Worn out chainrings?

I've spent hours searching in groups. Maybe there's a NEW approach to
this.

I've a pile of used chainrings. Just as if I had a pile of used
chains, I'd like to describe their wear. How to do it?

I tried putting a 5 inch length of new SRAM PC58 chain on each ring,
holding down the last links and pulling up; also moving the length of
chain around the rings. For comparison with used chainrings I had 3
new rings. A circa-1995 Campagnolo 53t ring and a new 1985 Takagi 52t.
Both rings were ground and should represent quality machining. I also
had a new old stock 52 t 144bcd ring by ???

Aside from visually obvious wear to the face of the teeth of some used
rings, I could not say that the movement of the chainon the used
chains differentiated them from the movement on the new ones. There
was as much difference between the new chainrings as there was between
new and used.

This isn't academic if I'd like to predict how the ring will perform,
for me or someone else, or if I'd like to be sure the ring will not
excessively wear or damage a new chain, and then cassette sprockets.

So what is the metric, besides "chain skips on it under load" and
"teeth look hooked?

wrote:
I've spent hours searching in groups. Maybe there's a NEW approach to
this.

I've a pile of used chainrings. Just as if I had a pile of used
chains, I'd like to describe their wear. How to do it?

I tried putting a 5 inch length of new SRAM PC58 chain on each ring,
holding down the last links and pulling up; also moving the length of
chain around the rings. For comparison with used chainrings I had 3
new rings. A circa-1995 Campagnolo 53t ring and a new 1985 Takagi 52t.
Both rings were ground and should represent quality machining. I also
had a new old stock 52 t 144bcd ring by ???

Aside from visually obvious wear to the face of the teeth of some used
rings, I could not say that the movement of the chainon the used
chains differentiated them from the movement on the new ones. There
was as much difference between the new chainrings as there was between
new and used.

This isn't academic if I'd like to predict how the ring will perform,
for me or someone else, or if I'd like to be sure the ring will not
excessively wear or damage a new chain, and then cassette sprockets.

So what is the metric, besides "chain skips on it under load" and
"teeth look hooked?

Yes, it's hard to evaluate chainring wear! A new chain will generally
run acceptably well on old rings but shift response may suffer. The
teeth have to be down to ugly little stumps before you get actual
failure. That limit is a smaller stump on big rings than on small rings
because fewer teeth engage on small rings. (32t and 36t triple middle
rings being the most commonly replaced 'worn out' sizes)
Definitive overview he
http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/8d.2.html

short answer: No definitive measurable limit off the bike.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Mar 27, 1:09*am, A Muzi wrote:
wrote:
I've spent hours searching in groups. Maybe there's a NEW approach to
this.

I've a pile of used chainrings. Just as if I had a pile of used
chains, I'd like to describe their wear. How to do it?

I tried putting a 5 inch length of new SRAM PC58 chain on each ring,
holding down the last links and pulling up; also moving the length of
chain around the rings. For comparison with used chainrings I had 3
new rings. A circa-1995 Campagnolo 53t ring and a new 1985 Takagi 52t.
Both rings were ground and should represent quality machining. I also
had a new old stock 52 t 144bcd ring by ???

Aside from visually obvious wear to the face of the teeth of some used
rings, I could not say that the movement of the chainon the used
chains differentiated them from the movement on the new ones. There
was as much difference between the new chainrings as there was between
new and used.

This isn't academic if I'd like to predict how the ring will perform,
for me or someone else, or if I'd like to be sure the ring will not
excessively wear or damage a new chain, and then cassette sprockets.

So what is the metric, besides "chain skips on it under load" and
"teeth look hooked?

