Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

Why a worn chain ruins sprockets

Started by Email address hidden · · Last activity · 17 posts · 513 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
17 September 2006
Last activity
20 September 2006
Original author
Email address hidden
Posts
17
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
513
Views / 30 days
0

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

Showing posts 1–17 of 17
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Effects of a worm chain on sprockets comes up often and I think
    looking at mechanics of it might resolve some some of the problems.

    Sprockets have a pitch diameter that exactly meshes with a half inch
    pitch chain in which the gaps between teeth are larger than the chain
    rollers to make noise free running when used with a worn (elongated
    chain) and to allow the chain to exit at an angle, as with crossing
    from a right sprocket to the left chainwheel. Cross-over from one
    extreme to the other accelerates chain and sprocket wear. The chain
    to enter rear sprockets at an angle is taken care of by the derailleur
    which accepts incoming chain at angles on its plastic idlers. Large
    chain angles cause more rapid wear here.

    As a chain wears, its pitch elongates, the length increase occurring
    between inner links, the ones that carry two rollers between side
    plates and remain at a half inch regardless of wear. It is the pins
    and sleeves that wear and cause pitch elongation between inner links.
    The chain DOES NOT STRETCH from tension, but rather gets longer as its
    pivots wear.

    With increasing pitch (spacing between roller centers) the chain
    describes a larger pitch diameter as it rides higher on sprocket teeth
    than when new. Besides riding higher, so that you can see light under
    the chain when it is pulling, it is loading every second tooth because
    only every second roller pair is out of pitch.

    Pockets are worn in the sprocket from chain contact, not at the root
    diameter for half inch pitch chain, but at a higher pitch diameter.
    This does not come to bear immediately because the case hardening of
    the sprocket wears slowly, but once that is gone, these pockets that
    match the worn chain and lie on a larger pitch diameter develop
    rapidly.

    When a new chain with correct pitch is used, it idles nicely until it
    transmits force against the worn teeth. At that time it rolls up the
    last tooth of engagement, there where the chain departs and travels
    straight to the chainwheel, and seats in the worn pocket that is at a
    larger pitch diameter. Tooth pockets are often not readily
    discernible because the sprocket form is circular and deviation from
    that circle is hard to detect.

    A new, in-pitch chain, rides high on the exit cog of the sprocket so
    that the incoming roller of the chain cannot enter because it is ahead
    of the cog that it should engage. It remains not engaged, riding on
    top of that tooth, which makes certain that subsequent teeth cannot
    begin to enter from the exaggerated pitch diameter of riding over the
    tops of teeth.

    Under high chain load, even small wear pockets made by an out-of-pitch
    chain will prevent engagement. Regularly replacing the chain can
    prevent this because the wear pockets will be at the correct pitch
    diameter, but this can become expensive. The alternative is to
    replace the chain at 1/16" per foot (which is in effect 1/8" since
    only every second link wears) and replace only those sprockets that
    won't mesh.

    In earlier times, when sprockets were separate and symmetrical, one
    could turn a worn sprocket around and use its unworn flank and get
    twice the mileage. With teeth shaved and ramped to make shifting
    under load possible, most sprockets don't work well when reversed.
    Also multi sprocket units cannot be reversed.

    Worn chains do not significantly affect shifting or engagement with
    chainwheels, chainwheels having forced engagement and don't care
    whether the chain rides high or out of engagement on exit. One thing
    that occurs with worn chainwheels is that a new chain can cause "chain
    suck" because the chain rides in hooked chainwheel teeth that do not
    want to release. This is especially so with small chainwheels.

    Loss of exact and quick shifting can occur because a strongly worn
    chain can bend sideways and defy being pushed to an adjacent sprocket
    by the derailleur, but this requires substantial wear and too long a
    path between derailleur and sprocket cluster.

    Jobst Brandt

  2. Jobst: The whole second paragraph seems to have been mangled, or at
    least needs a tighter edit. It's far too run-on for on-line reading.
    But while that may take time, can we get a quick fix for:

    "The chain to enter rear sprockets at an angle is taken care of by the
    derailleur
    which accepts incoming chain at angles on its plastic idlers"

    Should that be "The chain *flex required* to enter" or *displacement*
    perhaps?

    "The chain, the rear sprockets at an angle to enter, the incoming at
    angles accepting chain derailleur plastic idlers uses."

    Hmm - ought to be able to squeeze out a surpurfluous "chain" or "angle"
    there.

