Re: re-using chains

"marc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

news.virgin.net said:

Hi,
Anybody ever thought of rotating all the pins in a chain 180 degrees

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

get some more life out of a chain ?

Cheers,

Bruce.

How would that differ from removing the chain and turning it round when
replacing it?

Quoted message said:

I'm pretty sure the wear occures mostly on the pin on the side that faces
the tension so reversing it would make no difference other than in the way
it came off the top of the chainring then onto the top of the sproket but
I'm not sure - hence the question.

marc said:

news.virgin.net said:

Hi,
Anybody ever thought of rotating all the pins in a chain 180
degrees to get some more life out of a chain ?

Cheers,

Bruce.

How would that differ from removing the chain and turning it round
when replacing it?

It wouldn't keep Bruce off the streets for so long. I'm not sure that would
be a good thing :-)

Of course neither method will get any more life out of a chain because the
pins wear all the way round, regardless of which way round they are fitted.

~PB

news.virgin.net said:

"marc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

news.virgin.net said:

Hi,
Anybody ever thought of rotating all the pins in a chain 180 degrees

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

get some more life out of a chain ?

Cheers,

Bruce.

How would that differ from removing the chain and turning it round when
replacing it?

I'm pretty sure the wear occures mostly on the pin on the side that faces
the tension so reversing it would make no difference other than in the way
it came off the top of the chainring then onto the top of the sproket but
I'm not sure - hence the question.

But the tension is on the " front" face of the pin when the pin is on
the rear cog and on the "rear" face when on the front ring.And how
rotating the pins reduce wear in the pin/plate join?

news.virgin.net said:

I'm pretty sure the wear occures mostly on the pin on the side that
faces the tension so reversing it would make no difference other than
in the way it came off the top of the chainring then onto the top of
the sproket but I'm not sure - hence the question.

It wouldn't make any difference even if that is true. Wear to any part of
the pin reduces its diameter. As the diameter reduces, play increases and
the chain elongates. That is chain wear. Chain wear causes sprocket wear.

I thought April Fools Day was on April the 1st anyway.

~PB

In article <[email hidden]>, marc
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

news.virgin.net said:

Hi,
Anybody ever thought of rotating all the pins in a chain 180 degrees to
get some more life out of a chain ?

Cheers,

Bruce.

How would that differ from removing the chain and turning it round when
replacing it?

Quoted message said:

It wouldn't change the pin's orientation within the link.

In article <[email hidden]>, Pete Biggs
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

news.virgin.net said:

I'm pretty sure the wear occures mostly on the pin on the side that
faces the tension so reversing it would make no difference other than
in the way it came off the top of the chainring then onto the top of
the sproket but I'm not sure - hence the question.

It wouldn't make any difference even if that is true. Wear to any part of
the pin reduces its diameter. As the diameter reduces, play increases and
the chain elongates. That is chain wear. Chain wear causes sprocket wear.

Wear occurs where the inner link rubs against the pin - turn the pin
around and there's another side for it to wear down. It wouldn't make
any difference to wear on the inner link though, so you don't get two
chains for the price of one. :-)

"Rob Morley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Pete Biggs
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

news.virgin.net said:

I'm pretty sure the wear occures mostly on the pin on the side that
faces the tension so reversing it would make no difference other than
in the way it came off the top of the chainring then onto the top of
the sproket but I'm not sure - hence the question.

It wouldn't make any difference even if that is true. Wear to any part

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the pin reduces its diameter. As the diameter reduces, play increases

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the chain elongates. That is chain wear. Chain wear causes sprocket

wear.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Wear occurs where the inner link rubs against the pin - turn the pin
around and there's another side for it to wear down. It wouldn't make
any difference to wear on the inner link though, so you don't get two
chains for the price of one. :-)

That's how I figured it - since were on the subject though, I don't really
understand the business of measuring the chain periodically to see if it
needs replacing in order to avoid chainging the cassette. How many chains do
you get to a cassette if you do this and is it economically sensible ?

news.virgin.net said:

That's how I figured it - since were on the subject though, I don't really
understand the business of measuring the chain periodically to see if it
needs replacing in order to avoid chainging the cassette. How many chains do
you get to a cassette if you do this and is it economically sensible ?

If you don't measure your chain, and replace it when needed, you will
only get one chain per cassette (and chain rings etc).
Also once the chain starts wearing it will be more likely to skip or
break, and performance goes down.

At a complete guess, if you only get three chains to a cassette, and
each chain lasts 2/3 of the time than running a chain cassette
combination into the ground would, then you would be paying for three
chains and one cassette instead of two chains and two cassettes. This
is economically viable, and ignores the cost of replacing the extra
chain rings as well.

Martin.

"Martin Dann" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

news.virgin.net said:

That's how I figured it - since were on the subject though, I don't
really
understand the business of measuring the chain periodically to see if it
needs replacing in order to avoid chainging the cassette. How many chains
do
you get to a cassette if you do this and is it economically sensible ?

If you don't measure your chain, and replace it when needed, you will only
get one chain per cassette (and chain rings etc).
Also once the chain starts wearing it will be more likely to skip or
break, and performance goes down.