Yes, it's hard to evaluate chainring wear! A new chain will generally
run acceptably well on old rings but shift response may suffer. The
teeth have to be down to ugly little stumps before you get actual
failure. *That limit is a smaller stump on big rings than on small rings
because fewer teeth engage on small rings. (32t and 36t triple middle
rings being the most commonly replaced 'worn out' sizes)
Definitive overview hehttp://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/8d.2.html

short answer: No definitive measurable limit off the bike.
--
Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

But, realistically, if one uses Campy or Shimano chains that have no
easy-to-break links, removing a chain to lube this days is quite
difficult. I clean my chains on the bike, use Pro-Link lube, and
change my chains once per year or so and they are not beyond 1/16" in
12" by that time (i.e. almost no wear in 5000 miles). I do join my
chains with a removable KMC missing-Link, but that is a one-time use
link and I generally leave the chain on the bike for its life.

What do others use and do you still remove the chain to clean it?

On Mar 27, 1:09 am, A Muzi wrote:
wrote:
I've spent hours searching in groups. Maybe there's a NEW approach to
this.

I've a pile of used chainrings. Just as if I had a pile of used
chains, I'd like to describe their wear. How to do it?

I tried putting a 5 inch length of new SRAM PC58 chain on each ring,
holding down the last links and pulling up; also moving the length of
chain around the rings. For comparison with used chainrings I had 3
new rings. A circa-1995 Campagnolo 53t ring and a new 1985 Takagi 52t.
Both rings were ground and should represent quality machining. I also
had a new old stock 52 t 144bcd ring by ???

Aside from visually obvious wear to the face of the teeth of some used
rings, I could not say that the movement of the chainon the used
chains differentiated them from the movement on the new ones. There
was as much difference between the new chainrings as there was between
new and used.

This isn't academic if I'd like to predict how the ring will perform,
for me or someone else, or if I'd like to be sure the ring will not
excessively wear or damage a new chain, and then cassette sprockets.

So what is the metric, besides "chain skips on it under load" and
"teeth look hooked?

Yes, it's hard to evaluate chainring wear! A new chain will generally
run acceptably well on old rings but shift response may suffer. The
teeth have to be down to ugly little stumps before you get actual
failure. That limit is a smaller stump on big rings than on small rings
because fewer teeth engage on small rings. (32t and 36t triple middle
rings being the most commonly replaced 'worn out' sizes)
Definitive overview hehttp://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/8d.2.html

short answer: No definitive measurable limit off the bike.
--
Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Thanks, Andrew. Your answers always pithy; Jobst's so .....

Anyway, Jobst doesn't get around to saying in the FAQ whether a worn
chainring accelerates wear on the chain, new or old. Does it? If not,
it would seem there's not much reason, except for looks, crisper
shifting and the LBS's wrench's respecct , to ever change the big ring
on, a commuter bike or a tourer. Chainsuck with a lubed chain on a
big ring just never happens, does it?

Harry Travis

On Mar 27, 8:24 am, "
wrote:

Anyway, Jobst doesn't get around to saying in the FAQ whether a worn
chainring accelerates wear on the chain, new or old. Does it? If not,
it would seem there's not much reason, except for looks, crisper
shifting and the LBS's wrench's respecct , to ever change the big ring
on, a commuter bike or a tourer. Chainsuck with a lubed chain on a
big ring just never happens, does it?

I had to flip the big (52T) ring over on my bike about 20 kmiles ago
when the chain started to skip on it under load. It's been working ok
so far wih the chain applying pressure on the other side of the teeth
but I expect that within another year or two it'll start skipping
again and need to be replaced.

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:27:42 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

So what is the metric, besides "chain skips on it under load" and
"teeth look hooked?

With 50/34 combinations, the chain will miss the 34 on a downshift
when the 50 is worn.

With the bicycle on the stand have the chain on the big ring and the
2nd largest cog. Downshift the front derailleur. Then slowly move
the crank. You will see that the chain begins to engage the 34 before
it is completely off the 50. If the chain hangs onto the 50 a bit too
long, it will miss the inner ring and you'll drop the chain.

In article
,
DNM wrote:

On Mar 27, 1:09*am, A Muzi wrote:
wrote:
I've spent hours searching in groups. Maybe there's a NEW approach to
this.

