#11
|
|||
|
|||
Chain Stretch
On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 5:59:57 AM UTC-7, Dennis Davis wrote:
In article , John B. wrote: ... 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 :-) Chains are half an inch pitch. Put the chain under tension and measure 24 links. At 12 and one eighth inches you're looking at 1% elongation and you're likely to need to replace both the chain and sprockets at the same time. At 12 and one sixteenth inches you're at 0.5% elongation and you're likely to just need to replace the chain. Looks like I need to replace both the sprockets and chain on my hybrid bike :-( If your chainstays are short, you may need to measure just 20 links and work with tenths and twentieths for the elongation. Bear in mind that most riders will mainly use a few sprockets. Those at the extreme end of the cassette get less use. You may find the much used sprockets will not run well with a new chain even if the old chain did not appear to have worn too much. With chains getting ever more expensive, how do you prevent chain theft when out and about? |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Chain Stretch
Joerg wrote:
On 2017-09-15 05:59, Dennis Davis wrote: In article , John B. wrote: ... 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 :-) Chains are half an inch pitch. Put the chain under tension and measure 24 links. At 12 and one eighth inches you're looking at 1% elongation and you're likely to need to replace both the chain and sprockets at the same time. At 12 and one sixteenth inches you're at 0.5% elongation and you're likely to just need to replace the chain. That's how I monitor it. Why buy a chain gauge when one already has a sufficiently long ruler? After I clean a chain and before lubing it I put a little pull on the chain by leaning my hand on a pedal, then hold the ruler with the 0" mark to a link edge and read the value 12" down the chain. I let my chains to about 0.8% which IME still allows same cassette use. One chain accidentally went to 1% on a long hilly and very dirty MTB ride (with KMC X10.93 it seems the wear accelerates a lot y towards the end) and that ruined the cassette. I assume you don't use 11 speed chains. .8 would mean your cassette was likely shot. I used to use a ruler pin to pin test but this doesn't really tell you if the rollers are sloppy. A cheap chain gauge will test that. Looks like I need to replace both the sprockets and chain on my hybrid bike :-( If your chainstays are short, you may need to measure just 20 links and work with tenths and twentieths for the elongation. Bear in mind that most riders will mainly use a few sprockets. Those at the extreme end of the cassette get less use. You may find the much used sprockets will not run well with a new chain even if the old chain did not appear to have worn too much. With many the cogs can be turned around which requires dremeling off part of the wider spline for HG cassettes. Fast shifting is gone then but on a road bike that never mattered much to me. Yeah but you're a unique individual when it comes to what matters to you. Sloppy shifting is not something I would put up with to save a few bucks. Certainly not if it means hacking my cogs with a Dremel tool. -- duane |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Chain Stretch
On 9/15/2017 7:45 PM, Doug Landau wrote:
With chains getting ever more expensive, how do you prevent chain theft when out and about? With a lock and chain, of course. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Chain Stretch
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. -- Cheers, John B. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Chain Stretch
On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 07:56:27 -0700, Joerg
wrote: On 2017-09-15 05:59, Dennis Davis wrote: In article , John B. wrote: ... 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 :-) Chains are half an inch pitch. Put the chain under tension and measure 24 links. At 12 and one eighth inches you're looking at 1% elongation and you're likely to need to replace both the chain and sprockets at the same time. At 12 and one sixteenth inches you're at 0.5% elongation and you're likely to just need to replace the chain. That's how I monitor it. Why buy a chain gauge when one already has a sufficiently long ruler? After I clean a chain and before lubing it I put a little pull on the chain by leaning my hand on a pedal, then hold the ruler with the 0" mark to a link edge and read the value 12" down the chain. I let my chains to about 0.8% which IME still allows same cassette use. One chain accidentally went to 1% on a long hilly and very dirty MTB ride (with KMC X10.93 it seems the wear accelerates a lot towards the end) and that ruined the cassette. The reason for the chain gauge is that the length of a chain, between pins has little to do with the distance from roller to roller as the rollers are not mounted on the pins. Although to be honest Brandt in one of his essays argued that most chain gauges don't measure the wear correctly either. -- Cheers, John B. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Chain Stretch
