Chain Innovation: Dual Engagement
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,706
Bikes: Trek 730 (quad), 720 & 830, Bike Friday NWT, Brompton M36R & M6R, Dahon HAT060 & HT060, ...
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 840 Post(s)
Liked 336 Times
in
251 Posts
Chain Innovation: Dual Engagement
For power transmission on a bike the chain has been difficult to beat. While generally beating other transmission methods, the transmission efficiency and chain and cog durability have been limited by the fact that relatively few teeth get engaged in the power transmission in any one time. The New Motion Labs put forward a new chain design that uses two pins per tooth and grabs the teeth more effectively and engages simultaneously a larger number of teeth in the power transmission. This is called Dual Engagement and should increase efficiency and lifetime of the components. Unfortunately in its current form the new chain design will not work with derailleurs. However, apparently a chain version specifically aimed at the derailleur systems is in the works.
The shapes of teeth in the cogs and rings would need to be modified for the new type of chain. However, since the cogs need to be frequently changed anyway and the rings occasionally too, it looks like current bikes might be adapted with limited bother. It now remains to be seen whether they get the chain mesh with derailleurs. Next would be getting the new drivetrain to sport competition and demonstrating its advantages in practice.
To me it looks like a real opening.
The shapes of teeth in the cogs and rings would need to be modified for the new type of chain. However, since the cogs need to be frequently changed anyway and the rings occasionally too, it looks like current bikes might be adapted with limited bother. It now remains to be seen whether they get the chain mesh with derailleurs. Next would be getting the new drivetrain to sport competition and demonstrating its advantages in practice.
To me it looks like a real opening.
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 6,016
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1814 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 923 Times
in
569 Posts
I don't quite see it- the load is still on the front of the tooth,
but maybe it will be the next disc brake or Di2. It would certainly up the ante for quick links!
but maybe it will be the next disc brake or Di2. It would certainly up the ante for quick links!
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,688
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1074 Post(s)
Liked 295 Times
in
222 Posts
I can’t see how that could work.
There is only one side that sees drive pressure.
I suppose it could kinda-sorta ”work” if you use a tooth profile that jams itself in between the rollers, preloading the interface between the roller and the rear flank. That way, while applying power, the rear flank would lose some preload. That loss of preload might be argued to add to the drive in the same manner some claim that a wheel stands on the spokes.
If that is what they’re going for, I struggle to see how that preload feature could make up for the friction losses of the jammed in teeth engaging and disengaging.
Also, keep in mind that a chain drive in good condition already is something like 98+% efficient. There really isn’t much room for improvement anyhow.
There is only one side that sees drive pressure.
I suppose it could kinda-sorta ”work” if you use a tooth profile that jams itself in between the rollers, preloading the interface between the roller and the rear flank. That way, while applying power, the rear flank would lose some preload. That loss of preload might be argued to add to the drive in the same manner some claim that a wheel stands on the spokes.
If that is what they’re going for, I struggle to see how that preload feature could make up for the friction losses of the jammed in teeth engaging and disengaging.
Also, keep in mind that a chain drive in good condition already is something like 98+% efficient. There really isn’t much room for improvement anyhow.
#4
Full Member
This sounds like something that was tried out already somewhere in 1902
and dismissed.
and dismissed.
Likes For Kovkov:
#5
Senior Member
It's an interesting idea, but they need to develop a version that can be shifted before it can move beyond being feasible for anything except single speed bikes. The current chain is clearly going to be more expensive to manufacture as it is more complex, and they will need to figure out a way to make the technology work without making the chain so wide, or you are going to limit the number of cogs you can run due to the extra spacing requirements between cogs. The most difficult thing for them to do may actually be to convince any of the major component manufacturers to license and produce chains using the technology as they are more of an R&D type company rather than a manufacturer, and it is likely that the drive train would need some sort of reworking to be compatible with this chain.
#6
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,706
Bikes: Trek 730 (quad), 720 & 830, Bike Friday NWT, Brompton M36R & M6R, Dahon HAT060 & HT060, ...
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 840 Post(s)
Liked 336 Times
in
251 Posts
On my main bike I need to replace the chain once a year. On a folder, when I replace the chain, I need to replace the cogs too. I find it well too much maintenance. The chain putting pressure on just few teeth just makes no sense. There must be a better solution.
#7
Full Member
The solution is 2x5 drivetrains maximum, thus chains that bend less and steel cogs.
