Too-Wide Chain: More Likely To Break?

[x]

I just parted the chain on my singlespeed - really standing on it going uphill.

In retrospect, I'm wondering if it's being the widest chain available (operatively, the
cheapest....) might have had something to do with the break.

I can visualize the cog/chainwheel teeth seating on one side or the other and creating a force that
wants to peel the plates off the pins.

Replaced it with a properly sized one (3/8?)...but also have a wide chain on my FS/Rohloff bike and
am wondering if I should do a premptive replacement.
--
PeteCresswell

 

[Zog The Undenia]

(Pete Cresswell) wrote:

> I just parted the chain on my singlespeed - really standing on it going uphill.
>
> In retrospect, I'm wondering if it's being the widest chain available (operatively, the
> cheapest....) might have had something to do with the break.
>
> I can visualize the cog/chainwheel teeth seating on one side or the other and creating a force
> that wants to peel the plates off the pins.
>
> Replaced it with a properly sized one (3/8?)...but also have a wide chain on my FS/Rohloff bike
> and am wondering if I should do a premptive replacement.

This may be completely irrelevant, but Taya's own figures show that their 1/4" chain is a fair bit
weaker than their 3/16".

 

[Carl Fogel]

"(Pete Cresswell)" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I just parted the chain on my singlespeed - really standing on it going uphill.
>
> In retrospect, I'm wondering if it's being the widest chain available (operatively, the
> cheapest....) might have had something to do with the break.
>
> I can visualize the cog/chainwheel teeth seating on one side or the other and creating a force
> that wants to peel the plates off the pins.
>
> Replaced it with a properly sized one (3/8?)...but also have a wide chain on my FS/Rohloff bike
> and am wondering if I should do a premptive replacement.

Dear Pete,

While chain sizes are a mystery to me, it sounds as if you put the wrong size nut on a bolt and it
stripped. It also sounds as if you've figured it out.

That is, if a narrower chain fits your gears "properly," then the wider chain must have been the
wrong size.

When in doubt, use the right parts.

Carl Fogel

 

[Chalo]

[email protected] (Carl Fogel) wrote:

> While chain sizes are a mystery to me, it sounds as if you put the wrong size nut on a bolt and it
> stripped. It also sounds as if you've figured it out.
>
> That is, if a narrower chain fits your gears "properly," then the wider chain must have been the
> wrong size.
>
> When in doubt, use the right parts.

1/8" (single speed) chain and 3/32" (derailleur) chains have always been interchangeable on 3/32"
single-speed drivetrains. That is the the reason 3/32" single-speed drivetrain parts exist-- to
enable the use of either width of chain.

Pete Cresswell's chain breakage is unrelated to the width of the chain in question. However, it's
not difficult to imagine that a chain that retails for $5 and is overwhelmingly likely to find use
on a kid's bike might not be made to the same standard of materials or tolerances as a $20
derailleur bike chain.

Typical features of quality 3/32" chain not usually found in 1/8" chain include beveled sideplates,
"bushingless" construction, and riveted pins. The "master links" furnished with 1/8" chain are there
for convenience, but those of newer 3/32" chain are supplied to replace the sideplates damaged by
pushing riveted pins through them.

Chalo Colina

 

[Carl Fogel]

[email protected] (Chalo) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Carl Fogel) wrote:
>
> > While chain sizes are a mystery to me, it sounds as if you put the wrong size nut on a bolt and
> > it stripped. It also sounds as if you've figured it out.
> >
> > That is, if a narrower chain fits your gears "properly," then the wider chain must have been the
> > wrong size.
> >
> > When in doubt, use the right parts.
>
> 1/8" (single speed) chain and 3/32" (derailleur) chains have always been interchangeable on 3/32"
> single-speed drivetrains. That is the the reason 3/32" single-speed drivetrain parts exist-- to
> enable the use of either width of chain.
>
> Pete Cresswell's chain breakage is unrelated to the width of the chain in question. However, it's
> not difficult to imagine that a chain that retails for $5 and is overwhelmingly likely to find use
> on a kid's bike might not be made to the same standard of materials or tolerances as a $20
> derailleur bike chain.
>
> Typical features of quality 3/32" chain not usually found in 1/8" chain include beveled
> sideplates, "bushingless" construction, and riveted pins. The "master links" furnished with 1/8"
> chain are there for convenience, but those of newer 3/32" chain are supplied to replace the
> sideplates damaged by pushing riveted pins through them.
>
> Chalo Colina

Dear Chalo,

I suspect that I stand corrected, but I'm sure that I'm confused.

