EDITORIAL
SRAM's Potential UBG
Chain Guarding
The most exciting thing about SRAM's updated Eagle AXS shifting, now called Transmission, is the addition of a BMX-style chainring mounted bash guard. Not because the current crop of narrow-wide rings from any number of manufacturers isn't ridiculously durable, but rather for chain protection.
Regardless of the cause, I seem to be coming across a lot of prematurely trashed chains lately. Some are obviously missing rollers from being smashed, but others are less obviously binding due to individual links being smooshed. I'd guess it's down to some combination of bikes being lower, riders going faster, trails being drier and jankier, or maybe it's some other factor I haven't considered. Regardless of the cause, a bash guard is the perfect money-saving and potentially ride-saving solution.
The bash guard is supported multiple ways by the chainring shape, not just bolted in place.
But, it's also bolted in place, with steel feet and interface into the chainring from the backside.
SRAM's take on the classic warhorse component is quite elegant in using their current beefed-up 1x rings as both structure and mounting bracket. The teeth and chain are protected, and any hit hard enough to actually damage the chainring would have blown up both an unprotected ring and chain anyway.
Speaking of blown up, my imagination was captured by this quote from SRAM's Stephanie Raulston that was buried in the T-Type release. From something that comes from simple origins - bolting a four or five-bolt aluminum plate in place of a big chain ring on a mountain bike triple crank - her team clearly put a lot of thought into it:
"With the bash guards, we 3D printed a tonne of them had a bunch machined and just tested, tested, tested. We had to build test fixtures and we were trying to figure out a good way to see how it actually worked on a bike. So, we built a giant crash-your-chainring-into-it thing with Home Depot lumber." - Stephanie Raulston, SRAM
The bash guard tester that SRAM built to wack their way through a bunch of prototypes. (Photo: SRAM)
There are a number of factors to this design that are quite appealing. The bash guards are inexpensive, lightweight, and transferable from ring to ring. When removed SRAM has gone to lengths to make certain that their absence is not noticed aesthetically. Folks who almost always ride either with their left or right foot forward can just run one. Also, they can take a beating, as can the ring they're attached to. In addition to protecting an expensive chain, I even find they help my bike glide over high-mark impacts. Like trying to pop over a log or rock.
But perhaps best of all, there are plenty of brands making nice chainrings that could easily be programmed to include SRAM's bash guard mounting dimensions as part of the layout of their spurs.
There's a lot going on with SRAM's new GX T-Type drivetrain. But my favourite part is certainly the bash guard.
For SRAM, Shimano, or Race Face CINCH another great option is Wolf Tooth CAMO bash spider.
It would be neat if North Shore Billet made UBG-compatible rings such that the beauty ring on these Talon cranks had some protection.
UBG
It's true that SRAM's bash guard compatible rings only work with their 8-bolt chainring interface, but what's stopping other chainring manufacturers from machining their spurs such that a SRAM bash guard, or their own guard using SRAM's mounting pattern, could be installed? This has occurred to me a few times lately, installing rings that use RaceFace's CINCH mounting standard.
My frame doesn't have ISCG tabs so a bash-taco is out of the question unless I want to start playing with ISCG-to-BSA bottom bracket adapters. I do have an excellent CINCH compatible Wolf Tooth BashSpider, but I love the idea of every premium-level chainring from Absolute Black, to Chromag, to Hope, to Garbaruk, to Wolf Tooth, to Race Face, to OneUp and, of course, Shimano simply being compatible with a Universal Bash Guard.
Patents always make me curious. Why wouldn't this count as prior art?
There have been half-bash BMX rings for years, like this example from Odyssey.
The plastic bash is quieter and does slide over rocks and roots better than aluminum.
There is a barrier of course. As part of their Eagle Transmission process, SRAM received patent approval for their design. I don't pretend to know faeces from feces when it comes to patent law but considering BMX bash-sprockets and the many bolt-on half-bash setups I've seen locally over the years, I'm clearly missing what's special. I mean, the bash guard itself is special. It's awesome. But I'm missing what's special enough to make it patentable.
Maybe the way the chainring and bash guard interface together, as opposed to the bash simply being bolted in place? Either way, as with the widely adopted Universal Derailleur Hanger (UDH) it would be great to see a Universal Bash Guard (UBG) standard. Protecting chains, chainrings, and frames.
