Thread: Chains
View Single Post
Old 03-18-20, 02:31 PM
  #162  
700wheel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 645
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
Liked 14 Times in 11 Posts
Originally Posted by Novalite
The point of a wider chain is entirely missed, it's not about strength but about the size of the mating surfaces. A wider chain has longer pins / thicker plates, ex 1/8" has 50% more contact surface than a 3/32".
During usage / wearing, the amount removed material is a function of force and movement (articulation). With larger bearing surfaces, regardless contact surface size, a same amount gets removed, but with bigger contact surfaces, the "lost" distance, that brings the elongation of the chain, is smaller so the chain elongates less for that same amount lost material.

After I moved from 3/32" internal width chains to 1/8", the chains lifetime increased proportionally. 4 months became 8.
Later on, I switched from common 1/8" to 1/8" with 3/16"-sized thick plates. The lifetime again increased, to 16-18 months?
And since some weeks, I'm riding with a 1/4" internal width type 420 chain from the motorcycle branch. The pins have a larger diameter and full bushings.
I agree with Novalite. Under load the chain roller causes bearing stresses on the teeth. This causes momentary displacement of tooth material. The 1/8 chain/tooth interface will have less friction and wear than a 3/32 chain.
Bearing stress is load/bearing area, and metal standard define the maximum bearing stress for engineers. Fbry is the yield load where material deflection returns to zero upon load removal.

Of cause it is possible to overcome any 3/32 chain issues by using better and higher cost materials.

The 50% increase quoted by Novalite should read 33%.

Last edited by 700wheel; 03-18-20 at 02:38 PM. Reason: Update
700wheel is offline