loser

I Put a new 3/32 chain on my bike today, I have never used a missing link to install a chain before. I've always use my chain puller. So I did it with the missing link just to see how it works but after installing it I realise that it wasn't a good idea for a fixed gear so I replace it by a normal link.

Has anybody ever ride a chain with missing link on a fixed gear, pedaling backwards should break the chain no? Just wondering.

streetlightpoet

Pardon my ignorance, but are you talking about a quicklink type device? If so I have always used one and the only time it's been a problem is on my mountain bikes.

operator

You need to think this over again. The quicklink is non-directional.

mihlbach

I have never ever had a single problem with a quicklink of any sort on any bicycle I have ever ridden (road, ss, fg, BMX, mtbs, tandems, etc.). I've even used quicklinks on fixies with an f'ed up chainline and still no problems. I've broken chains, but never at the quicklink.

Quicklinks are designed to withstand the same amount of tension as the rest of the chain. They facilitate easy removal of the chain for cleaning, lubing, replacing, etc. There is no reason not to use one.

There are several different quicklink desings...for instance, the KMC and SRAM quicklink mechanisms work differenly...but that all have worked flawlessly in my experience.

loser

But to install it you have to pedal foward so that the links clip together, so I was assuming that pedaling brackwards would put enough presure on that link to break the chain again.

https://www.bicyclebuys.com/productimages/1599908.jpg

anti.team

The SRAM quicklink (looks just like that KMC one) has to be squeezed together before it can come apart.

And for that matter, the direction you turn the pedals depends on where you put the quicklink. if you install it on the bottom section, you have to backpedal to lock it together anyway.

chase.

chains operate only in tension. whether the tension occurs on the top or bottom of the loop is irrelevant. there's no real way to apply compression to a chainlink, other than grasping the single link in pliers or a vise.

loser

I feel so stupid right now, I just couldn't figure out that pedaling backward wouldn't put compression on the chain as chase said.

I'll just blame drug abuse.

frankstoneline

its not as if using a chain breaker on it is terribly hard. I wouldnt beat yourself up over it, if it makes you more comfortable just do it the old fashioned way.

helloamerican

the answer to your question is no. but if your worried about it, use a regular link.

frankstoneline

what i was trying to say, but failing at horribly. thanks hello.
mai eenglich iz gud.

SinVoz

^ nice

operator

The funny thing is, this suggestion is probably worse as there is a much greater chance of ****ing up a chain install using the traditional method vs the quick link for a noob.

Charlesbian

chain breakers are a breeze to use, unlike you're like me and took out two links too many, then tried putting the pins back in, and thus spending 5 of the most frustrating hours of your life getting them to hold long enough to push em back in with the chain tool.

I figured out a system to do it easier, but still, i really wished i measured twice...

_mant

uh so what is the system?

helloamerican

i guess, i just sort of feel that if your brain can't handle the mechanics of 'the pin needs to be through the link' then you probably shouldn't be working on bikes at all.

operator

Let me clarify. Quick-links are easier and faster to install than with the traditional method. With less chance of error and zero chance of stiff links.

Superior in every way.

dobber

Except of course in this situation where.

avisualperson

which is the right set of KMC missing chain links to get for a typical SSFG? all of them say stuff about being appropriate for 6- or 7- or whatever, so I'm not sure which size (6.6mm? 7.1mm? 7.4mm?) i saw only one site that the 7.4 was supposed to be appropriate, my current chain is a KMC but I don't know what size exactly. and it shouldn't matter 1/8" vs 3/32" right?

joesch

Not seeing an answer to this question.

Do missing or quick links work for either 1/8" vs 3/32 chains ?

Mikefule

I just fitted a new 1/8 chain which came with a very simple to sue quick link. Not a type I've used before. It went on very easily.

In the past, I have mainly but not always used the chain tool to push a pin most of the way out. It's fairly quick and easy, and as long as you use the tool correctly to ensure the link moves freely when it's back in place, it works fine.

If you have the proper pliers to remove a quick link, it is undoubtedly faster. I finally succumbed and bought a pair last week. There are ways and means without the special pliers, but they are all fiddly and slow.

My one doubt about the various types of quick link is the way they insist you should use a new one every time. That sounds like lawyers writing the advertising copy to me. I can only report that I've reused them and I've never had a problem.

Old style connecting links for 1/8 chains used to come in 3 parts, the 3rd being a sort of elongated circlip. They were "unidirectional" in the sense that it is good practice to insert them with the closed end of the "circlip" facing the direction that the chain moves. This removes the largely theoretical risk of the circlip catching against something and pinging off.

sdimattia

Most KMC chains that use the "masterlink" system include one in the box . . . The width of your chain is determined by the chainring/cog you're running so it's kind of important if you don't want premature wear on your chain and drivetrain components. Correct me if I'm wrong here: you can run 1/8" chains on 3/32" drivetrains but not the other way around.

JohnDThompson 

A "missing link" designed for a 1/8" will work for a 1/8" chain. It's a bit more complicated with 3/32" chains, since these vary in width depending on whether they are designed for 8, 9, 10, 11, etc. sprocket clusters.

JohnDThompson 

Correct.

joesch

And any 3/32 quicklink will not work for a 1/8 chain. This is size obvious but maybe hard to see if the link is removed from its packaging.