Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

Odd links on chain

Started by Owen · · Last activity · 4 posts · 439 views

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
26 May 2008
Last activity
28 May 2008
Original author
Owen
Posts
4
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
439
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–4 of 4
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Put on a new chain today. The link plates seemed to come from
    different sources, see http://members.pcug.org.au/~rcook/images/mixed_links.jpg
    (12Kbytes)

    Also the chain measured 9/32" across the width compared to 1/4" of the
    Sram I was replacing.

    This was the same chain I mentioned a couple of weeks ago,
    http://tinyurl.com/6pxark so it all was too much for me and went and
    purchased a new sram.

    Think I will be pretty careful about buying cheapy chains in the
    future.

    Owen

  2. Owen said:

    Put on a new chain today. The link plates seemed to come from
    different sources, see http://members.pcug.org.au/~rcook/images/mixed_links.jpg
    (12Kbytes)

    Also the chain measured 9/32" across the width compared to 1/4" of the
    Sram I was replacing.

    This was the same chain I mentioned a couple of weeks ago,http://tinyurl.com/6pxarkso it all was too much for me and went and
    purchased a new sram.

    Think I will be pretty careful about buying cheapy chains in the
    future.

    Owen

    Nothing wrong with the Shimano chain. The bulged outer plates are
    their trademark, and SRAM has since copied that design. 9/32" (or
    7.1mm) is a pretty standard 7/8 speed chain width. If you bought a new
    SRAM with a three-digit model number, it has the bulged plates and is
    almost certainly the same width as your CN-UG51. And the varied
    stampings on the outer plates is normal on Shimano chains, Even the
    high-end ones. There are valid reasons to eschew Shimano chains (the
    lack of snaplinks, most notably), but these aren't among them.

    I'm of the school that one should buy the least expensive chain that
    is the correct width and is aesthetically acceptable to you, and that
    it should be changed every 1000-1500 miles.

    So I'd say, hang onto that CN-UG51, run your new SRAM for a while, and
    when it wears out, get a SRAM silver (8-speed) snaplink and give the
    Shimano chain another go.

  3. On Mon, 26 May 2008 09:58:37 -0700 (PDT), Hank <[email hidden]> may

    have said:
    Owen said:

    Put on a new chain today. The link plates seemed to come from
    different sources, see http://members.pcug.org.au/~rcook/images/mixed_links.jpg
    (12Kbytes)

    Also the chain measured 9/32" across the width compared to 1/4" of the
    Sram I was replacing.

    This was the same chain I mentioned a couple of weeks ago,http://tinyurl.com/6pxarkso it all was too much for me and went and
    purchased a new sram.

    Think I will be pretty careful about buying cheapy chains in the
    future.

    Owen

    Nothing wrong with the Shimano chain. The bulged outer plates are
    their trademark, and SRAM has since copied that design. 9/32" (or
    7.1mm) is a pretty standard 7/8 speed chain width. If you bought a new
    SRAM with a three-digit model number, it has the bulged plates and is
    almost certainly the same width as your CN-UG51. And the varied
    stampings on the outer plates is normal on Shimano chains, Even the
    high-end ones. There are valid reasons to eschew Shimano chains (the
    lack of snaplinks, most notably), but these aren't among them.

    I'm of the school that one should buy the least expensive chain that
    is the correct width and is aesthetically acceptable to you, and that
    it should be changed every 1000-1500 miles.

    So I'd say, hang onto that CN-UG51, run your new SRAM for a while, and
    when it wears out, get a SRAM silver (8-speed) snaplink and give the
    Shimano chain another go.

    Agreed in all important respects, though I don't avoid a Shimano chain
    if i can get it cheaply. I just don't buy them routinely due to the
    fact that (like you) I greatly prefer to get a snaplink included with
    the purchase. If Shimano ever gets its head around the idea that
    sometimes the customer is *right*, and starts making and routinely
    including a snaplink, I'll probably buy theirs more often. In the
    meantime, SRAM's chains work perfectly well, and KMC is not a bad
    alternative.

    --
    My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
    Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
    Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

  4. Owen said:

    Put on a new chain today. The link plates seemed to come from
    different sources, see http://members.pcug.org.au/~rcook/images/mixed_links.jpg
    (12Kbytes)

    perfectly normal shimano chain.

    Quoted message said:


    Also the chain measured 9/32" across the width compared to 1/4" of the
    Sram I was replacing.

    This was the same chain I mentioned a couple of weeks ago,
    http://tinyurl.com/6pxark so it all was too much for me and went and
    purchased a new sram.

    Think I will be pretty careful about buying cheapy chains in the
    future.

    i'd use the shimano chain over sram on a shimano system any day - better
    shifting.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.