jawnn

Does good oil make a cheap chain last as long as an expensive one?
Chain-L is good, but I am still testing it.

Some one told me that chains used to be made stronger some how. Maybe they lasted longer because they werer wider?? Has any one got a photo?

What makes a Wipperman chain worth $75??? just stainless steel and reputation based on advertising?

Why does a Sram chain cost $10 more than Shimmano?

sreten

Hi,

A good chain oiled properly will last longer than a cheap one oiled properly.

Modern bushless bike chains are not as strong as the older bushed chains,
but for a bike that is irrelevant, and the modern bushless chains are easier
to lube properly, so they last longer, as well as they change gears better.

Obviously the wider the chain the longer it will last, but bike dependent.

Personally I'd pay a little more for a nickel plated chain, then I don't care.

rgds, sreten.

jawnn

what did brushed chains look like? I never heard the term "brushless"

Asi

it's about bushing of the chains, and without bushing:

top picture is a bushed chain, bottom picture is a bushingless chain
https://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-004/chainparts.jpg

sreten

Hi, bushed and bushless, rgds, sreten.

davidad

New and improved may not always be improved. https://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/chain-care.html

cny-bikeman

Hi,

Actually that would be conventional (or bushinged) and bushingless. Chains were never equipped with bushes, though some have been known to acquire portions of them in rough terrain.

FBinNY 

The older (over 30 years older for derailleur chains) had 4 flat plates (two inner, 2 outer) plates. The inners were connected with s short piece of tubing (bushing). This had a few advantages. The first is that the materials could be chosen according to function, ie bearing grade pins. bushings and rollers, tough high strength (but not as hard) for the plates. Also the bushing afforded full width support for the roller. Lastly the system reduced the entry of dirt to the pin/bushing interface reducing pin wear.

The problem is that these chains weren't as flexible, and side stress would often push a plate over the edge of the bushing causing stiff links. The design was acceptable until adding more speeds called for narrower chains at which point it would have become unworkable.

Sometime around 1970 Sedis, a leading French chain producer, introduced the so-called "bushingless" chain, whose design remains in use for derailleir chains today. In lieu of connecting 2 flat plates with tubing to make a inner link, the inner plates are formed with lips at their holes, each roughly half the width if the inner link. When placed facing each other, the lips imitated the tubular bushing, providing a bearing area for both pins and rollers.

The advanage is immunity from the stiff link failure of inner plates coming off bushing, increased side flexibility, and lower cost. This design made narrower spacing possible, and allowed progress beyond 5s all the way to the 10s and 11s we see today. But it had a cost. Since the bushing was formed from the inner plate, the material had to be a compromise, since bearing grade steels are too brittle to use as plates. The design also left a pathway for dirt to the pin. Lastly there was reduced bearing surface inside and out. These, combined with reduced width are why modern chains wear faster and are more dependent on better lubrication to provide minimally acceptable service life.

sreten

Hi,

Pendaticism aside, don't try to tell the British how to speak English. A bush
is a bush in British engineering, even if you want to call it a bushing in the US.

rgds, sreten.

dddd

I've noticed that in terms of how many miles that I can ride before a chain gets squeeky, the modern chains win, hands down.
But this is with today's more solvent-diluted lubes.
I credit this to the old chain's solid inner link, which puts a lot more contact stress (and friction) between the inner and outer sideplates when the chain is however-slightly crossed between front and rear sprockets.

I'm sure that modern chains have superior metallurgy as well, in terms of lasting a very long time on very scant lubrication. The steels involved are practically self-lubricating due to their carbon dispersion and wear-resisting oxide chemistry.

Lastly, modern chains are lighter and better-shifting, and are usually, literally, the only component (besides pedals and rubber) that must be changed in order for the old bikes to satisfy my performance standards. Today's chains are amazing, and can offer an amazing level of improvement to many vintage bicycles, even if some of the old French and Italian freewheels are not compatible with modern chain.

TaYa and KMC's lower-level chains really do wear out a lot quicker than mid-priced offerings, while KMC's X-series chain is excellent.

jawnn

So the bushings did not particularly provide less friction? It sounds fishy to me; actually I think they wanted to make a lighter weight chain that was cheaper to produce, and people fell for it because of the obsession with shaving off a few grams.

Is it possable to get chains with bushings now??

FBinNY 

The friction savings would be minimal either way, since friction relates to the materials, and lubrication and not to surface area. Since the material is steel both ways, any difference would be tiny. But the bearing grade bushing provided for longer wear life.