    :0)

  3. Quoted message said:

    Worn chains do not significantly affect shifting or engagement with
    chainwheels, chainwheels having forced engagement and don't care
    whether the chain rides high or out of engagement on exit.

    I thought that worn chains accelerate wear on chainrings; you are
    saying that a worn chain will ride high on the chainring teeth, but
    engagement will occur with the same number of roller/tooth interfaces
    as if the chain were new, correct?

    Worn chainrings do accelerate wear to new chains by limiting the amount
    of engagement, right?

  4. Brian Huntley said:

    Jobst: The whole second paragraph seems to have been mangled, or at
    least needs a tighter edit. It's far too run-on for on-line reading.
    But while that may take time, can we get a quick fix for:

    Quoted message said:

    "The chain to enter rear sprockets at an angle is taken care of by
    the derailleur which accepts incoming chain at angles on its plastic
    idlers"

    Quoted message said:

    Should that be "The chain *flex required* to enter" or
    *displacement* perhaps?

    Quoted message said:

    "The chain, the rear sprockets at an angle to enter, the incoming at
    angles accepting chain derailleur plastic idlers uses."

    Quoted message said:

    Hmm - ought to be able to squeeze out a superfluous "chain" or
    "angle" there.

    Thanks, it was getting late and the last cut and paste didn't work well.

    Jobst Brandt

  5. Nate Knutson said:
    Quoted message said:

    Worn chains do not significantly affect shifting or engagement with
    chainwheels, chainwheels having forced engagement and don't care
    whether the chain rides high or out of engagement on exit.

    Quoted message said:

    I thought that worn chains accelerate wear on chainrings; you are
    saying that a worn chain will ride high on the chainring teeth, but
    engagement will occur with the same number of roller/tooth
    interfaces as if the chain were new, correct?

    Chain engagement is not affected by a worn chain coming into a new or
    used chainwheel although it affects chainwheel wear.

    Quoted message said:

    Worn chainrings do accelerate wear to new chains by limiting the amount
    of engagement, right?

    No. chain wear is entirely dependent on articulation angle and grime.
    Chains go though an angle of about 7 degrees entering a 50t chainwheel
    under load while on a 13t sprocket the angle is 27.7 degrees. That's
    where the ware occurs.

    Jobst Brandt

  6. Nate Knutson said:

    Worn chainrings do accelerate wear to new chains by limiting the amount
    of engagement, right?


    An alu chainwheel isn't going to do much to a hardened steel chain.

  7. Zog the Undeniable thought the world would like to know that...

    Quoted message said:
    Nate Knutson said:

    Worn chainrings do accelerate wear to new chains by limiting the amount
    of engagement, right?


    An alu chainwheel isn't going to do much to a hardened steel chain.

    No, but the sand between will....

    --
    Posted by news://news.nb.nu

  8. Effects of a worm chain on sprockets comes up often and I think
    looking at the mechanics of it might resolve some some of the
    problems.

    New sprockets have a pitch diameter that exactly meshes with a half
    inch pitch chain, the chain commonly used on most bicycles. Gaps
    between sprocket teeth are larger than chain rollers (0.3055" dia.) in
    order to facilitate noise free running when used with a worn
    (elongated chain) and to allow the chain to exit at an angle, when its
    chain line makes a diagonal from sprocket to chainwheel.

    Entering rear sprockets the chain is not under load and goes straight
    in because, after making two U-turns around the idler wheels that are
    aligned with the sprocket. Derailleur idler wheels are shaped to
    accept incoming chain at angles, however, large chain angles increase
    wear of these wheels (sprockets) as well as sprockets and chainwheels
    because they load only one edge.

    Chain wear is mainly caused by articulation angle and grime when
    loaded in tension. For instance, chains go though an angle of about 7
    degrees entering a 50t chainwheel while exiting a 13t sprocket the
    angle is 27.7 degrees. That's where the ware occurs. The U-turns
    made through two idler wheels of a derailleur, although having a
    fairly large reversing angle (10t = as much as 36 degrees), probably
    have relatively little effect because they occur under light load.

    As a chain wears, its pitch elongates, as the link pins and the
    sleeves in which they run wear. This occurs between pairs of inner
    links, whose two rollers remain at a half inch spacing regardless of
    wear. Pitch elongation occurs from link pin and sleeve wear between
    these links. The chain DOES NOT STRETCH from tension, but rather
    becomes longer as its pivots wear.

