David L. Johnson 31 March 2005 04:38:13 [ permanent link ]
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:33:03 +0000, Jim wrote:
How often should a chain be replaced on a road bike?
When 12 links measure 12 1/16". Some would go as far as 12 1/8", but that will mean some significant wear on the cassette, which is more expensive than 2-3 chains.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | Accept risk. Accept responsibility. Put a lawyer out of _`\(,_ | business. (_)/ (_) |
Callistus Valerius 31 March 2005 07:21:05 [ permanent link ]
How often should a chain be replaced on a road bike?>
When 12 links measure 12 1/16". Some would go as far as 12 1/8", but that> will mean some significant wear on the cassette, which is more expensive> than 2-3 chains.>
My experience has been 3000 miles for a shimano chain, and 4000 miles for a SRAM chain.
"Jim" <JimsJnkMail@Netscape.net> wrote in message news:3zH2e.16805$Pc.12110@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...> How often should a chain be replaced on a road bike?>
Mike Jacoubowsky 31 March 2005 11:37:30 [ permanent link ]
How often should a chain be replaced on a road bike?>>
When 12 links measure 12 1/16". Some would go as far as 12 1/8", but >> that>> will mean some significant wear on the cassette, which is more expensive>> than 2-3 chains.>>
My experience has been 3000 miles for a shimano chain, and 4000 miles> for a SRAM chain.
Depends upon rider weight, terrain ridden (hilly or flat), and how clean it's kept. I get about 1800 miles/chain, but I weigh about 175 and ride nothing but hills. I'll have light women customers who ride mostly on the flats and they'll get 4000+ miles on the same chain. And during the winter, I'll find chains decimated in as little as 500-600 miles.
Also, while a chain might not be technically worn out according to the amount its lengthened, I find shifting performance deteriorates significantly as you approach 75% of acceptable wear. Your mileage (and what you'll put up with) may vary, of course.
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:33:03 GMT, Jim <JimsJnkMail@Netscape.net> wrote:
How often should a chain be replaced on a road bike?>
Jim
As others have noted, it should be replaced when it's worn. I use a Park Tool Chain Checker to measure how much the chain has stretched.
What I have found interesting is that on our road tandem I need to replace my timing chain while the drive chain still has quite a bit of life left on it. We purchased the bike new and I have maintained both chains in exactly the same manner. The timing chain, obviously, gets less torque on it than the drive chain, and it never shifts, yet it wore out quicker. FWIW, we have about 3,300 miles on the bike.
Qui si parla Campagnolo 31 March 2005 17:59:00 [ permanent link ]
Jim wrote:> How often should a chain be replaced on a road bike?>
Jim
Like car engine oil, it really depends. The ONLY way to check it is with a chain stretch checker, like the new Park one or the Rohloff one.
GENERALLY, for chains that are kept clean and lubed and not lots of cross chaining, ABOUT 2500-3000 miles but I have seen chains go south in 1000 miles and others measure great after 4000 miles.I just measured the chain on my fixie( a Sram PC-48) and it looks great after 4000 miles.
Use the least expensive compatible chain, BTW, just like engine oil.
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:33:03 GMT, Jim <JimsJnkMail@Netscape.net> wrote:
How often should a chain be replaced on a road bike?
As you've seen from other posts in this thread, this varies greatly. You should replace the chain when it demonstrates sufficient wear. As others have posted this can be checked with a ruler or yardstick.
Chains can last a VERY long time indeed if kept clean and properly lubricated. As I've posted here many times over the years, I probably hold the record for chain longevity, well over 18,000 miles on a Dura Ace chain. Lest one think it was totally shot, at the time it was replaced (April 1997) it showed 3/32" of wear over 24 inches.
I'm still riding with the same cassette (now on my beater bike) and cogs (still on original bike) and have had no problems with chain/teeth registration.
Per Rik O'Shea:>I bought a Rohloff chain gauge over ten years ago and I find it one of>the handiest little>tools available - I'd definitely recommend it.
