Do Chain Checkers really measure the stated %0.5, %0.75 etc. ?
#76
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,692
Bikes: Trek 730 (quad), 720 & 830, Bike Friday NWT, Brompton M36R & M6R, Dahon HAT060 & HT060, ...
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 834 Post(s)
Liked 332 Times
in
247 Posts
Makes sense - with one "complaint": 99.9% of the chain gauges don't measure the correct dimension - they are inherently imprecise, by design.
Why no one else makes a tool like Shimano TL-CN42 (i.e. why they make any other chain gauge tool design) is beyond me. Am I missing something?
Why no one else makes a tool like Shimano TL-CN42 (i.e. why they make any other chain gauge tool design) is beyond me. Am I missing something?
It is a horribly bad instrument as was discussed before. The idea is OK but maybe difficult to execute.
#77
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Wherever I am
Posts: 8,611
Bikes: Merlin Cyrene, Nashbar steel CX
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4717 Post(s)
Liked 1,526 Times
in
997 Posts
Well, I am late to the party and most of the important points were already made, starting with the fact that the very question of chain wear is not very precise. In any case, in the past I got a chain checker, ProGold Chain Guage, giving continuous wear values and nominally accurate down to about 0.01%. It was the worst checker ever in my hands, off by 0.7%. I returned it and got my money back
And, I guess while perhaps that specific brand/model of tool may well in fact be inaccurate, does that necessarily mean that someone else that knows more about machining or manufacturing, couldn't make one of this type of design that was accurate?
Interestingly, the Progold website itself shows a different scale on this tool (1-10 which is "Max"), but no idea how the instructions read:
#78
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Pedro's makes Chain Checker Plus, which is a copy of Shimano's predecessor TL-CN41. In any case, such tools are largely not manufactured because the extra benefit they bring in is largely illusory. The elongation of interest is in the distance between the same sides of rollers for subsequent links. Because of this distance being small and representing measurement challenges, distances over a number of links are measured. However, when increasing the link number, all instruments, including TL-CN42, add extra pin to pin distances. For a number of links, the 'right' or 'wrong' side of the roller wear distance elongation contribution shrinks by division over link number. In the limit of a large number of links, you just measure the pin to pin elongation for every instrument/method.
Another advantage is this design can measure wear for chains with different roller sizes.
On the other hand It is not clear what exactly they mean by %100. Does it mean %1 ? or Maybe it corresponds to %0.5 mark. How was it when you checked it against a ruler or other checkers?
Last edited by John_E; 12-09-20 at 09:28 AM.
#79
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,692
Bikes: Trek 730 (quad), 720 & 830, Bike Friday NWT, Brompton M36R & M6R, Dahon HAT060 & HT060, ...
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 834 Post(s)
Liked 332 Times
in
247 Posts
I found your reference, but a couple things I'm not clear on. I look at that tool and interpreted the "50%" to mean 'half worn' or maybe equivalent to .5% stretch with another checker? How did you come up with it having a supposed nominal accuracy of .01%?
And, I guess while perhaps that specific brand/model of tool may well in fact be inaccurate, does that necessarily mean that someone else that knows more about machining or manufacturing, couldn't make one of this type of design that was accurate?
Interestingly, the Progold website itself shows a different scale on this tool (1-10 which is "Max"), but no idea how the instructions read:
And, I guess while perhaps that specific brand/model of tool may well in fact be inaccurate, does that necessarily mean that someone else that knows more about machining or manufacturing, couldn't make one of this type of design that was accurate?
Interestingly, the Progold website itself shows a different scale on this tool (1-10 which is "Max"), but no idea how the instructions read:
In any case, in my memory the full scale was 1% and the marked increments were 0.1%. Given that by eye you can tell 1/10 of the increment, the nominal accuracy for a customer is 0.01%. The problem was that that gauge was showing 0.7% stretch on new chains and I could confirm the expected quality, 0.1% or better, of those new chains with a ruler.
The ProLink gauge looked like made with a laser cutter. I have no idea where the manufacturing problem emerged - maybe in the heating and cooling of the relatively narrow stretch of the metal. You can look up the reviews on Amazon and the issue of readings being completely off is repeated. For me it brought back a vague recollection that falsified weight references were penalized in the remote past with chopped off hands and pondering whether the National Bureau of Standards should get involved in the bike area.