I've a pile of used chainrings. Just as if I had a pile of used
chains, I'd like to describe their wear. How to do it?

I tried putting a 5 inch length of new SRAM PC58 chain on each ring,
holding down the last links and pulling up; also moving the length of
chain around the rings. For comparison with used chainrings I had 3
new rings. A circa-1995 Campagnolo 53t ring and a new 1985 Takagi 52t.
Both rings were ground and should represent quality machining. I also
had a new old stock 52 t 144bcd ring by ???

Aside from visually obvious wear to the face of the teeth of some used
rings, I could not say that the movement of the chainon the used
chains differentiated them from the movement on the new ones. There
was as much difference between the new chainrings as there was between
new and used.

This isn't academic if I'd like to predict how the ring will perform,
for me or someone else, or if I'd like to be sure the ring will not
excessively wear or damage a new chain, and then cassette sprockets.

So what is the metric, besides "chain skips on it under load" and
"teeth look hooked?

Yes, it's hard to evaluate chainring wear! A new chain will generally
run acceptably well on old rings but shift response may suffer. The
teeth have to be down to ugly little stumps before you get actual
failure. *That limit is a smaller stump on big rings than on small rings
because fewer teeth engage on small rings. (32t and 36t triple middle
rings being the most commonly replaced 'worn out' sizes)
Definitive overview hehttp://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/8d.2.html

short answer: No definitive measurable limit off the bike.

But, realistically, if one uses Campy or Shimano chains that have no
easy-to-break links, removing a chain to lube this days is quite
difficult. I clean my chains on the bike, use Pro-Link lube, and
change my chains once per year or so and they are not beyond 1/16" in
12" by that time (i.e. almost no wear in 5000 miles). I do join my
chains with a removable KMC missing-Link, but that is a one-time use
link and I generally leave the chain on the bike for its life.

What do others use and do you still remove the chain to clean it?

I leave it on the bicycle.
Wipe the chain regularly.
Occasionally I clean and lubricate with Rock and Roll
using their instructions.

--
Michael Press

wrote:
I've spent hours searching in groups. Maybe there's a NEW approach to
this.
I've a pile of used chainrings. Just as if I had a pile of used
chains, I'd like to describe their wear. How to do it?
I tried putting a 5 inch length of new SRAM PC58 chain on each ring,
holding down the last links and pulling up; also moving the length of
chain around the rings. For comparison with used chainrings I had 3
new rings. A circa-1995 Campagnolo 53t ring and a new 1985 Takagi 52t.
Both rings were ground and should represent quality machining. I also
had a new old stock 52 t 144bcd ring by ???
Aside from visually obvious wear to the face of the teeth of some used
rings, I could not say that the movement of the chainon the used
chains differentiated them from the movement on the new ones. There
was as much difference between the new chainrings as there was between
new and used.
This isn't academic if I'd like to predict how the ring will perform,
for me or someone else, or if I'd like to be sure the ring will not
excessively wear or damage a new chain, and then cassette sprockets.
So what is the metric, besides "chain skips on it under load" and
"teeth look hooked?

A Muzi wrote:
Yes, it's hard to evaluate chainring wear! A new chain will generally
run acceptably well on old rings but shift response may suffer. The
teeth have to be down to ugly little stumps before you get actual
failure. That limit is a smaller stump on big rings than on small rings
because fewer teeth engage on small rings. (32t and 36t triple middle
rings being the most commonly replaced 'worn out' sizes)
Definitive overview hehttp://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/8d.2.html
short answer: No definitive measurable limit off the bike.

DNM wrote:
But, realistically, if one uses Campy or Shimano chains that have no
easy-to-break links, removing a chain to lube this days is quite
difficult. I clean my chains on the bike, use Pro-Link lube, and
change my chains once per year or so and they are not beyond 1/16" in
12" by that time (i.e. almost no wear in 5000 miles). I do join my
chains with a removable KMC missing-Link, but that is a one-time use
link and I generally leave the chain on the bike for its life.
What do others use and do you still remove the chain to clean it?