I'll second that. Was in shock over the price for about a week - but now I can't even remember what it cost.... but I'm always glad to be able to check a chain so easily... -- PeteCresswell
Mike Jacoubowsky 1 April 2005 09:11:47 [ permanent link ]
GENERALLY, for chains that are kept clean and lubed and not lots of cross > chaining, ABOUT 2500-3000 miles but I have seen chains go south in 1000 > miles and others measure great after 4000 miles.I just measured the chain > on my fixie( a Sram PC-48) and it looks great after 4000 miles.
As you note, chain line has a lot to do with chain wear. Tandem sync chains obviously undergo a lot of stress (considering that the two cyclists aren't always working perfectly together) and yet last virtually forever, while the final drivetrain chain might be lucky to get 1000 miles.
But I'm curious about the mileage you get out of your chains. I'd love to consistently get 2k miles, but it just ain't gonna happen. I'm not light (175lbs), I ride only in hills, and I generally ride pretty hard. Oh, and I'm not known for keeping a really clean bike, since, given the choice between spending time cleaning my bike vs riding it, I'd rather ride.
On the other hand, I get at least 10k miles out of a cassette, and close to 20k on chainrings.
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <peter@vecchios.com> wrote in message news:1112277335.7d0415bb3a548206cde6ac90bf198d07@teranews...> Jim wrote:>> How often should a chain be replaced on a road bike?>>
Like car engine oil, it really depends. The ONLY way to check it is with a > chain stretch checker, like the new Park one or the Rohloff one.>
GENERALLY, for chains that are kept clean and lubed and not lots of cross > chaining, ABOUT 2500-3000 miles but I have seen chains go south in 1000 > miles and others measure great after 4000 miles.I just measured the chain > on my fixie( a Sram PC-48) and it looks great after 4000 miles.>
Use the least expensive compatible chain, BTW, just like engine oil.
GENERALLY, for chains that are kept clean and lubed and not lots of>> cross chaining, ABOUT 2500-3000 miles but I have seen chains go>> south in 1000 miles and others measure great after 4000 miles. I>> just measured the chain on my fixie (a Sram PC-48) and it looks>> great after 4000 miles.
As you note, chain line has a lot to do with chain wear. Tandem> sync chains obviously undergo a lot of stress (considering that the> two cyclists aren't always working perfectly together) and yet last> virtually forever, while the final drivetrain chain might be lucky> to get 1000 miles.
Chain wear is more affected by sprocket size than chain line. The angle through which the chain links rotate under load (exiting for driven and entering for driving sprockets) is the main effect. The larger the sprocket the smaller the angle of bend and the less wear on the chain. A 13t sprocket has four ties the wear of a 52t sprocket engagement.
But I'm curious about the mileage you get out of your chains. I'd> love to consistently get 2k miles, but it just ain't gonna happen.> I'm not light (175lbs), I ride only in hills, and I generally ride> pretty hard. Oh, and I'm not known for keeping a really clean bike,> since, given the choice between spending time cleaning my bike vs> riding it, I'd rather ride.
Gritty operation is the greatest influence after sprocket size and on dirt bicycles exceeds it.
On the other hand, I get at least 10k miles out of a cassette, and> close to 20k on chainrings.
Mike Jacoubowsky 1 April 2005 12:31:58 [ permanent link ]
Chain wear is more affected by sprocket size than chain line. The> angle through which the chain links rotate under load (exiting for> driven and entering for driving sprockets) is the main effect. The> larger the sprocket the smaller the angle of bend and the less wear on> the chain. A 13t sprocket has four ties the wear of a 52t sprocket> engagement.
Which means that I'll see greater chain wear now that I've switched to a compact crank. Oh well...
<jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message news:r953e.12928$m31.130313@typhoon.sonic.net...> Mike Jacoubowsky <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> writes:>
GENERALLY, for chains that are kept clean and lubed and not lots of>>> cross chaining, ABOUT 2500-3000 miles but I have seen chains go>>> south in 1000 miles and others measure great after 4000 miles. I>>> just measured the chain on my fixie (a Sram PC-48) and it looks>>> great after 4000 miles.>
As you note, chain line has a lot to do with chain wear. Tandem>> sync chains obviously undergo a lot of stress (considering that the>> two cyclists aren't always working perfectly together) and yet last>> virtually forever, while the final drivetrain chain might be lucky>> to get 1000 miles.>
Chain wear is more affected by sprocket size than chain line. The> angle through which the chain links rotate under load (exiting for> driven and entering for driving sprockets) is the main effect. The> larger the sprocket the smaller the angle of bend and the less wear on> the chain. A 13t sprocket has four ties the wear of a 52t sprocket> engagement.>
But I'm curious about the mileage you get out of your chains. I'd>> love to consistently get 2k miles, but it just ain't gonna happen.>> I'm not light (175lbs), I ride only in hills, and I generally ride>> pretty hard. Oh, and I'm not known for keeping a really clean bike,>> since, given the choice between spending time cleaning my bike vs>> riding it, I'd rather ride.>
Gritty operation is the greatest influence after sprocket size and on> dirt bicycles exceeds it.>
On the other hand, I get at least 10k miles out of a cassette, and>> close to 20k on chainrings.>
Qui si parla Campagnolo 1 April 2005 17:52:59 [ permanent link ]
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:>>GENERALLY, for chains that are kept clean and lubed and not lots of cross >>chaining, ABOUT 2500-3000 miles but I have seen chains go south in 1000 >>miles and others measure great after 4000 miles.I just measured the chain >>on my fixie( a Sram PC-48) and it looks great after 4000 miles.>
As you note, chain line has a lot to do with chain wear. Tandem sync chains > obviously undergo a lot of stress (considering that the two cyclists aren't > always working perfectly together) and yet last virtually forever, while the > final drivetrain chain might be lucky to get 1000 miles.>
But I'm curious about the mileage you get out of your chains. I'd love to > consistently get 2k miles, but it just ain't gonna happen. I'm not light > (175lbs), I ride only in hills, and I generally ride pretty hard. Oh, and > I'm not known for keeping a really clean bike, since, given the choice > between spending time cleaning my bike vs riding it, I'd rather ride.
As I said, it really depends. We see more than 2000 miles on chains all the time, with the understanding that 'most' of us exaggerate how many miles we have ridden. Everybody ought to invest in the little $7 chain checker and forget about milage.>
On the other hand, I get at least 10k miles out of a cassette, and close to > 20k on chainrings.>
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <peter@vecchios.com> wrote in message > news:1112277335.7d0415bb3a548206cde6ac90bf198d07@teranews...>
Jim wrote:>>
How often should a chain be replaced on a road bike?>>>
Like car engine oil, it really depends. The ONLY way to check it is with a >>chain stretch checker, like the new Park one or the Rohloff one.>>
GENERALLY, for chains that are kept clean and lubed and not lots of cross >>chaining, ABOUT 2500-3000 miles but I have seen chains go south in 1000 >>miles and others measure great after 4000 miles.I just measured the chain >>on my fixie( a Sram PC-48) and it looks great after 4000 miles.>>
Use the least expensive compatible chain, BTW, just like engine oil. >
Qui si parla Campagnolo 1 April 2005 17:55:16 [ permanent link ]
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:>>Chain wear is more affected by sprocket size than chain line. The>>angle through which the chain links rotate under load (exiting for>>driven and entering for driving sprockets) is the main effect. The>>larger the sprocket the smaller the angle of bend and the less wear on>>the chain. A 13t sprocket has four ties the wear of a 52t sprocket>>engagement.>
Which means that I'll see greater chain wear now that I've switched to a > compact crank. Oh well...>
Maybe you ought to use a non-shimano chain...Wipperman/Mavic works well as does the Sram PC-89(6.1mm). The new for shimano 10s Wipperman as well. Altho saeemingly more flexible when new, I have never been impressed with shimano chains.
