|
|
Chain Stretch
I've been thinking about chain wear, sometimes called chain stretch, and have done a bit of research on the subject. One method is to lay the chain on a flat surface and measure the wear over, perhaps 12 inches of chain length, from the head of one pin to another. But modern multi speed chains are a bit more complex then the old fashioned chains and the rollers on a modern chain are not supported by the pins but by protrusions on the inner surface of the inner links thus does the distance from roller to roller relate to distance from pin to pin? Another method is to ignore the pin to pin distance and simply measure the roller to roller distance using a chain gauge. But I have also read that when comparing roller to roller measurement to pin to pin measurement there is not necessarily a correlation, or in other words a pin to pin measurement might show one thing while the roller to roller might show a totally different wear pattern. In addition I read that in at least one case the roller to roller wear was not constant and varied from place to place in the length of the chain Brandt, I believe, wrote a treatise on chain measuring gauges and argued that nearly all of them gave an incorrect figure for wear, or perhaps, did it the wrong way. So the question is what is the best system to use to avoid unnecessary sprocket wear, assuming that sprockets cost more and are more trouble to change than chains. There seems to be three options. One, to use a ruler and measure from pin to pin. Two to use a chain tool and measure from roller to roller. Or three, to use some combination of the two. Or perhaps there is a fourth - ignore the whole thing as a tempest in a tea pot :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
Chain Stretch
On 9/15/2017 4:48 AM, John B. wrote:
I've been thinking about chain wear, sometimes called chain stretch, and have done a bit of research on the subject. One method is to lay the chain on a flat surface and measure the wear over, perhaps 12 inches of chain length, from the head of one pin to another. But modern multi speed chains are a bit more complex then the old fashioned chains and the rollers on a modern chain are not supported by the pins but by protrusions on the inner surface of the inner links thus does the distance from roller to roller relate to distance from pin to pin? Another method is to ignore the pin to pin distance and simply measure the roller to roller distance using a chain gauge. But I have also read that when comparing roller to roller measurement to pin to pin measurement there is not necessarily a correlation, or in other words a pin to pin measurement might show one thing while the roller to roller might show a totally different wear pattern. In addition I read that in at least one case the roller to roller wear was not constant and varied from place to place in the length of the chain Brandt, I believe, wrote a treatise on chain measuring gauges and argued that nearly all of them gave an incorrect figure for wear, or perhaps, did it the wrong way. So the question is what is the best system to use to avoid unnecessary sprocket wear, assuming that sprockets cost more and are more trouble to change than chains. There seems to be three options. One, to use a ruler and measure from pin to pin. Two to use a chain tool and measure from roller to roller. Or three, to use some combination of the two. Or perhaps there is a fourth - ignore the whole thing as a tempest in a tea pot :-) Interrupted sideplate chain does indeed wear faster than full roller chain. However both economy of manufacture and side flex (for index shifting) are better with interrupted sideplates. Generally, chain wear is measured with enough tension to take up any slack, not merely laid out on a table. The outer plates are joined by the rivet. The innies float and exhibit wear. By measuring 24 rivets' worth of slop we can effectively get an expanded 'vernier scale' of the very small per-rivet clearance change. Since our functional aspect for chain-to-sprocket efficiency is pitch, a rivet-t-rivet measurement seems right to me and all our gauges here measure that. See section #8d.2 he http://www.faqs.org/faqs/bicycles-faq/part3/ -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Chain Stretch
In article ,
John B. wrote: .... There seems to be three options. One, to use a ruler and measure from pin to pin. Two to use a chain tool and measure from roller to roller. Or three, to use some combination of the two. Or perhaps there is a fourth - ignore the whole thing as a tempest in a tea pot :-) Chains are half an inch pitch. Put the chain under tension and measure 24 links. At 12 and one eighth inches you're looking at 1% elongation and you're likely to need to replace both the chain and sprockets at the same time. At 12 and one sixteenth inches you're at 0.5% elongation and you're likely to just need to replace the chain. Looks like I need to replace both the sprockets and chain on my hybrid bike :-( If your chainstays are short, you may need to measure just 20 links and work with tenths and twentieths for the elongation. Bear in mind that most riders will mainly use a few sprockets. Those at the extreme end of the cassette get less use. You may find the much used sprockets will not run well with a new chain even if the old chain did not appear to have worn too much. -- Dennis Davis |
Chain Stretch
cure or find dry seasoned 1x4 or 6 ...poss in thick 1.25 hardwood longer than your chain
mark a new chain's length. measure stretch cleaning, and removing, chain, lubricate n let vertically hang into a container catching drips for 24-36 hours. measure total chain stretch divide into whatever , 2 feet, of average stretch or ...including the new chain measure. |
Chain Stretch
On 9/15/2017 5:48 AM, John B. wrote:
I've been thinking about chain wear, sometimes called chain stretch, and have done a bit of research on the subject. One method is to lay the chain on a flat surface and measure the wear over, perhaps 12 inches of chain length, from the head of one pin to another. But modern multi speed chains are a bit more complex then the old fashioned chains and the rollers on a modern chain are not supported by the pins but by protrusions on the inner surface of the inner links thus does the distance from roller to roller relate to distance from pin to pin? Another method is to ignore the pin to pin distance and simply measure the roller to roller distance using a chain gauge. But I have also read that when comparing roller to roller measurement to pin to pin measurement there is not necessarily a correlation, or in other words a pin to pin measurement might show one thing while the roller to roller might show a totally different wear pattern. In addition I read that in at least one case the roller to roller wear was not constant and varied from place to place in the length of the chain Brandt, I believe, wrote a treatise on chain measuring gauges and argued that nearly all of them gave an incorrect figure for wear, or perhaps, did it the wrong way. So the question is what is the best system to use to avoid unnecessary sprocket wear, assuming that sprockets cost more and are more trouble to change than chains. There seems to be three options. One, to use a ruler and measure from pin to pin. Two to use a chain tool and measure from roller to roller. Or three, to use some combination of the two. Or perhaps there is a fourth - ignore the whole thing as a tempest in a tea pot :-) I vote for "tempest in a tea pot." I understand that measuring pin to pin might give slightly different results than measuring using a chain gauge. But ISTM the difference must be minimal. If (say) your standard for chain replacement is 1/2%, and pin-to-pin gives 0.6% while chain gauge gave just under 0.5%, wouldn't it usually be sensible to replace the chain anyway? BTW, as Andrew said, I think it's worth while to put tension on the chain, not lay it out on a table. If the chain's off, perhaps hanging it from a nail would do. I measure mine on the bike and apply tension by blocking the rear wheel while applying a little force to the cranks. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Chain Stretch
On 2017-09-15 05:59, Dennis Davis wrote:
In article , John B. wrote: ... There seems to be three options. One, to use a ruler and measure from pin to pin. Two to use a chain tool and measure from roller to roller. Or three, to use some combination of the two. Or perhaps there is a fourth - ignore the whole thing as a tempest in a tea pot :-) Chains are half an inch pitch. Put the chain under tension and measure 24 links. At 12 and one eighth inches you're looking at 1% elongation and you're likely to need to replace both the chain and sprockets at the same time. At 12 and one sixteenth inches you're at 0.5% elongation and you're likely to just need to replace the chain. That's how I monitor it. Why buy a chain gauge when one already has a sufficiently long ruler? After I clean a chain and before lubing it I put a little pull on the chain by leaning my hand on a pedal, then hold the ruler with the 0" mark to a link edge and read the value 12" down the chain. I let my chains to about 0.8% which IME still allows same cassette use. One chain accidentally went to 1% on a long hilly and very dirty MTB ride (with KMC X10.93 it seems the wear accelerates a lot towards the end) and that ruined the cassette. Looks like I need to replace both the sprockets and chain on my hybrid bike :-( If your chainstays are short, you may need to measure just 20 links and work with tenths and twentieths for the elongation. Bear in mind that most riders will mainly use a few sprockets. Those at the extreme end of the cassette get less use. You may find the much used sprockets will not run well with a new chain even if the old chain did not appear to have worn too much. With many the cogs can be turned around which requires dremeling off part of the wider spline for HG cassettes. Fast shifting is gone then but on a road bike that never mattered much to me. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Chain Stretch
On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 16:48:59 +0700, John B wrote:
I've been thinking about chain wear, sometimes called chain stretch, and have done a bit of research on the subject. ....snip... So the question is what is the best system to use to avoid unnecessary sprocket wear, assuming that sprockets cost more and are more trouble to change than chains. There seems to be three options. One, to use a ruler and measure from pin to pin. Two to use a chain tool and measure from roller to roller. Or three, to use some combination of the two. Before I check the other answers: I use a chain measuring tool that goes betweenthe rollers. This is on the assumption that what the cog teeth see is the rollers, not the pins. I am assuming that the designers of the tools (I have two, a Park and a Rollhof) took into account that the tools measure two rollers at once, which may double the wear measurement as the two rollers are being pushed in opposite directions. IIRC this was Jobst's complaint about chain checkers. |
Chain Stretch