Height - Steve Buscemi-ish
Wait - Patiently
Ape Index - T-Rex
Age - The same as DOS
Favourite Trail(s) every week - Pipeline (thank you Ken!) to Lower Crippler (thank you Andy!)
Favourite Song(s) this week - I'm Your Man. Nick Cave (covering Leonard Cohen)
Favourite Colour - Cosmic Lilac
Bar Width - It depends
Reach & Stack & ETT - It depends
Crank Length - 175mm except when it's 170mm
Wheel Size - Hot For Mullets
Comments
Sean_D
10 months ago
Call me old school, but didn't we already have a nearly universal chainring and bash guard mounting system in place with 104 BCD cranks? I understand that direct mount chainrings made it easier to adjust chain lines, but we definitely lost a lot of cross compatibility.
Reply
Andrew Major
10 months ago
I mean, sure. We also had a universal brake mounting standard in IS and a universal headset standard in EC34|EC34 (1-1/8”).
Direct mount is a reality, and I prefer crank mounted bash guards over ISCG bash tacos, hence embracing the idea of a UBG ring-mount standard.
———
Direct Mount opened up a lot of benefits in terms of easily swapping chainlines and ring sizes but 104 was/is rad.
As part of my Titan review, I was running a small BlackSpire bash guard on 104 BCD tabs with a NSBillet 28t narrow-wide ring mounted on the 64 BCD tabs so I could run a smaller cassette block - awesome.
But, just adding a UBG to a direct mount ring would dump a ton of weight, so there’s that too.
Reply
Sidney Durant
10 months ago
Can you drop some knowledge about how to confirm correct chain line when using a 2x spider with a bashguard? I've been wanting to move to a similar setup but never learned anything about 2x setups (I went straight from 3x in ~2010 to 1x in 2015 when I picked mtb back up again).
My new frame doesn't have iscg tabs so I'm wanting to do something similar to what you've done here. I've been tempted to pull the trigger but don't want to totally mess up my chainline.
Reply
Andrew Major
10 months ago
Clearance will vary by bike, but generally with the granny ring being smaller and just a bailout gear to be used with the lowest gears, I leave the middle ring where it could normally sit. That gives you a very straight chainline in the 3-4 low gears you’d use when you manually bail the chain.
I didn’t use it often, but I used it, in combination with the 11-36t cassette. Later I switched to a 28t oval narrow wide ring 1x (11-36t) as the Banshee worked quite well with it.
Reply
Justin White
10 months ago
A proper 2x spider should have a chainline measured from between the rings, and most 2x spiders are non-Boost, so 49mm 2x chainline puts the big ring (middle spot, with bashguard taking the outer spot) pretty close to a 1x Boost chainline of 51mm. Might need/want to move it inboard very slightly, to minimize risk of a backpedal derailing off the big cog, but ~2mm spacers come with many 104 BCD rings >= 32t, and are almost always built-in to <= 30t to keep the chain from touching the tabs.
At least, that been my experience dealing with Specialized's silly choice to only put 2/3rds of ISCG05 on last-gen Stumpy frames, and trying various cranks and DM-to-BCD spiders to make up for that.
What cranks are you running right now? BashSpider/CAMO is made for modern bikes and should do a good job of maintain proper 1x Boost chainlines on pretty much all the cranks they support.
Reply
Sidney Durant
10 months ago
The CAMO bashspider would be the solution I'd pick if they had a 28/30t version. I run a low bb because I love the feeling in berms and steeps, but with short cranks (145mm) to keep some ground clearance in the rocky stuff. I've found that with shorter cranks I need to go down a chainring size to have the same perceived gear range, and the additional ground clearance of a small chainring is appreciated. I'm hesitant to get rid of it by using a 34t CAMO bashspider
Based on comments here and my research so far, if I just run standard cranks with a 2x spider with a bash on the big ring position (49mm), then the small ring will be at 44 mm, which is quite far off from the intended 52mm boost chainline.
If I run super boost cranks (which add 5mm back to the chainline), then the inner ring would be at 49 mm, which seems like it should be okay. I've heard of running regular cranks on boost bikes without issue, which is the same 3mm difference
But this would mean new cranks, a spider, etc etc...
Reply
Andrew Major
10 months ago
With the Wolf Tooth 64BCD rings the chainline is 46 triple and 48 on a double.