OTOH you wouldn't want a bushing chain these days (even if you found one) because your derailleur system wants more side flexibility than is possible with this design. Also, it would be difficult to produce a bushing chain narrow enough for today's requirements.

When it comes down to it, buy a decent (mid-qulaity) chain, keep it reasonable clean and lubricated, and replace it as necessary. With decent choices, drivetrain maintenance costs will not be a major factor either way.

jawnn

Does shifting have a lot to do with side plate shape?

rebel1916

Pedantics aside, you have, admittedly, been riding for 6 months, and started spouting very strong and often erroneous opinion as fact, on this very website, with about one month of two wheeled experience.

FBinNY 

In theory, yes. The major players who make both chains and sprockets spend serious dough trying to make the best working combinations of chains and sprockets. All three will tell you that their systems work best if you use their chains, and I'll grant that there's a bit of truth to that. However the differences are slight, and most people report little, if any, noticeable difference when mixing chain and sprocket brands.

Of course, you do need the right width chains.

Don't obsess over this, ANY chain of decent quality and the right width will give excellent performance on any brand sprockets. Many here on the forum are running Shimano chainrings with Sram cassettes and KMC chains successfully and you can't mix it much more than that.

jawnn

Both words are correct. My dictionary says a bush is the same as bushing. I did not recognize the word, because americans use bushings mostly. Interesting.


The last chain I used on my recumbent was two different brands of chain spliced together. Works fine.

I read a review of wipperman compaired to shimano and sram, they said the wipperman shifts easyer becasue of the more oval side plates.

FBinNY 

BTW- the OP asked for a photo or drawing in his original post. I haven't read through to see if anyone provided one, but just in case he still cares, here's a link to both photos and cross section sketches.

Feel free to scroll down for more info about chains than you'll ever want to know.

sreten

Hi,

Well go for the personal, given you have nothing better to do,
and by all means employ an argument along the lines that you
think I'm stupid for reasoning that makes no sense, back it up
with claimed observations that are simply wrong, and bask in
your implied intellectual superiority of putting a lesser down.

Pathetic .............

rgds, sreten.

None of which has anything to do with the post commented on.
I don't need my English pendatically (in)corrected by an American.

FBinNY 

Sreten, not referring to you, but using this as a jumping off point only.

Let's be real, this is a forum, and those who contribute offer no credentials, and few posts cite reliable sources. So just about everything here is either opinion, 2nd or nth hand fact, rumor, or generally accepted opinion.

It's up to readers to make judgements about the reliability of any post, based on things like whether others concur, the past reliability of the source, and how it fits with their own prior knowledge. Even then there are many ways to skin a cat, so folks can disagree with neither being wrong.

Given the nature of the forum and that nobody is writing an engineering thesis, there's no need to get into personalities or name calling. If someone is wrong, there will be enough credible costs offering an alternate view, and readers will see a range of opinion and are free to draw their own conclusions.


BTW- systems having bushings (or bushes) are often described as bushed, and I don't mean they just finished a 100 mile ride on a hot day.

rebel1916

Well sure, this is the interwebs. But where as your style is pedantic, mine is more wisenheimer. So I do take issue on that one small point...

sreten

Hi,

I removed the text you quoted as I realised my meaning would be misunderstood.

Still my point was anyone making nothing but personal judgements about people to attempt
to validate the veracity of what they are saying, have no idea what they are talking about.

rgds, sreten.

Bushed and bushless is not confusing related
to the two types of chain being discussed.

In my UK English I could say to someone you should
really bush that bearing, no idea what the US speak is.

cny-bikeman

I was simply not aware that the English referred to them as bushes. Forgive me for the error, but given the state of some posts on thls forum it's understandable that I thought your usage was incorrect. As for pedanticism (or do they spell that differently in England?) a correction with attendant humor hardly meets that measure.

Airburst

Why not? It's not like anyone over here speaks it properly these days...

sreten

Hi,

Whatever. Bushed and Bushless clearly indicate the intended meaning whether they
are the terms you are used to or not. I worked in in a multinational company and got
rather good at understanding technical English written by second language authors.
But that was always a minor issue, once you've discussed the big issues and ideas,
they were very receptive to improved wording. Otherway round, pedantic drivel.

rgds, sreten.

Storm in a teacup about nothing. I got arsy because of the
incorrect implications, which is I'm stupid, which I'm not,
and the person implying that, is the one being stupid.

TheReal Houdini

Can you tell the difference between good bush and bad Bush?