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 18,095
Bikes: Stewart S&S coupled sport tourer, Stewart Sunday light, Stewart Commuting, Stewart Touring, Co Motion Tandem, Stewart 3-Spd, Stewart Track, Fuji Finest, Mongoose Tomac ATB, GT Bravado ATB, JCP Folder, Stewart 650B ATB
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4210 Post(s)
Liked 3,875 Times
in
2,315 Posts
I don't see this as any big new design. As others have said the drive forces are still seen by one face/side of the cog's teeth. Chains with more then one pair of link plates have been around for decades, So to for cogs with more then one tooth per chain pivot (I think of auto valve timing chains I've seen). Shimano patented a single sided chain years ago. Chains with a single set of plates/links with rollers/pins on both sides engaging a cog with two sets of teeth (having a gap between that the chain plates ride in) have been around a long time too.
I guess this is like the attempts to reinvent the wheel. A worthy goal but harder to actually improve on then your investors expect. Andy
I guess this is like the attempts to reinvent the wheel. A worthy goal but harder to actually improve on then your investors expect. Andy
__________________
AndrewRStewart
AndrewRStewart
#9
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,706
Bikes: Trek 730 (quad), 720 & 830, Bike Friday NWT, Brompton M36R & M6R, Dahon HAT060 & HT060, ...
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 840 Post(s)
Liked 336 Times
in
251 Posts
I don't see this as any big new design. As others have said the drive forces are still seen by one face/side of the cog's teeth. Chains with more then one pair of link plates have been around for decades, So to for cogs with more then one tooth per chain pivot (I think of auto valve timing chains I've seen).
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 2,266
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 714 Post(s)
Liked 800 Times
in
475 Posts
Looks like a skip tooth chain without the rollers. They replaced the friction of the roller against the pin with the pin rubbing directly on the tooth. It seems like the tooth will wear in short order and negate the "dual engagement" aspect, if there really was any positive benefit from that in the first place.
#11
Randomhead
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 3,699 Times
in
2,519 Posts
The engagement doesn't look too good in their video
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Mission Viejo
Posts: 5,806
Bikes: 1986 Cannondale SR400 (Flat bar commuter), 1988 Cannondale Criterium XTR, 1992 Serotta T-Max, 1995 Trek 970
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1944 Post(s)
Liked 2,164 Times
in
1,323 Posts
The real issue is the cog spacing. People who are pleased with 1x11 or 1x12 wouldn’t give them up for a $100 chain and half the gearing range.
As I glanced through the site it noted e-bike and belt drives. For internal gearing, or single speed, especially with electric assist, there is probably a market. Applying 750 watts to a drivetrain could benefit from it.
John
As I glanced through the site it noted e-bike and belt drives. For internal gearing, or single speed, especially with electric assist, there is probably a market. Applying 750 watts to a drivetrain could benefit from it.
John
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Posts: 40,865
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac, Canyon Exceed, Specialized Transition, Ellsworth Roots, Ridley Excalibur
Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2952 Post(s)
Liked 3,106 Times
in
1,417 Posts
From the photo, that chain looks like it weighs a ton and has minimal lateral flexibility. Track sprinters and BMXers, possibly.
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,906
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder
Mentioned: 129 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4806 Post(s)
Liked 3,932 Times
in
2,557 Posts
Total aside, but along that train of thought. When I conceived of the design for the fix gear in my logo, I drew up an "L" shaped dropout to be a very easy dropout to remove a fix gear wheel from, even after screwing on a very big cog that brought the wheel all the way forward. (I love it! Works great!) I took it to the local fix gear guru. He took a look and said it had been done, perhaps in the '30s. 3 years ago I saw a track bike built by a Bay area with a forged dropout he had made. Last week learned that a forum member has an old mixte with that style dropout (two miles from my house and perhaps the dropout I was told about.)
And to come back to now. There is one minor aspect of modern chains that is that little elephant in the room. Reliability. The most critical part of the drivechain is nowhere near as reliable as it was just 40 years ago. Don't believe me? Read the race reports. Yes, we are addicted to having in a million cogs and accepting that a mechanical reliability that would be a nightmare for a mechanic in charge of (say) industrial machinery is OK for us. I know this first hand, I have a 9-speed bike, 7-speed bike and 3 1/8" fix gear bikes. The old roller design 1/8" chains running on aligned cogs operate like a good reliable machine (except for the exposure to dust but that was accounted for in the chain size 120 years ago by those bright engineers). I can see this new chain as running like a dream on my fix gears, Too bad I am invested in so many expensive cogs!