It’s also drilled for Shimano 11spd (M7000 or M8000) in which case the chainline is 48 for standard and 50mm for Boost.
This is what I use on my Wife’s Shimano 2x crankset. Did require a slight respace of the bashguard but that’s a nice thing about 104/64.
Velocipedestrian
9 months, 4 weeks ago
And lo! A Camo ring for T-type appeared.
Andrew Major
9 months, 4 weeks ago
@Velocipedestrian, yes Wolf Tooth has a massive lineup of T-Type compatible rings including CAMO to mount on my Bash Spider! It’s just one of those things where my bike I’d run it one doesn’t have UDH or I’d test it out - would love an Oval T-Type ring.
Velocipedestrian
10 months ago
Some of us never let go of 104, I'm just sad it's hard to find pretty bashrings for it now that it's not the cool choice.
Reply
Andrew Major
10 months ago
I don't think there's any shortage of 104 BCD bash guards... it's just about getting them out of the hoards of various riders and into the hands of riders who want them. Put a different way, I know a few folks who have one hanging in their shop that has years of life left.
It's like looking at beautiful but barely ridden mountain bikes of yore that I lusted after but could never afford, now collecting dust in a museum. Trophies that were meant to be ridden.
Reply
Andrew Major
10 months ago
Just checked and Wolf Tooth still sells them actually, in two sizes. 30t and 32-34t.
Reply
Velocipedestrian
10 months ago
Sure, there's a small stack in our house. But being from the 00's they're sized for 36t rings (man, I could climb anything on those 22/36 setups). I want pretty and sized for 32t max.
Reply
Andrew Major
10 months ago
When 26” makes its comeback you’ll be running 36t 1x right?!
Are any of them thick enough that a machine shop could turn them down for a smaller size and they’d still be thick enough to take a beating?
Reply
Velocipedestrian
10 months ago
Well.... There are four 26" bikes in our house still, and my two are 36x9spd & 36x18ss. But they're both for road use, my knees aren't pedalling that up the trails.
(XTR 970 shifting an Ultegra 9spd is so good)
No, the alu ones are too heavily shaped, and the monstrous e13 Supercharger is plastic.
Andrew Major
10 months ago
XTR M970 is so great, with a road derailleur or MTB derailleur!
Yeah, they really need to be a solid plate to make turning them down viable.
Justin White
10 months ago
WolfTooth and RaceFace ones are easily found. Blackspire still makes them, too, though only a couple sizes. If none of those are pretty enough when brand new... well, I think they always look better with evidence of use, so the ugliness shouldn't last.
Reply
Velocipedestrian
10 months ago
My idea of pretty may be heavily coloured by nostalgia and a desire for a bike that looks like lego.
Reply
Ryan Walters
10 months ago
I’ve never not run a chainring mounted bash guard, and I’ve taken a lot of flak for it.
Looks like I was just ahead of the curve that whole time.
Reply
Andrew Major
10 months ago
Ryan Walters: “Am I from the future?”
Reply
Cr4w
10 months ago
Reply
Andrew Major
10 months ago
Hahahahahaha.
Reply
Cr4w
10 months ago
I feel like I haven't had bash guards on my bikes for a really long time and my latest bike had a plastic one paired up with its lower chain tensioner and it's done a lot of work. It's covered in scars after just a few weeks. I don't recall my previous unguarded bike having so many impacts but who can rely on memories from the fog of war? I'll keep having bash guards on future bikes but they'll probably be ICGS- mounted ones for a while yet.
Reply
Andrew Major
10 months ago
It’s a weird juxtaposition… I’ve only broken a couple of rings (one ring and one spider actually) and damaged a couple chains (that I know about)… but I’ve had to replace broken bash tacos and also file back my bash guard (mushroomed enough to touch chain).
But yeah, min-max wise, some kind of sacrificial bash product for a few grams is the winning choice.
Reply
JT
10 months ago
I just want full coverage.
Reply
Cru_Jones
10 months ago
I had one of these BITD. It seems like a great idea until you actually use it and notice it leaves a nice dent on your down-tube. :|
Reply
Justin White
10 months ago
I wish this WolfTooth idea took off more: https://www.wolftoothcomponents.com/collections/stainless-steel/products/direct-mount-bashring-for-stainless-steel-chainrings.
