Middleburns: Cloud9 Or Super Pro Trials?

[loffa]

So I've snapped my non-driveside Tensile crank arm and need something to replace them and I need them as fast as possible. I was thinking of getting some Middleburns because of their quality and long-time warranty. But the thing is that I haven't got a clue which bash should I go for. I tried searching but not much came up on the Cloud9 bash, probably because they are fairly new. The first place I looked was Tarty and I saw that both of the bashes have the same price. Then I looked around a bit and found that I could get the arms and 16t bash from chainreactioncycles for about 15£ cheaper, plus I'd save on postage (bearing in mind that I live in Estonia and shipping them here costs quite a lot) when ordering from crc because I can order them with a couple local freeride guys who are making a big order from CRC. And it would be a bit quicker as well.

If I had to order them from Tarty I'd probably go for Cloud9 just to be sure, because I've heard some guys having problems with snapping chains with the 16t up front, but now that I have the choice of getting the 16t a bit faster and cheaper I don't know which option I should go for.

Anyone who has used one of them, could you suggest something? Is the 18t bash worth more money and longer waiting time? (I can ride my bike atm, so it isn't that critical to get them soon, but I'd just feel better if I didn't have those tensile cranks on my bike any more . ATM I'm running two driveside tensile cranks(got the other one from a mate who has also snapped his left one) with two right side pedals)

Cheers.

Edited August 16, 2007 by loffa

[Metal]

Lifetime warrenty against defects in materials and workmanship specifically with Trials use in mind.

Thats about the bash so I would asume its very high qulity, I would base it more on what gear ratio you want to run.

[Conor the basher.]

Hey.

I use the super pro bash and there really amazing however the only chain you can really use with the are kmc kool chains ( snappy happy), the bash wil last you a very very very long time so its good value for money imo.

my friend max-t is using the heastsink bash and they are also really good will fit a nice strong chunky chain and look pritty cool, i have found that the material use on them is quite soft make them look a bit tatty after a while but its not all about looks

cheers conor, ( sorry about spelling the spell check dose'nt work )

[IOLO]

get the heatsink one !!

it is pure brilliance !!

some of the middleburn Ti ones are steel.

and i think they put to much pressure on a chain due to being very small.

18t seems to be ace !

GO FOR IT !

iolo.

[that NBR dude]

I would highly reccomend the Heatsink bash for many reasons:

The middleburn bash has an intergrated chainring, so when the teeth wear down, you have to throw the whole thing away, the Heatsink bash has a replacable chainring, so you can just replace the ring in time.

The 18tooth setup on the Heatsink is also better matched gearing wise, as the 16tooth on the middleburn causes a lot of strain on the chain.

The heatsink bash will put up with far more abuse, and is designed that it can be used, whereas the Middleburn bash looks very thin, and would disintergrate the second it comes in contact with a wall, and many people have found that a KMC Kool chain will not be totally protected due to the thickness of the chain extruding over the bashguard.

[loffa]

Thanks for the opinions guys, keep them coming I've also added a poll to make it a bit easier to reply.

[manuel]

heatsink ...

the burns is now steel, too small, and a little flimsy.

[Bigman]

Another vote for the heatsink bash such an awsome bash, i love mine!

Adam

[Ash-Kennard]

super pro is tiny, looks cool, but snaps chains and teeth wear out, is made from steel now too.

if i had the couice i would get the heatsink, but no money so ive still got the super pro (ti though haha)

[poopipe]

cloud 9 but only cos I like Steve

[SQuiT-man]

Why do people think that smaller front chainring puts more pressure on the chain? As long as you adjust the rear chainring accordingly so the gear ratio is different, there would only be two reasons I can think of to higher stress:

i) putting force through the drivechain with the back brake on, which we don't really do (chains go while you are in mid-pedal surge, not when the brakes are on)

ii) the bash being too small, so that the chainring/chain is exposed to the surfaces you go to bashguard on

but the second one is pretty valid.. Personally I'd probs still go for the heatsink just out of my preference

[that NBR dude]

Its where you have 2 very small rings, the chian is at a tighter angle round the chianring. Think of this at both ends, and you are putting a lot of force through a smaller surface area.

take this as a very extreme example:

On this incredibly large chainring, the chain is running round at only a few degrees, all the way round. Also, when you pedal, you have roughly 24teeth (assuming its a 48tooth for example) spreading the load of pedalling through the chainlinks

Now take a 16 tooth Middleburn bash:

The chain running around that ring will be at a far greater angle, due to it being smaller. Also, when you pedal, the force is going through roughly 8 teeth, so a far greater load spread across less area, hence they snap very easily.

Edited August 18, 2007 by Andy@NBR

[Phatmike]

The chain running around that ring will be at a far greater angle, due to it being smaller. Also, when you pedal, the force is going through roughly 8 teeth, so a far greater load spread across less area, hence they snap very easily.

That, and the fact if you think about moments and forces, you're putting more force through the chain with a smaller ring, due to the increased leverage.

Anyways, I helped out with the development of the bash, and received the first prototype, and I've never had any troubles. I'd go with a HS one. (And have owned 2 Middleburn Ti bashes).

[Krisboats]

The chain running around that ring will be at a far greater angle, due to it being smaller. Also, when you pedal, the force is going through roughly 8 teeth, so a far greater load spread across less area, hence they snap very easily.

