A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Chain Stretch



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 16th 17, 09:32 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,346
Default 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.
Ads
  #22  
Old September 16th 17, 11:30 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default 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.
  #23  
Old September 17th 17, 03:05 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,588
Default 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
  #24  
Old September 17th 17, 06:45 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default 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
  #25  
Old September 17th 17, 07:26 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,652
Default 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.

  #26  
Old September 17th 17, 07:28 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,652
Default 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.

  #27  
Old September 17th 17, 07:32 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,652
Default 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.

  #28  
Old September 17th 17, 02:52 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,076
Default 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


  #29  
Old September 17th 17, 02:55 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,076
Default 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


  #30  
Old September 17th 17, 05:40 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,346
Default 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.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Chain stretch - actual tech. James[_8_] Techniques 22 March 7th 13 01:34 PM
chain stretch question Mark Cleary[_2_] Techniques 16 November 16th 09 04:32 PM
Scary chain stretch Alan Braggins UK 1 December 17th 05 10:45 PM
Does chain stretch really exist? Ken Marcet Techniques 15 March 5th 05 10:15 PM
chain un-stretch? larry english Techniques 2 August 12th 03 06:41 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2017 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.