Chain tensionning with vertical dropouts



On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:36:42 -0600, John Thompson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 2006-12-15, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:19:26 -0600, John Thompson
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>You can't use a chain tensioner with a fixed gear; it would be destroyed
>>>the first time you tried to push back on the pedals to slow down.

>
>> Dear John,
>>
>> True, a chain-tensioner based on a foolishly cannibalized double-lever
>> derailleur won't work on a fixed gear.
>>
>> But single-lever trailing-arm chain-tensioners have been used for over
>> forty years on much heavier and more powerful "fixies" like this one:
>>
>> http://i13.tinypic.com/479xidi.jpg

>
>Very nice. Are similar items readily available for bicycles? It would be
>fairly trivial to cobble one up, but a secure mount would have to be
>welded/brazed/whatever onto the chainstay. This makes it less than ideal
>for a quick 'n' easy home fixie conversion unless you happen to already
>have welding equipment (which I do, but that's beside the point).


Dear John,

As far as I've been able to tell, the simple trailing-arm
chain-tensioner is as unknown to RBT as the wheel was in the New
World.

It's been standard on trials motorcycles since the early 1970's on
Bultaco, Montesa, Ossa, Honda, Yamaha, Kawasaki, Suzuki, GasGas,
Sherco, Beta, Scorpa, Fantic, and other brands.

Usually when I mention the trailing-arm chain-tensioner, the reaction
is either blank incomprehension or fierce denial, so it's nice that
someone else finally sees how it works.

It could be welded or brazed onto the chainstay, but a pair of
hose-clamps holding a short length of half-pipe will serve as a mount.
Indeed, that's how chain-tensioners were added to a lot of pre-1972
trials machines. The stress on the lever amounts to little more than
the resistance of the coil spring, and the chain promptly drags the
lever back into alignment whenever it tries to bounce to either side.

It works fine for "fixie" trials machines with several inches of rear
suspension travel and heavy motorcycle chains, so it would seem likely
to work on rigid-frame fixie bicycles with light chains.

Of course, there may be some detail that makes it inefficient or even
pointless, but the usual objection that braking would instantly rip
the chain-tensioner off only shows how the simple trailing-arm is a
dark and bloody mystery in these parts.

Curiously, lots of old derailleur bicycles used trailing-arm
chain-tensioners with small idler sprockets on the ends of huge arms
before the compact modern two-lever tensioner-and-derailleur design
triumped.

The difference was that they pushed the chain away from the chainstay,
not toward it like a modern trials motorcycle chain-tensioner. The
reason is that the old bicycles were dealing with the enormous amount
of chain slack needed for derailleur gearing--a trials-type
chain-tensioner would have hit the chainstay before it gathered up all
the extra chain. That's one reason why the double-arm triumphed--all
that extra slack is gathered up into the S-bend.

A modern fixie bicycle has scarcely any chain slack compared to a
derailleur, so the trials-style tension-toward-the-chainstay design
would work.

Berto's "The Dancing Chain" includes numerous examples of bicycles
with these single-lever trailing-arm chain-tensioners from the 1920's
through the 1950's:

http://i17.tinypic.com/2lxf9k6.jpg

Click on the lower right in Explorer for full-size. Berto notes that
it was produced from 1936 to 1954 and was based on an earlier French
design. Similar models in Berto's book are sometimes mounted further
back on the chainstay. You can see the evolution from this monster
single-arm chain-tensioner pushing the chain away from the chainstay,
to more complicated two-arm tensioners that gather the chain into the
neater S-bend, to the modern two-arm tensioner integerated on the
parallelogram that moves the chain from side to side while taking up
the slack.

