Rkman

Hello,
i was just wondering what the difference is between a cheap chain such as the kmc x9.9 vs a more expensive chain like the sram 991 chain. Could someone let me know?

Thanks in advanced

rgconner

Weight?

As mentioned on the OTHER thread on chains, KMC makes the SRAM chain... and Shimano chains.

JohnnyCyclist

Weight. Bling factor, maybe (shiny and with cut-outs). I save my money and buy cheap chains. The few grams saved doesn't matter, and after a few rides most of the shine is gone.

sdmc530

Yep, the KMC chains are good IMO. The shiny blingy ones work just a well as the plain ones. Maybe a touch harder to clean and weight a bit more but no reason to buy shiny for a few grams...not for me anyway.

sanmi

pesty

Not a 9speed, but I run KMC 11-speed chains (X11.93) on both my road and cross bikes. Minimal difference in weight between that and spending twice as much on Shimano or SRAM, and I've noticed no discernible difference in shifting performance or durability/longevity.

exime

KMC chains are infinitely easier to maintain. Undo the link. (Buy set of kmc links with your chain). Take chain off the bike. Clean everything. Put it back on the bike. Reattach a new link. Just like new.

edit:

looks like the Shimano chains have quick links now too.

ThermionicScott 

True for Shimano, don't think so on the SRAM. (Unless KMC has a factory in Portugal.)

DrIsotope

I've used both a SRAM PC-1110 and a Connex 11SX-- that's a $14 chain vs. a $70 chain. The Connex was a little quieter, and the shifting stayed smoother a bit longer. Did it last long enough to warrant the disparity in price, or perform better in any measurable regard to warrant said price? It did not. I mean, it would need to last 5x as long to beat the 1110 on $$$ per mile alone.

Chains, as with anything else, have a sweet-spot in price where going below saves you a few bucks in exchange for a little more weight and a lot less bling, and going above costs you a few bucks (or more) for a little less weight and often a lot more bling. So I just generally stick to the chain that matches the cassette. Buy a 6800 cassette, get a 6800 (or HG701) chain. Same for SRAM 1170, 1190, whatever. A very good chain can be had all day for about 35 bucks. There aren't many other parts that last as long, while doing as much work, for as little money. But if I'm riding in the mud and muck, I don't hesitate to pick up another PC-1110. They're so cheap they're nearly disposable.

CliffordK

I've been chewing up Shimano chains all too quickly. 1000 to 2000 and they're toast.

And, with a little lapse of attention, my cassette or freewheel is toast too.

I've decided to run a test with Wippermann Connex SX chains. I have a couple of them on order, and am waiting for then to arrive.

My hope is to get 3x as many miles out of a chain, and lessen the wear on the cassettes. I've rotated a couple of chains out, but have been avoiding rotating then back in. However, say I could rotate wear on 4 chains with a total of 5000 miles per chain, I could get a good long use out of the overall drivetrain... hopefully.

Anyway, at least the inside Wippermann wear tests indicate that not all chains are created equal.

exime

Shimano chains destroy our cassette and freewheel? Weird I've been riding shimano chains my entire life and I've never heard of such a thing. Must be a Bike Forum thing.

redlude97

If you run them past 0.5% elongation they will quickly eat up cassettes and then chainrings.

fietsbob

Given; a tendency to use an expensive chain too long due to replacement costs ,
It may be better to buy several cheaper chains and replace them ,
often so as to not wear cassettes and chainrings as quickly..
Chains? It's all Steel in any case..

noodle soup

True, but any worn out chain will do that, It’s not a trait that is exclusive to Shimano chains.

redlude97

I think he was saying that the shimano chains were wearing out quickly in 1-2000 miles, not that they were causing excess wear once worn out. I've seen 10 speed shimano chains wear out in that amount of time/distance using a thin lube on a wet weather commuter and learned my lesson quickly having to replace the cassette at the same time

noodle soup

I concur.

My experience with Shimano chains is different, but so is my weather. I get about 3000-3300 miles from a DA chain, but I live in Phoenix. Wippermann chains last longer, but cost more. I guess a longer lasting chain would give the user a little more leeway before damaging the cassette.

Sy Reene

A few varieties though.. just for the stainless:

noodle soup

thanks.

This doesn’t even take into account some of the coatings that reduce friction.

Some chains are better than others.

fietsbob

Such computer skills you can pay for expensive things like Bay area Houses, too

CliffordK

I think there is a continuous wear caused by stretching a chain.

So, it isn't that everything is just fine up until 0.5%, or 0.8%, then all hell breaks loose.

Rather, a new cassette should work best with 0% chain wear, and will start seeing the chain climbing on the sprockets as one starts getting chain wear, and thus damaging the cassette.

So, extending that period of time just makes sense to me.

The question then is whether one is better off say rotating chains.

Riding to say 0.1% wear. Pulling it, putting a new chain on, riding it to 0.1% wear, then putting the original back on and riding it to 0.2% wear before rotating again.

That would be a lot of rotating, but a good opportunity for cleaning and maintenance.

And, of course, I hate putting a partly worn chain back onto my good cassettes and chainrings.

I do distribute my riding between a couple of bikes, but I do get quite a few miles in a year, so I can chew through quite a few chains & etc.

What I'll probably do is keep good chains on the road bike, then rotate them onto the commuter. Perhaps I can even break the sprockets into say a 0.3% worn chain.

As far as chain value:

Say Chain X costs $25
And Chain Y costs $50, but gets 2x the wear of chain X. Then I believe Chain Y may be a better deal due to making the chain wear through the least damaging periods longer. If, however, Chain Y gets 3x the wear, then it should be the obvious choice.

As stated, I'm still early in the Wippermann testing, but I have high hopes.

Sy Reene

You seemingly have seen the Wipperman test charts (which I've posted as well in other recent threads)? I'm not sure what your theory is as regards to what the least damaging period is(?), but the SX chain according to their chart, lasted 85 hours to get to .5% wear (great, right?). However, 60 of the 85 hours (70%) were spent in the .3 to .5% region. Isn't this then the chain that will be used in its most damaging period (to your cassette, chainrings) for the largest proportion of its lifetime?

NYMXer

After breaking a few stock chains on my Mtb's, I upgraded (?) to the gold series chains offered on Amazon. I have had such good luck with them that I decided to use them on my road bike and after 5,000 miles last year, the chain is still well within spec's.
Moral, as far as I am concerned.... the gold chains cost about double but last more than twice as long without leaving me stranded when the stockers break.

CliffordK

Hmmm,

I was looking at their 1.0 as the endpoint. But, you're right, it depends on the endpoint one chooses.

The KMC 11sl Gold appears to have a slower initial wear, followed by a phase of rapidly accelerating wear as one passes 0.5% wear. Nonetheless, that might be a good alternative if one wishes to replace the chains early.

Racing Dan

That is a lot of rotation. How about rotating at 0.5% and discarding at 0.75-1%. There is no need for all the intermittent steps.

znomit

105 chains are 16$ at wiggle right now. Thats less than my average cafe stop.