Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> In article <
[email protected]>, Benjamin Lewis <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Doug Huffman wrote:
>>
>>> "don holly" <
[email protected]> wrote...
>>>> Do you find that a ten-foot-long chain wears at half the rate of a five-foot-long chain? Seems
>>>> like the wear is spread over twice the number of links [...]
>>>
>>> ANOTHER reason to ride recumbently!! But yes, chain wear occurs only when there is stress AND
>>> relative motion in the wearing parts.
>>
>> Doesn't seem like much of an advantage when a ten foot chain costs twice as much, though.
>
> But you only have to replace it half as often. Isn't your time worth anything?
>
> Actually, Benjamin has already confessed that he changes chains every time he cleans them, so we
> already know _that_ answer.
This takes *less* time than cleaning them on the bike, and allows the rest of the drivetrain to be
cleaned more easily. It's also somewhat effective.
Furthermore, a longer chain would probably need to be cleaned just as often, so I don't see any
significant time benefits.
--
Benjamin Lewis
A small, but vocal, contingent even argues that tin is superior, but they are held by most to be the
lunatic fringe of Foil Deflector Beanie science.