In all likelihood, no one uses such chain tensioners on fixie bicycles
because it's reasonably easy to adjust the chain tension by moving the
axle on horizontal dropouts, just as chain tension is adjusted on
typical motorcycles, which lack chain-tensioners.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
"John Thompson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2006-12-15, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>Dear Carl,
>>>
>>>Bah! yourself. That's the Christmas spirit.
>>>
>>>I feel that my floater is much more elegant than the one that yourefer
>>>too, see:
>>>http://www.geocities.com/banquo_lives/singlespeed.html

>
>> Or so the market said to using a large idler sprocket between the
>> drive sprockets as a chain tensioner:
>>
>> http://i11.tinypic.com/29wv9jn.jpg
>>
>> "Figure 466 illustrates a method used at one time by Messrs. Hobart,
>> Bird & Co. When the chain required to be tightened, the loose chain
>> wheel was placed nearer the hub chain-wheel."
>>
>> --"Bicycles & Tricycles," p. 433, Archibald Sharp, 1896.

>
> I do like this solution. I have many old freewheel cogs and chainrings
> of various sizes.
>
> --
>
> John ([email protected])


Well this is surely fascinating. So one simply takes an appropriate diameter
sprocket and place it in between the chain like depicted in the photos and
that works ok.
You can acheive a decent chain tension that way.
Does the loose sprocket stay in that place OK? It doesn't have an axle on
the chainstay there anyplace?
 
Earl Bollinger wrote:
> "John Thompson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 2006-12-15, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> Dear Carl,
>>>>
>>>> Bah! yourself. That's the Christmas spirit.
>>>>
>>>> I feel that my floater is much more elegant than the one that yourefer
>>>> too, see:
>>>> http://www.geocities.com/banquo_lives/singlespeed.html
>>> Or so the market said to using a large idler sprocket between the
>>> drive sprockets as a chain tensioner:
>>>
>>> http://i11.tinypic.com/29wv9jn.jpg
>>>
>>> "Figure 466 illustrates a method used at one time by Messrs. Hobart,
>>> Bird & Co. When the chain required to be tightened, the loose chain
>>> wheel was placed nearer the hub chain-wheel."
>>>
>>> --"Bicycles & Tricycles," p. 433, Archibald Sharp, 1896.

>> I do like this solution. I have many old freewheel cogs and chainrings
>> of various sizes.
>>
>> --
>>
>> John ([email protected])

>
> Well this is surely fascinating. So one simply takes an appropriate diameter
> sprocket and place it in between the chain like depicted in the photos and
> that works ok.
> You can acheive a decent chain tension that way.
> Does the loose sprocket stay in that place OK? It doesn't have an axle on
> the chainstay there anyplace?
>
>
>
>

The floating sprocket stays in place just fine until the chain becomes
loose due to wear or mishap and then it simply plops out- hopefully not
into the spokes. The real difficulty is that the chainstay passes
through the loop of the chain which limits the space available for the
sprocket. The one in the photo of my red bike is as big as it can be.
Also, it cannot be moved forward since it will rub on the chainstay and
it cannot be moved back because it will engage the rear cog. Maybe a
really large chainwheel would fit around the chainstay on some bicycles
but I suppose you would have to hacksaw a cut in it so that you could
fit the chain wheel around the chainstay.

When it grinds its teeth on the chainstay, it doesn't make as nice of a
noise as cards in the spokes do.
 
Earl Bollinger writes:

>>> Or so the market said to using a large idler sprocket between the
>>> drive sprockets as a chain tensioner:


http://i11.tinypic.com/29wv9jn.jpg

>>> "Figure 466 illustrates a method used at one time by
>>> Messrs. Hobart, Bird & Co. When the chain required to be
>>> tightened, the loose chain wheel was placed nearer the hub
>>> chain-wheel."


>>> --"Bicycles & Tricycles," p. 433, Archibald Sharp, 1896.


>> I do like this solution. I have many old freewheel cogs and
>> chainrings of various sizes.


> Well this is surely fascinating. So one simply takes an appropriate
> diameter sprocket and place it in between the chain like depicted in
> the photos and that works OK.


> You can achieve a decent chain tension that way. Does the loose
> sprocket stay in that place OK? It doesn't have an axle on the
> chainstay there anyplace?


It doesn't need any other support than the chain, but it isn't easy to
find the right size that will fit the bicycle. Chains come in
integral inch length. I've never seen a half-link for bicycle chains,
but motorcycles have them for that purpose.