We think KMC's 'one time use' admonishment is overstated.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Andrew Muzi wrote:
wrote:
I've spent hours searching in groups. Maybe there's a NEW approach to
this.

I've a pile of used chainrings. Just as if I had a pile of used
chains, I'd like to describe their wear. How to do it?

I tried putting a 5 inch length of new SRAM PC58 chain on each ring,
holding down the last links and pulling up; also moving the length of
chain around the rings. For comparison with used chainrings I had 3
new rings. A circa-1995 Campagnolo 53t ring and a new 1985 Takagi 52t.
Both rings were ground and should represent quality machining. I also
had a new old stock 52 t 144bcd ring by ???

Aside from visually obvious wear to the face of the teeth of some used
rings, I could not say that the movement of the chainon the used
chains differentiated them from the movement on the new ones. There
was as much difference between the new chainrings as there was between
new and used.

This isn't academic if I'd like to predict how the ring will perform,
for me or someone else, or if I'd like to be sure the ring will not
excessively wear or damage a new chain, and then cassette sprockets.

So what is the metric, besides "chain skips on it under load" and
"teeth look hooked?

Yes, it's hard to evaluate chainring wear! A new chain will generally
run acceptably well on old rings but shift response may suffer. The
teeth have to be down to ugly little stumps before you get actual
failure. That limit is a smaller stump on big rings than on small rings
because fewer teeth engage on small rings. (32t and 36t triple middle
rings being the most commonly replaced 'worn out' sizes)
Definitive overview he
http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/8d.2.html

short answer: No definitive measurable limit off the bike.

So how does the professional bicycle mechanic decide when to recommend
new chainrings [1] to the customer?

[1] Or is a new crank with rings included less expensive?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

A Muzi Wrote:
wrote:
I've spent hours searching in groups. Maybe there's a NEW approach
to
this.
I've a pile of used chainrings. Just as if I had a pile of used
chains, I'd like to describe their wear. How to do it?
I tried putting a 5 inch length of new SRAM PC58 chain on each
ring,
holding down the last links and pulling up; also moving the length
of
chain around the rings. For comparison with used chainrings I had
3
new rings. A circa-1995 Campagnolo 53t ring and a new 1985 Takagi
52t.
Both rings were ground and should represent quality machining. I
also
had a new old stock 52 t 144bcd ring by ???
Aside from visually obvious wear to the face of the teeth of some
used
rings, I could not say that the movement of the chainon the used
chains differentiated them from the movement on the new ones.
There
was as much difference between the new chainrings as there was
between
new and used.
This isn't academic if I'd like to predict how the ring will
perform,
for me or someone else, or if I'd like to be sure the ring will
not
excessively wear or damage a new chain, and then cassette
sprockets.
So what is the metric, besides "chain skips on it under load" and
"teeth look hooked?

A Muzi wrote:
Yes, it's hard to evaluate chainring wear! A new chain will
generally
run acceptably well on old rings but shift response may suffer. The
teeth have to be down to ugly little stumps before you get actual
failure. That limit is a smaller stump on big rings than on small
rings
because fewer teeth engage on small rings. (32t and 36t triple
middle
rings being the most commonly replaced 'worn out' sizes)
Definitive overview
hehttp://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/8d.2.html
short answer: No definitive measurable limit off the bike.

DNM wrote:
But, realistically, if one uses Campy or Shimano chains that have no
easy-to-break links, removing a chain to lube this days is quite
difficult. I clean my chains on the bike, use Pro-Link lube, and
change my chains once per year or so and they are not beyond 1/16"
in
12" by that time (i.e. almost no wear in 5000 miles). I do join my
chains with a removable KMC missing-Link, but that is a one-time use
link and I generally leave the chain on the bike for its life.
What do others use and do you still remove the chain to clean it?

We think KMC's 'one time use' admonishment is overstated.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Yup. Re-use em all the time. No issues.


--
Dan Burkhart