Chain skipping
View Full Version : Chain skipping
Hi all,
The chain on my touring bike is slightly skipping on a
couple of rear cogs (the 2 cogs above the smallest).
It is quite subtle for the moment but it's starting to
get annoying.
I measured the distance between 12 links of the chain and it
is slightly above 12" by 1/10th of an inch. I don't know if
1/10th of an inch is enough to cause the skipping but I
think the chain has to be replaced. From what I read I need
to also replace the cassette. Is that all I should replace
or should I also change the front middle ring (the one I use
the most) ?
The chain has about 1500 miles of use, mostly during winter.
I lubed it quite often although I degreased it only 3 times.
Is this normal to have a worn chain after only 1500 miles??
The chain on my MTB lasted 5000 miles until I had to replace
the whole drivetrain...
Cheers, Arnaud.
Arnaud wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The chain on my touring bike is slightly skipping on a
> couple of rear cogs (the 2 cogs above the smallest). It is
> quite subtle for the moment but it's starting to get
> annoying.
>
> I measured the distance between 12 links of the chain and
> it is slightly above 12" by 1/10th of an inch. I don't
> know if 1/10th of an inch is enough to cause the skipping
> but I think the chain has to be replaced. From what I read
> I need to also replace the cassette. Is that all I should
> replace or should I also change the front middle ring (the
> one I use the most) ?
>
> The chain has about 1500 miles of use, mostly during
> winter. I lubed it quite often although I degreased it
> only 3 times. Is this normal to have a worn chain after
> only 1500 miles?? The chain on my MTB lasted 5000 miles
> until I had to replace the whole drivetrain...
>
> Cheers, Arnaud.
My suggestion would be to fit a new chain and see how it
feels. If it still doesn't feel quite right then buy a new
cassette. If it still doesn't feel right replace the jockey
wheels in the mech etc etc. I wouldn't rush out and buy a
whole new drivechain, expecially if the chain is only
slightly overworn.
Arnaud wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The chain on my touring bike is slightly skipping on a
> couple of rear cogs (the 2 cogs above the smallest). It is
> quite subtle for the moment but it's starting to get
> annoying.
>
> I measured the distance between 12 links of the chain and
> it is slightly above 12" by 1/10th of an inch. I don't
> know if 1/10th of an inch is enough to cause the skipping
> but I think the chain has to be replaced. From what I read
> I need to also replace the cassette. Is that all I should
> replace or should I also change the front middle ring (the
> one I use the most) ?
>
> The chain has about 1500 miles of use, mostly during
> winter. I lubed it quite often although I degreased it
> only 3 times. Is this normal to have a worn chain after
> only 1500 miles?? The chain on my MTB lasted 5000 miles
> until I had to replace the whole drivetrain...
>
> Cheers, Arnaud.
My suggestion would be to fit a new chain and see how it
feels. If it still doesn't feel quite right then buy a new
cassette. If it still doesn't feel right replace the jockey
wheels in the mech etc etc. I wouldn't rush out and buy a
whole new drivechain, expecially if the chain is only
slightly overworn.
David Waters wrote:
>
> My suggestion would be to fit a new chain and see how it
> feels. If it still doesn't feel quite right then buy a new
> cassette. If it still doesn't feel right replace the
> jockey wheels in the mech etc etc. I wouldn't rush out and
> buy a whole new drivechain, expecially if the chain is
> only slightly overworn.
Yup maybe just changing the chain will be enough... Off to
the LBS in the morning then :)
Thanks Arnaud
Arnaud wrote:
> The chain on my touring bike is slightly skipping on a
> couple of rear cogs (the 2 cogs above the smallest). It is
> quite subtle for the moment but it's starting to get
> annoying.
>
> I measured the distance between 12 links of the chain and
> it is slightly above 12" by 1/10th of an inch. I don't
> know if 1/10th of an inch is enough to cause the skipping
Only if the cogs have already been well worn from
previous chain(s).
> but I think the chain has to be replaced.
Now will be a good time to change it anyway.
> From what I read I need to also replace the cassette.
You wouldn't normally need to at this point with sprockets
in good condition but they won't be if the chain really is
skipping over the teeth. Check for stiff links in the chain,
eliminate any gear shifting problems and anything else you
can think of.
> Is that all I should replace or should I also change the
> front middle ring (the one I use the most) ?
Chainrings outlast rear sprockets. Only change the chainring
if a new chain skips on it.
> The chain has about 1500 miles of use, mostly during
> winter. I lubed it quite often although I degreased it
> only 3 times. Is this normal to have a worn chain after
> only 1500 miles??
Not exactly uncommon to elongate the chain by 1/10". But is
this the first chain with these sprockets? The chain
shouldn't be skipping yet if so.
> The chain on my MTB lasted 5000 miles until I had to
> replace the whole drivetrain...
You can normally do that or more mileage with road bike
transmission as well, it's just not a good idea to because
chainrings are expensive and they will eventually wear out
like that.