Do the gears differ in width? That is, are there thin gears for 3/32 and wide gears for
1/8 chain?

If so, shouldn't a 33% wider 4/32 chain wear or even break differently on a gear intended for
3/32 chain?

While 1/32nd of an inch might be small in terms of lengthwise chain play and tension, it seems
rather significant when it's a quarter or a third of the sideways dimension. Why wouldn't it **** a
bit sideways, strain, and break as Pete speculated?

Or is all this like 2x4 lumber, which isn't 2 inches by 4 inches, or .50 caliber Browning, whose
slug is wider than 0.500?

Fascinated as usual,

Carl Fogel

 

[Chalo]

[email protected] (Carl Fogel) wrote:

> Do the gears differ in width? That is, are there thin gears for 3/32 and wide gears for
> 1/8 chain?

Yes.

Sprockets for 3/32" chain are about 2mm wide or .080", and those for
1/8" chain are about 3mm wide, or .120" (Even though the chains will accomodate their rated tooth
widths of .09375" and .125" respectively)

> If so, shouldn't a 33% wider 4/32 chain wear or even break differently on a gear intended for
> 3/32 chain?

Maybe in principle it should, but in practice there does not seem to be a problem. Single-speed
components have been made in 3/32" tooth widths in order to enable the use of commonly available
3/32" chain as well as the traditional 1/8" kind.

> While 1/32nd of an inch might be small in terms of lengthwise chain play and tension, it seems
> rather significant when it's a quarter or a third of the sideways dimension. Why wouldn't it ****
> a bit sideways, strain, and break as Pete speculated?

Because it's still being pulled by teeth whose faces are nominally square to the chainline, engaging
rollers that are cylindrical inside and out. If the pull on the chain is in the same plane as both
sprockets, then there's no "sideways" about it. The sprocket teeth are significantly narrower than
the chain's capacity, even when they are the same nominal size. If they needed to fill the chain's
width, they would be wider.

Chalo Colina

 

[Carl Fogel]

[email protected] (Chalo) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Carl Fogel) wrote:
>
> > Do the gears differ in width? That is, are there thin gears for 3/32 and wide gears for
> > 1/8 chain?
>
> Yes.
>
> Sprockets for 3/32" chain are about 2mm wide or .080", and those for
> 1/8" chain are about 3mm wide, or .120" (Even though the chains will accomodate their rated tooth
> widths of .09375" and .125" respectively)
>
> > If so, shouldn't a 33% wider 4/32 chain wear or even break differently on a gear intended for
> > 3/32 chain?
>
> Maybe in principle it should, but in practice there does not seem to be a problem. Single-speed
> components have been made in 3/32" tooth widths in order to enable the use of commonly available
> 3/32" chain as well as the traditional 1/8" kind.
>
> > While 1/32nd of an inch might be small in terms of lengthwise chain play and tension, it seems
> > rather significant when it's a quarter or a third of the sideways dimension. Why wouldn't it
> > **** a bit sideways, strain, and break as Pete speculated?
>
> Because it's still being pulled by teeth whose faces are nominally square to the chainline,
> engaging rollers that are cylindrical inside and out. If the pull on the chain is in the same
> plane as both sprockets, then there's no "sideways" about it. The sprocket teeth are significantly
> narrower than the chain's capacity, even when they are the same nominal size. If they needed to
> fill the chain's width, they would be wider.
>
> Chalo Colina

Dear Chalo,

Thanks for the detailed numbers. As usual, your patient mechanical explanation makes sense, but that
only works with sensible people.

I'm stuck on the chain needing to pull in the same plane on both sprockets. While I'm sure that
Pete's sprockets are flawlessly in plane, would the kind of bad chain-line sometimes mentioned in
this newsgroup be enough to affect matters?