On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 8:55:27 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/15/2017 5:48 AM, John B. wrote: I've been thinking about chain wear, sometimes called chain stretch, and have done a bit of research on the subject. One method is to lay the chain on a flat surface and measure the wear over, perhaps 12 inches of chain length, from the head of one pin to another. But modern multi speed chains are a bit more complex then the old fashioned chains and the rollers on a modern chain are not supported by the pins but by protrusions on the inner surface of the inner links thus does the distance from roller to roller relate to distance from pin to pin? Another method is to ignore the pin to pin distance and simply measure the roller to roller distance using a chain gauge. But I have also read that when comparing roller to roller measurement to pin to pin measurement there is not necessarily a correlation, or in other words a pin to pin measurement might show one thing while the roller to roller might show a totally different wear pattern. In addition I read that in at least one case the roller to roller wear was not constant and varied from place to place in the length of the chain Brandt, I believe, wrote a treatise on chain measuring gauges and argued that nearly all of them gave an incorrect figure for wear, or perhaps, did it the wrong way. So the question is what is the best system to use to avoid unnecessary sprocket wear, assuming that sprockets cost more and are more trouble to change than chains. There seems to be three options. One, to use a ruler and measure from pin to pin. Two to use a chain tool and measure from roller to roller. Or three, to use some combination of the two. Or perhaps there is a fourth - ignore the whole thing as a tempest in a tea pot :-) I vote for "tempest in a tea pot." I understand that measuring pin to pin might give slightly different results than measuring using a chain gauge. But ISTM the difference must be minimal. If (say) your standard for chain replacement is 1/2%, and pin-to-pin gives 0.6% while chain gauge gave just under 0.5%, wouldn't it usually be sensible to replace the chain anyway? BTW, as Andrew said, I think it's worth while to put tension on the chain, not lay it out on a table. If the chain's off, perhaps hanging it from a nail would do. I measure mine on the bike and apply tension by blocking the rear wheel while applying a little force to the cranks. -- - Frank Krygowski I use a steel rule from Nbar with a spoke oblongness looking a lot lie the new tick puller. the 1x6 is marked at foot or mm intervals whereon chain is laid aside. calling your attention the the unfortunate fact the new chain has 4 ruined links in chain's midsection. reach for the pins you stocked last year n a moderately worn best section of stocked used chain....also found with the board. |
Chain Stretch
On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 6:25:31 AM UTC-7, duane wrote:
https://www.amazon.ca/s/?ie=UTF8&key...l_9msfsi9pxm_b Are you insinuating that the people that build chains might have a good idea of how to test them? For shame! That's for people like Frank to do. |
Chain Stretch
On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 5:59:57 AM UTC-7, Dennis Davis wrote:
In article , John B. wrote: ... There seems to be three options. One, to use a ruler and measure from pin to pin. Two to use a chain tool and measure from roller to roller. Or three, to use some combination of the two. Or perhaps there is a fourth - ignore the whole thing as a tempest in a tea pot :-) Chains are half an inch pitch. Put the chain under tension and measure 24 links. At 12 and one eighth inches you're looking at 1% elongation and you're likely to need to replace both the chain and sprockets at the same time. At 12 and one sixteenth inches you're at 0.5% elongation and you're likely to just need to replace the chain. Looks like I need to replace both the sprockets and chain on my hybrid bike :-( If your chainstays are short, you may need to measure just 20 links and work with tenths and twentieths for the elongation. Bear in mind that most riders will mainly use a few sprockets. Those at the extreme end of the cassette get less use. You may find the much used sprockets will not run well with a new chain even if the old chain did not appear to have worn too much. With chains getting ever more expensive, how do you prevent chain theft when out and about? |
Chain Stretch
Joerg wrote:
On 2017-09-15 05:59, Dennis Davis wrote: In article , John B. wrote: ... There seems to be three options. One, to use a ruler and measure from pin to pin. Two to use a chain tool and measure from roller to roller. Or three, to use some combination of the two. Or perhaps there is a fourth - ignore the whole thing as a tempest in a tea pot :-) Chains are half an inch pitch. Put the chain under tension and measure 24 links. At 12 and one eighth inches you're looking at 1% elongation and you're likely to need to replace both the chain and sprockets at the same time. At 12 and one sixteenth inches you're at 0.5% elongation and you're likely to just need to replace the chain. That's how I monitor it. Why buy a chain gauge when one already has a sufficiently long ruler? After I clean a chain and before lubing it I put a little pull on the chain by leaning my hand on a pedal, then hold the ruler with the 0" mark to a link edge and read the value 12" down the chain. I let my chains to about 0.8% which IME still allows same cassette use. One chain accidentally went to 1% on a long hilly and very dirty MTB ride (with KMC X10.93 it seems the wear accelerates a lot y towards the end) and that ruined the cassette. I assume you don't use 11 speed chains. .8 would mean your cassette was likely shot. I used to use a ruler pin to pin test but this doesn't really tell you if the rollers are sloppy. A cheap chain gauge will test that. Looks like I need to replace both the sprockets and chain on my hybrid bike :-( If your chainstays are short, you may need to measure just 20 links and work with tenths and twentieths for the elongation. Bear in mind that most riders will mainly use a few sprockets. Those at the extreme end of the cassette get less use. You may find the much used sprockets will not run well with a new chain even if the old chain did not appear to have worn too much. With many the cogs can be turned around which requires dremeling off part of the wider spline for HG cassettes. Fast shifting is gone then but on a road bike that never mattered much to me. Yeah but you're a unique individual when it comes to what matters to you. Sloppy shifting is not something I would put up with to save a few bucks. Certainly not if it means hacking my cogs with a Dremel tool. -- duane |
Chain Stretch
On 9/15/2017 7:45 PM, Doug Landau wrote:
With chains getting ever more expensive, how do you prevent chain theft when out and about? With a lock and chain, of course. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Chain Stretch
On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 07:44:29 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/15/2017 4:48 AM, John B. wrote: I've been thinking about chain wear, sometimes called chain stretch, and have done a bit of research on the subject. One method is to lay the chain on a flat surface and measure the wear over, perhaps 12 inches of chain length, from the head of one pin to another. But modern multi speed chains are a bit more complex then the old fashioned chains and the rollers on a modern chain are not supported by the pins but by protrusions on the inner surface of the inner links thus does the distance from roller to roller relate to distance from pin to pin? Another method is to ignore the pin to pin distance and simply measure the roller to roller distance using a chain gauge. But I have also read that when comparing roller to roller measurement to pin to pin measurement there is not necessarily a correlation, or in other words a pin to pin measurement might show one thing while the roller to roller might show a totally different wear pattern. In addition I read that in at least one case the roller to roller wear was not constant and varied from place to place in the length of the chain Brandt, I believe, wrote a treatise on chain measuring gauges and argued that nearly all of them gave an incorrect figure for wear, or perhaps, did it the wrong way. So the question is what is the best system to use to avoid unnecessary sprocket wear, assuming that sprockets cost more and are more trouble to change than chains. There seems to be three options. One, to use a ruler and measure from pin to pin. Two to use a chain tool and measure from roller to roller. Or three, to use some combination of the two. Or perhaps there is a fourth - ignore the whole thing as a tempest in a tea pot :-) Interrupted sideplate chain does indeed wear faster than full roller chain. However both economy of manufacture and side flex (for index shifting) are better with interrupted sideplates. Generally, chain wear is measured with enough tension to take up any slack, not merely laid out on a table. The outer plates are joined by the rivet. The innies float and exhibit wear. By measuring 24 rivets' worth of slop we can effectively get an expanded 'vernier scale' of the very small per-rivet clearance change. Since our functional aspect for chain-to-sprocket efficiency is pitch, a rivet-t-rivet measurement seems right to me and all our gauges here measure that. See section #8d.2 he http://www.faqs.org/faqs/bicycles-faq/part3/ Yup, Brandt (in all his glory :-) I've been using an 18" stainless scale (ruler) which assuming a 1% wear limit is 3/16". (old eyes need big marks :-) I recently came across another chain measuring scheme that seemed to make good sense. Simply pull on the chain at the front of the chain ring forwards to see how much it moves away from the sprocket teeth. -- Cheers, John B. |
Chain Stretch
On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 07:56:27 -0700, Joerg
wrote: On 2017-09-15 05:59, Dennis Davis wrote: In article , John B. wrote: ... There seems to be three options. One, to use a ruler and measure from pin to pin. Two to use a chain tool and measure from roller to roller. Or three, to use some combination of the two. Or perhaps there is a fourth - ignore the whole thing as a tempest in a tea pot :-) Chains are half an inch pitch. Put the chain under tension and measure 24 links. At 12 and one eighth inches you're looking at 1% elongation and you're likely to need to replace both the chain and sprockets at the same time. At 12 and one sixteenth inches you're at 0.5% elongation and you're likely to just need to replace the chain. That's how I monitor it. Why buy a chain gauge when one already has a sufficiently long ruler? After I clean a chain and before lubing it I put a little pull on the chain by leaning my hand on a pedal, then hold the ruler with the 0" mark to a link edge and read the value 12" down the chain. I let my chains to about 0.8% which IME still allows same cassette use. One chain accidentally went to 1% on a long hilly and very dirty MTB ride (with KMC X10.93 it seems the wear accelerates a lot towards the end) and that ruined the cassette. The reason for the chain gauge is that the length of a chain, between pins has little to do with the distance from roller to roller as the rollers are not mounted on the pins. Although to be honest Brandt in one of his essays argued that most chain gauges don't measure the wear correctly either. -- Cheers, John B. |
Chain Stretch
On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 10:30:56 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote: On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 16:48:59 +0700, John B wrote: I've been thinking about chain wear, sometimes called chain stretch, and have done a bit of research on the subject. ...snip... So the question is what is the best system to use to avoid unnecessary sprocket wear, assuming that sprockets cost more and are more trouble to change than chains. There seems to be three options. One, to use a ruler and measure from pin to pin. Two to use a chain tool and measure from roller to roller. Or three, to use some combination of the two. Before I check the other answers: I use a chain measuring tool that goes betweenthe rollers. This is on the assumption that what the cog teeth see is the rollers, not the pins. I am assuming that the designers of the tools (I have two, a Park and a Rollhof) took into account that the tools measure two rollers at once, which may double the wear measurement as the two rollers are being pushed in opposite directions. IIRC this was Jobst's complaint about chain checkers. Yes that was Brandt's objection to chain gauges, and see http://www.fagan.co.za/Bikes/Csuck/STRETCH-MEASURE.htm I also repeated my investigation into "stretch" of brand new chains on the same chains indicated in "Norms when new", using a borrowed Park Tool. This showed "stretch" of +0.20% to +0.40% (using a method to interpret the Park reading). So the Park Tool is conservative, but unneccesarily and wastefully so if the +0.5% criterion is used for discarding chains. Park's own criterion of +1.0% gets around this to some degree but leaves a wrong understanding of the issue. There are fundamental geometric reasons why this device (and other generics based on the same idea) will over-measure, and the degree of over-measurement gets worse as the chain wears. I don't know if any generics have some way of mitigating the problem and providing more accurate measurements, but it would appear not. -- Cheers, John B. |