Note. Excessive wear can be caused by crossing the chain
over too much (small-small, big-big, etc).
~PB
Arnaud wrote:
> Yup maybe just changing the chain will be enough...
Nope, changing the chain alone will make the problem WORSE
if the chain really is skipping due to sprocket wear.
~PB
On Tue, 18 May 2004 02:37:26 +0100, "Pete Biggs"
<pclemantine{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote:
>Chainrings outlast rear sprockets. Only change the
>chainring if a new chain skips on it.
Why do chainrings outlast sprockets? For most of my cycling,
the load is shared between two chainrings but a whole stack
of sprockets.
Are sprockets softer?
in message <c8bit3$cp$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk>, David Waters
('d.waters@student.umist.ac.uk') wrote:
>> I measured the distance between 12 links of the chain and
>> it is slightly above 12" by 1/10th of an inch. I don't
>> know if 1/10th of an inch is enough to cause the skipping
>> but I think the chain has to be replaced.
>>
>> From what I read I need to also replace the cassette. Is
>> that all I should replace or should I also change the
>> front middle ring (the one I use the most) ?
>
> My suggestion would be to fit a new chain and see how it
> feels. If it still doesn't feel quite right then buy a new
> cassette.
The problem with that solution is that by the time you've
desided you
new cassette...
If any part of the drive train is significantly more worn
than any other it will hugely accelerate wear in the other
components.
Replace them all at once. It's a *****, it's expensive, but
it's a _lot_ cheaper in the long run. And in future, monitor
chain wear and replace early with good quality chain.
--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke)
http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; I'd rather live in sybar-space
in message <4mcja01fu3v5k2hu5httbvelebf88cealu@4ax.com>, Al C-F
('aloysius_cholmondeley_featherstonehawe@hotmail.com') wrote:
> On Tue, 18 May 2004 02:37:26 +0100, "Pete Biggs"
> <pclemantine{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote:
>
>>Chainrings outlast rear sprockets. Only change the
>>chainring if a new chain skips on it.
>
> Why do chainrings outlast sprockets? For most of my
> cycling, the load is shared between two chainrings but a
> whole stack of sprockets.
More teeth. The wear is shared out equally among the teeth
of the sprocket, so each of the teeth on an eleven tooth
sprocket will get four times the wear of each of the teeth
on a 44 tooth sprocket.
--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke)
http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
...but have you *seen* the size of the world
wide spider?
Simon Brooke:
> More teeth. The wear is shared out equally among the teeth
> of the sprocket, so each of the teeth on an eleven tooth
> sprocket will get four times the wear of each of the teeth
> on a 44 tooth sprocket.
Except on a road bike you'd be more likely to be running the
chain on a 48 or 50 or 52 tooth chainring when it's on the
11 tooth rear sprocket, so the difference is even greater.
However, the big chainring would get considerably more than
four times the use of an 11 tooth sprocket on any bike
ridden by me (not that I have such a thing - 52*14 is quite
a big enough gear for my knees, thanks), so that would even
out the wear a bit, which is what the previous poster was
getting at, I think.
And yet the smaller sprockets *do* wear faster, even with
less use - I think I know why, but I couldn't begin to
explain it. Something to do with torque. I expect Sheldon
Brown probably has something about it on his site.
d.
Al C-F wrote:
>> Chainrings outlast rear sprockets. Only change the
>> chainring if a new chain skips on it.
>
> Why do chainrings outlast sprockets? For most of my
> cycling, the load is shared between two chainrings but a
> whole stack of sprockets.
It's mainly because they're larger (on a road bike at
least). I think being at the *front* might make a difference
as well, though I don't understand why.
> Are sprockets softer?
Nope, usually harder!
~PB
Al C-F <aloysius_cholmondeley_featherstonehawe@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<4mcja01fu3v5k2hu5httbvelebf88cealu@4ax.com>...
> On Tue, 18 May 2004 02:37:26 +0100, "Pete Biggs"
> <pclemantine{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote:
>
> >Chainrings outlast rear sprockets. Only change the
> >chainring if a new chain skips on it.
>
> Why do chainrings outlast sprockets? For most of my
> cycling, the load is shared between two chainrings but a
> whole stack of sprockets.
1. The sprockets go round more times than the chainrings so
get more wear.
2. Chainrings generally do not give problems until they are
quite badly worn. Rather than skipping, when they do
finally wear out the chain will tend to jam or "suck"
(i.e. fail to disengage at the bottom) especially when
changing gear from a larger ring to a smaller one. This
can actually be quite dangerous.
--
Dave...
Dave Kahn wrote:
> 2. Chainrings generally do not give problems until they
> are quite badly worn. Rather than skipping, when they
> do finally wear out the chain will tend to jam or
> "suck" (i.e. fail to disengage at the bottom)
> especially when changing gear from a larger ring to a
> smaller one. This can actually be quite dangerous.
