SRAM PC89 ?

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by Glaucman, Sep 3, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Glaucman

    Glaucman Guest

    I recently replaced the chain on a 9s Shimano with a SRAM PC89 that was new in the box. I
    measured the new chain with a Park Chain Stretch tool and to my surprise the reading was 0.5%.
    This is my first experience with SRAM chains and am curious why a_new_chain would measure this
    amount of stretch.

    Henry
     
    Tags:


  2. drmcq-<< I recently replaced the chain on a 9s Shimano with a SRAM PC89 that was new in the box. I
    measured the new chain with a Park Chain Stretch tool and to my surprise the reading was 0.5%.
    >><BR><BR>

    The Park tool is 'pessimistic', IME, and measures new chains 'stretched'. Get a Rohloff chain
    checker, better tool, IMO-

    Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
    (303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"
     
  3. Pete Biggs

    Pete Biggs Guest

    Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
    > drmcq-<< I recently replaced the chain on a 9s Shimano with a SRAM PC89 that was new in the box. I
    > measured the new chain with a Park Chain Stretch tool and to my surprise the reading was 0.5%.
    > >><BR><BR>

    Park does say that some "play" (up to 0.5) is normal in their instructions. This is even written on
    the front of the tool.

    > The Park tool is 'pessimistic', IME, and measures new chains 'stretched'.

    Not all chains - not Campagnolo C9 for example. The tool can barely fit in a new C9, let alone
    indicate any stretch. Does this mean Campag chains last longer?

    I'm also intrigued by the difference - although it is useful that a brand new SRAM (PC59 in my
    experience) is less likely to skip on partly worn sprockets. ...Not sure that's such a good
    thing really.

    There is an issue over what exactly the Park tool measures. Does size of the rollers vary between
    different chains?

    ~PB
     
  4. Matt

    Matt Guest

    I second that thought. I run PC89s and use the park tool with the same result as you. It's all good.
    "Pete Biggs" <pLime{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
    > > drmcq-<< I recently replaced the chain on a 9s Shimano with a SRAM PC89 that was new in the box.
    > > I measured the new chain with a Park Chain Stretch tool and to my surprise the reading was 0.5%.
    > > >><BR><BR>
    >
    > Park does say that some "play" (up to 0.5) is normal in their instructions. This is even written
    > on the front of the tool.
    >
    > > The Park tool is 'pessimistic', IME, and measures new chains 'stretched'.
    >
    > Not all chains - not Campagnolo C9 for example. The tool can barely fit in a new C9, let alone
    > indicate any stretch. Does this mean Campag chains last longer?
    >
    > I'm also intrigued by the difference - although it is useful that a brand new SRAM (PC59 in my
    > experience) is less likely to skip on partly worn sprockets. ...Not sure that's such a good
    > thing really.
    >
    > There is an issue over what exactly the Park tool measures. Does size of the rollers vary between
    > different chains?
    >
    > ~PB
     
  5. Swamprun

    Swamprun Guest

    I recently bought the same chain also for a 9 speed Shimano Ultegra double.

    The SRAM chain does not work well with the front derailleur. The SRAM chain is significantly more
    flexible than a Shimano chain. The shifting performance difference between the two chains is
    incredible.

    On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 04:57:55 -0700, GlaucMan wrote:

    > I recently replaced the chain on a 9s Shimano with a SRAM PC89 that was new in the box. I measured
    > the new chain with a Park Chain Stretch tool and to my surprise the reading was 0.5%. This is my
    > first experience with SRAM chains and am curious why a_new_chain would measure this amount of
    > stretch.
    >
    > Henry
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...