    With increasing pitch (spacing between roller pair centers) the chain
    describes a larger pitch diameter, as it rides higher on sprocket
    teeth, than it would when new. Besides riding higher (you can see
    light under the chain when it is pulling), it loads every second tooth
    because only every second roller pair is out of pitch.

    Pockets formed in the sprocket from chain contact, form not at the
    root diameter for half inch pitch chain, but at a higher diameter.
    This does not come to bear immediately because case hardening of the
    sprocket wears slowly, but once that is gone, pockets made by the worn
    chain develop rapidly and on a larger pitch diameter. This in
    contrast to a new chain that loads several teeth of a sprocket with a
    distributed load.

    When a new chain with correct pitch is used, it meshes nicely until it
    transmits force against the worn teeth. At that time it rolls up the
    teeth to seat in the wear pocket at the larger pitch diameter of the
    sprocket so that the incoming roller of the chain cannot enter because
    it is ahead of the cog that it should engage. It remains disengaged,
    riding on top of that tooth, which makes certain that subsequent teeth
    cannot enter from the exaggerated pitch diameter of the rollers riding
    over the tops of teeth.

    Under high chain load, even small wear pockets made by an out-of-pitch
    chain will prevent engagement. Regularly replacing the chain can
    prevent this because the wear pockets will occur at the correct pitch
    diameter, but this can become expensive. The alternative is to
    replace the chain at 1/16" per foot (which is in effect 1/8" since
    only every second link wears) and replace only those sprockets that
    won't mesh.

    In earlier times, when sprockets were separate and symmetrical, one
    could turn a worn sprocket around and use its unworn flank to get
    twice the mileage. With teeth shaved and ramped to make shifting
    under load possible, most sprockets don't work well when reversed.
    Also multi sprocket units cannot be reversed.

    Worn chains do not significantly affect shifting or engagement with
    chainwheels, chainwheels having forced engagement and don't care
    whether the chain rides high or out of engagement on exit. One thing
    that occurs with worn chainwheels is that a new chain can cause "chain
    suck" because the chain rides in hooked chainwheel teeth that do not
    want to release. This is especially so with small chainwheels.

    Loss of exact and quick shifting can occur because a strongly worn
    chain can bend sideways and defy being pushed to an adjacent sprocket
    by the derailleur, but this requires substantial wear and a long path
    between derailleur and sprocket cluster.

    Jobst Brandt

  9. Quoted message said:

    Effects of a worm chain on sprockets comes up often and I think
    looking at the mechanics of it might resolve some some of the
    problems.


    Nice explanation Jobst. Could you please also explain why those little
    Park and Rohloff chain wear indicators are useless and a foot-long
    measurement is better?

    Also JB

  10. Johan Bornman said:
    Quoted message said:

    Effects of a worm chain on sprockets comes up often and I think
    looking at the mechanics of it might resolve some some of the
    problems.

    Quoted message said:

    Nice explanation Jobst. Could you please also explain why those
    little Park and Rohloff chain wear indicators are useless and a
    foot-long measurement is better?

    http://yarchive.net/bike/chain_wear.html

    Jobst Brandt

  11. Quoted message said:

    Johan Bornman writes:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Nice explanation Jobst. Could you please also explain why those
    little Park and Rohloff chain wear indicators are useless and a
    foot-long measurement is better?

    Quoted message said:

    http://yarchive.net/bike/chain_wear.html

    "The Rholoff gauge measures between two
    rollers a several links apart. Because rollers always have clearance,
    they can be displaced longitudinally on the chain."

    True, but you're only adding the roller clearance on two rollers, not
    every roller in the span of the measurement; it's a very small number.

    "A ruler measuring over 12 inches, even non contacting,
    is more accurate and easier to use than this tool. Until you've tried
    the ruler method, it is not obvious how easy it is to see a 1/16 inch
    wear in a foot by holding a yardstick next to the bottom run of the
    chain."

    The Park tool is very simple to use: you can take the measurement and
    remove the tool to read it in better light, you can do it with one hand,
    you can do it wihout your glasses on, you can do it while your bike's
    hanging on the wall, you can take five readings in ten seconds. It
    measures in "percent elongation": my new chains typically measure 0.25%
    elongation or 1/32" over 12 inches, and I start having problems at about
    0.75% elongation or 3/32" over 12 inches. So it may not make the
    measurement you'd like it to, but it's very useful as an indicator of
    when to replace a chain, especially after you've got some history with it.