#80
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,692
Bikes: Trek 730 (quad), 720 & 830, Bike Friday NWT, Brompton M36R & M6R, Dahon HAT060 & HT060, ...
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 834 Post(s)
Liked 332 Times
in
247 Posts
I don't think I get what you are saying here. These tools are designed to measure elongation without the addition of roller wear. They assume that roller wear is uniform among all rollers hence when the front and mid rollers are pushed the same direction the roller wear is canceled out.
Another advantage is this design can measure wear for chains with different roller sizes.
Another advantage is this design can measure wear for chains with different roller sizes.
#81
I'm good to go!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,800
Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6099 Post(s)
Liked 4,730 Times
in
3,260 Posts
Seems this is all a lot of overthinking on a issue that doesn't change the go no-go decision on a chain by 500 miles to maybe a 1000 miles at the most.
But I guess if y'all had fun thinking and explaining it then that is all that really matters! <grin>
But I guess if y'all had fun thinking and explaining it then that is all that really matters! <grin>
Last edited by Iride01; 12-09-20 at 03:53 PM. Reason: a not and, maybe it should be an... but a works!
Likes For Iride01:
#82
Senior Member
If I took chains out of service at .5% elongation, I'd not toss them, just put them aside. If 5 or more chains have been used and new-chain skip has never occurred, it would indicate that you're probably not using each chain long enough and wasting money on chains, just to add a little more life to the cassette. Each of those used, but not worn out chains could be used longer.
All of this depends on how costly the chains and cassettes are. Weight weenies will use $70 hollow pin chains and $350 cassettes on their sram axs 12 bikes. I ride more lowly force axs chains that cost $35 and $185 force cassettes. I have far less invested, but I still don't want to toss either chains or cassettes sooner than necessary. I'll check full length elongation, roller wear and side clearance wear with feeler gages before tossing a chain. None of these wear measurements have a value that's set in stone. I wouldn't toss a chain at .5% elongation if side clearance and roller wear were both good.
All of this depends on how costly the chains and cassettes are. Weight weenies will use $70 hollow pin chains and $350 cassettes on their sram axs 12 bikes. I ride more lowly force axs chains that cost $35 and $185 force cassettes. I have far less invested, but I still don't want to toss either chains or cassettes sooner than necessary. I'll check full length elongation, roller wear and side clearance wear with feeler gages before tossing a chain. None of these wear measurements have a value that's set in stone. I wouldn't toss a chain at .5% elongation if side clearance and roller wear were both good.
#83
Senior Member
If I took chains out of service at .5% elongation, I'd not toss them, just put them aside. If 5 or more chains have been used and new-chain skip has never occurred, it would indicate that you're probably not using each chain long enough and wasting money on chains, just to add a little more life to the cassette. Each of those used, but not worn out chains could be used longer.
All of this depends on how costly the chains and cassettes are. Weight weenies will use $70 hollow pin chains and $350 cassettes on their sram axs 12 bikes. I ride more lowly force axs chains that cost $35 and $185 force cassettes. I have far less invested, but I still don't want to toss either chains or cassettes sooner than necessary. I'll check full length elongation, roller wear and side clearance wear with feeler gages before tossing a chain. None of these wear measurements have a value that's set in stone. I wouldn't toss a chain at .5% elongation if side clearance and roller wear were both good.
All of this depends on how costly the chains and cassettes are. Weight weenies will use $70 hollow pin chains and $350 cassettes on their sram axs 12 bikes. I ride more lowly force axs chains that cost $35 and $185 force cassettes. I have far less invested, but I still don't want to toss either chains or cassettes sooner than necessary. I'll check full length elongation, roller wear and side clearance wear with feeler gages before tossing a chain. None of these wear measurements have a value that's set in stone. I wouldn't toss a chain at .5% elongation if side clearance and roller wear were both good.
#84
Senior Member
25 or so years ago I bought the Rohloff chain checker. Later I found out that I could go at least 1000 more miles on the chain when I used a tape measure to check my chains instead of the Rohloff. I now have the Pedros copy of the shimano tool and it is fairly accurate. Park has apparently copied this tool.
This thread has gone on to be silly over such a simple topic.