#15
FLIR Kitten to 0.05C
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
Posts: 5,331
Bikes: Roadie: Seven Axiom Race Ti w/Chorus 11s. CX/Adventure: Carver Gravel Grinder w/ Di2
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2349 Post(s)
Liked 406 Times
in
254 Posts
Which...if IGH development picked up steam and marketshare wouldn't be that big a thing. Of course..SS chain is already insanely efficient as is.
Likes For Marcus_Ti:
#16
Newbie
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 55
Bikes: 1986 Cannondale SR600
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
6 Posts
I see no merit to this design, whichever way I look at it. I just see a bunch of smoke and mirrors.
First, if there are truly two pins making contact per tooth, only one of them is transmitting force in the direction you want. The other one is ultimately working against you, and any force that it's applying means more force for the other pin. That's not a load sharing arrangement, it's an advesarial one. If you have a friend help you push a car, but they're pushing the other end of the car from you, that's not helping! If you just get rid of the pin that's working against you and join up the remaining pins, what you're left with is the conventional chain they're trying to distinguish themselves from!
How much load is taken by the first tooth of a conventional chain/sprocket isn't inherently defined to be any particular value, it's a design parameter that's set by the choice of the tooth angle. It's as high as it is because that's the best practical value for it to be. You could design it so that 1% of the work being done by the chain is transmitted to the first tooth if you wanted. 1% of the remaining chain tension is borne by the next, and 1% of what's left is borne by the next, and so on. However, after going halfway around the sprocket, you'd still have a lot of tension left - all those 1%'s don't add up anywhere close to 100%. What this means is that the "slack" side of the chain needs to have a significant tension on it in order to keep the chain from skipping. Conversely, for a given 'slack' side tension, there is a limit to how much working tension you can have before the chain skips, and that maximum depends directly on how much work each tooth does relative to how much it passes on.
Roughly speaking, for engaging the 6 teeth halfway around a 12 tooth sprocket, and you have each tooth do 60% (I think that's the number they gave for a conventional arrangement) of the work presented to it by the chain, the taut side can support up to 1/0.4^6= 244x of the slack side's tension. If we try to reduce the 60% down to 40%, the maximum tension goes down to 1/0.6^6=21x the slack tension. This is an 11-fold reduction in capacity for a modest 1/3 reduction in leading tooth work! If we go down to 10% work taken by the leading tooth, the capacity is only 1/0.9^6=1.88x or yet another 11-fold reduction!
So where between the 60% and 10% are these guys shooting for? Whatever the value is, you can make a sprocket with tooth shape of appropriate pressure angle to reproduce that with a normal chain. The sprocket at its contact points will be practically identical both ways, the only real difference being in the chain. How is the more complicated chain design any better conventional in this arrangement?
In fact, whatever they shoot for is a value that would be seen by a normal sprocket/chain if you just let the chain wear enough. As the chain wears, it rides higher on sprocket teeth. As it goes up around the curve of the tooth, the pressure angle gets shallower, and the work transmitted by the leading tooth reduces. As that happens, the load capacity of the chain also reduces. Keep going long enough and once you pedal harder than the reduced capacity, your chain skips!
Roller chains have been around a long time and are well understood. I get the sense these people are too blinded by the fancy CAD and simulation tools available nowadays to understand the underlying fundamentals. I wonder whether these people are even aware of the book, Mechanics of the roller chain drive: Based on mathematical studies by R.C. Binder, or if they even understand the concept of GPLD (Geometric Progression Load Distribution) used in every paper I've seen on chain mechanics.
They're good at making pretty pictures, but that's about it as far as I can tell.
First, if there are truly two pins making contact per tooth, only one of them is transmitting force in the direction you want. The other one is ultimately working against you, and any force that it's applying means more force for the other pin. That's not a load sharing arrangement, it's an advesarial one. If you have a friend help you push a car, but they're pushing the other end of the car from you, that's not helping! If you just get rid of the pin that's working against you and join up the remaining pins, what you're left with is the conventional chain they're trying to distinguish themselves from!
