# 53 and 52 with same chain length?



## jetdog9 (Jul 12, 2007)

I would have figured this has come up before but searches didn't find anything...

Can one get away with using a 52 and 53 chainring with the same chain and not add/remove links? Currently 11-28 on the back.

Currently have the 52 on, and it *looks* like there's enough slack in the chain or whatever that I could try it but not sure and don't want to mess things up. But I wanted to see if I can try the 53 without having to get a new chain basically...


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

jetdog9 said:


> I would have figured this has come up before but searches didn't find anything...
> 
> Can one get away with using a 52 and 53 chainring with the same chain and not add/remove links? Currently 11-28 on the back.
> 
> Currently have the 52 on, and it *looks* like there's enough slack in the chain or whatever that I could try it but not sure and don't want to mess things up. But I wanted to see if I can try the 53 without having to get a new chain basically...


Without actually seeing your current chain length there is no way to know for sure. I'd bet you'll be fine. If the chain was sized small/small you would have no problems. Put your bike in big/big and see if there is slack to be had.


----------



## ericm979 (Jun 26, 2005)

Your chain length would have to really be on the limit for the 1/2" inch difference in total chain length to make a difference.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

I went from standard to semi-compact. no chain issue at all.


----------



## jetdog9 (Jul 12, 2007)

Thanks, all, will give it a shot. Although not looking forward to messing with FD.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

jetdog9 said:


> Thanks, all, will give it a shot. Although not looking forward to messing with FD.


I just converted my standard to semi-compact. the front derailleur doesn't have to move, it won't be optimal but its not that serious a change in size(52 vs 53).


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Trek_5200 said:


> I went from standard to semi-compact. no chain issue at all.


Of course there won't be. You put on a smaller big ring, not a smaller one.

@OP - Loosen up the B screw before you do this.


----------



## kjdhawkhill (Jan 29, 2011)

jetdog9 said:


> Thanks, all, will give it a shot. Although not looking forward to messing with FD.


I went from a 48/39 to a 46/36 and put on a whole new derailleur. Just be patient,watch a YouTube video or three and you'll be fine. I'm capable of following directions, but not terribly mechanically inclined. It just takes way longer for me than a shop.

They're bikes, not rockets, you (likely) won't brake anything setting it up in the stand.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

jetdog9 said:


> Thanks, all, will give it a shot. Although not looking forward to messing with FD.


As long as nothing touches, you're golden. Though adjusting the FD isn't that difficult. Look up the directions for that FD, follow carefully and you will be fine.

As far as the chain length, On a bike stand VERY CAREFULLY try to shift into the large/large combination. If it binds, you will need a longer chain. If you can shift successfully into this combination, you're fine. DO NOT try this while you are riding.


----------



## jetdog9 (Jul 12, 2007)

Oh I'm bike-mechanically-inclined enough to mess with the FD, just one of my least favorite chores. Thanks, folks!


----------



## looigi (Nov 24, 2010)

ericm979 said:


> Your chain length would have to really be on the limit for the 1/2" inch difference in total chain length to make a difference.


Actually, the difference is 1/4". There's one tooth (1/2") difference in circumference but the chain only goes half way around.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

looigi said:


> Actually, the difference is 1/4". There's one tooth (1/2") difference in circumference but the chain only goes half way around.


^^^^ This. Beat me to it.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

jetdog9 said:


> Oh I'm bike-mechanically-inclined enough to mess with the FD, just one of my least favorite chores. Thanks, folks!


You might want to lower the front derailleur if it's more than 2 mm above the large ring, or raise it if its less than 2 mm. Easy to do. That's it. No tension or travel adjustments needed. Just keep the outer cage parallel to the chain rings. If derailleur is too far above chain ring, it won't shift crisply. You'll have to adjust it to "overshift" slightly to make the shift.


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

looigi said:


> Actually, the difference is 1/4". There's one tooth (1/2") difference in circumference but the chain only goes half way around.


