Odd links on chain

[Owen]

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

 

[Hank]

On May 26, 2:45 am, Owen <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.

 

[Werehatrack]

On Mon, 26 May 2008 09:58:37 -0700 (PDT), Hank <[email protected]> may
have said:

>On May 26, 2:45 am, Owen <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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.

 

[jim beam]

Owen wrote:
> 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.


>
> 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.