That is, if the front sprocket was nicely perpendicular to the frame like the rear axle, but
sticking out as far as careless folk sometimes assemble a bicycle, would that small a difference
**** the chain sideways enough to lead to trouble?
__
_____------------

(I have no idea how far chain-lines get out-of-plane, so I'm being lazy and asking someone with
experience. My guess is that your answer will be no, even a typical bad chain-line isn't enough to
damage a too-wide chain, but I'd rather know than guess.)

Thanks again,

Carl Fogel

 

[Scott Hendricks]

[email protected] (Carl Fogel) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Chalo) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > [email protected] (Carl Fogel) wrote:
> >
> > > Do the gears differ in width? That is, are there thin gears for 3/32 and wide gears for
> > > 1/8 chain?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > Sprockets for 3/32" chain are about 2mm wide or .080", and those for
> > 1/8" chain are about 3mm wide, or .120" (Even though the chains will accomodate their rated
> > tooth widths of .09375" and .125" respectively)
> >
> > > If so, shouldn't a 33% wider 4/32 chain wear or even break differently on a gear intended for
> > > 3/32 chain?
> >
> > Maybe in principle it should, but in practice there does not seem to be a problem. Single-speed
> > components have been made in 3/32" tooth widths in order to enable the use of commonly available
> > 3/32" chain as well as the traditional 1/8" kind.
> >
> > > While 1/32nd of an inch might be small in terms of lengthwise chain play and tension, it seems
> > > rather significant when it's a quarter or a third of the sideways dimension. Why wouldn't it
> > > **** a bit sideways, strain, and break as Pete speculated?
> >
> > Because it's still being pulled by teeth whose faces are nominally square to the chainline,
> > engaging rollers that are cylindrical inside and out. If the pull on the chain is in the same
> > plane as both sprockets, then there's no "sideways" about it. The sprocket teeth are
> > significantly narrower than the chain's capacity, even when they are the same nominal size. If
> > they needed to fill the chain's width, they would be wider.
> >
> > Chalo Colina
>
> Dear Chalo,
>
> Thanks for the detailed numbers. As usual, your patient mechanical explanation makes sense, but
> that only works with sensible people.
>
> I'm stuck on the chain needing to pull in the same plane on both sprockets. While I'm sure that
> Pete's sprockets are flawlessly in plane, would the kind of bad chain-line sometimes mentioned in
> this newsgroup be enough to affect matters?
>
> That is, if the front sprocket was nicely perpendicular to the frame like the rear axle, but
> sticking out as far as careless folk sometimes assemble a bicycle, would that small a difference
> **** the chain sideways enough to lead to trouble?
> __
> _____------------
>
> (I have no idea how far chain-lines get out-of-plane, so I'm being lazy and asking someone with
> experience. My guess is that your answer will be no, even a typical bad chain-line isn't enough to
> damage a too-wide chain, but I'd rather know than guess.)
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Carl Fogel

People put extreme angles on their chains all the time, with no immediate ill consequence. Picture
small ring/small cog or big ring/big cog gear combinations. The derailleur takes care of the chain
alignment on the bottom of the cog, but where the chain comes off the top of the cog (where the real
stress is) the angle can be quite severe.

The OPs chain broke because he used a cheap chain, not because it was too wide.

 

[Carl Fogel]

[email protected] (Scott Hendricks) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

[snip]

> People put extreme angles on their chains all the time, with no immediate ill consequence. Picture
> small ring/small cog or big ring/big cog gear combinations. The derailleur takes care of the chain
> alignment on the bottom of the cog, but where the chain comes off the top of the cog (where the
> real stress is) the angle can be quite severe.
>
> The OPs chain broke because he used a cheap chain, not because it was too wide.

Dear Scott,

Yes, derailleurs criss-cross chains at angles without much trouble.

But I'm asking Chalo about too-wide chains that normally run only in a straight line on narrow gears
and what he thinks might happen with a bad chain-line, where the wrong bottom-bracket width
constantly mimics wicked cross-chaining.

I suspect that Chalo will reassure me that the angle is too small to affect even mis-matched chain
rattling on narrow gear-teeth, but I had to ask, since Chalo had already mentioned that theory and
practice didn't seem to agree.