How much load is taken by the first tooth of a conventional chain/sprocket isn't inherently defined to be any particular value, it's a design parameter that's set by the choice of the tooth angle. It's as high as it is because that's the best practical value for it to be. You could design it so that 1% of the work being done by the chain is transmitted to the first tooth if you wanted. 1% of the remaining chain tension is borne by the next, and 1% of what's left is borne by the next, and so on. However, after going halfway around the sprocket, you'd still have a lot of tension left - all those 1%'s don't add up anywhere close to 100%. What this means is that the "slack" side of the chain needs to have a significant tension on it in order to keep the chain from skipping. Conversely, for a given 'slack' side tension, there is a limit to how much working tension you can have before the chain skips, and that maximum depends directly on how much work each tooth does relative to how much it passes on.
Roughly speaking, for engaging the 6 teeth halfway around a 12 tooth sprocket, and you have each tooth do 60% (I think that's the number they gave for a conventional arrangement) of the work presented to it by the chain, the taut side can support up to 1/0.4^6= 244x of the slack side's tension. If we try to reduce the 60% down to 40%, the maximum tension goes down to 1/0.6^6=21x the slack tension. This is an 11-fold reduction in capacity for a modest 1/3 reduction in leading tooth work! If we go down to 10% work taken by the leading tooth, the capacity is only 1/0.9^6=1.88x or yet another 11-fold reduction!
So where between the 60% and 10% are these guys shooting for? Whatever the value is, you can make a sprocket with tooth shape of appropriate pressure angle to reproduce that with a normal chain. The sprocket at its contact points will be practically identical both ways, the only real difference being in the chain. How is the more complicated chain design any better conventional in this arrangement?
In fact, whatever they shoot for is a value that would be seen by a normal sprocket/chain if you just let the chain wear enough. As the chain wears, it rides higher on sprocket teeth. As it goes up around the curve of the tooth, the pressure angle gets shallower, and the work transmitted by the leading tooth reduces. As that happens, the load capacity of the chain also reduces. Keep going long enough and once you pedal harder than the reduced capacity, your chain skips!
Roller chains have been around a long time and are well understood. I get the sense these people are too blinded by the fancy CAD and simulation tools available nowadays to understand the underlying fundamentals. I wonder whether these people are even aware of the book, Mechanics of the roller chain drive: Based on mathematical studies by R.C. Binder, or if they even understand the concept of GPLD (Geometric Progression Load Distribution) used in every paper I've seen on chain mechanics.
They're good at making pretty pictures, but that's about it as far as I can tell.
Likes For luns:
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicago area
Posts: 2,551
Bikes: Airborne "Carpe Diem", Motobecane "Mirage", Trek 6000, Strida 2, Dahon "Helios XL", Dahon "Mu XL", Tern "Verge S11i"
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 980 Post(s)
Liked 582 Times
in
399 Posts
I am puzzled by this. As a folding bike owner for about 18 years, I've been going through 3 or 4 chains before needing rear sprockets. If you have to replace the cogs with every chain, I wonder if you are keeping track of chain wear. Replacing the chain when it has elongated between 0.75% and 1% should greatly extend the life of the cogs and chainrings.
Also, what does the bike being a folder have to do with chain wear? I am genuinely curious.
Also, what does the bike being a folder have to do with chain wear? I am genuinely curious.
#18
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,706
Bikes: Trek 730 (quad), 720 & 830, Bike Friday NWT, Brompton M36R & M6R, Dahon HAT060 & HT060, ...
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 840 Post(s)
Liked 336 Times
in
251 Posts
I am puzzled by this. As a folding bike owner for about 18 years, I've been going through 3 or 4 chains before needing rear sprockets. If you have to replace the cogs with every chain, I wonder if you are keeping track of chain wear. Replacing the chain when it has elongated between 0.75% and 1% should greatly extend the life of the cogs and chainrings.
Also, what does the bike being a folder have to do with chain wear? I am genuinely curious.
Also, what does the bike being a folder have to do with chain wear? I am genuinely curious.
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 18,095
Bikes: Stewart S&S coupled sport tourer, Stewart Sunday light, Stewart Commuting, Stewart Touring, Co Motion Tandem, Stewart 3-Spd, Stewart Track, Fuji Finest, Mongoose Tomac ATB, GT Bravado ATB, JCP Folder, Stewart 650B ATB
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4210 Post(s)
Liked 3,875 Times
in
2,315 Posts
If chain wear and it's resulting failure paths are dangerous then by all means replace that chain far more often the most here do!. I have found it is the periodic maintenance that creates a bike that is dependable and not how expensive or cheap the bike is.