More then 12 inches pin to pin. Sand,water,pedal force,and the sharpe of other parts in the drivetrain all have something to do with the life of a chain.Also the quality of the chain.
Mike Jacoubowsky 2 April 2005 10:03:45 [ permanent link ]
Chain wear is more affected by sprocket size than chain line. The>>>angle through which the chain links rotate under load (exiting for>>>driven and entering for driving sprockets) is the main effect. The>>>larger the sprocket the smaller the angle of bend and the less wear on>>>the chain. A 13t sprocket has four ties the wear of a 52t sprocket>>>engagement.>>
Which means that I'll see greater chain wear now that I've switched to a >> compact crank. Oh well...>>
Maybe you ought to use a non-shimano chain...Wipperman/Mavic works well as > does the Sram PC-89(6.1mm). The new for shimano 10s Wipperman as well. > Altho saeemingly more flexible when new, I have never been impressed with > shimano chains.
I've always found front shifting performance to be better with Shimano chains than Wipperman or SRAM. The KMC chains I've tried have worked very well though.
Qui si parla Campagnolo 2 April 2005 17:56:33 [ permanent link ]
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:>>>>Chain wear is more affected by sprocket size than chain line. The>>>>angle through which the chain links rotate under load (exiting for>>>>driven and entering for driving sprockets) is the main effect. The>>>>larger the sprocket the smaller the angle of bend and the less wear on>>>>the chain. A 13t sprocket has four ties the wear of a 52t sprocket>>>>engagement.>>>
Which means that I'll see greater chain wear now that I've switched to a >>>compact crank. Oh well...>>>
Maybe you ought to use a non-shimano chain...Wipperman/Mavic works well as >>does the Sram PC-89(6.1mm). The new for shimano 10s Wipperman as well. >>Altho saeemingly more flexible when new, I have never been impressed with >>shimano chains.>
I've always found front shifting performance to be better with Shimano > chains than Wipperman or SRAM. The KMC chains I've tried have worked very > well though.>
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <peter@vecchios.com> wrote in message news:1112449986.d0a26399017921ac95e1aa01b6df236b@teranews...> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:>>>>>Chain wear is more affected by sprocket size than chain line. The>>>>>angle through which the chain links rotate under load (exiting for>>>>>driven and entering for driving sprockets) is the main effect. The>>>>>larger the sprocket the smaller the angle of bend and the less wear on>>>>>the chain. A 13t sprocket has four ties the wear of a 52t sprocket>>>>>engagement.>>>>
Which means that I'll see greater chain wear now that I've switched to a >>>>compact crank. Oh well...>>>>
Maybe you ought to use a non-shimano chain...Wipperman/Mavic works well >>>as does the Sram PC-89(6.1mm). The new for shimano 10s Wipperman as well. >>>Altho saeemingly more flexible when new, I have never been impressed with >>>shimano chains.>>
I've always found front shifting performance to be better with Shimano >> chains than Wipperman or SRAM. The KMC chains I've tried have worked very >> well though.>>
Use the least expensive compatible chain, BTW, just like engine>> oil.
That may not be the best advice (for the car).
Oh? And I suppose one should not switch brands of gasoline because the engine is used to one kind. I always buy Union Oil no less. It costs more and must be better therefore.
Qui si parla Campagnolo 3 April 2005 18:35:00 [ permanent link ]
Bob wrote:> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 06:59:00 -0700, Qui si parla Campagnolo> <peter@vecchios.com> wrote:>
Use the least expensive compatible chain, BTW, just like engine oil.>
That may not be the best advice (for the car).
I just talked about this very subject with two respected car machanics. One that works on my kid's Ford and the one that works on my VW. They both said the same thing. Today's rated engine oil is very good, any of it or it wouldn't be 'rated'...By using additives or 'special' oils you waste your $ cuz they all get dirty and all need to be changed regularly. They both recommended the '3000' mile interval.