Carl Fogel

 

[Chalo]

[email protected] (Carl Fogel) wrote:

> [email protected] (Chalo) wrote:
>
> > If the pull on the chain is in the same plane as both sprockets, then there's no "sideways"
> > about it. The sprocket teeth are significantly narrower than the chain's capacity, even when
> > they are the same nominal size.
>
> I'm stuck on the chain needing to pull in the same plane on both sprockets. While I'm sure that
> Pete's sprockets are flawlessly in plane, would the kind of bad chain-line sometimes mentioned in
> this newsgroup be enough to affect matters?

Yes. Chain line is more important on a single-speed drivetrain than on a derailleur drivetrain,
because the sprockets are designed to positively retain the chain and their design assumes decent
alignment.

For small amounts of offset between parallel sprockets, a wider chain is more forgiving simply
because it is wider, and thus can run perfectly straight between sprockets that fall to either side
of its internal clearance. However, the wider chain has longer pins and wider bushings, and so puts
up much more resistance than a narrow to being deflected diagonally.

Go-kart enthusiasts (who use chain that is quite wide for its pitch) cope with the occasional
terrible sprocket alignment by using so-called "space chain" composed of narrow inner links
running on wider outer links, which allows the chain to traverse some lateral distance in a
stairstep fashion.

When an industrial chain must take up a sizeable offset or angular difference between sprockets,
"curved type" chain in used. The bushings in such a chain have a somewhat hourglass-shaped bore and
the clearance between inner and outer sideplates is increased to allow the chain to describe a
radius as small as 30 times its pitch length.

If you look at the pictures under "Chains: Old and New" on Sheldon Brown's informative page
http://sheldonbrown.com/chains.html , you can see that the effective bushing area of a modern
"bushingless" derailleur-bike chain is even narrower than the narrow chain width would require, and
has some of the flaring hourglass-like characteristic that typefies chains intended for
misalignment.

So today's typical 3/32" chain will tolerate misalignment better than old-style 1/8" chain, but not
predominantly because it is narrower. The #40 curved-type chain I have used in machinery is 1/2"
pitch like a bike chain, but fully twice as wide. It bends sideways more freely than either kind of
bike chain because it is internally configured to do so. Likewise the design characteristics of
"bushingless" bike chain allow more sideways flexibility and tolerance of misalignment than a
traditional bike chain.

In a derailleur bike, poor chainline is a condition of normal operation. But you don't have the
choice of running oldfangled 1/8" chain on a derailleur bike, so in that case you're limited to the
appropriate kind. (Especially now that traditional 3/32" chain with bushings is on the way to
extinction.)

Chalo

 

[Carl Fogel]

[email protected] (Chalo) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Carl Fogel) wrote:
>
> > [email protected] (Chalo) wrote:
> >
> > > If the pull on the chain is in the same plane as both sprockets, then there's no "sideways"
> > > about it. The sprocket teeth are significantly narrower than the chain's capacity, even when
> > > they are the same nominal size.
> >
> > I'm stuck on the chain needing to pull in the same plane on both sprockets. While I'm sure that
> > Pete's sprockets are flawlessly in plane, would the kind of bad chain-line sometimes mentioned
> > in this newsgroup be enough to affect matters?
>
> Yes. Chain line is more important on a single-speed drivetrain than on a derailleur drivetrain,
> because the sprockets are designed to positively retain the chain and their design assumes decent
> alignment.
>
> For small amounts of offset between parallel sprockets, a wider chain is more forgiving simply
> because it is wider, and thus can run perfectly straight between sprockets that fall to either
> side of its internal clearance. However, the wider chain has longer pins and wider bushings, and
> so puts up much more resistance than a narrow to being deflected diagonally.
>
> Go-kart enthusiasts (who use chain that is quite wide for its pitch) cope with the occasional
> terrible sprocket alignment by using so-called "space chain" composed of narrow inner links
> running on wider outer links, which allows the chain to traverse some lateral distance in a
> stairstep fashion.
>
> When an industrial chain must take up a sizeable offset or angular difference between sprockets,
> "curved type" chain in used. The bushings in such a chain have a somewhat hourglass-shaped bore
> and the clearance between inner and outer sideplates is increased to allow the chain to describe a
> radius as small as 30 times its pitch length.
>
> If you look at the pictures under "Chains: Old and New" on Sheldon Brown's informative page
> http://sheldonbrown.com/chains.html , you can see that the effective bushing area of a modern
> "bushingless" derailleur-bike chain is even narrower than the narrow chain width would require,
> and has some of the flaring hourglass-like characteristic that typefies chains intended for
> misalignment.
>
> So today's typical 3/32" chain will tolerate misalignment better than old-style 1/8" chain, but
> not predominantly because it is narrower. The #40 curved-type chain I have used in machinery is
> 1/2" pitch like a bike chain, but fully twice as wide. It bends sideways more freely than either
> kind of bike chain because it is internally configured to do so. Likewise the design
> characteristics of "bushingless" bike chain allow more sideways flexibility and tolerance of
> misalignment than a traditional bike chain.
>
> In a derailleur bike, poor chainline is a condition of normal operation. But you don't have the
> choice of running oldfangled 1/8" chain on a derailleur bike, so in that case you're limited to
> the appropriate kind. (Especially now that traditional 3/32" chain with bushings is on the way to
> extinction.)
>
> Chalo