Chain Stretch
On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 10:55:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 9/15/2017 5:48 AM, John B. wrote: I've been thinking about chain wear, sometimes called chain stretch, and have done a bit of research on the subject. One method is to lay the chain on a flat surface and measure the wear over, perhaps 12 inches of chain length, from the head of one pin to another. But modern multi speed chains are a bit more complex then the old fashioned chains and the rollers on a modern chain are not supported by the pins but by protrusions on the inner surface of the inner links thus does the distance from roller to roller relate to distance from pin to pin? Another method is to ignore the pin to pin distance and simply measure the roller to roller distance using a chain gauge. But I have also read that when comparing roller to roller measurement to pin to pin measurement there is not necessarily a correlation, or in other words a pin to pin measurement might show one thing while the roller to roller might show a totally different wear pattern. In addition I read that in at least one case the roller to roller wear was not constant and varied from place to place in the length of the chain Brandt, I believe, wrote a treatise on chain measuring gauges and argued that nearly all of them gave an incorrect figure for wear, or perhaps, did it the wrong way. So the question is what is the best system to use to avoid unnecessary sprocket wear, assuming that sprockets cost more and are more trouble to change than chains. There seems to be three options. One, to use a ruler and measure from pin to pin. Two to use a chain tool and measure from roller to roller. Or three, to use some combination of the two. Or perhaps there is a fourth - ignore the whole thing as a tempest in a tea pot :-) I vote for "tempest in a tea pot." I understand that measuring pin to pin might give slightly different results than measuring using a chain gauge. But ISTM the difference must be minimal. If (say) your standard for chain replacement is 1/2%, and pin-to-pin gives 0.6% while chain gauge gave just under 0.5%, wouldn't it usually be sensible to replace the chain anyway? BTW, as Andrew said, I think it's worth while to put tension on the chain, not lay it out on a table. If the chain's off, perhaps hanging it from a nail would do. I measure mine on the bike and apply tension by blocking the rear wheel while applying a little force to the cranks. I am inclined toward the tea pot solution but something that got me more interested in the question was an article, somewhere, that suggested pulling forward on the chain on the centerline of the chain ring with the chain on the smallest rear cog. I tried it on two different bikes both of which had essentially the same length chains (measured with a ruler) and got different results. -- Cheers, John B. |
Chain Stretch
In article ,
Doug Landau wrote: .... With chains getting ever more expensive, how do you prevent chain theft when out and about? The chains are the least of my worries. It's the high-end road cassettes that keep me awake at night. Their price seems justifiable only if they're hand-crafted out of titanium and mithril by Tour de France winners. Yes Campagnolo, I mean your Super Record road cassettes. Although I'm sure there are other exclusive cassettes I could be using. On a ride I have my butler follow me in a specially modified Centurion tank[1]. If I stop for any reason, the priceless bicycle is loaded into the tank and all battle armament is switched on and set to "scan and destroy". The "scan and destroy" is a recent feature installed by my weapons technicians. It's an arms race out there. Gotta keep up. Times have changed since the days of my granddad[2]. We Road Warriors need to maintain a state of high alertness at all times. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centurion_(tank) [2[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_Thieves -- Dennis Davis |
Chain Stretch
On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 06:52:11 +0000 (UTC), Dennis Davis
wrote: In article , Doug Landau wrote: ... With chains getting ever more expensive, how do you prevent chain theft when out and about? The chains are the least of my worries. It's the high-end road cassettes that keep me awake at night. Their price seems justifiable only if they're hand-crafted out of titanium and mithril by Tour de France winners. Yes Campagnolo, I mean your Super Record road cassettes. Although I'm sure there are other exclusive cassettes I could be using. On a ride I have my butler follow me in a specially modified Centurion tank[1]. If I stop for any reason, the priceless bicycle is loaded into the tank and all battle armament is switched on and set to "scan and destroy". The "scan and destroy" is a recent feature installed by my weapons technicians. The Butler? How improper. Most gentlemen would have the Coachman in the tank while the Butler to hold the fort in the "Big House" while the Master is abroad. After all, if the Butler were to leave who would there be to defend the wine cellar? And the Cheval Blanc 1947 is $33,781 a bottle. It's an arms race out there. Gotta keep up. Times have changed since the days of my granddad[2]. We Road Warriors need to maintain a state of high alertness at all times. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centurion_(tank) [2[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_Thieves -- Cheers, John B. |
Chain Stretch
On 9/15/2017 10:20 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 07:44:29 -0500, AMuzi wrote: On 9/15/2017 4:48 AM, John B. wrote: I've been thinking about chain wear, sometimes called chain stretch, and have done a bit of research on the subject. One method is to lay the chain on a flat surface and measure the wear over, perhaps 12 inches of chain length, from the head of one pin to another. But modern multi speed chains are a bit more complex then the old fashioned chains and the rollers on a modern chain are not supported by the pins but by protrusions on the inner surface of the inner links thus does the distance from roller to roller relate to distance from pin to pin? Another method is to ignore the pin to pin distance and simply measure the roller to roller distance using a chain gauge. But I have also read that when comparing roller to roller measurement to pin to pin measurement there is not necessarily a correlation, or in other words a pin to pin measurement might show one thing while the roller to roller might show a totally different wear pattern. In addition I read that in at least one case the roller to roller wear was not constant and varied from place to place in the length of the chain Brandt, I believe, wrote a treatise on chain measuring gauges and argued that nearly all of them gave an incorrect figure for wear, or perhaps, did it the wrong way. So the question is what is the best system to use to avoid unnecessary sprocket wear, assuming that sprockets cost more and are more trouble to change than chains. There seems to be three options. One, to use a ruler and measure from pin to pin. Two to use a chain tool and measure from roller to roller. Or three, to use some combination of the two. Or perhaps there is a fourth - ignore the whole thing as a tempest in a tea pot :-) Interrupted sideplate chain does indeed wear faster than full roller chain. However both economy of manufacture and side flex (for index shifting) are better with interrupted sideplates. Generally, chain wear is measured with enough tension to take up any slack, not merely laid out on a table. The outer plates are joined by the rivet. The innies float and exhibit wear. By measuring 24 rivets' worth of slop we can effectively get an expanded 'vernier scale' of the very small per-rivet clearance change. Since our functional aspect for chain-to-sprocket efficiency is pitch, a rivet-t-rivet measurement seems right to me and all our gauges here measure that. See section #8d.2 he http://www.faqs.org/faqs/bicycles-faq/part3/ Yup, Brandt (in all his glory :-) I've been using an 18" stainless scale (ruler) which assuming a 1% wear limit is 3/16". (old eyes need big marks :-) I recently came across another chain measuring scheme that seemed to make good sense. Simply pull on the chain at the front of the chain ring forwards to see how much it moves away from the sprocket teeth. The ancient rule of thumb for that is replace chain when a 4mm key will slip under the chain. Index shifting will be poor when a 5mm key fits. You cannot stand on the pedals when a 6mm key slides under the links. That's a very rough gradient and not always accurate, but a starting point anyway. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Chain Stretch
On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 8:21:14 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 07:44:29 -0500, AMuzi wrote: On 9/15/2017 4:48 AM, John B. wrote: I've been thinking about chain wear, sometimes called chain stretch, and have done a bit of research on the subject. One method is to lay the chain on a flat surface and measure the wear over, perhaps 12 inches of chain length, from the head of one pin to another. But modern multi speed chains are a bit more complex then the old fashioned chains and the rollers on a modern chain are not supported by the pins but by protrusions on the inner surface of the inner links thus does the distance from roller to roller relate to distance from pin to pin? Another method is to ignore the pin to pin distance and simply measure the roller to roller distance using a chain gauge. But I have also read that when comparing roller to roller measurement to pin to pin measurement there is not necessarily a correlation, or in other words a pin to pin measurement might show one thing while the roller to roller might show a totally different wear pattern. In addition I read that in at least one case the roller to roller wear was not constant and varied from place to place in the length of the chain Brandt, I believe, wrote a treatise on chain measuring gauges and argued that nearly all of them gave an incorrect figure for wear, or perhaps, did it the wrong way. So the question is what is the best system to use to avoid unnecessary sprocket wear, assuming that sprockets cost more and are more trouble to change than chains. There seems to be three options. One, to use a ruler and measure from pin to pin. Two to use a chain tool and measure from roller to roller. Or three, to use some combination of the two. Or perhaps there is a fourth - ignore the whole thing as a tempest in a tea pot :-) Interrupted sideplate chain does indeed wear faster than full roller chain. However both economy of manufacture and side flex (for index shifting) are better with interrupted sideplates. Generally, chain wear is measured with enough tension to take up any slack, not merely laid out on a table. The outer plates are joined by the rivet. The innies float and exhibit wear. By measuring 24 rivets' worth of slop we can effectively get an expanded 'vernier scale' of the very small per-rivet clearance change. Since our functional aspect for chain-to-sprocket efficiency is pitch, a rivet-t-rivet measurement seems right to me and all our gauges here measure that. See section #8d.2 he http://www.faqs.org/faqs/bicycles-faq/part3/ Yup, Brandt (in all his glory :-) I've been using an 18" stainless scale (ruler) which assuming a 1% wear limit is 3/16". (old eyes need big marks :-) I recently came across another chain measuring scheme that seemed to make good sense. Simply pull on the chain at the front of the chain ring forwards to see how much it moves away from the sprocket teeth. That test shows more the wear on the sprockets than that on the chain. |
Chain Stretch
On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 4:49:05 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