Chain can skip on chainrings as well. I think chain suck is
more common on MTB chainsets, with the smaller rings.
~PB
Dave Kahn wrote:
> 2. Chainrings generally do not give problems until they
> are quite badly worn. Rather than skipping, when they
> do finally wear out the chain will tend to jam or
> "suck" (i.e. fail to disengage at the bottom)
> especially when changing gear from a larger ring to a
> smaller one. This can actually be quite dangerous.
Chain can skip on chainrings as well. I think chain suck is
more common on MTB chainsets, with the smaller rings.
~PB
"Pete Biggs" <pclemantine{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote in message
news:2guchrF73120U1@uni-berlin.de...
> Al C-F wrote:
>
> >> Chainrings outlast rear sprockets. Only change the
> >> chainring if a new chain skips on it.
> >
> > Why do chainrings outlast sprockets? For most of my
> > cycling, the load is shared between two chainrings but a
> > whole stack of sprockets.
>
> It's mainly because they're larger (on a road bike at
> least). I think being at the *front* might make a
> difference as well, though I don't understand why.
The pressure load at the front is shared over many more
teeth. The wear is a nonlinear function of the pressure on
the teeth.
> > Are sprockets softer?
>
> Nope, usually harder!
Depends. If they are hard, they are generally case hardened.
Once the hardened layer wears through, the softer metal
beneath wears very rapidly.
--
"To live in San Francisco and just not care that there are
naked triathletes running across your lawn, that's just a
waste of exhibitionism."
- Kibo
"Pete Biggs" <pclemantine{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote in message
news:2guchrF73120U1@uni-berlin.de...
> Al C-F wrote:
>
> >> Chainrings outlast rear sprockets. Only change the
> >> chainring if a new chain skips on it.
> >
> > Why do chainrings outlast sprockets? For most of my
> > cycling, the load is shared between two chainrings but a
> > whole stack of sprockets.
>
> It's mainly because they're larger (on a road bike at
> least). I think being at the *front* might make a
> difference as well, though I don't understand why.
The pressure load at the front is shared over many more
teeth. The wear is a nonlinear function of the pressure on
the teeth.
> > Are sprockets softer?
>
> Nope, usually harder!
Depends. If they are hard, they are generally case hardened.
Once the hardened layer wears through, the softer metal
beneath wears very rapidly.
--
"To live in San Francisco and just not care that there are
naked triathletes running across your lawn, that's just a
waste of exhibitionism."
- Kibo
Mark South wrote:
>> It's mainly because they're larger (on a road bike at
>> least). I think being at the *front* might make a
>> difference as well, though I don't understand why.
>
> The pressure load at the front is shared over many more
> teeth. The wear is a nonlinear function of the pressure on
> the teeth.
Yes but what about when the chainring happens to be
*smaller* than the largest rear sprockets (as in the case
with some triple inner chainrings)? I think they still wear
slower in that case as well.
>>> Are sprockets softer?
>>
>> Nope, usually harder!
>
> Depends. If they are hard, they are generally case
> hardened. Once the hardened layer wears through, the
> softer metal beneath wears very rapidly.
Chainrings are often aluminium. Rear sprockets are usually
steel. Just have a go at filing them if you doubt which
are harder.
~PB
Mark South wrote:
>> It's mainly because they're larger (on a road bike at
>> least). I think being at the *front* might make a
>> difference as well, though I don't understand why.
>
> The pressure load at the front is shared over many more
> teeth. The wear is a nonlinear function of the pressure on
> the teeth.
Yes but what about when the chainring happens to be
*smaller* than the largest rear sprockets (as in the case
with some triple inner chainrings)? I think they still wear
slower in that case as well.
>>> Are sprockets softer?
>>
>> Nope, usually harder!
>
> Depends. If they are hard, they are generally case
> hardened. Once the hardened layer wears through, the
> softer metal beneath wears very rapidly.
Chainrings are often aluminium. Rear sprockets are usually
steel. Just have a go at filing them if you doubt which
are harder.
~PB
On Tue, 18 May 2004 19:03:37 +0100, "Pete Biggs"
<pclemantine{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote in message
<2gv1f7F705jvU1@uni-berlin.de>:
>Chainrings are often aluminium. Rear sprockets are usually
>steel. Just have a go at filing them if you doubt which
>are harder.
Maybe wear particles become embedded in the soft
material, causing it to wear the chain rather than the
chain to wear it?
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk (http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/)
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
On Tue, 18 May 2004 19:03:37 +0100, "Pete Biggs"
<pclemantine{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote in message
<2gv1f7F705jvU1@uni-berlin.de>:
>Chainrings are often aluminium. Rear sprockets are usually
>steel. Just have a go at filing them if you doubt which
>are harder.
Maybe wear particles become embedded in the soft
material, causing it to wear the chain rather than the
chain to wear it?
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk (http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/)
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