Is there really much difference between the amount of chain wrap on a 16tooth and an 18tooth chainring?

[011001000110010101110010]

cloud 9 fo shiz

[ogre]

why're you all paranoid about a 16t when mods have 12t on the rear and it's all good

[Bigman]

why're you all paranoid about a 16t when mods have 12t on the rear and it's all good

Yeh, but then again the wheels are alot smaller, meaning they require less torque to get them to spin

Adam

[Krisboats]

Yeh, but then again the wheels are alot smaller, meaning they require less torque to get them to spin

Adam

Yeah but its still going to have a smaller number of teeth to grip the chain with meaning more stress on the chain. The wheel may be smaller but isn't the most stress put through the chain at the point where the bike is stationary and the stress eases of as the wheel starts to move?

[SQuiT-man]

That, and the fact if you think about moments and forces, you're putting more force through the chain with a smaller ring, due to the increased leverage.

Yeh, but then again the wheels are alot smaller, meaning they require less torque to get them to spin

Adam

the overall effective gearing (when you take into account the size of the wheels as a factor) is pretty damn similar on a mod and a stock though. Besides, to achieve the right gear ratio, if you get a smaller front chainring you generally get a smaller rear also, so no more tension?

why're you all paranoid about a 16t when mods have 12t on the rear and it's all good

tis true

Also, when you pedal, the force is going through roughly 8 teeth, so a far greater load spread across less area, hence they snap very easily.

That sounds a bit more feasible though perhaps, but only if the load is spread across each chainlink which is engaged on the chainring (and not say if there was any slight slack between links when it's on the chianring, all the load would always be on the last link so it wouldnt matter on how big the chainring is)

Id still think the chainring size shouldn't matter much though , mods are a great example of this

Edited August 19, 2007 by SQuiT-man

[loffa]

A smaller front sprocket WILL put a larger stress to the chain and it's explainable by pretty simple physics. Think about leverage. The closer you are to the pivoting point the more power you get and the less movement you get. Now let's take leverage to your crankarms: The crankarm is one side of the lever, your bottom bracket is the pivoting point and the radius of the sprocket is the other side of the lever sticking over the pivoting point. Just like shown in the pic below:

Now, let's say that you put force X to the crank arm. With a 34t chainring you'll get force A at the part where chain meets the chainring. But with a 16t chainring you'll get force B with still using the same force X at the crank arm. Force B is much stronger than force A because the other side of the lever is shorter thus giving you more power and less movement of the chain. And now this has to be balanced with a smaller rear cog to get the same amount of wheel movement.

The same thing works with rear cogs. One side of the lever is the radius of your rear wheel, the wheel axle is the pivoting point and the other side of the lever is the radius of your rear cog. But now you are operating with the smaller end of the pivot and you have move the longer one and the law works the opposite way: The smaller your rear cog is the more pressure and less chain movement you have to apply to get the wheel rotate the same amount. But you cannot compare a 20" and 26" bike with different sized rear cogs. On a 20" bike the longer side of the lever is much shorter and thus the shorter side has to be shorter as well.

PS. Sorry for my terrible physics terminology, but hopefully you get the point

Edited August 20, 2007 by loffa

[RobinJI]

^^ all sounds good to me

Mr Singleton's got it, its all to do with moments of forces. Smaller chain ring = more leverage on the chain = more snap happy. It's as simple as that. The rear cog is a compleatly seperate deal, just think of that as an anchor point for the chain, doesnt matter about the size in this case, as its not what we're thinking about.

[Krisboats]

So theres really that much difference between 16 and 18 tooth chainrings, based on the fact you only including 2 more teeth and if we're talking about leverage as being the main cause of chain snaps, the radius (half the actual diameter) of the chainring.

What size difference is there between the radius on a 16 and an 18 tooth chainring?

[Felix]

So theres really that much difference between 16 and 18 tooth chainrings, based on the fact you only including 2 more teeth and if we're talking about leverage as being the main cause of chain snaps, the radius (half the actual diameter) of the chainring.

What size difference is there between the radius on a 16 and an 18 tooth chainring?

18t: 18 links, 2 links are 1" in length --> 9" in circumference or 22,86mm in proper dimensions Divided by 2*pi gives a radius of 3,64cm

16t: 20,32mm radius 3,23cm

That's roughly 12% difference between 16t and 18t.

The radius for 22t is 4,45cm by the way.

Edited August 20, 2007 by Felix

[Krisboats]

18t: 18 links, 2 links are 1" in length --> 9" in circumference or 22,86mm in proper dimensions Divided by 2*pi gives a radius of 3,64cm

16t: 20,32mm radius 3,23cm

That's roughly 12% difference between 16t and 18t.

The radius for 22t is 4,45cm by the way.

I can't help but feel that isn't the actual size of the chainring though, the fact that its roughly 11% not 12 has me wondering if there could be more problems with that calculation, maybe its going to be more accurate to just measure them with a ruler

Edited August 20, 2007 by Krisboats

[RobinJI]

Nope, those calculations are all sound. If you're gunna be really picky I guess you could say that as the chain does not bend in a continuous arc, but in half inch sections, you should be calculating the width across of a 16 and 18 sided regular polygon with a perimeter of 8 and 9 inch's respectively, rather than a circle, but meh, gunna make shit all difference in the end. It does make a surprising difference to the diameter of a circle when you increase the circumference.