus wanted to show his prebuilt blue toughness off as well!