Chain waxing + graphite question

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 01:37:00 GMT, Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
HarryB wrote:

I doubt that a ruler is more accurate than the Park Tool CC-2 that I
use. I suspect that the average biker's ruler is not a precision
instrument, but rather a normal ruler which is not very accurate.

A good steel ruler is as good as or better than speciality
chain gauges.

1. Measuring over one foot is more accurate than measuring
over an inch or two.

2. A ruler measures pin to pin. The specialty chain gauges
measure from roller to roller, and this is a less precise
measurement because the rollers shift and do not tell you
where the pins are.

My response was to Mike DeMicco's statement, "Also, use a ruler
instead of the Park chain checker. It is inaccurate." I understood
this to mean that Mike alleged that the Park Tool chain checker is an
inaccurate instrument in the sense that it does not measure the same
distance consistently. However, based on your explanation, I now think
that what he meant was that the CC-2 does not measure the distance
that he thinks is important in trying to determine chain wear.

As far as the accuracy of various rulers is concerned, I know for a
fact that not all rulers are accurate. I was quite surprised to read
that Jobst Brandt advocated that using a free yardstick from a
hardware store was accurate enough for his purposes (
http://tinyurl.com/b6hyk ). Aside from the parallax issue with a
wooden yardstick, I remember many years ago, when I was quite young,
that a project I was working on ended up poorly constructed because I
had used a yardstick that I got as a freebie from a hardware store. It
was very inaccurate compared to the Craftsman tape measure I should
have used.

I think I grasp somewhat the reasoning behind measuring the distance
between pins rather than between rollers. But, Lennard Zinn in the
latest version of his book "Zinn & The Art of Road Bike Maintenance"
writes: "The most reliable way to see whether the chain is worn out is
to employ a chain-elongation gauge, such as the model make by
Rohloff."

He continues that a second method is to measure the distance between
the rivets of 12 links and a third method is to compare the length of
50 links of the chain in question to a new chain of equal number of
lengths.

I checked 8 chains that I have here with the Park Tool CC-2 and also
with a ruler (which might be reasonably accurate.) The chains range
from new to excessively worn. On 6 of the chains the two methods seem
to produce similar results. The other 2 chains are very dirty because
they are on a used tandem I just purchased and I wouldn't draw any
conclusion until I get those chains cleaned up.

I'm going to spend some time researching this because I run expensive
chains on our tandem and don't want to waste money by replacing them
more or less often than necessary.

Harry

SYJ wrote:
HarryB wrote:
---snip---

It really isn't that big of a deal if one gets it down to a ritual:
Remove chain from bike and drop in cleaner (Simple Green.) Remove from
cleaner, rinse in hot water and put into deep fryer.

---/snip---

Be careful using simple green to clean your chain...
http://www.velonews.com/tech/report/...es/9216.0.html

Good article. As one of the writers wrote, "Since the main ingredient is
water, I would not recommend soaking a chain in it." Frankly I am amazed
that people would actually use water to clean a chain, it's a very bad
idea. You can dry the outside, but water remains inside, in the worst
possible area. You want to use a non-water based solvent such as kerosene.

In article ,
HarryB wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 01:37:00 GMT, Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
HarryB wrote:

I doubt that a ruler is more accurate than the Park Tool CC-2 that I
use. I suspect that the average biker's ruler is not a precision
instrument, but rather a normal ruler which is not very accurate.

A good steel ruler is as good as or better than speciality
chain gauges.

1. Measuring over one foot is more accurate than measuring
over an inch or two.

2. A ruler measures pin to pin. The specialty chain gauges
measure from roller to roller, and this is a less precise
measurement because the rollers shift and do not tell you
where the pins are.

My response was to Mike DeMicco's statement, "Also, use a ruler
instead of the Park chain checker. It is inaccurate." I understood
this to mean that Mike alleged that the Park Tool chain checker is an
inaccurate instrument in the sense that it does not measure the same
distance consistently. However, based on your explanation, I now think
that what he meant was that the CC-2 does not measure the distance
that he thinks is important in trying to determine chain wear.