I've been thinking about chain wear, sometimes called chain stretch, and have done a bit of research on the subject. One method is to lay the chain on a flat surface and measure the wear over, perhaps 12 inches of chain length, from the head of one pin to another. But modern multi speed chains are a bit more complex then the old fashioned chains and the rollers on a modern chain are not supported by the pins but by protrusions on the inner surface of the inner links thus does the distance from roller to roller relate to distance from pin to pin? Another method is to ignore the pin to pin distance and simply measure the roller to roller distance using a chain gauge. But I have also read that when comparing roller to roller measurement to pin to pin measurement there is not necessarily a correlation, or in other words a pin to pin measurement might show one thing while the roller to roller might show a totally different wear pattern. In addition I read that in at least one case the roller to roller wear was not constant and varied from place to place in the length of the chain Brandt, I believe, wrote a treatise on chain measuring gauges and argued that nearly all of them gave an incorrect figure for wear, or perhaps, did it the wrong way. So the question is what is the best system to use to avoid unnecessary sprocket wear, assuming that sprockets cost more and are more trouble to change than chains. There seems to be three options. One, to use a ruler and measure from pin to pin. Two to use a chain tool and measure from roller to roller. Or three, to use some combination of the two. Or perhaps there is a fourth - ignore the whole thing as a tempest in a tea pot :-) -- Cheers, John B. Since the switch to cassettes (8+ cogs) from freewheels https://www.sheldonbrown.com/free-k7.html , the axle width has remained the same while the cog teeth and chains have become narrower. Since the load and the length are the same, the pressure per square inch has increased to the point where an 11 speed chain basically needs changed with the tire. Single speed chains will basically last until rusty. |
Chain Stretch
On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 6:30:48 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Snipped Since the switch to cassettes (8+ cogs) from freewheels https://www.sheldonbrown.com/free-k7.html , the axle width has remained the same while the cog teeth and chains have become narrower. Since the load and the length are the same, the pressure per square inch has increased to the point where an 11 speed chain basically needs changed with the tire. Single speed chains will basically last until rusty. I've resurrected single-speed (coaster brake or 3-speed type)that were rusted nearly solid. Cheers |
Chain Stretch
On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 12:30:48 AM UTC+2, wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 4:49:05 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote: I've been thinking about chain wear, sometimes called chain stretch, and have done a bit of research on the subject. One method is to lay the chain on a flat surface and measure the wear over, perhaps 12 inches of chain length, from the head of one pin to another. But modern multi speed chains are a bit more complex then the old fashioned chains and the rollers on a modern chain are not supported by the pins but by protrusions on the inner surface of the inner links thus does the distance from roller to roller relate to distance from pin to pin? Another method is to ignore the pin to pin distance and simply measure the roller to roller distance using a chain gauge. But I have also read that when comparing roller to roller measurement to pin to pin measurement there is not necessarily a correlation, or in other words a pin to pin measurement might show one thing while the roller to roller might show a totally different wear pattern. In addition I read that in at least one case the roller to roller wear was not constant and varied from place to place in the length of the chain Brandt, I believe, wrote a treatise on chain measuring gauges and argued that nearly all of them gave an incorrect figure for wear, or perhaps, did it the wrong way. So the question is what is the best system to use to avoid unnecessary sprocket wear, assuming that sprockets cost more and are more trouble to change than chains. There seems to be three options. One, to use a ruler and measure from pin to pin. Two to use a chain tool and measure from roller to roller. Or three, to use some combination of the two. Or perhaps there is a fourth - ignore the whole thing as a tempest in a tea pot :-) -- Cheers, John B. Since the switch to cassettes (8+ cogs) from freewheels https://www.sheldonbrown.com/free-k7.html , the axle width has remained the same while the cog teeth and chains have become narrower. Since the load and the length are the same, the pressure per square inch has increased to the point where an 11 speed chain basically needs changed with the tire. Single speed chains will basically last until rusty. I get 3 tires out of a 11 speed chain and if the same criteria is used for replacement for a single speed chain as for a 11 speed than the difference is that much. Lou |
Chain Stretch
On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 08:00:38 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/15/2017 10:20 PM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 07:44:29 -0500, AMuzi wrote: On 9/15/2017 4:48 AM, John B. wrote: I've been thinking about chain wear, sometimes called chain stretch, and have done a bit of research on the subject. One method is to lay the chain on a flat surface and measure the wear over, perhaps 12 inches of chain length, from the head of one pin to another. But modern multi speed chains are a bit more complex then the old fashioned chains and the rollers on a modern chain are not supported by the pins but by protrusions on the inner surface of the inner links thus does the distance from roller to roller relate to distance from pin to pin? Another method is to ignore the pin to pin distance and simply measure the roller to roller distance using a chain gauge. But I have also read that when comparing roller to roller measurement to pin to pin measurement there is not necessarily a correlation, or in other words a pin to pin measurement might show one thing while the roller to roller might show a totally different wear pattern. In addition I read that in at least one case the roller to roller wear was not constant and varied from place to place in the length of the chain Brandt, I believe, wrote a treatise on chain measuring gauges and argued that nearly all of them gave an incorrect figure for wear, or perhaps, did it the wrong way. So the question is what is the best system to use to avoid unnecessary sprocket wear, assuming that sprockets cost more and are more trouble to change than chains. There seems to be three options. One, to use a ruler and measure from pin to pin. Two to use a chain tool and measure from roller to roller. Or three, to use some combination of the two. Or perhaps there is a fourth - ignore the whole thing as a tempest in a tea pot :-) Interrupted sideplate chain does indeed wear faster than full roller chain. However both economy of manufacture and side flex (for index shifting) are better with interrupted sideplates. Generally, chain wear is measured with enough tension to take up any slack, not merely laid out on a table. The outer plates are joined by the rivet. The innies float and exhibit wear. By measuring 24 rivets' worth of slop we can effectively get an expanded 'vernier scale' of the very small per-rivet clearance change. Since our functional aspect for chain-to-sprocket efficiency is pitch, a rivet-t-rivet measurement seems right to me and all our gauges here measure that. See section #8d.2 he http://www.faqs.org/faqs/bicycles-faq/part3/ Yup, Brandt (in all his glory :-) I've been using an 18" stainless scale (ruler) which assuming a 1% wear limit is 3/16". (old eyes need big marks :-) I recently came across another chain measuring scheme that seemed to make good sense. Simply pull on the chain at the front of the chain ring forwards to see how much it moves away from the sprocket teeth. The ancient rule of thumb for that is replace chain when a 4mm key will slip under the chain. Index shifting will be poor when a 5mm key fits. You cannot stand on the pedals when a 6mm key slides under the links. That's a very rough gradient and not always accurate, but a starting point anyway. Interesting. Thanks. -- Cheers, John B. |
Chain Stretch
On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 13:32:45 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 8:21:14 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 07:44:29 -0500, AMuzi wrote: On 9/15/2017 4:48 AM, John B. wrote: I've been thinking about chain wear, sometimes called chain stretch, and have done a bit of research on the subject. One method is to lay the chain on a flat surface and measure the wear over, perhaps 12 inches of chain length, from the head of one pin to another. But modern multi speed chains are a bit more complex then the old fashioned chains and the rollers on a modern chain are not supported by the pins but by protrusions on the inner surface of the inner links thus does the distance from roller to roller relate to distance from pin to pin? Another method is to ignore the pin to pin distance and simply measure the roller to roller distance using a chain gauge. But I have also read that when comparing roller to roller measurement to pin to pin measurement there is not necessarily a correlation, or in other words a pin to pin measurement might show one thing while the roller to roller might show a totally different wear pattern. In addition I read that in at least one case the roller to roller wear was not constant and varied from place to place in the length of the chain Brandt, I believe, wrote a treatise on chain measuring gauges and argued that nearly all of them gave an incorrect figure for wear, or perhaps, did it the wrong way. So the question is what is the best system to use to avoid unnecessary sprocket wear, assuming that sprockets cost more and are more trouble to change than chains. There seems to be three options. One, to use a ruler and measure from pin to pin. Two to use a chain tool and measure from roller to roller. Or three, to use some combination of the two. Or perhaps there is a fourth - ignore the whole thing as a tempest in a tea pot :-) Interrupted sideplate chain does indeed wear faster than full roller chain. However both economy of manufacture and side flex (for index shifting) are better with interrupted sideplates. Generally, chain wear is measured with enough tension to take up any slack, not merely laid out on a table. The outer plates are joined by the rivet. The innies float and exhibit wear. By measuring 24 rivets' worth of slop we can effectively get an expanded 'vernier scale' of the very small per-rivet clearance change. Since our functional aspect for chain-to-sprocket efficiency is pitch, a rivet-t-rivet measurement seems right to me and all our gauges here measure that. See section #8d.2 he http://www.faqs.org/faqs/bicycles-faq/part3/ Yup, Brandt (in all his glory :-) I've been using an 18" stainless scale (ruler) which assuming a 1% wear limit is 3/16". (old eyes need big marks :-) I recently came across another chain measuring scheme that seemed to make good sense. Simply pull on the chain at the front of the chain ring forwards to see how much it moves away from the sprocket teeth. That test shows more the wear on the sprockets than that on the chain. Yes, it may well do that. -- Cheers, John B. |
Chain Stretch
On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 15:30:44 -0700 (PDT),
