|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Chain waxing + graphite question
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. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Chain waxing + graphite question
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 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Chain waxing + graphite question
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 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Chain waxing + graphite question
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. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Chain waxing + graphite question
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 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Chain waxing + graphite question
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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Chain waxing + graphite question
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 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Chain waxing + graphite question
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New bicycle idea | Bob Marley | General | 49 | October 7th 04 05:20 AM |
FYI chain question results | dreaded | General | 5 | September 15th 04 09:16 PM |
(different) dumb chain removal question | Jonathan Ives | UK | 16 | October 13th 03 09:48 PM |
Chain driven question | glopal | Unicycling | 5 | September 13th 03 02:04 PM |
dumb chain removal question | Jonathan Ives | UK | 11 | August 31st 03 12:05 AM |