All the DirectMount goods for chainline shenanigans, with the bare minimum of sacrificial bits in the separate guard part. Mushroomed your guard beyond filing? Swap just that outer ring (without removing the crank or even fidgeting with bolts on the in-board side!) and keep smashing. Even rotate it every once in a while to make it last up to 5 times longer!
Unfortunately, it seems WT didn't see enough buy-in, as the only item in the collection remaining in stock is the bash part for 24-26T rings. I had the 32t ring and matching guard on notify perhaps 4 years ago and they never came back (maybe the guard did, but it's useless without the ring).
Reply
Sidney Durant
10 months ago
I've been patiently waiting for this to come back. I'm hoping that people start asking for bashrings when they see their friends with sram's new UBG, and some manufacturer steps up to the plate. Or that SRAM launches short 155mm cranks (I like short cranks) that I can use with their ring+guard. Or that some short crank manufacturer switch to the 8 bolt standard so I can use the Sram rings+guard with short cranks.
Lot's of wishful thinking over here...
FYI here's a 30t wolftooth stainless chainring and bashring combo that's been sitting on eBay for several months if that's what you're looking for
Reply
Justin White
10 months ago
Good to know, but unfortunately I was looking for it 3.5 years ago when my then-new Stumpy* LT came with the less than ideal not-full-ISCG05 and SRAM DM cranks. I ended up going with a RaceFace Aeffect R crankset and Cinch-to-104 spider with old-skool bash ring.
Also tried a North Shore Billet 3-bolt to 76 BCD spider and Blackspire 30T ring, but the non-Boost offset of that spider put the ring and chain way too close to the frame for comfort. Though that combo is working great on my hardtail which basically lives with a Shotgun seat on it.
Now I'm on WolfTooth's BashSpider and probably won't look back.
* (the Stumpy was purchased in kind of a hurry since previous bike was stolen. And though it fits me great, and is what I want ride-style-wise, it has some lack-of-features that I wouldn't normally choose)
Reply
Andrew Major
10 months ago
I’d rock this 100%. I see no reason it couldn’t bolt into the existing Camo interface?
Reply
Justin White
10 months ago
It certain looks like the Camo bolt pattern, but you'd have to choose between a bash or a chainring since the threads are in the spider. Could go full MacGyver, and drill out the threads on the spider to use nuts & bolts to clamp the whole bash-spider-ring sandwich together, or just a long bolt for the bash and use nuts to hold the ring on. But at that point, you've pretty much made a worse BashSpider.
Reply
Andrew Major
10 months ago
I meant the idea, not the specific product. I imagine a separate mount for the bash guard.
Reply
Justin White
9 months, 4 weeks ago
I just can't win with you, eh?
"this" and "it" are just ideas, now? Not at all referring to the actual item that started the thread?
"bolt into the existing interface" really means "a separate mount for the bashguard"
What's the separate mount? More spokes and/or holes in the one spider? Another spider in tandem? Neither of those are "the existing interface".
Done.
Reply
Andrew Major
9 months, 4 weeks ago
Win what?
I simply meant an item that mounts a la bash guard you posted into a CAMO spider. A second set of holes is probably the best way to do it?
Easy enough for Wolf Tooth to machine a spider with two sets of holes that wouldn’t look out of place for folks not running the bash guard. And then instead of having a Bash Spider for ever direct mount interface they could just have a few SKU’s of bash to cover different rings.
Apologies that my thoughts above weren’t properly fleshed out.
Andy Eunson
10 months ago
Bash guards are smart. I struck a rock on my one by drivetrain early on. No damage but I could see what was coming. I now have Blackspire bash guards on each on my two bikes. One mounts behind the bb cup on the bike with no tabs and the other on the tabs.
Reply
Andrew Major
10 months ago
That’s one nice thing about BSA being back in - the option to add-on ISCG tabs. I like the BB mounted option for the replaceability and the fact they’ll often rotate in a severe impact that could damage ISCG guides on a frame.
Reply
MTB_THETOWN
10 months ago
My favorite chainring protector is the guard and top/bottom guide from Cascade Components. Looks awesome, keeps my chain from flapping around, and provides excellent protection. I wish I could justify one for each bike, but they are mighty spendy
I won't buy a bike without ISCG tabs
Reply
Andrew Major
10 months ago
Everything Cascade makes is sure nice looking.