As far as the accuracy of various rulers is concerned, I know for a
fact that not all rulers are accurate. I was quite surprised to read
that Jobst Brandt advocated that using a free yardstick from a
hardware store was accurate enough for his purposes (
http://tinyurl.com/b6hyk ). Aside from the parallax issue with a
wooden yardstick, I remember many years ago, when I was quite young,
that a project I was working on ended up poorly constructed because I
had used a yardstick that I got as a freebie from a hardware store. It
was very inaccurate compared to the Craftsman tape measure I should
have used.

I think I grasp somewhat the reasoning behind measuring the distance
between pins rather than between rollers. But, Lennard Zinn in the
latest version of his book "Zinn & The Art of Road Bike Maintenance"
writes: "The most reliable way to see whether the chain is worn out is
to employ a chain-elongation gauge, such as the model make by
Rohloff."

He continues that a second method is to measure the distance between
the rivets of 12 links and a third method is to compare the length of
50 links of the chain in question to a new chain of equal number of
lengths.

I checked 8 chains that I have here with the Park Tool CC-2 and also
with a ruler (which might be reasonably accurate.) The chains range
from new to excessively worn. On 6 of the chains the two methods seem
to produce similar results. The other 2 chains are very dirty because
they are on a used tandem I just purchased and I wouldn't draw any
conclusion until I get those chains cleaned up.

I'm going to spend some time researching this because I run expensive
chains on our tandem and don't want to waste money by replacing them
more or less often than necessary.

In another thread on this topic we got the definitive
method; I do not remember who it is. He keeps a new chain
hung on the wall and compares chains in use by hanging
them next to the new chain.

---------------------------------------------

On the accuracy of scales, I compared a dial caliper
(0.01" ticks) with an engineer's scale. They agree to the
limit of observation. I compared the engineer's scale with
two steel desk rulers, a wooden desk ruler, a steel tape
measure, a roofer's square, a machinist's square, a
draftsman's tee square, and a 4 foot builders ruler.

The wooden desk ruler is off by 0.01" over 12".
The steel tape measure is off by 0.01" over 12".
The tee square is off by 0.02" over 12".
The 4 foot builders ruler is off by 0.03" over 12" all
along its length.
The other scales showed no deviation from the engineer's
scale.

--
Michael Press

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 21:56:18 -0800, SMS
wrote:

SYJ wrote:
HarryB wrote:
---snip---

It really isn't that big of a deal if one gets it down to a ritual:
Remove chain from bike and drop in cleaner (Simple Green.) Remove from
cleaner, rinse in hot water and put into deep fryer.

---/snip---

Be careful using simple green to clean your chain...
http://www.velonews.com/tech/report/...es/9216.0.html

Good article. As one of the writers wrote, "Since the main ingredient is
water, I would not recommend soaking a chain in it." Frankly I am amazed
that people would actually use water to clean a chain, it's a very bad
idea. You can dry the outside, but water remains inside, in the worst
possible area. You want to use a non-water based solvent such as kerosene.

I don't soak my chains in Simple Green for an extended period of time.
I simply put them into a mixture of Simple Green for a couple of
minutes, swish them around, and then rinse them in hot water.

The wet chains are then dropped into the cold deep fryer and then
cooked as the wax heats up. All of the water is evaporated off the
chains due to the temperature of the hot wax.

Harry

Quoting HarryB none:
http://tinyurl.com/b6hyk ). Aside from the parallax issue with a
wooden yardstick, I remember many years ago, when I was quite young,
that a project I was working on ended up poorly constructed because I
had used a yardstick that I got as a freebie from a hardware store. It
was very inaccurate compared to the Craftsman tape measure I should
have used.

But, when you fit a new chain, you can check rulers you have lying around
against it to see which one is accurate.

I'm going to spend some time researching this because I run expensive
chains on our tandem and don't want to waste money by replacing them
more or less often than necessary.

Well, I wouldn't worry too much about the sync chain...
--
David Damerell Kill the tomato!
Today is First Sunday, February - a weekend.

Harry Bull writes:

I doubt that a ruler is more accurate than the Park Tool CC-2 that I
use. I suspect that the average biker's ruler is not a precision
instrument, but rather a normal ruler which is not very accurate.

A good steel ruler is as good as or better than specialty chain
gauge.