At a complete guess, if you only get three chains to a cassette, and each
chain lasts 2/3 of the time than running a chain cassette combination into
the ground would, then you would be paying for three chains and one
cassette instead of two chains and two cassettes. This is economically
viable, and ignores the cost of replacing the extra chain rings as well.

I reckon the numbers are slightly less favourable than that to the replacing
chain scenario - they last for really quite a long time after they've worn
to the point that a new chain won't fit the sprockets.

cheers,
clive

Martin Dann said:

At a complete guess, if you only get three chains to a cassette, and
each chain lasts 2/3 of the time than running a chain cassette
combination into the ground would, then you would be paying for three
chains and one cassette instead of two chains and two cassettes. This
is economically viable, and ignores the cost of replacing the extra
chain rings as well.

Doesn't sound viable to me. Of course, I have to buy 3 standard chains
to make one complete chain, so it's a choice between paying for 9 chains
and one cassette or 6 chains and 2 cassettes.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

In article <[email hidden]>, news.virgin.net
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

That's how I figured it - since were on the subject though, I don't really
understand the business of measuring the chain periodically to see if it
needs replacing in order to avoid chainging the cassette. How many chains do
you get to a cassette if you do this and is it economically sensible ?

I've never really bothered actually measuring the chain, I just feel for
slack when I clean it, and check the sprockets for hooking. The number
of chains per cassette varies with riding conditions and maintenance
practice as well as the quality of the components - wet weather will
kill chains quicker, while dry dusty conditions are harder on sprockets.

Rob Morley writtificated

Quoted message said:

The number
of chains per cassette varies with riding conditions and maintenance
practice as well as the quality of the components - wet weather will
kill chains quicker, while dry dusty conditions are harder on sprockets.

And lubing a dirty chain kills 'em quicker than anything :-/

In article <[email hidden]>, Mark T
pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid
says...

Quoted message said:

Rob Morley writtificated

Quoted message said:

The number
of chains per cassette varies with riding conditions and maintenance
practice as well as the quality of the components - wet weather will
kill chains quicker, while dry dusty conditions are harder on sprockets.

And lubing a dirty chain kills 'em quicker than anything :-/

I think it depends on the type of dirt and lube.

Quoted message said:

Martin Dann said:

At a complete guess, if you only get three chains to a cassette, and
each chain lasts 2/3 of the time than running a chain cassette
combination into the ground would,  then you would be paying for three
chains and one cassette instead of two chains and two cassettes.  This
is economically viable, and ignores the cost of replacing the extra
chain rings as well.

Bear in mind that the rings and sprockets will wear at different
rates- The combinations you use most often (and/or at highest load)
will see more wear than the others. The first stage of failure is
therefore a tendency to skip on those lightly used combos, where there
is a mismatch between chain wear and cog wear.
A new chain will be fine on the lightly used cogs, but will skip on
the worn ones- if you can change out the worn parts (eg middle ring on
a triple or a couple of the cogs on the cassette/freewheel) then you
can probably get a lot more miles out of the remainder.
I wore out the middle (36t) ring on my tourer well before anything
else. Next time it went I changed the smallest ring, too, but the
biggest (48t) was still OK.
Whether Shimano makes this feasible is another question- I strongly
suspect that they would discourage this sort of cavalier disregard of
their marketing...! Better manufacturers will supply spares for their
products long after the original purchase. I'm using Stronglight
chainsets at the moment- I'd probably go for TA out of choice but they
are expensive.

Danny Colyer said:

Doesn't sound viable to me.  Of course, I have to buy 3 standard chains
to make one complete chain, so it's a choice between paying for 9 chains
and one cassette or 6 chains and 2 cassettes.

The wear is spread over three times as many links, too, so presumably
the chain lasts much longer, rendering the calculations even less
favourable.

Cheers,
W.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Whether Shimano makes this feasible is another question- I strongly
suspect that they would discourage this sort of cavalier disregard of
their marketing...! Better manufacturers will supply spares for their
products long after the original purchase. I'm using Stronglight
chainsets at the moment- I'd probably go for TA out of choice but they
are expensive.

Chainring wear is entirely normal, and Shimano are in the business of
producing high quality bike parts (as well as the stuff you see on BSOs), so
yes, you can get replacement rings for shimano chainsets. And because so
many are sold, there's also a very healthy number of other manufacturers
offering shimano-compatible rings. Including Stronglight and TA...

cheers,
clive

Danny Colyer said:

Martin Dann said:

At a complete guess, if you only get three chains to a cassette, and
each chain lasts 2/3 of the time than running a chain cassette
combination into the ground would,  then you would be paying for three
chains and one cassette instead of two chains and two cassettes.  This
is economically viable, and ignores the cost of replacing the extra
chain rings as well.

Doesn't sound viable to me.  Of course, I have to buy 3 standard chains
to make one complete chain, so it's a choice between paying for 9 chains
and one cassette or 6 chains and 2 cassettes.

But your chains should wear out at a third of the rate of a single
chain, all else being equal, and if what Pete B says is true (that
chain wear causes sprocket wear) then your cassette should last three
times as long too! So economically you're on to a winner.

Dave