It's more theoretical than practical. You may have a hard time
finding a CW the size you need that will fit in the space
available... and then it befalls the same chain wear problem as after
starting with an exact fit on just two sprockets. Wear will get you
nowhere. It doesn't take much chain wear to make excessive slack.
That happens with the idling chainwheel the same way.

Jobst Brandt
 
On 17 Dec 2006 04:05:48 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

[snip]

>I've never seen a half-link for bicycle chains,
>but motorcycles have them for that purpose.


[snip]

Dear Jobst,

"NEW! 3/32" Half Links $3.95 "

"If you are having trouble fitting the desired gears onto a bike with
vertical dropouts, this link will let you add or subtract 1/2 a link
(1/2 inch) from your chain, allowing you to move the axle 1/4" forward
or backward. We never used to be able to get half-links for the narrow
chain, this is a new item!"

http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/chains.html

Or at Bike Tools Etc:

http://biketoolsetc.com/index.cgi?i...tc=Half-Link-for-7.1mm-Chain&item_id=KM-Z51OL

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
[email protected] wrote:
> John Thompson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Very nice. Are similar items readily available for bicycles? It would be
> >fairly trivial to cobble one up, but a secure mount would have to be
> >welded/brazed/whatever onto the chainstay. This makes it less than ideal
> >for a quick 'n' easy home fixie conversion unless you happen to already
> >have welding equipment (which I do, but that's beside the point).

>
> As far as I've been able to tell, the simple trailing-arm
> chain-tensioner is as unknown to RBT as the wheel was in the New
> World. ...
> Usually when I mention the trailing-arm chain-tensioner, the reaction
> is either blank incomprehension or fierce denial, so it's nice that
> someone else finally sees how it works. ...
>
> The difference was that they pushed the chain away from the chainstay,
> not toward it like a modern trials motorcycle chain-tensioner. The
> reason is that the old bicycles were dealing with the enormous amount
> of chain slack needed for derailleur gearing--a trials-type
> chain-tensioner would have hit the chainstay before it gathered up all
> the extra chain. That's one reason why the double-arm triumphed--all
> that extra slack is gathered up into the S-bend.
>
> A modern fixie bicycle has scarcely any chain slack compared to a
> derailleur, so the trials-style tension-toward-the-chainstay design
> would work.
>
> Berto's "The Dancing Chain" includes numerous examples of bicycles
> with these single-lever trailing-arm chain-tensioners from the 1920's
> through the 1950's:
>
> http://i17.tinypic.com/2lxf9k6.jpg
> In all likelihood, no one uses such chain tensioners on fixie bicycles
> because it's reasonably easy to adjust the chain tension by moving the
> axle on horizontal dropouts, just as chain tension is adjusted on
> typical motorcycles, which lack chain-tensioners.


Among singlespeeders, it is somewhat well known that it's
better to run a chain tensioner as push-up rather than push-down,
if your setup allows it. This allows the chain to engage more
of the cog.

Fixed-gear conversions and the vertical dropout problem are
a relatively recent development. Trackies, of course, actually
need the adjustment provided by horizontal dropouts (since
they change rings and cogs) and most road bikes had horizontal
dropouts anyway until the last 10 years or so.

What I don't quite know is what distinguishes a trailing-arm
chain tensioner from a leading-arm tensioner like the
Surly Singleator http://www.surlybikes.com/parts/singleator_pop.html
Why is it important that the motorcycle chain tensioner
be trailing arm? Does it have something to do with its
behavior as the rear suspension is compressed? Or the
friction between pad/idler and chain?

When you put backpressure on the pedals of a fixie, you put
tension into the lower chain run, but the chain is still moving
in the "normal" direction. It seems reasonable that this would
foul up a derailleur, but it's not obvious to me that it would
destroy a Singleator in push-up mode, as the increased
tension pushes the Singleator down but probably doesn't
carry it backwards into the cog. I would imagine that
somebody's tried this and it failed for some reason I have
not thought of - maybe the tensioner isn't sturdy enough?

