Skewing chainline

On the shore, we tend to use the smaller half of our cassette's much less than the big-three/four...so it makes me wonder if we should be playing with BB spacers or choosing non-boost chainrings to move the chainline more inboard. I noticed my chainring is pretty worn out on the outside, which leads me to believe that the angle from the big-ring to the chainring is too great.

Has anyone done some experimenting?

NSB offers their product as "chainline corrected" rings that are offset. I find they fit about as close as I'd want to most of my chainstays and run a bunch smoother in climbing gears.

Have used Cinch. SRAM DM, Shimano DM, 96mm, 104mm from them and somehow always just the right offset.

I spend a lot of time fussing over stuff like this. Spacers work too, if you have the right config to allow swapping parts around - like Cinch on a fatbike.

There were some builders in norcal who used to build bikes with boost rear end, non boost rings. It works alright (except might mean some work with your chain guide) and makes a lot of sense if you have the stay clearance.

Posted by: Taz123

On the shore, we tend to use the smaller half of our cassette's much less than the big-three/four...so it makes me wonder if we should be playing with BB spacers or choosing non-boost chainrings to move the chainline more inboard. I noticed my chainring is pretty worn out on the outside, which leads me to believe that the angle from the big-ring to the chainring is too great.

Has anyone done some experimenting?

Yes I have done this using different offset chainrings. Worked just fine. I'd much rather have a straighter chainline in the big cogs than the little cogs.

I run non-boost cranks/ring with a boost back end and according to my math it gives a better chain line. Frame and tire clearance are the (potential) issues and will depend on your specific setup.

Posted by: tashi

I run non-boost cranks/ring with a boost back end and according to my math it gives a better chain line. Frame and tire clearance are the (potential) issues and will depend on your specific setup.

Yup. It makes the bike less prone to dropping the chain when backpedalling in the big cogs as well. 

As long as no clearance issues, in particular chain buzzing the tire when in the 50t, I think there's zero downside.

^^^same here. I was concerned at first but there is ample frame clearance for my Megatower with non-boost cranks  

Wolftooth has a pretty good article on just this topic and they do note non-boost components on a boost frame can actually give a better chain line depending on your case.

yeah, i space inboard as well. given the much higher torque in the low gears it makes sense to skew more chainline offset to the small cogs.

Posted by: Taz123

Has anyone done some experimenting?

Yes! For the past 4 years or so, my preferred setup is a 28t oval ring mounted to the granny mounts on my 104/64 non boost 2x cranks,  boost rear end.  This usually just clears the chainstay (a more conventional 3x crank would not without sketchy bb spacing).

I find this gives me a perfect centered chainline on my 3rd lowest gear (out of 10).

Posted by: tashi

I run non-boost cranks/ring with a boost back end and according to my math it gives a better chain line. Frame and tire clearance are the (potential) issues and will depend on your specific setup.

Oh yeah, mine is a triple (XTR 980) works well. Cost effective too.

I am another one running a Wolftooth Non-Boost on a Boost rear end to get a better chainline in the low gears.  Smooth silent climbing is what it is all about.  

No tire rubbing, no dropped chains when back pedaling and dead straight chainline in the middle cogs.  Yes there is wear on the outside of the cog but much less than running a Boost ring that optimizes the harder gears.  

I tinkered enough to get a chainguide to work with zero rubbing as well.

Posted by: Dean-W

I am another one running a Wolftooth Non-Boost on a Boost rear end to get a better chainline in the low gears.  Smooth silent climbing is what it is all about.  

No tire rubbing, no dropped chains when back pedaling and dead straight chainline in the middle cogs.  Yes there is wear on the outside of the cog but much less than running a Boost ring that optimizes the harder gears.  

I tinkered enough to get a chainguide to work with zero rubbing as well.

Dean is that the CAMO ring set up? Its hard to see on my cell. 

I am looking at that now as OneUp has discontinued their 12spd Eagle rings and now only sell rings that are designed to work with Shimano 12spd. The 12spd Shimano rings don't last as long and chain starts to clatter on the ring after about 300km with a Sram Eagle chain. Wolftooth makes two types of rings for this very reason. One for skinny Shimano 12spd and a thicker one for Sram 12spd. As the skinny Shimano rings do not hold good tension on the Eagle chains. I hope the OneUp product development team fixes this as I am a long time user of the Switch DM and would hate to switch away. But the CAMO setup looks like an awesome alternative and as someone who racks up a lot of KM the SS chainring looks like an awesome idea.

I am not running the CAMO.  It is just the round, aluminum, SRAM (Drop-Stop A), CINCH ring.

KMC chain, XO1 52T cassette, XX1 mech.  This is a silent, zero rubbing setup on this bike.  I get about a year out of a chainring riding 2-times a week every week.

Great comments everyone - I ended up ordering a NS Billet boost ring, but will change my BB spacing more inward. Should arrive today, so I hope to get some riding in in the coming days to see how it all feels.