1. Measuring over one foot is more accurate than measuring over an
inch or two.

2. A ruler measures pin to pin. The specialty chain gauges measure
from roller to roller, and this is a less precise measurement
because the rollers shift and do not tell you where the pins are.

My response was to Mike DeMicco's statement, "Also, use a ruler
instead of the Park chain checker. It is inaccurate." I understood
this to mean that Mike alleged that the Park Tool chain checker is
an inaccurate instrument in the sense that it does not measure the
same distance consistently. However, based on your explanation, I
now think that what he meant was that the CC-2 does not measure the
distance that he thinks is important in trying to determine chain
wear.

As far as the accuracy of various rulers is concerned, I know for a
fact that not all rulers are accurate. I was quite surprised to read
that Jobst Brandt advocated that using a free yardstick from a
hardware store was accurate enough for his purposes

http://tinyurl.com/b6hyk

Aside from the parallax issue with a wooden yardstick, I remember
many years ago, when I was quite young, that a project I was working
on ended up poorly constructed because I had used a yardstick that I
got as a freebie from a hardware store. It was very inaccurate
compared to the Craftsman tape measure I should have used.

There is no parallax. the ruler markings can be brought into contact
with the chain pins on the bicycle. Oh pshaw! I've got enough
promotional yard sticks from local shops that are more accurate than a
fraction of a line width and that over 36 inches. You're grasping at
straws to possibly justify your purchase of a chain gauge of some
type. Don't worry, no one guessed until now that you had been
suckered.

I think I grasp somewhat the reasoning behind measuring the distance
between pins rather than between rollers. But, Lennard Zinn in the
latest version of his book "Zinn & The Art of Road Bike Maintenance"
writes: "The most reliable way to see whether the chain is worn out is
to employ a chain-elongation gauge, such as the model make by
Rohloff."

Well, there you have a good reason to doubt other things that Zinn
passes along from bicycle myth and lore, some of which is worthwhile
and some not. I hope you can make up your own mind about whether
measuring roller spacing has much to do with chain pitch.

He continues that a second method is to measure the distance between
the rivets of 12 links and a third method is to compare the length
of 50 links of the chain in question to a new chain of equal number
of lengths.

I didn't see how he proposes one do this. Maybe you can explain.

I checked 8 chains that I have here with the Park Tool CC-2 and also
with a ruler (which might be reasonably accurate.) The chains range
from new to excessively worn. On 6 of the chains the two methods
seem to produce similar results. The other 2 chains are very dirty
because they are on a used tandem I just purchased and I wouldn't
draw any conclusion until I get those chains cleaned up.

So why are you telling us this if there are no conclusions?

I'm going to spend some time researching this because I run
expensive chains on our tandem and don't want to waste money by
replacing them more or less often than necessary.

What makes your tandem chain expensive? You can make a chain of any
length with off the shelf chains of your choosing.

Jobst Brandt

HarryB wrote in news:s99uu114jtobbgfismqv2mbl60irmhagc0@
4ax.com:

I'm going to spend some time researching this because I run expensive
chains on our tandem and don't want to waste money by replacing them
more or less often than necessary.

The LBS measured my chain with the Rohloff gage and told me that the
chain and cassette were worn out. The 10 speed Shimano chain had only a
few thousand miles on it, and I am careful to keep it clean and lubed. Of
course I did not believe it and measured it with a ruler when I got home.
It was hardly worn at all; well short of the commonly accepted 12-1/16"
measurement that determines a worn out chain. Anyone using the Rohloff
gage is going to be wasting a lot of money on buying new chains, IMO.

If you do a search on Google groups you will find this topic has been
discussed at length in the past.


--
Mike DeMicco

On 13 Feb 2006 15:10:59 +0000 (GMT), David Damerell
wrote:

Quoting HarryB none:
http://tinyurl.com/b6hyk ). Aside from the parallax issue with a
wooden yardstick, I remember many years ago, when I was quite young,
that a project I was working on ended up poorly constructed because I
had used a yardstick that I got as a freebie from a hardware store. It
was very inaccurate compared to the Craftsman tape measure I should
have used.

But, when you fit a new chain, you can check rulers you have lying around
against it to see which one is accurate.