David L. Johnson 3 April 2005 19:41:00 [ permanent link ]
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 15:16:30 +0000, RonSonic wrote:
As I understand it, different manufacturers add different "additive packages" to> the base unleaded gasoline to complete their product. People Who Should Know> (tm) tell me that it is best to not mix them. Same with oils.
Those "people who should know", do they, by any chance, sell a particular brand of gas and oil?
Anyway, not so much that the car's used to one or the other, but staying> with a particular product gives you a fuel or lubricant that has been> engineered to work.
Others are not "engineered to work"?
--
David L. Johnson
__o | And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all _`\(,_ | mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so (_)/ (_) | that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. [1 Corinth. 13:2]
I've always found front shifting performance to be better with Shimano >chains than Wipperman or SRAM. The KMC chains I've tried have worked very >well though.
I agree, particularly for front, chainring shifts. Not for 10 sp however.
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 06:03:45 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"> <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:>>I've always found front shifting performance to be better with Shimano >>chains than Wipperman or SRAM. The KMC chains I've tried have worked very >>well though.
Paul Kopit wrote:> I agree, particularly for front, chainring shifts. Not for 10 sp> however.
Really? KMC-10 (the box with the Campagnolo logo) is our preferred new bike chain.
Use the least expensive compatible chain, BTW, just like engine>>>> oil.
That may not be the best advice (for the car).
Oh? And I suppose one should not switch brands of gasoline because>> the engine is used to one kind. I always buy Union Oil no less.>> It costs more and must be better therefore.
As I understand it, different manufacturers add different "additive> packages" to the base unleaded gasoline to complete their> product. People Who Should Know (tm) tell me that it is best to not> mix them. Same with oils.
Self serving advice. Just consider damage caused by adding Chevron motor oil to your Shell lubricated engine in a pinch and incurring engine damage. Such a manufacturer would be open to enormous damage claims. Besides, you ought to visit the refineries in your area to see what tankers line up to get filled. Terrible Herbst and Rotten Robbie as well as many other independents are filled at these noted brand name installations.
Oh yes, and always clean off any grease on a new chain before use, because it's only a preservative!!! (I've heard said.)
Anyway, not so much that the car's used to one or the other, but> staying with a particular product gives you a fuel or lubricant that> has been engineered to work. Mixing them does not.
I'm glad to hear you are brand loyal. Maybe you can explain what the advantage in that belief is.
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 07:18:36 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
Ron Sonic? writes:>
Use the least expensive compatible chain, BTW, just like engine>>>>> oil.>
That may not be the best advice (for the car). >
Oh? And I suppose one should not switch brands of gasoline because>>> the engine is used to one kind. I always buy Union Oil no less.>>> It costs more and must be better therefore.>
As I understand it, different manufacturers add different "additive>> packages" to the base unleaded gasoline to complete their>> product. People Who Should Know (tm) tell me that it is best to not>> mix them. Same with oils.>
Self serving advice. Just consider damage caused by adding Chevron>motor oil to your Shell lubricated engine in a pinch and incurring>engine damage. Such a manufacturer would be open to enormous damage>claims. Besides, you ought to visit the refineries in your area to>see what tankers line up to get filled. Terrible Herbst and Rotten>Robbie as well as many other independents are filled at these noted>brand name installations.
No doubt. We know that all of these products are based on a common stock shared and standardized throughout the industry. We also know that each company adds it's own additives as they load the trucks at the pumping station. Who knows what goes into the off-brand trucks. In the old days that was a favorite way of getting rid of various toxic byproducts, just mix 'em into the gasoline.
Oh yes, and always clean off any grease on a new chain before use,>because it's only a preservative!!! (I've heard said.)>
Anyway, not so much that the car's used to one or the other, but>> staying with a particular product gives you a fuel or lubricant that>> has been engineered to work. Mixing them does not.>
I'm glad to hear you are brand loyal. Maybe you can explain what the>advantage in that belief is.
Sorry, no brand loyalty. Just a knowledge that the combination of additives in any brand is tested to work well and that a combination with any other brand isn't.