wrote: On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 4:49:05 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote: I've been thinking about chain wear, sometimes called chain stretch, and have done a bit of research on the subject. One method is to lay the chain on a flat surface and measure the wear over, perhaps 12 inches of chain length, from the head of one pin to another. But modern multi speed chains are a bit more complex then the old fashioned chains and the rollers on a modern chain are not supported by the pins but by protrusions on the inner surface of the inner links thus does the distance from roller to roller relate to distance from pin to pin? Another method is to ignore the pin to pin distance and simply measure the roller to roller distance using a chain gauge. But I have also read that when comparing roller to roller measurement to pin to pin measurement there is not necessarily a correlation, or in other words a pin to pin measurement might show one thing while the roller to roller might show a totally different wear pattern. In addition I read that in at least one case the roller to roller wear was not constant and varied from place to place in the length of the chain Brandt, I believe, wrote a treatise on chain measuring gauges and argued that nearly all of them gave an incorrect figure for wear, or perhaps, did it the wrong way. So the question is what is the best system to use to avoid unnecessary sprocket wear, assuming that sprockets cost more and are more trouble to change than chains. There seems to be three options. One, to use a ruler and measure from pin to pin. Two to use a chain tool and measure from roller to roller. Or three, to use some combination of the two. Or perhaps there is a fourth - ignore the whole thing as a tempest in a tea pot :-) -- Cheers, John B. Since the switch to cassettes (8+ cogs) from freewheels https://www.sheldonbrown.com/free-k7.html , the axle width has remained the same while the cog teeth and chains have become narrower. Since the load and the length are the same, the pressure per square inch has increased to the point where an 11 speed chain basically needs changed with the tire. Single speed chains will basically last until rusty. Actually longer. When I was a kid in New Hampshire you put the bike in the cellar for the winter and sometimes in the spring the chain was so rusted that you could hardly move it. The usual cure was to sneak your mother's sewing machine oil, lather the chain with oil, and then ride it. It was surprisingly how quickly the chain "loosened up". -- Cheers, John B. |
Chain Stretch
On 9/17/2017 1:28 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 13:32:45 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 8:21:14 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote: On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 07:44:29 -0500, AMuzi wrote: On 9/15/2017 4:48 AM, John B. wrote: I've been thinking about chain wear, sometimes called chain stretch, and have done a bit of research on the subject. One method is to lay the chain on a flat surface and measure the wear over, perhaps 12 inches of chain length, from the head of one pin to another. But modern multi speed chains are a bit more complex then the old fashioned chains and the rollers on a modern chain are not supported by the pins but by protrusions on the inner surface of the inner links thus does the distance from roller to roller relate to distance from pin to pin? Another method is to ignore the pin to pin distance and simply measure the roller to roller distance using a chain gauge. But I have also read that when comparing roller to roller measurement to pin to pin measurement there is not necessarily a correlation, or in other words a pin to pin measurement might show one thing while the roller to roller might show a totally different wear pattern. In addition I read that in at least one case the roller to roller wear was not constant and varied from place to place in the length of the chain Brandt, I believe, wrote a treatise on chain measuring gauges and argued that nearly all of them gave an incorrect figure for wear, or perhaps, did it the wrong way. So the question is what is the best system to use to avoid unnecessary sprocket wear, assuming that sprockets cost more and are more trouble to change than chains. There seems to be three options. One, to use a ruler and measure from pin to pin. Two to use a chain tool and measure from roller to roller. Or three, to use some combination of the two. Or perhaps there is a fourth - ignore the whole thing as a tempest in a tea pot :-) Interrupted sideplate chain does indeed wear faster than full roller chain. However both economy of manufacture and side flex (for index shifting) are better with interrupted sideplates. Generally, chain wear is measured with enough tension to take up any slack, not merely laid out on a table. The outer plates are joined by the rivet. The innies float and exhibit wear. By measuring 24 rivets' worth of slop we can effectively get an expanded 'vernier scale' of the very small per-rivet clearance change. Since our functional aspect for chain-to-sprocket efficiency is pitch, a rivet-t-rivet measurement seems right to me and all our gauges here measure that. See section #8d.2 he http://www.faqs.org/faqs/bicycles-faq/part3/ Yup, Brandt (in all his glory :-) I've been using an 18" stainless scale (ruler) which assuming a 1% wear limit is 3/16". (old eyes need big marks :-) I recently came across another chain measuring scheme that seemed to make good sense. Simply pull on the chain at the front of the chain ring forwards to see how much it moves away from the sprocket teeth. That test shows more the wear on the sprockets than that on the chain. Yes, it may well do that. Or not. I happen to have some extreme "bad example" chainrings with less than 20% tooth height [1] so I measured the root diameter against a new chainring just now. Jobst is correct. The wear is against the loaded side of the tooth, almost no change at root. New 40tt ring root=155mm, utterly worn out=154.8mm [1]replaced on customers' bikes, used here for demo purposes. The one I measured is more worn than this one http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/worn2.jpg -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Chain Stretch
On 9/17/2017 1:32 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 15:30:44 -0700 (PDT), wrote: On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 4:49:05 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote: I've been thinking about chain wear, sometimes called chain stretch, and have done a bit of research on the subject. One method is to lay the chain on a flat surface and measure the wear over, perhaps 12 inches of chain length, from the head of one pin to another. But modern multi speed chains are a bit more complex then the old fashioned chains and the rollers on a modern chain are not supported by the pins but by protrusions on the inner surface of the inner links thus does the distance from roller to roller relate to distance from pin to pin? Another method is to ignore the pin to pin distance and simply measure the roller to roller distance using a chain gauge. But I have also read that when comparing roller to roller measurement to pin to pin measurement there is not necessarily a correlation, or in other words a pin to pin measurement might show one thing while the roller to roller might show a totally different wear pattern. In addition I read that in at least one case the roller to roller wear was not constant and varied from place to place in the length of the chain Brandt, I believe, wrote a treatise on chain measuring gauges and argued that nearly all of them gave an incorrect figure for wear, or perhaps, did it the wrong way. So the question is what is the best system to use to avoid unnecessary sprocket wear, assuming that sprockets cost more and are more trouble to change than chains. There seems to be three options. One, to use a ruler and measure from pin to pin. Two to use a chain tool and measure from roller to roller. Or three, to use some combination of the two. Or perhaps there is a fourth - ignore the whole thing as a tempest in a tea pot :-) -- Cheers, John B. Since the switch to cassettes (8+ cogs) from freewheels https://www.sheldonbrown.com/free-k7.html , the axle width has remained the same while the cog teeth and chains have become narrower. Since the load and the length are the same, the pressure per square inch has increased to the point where an 11 speed chain basically needs changed with the tire. Single speed chains will basically last until rusty. Actually longer. When I was a kid in New Hampshire you put the bike in the cellar for the winter and sometimes in the spring the chain was so rusted that you could hardly move it. The usual cure was to sneak your mother's sewing machine oil, lather the chain with oil, and then ride it. It was surprisingly how quickly the chain "loosened up". Continuing along with "Jobst Appreciation Day" that's because the lubrication which matters is inside the links. Once you broke the plate-to-plate surface rust it moved again. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Chain Stretch
On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 10:45:12 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 12:30:48 AM UTC+2, wrote: On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 4:49:05 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote: I've been thinking about chain wear, sometimes called chain stretch, and have done a bit of research on the subject. One method is to lay the chain on a flat surface and measure the wear over, perhaps 12 inches of chain length, from the head of one pin to another. But modern multi speed chains are a bit more complex then the old fashioned chains and the rollers on a modern chain are not supported by the pins but by protrusions on the inner surface of the inner links thus does the distance from roller to roller relate to distance from pin to pin? Another method is to ignore the pin to pin distance and simply measure the roller to roller distance using a chain gauge. But I have also read that when comparing roller to roller measurement to pin to pin measurement there is not necessarily a correlation, or in other words a pin to pin measurement might show one thing while the roller to roller might show a totally different wear pattern. In addition I read that in at least one case the roller to roller wear was not constant and varied from place to place in the length of the chain Brandt, I believe, wrote a treatise on chain measuring gauges and argued that nearly all of them gave an incorrect figure for wear, or perhaps, did it the wrong way. So the question is what is the best system to use to avoid unnecessary sprocket wear, assuming that sprockets cost more and are more trouble to change than chains. There seems to be three options. One, to use a ruler and measure from pin to pin. Two to use a chain tool and measure from roller to roller.. Or three, to use some combination of the two. Or perhaps there is a fourth - ignore the whole thing as a tempest in a tea pot :-) -- Cheers, John B. Since the switch to cassettes (8+ cogs) from freewheels https://www.sheldonbrown.com/free-k7.html , the axle width has remained the same while the cog teeth and chains have become narrower. Since the load and the length are the same, the pressure per square inch has increased to the point where an 11 speed chain basically needs changed with the tire. Single speed chains will basically last until rusty. I get 3 tires out of a 11 speed chain and if the same criteria is used for replacement for a single speed chain as for a 11 speed than the difference is that much. Lou, I understood the first bit well enough but couldn't quite make out the single speed chain wear part. You must either buy cheap tires or ride a hell of a lot more than I do in order to wear out 3 tires per chain. I wear out perhaps a Gatorskin and a half per chain. But I mostly replace chains early since they're relatively cheap and better a chain than wearing out a cassette. |
Chain Stretch