Reply
Cee Cee
10 months ago
SRAM x Home Depot. UGH. Requiescat in pace lower case
Reply
Andrew Major
10 months ago
You’re more of a Shimano x Rona/Lowes person? Or a MicroShift x Home Hardware?
Reply
Cee Cee
10 months ago
Give rocks a chance
Reply
Dave Smith
10 months ago
Ugly But Good. Love it.
Reply
Andrew Major
10 months ago
Hahahaha. Utility Begets Grace?
Reply
Skooks
10 months ago
How much of an issue is bashed chains/chain rings? I have never used any sort of bash guard since I first started running a 1x drivetrain. The pedals and ends of my crank arms are pretty scarred up, and I definitely contact my chain once in a while, but it doesn't seem to cause any problems. I've never damaged anything enough to be a problem. I do run steel chain rings, so maybe that helps?
Reply
Andrew Major
10 months ago
I regularly see chains missing rollers or with tight/bent links. Broken chain rings/teeth less common, but I’ve done it.
I’d definitely prescribe some knocking on wood to go with your post :-).
Reply
Andy Eunson
10 months ago
It’s really dependant on what your favourite trails are like. The trail I nailed my chain on (no damage) has a rock hop up and there are numerous other obstacles both rocky and woody on that series of trails that are low in the valley and melt out first in the spring. My bash guards are the 30-32 size and they have plenty of marks. But if your trails are flow type or don’t have too many chainring height things to ride over then yeah, not much need.
One thing about one by drivetrains rarely mentioned is the increased clearance offered by smaller single chainrings. Somewhat offset by lower bbs but still far better than 42 tooth rings.
Reply
Squint
10 months ago
I hadn't ridden with one either, until my newest bike had the tabs so I put one on. Used to get the occasional scrape, so I didn't think it would make a huge difference but it's been more impactful (no pun intended) than I anticipated. I'll take riskier lines knowing if there is a problem the guard is there, and if there is an impact the plastic slides over and off so much smoother than the chain ever did.
For the price, definitely the right choice for me.
Reply
Andrew Major
9 months, 3 weeks ago
The flip side is, I get used to having a bash guard. I've smoked and dragged my chain a ton the last two weeks on some cranks I'm reviewing that don't have a bash. And I know it's because of line choice.
Reply
Moritz Haager
10 months ago
My Druid has the integrated bash guard. I never needed it, until my recent couple of days on the Shore when it came in rather handy. Just shows how different the terrain is. What I don‘t get looking at these pictures is how this bashguard works. I‘m probably an idiot, and missing something totally obvious, but it looks like it rotates along with the ring. Would that not mean that you can still bash the chain if the guard if facing up at the time of contact?
Reply
Andrew Major
10 months ago
Yes, the bash guard is mounted to the chainring so it rotates. You can run a second bash at the top, and indeed that’s how it ships. I’m predominantly right food forward so I just run the one.
Reply
Justin White
10 months ago
Dude, don't limit yourself. Run 'em both, everyone should practice riding switch-foot, minimize the dominance. It will make you more balanced and adaptable rider, a more better rider.
There are few trails round here that I can no-brake fullfive-finger-deathgrip the whole way, so I started riding them switch-foot. So good!
And, even before intentionally riding switch, I would find marks on the "other side" of the bashguard, Sure, not as many, but often just as big. Since without practice riding switch, one will tend to screw up more often when they get stuck with the wrong foot forward and the few hits that do happen are likely to be big ones.
Reply
Andrew Major
10 months ago
Yeah, guess I could clarify. I work on my switch foot riding (and other skills) regularly when out with my kid or cruising blue trails. I don’t need a bash guard for those times.
If I’m smashing my chain ring into something 99% of the time my right foot will be forward.
Reply
Justin White
10 months ago
Hmm... Why even practice if you're not even going to allow yourself, by running only half a guard, to use it when it might actually be useful? Put another way, I think you deserve a bash on both sides.
Side note: it sucks if your blue trails don't have any line choices that might require a bash. Sure, maybe the main lines on a blue probably won't have, say, 3-foot mostly-vertical get-ups with hard jagged edge waiting to smoke some chain links, as a regular feature. But aren't there any fun side-hits, or sneaky "extra" trails to a single or couple of difficult & fun feature, where you might want chain protection, even if the intent is to mainly ride blues?