Ben
 
On 16 Dec 2006 21:25:16 -0800, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> John Thompson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Very nice. Are similar items readily available for bicycles? It would be
>> >fairly trivial to cobble one up, but a secure mount would have to be
>> >welded/brazed/whatever onto the chainstay. This makes it less than ideal
>> >for a quick 'n' easy home fixie conversion unless you happen to already
>> >have welding equipment (which I do, but that's beside the point).

>>
>> As far as I've been able to tell, the simple trailing-arm
>> chain-tensioner is as unknown to RBT as the wheel was in the New
>> World. ...
>> Usually when I mention the trailing-arm chain-tensioner, the reaction
>> is either blank incomprehension or fierce denial, so it's nice that
>> someone else finally sees how it works. ...
>>
>> The difference was that they pushed the chain away from the chainstay,
>> not toward it like a modern trials motorcycle chain-tensioner. The
>> reason is that the old bicycles were dealing with the enormous amount
>> of chain slack needed for derailleur gearing--a trials-type
>> chain-tensioner would have hit the chainstay before it gathered up all
>> the extra chain. That's one reason why the double-arm triumphed--all
>> that extra slack is gathered up into the S-bend.
>>
>> A modern fixie bicycle has scarcely any chain slack compared to a
>> derailleur, so the trials-style tension-toward-the-chainstay design
>> would work.
>>
>> Berto's "The Dancing Chain" includes numerous examples of bicycles
>> with these single-lever trailing-arm chain-tensioners from the 1920's
>> through the 1950's:
>>
>> http://i17.tinypic.com/2lxf9k6.jpg
>> In all likelihood, no one uses such chain tensioners on fixie bicycles
>> because it's reasonably easy to adjust the chain tension by moving the
>> axle on horizontal dropouts, just as chain tension is adjusted on
>> typical motorcycles, which lack chain-tensioners.

>
>Among singlespeeders, it is somewhat well known that it's
>better to run a chain tensioner as push-up rather than push-down,
>if your setup allows it. This allows the chain to engage more
>of the cog.
>
>Fixed-gear conversions and the vertical dropout problem are
>a relatively recent development. Trackies, of course, actually
>need the adjustment provided by horizontal dropouts (since
>they change rings and cogs) and most road bikes had horizontal
>dropouts anyway until the last 10 years or so.
>
>What I don't quite know is what distinguishes a trailing-arm
>chain tensioner from a leading-arm tensioner like the
>Surly Singleator http://www.surlybikes.com/parts/singleator_pop.html
>Why is it important that the motorcycle chain tensioner
>be trailing arm? Does it have something to do with its
>behavior as the rear suspension is compressed? Or the
>friction between pad/idler and chain?
>
>When you put backpressure on the pedals of a fixie, you put
>tension into the lower chain run, but the chain is still moving
>in the "normal" direction. It seems reasonable that this would
>foul up a derailleur, but it's not obvious to me that it would
>destroy a Singleator in push-up mode, as the increased
>tension pushes the Singleator down but probably doesn't
>carry it backwards into the cog. I would imagine that
>somebody's tried this and it failed for some reason I have
>not thought of - maybe the tensioner isn't sturdy enough?
>
>Ben


Dear Ben,

A leading under-the-arm chain-tensioner rarely lasts an hour on a
trials bike. The chain heading toward the rear sprocket hits it in the
face, so to speak, and soon bends it backward.

(I had one for about a week in the early 1970's.

In contrast, the chain slaps a trailing chain-tensioner back into
alignment.

Think of dangling an oar off the back of a boat--the current keeps
pushing it back into line.

The Singleator looks like a leading arm designed for convenient
attachment to the derailleur hanger. Since it's for a street bicycle
with no suspension, it may work well enough.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
[email protected] wrote:

> Trackies, of course, actually
> need the adjustment provided by horizontal dropouts (since
> they change rings and cogs) and most road bikes had horizontal
> dropouts anyway until the last 10 years or so.
>


Do they adjust the chain length when switching gears? Moving the wheel
appreciably back or forward alters the geometry and handling, doesn't
it?
 
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:36:42 -0600, John Thompson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 2006-12-15, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:19:26 -0600, John Thompson
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>You can't use a chain tensioner with a fixed gear; it would be destroyed
>>>the first time you tried to push back on the pedals to slow down.