On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 6:40:54 PM UTC+2, wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 10:45:12 PM UTC-7, wrote: On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 12:30:48 AM UTC+2, wrote: On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 4:49:05 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote: I've been thinking about chain wear, sometimes called chain stretch, and have done a bit of research on the subject. One method is to lay the chain on a flat surface and measure the wear over, perhaps 12 inches of chain length, from the head of one pin to another. But modern multi speed chains are a bit more complex then the old fashioned chains and the rollers on a modern chain are not supported by the pins but by protrusions on the inner surface of the inner links thus does the distance from roller to roller relate to distance from pin to pin? Another method is to ignore the pin to pin distance and simply measure the roller to roller distance using a chain gauge. But I have also read that when comparing roller to roller measurement to pin to pin measurement there is not necessarily a correlation, or in other words a pin to pin measurement might show one thing while the roller to roller might show a totally different wear pattern. In addition I read that in at least one case the roller to roller wear was not constant and varied from place to place in the length of the chain Brandt, I believe, wrote a treatise on chain measuring gauges and argued that nearly all of them gave an incorrect figure for wear, or perhaps, did it the wrong way. So the question is what is the best system to use to avoid unnecessary sprocket wear, assuming that sprockets cost more and are more trouble to change than chains. There seems to be three options. One, to use a ruler and measure from pin to pin. Two to use a chain tool and measure from roller to roller. Or three, to use some combination of the two. Or perhaps there is a fourth - ignore the whole thing as a tempest in a tea pot :-) -- Cheers, John B. Since the switch to cassettes (8+ cogs) from freewheels https://www.sheldonbrown.com/free-k7.html , the axle width has remained the same while the cog teeth and chains have become narrower. Since the load and the length are the same, the pressure per square inch has increased to the point where an 11 speed chain basically needs changed with the tire. Single speed chains will basically last until rusty. I get 3 tires out of a 11 speed chain and if the same criteria is used for replacement for a single speed chain as for a 11 speed than the difference is that much. Lou, I understood the first bit well enough but couldn't quite make out the single speed chain wear part. Tom I rode a single speed for a long time in the winter and the last years a bike with a gear hub (I'm getting old) and the chains on those bikes wore much faster than the chains on my road bikes. Of coarse the conditions are different but not so much that it would explain the wear rate. You can get away with it as long as you don't replace the cog and the chain ring until the teeth are completely gone and that takes a long time. You must either buy cheap tires or ride a hell of a lot more than I do in order to wear out 3 tires per chain. I ride 7000 km on my road bikes, that means two new rear tires. I use only Continental GP4000S. Chains are Campagnolo Record 11 speed. Most of the times I get 10000 km out of that chain except this last time when I encountered a remarkable difference between the chains on my two road bikes. https://photos.app.goo.gl/vZ4zMH61d6mGl84C2 From top to bottom: new chain, chain on one road bike after about 9500 km and the chain on the other road bike after 7500 km. Only difference I see is that I used a different lube for a while. Still puzzles me. Lou I wear out perhaps a Gatorskin and a half per chain. But I mostly replace chains early since they're relatively cheap and better a chain than wearing out a cassette. |
Chain Stretch
On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 10:13:55 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 6:40:54 PM UTC+2, wrote: On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 10:45:12 PM UTC-7, wrote: On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 12:30:48 AM UTC+2, wrote: On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 4:49:05 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote: I've been thinking about chain wear, sometimes called chain stretch, and have done a bit of research on the subject. One method is to lay the chain on a flat surface and measure the wear over, perhaps 12 inches of chain length, from the head of one pin to another. But modern multi speed chains are a bit more complex then the old fashioned chains and the rollers on a modern chain are not supported by the pins but by protrusions on the inner surface of the inner links thus does the distance from roller to roller relate to distance from pin to pin? Another method is to ignore the pin to pin distance and simply measure the roller to roller distance using a chain gauge. But I have also read that when comparing roller to roller measurement to pin to pin measurement there is not necessarily a correlation, or in other words a pin to pin measurement might show one thing while the roller to roller might show a totally different wear pattern. In addition I read that in at least one case the roller to roller wear was not constant and varied from place to place in the length of the chain Brandt, I believe, wrote a treatise on chain measuring gauges and argued that nearly all of them gave an incorrect figure for wear, or perhaps, did it the wrong way. So the question is what is the best system to use to avoid unnecessary sprocket wear, assuming that sprockets cost more and are more trouble to change than chains. There seems to be three options. One, to use a ruler and measure from pin to pin. Two to use a chain tool and measure from roller to roller. Or three, to use some combination of the two. Or perhaps there is a fourth - ignore the whole thing as a tempest in a tea pot :-) -- Cheers, John B. Since the switch to cassettes (8+ cogs) from freewheels https://www..sheldonbrown.com/free-k7.html , the axle width has remained the same while the cog teeth and chains have become narrower. Since the load and the length are the same, the pressure per square inch has increased to the point where an 11 speed chain basically needs changed with the tire. Single speed chains will basically last until rusty. I get 3 tires out of a 11 speed chain and if the same criteria is used for replacement for a single speed chain as for a 11 speed than the difference is that much. Lou, I understood the first bit well enough but couldn't quite make out the single speed chain wear part. Tom I rode a single speed for a long time in the winter and the last years a bike with a gear hub (I'm getting old) and the chains on those bikes wore much faster than the chains on my road bikes. Of coarse the conditions are different but not so much that it would explain the wear rate. You can get away with it as long as you don't replace the cog and the chain ring until the teeth are completely gone and that takes a long time. You must either buy cheap tires or ride a hell of a lot more than I do in order to wear out 3 tires per chain. I ride 7000 km on my road bikes, that means two new rear tires. I use only Continental GP4000S. Chains are Campagnolo Record 11 speed. Most of the times I get 10000 km out of that chain except this last time when I encountered a remarkable difference between the chains on my two road bikes. https://photos.app.goo.gl/vZ4zMH61d6mGl84C2 From top to bottom: new chain, chain on one road bike after about 9500 km and the chain on the other road bike after 7500 km. Only difference I see is that I used a different lube for a while. Still puzzles me. Lou I wear out perhaps a Gatorskin and a half per chain. But I mostly replace chains early since they're relatively cheap and better a chain than wearing out a cassette. I don't know the wear characteristics of the GP4000S but would assume that it is slightly less that the Gatorskin whose entire purpose is to live a long hard life. I have been trying to make a list of components so that I can keep track of lifespan but I've changed bikes so often until the last year that I have to start fresh. Rather than those super expensive Campy chains you might try the KMC Gold. These are supposed to be "lubed for life" but I put so much faith in that, that I lube them at regular intervals. One of the things I do more carefully now is to clean the outside of the chain off. This seems to cut down on that thick crud build-up on the cassette. I just got back from a 30 mile ride (50km). 12 miles of it was on a gravel access road to the San Francisco Bay Shoreline Trail. Since this was on my regular road bike with 23 mm tires, it beat me up pretty good. That probably doesn't help tire wear much and so I don't know if I can compare tire life and chain life. I'm far more concerned about cassette life though since 10 speed cassettes are so expensive for a reasonably light version. I don't particularly like Gatorskins because they do not roll very well and they aren't very good in corners. I tried the ThickSlick and it was a little better and cheap but when it got a cut the rubber started peeling away from the casing. Not a lot but some. I tried Specialized Armadillos and they are very good all around. I seem to remember in the past that they got goat's head flats but the set I bought a year ago didn't get any. Their problem is the staggering cost compared to other tires. Almost twice the cost of the competition. And you can only get them at a Specialized dealer. I tried the Michelin Pro4 Endurance and really liked them. They roll and corner like a sew-up. It was VERY noticeable. And I didn't get any flats with them. But apparently they had trouble with them peeling off of the carcass like I got with the ThickSlick. So they released and improved version: The Michelin Power Endurance. I have a set of those on the shelf and will install them on the Pinarello Stelvio I'm rebuilding. I hope they perform like the Pro4 Endurance because I REALLY liked them. It's not often when you can actually feel the difference in performance. I had an Eddy Merckx Strata OS that I can kick myself for selling but that was in my moving to carbon fiber phase. That was the most perfect riding bike I ever had - better than a Basso Loto. Though with any luck I think that the Pinarello will match it. The Basso flexes just the slightest amount too much. The Stelvio uses the same tubes but the bottom bracket isn't quite as low as the Basso and the wheelbase is 2 cm shorter. That should cure the flex. For a CX I've had several bikes. The Ridley Longbow actually felt much better than anything else but both of my Redlines were faster though they didn't ride nearly as good. They were perhaps a little lighter but their geometry is such that you can jump off of them at the last second on these 25+% climbs just as the front wheel begins to lift. And they descend these drops pretty well with minimal braking. So now I'm in a position where I'm pretty satisfied with my bikes and can keep track of component life. |
Chain Stretch
On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 2:43:18 PM UTC-7, wrote:
snip I don't know the wear characteristics of the GP4000S but would assume that it is slightly less that the Gatorskin whose entire purpose is to live a long hard life. I have been trying to make a list of components so that I can keep track of lifespan but I've changed bikes so often until the last year that I have to start fresh. Rather than those super expensive Campy chains you might try the KMC Gold.. These are supposed to be "lubed for life" but I put so much faith in that, that I lube them at regular intervals. One of the things I do more carefully now is to clean the outside of the chain off. This seems to cut down on that thick crud build-up on the cassette. I just got back from a 30 mile ride (50km). 12 miles of it was on a gravel access road to the San Francisco Bay Shoreline Trail. Since this was on my regular road bike with 23 mm tires, it beat me up pretty good. That probably doesn't help tire wear much and so I don't know if I can compare tire life and chain life. I'm far more concerned about cassette life though since 10 speed cassettes are so expensive for a reasonably light version. I don't particularly like Gatorskins because they do not roll very well and they aren't very good in corners. I tried the ThickSlick and it was a little better and cheap but when it got a cut the rubber started peeling away from the casing. Not a lot but some. I tried Specialized Armadillos and they are very good all around. I seem to remember in the past that they got goat's head flats but the set I bought a year ago didn't get any. Their problem is the staggering cost compared to other tires. Almost twice the cost of the competition. And you can only get them at a Specialized dealer. I tried the Michelin Pro4 Endurance and really liked them. They roll and corner like a sew-up. It was VERY noticeable. And I didn't get any flats with them. But apparently they had trouble with them peeling off of the carcass like I got with the ThickSlick. So they released and improved version: The Michelin Power Endurance. I have a set of those on the shelf and will install them on the Pinarello Stelvio I'm rebuilding. I hope they perform like the Pro4 Endurance because I REALLY liked them. It's not often when you can actually feel the difference in performance. I had an Eddy Merckx Strata OS that I can kick myself for selling but that was in my moving to carbon fiber phase. That was the most perfect riding bike I ever had - better than a Basso Loto. Though with any luck I think that the Pinarello will match it. The Basso flexes just the slightest amount too much. The Stelvio uses the same tubes but the bottom bracket isn't quite as low as the Basso and the wheelbase is 2 cm shorter. That should cure the flex. For a CX I've had several bikes. The Ridley Longbow actually felt much better than anything else but both of my Redlines were faster though they didn't ride nearly as good. They were perhaps a little lighter but their geometry is such that you can jump off of them at the last second on these 25+% climbs just as the front wheel begins to lift. And they descend these drops pretty well with minimal braking. So now I'm in a position where I'm pretty satisfied with my bikes and can keep track of component life. Hats off to people who keep track of all of this, but it kind of reminds me when I got one of those early Quicken programs that allowed me to keep track of household expenses. It produced an expense pie chart, and a huge slice of my personal pie was the mortgage. Goddamn! Look how much I'm spending on the mortgage. I better stop paying that. Same way with chains and cassettes. Wow, look how much I'm replacing those chains. I better stop doing that. Once you've settled on a chain/cassette/tire brand and model, it's just a fixed cost, and it really doesn't matter how long it lasted. I've settled on my chains -- KMC comes with a quick link, it is reasonably priced and last longer than SRAM. I don't like the pins on Shimano chains and don't want to pay for a separate quick-link. I buy Shimano cassettes -- 105 level or above, and my tires vary somewhat, but fast tires are close-out Pro4 Service Courses. I bought four today for $25 (after discount for picking up in store) a pop at Western Bikeworks. Two will go to my son for Christmas. It's a first-class fast road tire for a song. Gatorskins are the go-to commuter bike tire, but they're over-priced and rarely go on a good sale, so I try sale table tires. The more durable, the more they ride like wagon wheels. I still have a Bontrager front tire that I got off a sale table more than three years ago. It just won't die -- and I want it to die. OT, but Portland had the worst air in the US yesterday because of all the forest fires. It was a little better today, and I went on a ride with some friends -- and a few hours ago, rain rolled in. It's been dry for months. This will be great for the forest fires, the air and lawns -- but it signals the beginning of many months of riding on wet pavement and my annual quest for really grippy tires with good rolling resistance. Something in the 32mm range, so if anyone has a suggestion, let me know. -- Jay Beattie. |
Chain Stretch
On 18/09/17 07:43, wrote:
Rather than those super expensive Campy chains you might try the KMC Gold. These are supposed to be "lubed for life" but I put so much faith in that, that I lube them at regular intervals. One of the things I do more carefully now is to clean the outside of the chain off. This seems to cut down on that thick crud build-up on the cassette. You might be interested in this. http://www.cantitoeroad.com/assets/i...0-JUN-2010.pdf I see a super expensive Campag Veloce chain is AU$31.12. I'll let you work out which is more economical. -- JS |
Chain Stretch
On 17/09/2017 1:45 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 12:30:48 AM UTC+2, wrote: On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 4:49:05 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote: I've been thinking about chain wear, sometimes called chain stretch, and have done a bit of research on the subject. One method is to lay the chain on a flat surface and measure the wear over, perhaps 12 inches of chain length, from the head of one pin to another. But modern multi speed chains are a bit more complex then the old fashioned chains and the rollers on a modern chain are not supported by the pins but by protrusions on the inner surface of the inner links thus does the distance from roller to roller relate to distance from pin to pin? Another method is to ignore the pin to pin distance and simply measure the roller to roller distance using a chain gauge. But I have also read that when comparing roller to roller measurement to pin to pin measurement there is not necessarily a correlation, or in other words a pin to pin measurement might show one thing while the roller to roller might show a totally different wear pattern. In addition I read that in at least one case the roller to roller wear was not constant and varied from place to place in the length of the chain Brandt, I believe, wrote a treatise on chain measuring gauges and argued that nearly all of them gave an incorrect figure for wear, or perhaps, did it the wrong way. So the question is what is the best system to use to avoid unnecessary sprocket wear, assuming that sprockets cost more and are more trouble to change than chains. There seems to be three options. One, to use a ruler and measure from pin to pin. Two to use a chain tool and measure from roller to roller. Or three, to use some combination of the two. Or perhaps there is a fourth - ignore the whole thing as a tempest in a tea pot :-) -- Cheers, John B. Since the switch to cassettes (8+ cogs) from freewheels https://www.sheldonbrown.com/free-k7.html , the axle width has remained the same while the cog teeth and chains have become narrower. Since the load and the length are the same, the pressure per square inch has increased to the point where an 11 speed chain basically needs changed with the tire. Single speed chains will basically last until rusty. I get 3 tires out of a 11 speed chain and if the same criteria is used for replacement for a single speed chain as for a 11 speed than the difference is that much. How many chains do you get out of a cassette? |
Chain Stretch
On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 2:21:11 PM UTC+2, duane wrote:
On 17/09/2017 1:45 AM, wrote: On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 12:30:48 AM UTC+2, wrote: On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 4:49:05 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote: I've been thinking about chain wear, sometimes called chain stretch, and have done a bit of research on the subject. One method is to lay the chain on a flat surface and measure the wear over, perhaps 12 inches of chain length, from the head of one pin to another. But modern multi speed chains are a bit more complex then the old fashioned chains and the rollers on a modern chain are not supported by the pins but by protrusions on the inner surface of the inner links thus does the distance from roller to roller relate to distance from pin to pin? Another method is to ignore the pin to pin distance and simply measure the roller to roller distance using a chain gauge. But I have also read that when comparing roller to roller measurement to pin to pin measurement there is not necessarily a correlation, or in other words a pin to pin measurement might show one thing while the roller to roller might show a totally different wear pattern. In addition I read that in at least one case the roller to roller wear was not constant and varied from place to place in the length of the chain Brandt, I believe, wrote a treatise on chain measuring gauges and argued that nearly all of them gave an incorrect figure for wear, or perhaps, did it the wrong way. So the question is what is the best system to use to avoid unnecessary sprocket wear, assuming that sprockets cost more and are more trouble to change than chains. There seems to be three options. One, to use a ruler and measure from pin to pin. Two to use a chain tool and measure from roller to roller.. Or three, to use some combination of the two. Or perhaps there is a fourth - ignore the whole thing as a tempest in a tea pot :-) -- Cheers, John B. Since the switch to cassettes (8+ cogs) from freewheels https://www.sheldonbrown.com/free-k7.html , the axle width has remained the same while the cog teeth and chains have become narrower. Since the load and the length are the same, the pressure per square inch has increased to the point where an 11 speed chain basically needs changed with the tire. Single speed chains will basically last until rusty. I get 3 tires out of a 11 speed chain and if the same criteria is used for replacement for a single speed chain as for a 11 speed than the difference is that much. How many chains do you get out of a cassette? 2 sometimes 3. With these numbers cost of cassette and chains become irrelevant. Lou |
Chain Stretch
On 18/09/2017 9:23 AM, wrote:
On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 2:21:11 PM UTC+2, duane wrote: On 17/09/2017 1:45 AM, wrote: On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 12:30:48 AM UTC+2, wrote: On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 4:49:05 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote: I've been thinking about chain wear, sometimes called chain stretch, and have done a bit of research on the subject. One method is to lay the chain on a flat surface and measure the wear over, perhaps 12 inches of chain length, from the head of one pin to another. But modern multi speed chains are a bit more complex then the old fashioned chains and the rollers on a modern chain are not supported by the pins but by protrusions on the inner surface of the inner links thus does the distance from roller to roller relate to distance from pin to pin? Another method is to ignore the pin to pin distance and simply measure the roller to roller distance using a chain gauge. But I have also read that when comparing roller to roller measurement to pin to pin measurement there is not necessarily a correlation, or in other words a pin to pin measurement might show one thing while the roller to roller might show a totally different wear pattern. In addition I read that in at least one case the roller to roller wear was not constant and varied from place to place in the length of the chain Brandt, I believe, wrote a treatise on chain measuring gauges and argued that nearly all of them gave an incorrect figure for wear, or perhaps, did it the wrong way. So the question is what is the best system to use to avoid unnecessary sprocket wear, assuming that sprockets cost more and are more trouble to change than chains. There seems to be three options. One, to use a ruler and measure from pin to pin. Two to use a chain tool and measure from roller to roller. Or three, to use some combination of the two. Or perhaps there is a fourth - ignore the whole thing as a tempest in a tea pot :-) -- Cheers, John B. Since the switch to cassettes (8+ cogs) from freewheels https://www.sheldonbrown.com/free-k7.html , the axle width has remained the same while the cog teeth and chains have become narrower. Since the load and the length are the same, the pressure per square inch has increased to the point where an 11 speed chain basically needs changed with the tire. Single speed chains will basically last until rusty. I get 3 tires out of a 11 speed chain and if the same criteria is used for replacement for a single speed chain as for a 11 speed than the difference is that much. How many chains do you get out of a cassette? 2 sometimes 3. With these numbers cost of cassette and chains become irrelevant. For me too, it's usually 2 or 3. But mine get replaced more like every 3000km per chain if I keep them clean. Every 2500 if I don't. So the cost is not irrelevant. I'm using SRAM chains and cassettes with 11-28t and a mid compact (52/36) crank. I don't spin well though so I'm sure hammering uses the chain up more quickly. Plus hills. |