Reply
Andrew Major
10 months ago
Lots of good blue trails on the North Shore, thanks.
Cr4w
10 months ago
I think this solution is really amazing.
Reply
Andrew Major
10 months ago
Amazing enough to be universal?
Reply
Bern
10 months ago
Haha, glad I wasn't the only one feeling stupid looking at the pictures with just "half" of the bash guard installed...
Reply
cheapondirt
10 months ago
Shimano's SLX (and XT?) direct mount spider thingy could easily be redesigned to carry a bash guard on the outside.
Reply
Andrew Major
10 months ago
Absolutely, any number of rings and interfaces could be redesigned for a bash option if companies think riders want (to pay for) it.
Reply
Paul Lindsay
10 months ago
Nice idea and all that, but does no one else need a top chain guide any more? I'm not willing to give up my OneUp Bash Guide just yet. My current bike running Old Skool GX AXS isn't terribly reliable at keeping the chain on without a top guide. Nor was the last bike.
Reply
Andrew Major
10 months ago
As long as my ring and chain aren’t overdue for replacement I get plenty of retention without a top guide.
Reply
Justin White
10 months ago
What chainrings are you running? With GX AXS, I might assume X-Sync 2 (which I've never ran because even their 104 BCD rings won't fit on non-SRAM spiders without modifying the rings' tabs), so maybe that is the real culprit.
Between various RaceFace and WolfTooth rings, I haven't have a chain-drop in years, maybe a decade, without a pretty good size stick getting involved. IE: it hasn't just randomly bounced off in forever, it has to get pushed off.
Reply
cheapondirt
10 months ago
I have experienced chain drop sans top guide, with the Shimano clutch turned off. I can imagine even a great chainring being insufficient with a weak clutch and the right size/frequency of bumps.
A little Dremel work can make a top guide work with a bashguard, though.
Reply
Sidney Durant
10 months ago
I've also experienced chain drops with a narrow wide and a top guide while riding washboards on a hardtail.
Both were in left hand turns, and I believe the chain dropped as I dropped my right foot down to the 6 o clock position. I ride left foot forward so dropping my outside foot in left hand turns means backpedaling 1/4 of a turn. And backpedaling while the chain is jumping around is a recipe for disaster
Reply
Justin White
10 months ago
A top guide doesn't help with drops during backpedaling... that's all derailleur clutch.
Although I think clutches are mostly helpful for noise reduction, and chainring shape (narrow-wide, and tall teeth that don't need to handle shifts) does the most for chain retention (besides a guide, of course). Mostly because with a maybe 1 out of 100 ratio of rides where I accidentally leave the clutch off, I've always noticed it because of the noise first, but not always stopping immediately to switch it on, and still no drops.
Reply
cxfahrer
10 months ago
That SRAM bashguard is nice, but a proper bash with chain guide using all three ISCG tabs is better anyway on a bike that is being ridden over rocks. An ISCG bash can be designed much more solid and keeps those hits away from any part of this expensive drive train. So iSRAMs taco is kind of an intermediate solution, and not the best.
Reply
Andrew Major
10 months ago
I’ve seen enough broken ISCG tabs to feel the opposite. Much better to sacrifice a chainring than a frame, in my mind. But nice to have choices either way.
There are sufficient options for nice ISCG bash tacos on the market though that you’re covered if that’s your preference. Bash guard options are much more limited.
Reply
fartymarty
10 months ago
Andrew - is this why you don't have ISCG mounts on your bikes?
A taco + one of these ring mounted guides would be the best combo.
Reply
Andrew Major
10 months ago
Yes, I prefer a bash guard, or a BB mount ISCG adapter. I have a 104 BCD CINCH spider setup with a bash. Also WTC CINCH Bash-Spider is rad, except they don’t make one small enough for my preferred 30t ring.
That said, Enigma has a neat replaceable spline-fit ISCG tab, and I may run a bash taco on that.
———
“A taco + one of these ring mounted guides would be the best combo“
Huh? Like I eat a taco and run one of these SRAM UBGs?
Reply
mrbrett
10 months ago
> Like I eat a taco and run
This is a dangerous combo. Food + Exercise = :-(
Reply
Andrew Major
10 months ago
Yeah, tacos after mountain biking is the proper order!