  12. Diablo Scott said:
    Quoted message said:

    Johan Bornman writes:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Nice explanation Jobst. Could you please also explain why those
    little Park and Rohloff chain wear indicators are useless and a
    foot-long measurement is better?

    Quoted message said:

    http://yarchive.net/bike/chain_wear.html

    "The Rholoff gauge measures between two
    rollers a several links apart. Because rollers always have clearance,
    they can be displaced longitudinally on the chain."

    True, but you're only adding the roller clearance on two rollers, not
    every roller in the span of the measurement; it's a very small number.

    "A ruler measuring over 12 inches, even non contacting,
    is more accurate and easier to use than this tool. Until you've tried
    the ruler method, it is not obvious how easy it is to see a 1/16 inch
    wear in a foot by holding a yardstick next to the bottom run of the
    chain."

    The Park tool is very simple to use: you can take the measurement and
    remove the tool to read it in better light, you can do it with one hand,
    you can do it wihout your glasses on, you can do it while your bike's
    hanging on the wall, you can take five readings in ten seconds. It
    measures in "percent elongation": my new chains typically measure 0.25%
    elongation or 1/32" over 12 inches, and I start having problems at about
    0.75% elongation or 3/32" over 12 inches. So it may not make the
    measurement you'd like it to, but it's very useful as an indicator of
    when to replace a chain, especially after you've got some history with it.

    Dear Diablo,

    My aging eyes like what you say.

    My experience with measuring wear variation with a micromeeter in
    6-inch sections of a chain also likes what you say.

    Several quick and easy to read measurements in my garage sounds nice.

    Keep talking like that, you smooth-talkin' devil, and I'm going to
    blame you for making me buy one.

    Cheers,

    Carl Fogel

  13. Diablo Scott said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Nice explanation Jobst. Could you please also explain why those
    little Park and Rohloff chain wear indicators are useless and a
    foot-long measurement is better?

    http://yarchive.net/bike/chain_wear.html

    Quoted message said:

    "The Rohloff gauge measures between two rollers, several links
    apart. Because rollers always have clearance, they can be displaced
    longitudinally on the chain."

    Quoted message said:

    True, but you're only adding the roller clearance on two rollers, not
    every roller in the span of the measurement; it's a very small number.

    For the short (4# section over which is is measuring, 1/3 as much
    elongation than the yard stick method. the common wear criterion of
    1/16" (0.0625"😉 is therefore 0.208" when divided by 3. Roller
    clearance on a typical new SRAM chain is 0.0125" taken twice since
    this involves two rollers pushed apart, gives 0.025". That is already
    40% of the dimension to be measured. Because roller clearance varies
    for different models and brands of chain, this is an unacceptable
    method. Roller clearance on some chains increases faster than pitch
    elongation, the dimension of interest, so you cannot be sure of what
    the chain elongation is with this instrument.

    Quoted message said:

    "A ruler measuring over 12 inches, even non contacting, is more
    accurate and easier to use than this tool. Until you've tried the
    ruler method, it is not obvious how easy it is to see a 1/16 inch
    wear in a foot by holding a yardstick next to the bottom run of the
    chain."

    Quoted message said:

    The Park tool is very simple to use: you can take the measurement
    and remove the tool to read it in better light, you can do it with
    one hand, you can do it without your glasses on, you can do it while
    your bike's hanging on the wall, you can take five readings in ten
    seconds.

    Why take your glasses off if you need them to see a yard stick. It
    seems you have not tried the yard stick method, or you have already
    spent the money to buy such a gauge and feel compelled to defend it.
    Besides, why would you want to take five readings?

    Quoted message said:

    It measures in "percent elongation": my new chains typically measure
    0.25% elongation or 1/32" over 12 inches, and I start having
    problems at about 0.75% elongation or 3/32" over 12 inches. So it
    may not make the measurement you'd like it to, but it's very useful
    as an indicator of when to replace a chain, especially after you've
    got some history with it.

    You can also see how much air you get between chainwheel and chain in
    a side view to get an "estimate" but a 1/16" per foot is unambiguous
    with a hardware store give-away (free) wooden yardstick.

    Jobst Brandt

  14. Diablo Scott said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Nice explanation Jobst. Could you please also explain why those
    little Park and Rohloff chain wear indicators are useless and a
    foot-long measurement is better?

    http://yarchive.net/bike/chain_wear.html

    Quoted message said:

    "The Rohloff gauge measures between two rollers, several links
    apart. Because rollers always have clearance, they can be displaced
    longitudinally on the chain."