>
>> Dear John,
>>
>> True, a chain-tensioner based on a foolishly cannibalized double-lever
>> derailleur won't work on a fixed gear.
>>
>> But single-lever trailing-arm chain-tensioners have been used for over
>> forty years on much heavier and more powerful "fixies" like this one:
>>
>> http://i13.tinypic.com/479xidi.jpg

>
>Very nice. Are similar items readily available for bicycles? It would be
>fairly trivial to cobble one up, but a secure mount would have to be
>welded/brazed/whatever onto the chainstay. This makes it less than ideal
>for a quick 'n' easy home fixie conversion unless you happen to already
>have welding equipment (which I do, but that's beside the point).


I'm sure something could be arranged by a small modification to a DH
type chain keeper mounted between the fixed cup and the BB shell. Mine
already has the arm holding the lower roller on a pivot if you remove
one bolt, all it needs is a spring from a hardware store. I have an
old, no longer available, Truvativ model but this DMR device looks
ready to modify
http://www.bikedock.com/posit/images/products/0000001845.jpg

Kinky Cowboy*

*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary
 
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 22:01:52 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>On 17 Dec 2006 04:05:48 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>I've never seen a half-link for bicycle chains,
>>but motorcycles have them for that purpose.

>
>[snip]
>
>Dear Jobst,
>
>"NEW! 3/32" Half Links $3.95 "
>
>"If you are having trouble fitting the desired gears onto a bike with
>vertical dropouts, this link will let you add or subtract 1/2 a link
>(1/2 inch) from your chain, allowing you to move the axle 1/4" forward
>or backward. We never used to be able to get half-links for the narrow
>chain, this is a new item!"
>
>http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/chains.html
>
>Or at Bike Tools Etc:
>
>http://biketoolsetc.com/index.cgi?i...tc=Half-Link-for-7.1mm-Chain&item_id=KM-Z51OL
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel


I see your half link and I raise you a bicycle chain which is ALL half
links
http://www.wiggle.co.uk/ProductDeta...tegoryName=Chains&ProdID=5360021268&UberCat=0

Kinky Cowboy*

*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary
 
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:05:04 +0000, Kinky Cowboy <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 22:01:52 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On 17 Dec 2006 04:05:48 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>I've never seen a half-link for bicycle chains,
>>>but motorcycles have them for that purpose.

>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>Dear Jobst,
>>
>>"NEW! 3/32" Half Links $3.95 "
>>
>>"If you are having trouble fitting the desired gears onto a bike with
>>vertical dropouts, this link will let you add or subtract 1/2 a link
>>(1/2 inch) from your chain, allowing you to move the axle 1/4" forward
>>or backward. We never used to be able to get half-links for the narrow
>>chain, this is a new item!"
>>
>>http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/chains.html
>>
>>Or at Bike Tools Etc:
>>
>>http://biketoolsetc.com/index.cgi?i...tc=Half-Link-for-7.1mm-Chain&item_id=KM-Z51OL
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Carl Fogel

>
>I see your half link and I raise you a bicycle chain which is ALL half
>links
>http://www.wiggle.co.uk/ProductDeta...tegoryName=Chains&ProdID=5360021268&UberCat=0
>
>Kinky Cowboy*
>
>*Batteries not included
>May contain traces of nuts
>Your milage may vary


Dear Kinky,

I fold!

I like the round tin that your all half-link chain comes in, along
with flatter chain profile for smoother grinding on stunt bikes.