T-mack
10 months ago
WAO sells chainguides with integrated iscg tabs for a bash guard for the Arrival.
Reply
Andrew Major
10 months ago
That’s interesting, I’ve never seen the system in person / didn’t know it existed. Out of stock.
I think I’d still be temped to go BB-mount ISCG adapter so it could rotate in a catastrophic hit, or stick with a ring mounted bash guard.
The front triangle being the most expensive part of the A170 I’m riding it maybe doesn’t make sense to hard mount an object I plan to regularly smash to it? Maybe I’m underestimating how strong the interface is though?
Justin White
10 months ago
Well, the BashSpider will accept your preferred 30T, since CAMO goes down to 28T, but yeah, there is only one Bash size and it's big enough to cover 34T, so you'd be trading a bit of ring clearance, about 8mm, for protection.
Reply
Andrew Major
10 months ago
Yes. I have run my 30t oval with the Bash-Spider. I’ve also spent years harassing Wolf Tooth to make a smaller coverage Bash Spider and intend to continue doing so.
It’s like encouraging folks to e-mail Chromag about an ETA for -12 & -16 degree FU50 bars. It may never happen, but it’s part of my routine now and I take comfort in it.
Sidney Durant
10 months ago
I'm doing my part! I emailed customer service earlier this week asking about a 30t option. They replied saying that the 34t bashguard is compatible. I replied saying I understood but that's not what I want.
Will my willingness to spend $$ on a 30t CAMO bashspider make it to the right person? Maybe.
Andrew Major
9 months, 4 weeks ago
@Sidney, I’ve been figuring it was just a matter of hitting a magic point where Wolf Tooth has some machine time and bash guards are back in style, but sadly the boat may have sailed with 50/51/52t cogs allowing the majority of riders in the majority of places to ride 32t chainring.
The market for folks that want a bash guard, want to run a smaller ring without giving up ground clearance, and would buy a CAMO Bash Spider may be too small.
nothingfuture
10 months ago
I'm currently running a bash mounted via ISCG adapter (that sandwiches between the BSA bb and the BB shell- though that limits bb options).
On the one hand, I'd have liked ISCG tabs on my frame. It'd make setup pretty straightforward will less faffing about. My builder, however, couldn't source ISCG tab plates from any of the normal frame part suppliers (Ti, yes- steel, no).
On the other hand, the sandwiched ISCG adapters will rotate if you smack them really, really hard- and that might save other components, so that's something.
Reply
Andrew Major
10 months ago
I prefer the ISCG adapter for the reason that it can rotate instead of sheer. Neither of my Walt’s has ISCG tabs.
Reply
Justin White
10 months ago
A crank bash is always going to a better job of minimizing components that are taking the impact. No matter how solid the tabs seem, with an ISCG bash the impact goes through bash guard, back plate, tabs, bb shell, bb, crank axle, crank, and pedals. With a crank bash the impact goes through bash guard, crank, pedals, that's it.
Yes, of course BB shells and BB bearings are obviously going to be able to handle huge forces, but if, say, a pressfit cup is misaligned, or some dirt is working it's way into the bearings, maybe that next big ISCG bash hit is going to permanently deform that crooked cup, or firmly smash that dirt into a ball and gall it. That's just not going to happen with a crank-mounted bash guard.
Reply
Andy Eunson
10 months ago
Yeah naw. A bb mounted bash sends to forces primarily to the cup and frame. ISCG tabs get most of the forces in that situation. Crank mounted sends the forces bb mostly. Your body, feet ankles etc absorb a fair bit too. The real question is whether or not those farces cause meaningful damage to the various components. A hard rock hit to a chain and ring can be damaging to both components.
Reply
Justin White
10 months ago
Why would crank mounted send forces to the BB mostly? You don't need the BB to transfer forces from the chainring to the pedals, it's a solid direct connection. The force that goes through the BB is only enough to move the frame, which masses a good ~6x less* than the rider.
Frame mounted does the reverse: directly moves the bike's mass, while going through everything to move the ~6x rider mass.
*(Maybe a little more if you're really, really heavy on the hands. Or a lot more if you're sitting, but if you're sitting down and smacking the bash guard that hard, perhaps there are other issues.)
Reply
Andy Eunson
9 months, 4 weeks ago
I see what you’re saying. I’m gonna have to ruminate on that. I really don’t know now.