/Yea, but he wants to use both sides of the chainring./


----------



## looigi (Nov 24, 2010)

duriel said:


> /Yea, but he wants to use both sides of the chainring./


Yes, but not at the same time.


----------



## TmB123 (Feb 8, 2013)

I don't know what brand of FD you have but Shimano recommend a maximum 16T difference between front chain rings for the FD to handle (ie 36/52). Are you looking to just change the big ring or both because raising the FD to accomodate the 53 "might" have implications on the 36 (assuming that is what you have)

Anyone here know how much difference the FD can handle in real life as opposed to Shimano spec??


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

TmB123 said:


> I don't know what brand of FD you have but Shimano recommend a maximum 16T difference between front chain rings for the FD to handle (ie 36/52). Are you looking to just change the big ring or both because raising the FD to accomodate the 53 "might" have implications on the 36 (assuming that is what you have)
> 
> Anyone here know how much difference the FD can handle in real life as opposed to Shimano spec??




Hmmm. This could possibly be an issue, though unlikely one tooth would be a show stopper. And if 53 chainring fits without adjusting FD, then no problem.


----------



## jetdog9 (Jul 12, 2007)

When I switch the 52 to 53, I'm also going to be switching the 36 to 39 so the tooth difference won't be an issue. Still haven't done it yet, lazy.


----------



## jetdog9 (Jul 12, 2007)

Finally got around to doing this as part of an overall upgrade of components on the bike. 

For the record it turns out the chain was just 1-2 links too short to go from a 52 to 53 in my case. Oh, well.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

It was too short in the first place if this is the case. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

cxwrench said:


> It was too short in the first place if this is the case.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Exactly. One tooth is half a link, and since the chain wraps only a little over half the ring, a change of one tooth requires the chain to be a bit more than 1/4 link longer.


----------



## jetdog9 (Jul 12, 2007)

Good to know, thanks guys. Either the mechanic who built it or the original owner who rode it once before he sold it to me might have been a weight psycho or something.

One question for terminology, though. When you are talking about changing size of chain, you have to do it in sets of 2 links, right? Or is a "link" considered a combination of one set of inner plates and one set of outer plates? Does this question make sense?


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

jetdog9 said:


> One question for terminology, though. When you are talking about changing size of chain, you have to do it in sets of 2 links, right? Or is a "link" considered a combination of one set of inner plates and one set of outer plates? Does this question make sense?


Yes, the question makes sense, and is a good one. That set of a pair of inner plates and a pair of outer plates, spanning 2 pins ( one inch -- 2 teeth on the ring or cog) is a "link". You have to add or remove that full set (or multiple ones) to change the chain length, so that minimum bit is normally called a link, rather than 2 links.

For getting proper chain tension on a fixed-gear or single-speed on a frame with vertical dropouts, it is sometimes desirable to change the chain length by only half an inch, which is impossible with normal chain links. Manufacturers have come up with a half-link that has inner plates at one end and outer at the other, so that half an inch replaces a full inch.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

jetdog9 said:


> Good to know, thanks guys. Either the mechanic who built it or the original owner who rode it once before he sold it to me might have been a weight psycho or something.
> 
> One question for terminology, though. When you are talking about changing size of chain, you have to do it in sets of 2 links, right? Or is a "link" considered a combination of one set of inner plates and one set of outer plates? Does this question make sense?


Cavilia's right on. To which we should add, half link adjustments aren't necessary on a derailleur tensioned chain.


----------



## jetdog9 (Jul 12, 2007)

Thanks again, guys. 

BTW, my singlespeed MTB uses a White Bros ENO, so no half links for me!


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

jetdog9 said:


> BTW, my singlespeed MTB uses a White Bros ENO, so no half links for me!


Fancy stuff ;-) No half links for me, either, but it's because my fixies are built on old (70's) frames repurposed, so I have the good old-fashioned horizontal dropouts to take care of chain tension.


----------