Yes, that does seem like a logical way to check. I'm going to do that.

I'm going to spend some time researching this because I run expensive
chains on our tandem and don't want to waste money by replacing them
more or less often than necessary.

Well, I wouldn't worry too much about the sync chain...

I replaced the timing chain after it read 0.8 on the Park Tools CC-2
chain checker. [1] It only had about 3,500 miles on it and I thought
it was rather odd that it would wear faster than the drive chain which
read 0.25 [2] with the same mileage and maintenance as the timing
chain. I am afraid that I have recently reached the conclusion that
when I purchased the bike (new) from a reputable tandem dealer that it
had a used timing chain on it. I was completely new to the biking
scene when I purchased the bike and am afraid that I was taken
advantage of.

I do expect the new timing chain to last a lot longer than the drive
one as you imply.

[1] When I checked it with a ruler it measured 12 3/32".
[2] When I checked it with a ruler it measured 12".

Harry

On 13 Feb 2006 20:56:48 GMT, wrote:

Harry Bull writes:

I doubt that a ruler is more accurate than the Park Tool CC-2 that I
use. I suspect that the average biker's ruler is not a precision
instrument, but rather a normal ruler which is not very accurate.

A good steel ruler is as good as or better than specialty chain
gauge.

1. Measuring over one foot is more accurate than measuring over an
inch or two.

2. A ruler measures pin to pin. The specialty chain gauges measure
from roller to roller, and this is a less precise measurement
because the rollers shift and do not tell you where the pins are.

My response was to Mike DeMicco's statement, "Also, use a ruler
instead of the Park chain checker. It is inaccurate." I understood
this to mean that Mike alleged that the Park Tool chain checker is
an inaccurate instrument in the sense that it does not measure the
same distance consistently. However, based on your explanation, I
now think that what he meant was that the CC-2 does not measure the
distance that he thinks is important in trying to determine chain
wear.

As far as the accuracy of various rulers is concerned, I know for a
fact that not all rulers are accurate. I was quite surprised to read
that Jobst Brandt advocated that using a free yardstick from a
hardware store was accurate enough for his purposes

http://tinyurl.com/b6hyk

Aside from the parallax issue with a wooden yardstick, I remember
many years ago, when I was quite young, that a project I was working
on ended up poorly constructed because I had used a yardstick that I
got as a freebie from a hardware store. It was very inaccurate
compared to the Craftsman tape measure I should have used.

There is no parallax. the ruler markings can be brought into contact
with the chain pins on the bicycle.

I stand corrected about the parallax. It has been a long time since I
have used a wooden yard stick because after my disastrous project I
purchased a good quality tape measure and 48" metal
ruler/straightedge.

Oh pshaw! I've got enough
promotional yard sticks from local shops that are more accurate than a
fraction of a line width and that over 36 inches.

I admit that the last time I used a freebie wooden yard stick from a
hardware store was about 35 years ago. It hadn't occurred to me that
they are more accurate today.

You're grasping at
straws to possibly justify your purchase of a chain gauge of some
type. Don't worry, no one guessed until now that you had been
suckered.

As someone who is rather new to the biking scene, I have discovered
that there is a lot to learn. Although it may be obvious to a veteran
biker that commercially available chain measuring tools are not good
at accurately revealing chain wear, why would a newbie be expected to
have researched this problem in the first place?

I learned that chains wear and need to be replaced periodically. I
read that one can use a ruler or purchase a chain checker to discover
the amount of wear. Since my eyesight isn't what it used to be, I need
a magnifying glass to make sure that I would have the ruler lined up
*exactly* with the center of the pins, so decided that a device like
the Park Tool CC-2 would be easier for me to see the results than
checking with a ruler.

It has now been brought to my attention that there are differences of
opinions on how to accurately measure chain wear. I'm not grasping at
straws to justify my purchase. I simply haven't had the time to
research it enough to decide if I have been "suckered." And if I have
been "suckered" I am mature enough to accept that I made a mistake. I
don't get hung up on little things like that any more.

I think I grasp somewhat the reasoning behind measuring the distance
between pins rather than between rollers. But, Lennard Zinn in the
latest version of his book "Zinn & The Art of Road Bike Maintenance"
writes: "The most reliable way to see whether the chain is worn out is
to employ a chain-elongation gauge, such as the model make by
Rohloff."