    Quoted message said:

    True, but you're only adding the roller clearance on two rollers, not
    every roller in the span of the measurement; it's a very small number.

    For the short (4" section over which is is measuring, 1/3 as much
    elongation occurs than in one foot with the yard stick method. The
    common wear criterion of 1/16" (0.0625"😉 is therefore 0.208" when
    divided by 3. Roller clearance on a typical new SRAM chain is 0.0125"
    taken twice since this involves two rollers pushed apart, gives
    0.025". That is already 40% of the dimension to be measured. Because
    roller clearance varies for different models and brands of chain, this
    is an unacceptable method. Roller clearance on some chains increases
    faster than pitch elongation, the dimension of interest, so you cannot
    be sure of what the chain elongation is with this instrument.

    Quoted message said:

    "A ruler measuring over 12 inches, even non contacting, is more
    accurate and easier to use than this tool. Until you've tried the
    ruler method, it is not obvious how easy it is to see a 1/16 inch
    wear in a foot by holding a yardstick next to the bottom run of the
    chain."

    Quoted message said:

    The Park tool is very simple to use: you can take the measurement
    and remove the tool to read it in better light, you can do it with
    one hand, you can do it without your glasses on, you can do it while
    your bike's hanging on the wall, you can take five readings in ten
    seconds.

    Why take your glasses off if you need them to see a yard stick. It
    seems you have not tried the yard stick method, or you have already
    spent the money to buy such a gauge and feel compelled to defend it.
    Besides, why would you want to take five readings?

    Quoted message said:

    It measures in "percent elongation": my new chains typically measure
    0.25% elongation or 1/32" over 12 inches, and I start having
    problems at about 0.75% elongation or 3/32" over 12 inches. So it
    may not make the measurement you'd like it to, but it's very useful
    as an indicator of when to replace a chain, especially after you've
    got some history with it.

    You can also see how much air you get between chainwheel and chain in
    a side view to get an "estimate" but a 1/16" per foot is unambiguous
    with a hardware store give-away (free) wooden yardstick.

    Jobst Brandt

  15. Diablo Scott said:
    Quoted message said:

    Johan Bornman writes:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Nice explanation Jobst. Could you please also explain why those
    little Park and Rohloff chain wear indicators are useless and a
    foot-long measurement is better?

    Quoted message said:

    http://yarchive.net/bike/chain_wear.html

    "The Rholoff gauge measures between two
    rollers a several links apart. Because rollers always have clearance,
    they can be displaced longitudinally on the chain."

    True, but you're only adding the roller clearance on two rollers, not
    every roller in the span of the measurement; it's a very small number.

    "A ruler measuring over 12 inches, even non contacting,
    is more accurate and easier to use than this tool. Until you've tried
    the ruler method, it is not obvious how easy it is to see a 1/16 inch
    wear in a foot by holding a yardstick next to the bottom run of the
    chain."...

    An architect's scale will also work well here.

    --
    Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

  16. Quoted message said:

    Diablo Scott writes:

    Quoted message said:

    Because roller clearance varies for different models and brands of chain,
    this is an unacceptable method.

    The worst case is I throw away a chain that still had a few miles on it.
    It's gotten a lot of use, but not quite as much as the ones in the
    Brandt garbage can. In practice though, whenever I do notice chain
    skipping, the Chain Checker consistently reads 0.75% - SRAM and Shimano
    chains. So whenever I measure more than 0.75% I replace the chain even
    if I haven't noticed skipping. It's acceptable.

  17. Diablo Scott said:
    Quoted message said:

    Because roller clearance varies for different models and brands of
    chain, this is an unacceptable method.

    Quoted message said:

    The worst case is I throw away a chain that still had a few miles on
    it.

    Quoted message said:

    It's gotten a lot of use, but not quite as much as the ones in the
    Brandt garbage can. In practice though, whenever I do notice chain
    skipping, the Chain Checker consistently reads 0.75% - SRAM and
    Shimano chains. So whenever I measure more than 0.75% I replace the
    chain even if I haven't noticed skipping. It's acceptable.

    Chains don't skip when run on the same sprockets since the sprockets
    wear in accordance with the chain pitch. Worn chains will run on new
    sprockets without problem.

    That you say you ride them until they skip, makes we wonder what you
    are riding. The scenario you present cannot happen. Even if you have
    other wheels with new sprockets, they will run fine with a worn chain.

    Jobst Brandt

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.