Notices
Track Cycling: Velodrome Racing and Training Area Looking to enter into the realm of track racing? Want to share your experiences and tactics for riding on a velodrome? The Track Cycling forums is for you! Come in and discuss training/racing, equipment, and current track cycling events.

Chains

Old 03-03-20, 11:07 PM
  #151  
carleton
Elitist
Thread Starter
 
carleton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 15,821
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1314 Post(s)
Liked 39 Times in 33 Posts
Originally Posted by KrispyK View Post
Was browsing zero friction cycling. He does lube testing and chain wear testing. He is doing some chain strength testing and tested some Izumi chains. Surprisingly they were not any stronger than road chains in his tests. I was under the assumption that 1/8" chains were stronger than 3/32" and 11/128".

anecdotally I broke a 710sl at the master link doing a standing start a couple a months ago, switched to Izumi after that.

Link: https://zerofrictioncycling.com.au/chain_tensile/
Very interesting!
carleton is offline  
Old 03-08-20, 09:08 PM
  #152  
brawlo
Senior Member
 
brawlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,089
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 246 Post(s)
Liked 22 Times in 20 Posts
Originally Posted by KrispyK View Post
Was browsing zero friction cycling. He does lube testing and chain wear testing. He is doing some chain strength testing and tested some Izumi chains. Surprisingly they were not any stronger than road chains in his tests. I was under the assumption that 1/8" chains were stronger than 3/32" and 11/128".

anecdotally I broke a 710sl at the master link doing a standing start a couple a months ago, switched to Izumi after that.

Link: https://zerofrictioncycling.com.au/chain_tensile/
Thinking about it, the weak "link" on bicycle chains will be the pins. I can't say that I've ever seen a plate of a chain break, or even heard of it happening. I'd guess there's not really any difference in the materials/technology used in pins for road vs track chains
brawlo is online now  
Old 03-09-20, 06:11 PM
  #153  
KrispyK
Member
 
KrispyK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 28

Bikes: Bianchi superpista and boardwalk

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 3 Posts
Doing some thinking on my commute (terrible idea btw)

Maybe we will see more racers on road chains because of the efficiency gains. As more low hanging fruit is picked up by everyone it seems like a no-brainer for an easy gain.

But,

1/8" chains and equipment is ubiquitous and track is slow to change. Also cannot discount the psychological confidence factor of believing that a thicker chain is stronger regardless.

any thoughts or do I have head up my ass again?
KrispyK is offline  
Old 03-09-20, 06:44 PM
  #154  
taras0000
Senior Member
 
taras0000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 43.2330941,-79.8022037,17
Posts: 1,707
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 319 Post(s)
Liked 15 Times in 14 Posts
In theory, the chains may have equal strength in some respects, but that's only one part of the drivetrain. You have to look at the system as a whole to see how the parts interact, where the inefficiencies lie, where the benefits are gained, and how the system can be improved as a whole.
It may not be the chains that are holding back the system, but the rings, especially in the larger sizes. This may be where going going to 3/32" is not a good idea, hence people staying with 1/8".
taras0000 is offline  
Old 03-09-20, 06:46 PM
  #155  
Clythio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 118
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by KrispyK View Post
Doing some thinking on my commute (terrible idea btw)
Maybe we will see more racers on road chains because of the efficiency gains. As more low hanging fruit is picked up by everyone it seems like a no-brainer for an easy gain.
But, 1/8" chains and equipment is ubiquitous and track is slow to change. Also cannot discount the psychological confidence factor of believing that a thicker chain is stronger regardless.
any thoughts or do I have head up my ass again?
Some road sprinters are also very strong, and sprint out of tight turns with full power, and road chains came from 8sp to 9sp to 10sp to 11sp to... 12... and so on, getting more and more thin on the blades... and I didn't see much broken chains incidents.
I know pure Sprint Match monsters are another kind of animals, but from the engineering point of view, 2400w is not that far from 1600w - if we have a safety factor 2 on the first (minimum) it would be 3 on the second case.
Clythio is offline  
Old 03-09-20, 07:57 PM
  #156  
queerpunk
aka mattio
 
queerpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,570

Bikes: yes

Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 337 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 39 Times in 26 Posts
it's always been clear to me that "trackies use 1/8-inch because it is stronger" has been a total canard perpetuated by people who like to think very highly of themselves. i'd have changed over to 3/32" years ago if it didn't mean that i'd always be up the creek if i ever needed to borrow or loan a piece of gear ever again, which i do all the damn time - the infield is and ought to be a social, collective place. and with two elite track racers in my household, changing one set of gear means changing two for the sake of, well, everything. and it's kind of hard to justify spending that much money in one fell swoop on one thirty-second of an inch.
queerpunk is offline  
Old 03-09-20, 07:58 PM
  #157  
Baby Puke
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Kanazawa
Posts: 1,616

Bikes: Marin Stelvio, Pogliaghi SL, Panasonic NJS, Dolan DF4, Intense Pro24 BMX

Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 323 Post(s)
Liked 35 Times in 25 Posts
Also of note- road chains are designed to have some lateral flex so they can derail and go to a different gear. That's not a great feature in a track chain.
Baby Puke is offline  
Likes For Baby Puke:
Old 03-10-20, 03:50 AM
  #158  
carleton
Elitist
Thread Starter
 
carleton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 15,821
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1314 Post(s)
Liked 39 Times in 33 Posts
I suspect that 1/8” chains exist only because 1/8” chainrings exist. They’re identical to sibling 3/32” chains only with longer pins and wider rollers. Longer pins should actually prove to be relatively weaker.