On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 10:30:56 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote: On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 16:48:59 +0700, John B wrote: I've been thinking about chain wear, sometimes called chain stretch, and have done a bit of research on the subject. ...snip... 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. Before I check the other answers: I use a chain measuring tool that goes betweenthe rollers. This is on the assumption that what the cog teeth see is the rollers, not the pins. I am assuming that the designers of the tools (I have two, a Park and a Rollhof) took into account that the tools measure two rollers at once, which may double the wear measurement as the two rollers are being pushed in opposite directions. IIRC this was Jobst's complaint about chain checkers. Yes that was Brandt's objection to chain gauges, and see http://www.fagan.co.za/Bikes/Csuck/STRETCH-MEASURE.htm I also repeated my investigation into "stretch" of brand new chains on the same chains indicated in "Norms when new", using a borrowed Park Tool. This showed "stretch" of +0.20% to +0.40% (using a method to interpret the Park reading). So the Park Tool is conservative, but unneccesarily and wastefully so if the +0.5% criterion is used for discarding chains. Park's own criterion of +1.0% gets around this to some degree but leaves a wrong understanding of the issue. There are fundamental geometric reasons why this device (and other generics based on the same idea) will over-measure, and the degree of over-measurement gets worse as the chain wears. I don't know if any generics have some way of mitigating the problem and providing more accurate measurements, but it would appear not. -- Cheers, John B. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Chain Stretch
On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 10:55:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 9/15/2017 5:48 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 :-) I vote for "tempest in a tea pot." I understand that measuring pin to pin might give slightly different results than measuring using a chain gauge. But ISTM the difference must be minimal. If (say) your standard for chain replacement is 1/2%, and pin-to-pin gives 0.6% while chain gauge gave just under 0.5%, wouldn't it usually be sensible to replace the chain anyway? BTW, as Andrew said, I think it's worth while to put tension on the chain, not lay it out on a table. If the chain's off, perhaps hanging it from a nail would do. I measure mine on the bike and apply tension by blocking the rear wheel while applying a little force to the cranks. I am inclined toward the tea pot solution but something that got me more interested in the question was an article, somewhere, that suggested pulling forward on the chain on the centerline of the chain ring with the chain on the smallest rear cog. I tried it on two different bikes both of which had essentially the same length chains (measured with a ruler) and got different results. -- Cheers, John B. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Chain Stretch
In article ,
Doug Landau wrote: .... With chains getting ever more expensive, how do you prevent chain theft when out and about? The chains are the least of my worries. It's the high-end road cassettes that keep me awake at night. Their price seems justifiable only if they're hand-crafted out of titanium and mithril by Tour de France winners. Yes Campagnolo, I mean your Super Record road cassettes. Although I'm sure there are other exclusive cassettes I could be using. On a ride I have my butler follow me in a specially modified Centurion tank[1]. If I stop for any reason, the priceless bicycle is loaded into the tank and all battle armament is switched on and set to "scan and destroy". The "scan and destroy" is a recent feature installed by my weapons technicians. It's an arms race out there. Gotta keep up. Times have changed since the days of my granddad[2]. We Road Warriors need to maintain a state of high alertness at all times. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centurion_(tank) [2[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_Thieves -- Dennis Davis |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Chain Stretch
On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 06:52:11 +0000 (UTC), Dennis Davis
wrote: In article , Doug Landau wrote: ... With chains getting ever more expensive, how do you prevent chain theft when out and about? The chains are the least of my worries. It's the high-end road cassettes that keep me awake at night. Their price seems justifiable only if they're hand-crafted out of titanium and mithril by Tour de France winners. Yes Campagnolo, I mean your Super Record road cassettes. Although I'm sure there are other exclusive cassettes I could be using. On a ride I have my butler follow me in a specially modified Centurion tank[1]. If I stop for any reason, the priceless bicycle is loaded into the tank and all battle armament is switched on and set to "scan and destroy". The "scan and destroy" is a recent feature installed by my weapons technicians. The Butler? How improper. Most gentlemen would have the Coachman in the tank while the Butler to hold the fort in the "Big House" while the Master is abroad. After all, if the Butler were to leave who would there be to defend the wine cellar? And the Cheval Blanc 1947 is $33,781 a bottle. It's an arms race out there. Gotta keep up. Times have changed since the days of my granddad[2]. We Road Warriors need to maintain a state of high alertness at all times. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centurion_(tank) [2[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_Thieves -- Cheers, John B. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Chain Stretch
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. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Chain stretch - actual tech. | James[_8_] | Techniques | 22 | March 7th 13 12:34 PM |
chain stretch question | Mark Cleary[_2_] | Techniques | 16 | November 16th 09 03:32 PM |
Scary chain stretch | Alan Braggins | UK | 1 | December 17th 05 09:45 PM |
Does chain stretch really exist? | Ken Marcet | Techniques | 15 | March 5th 05 09:15 PM |
chain un-stretch? | larry english | Techniques | 2 | August 12th 03 06:41 PM |