Chain Stretch
On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 6:02:11 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 2:43:18 PM UTC-7, wrote: snip I don't know the wear characteristics of the GP4000S but would assume that it is slightly less that the Gatorskin whose entire purpose is to live a long hard life. I have been trying to make a list of components so that I can keep track of lifespan but I've changed bikes so often until the last year that I have to start fresh. Rather than those super expensive Campy chains you might try the KMC Gold. These are supposed to be "lubed for life" but I put so much faith in that, that I lube them at regular intervals. One of the things I do more carefully now is to clean the outside of the chain off. This seems to cut down on that thick crud build-up on the cassette. I just got back from a 30 mile ride (50km). 12 miles of it was on a gravel access road to the San Francisco Bay Shoreline Trail. Since this was on my regular road bike with 23 mm tires, it beat me up pretty good. That probably doesn't help tire wear much and so I don't know if I can compare tire life and chain life. I'm far more concerned about cassette life though since 10 speed cassettes are so expensive for a reasonably light version. I don't particularly like Gatorskins because they do not roll very well and they aren't very good in corners. I tried the ThickSlick and it was a little better and cheap but when it got a cut the rubber started peeling away from the casing. Not a lot but some. I tried Specialized Armadillos and they are very good all around. I seem to remember in the past that they got goat's head flats but the set I bought a year ago didn't get any. Their problem is the staggering cost compared to other tires. Almost twice the cost of the competition. And you can only get them at a Specialized dealer. I tried the Michelin Pro4 Endurance and really liked them. They roll and corner like a sew-up. It was VERY noticeable. And I didn't get any flats with them. But apparently they had trouble with them peeling off of the carcass like I got with the ThickSlick. So they released and improved version: The Michelin Power Endurance. I have a set of those on the shelf and will install them on the Pinarello Stelvio I'm rebuilding. I hope they perform like the Pro4 Endurance because I REALLY liked them. It's not often when you can actually feel the difference in performance.. I had an Eddy Merckx Strata OS that I can kick myself for selling but that was in my moving to carbon fiber phase. That was the most perfect riding bike I ever had - better than a Basso Loto. Though with any luck I think that the Pinarello will match it. The Basso flexes just the slightest amount too much. The Stelvio uses the same tubes but the bottom bracket isn't quite as low as the Basso and the wheelbase is 2 cm shorter. That should cure the flex. For a CX I've had several bikes. The Ridley Longbow actually felt much better than anything else but both of my Redlines were faster though they didn't ride nearly as good. They were perhaps a little lighter but their geometry is such that you can jump off of them at the last second on these 25+% climbs just as the front wheel begins to lift. And they descend these drops pretty well with minimal braking. So now I'm in a position where I'm pretty satisfied with my bikes and can keep track of component life. Hats off to people who keep track of all of this, but it kind of reminds me when I got one of those early Quicken programs that allowed me to keep track of household expenses. It produced an expense pie chart, and a huge slice of my personal pie was the mortgage. Goddamn! Look how much I'm spending on the mortgage. I better stop paying that. Same way with chains and cassettes. Wow, look how much I'm replacing those chains. I better stop doing that. Once you've settled on a chain/cassette/tire brand and model, it's just a fixed cost, and it really doesn't matter how long it lasted. I've settled on my chains -- KMC comes with a quick link, it is reasonably priced and last longer than SRAM. I don't like the pins on Shimano chains and don't want to pay for a separate quick-link. I buy Shimano cassettes -- 105 level or above, and my tires vary somewhat, but fast tires are close-out Pro4 Service Courses. I bought four today for $25 (after discount for picking up in store) a pop at Western Bikeworks. Two will go to my son for Christmas. It's a first-class fast road tire for a song. Gatorskins are the go-to commuter bike tire, but they're over-priced and rarely go on a good sale, so I try sale table tires. The more durable, the more they ride like wagon wheels. I still have a Bontrager front tire that I got off a sale table more than three years ago. It just won't die -- and I want it to die. OT, but Portland had the worst air in the US yesterday because of all the forest fires. It was a little better today, and I went on a ride with some friends -- and a few hours ago, rain rolled in. It's been dry for months. This will be great for the forest fires, the air and lawns -- but it signals the beginning of many months of riding on wet pavement and my annual quest for really grippy tires with good rolling resistance. Something in the 32mm range, so if anyone has a suggestion, let me know. Shimano's chains now come with quick links. |
Chain Stretch
On 9/17/2017 5:43 PM, wrote:
Rather than those super expensive Campy chains you might try the KMC Gold. These are supposed to be "lubed for life" but I put so much faith in that, that I lube them at regular intervals. One of the things I do more carefully now is to clean the outside of the chain off. This seems to cut down on that thick crud build-up on the cassette. Speaking of crud buildup: Back when we were talking about waxing chains, I took a photo or two of my bikes. Here's a link to our tandem hanging in the basement. The bike has not been cleaned in a year. The chain hasn't been lubed since spring, maybe 600 miles now. Note the lack of crud in the cogs. https://photos.app.goo.gl/ACmzRRbMjWCUrHef2 -- - Frank Krygowski |
Chain Stretch
On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 7:18:26 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 6:02:11 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote: On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 2:43:18 PM UTC-7, wrote: snip I don't know the wear characteristics of the GP4000S but would assume that it is slightly less that the Gatorskin whose entire purpose is to live a long hard life. I have been trying to make a list of components so that I can keep track of lifespan but I've changed bikes so often until the last year that I have to start fresh. Rather than those super expensive Campy chains you might try the KMC Gold. These are supposed to be "lubed for life" but I put so much faith in that, that I lube them at regular intervals. One of the things I do more carefully now is to clean the outside of the chain off. This seems to cut down on that thick crud build-up on the cassette. I just got back from a 30 mile ride (50km). 12 miles of it was on a gravel access road to the San Francisco Bay Shoreline Trail. Since this was on my regular road bike with 23 mm tires, it beat me up pretty good. That probably doesn't help tire wear much and so I don't know if I can compare tire life and chain life. I'm far more concerned about cassette life though since 10 speed cassettes are so expensive for a reasonably light version. I don't particularly like Gatorskins because they do not roll very well and they aren't very good in corners. I tried the ThickSlick and it was a little better and cheap but when it got a cut the rubber started peeling away from the casing. Not a lot but some. I tried Specialized Armadillos and they are very good all around. I seem to remember in the past that they got goat's head flats but the set I bought a year ago didn't get any. Their problem is the staggering cost compared to other tires. Almost twice the cost of the competition. And you can only get them at a Specialized dealer. I tried the Michelin Pro4 Endurance and really liked them. They roll and corner like a sew-up. It was VERY noticeable. And I didn't get any flats with them. But apparently they had trouble with them peeling off of the carcass like I got with the ThickSlick. So they released and improved version: The Michelin Power Endurance. I have a set of those on the shelf and will install them on the Pinarello Stelvio I'm rebuilding. I hope they perform like the Pro4 Endurance because I REALLY liked them. It's not often when you can actually feel the difference in performance. I had an Eddy Merckx Strata OS that I can kick myself for selling but that was in my moving to carbon fiber phase. That was the most perfect riding bike I ever had - better than a Basso Loto. Though with any luck I think that the Pinarello will match it. The Basso flexes just the slightest amount too much. The Stelvio uses the same tubes but the bottom bracket isn't quite as low as the Basso and the wheelbase is 2 cm shorter. That should cure the flex. For a CX I've had several bikes. The Ridley Longbow actually felt much better than anything else but both of my Redlines were faster though they didn't ride nearly as good. They were perhaps a little lighter but their geometry is such that you can jump off of them at the last second on these 25+% climbs just as the front wheel begins to lift. And they descend these drops pretty well with minimal braking. So now I'm in a position where I'm pretty satisfied with my bikes and can keep track of component life. Hats off to people who keep track of all of this, but it kind of reminds me when I got one of those early Quicken programs that allowed me to keep track of household expenses. It produced an expense pie chart, and a huge slice of my personal pie was the mortgage. Goddamn! Look how much I'm spending on the mortgage. I better stop paying that. Same way with chains and cassettes. Wow, look how much I'm replacing those chains. I better stop doing that. Once you've settled on a chain/cassette/tire brand and model, it's just a fixed cost, and it really doesn't matter how long it lasted. I've settled on my chains -- KMC comes with a quick link, it is reasonably priced and last longer than SRAM. I don't like the pins on Shimano chains and don't want to pay for a separate quick-link. I buy Shimano cassettes -- 105 level or above, and my tires vary somewhat, but fast tires are close-out Pro4 Service Courses. I bought four today for $25 (after discount for picking up in store) a pop at Western Bikeworks. Two will go to my son for Christmas.. It's a first-class fast road tire for a song. Gatorskins are the go-to commuter bike tire, but they're over-priced and rarely go on a good sale, so I try sale table tires. The more durable, the more they ride like wagon wheels. I still have a Bontrager front tire that I got off a sale table more than three years ago. It just won't die -- and I want it to die. OT, but Portland had the worst air in the US yesterday because of all the forest fires. It was a little better today, and I went on a ride with some friends -- and a few hours ago, rain rolled in. It's been dry for months. This will be great for the forest fires, the air and lawns -- but it signals the beginning of many months of riding on wet pavement and my annual quest for really grippy tires with good rolling resistance. Something in the 32mm range, so if anyone has a suggestion, let me know. Shimano's chains now come with quick links. I see that Shimano offers one, but I don't think it is being shipped with the chains. https://www.coloradocyclist.com/shim...11-speed-chain It looks like a $15 add-on (for two). https://www.coloradocyclist.com/shim...-11-quick-link Does anyone know if the new 11sp Shimano chains are shipping with quick links? I used a KMC quick link with Shimano chains in the past on bikes that came with Shimano chains OE, so using a quick link has always been an option, but I just didn't like paying the extra charge when you can get a KMC chain (who makes chains for Shimano) with the link included. -- Jay Beattie. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com