Alzerbster

Not sure I buy into the fact that a KMC chain as Original equipment on the bike was the culprit. At first I thought this was the reason, but after looking into it further, I don't believe that. There are thousands of people that ride rail trails, and don't have their chains wear out in 700 miles. I have read many posts on this forum where people claim that KMC chains are worthy chains. Don't think it would be good business for a chain manufacturer such as KMC, to make a crap chain, and have a bike maker like Cannondale put it on their bikes.

SHBR

Could have been a defective chain with a lack of heat treatment etc. Its a fairly lost cost wear item, easy enough to replace.

If that is the only issue you've had with the bike, I'd call it a win.

easyupbug 

We have a lot of discussions on off spec, black market, end runs, fakes, QA/QC, etc. I did vendor evaluations in the PRC for years and for fun I look for these, kind of weird I know. The only one I for sure have ever found that I absolutely think was one of these was a KMC (5) chain pack of 9 speed chains which appeared to be a perfect KNC except none of the five in non-OEM packaging had any lube at all, perfectly bone dry. If they can some how come off a manufacturing line w/o any lube I am sure they can have missing heat treat, off spec steel supply, etc. but should never be in a KMC package or supplied to Cannondale as their internal QA/QC should pick it up. KMC or any company will die soon without excellent QA/QC.
Here is an interesting thread on this subject with input from KNC: https://www.bikeforums.net/bicycle-m...ot-fake-2.html

Alzerbster

I suppose the OEM chain that came on my bike could have had defect. Anything is possible. I do agree that a company with out quality QA/QC will not be around long. I have to think that a company like Cannondale would have quality QA/QC. Although I have seen where companies get so big the management of that company is not as efficient as it was when they were a smaller company. Sometimes things just fall through the cracks.

When I got the Wipperman chain there was a stark difference in the felt quality of the wipperman chain compared to the KMC. The Wiperman just had the feel and appearance of a much better built chain. Does anyone know why Wipperman does not offer a 116 link 6/7/8 speed chain. They are all 114 link. KMC on the other hand offers mostly 116 link chains in 6/7/8 speed.

LV2TNDM

I'd assume Cannondale either got a bad batch of chains and/or spec'd a real POS. This happens. Bike product management is a true balancing act - which usually results with flashy stuff that customers can see and crap that's hidden. Cheap spokes are one way. No-name hubs are another. As are really cheap BBs. So the chain matches this really well.

So replacing your chain with a quality replacement is almost certainly the solution and you should see FAR more miles on the replacement and future replacements. Good you were so aware to check the wear before it toasted the cassettes.

I'll add that in the late 80's when I was racing and training tons, I decided to spend the big bucks for one of the most expensive chains on the market. A German chain with a great reputation, but the name currently fails me. Anyway, I wore that thing out in not time! I was blown away. I, too, am a bit of a chain nut and HATE dry, dirty chains. Nothing sweeter than the sound of a clean drivetrain. (That said, I do NOT soak my chains in solvent - complete waste of time, effort, chemicals AND lube.)

So I learned that expensive doesn't necessarily mean durable. It USUALLY does, but not always. KMC seems to get the best rating in durability and value, so that's your best bet. I'd also ponder that fake products are more and more of an issue with internet sales, especially the direct from China stuff. Given the open marketplace, it's probably pretty easy to unload lots of counterfeit product on the market. And don't place THAT much confidence in Cannondale! They're fallible, just like many others. Visit Hambini on YouTube for some pretty amusing caustic criticism of many "high-profile" companies by a knowledgeable mechanical engineer.

DaveSSS 

Some of the most recent chain wear tests are finally recognizing what I figured out about 15 years ago with Campy 10 speed. There's a difference between roller wear and wear that causes elongation. You can have a high quality Campy chain the shows little elongation, but after 6,000 miles, the roller wear and side clearance wear are huge. The roller wear alone can cause new-chain skip, if a chain is ever used that long before changing to a new one.

The way to get the most life from a cassette is to decide how many chains you think you should be able to use, like 4,5 or 6, then alternate the use of all of those chains, You'll never get new-chain skip and the cassette will last for the life of all those chains. Some brands will never reach .5% elongation, if properly cared for, but even with frequent cleaning and lubing, the rollers are going to wear out.

Racing Dan

Even if i tend to agree with you, i still think its not quite right not taking roller wear into account. I have measured several new and worn chains with a digital caliper and came up with the same method as you described. I however have found, that a chain that is not yet at 0.5% true elongation may still might have severely worn rollers. The bore gets a lot bigger and the diameter shrinks. Its debatable is such a chain is harmful to the cassette, but it sure doesnt "ride" or shift as nice as a new or less worn chain.

An other way to do it, is to measure between several links when new. - I just got some KMC 10s chains that measure 132.3 mm between 11 links - Then replace the chain at or before x+1mm, 133.3mm. Thats about 0.75% distributed between roller wear and elongation. This is, in my opinion and experience, "safe" without being overly conservative.

davidad

If you clean the chain on the bike you are washing the fine grit into the pins and inner plates creating grinding compound drastically shortening the chains life.