Now do I think it's a big deal? Certainly not with gasoline, where a manufacturer who produced something notably incompatible with other brands would certainly hear from the rest of the industry. But, genuine chemical engineers tell me that in the case of motor oils this possible incompatibility is enough of a factor as to discourage mixing.
Use the least expensive compatible chain, BTW, just like engine>>>>>> oil.
That may not be the best advice (for the car).
Oh? And I suppose one should not switch brands of gasoline because>>>> the engine is used to one kind. I always buy Union Oil no less.>>>> It costs more and must be better therefore.
As I understand it, different manufacturers add different>>> "additive packages" to the base unleaded gasoline to complete>>> their product. People Who Should Know (tm) tell me that it is best>>> to not mix them. Same with oils.
Self serving advice. Just consider damage caused by adding Chevron>> motor oil to your Shell lubricated engine in a pinch and incurring>> engine damage. Such a manufacturer would be open to enormous>> damage claims. Besides, you ought to visit the refineries in your>> area to see what tankers line up to get filled. Terrible Herbst>> and Rotten Robbie as well as many other independents are filled at>> these noted brand name installations.
No doubt. We know that all of these products are based on a common> stock shared and standardized throughout the industry. We also know> that each company adds it's own additives as they load the trucks at> the pumping station. Who knows what goes into the off-brand trucks.> In the old days that was a favorite way of getting rid of various> toxic byproducts, just mix 'em into the gasoline.
The way you say that I take it you believe in conspiracies and don't believe in EPA and others monitor these substances that are dumped on the public to exhaust to our outdoors.
Oh yes, and always clean off any grease on a new chain before use,>> because it's only a preservative!!! (I've heard said.)
Anyway, not so much that the car's used to one or the other, but>>> staying with a particular product gives you a fuel or lubricant>>> that has been engineered to work. Mixing them does not.
I'm glad to hear you are brand loyal. Maybe you can explain what>> the advantage in that belief is.
Sorry, no brand loyalty. Just a knowledge that the combination of> additives in any brand is tested to work well and that a combination> with any other brand isn't.
You keep saying that but where do you get this information that you allude to?
Now do I think it's a big deal? Certainly not with gasoline, where a> manufacturer who produced something notably incompatible with other> brands would certainly hear from the rest of the industry. But,> genuine chemical engineers tell me that in the case of motor oils> this possible incompatibility is enough of a factor as to discourage> mixing.
So why do you bring up this specious drivel? This seems to be a trend on wreck.bike, brought up just for the need to be contrary and to inject a bit of mystery science into discussions.
Mike Jacoubowsky 5 April 2005 01:24:32 [ permanent link ]
Really? KMC-10 (the box with the Campagnolo logo) is our preferred new > bike chain.>
-- > Andrew Muzi
Andy: Are you using the KMC-10 on both Campy & Shimano with good results? I've always liked KMC chains, but as I don't have a 10-speed drivetrain, I haven't tried that version on my own bike yet, and I'm hesitant to experiment on my customers.
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message news:1151fgt4iq7no1c@corp.supernews.com...>> On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 06:03:45 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky">> <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:>>>I've always found front shifting performance to be better with Shimano >>>chains than Wipperman or SRAM. The KMC chains I've tried have worked very >>>well though.>
Paul Kopit wrote:>> I agree, particularly for front, chainring shifts. Not for 10 sp>> however.>
Really? KMC-10 (the box with the Campagnolo logo) is our preferred new > bike chain.>
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:33:03 GMT, Jim <JimsJnkMail@Netscape.net> wrote:
How often should a chain be replaced on a road bike?
When it wears out.
How often *should* it wear out? That depends on a number of factors; riding conditions, brand and model of chain, sprocket condition, lubrication and cleaning habits, weather, and the local perversity of the universe all contribute to the end result. Typical values are anywhere from 2000 miles to 6000 miles, and some users' wear-out points lie outside those limits. *Your* mileage may vary. -- Typoes are a feature, not a bug. Some gardening required to reply via email. Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