Well, there you have a good reason to doubt other things that Zinn
passes along from bicycle myth and lore, some of which is worthwhile
and some not.

Are you implying that I was also suckered into purchasing his book?

I hope you can make up your own mind about whether
measuring roller spacing has much to do with chain pitch.

Yes, I will make up my mind at some point, but right now I'm not
convinced. The theory makes sense, but my personal observation *at
this time* doesn't reveal that the Park Tool CC-2 chain checker is
wrong. Here are the results of the 6 chains I referred to in my
message:

Chain #1 CC-2: 0.25 Ruler: 12"
Chain #2 CC-2: 0.25 Ruler: 12"
Chain #3 CC-2: 0.50 Ruler: 12 1/16"
Chain #4: CC-2: 1.0+ Ruler: 12 1/4"
Chain #5: CC-2: 0.80 Ruler: 12 3/32"
Chain #6: CC-2: 0.25 Ruler: 12"

He continues that a second method is to measure the distance between
the rivets of 12 links and a third method is to compare the length
of 50 links of the chain in question to a new chain of equal number
of lengths.

Typo: that should have been "links", not "lengths".

I didn't see how he proposes one do this. Maybe you can explain.

His explanation seems logical to me. But, since I'm a newbie maybe
this third method is also a "myth and lore". Anyway, here are his own
words, "Chain manufacturer Sachs (now SRAM) recommends replacement if
elongation is 1 percent, or 1/2 inch in 100 links (50 inches). If the
chain is off of the bike, you can hang it next to a new chain: if it
is more than a half-link longer for the same number of links, replace
it."
I checked 8 chains that I have here with the Park Tool CC-2 and also
with a ruler (which might be reasonably accurate.) The chains range
from new to excessively worn. On 6 of the chains the two methods
seem to produce similar results. The other 2 chains are very dirty
because they are on a used tandem I just purchased and I wouldn't
draw any conclusion until I get those chains cleaned up.

So why are you telling us this if there are no conclusions?

I *did* draw a conclusion. I wrote, "On 6 of the chains the two
methods seem to produce similar results." On the other two, I don't
know if a very dirty chain will skew the readings, so I don't draw a
conclusion.

I'm going to spend some time researching this because I run
expensive chains on our tandem and don't want to waste money by
replacing them more or less often than necessary.

What makes your tandem chain expensive? You can make a chain of any
length with off the shelf chains of your choosing.

I chose expensive chains (Wippermann nickel plated) because I wanted
to have shiny chains. I discovered that one of the benefits of waxing
the chains is that it is very easy to keep the chains shiny, just like
I keep the rest of the bike. Unfortunately, the Wippermann drive chain
broke and it has taken some time to get Wippermann to send a free
replacement (my LBS wouldn't replace it under warranty), so I replaced
it with a Dura-Ace. Not quite as nice looking, but still a lot nicer
than the stock chain.

Jobst Brandt

PS: I'm surprised to notice that you decided to change "HarryB" to
"Harry Bull". I hadn't expected that of you.

On 14 Feb 2006 02:05:33 GMT, Mike DeMicco
wrote:

HarryB wrote in news:s99uu114jtobbgfismqv2mbl60irmhagc0@
4ax.com:

I'm going to spend some time researching this because I run expensive
chains on our tandem and don't want to waste money by replacing them
more or less often than necessary.

The LBS measured my chain with the Rohloff gage and told me that the
chain and cassette were worn out. The 10 speed Shimano chain had only a
few thousand miles on it, and I am careful to keep it clean and lubed. Of
course I did not believe it and measured it with a ruler when I got home.
It was hardly worn at all; well short of the commonly accepted 12-1/16"
measurement that determines a worn out chain. Anyone using the Rohloff
gage is going to be wasting a lot of money on buying new chains, IMO.

If you do a search on Google groups you will find this topic has been
discussed at length in the past.

I was caught by surprise to discover that there is controversy about
how to determine chain wear. It's just not something that I as a
newbie expected. Once again I'm learning something new. That is part
of what makes life so interesting.

Harry