Chain waxing + graphite question

Harry None None writes:

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.

The parallax and accuracy of wooden yardsticks has not changed in 35
years. Your approach to the subject raises the question of why you
choose to tell how it is when you want to know who it is. This is an
old method here on wreck.bike, the extreme case being one where at
the end of an instructional essay, the writer adds, "that's right
isn't it?" when in fact the whole posting was a question in disguise.

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 think it is prudent to find out what problems will confront the user
before purchasing tools. Chains are a special problem because they
are sop dirty and an affront to the owner of an expensive bicycle.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/chain-care.html

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.

If you can read this without a magnifying glass, you can see a 1/16"
deviation on a hard stick.

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.

Time "to research" sounds pretty grave to me for deciding whether chain
length is governed by roller wear or pin wear, especially when the
effects of each have been explained.

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."

I take it you feel that if it is in print it must be true. At the
same time you say you understand why pin spacing is the dimension of
interest.

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?

If you read the tone of such a book and find axiomatic proclamations
with no reasoning for the claims, you should be wary of its claims. I
prefer seeing stated what the method is, why it should be used and a
test by which you can prove it to yourself.

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.

How about driving a finishing nail onto the garage wall to hang the
chain and a mark 25 inches below to indicate the correct length for
fifty pitches? That way a new chain need not be sacrificed to do the
work of a yard stick. Yard sticks are free, chains cost money. This
sounds like a quaint homily rather than a practical chain measurement,
albeit one that a person who doesn't trust hard sticks might find
attractive.

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 hope you realize that the ruler method is absolute in pitch
measurement while the chain checker is measuring with the assumption
that roller clearance is constant... which it is not since chains vary
from one brand to the next.

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.

I suppose that depends on your priorities. You might consider that
the transfer chain wears roughly proportional to the inverse square of
its sprocket size. The sprocket size defines both the angle through
which the chain articulates and under what tension it makes these
motions.

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

I don't like to read BS such as rulers and yard sticks being too
inaccurate to measure chain wear as an excuse for doing things the
hard way. You can posture about that but you know that is BS. What
does B stand for by the way, or is that embarrassing? We know that
jim beam is a whiskey rather than a human, although the alias is used
by a participant in this forum.

Jobst Brandt

wrote:
Harry None None writes:

... What
does B stand for by the way, or is that embarrassing? We know that
jim beam is a whiskey rather than a human, although the alias is used
by a participant in this forum.

Jobst Brandt

Jobst, calm down. Harry's new here, and he hasn't encountered your -
um, ascerbic style before, nor your dislike of anonymous posters.


Harry, welcome. Jobst is a very smart guy, but you have to get used to
his inimitable style.

- Frank Krygowski

In article ,
HarryB wrote:

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.

When the exact nature of chain wear is seen, and I mean
literally seen; and when the consequences of running a
worn chain are seen in worn cogs; and when the two methods
of measuring chain wear are contrasted; then there is no
controversy.

Chains wear where the pins and plates articulate. This is
seen in disassembled chains that are worn. Grooves are
seen in the pins.

http://sheldonbrown.com/chain-life.html

The chain pitch changes, and if it changes enough, then
the chain rollers and cogs engage in such a way that too
much force is applied on one cog resulting in accelerated
wearing on each cog as it comes around.

When the chain roller engages the cog it is the position
of the pin that determines the position of the roller.
Rollers do not measurably wear; pins do. To measure if a
chain properly engages the cogs, measure the distance
between the pins.

--
Michael Press

"Mike DeMicco" wrote in message
. 1.4...
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.



You are correct, the Rohloff gage doesn't measure accurate on a Shimano 10
speed chain. Much, much too pessimistic.
I found out that it measures correctly on a Campagnolo C10, C9, Connex 9
speed and a Sram PC59. Before replacing I always double check the Rohloff
measurement comparing the used chain with a new one, that is always standing
by.

Lou

On 14 Feb 2006 05:54:14 GMT, wrote:

This is an
old method here on wreck.bike, the extreme case being one where at
the end of an instructional essay, the writer adds, "that's right
isn't it?" when in fact the whole posting was a question in disguise.

Of course we also frequently get the situation where someone asks a
question directly and you denounce them for making a statement and
pretending it's a question....

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:51:56 -0600, HarryB wrote:

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"


I bought a CC-2 and don't really like it. On new chain, the wear
factor seems different by brand. I went back to a steel tape measure
when the chain is on the bike. When the chain is off, either the tape
measure or hanging alongside a new chain is my method.

In article . com,
wrote:


If there's a detriment to waxing the chain, this is it. Even my
non-dip torch method, easy as it is, is a little too cumbersome for a
long tour.

Doesn't wax dissolve in alcohol? Why not dissolve wax in denatured
alcohol and place in a squeeze bottle? When applied to the chain, the
dissolved solution penetrates the chain, the alcohol quickly evaporates
and the wax remains. Disclaimer: I have not tried this but remember
reading this somewhere sometime long ago.

--
Mike DeMicco

In article ,
SMS wrote:

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.

You can blow the water out with compressed air or leave it out in the
hot sun to evaporate the water. I've even put it in a toaster oven,
although I wouldn't advise that if you use it for food. Water based
cleaners may cause some minor rusting, but is more environmentally
friendly than petroleum based cleaners. Kerosene leaves an oily residue.
If you use a specialty chain lube, you don't want that residue left on
the chain to interfere. Unless the petroleum based cleaner is very
clean, it really doesn't do that good of a job in getting the chain
clean anyway.

--
Mike DeMicco

Lou Holtman writes:

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.

You are correct, the Rohloff gage doesn't measure accurate on a
Shimano 10 speed chain. Much, much too pessimistic. I found out
that it measures correctly on a Campagnolo C10, C9, Connex 9 speed
and a SRAM PC59. Before replacing I always double check the Rohloff
measurement comparing the used chain with a new one, that is always
standing by.

So why do you go to the trouble and expense of using such a gauge? I
suppose inch graduated measuring devices are scarce in Europe but
holding a ruler next to the chain while it is on the bicycle is a
trivial exercise. Stanley steel tapes (graduated in both mm and
inches) are inexpensive while hardware store gratis yard sticks are
even less expensive locally. I suppose that doesn't seem scientific
enough for an expensive bicycle chain. Chains cost less when buying
SRAM chains in bulk as bicycle shops do.

Jobst Brandt

John Forrest Tomlinson writes:

This is an old method here on wreck.bike, the extreme case being
one where at the end of an instructional essay, the writer adds,
"that's right isn't it?" when in fact the whole posting was a
question in disguise.

Of course we also frequently get the situation where someone asks a
question directly and you denounce them for making a statement and
pretending it's a question....

Maybe you can dig one of these up and show how that was. I think you
are mistaken about the question. It's like the guys who want to tell
you how tough they are by ASKING how to keep the water in the bottle
from freezing as November rolls along, as if they really wanted to
know. The ploys used here are many and varied.

Jobst Brandt