But the name "Reluctant" could stand improvement.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
[email protected] wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:05:04 +0000, Kinky Cowboy <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 22:01:52 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On 17 Dec 2006 04:05:48 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>I've never seen a half-link for bicycle chains,
>>>>but motorcycles have them for that purpose.
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>Dear Jobst,
>>>
>>>"NEW! 3/32" Half Links $3.95 "
>>>
>>>"If you are having trouble fitting the desired gears onto a bike with
>>>vertical dropouts, this link will let you add or subtract 1/2 a link
>>>(1/2 inch) from your chain, allowing you to move the axle 1/4"
>>>forward or backward. We never used to be able to get half-links for
>>>the narrow chain, this is a new item!"
>>>
>>>http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/chains.html
>>>
>>>Or at Bike Tools Etc:
>>>
>>>http://biketoolsetc.com/index.cgi?id=24393435553&d=single&c=Components
>>>&sc=Chains&tc=Half-Link-for-7.1mm-Chain&item_id=KM-Z51OL
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>
>>>Carl Fogel

>>
>>I see your half link and I raise you a bicycle chain which is ALL half
>>links
>>http://www.wiggle.co.uk/ProductDetail.aspx?W=0&Manufacturer=&UberCatNam
>>e=&Cat=cycle&CategoryName=Chains&ProdID=5360021268&UberCat=0
>>
>>Kinky Cowboy*
>>
>>*Batteries not included
>>May contain traces of nuts
>>Your milage may vary

>
> Dear Kinky,
>
> I fold!
>
> I like the round tin that your all half-link chain comes in, along
> with flatter chain profile for smoother grinding on stunt bikes.
>
> But the name "Reluctant" could stand improvement.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
>


This chain brings up the obvious question: What is the disadvantage of
using half links for a complete chain? Why wouldn't all chains be made
this way?

David
 
David who? writes:

>> I fold!


>> I like the round tin that your all half-link chain comes in, along
>> with flatter chain profile for smoother grinding on stunt bikes.


>> But the name "Reluctant" could stand improvement.


> This chain brings up the obvious question: What is the disadvantage
> of using half links for a complete chain? Why wouldn't all chains be
> made this way?


See if you can make a sleeveless chain that way. The upset-collar
4-part chain, is less expensive and possibly stronger. We, with
deragliatore's, don't need no steenkin half link chains.

Jobst Brandt
 
Solvang Cyclist wrote:

> > On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:05:04 +0000, Kinky Cowboy <[email protected]>


> >>I see your half link and I raise you a bicycle chain which is ALL half
> >>links
> >>http://www.wiggle.co.uk/ProductDetail.aspx?W=0&Manufacturer=&UberCatNam
> >>e=&Cat=cycle&CategoryName=Chains&ProdID=5360021268&UberCat=0
> >>

> This chain brings up the obvious question: What is the disadvantage of
> using half links for a complete chain? Why wouldn't all chains be made
> this way?


That's a 1/8" singlespeed chain. While it would probably be easy
to make a 3/32" version, I suspect that it would be more difficult
to make it narrow enough to fit modern 8/9/10 speed drivetrains
or to use the shaped side plates which are claimed to aid
shifting in the modern era. And if you have a derailleur, you
don't need half links - but good luck inventing a Powerlink
that works on the half link chain.

Ben
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Solvang Cyclist <[email protected]> wrote:

> This chain brings up the obvious question: What is the disadvantage of
> using half links for a complete chain? Why wouldn't all chains be made
> this way?


At least by reputation these chains weigh more than regular chains.
I've never weighed either type, however, so I don't know if it's true.
 
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:18:11 -0600, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Solvang Cyclist <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> This chain brings up the obvious question: What is the disadvantage of
>> using half links for a complete chain? Why wouldn't all chains be made
>> this way?

>
>At least by reputation these chains weigh more than regular chains.
>I've never weighed either type, however, so I don't know if it's true.


Dear Tim,

When I looked, there didn't seem to be any significant weight
difference.

Wiggle lists half-link heavy duty BMX 1/8 x 1/2 Reluctant chain at 442
grams:

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/Default.asp...tegoryName=Chains&ProdID=5360021268&UberCat=0

Nashbar lists normal heavy-duty BMX 1/8 x 1/2 KMC chain at 440 grams:

http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?...pe=&estoreid=&pagename=Shop by Subcat: Chains

The similar weights do seem odd, since the Reluctant chain has one
side flat for smoother grinding, instead of curved--the extra metal
should make it weigh more.

Maybe the extra-weight theory included a cotter-pin for each link,
like the ones used on motorcycles?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 

Similar threads