Reply
Ryan Walters
10 months ago
I’ve seen a handful of trashed front triangles (usually carbon) because the ISCG tabs failed. I’m with Andrew - I’d rather sacrifice a chainring, or even a crank arm than a front triangle. I personally have never damaged either running chainring mounted bash guards for ages.
Reply
LAT
10 months ago
that is a very neat solution.
perhaps the patent is related to how the guard attaches to the ring? or how the ring and guard are integrated?
Reply
gubbinalia
10 months ago
My extremely naive, and perhaps wholly incorrect, assumption, is that the ring/guard interface is critical to the patentability here (i.e. it's not just that the guard bolts to the ring; it's that the ring supports the guard, as Andrew pointed out, with the triangular cutout interfaces). Around paragraph 0057 (typeset pg3 of the patent application) there's a description of how the backplates "nest" with the guard itself through the chainring. That's not only a pretty slick design, it's also a point in favor of the "novelty" of the invention (one of the patentability factors) if prior chainring-mounted bashes have just used bolt-on interfaces.
One of my intellectual property professors in law school once pointed out that when the Patent and Trademark Office looks at patents for fairly niche mechanical designs, such as (ahem) "off-road cycles," the PTO tends to look at how "novel" or "non-obvious" the invention is through the eyes of someone who knows, say, carbon-fiber layup or metalworking, but not necessarily someone who knows bicycles. So something that might seem obvious to a cyclist (that it would make sense to mount a bash guard to the chainring itself) might be a pretty novel, not-so-obvious idea for someone who just looks at chainrings as billeted/stamped/forged/etc. alloy or steel. As a result, you could argue that pretty much all new designs in the MTB space have a lower bar to patenting, as long as the patent holder has enough money invested in IP development and legal representation (as SRAM certainly does).
The other thing that jumped out to me reading the application is the "torque input/torque output" distinction that they're making, with the leading edge(s) of the twin guard(s) sitting a smidge closer to the teeth than the trailing edge(s). Not sure if there have been other tapered/sloped guard setups (the MRP guards are somewhat offset, but maybe not patented as such?).
Reply
Justin White
10 months ago
It seems like a patent just for patent sake, re: the BG mount.
Why not just use the existing material of the ring instead of adding the inserts? Make a couple "spokes" wider and adjust their location, drill and countersink properly located holes, and the bash part already has the threads. I'll bet that's how some 3rd parties try to get around any potential patent issues.
In fact, why not reverse it, even in their actual implementation: threads in the insert or ring, instead of threads in the disposable wear part of the guard itself. Then it just needs holes, so you're replacing just plastic and not throwing away perfectly good threaded inserts.
Reply
Peter Appleton
10 months ago
skip sandwich
Reply
DBone57
10 months ago
I'm not sure 8 bolts are enough. Sure, it's more than 3, but I still think there is room for SRAM to go 11 bolts with their next ugly ass drivetrain.
Reply
Andrew Major
10 months ago
8-bolt is an existing standard used for SRAM-compatible power meters and makes their mountain sizes rings compatible with their road/gravel cranks.
I don’t know how anyone who’s into the idea of T-Type could be against the move to 8-bolt. Personally 3-bolt SRAM is great (I do prefer Cinch/Shimano) but I’m certainly not the target customer here.
Reply
ohio
6 months, 3 weeks ago
I'm with DBone here... I much prefer to undo 3 bolts to undoing 8. Sure the 8 bolt was also an existing interface, but annoying that the more complicated interface won out here. Even though I understand why (retooling the power meters would be more expensive than retooling dumb chainrings).
But then, I'm a weirdo that prefers centerlock rotors to 6 bolt for the same reason.
Reply
Lu Kz
10 months ago
I thought I didn't want a bash ring, but I recently drove my bike all the way from Kamloops to Saint John's, NL.... And let me say, if those were my trails, I'd want one. Definitely bashed and rolled my chainring a couple times out here! No need in Kamloops day to day though. If SRAMS system comes on and off nice and easy, I'm not inherently going to be a hater*
*except I'm not going to have a transmission bike for a long, long time.
Reply
Andrew Major
10 months ago
Takes seconds to install and remove. Finding where you put it will be the longest part of the on/off swap.
Reply
Please log in to leave a comment.