Dear Chalo,

I found a page with a picture of the weird go-kart chain that you mention:

http://www.azusaeng.com/chain/krtchn.html#Anchor%20-%2035%20Spc

I'll be damned. Thanks for another peek into a strange world that I never imagined.

Carl Fogel

 

[Scott Hendricks]

[email protected] (Carl Fogel) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Scott Hendricks) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
> [snip]
>
> > People put extreme angles on their chains all the time, with no immediate ill consequence.
> > Picture small ring/small cog or big ring/big cog gear combinations. The derailleur takes care of
> > the chain alignment on the bottom of the cog, but where the chain comes off the top of the cog
> > (where the real stress is) the angle can be quite severe.
> >
> > The OPs chain broke because he used a cheap chain, not because it was too wide.
>
> Dear Scott,
>
> Yes, derailleurs criss-cross chains at angles without much trouble.
>
> But I'm asking Chalo about too-wide chains that normally run only in a straight line on narrow
> gears and what he thinks might happen with a bad chain-line, where the wrong bottom-bracket width
> constantly mimics wicked cross-chaining.
>
> I suspect that Chalo will reassure me that the angle is too small to affect even mis-matched chain
> rattling on narrow gear-teeth, but I had to ask, since Chalo had already mentioned that theory and
> practice didn't seem to agree.
>
> Carl Fogel

Carl,

I just have to know... did you just get in to cycling, AND happen to be the most uneducated (about
cycling) and most inquisitive person in the world???

You seem to be obsessed with and amazed by the simplest things. I can picture you spending hours
trying to pick the fly **** out of the pepper.

Or, are you just yanking everyone's chain?

 

[Carl Fogel]

[email protected] (Scott Hendricks) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Carl Fogel) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > [email protected] (Scott Hendricks) wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > People put extreme angles on their chains all the time, with no immediate ill consequence.
> > > Picture small ring/small cog or big ring/big cog gear combinations. The derailleur takes care
> > > of the chain alignment on the bottom of the cog, but where the chain comes off the top of the
> > > cog (where the real stress is) the angle can be quite severe.
> > >
> > > The OPs chain broke because he used a cheap chain, not because it was too wide.
> >
> > Dear Scott,
> >
> > Yes, derailleurs criss-cross chains at angles without much trouble.
> >
> > But I'm asking Chalo about too-wide chains that normally run only in a straight line on narrow
> > gears and what he thinks might happen with a bad chain-line, where the wrong bottom-bracket
> > width constantly mimics wicked cross-chaining.
> >
> > I suspect that Chalo will reassure me that the angle is too small to affect even mis-matched
> > chain rattling on narrow gear-teeth, but I had to ask, since Chalo had already mentioned that
> > theory and practice didn't seem to agree.
> >
> > Carl Fogel
>
> Carl,
>
> I just have to know... did you just get in to cycling, AND happen to be the most uneducated (about
> cycling) and most inquisitive person in the world???
>
> You seem to be obsessed with and amazed by the simplest things. I can picture you spending hours
> trying to pick the fly **** out of the pepper.
>
> Or, are you just yanking everyone's chain?

Dear Scott,

Have a look at Chalo's rather interesting answer about go-kart chains.

Carl Fogel