I suspect that 1/8” chainrings exist only because people taco-ed 3/32” chainrings.

Know that a 65t 3/32” dinner plate chainring is subject to being taco-ed by a moderately strong rider during a high torque effort.
carleton is offline  
Likes For carleton:
Old 03-10-20, 06:53 AM
  #159  
tobukog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 216
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 108 Post(s)
Liked 9 Times in 4 Posts
Here's a random assortment of chain observations:

Many BMX riders run cheap road chains.

The chain line on track bikes is actually pretty important if you want to use a quietly running track chain. This is even more important on a 3/32. Being off by 1 or 2 mm can generate extra noise. NJS frames are built to exact standards and should have a perfect chainline. I'm kind of starting to think that the chainline accuracy on many of the modern carbon bikes is just all over the place.

Road chains aren't necessarily smoother running than track chains: the Huub guys tested both and eventually settled on a standard track chain.

Part of the attraction of 3/32 (and even thinner road chains) is actually the aerodynamics at the chain ring. Too me, it seems like we're talking about miniscule marginal gains but that's part of the discussion amongst the World Cup teams. The idea of going big on the front and the rear for efficiency might actually be outweighed, at some point, by the aerodynamic losses of the front chain ring. One of the discussed advantages of the Kappstein is the good aerodynamic transition between the 3/32 chain and the chain ring.
tobukog is offline  
Old 03-13-20, 12:39 AM
  #160  
SynergyPro
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 28
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts
I think huub wattbike tested chains and found out that you can run wide chains more slack which reduces friction and more than equals the narrow chain.
also most 1/8 chains are made super cheap and not up to the standard a chain could be these days (zero friction mentions the bushingless) construction. I now use the high end kmc and it runs smoother than all the japanese chains.

Chainring flex is also an issue. A chainring for narrow chains must not necessarily be thinner, but that would be another way to save weight and make production more efficient.

Australia was running 1/8th at worlds. GB also as far as I can recall. They probably have data they don’t want to share.
SynergyPro is offline  
Old 03-18-20, 12:39 PM
  #161  
Novalite
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 45
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by queerpunk View Post
it's always been clear to me that "trackies use 1/8-inch because it is stronger" has been a total canard perpetuated by people who like to think very highly of themselves. i'd have changed over to 3/32" years ago if it didn't mean that i'd always be up the creek if i ever needed to borrow or loan a piece of gear ever again, which i do all the damn time - the infield is and ought to be a social, collective place. and with two elite track racers in my household, changing one set of gear means changing two for the sake of, well, everything. and it's kind of hard to justify spending that much money in one fell swoop on one thirty-second of an inch.
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.

Last edited by Novalite; 03-18-20 at 12:45 PM.
Novalite is offline  
Old 03-18-20, 02:31 PM
  #162  
700wheel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 615
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 138 Post(s)
Liked 9 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Novalite View Post
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  
Old 03-19-20, 02:42 AM
  #163  
Novalite
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 45
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
About that 50% increase, the 1/8 and 3/32 references the inner width / the roller length.
Most material removal (wear) occurs between pins and their plate holes, thus pin length / plates thickness also matters (most).
Since I immediately chosed chains with thicker plates (not the 3/16" standard one yet) it was 50% increase of contact surface.

And for the record, after I swapped 3/32" for 1/8", and then again to 1/8" with 3/16" plates, I ride since 3 weeks with a 1/4" chain from the motorcycle branch.

Last edited by Novalite; 03-19-20 at 03:52 PM.
Novalite is offline  
Old 03-19-20, 05:05 PM
  #164  
700wheel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 615
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 138 Post(s)
Liked 9 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Novalite View Post
About that 50% increase, the 1/8 and 3/32 references the inner width / the roller length.
Most material removal (wear) occurs between pins and their plate holes, thus pin length / plates thickness also matters (most).
Since I immediately chosed chains with thicker plates (not the 3/16" standard one yet) it was 50% increase of contact surface.

And for the record, after I swapped 3/32" for 1/8", and then again to 1/8" with 3/16" plates, I ride since 3 weeks with a 1/4" chain from the motorcycle branch.
We are discussing different things. I was talking about tooth thicknesses. I just measured 3/32 and 1/8 Campagnolo cogs; dimensions were 0.085 and 0.112 respectively. So actual contact area for 1/8 tooth is 32% greater than 3/32 tooth.
700wheel is offline  
Old 03-19-20, 06:13 PM
  #165  
Novalite
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 45
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by 700wheel View Post
We are discussing different things. I was talking about tooth thicknesses. I just measured 3/32 and 1/8 Campagnolo cogs; dimensions were 0.085 and 0.112 respectively. So actual contact area for 1/8 tooth is 32% greater than 3/32 tooth.
It doesn't matter, tooth thickness and roller/inner width are two titles on a same story.
A chain doesn't elongate due to wear of the outside of a roller or a tooth, it elongates due to wear on the mating surfaces between certain inner parts of the links and next links. Thicker plates and accordingly longer pins increase those surfaces, which decreases elongation for a same amount of worn off material.
Novalite is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Ericoschmitt
Bicycle Mechanics
14
01-15-17 08:18 PM
Sculptor7
Bicycle Mechanics
13
01-25-16 08:19 PM
dagray
Bicycle Mechanics
16
05-01-15 07:28 PM
scroca
Bicycle Mechanics
37
03-19-15 12:01 AM
BlackPowder
Track Cycling: Velodrome Racing and Training Area
6
10-11-12 05:30 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.