This has little to do with chain dynamics or other engineering principles. It has everything to do with confidence in your bike and it's abilities. Andy
This has little to do with chain dynamics or other engineering principles. It has everything to do with confidence in your bike and it's abilities. Andy
__________________
AndrewRStewart
AndrewRStewart
Likes For Andrew R Stewart:
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 18,095
Bikes: Stewart S&S coupled sport tourer, Stewart Sunday light, Stewart Commuting, Stewart Touring, Co Motion Tandem, Stewart 3-Spd, Stewart Track, Fuji Finest, Mongoose Tomac ATB, GT Bravado ATB, JCP Folder, Stewart 650B ATB
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4210 Post(s)
Liked 3,875 Times
in
2,315 Posts
As I hit "post" on that last one I thought of one of my earlier moments of clarity of planning and expectation. When I was learning to make a frame the shop owner had a short term GF. She was also making her own frame, one that she planned to ride around the world on (this in 1979). But it was her component choices that did the deed to me. A cotter pinned crankset! When we were drooling for Campy NR or maybe a Stronglight 99 she was thinking what could she fix in a rural African village. My eyes opened to there being more worlds/cultures then the limited one I had experienced at 23 years old.
2_i mentions going where a bike failure might be dangerous. I suggest he/she seeks really old and proven designs and not new and poorly distributed ones. Andy
2_i mentions going where a bike failure might be dangerous. I suggest he/she seeks really old and proven designs and not new and poorly distributed ones. Andy
__________________
AndrewRStewart
AndrewRStewart
#22
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,706
Bikes: Trek 730 (quad), 720 & 830, Bike Friday NWT, Brompton M36R & M6R, Dahon HAT060 & HT060, ...
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 840 Post(s)
Liked 336 Times
in
251 Posts
I think what's happening here is the dual pin will eventually sink deeper in the teeth (eliminating slack) as the chain and cog wears.
It's essentially self-adjusting as the mechanism wears down so the loads on the teeth is evenly distributed despite signficant wear of components, allowing for longer life of smooth operation.
It's essentially self-adjusting as the mechanism wears down so the loads on the teeth is evenly distributed despite signficant wear of components, allowing for longer life of smooth operation.
#23
Newbie
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 55
Bikes: 1986 Cannondale SR600
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
6 Posts
I think what's happening here is the dual pin will eventually sink deeper in the teeth (eliminating slack) as the chain and cog wears.
It's essentially self-adjusting as the mechanism wears down so the loads on the teeth is evenly distributed despite signficant wear of components, allowing for longer life of smooth operation.
It's essentially self-adjusting as the mechanism wears down so the loads on the teeth is evenly distributed despite signficant wear of components, allowing for longer life of smooth operation.
There is a 1-1 correspondence of the engagement between the dual pin contacting a tooth, and a conventional roller fitting into the cut between teeth. The dual pins contact both sides of the tooth only where the conventional roller is resting on the bottom portion of the cut between teeth and not against the sides of the teeth. However, work is not done between chain and sprocket here, this is where the chain is behaving as if it's wrapped around a toothless drum. For any engagement outside of this base circle, the chain only engages one side of the tooth, the same as a conventional chain.
Even worse, I expect there's much more sliding motion between the pin pairs on a tooth as they go through the base circle region than does a normal roller rocking its way through the corresponding bottom of its cut. This is more frictional loss, not less as they claim. When the chain is off the base circle and bearing on the sides of the teeth, the pins look to be a smaller radius than a normal roller. This concentrates stress in the tooth more, not less as they claim.
The emperor has no clothes!
#24
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,706
Bikes: Trek 730 (quad), 720 & 830, Bike Friday NWT, Brompton M36R & M6R, Dahon HAT060 & HT060, ...
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 840 Post(s)
Liked 336 Times
in
251 Posts
From my reading of the literature in the past, most losses are in the low-frequency, subsonic waves pushed into the drivetrain, not friction. These waves are generated when full tension is applied to the teeth, but there is a wavering in there.
#25
Newbie
Join Date: Aug 2020
Posts: 55
Bikes: 1986 Cannondale SR600
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
6 Posts
Even worse, I expect there's much more sliding motion between the pin pairs on a tooth as they go through the base circle region than does a normal roller rocking its way through the corresponding bottom of its cut. This is more frictional loss, not less as they claim. When the chain is off the base circle and bearing on the sides of the teeth, the pins look to be a smaller radius than a normal roller. This concentrates stress in the tooth more, not less as they claim.