This thread has gone on to be silly over such a simple topic.
Likes For davidad:
#86
I'm good to go!
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,800
Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6099 Post(s)
Liked 4,730 Times
in
3,260 Posts
#87
Senior Member
Don't exclude the opposite situation, where a chain may show .25% elongation, even after 6000 miles of use, but the roller and side clearance wear is overly large. The roller wear at that point can still cause new-chain skip. A Campy chain can do this, which is probably why they suggest using calipers between the outer plates to a maximum length of 132.6mm, rather than measuring elongation alone. Over that short length most of the wear is roller wear.
I started monitoring the elongation on sram axs chains that I had in use that also seemed to elongate very little, but now I've got two bikes that need 55 inch chains, so my previous 54 inch chains can't be used and I'm starting over. I will not be using only one chain on each bike. I much prefer using several chains in a rotation.
I've read reports of axs users with 6000 miles on a chain that still checks OK, but those users don't monitor side clearance or roller wear. Most likely, their second axs chain will skip and their $350 cassette will have a very short life. I've also read of outer plates cracking after 3000 miles.
https://weightweenies.starbike.com/f...2596&mode=view
I started monitoring the elongation on sram axs chains that I had in use that also seemed to elongate very little, but now I've got two bikes that need 55 inch chains, so my previous 54 inch chains can't be used and I'm starting over. I will not be using only one chain on each bike. I much prefer using several chains in a rotation.
I've read reports of axs users with 6000 miles on a chain that still checks OK, but those users don't monitor side clearance or roller wear. Most likely, their second axs chain will skip and their $350 cassette will have a very short life. I've also read of outer plates cracking after 3000 miles.
https://weightweenies.starbike.com/f...2596&mode=view
#88
Mostly harmless ™
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Novi Sad
Posts: 4,424
Bikes: Heavy, with friction shifters
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1105 Post(s)
Liked 213 Times
in
127 Posts
Don't exclude the opposite situation, where a chain may show .25% elongation, even after 6000 miles of use, but the roller and side clearance wear is overly large. The roller wear at that point can still cause new-chain skip. A Campy chain can do this, which is probably why they suggest using calipers between the outer plates to a maximum length of 132.6mm, rather than measuring elongation alone. Over that short length most of the wear is roller wear.
I started monitoring the elongation on sram axs chains that I had in use that also seemed to elongate very little, but now I've got two bikes that need 55 inch chains, so my previous 54 inch chains can't be used and I'm starting over. I will not be using only one chain on each bike. I much prefer using several chains in a rotation.
I've read reports of axs users with 6000 miles on a chain that still checks OK, but those users don't monitor side clearance or roller wear. Most likely, their second axs chain will skip and their $350 cassette will have a very short life. I've also read of outer plates cracking after 3000 miles.
https://weightweenies.starbike.com/f...2596&mode=view
I started monitoring the elongation on sram axs chains that I had in use that also seemed to elongate very little, but now I've got two bikes that need 55 inch chains, so my previous 54 inch chains can't be used and I'm starting over. I will not be using only one chain on each bike. I much prefer using several chains in a rotation.
I've read reports of axs users with 6000 miles on a chain that still checks OK, but those users don't monitor side clearance or roller wear. Most likely, their second axs chain will skip and their $350 cassette will have a very short life. I've also read of outer plates cracking after 3000 miles.
https://weightweenies.starbike.com/f...2596&mode=view
As for the wear "location" - elongation occurs between two pairs of outer plates, while pins on the same outer plate will stay at the same distance regardless of the chain wear, of course.
#89
Senior Member
Since you were a machinist I will appreciate your expertise here.
How would you use a digital caliper that has a max length of 6" to measure the elognation (no roller wear)? Where would you take the measurement?
In theory there are many places. But once I tried I realized that aligning the caliper to take consistent measurements at that distance is hard.
My final try was to measure the distance from the end of one outer plate to the beginning of the 6th one. Then I subtract the distance between the edges of two consequent ones.
The distance between two consecutive plates seem to be around 0.172 (I will assume 0.17 to not underestimate the distance). Now new one under tension measured 5.172-5.173, the one that has 600+ miles on it measured 5.173-5.174. The one that shows barely %0.5 wear measured ~5.182. All of these chains are same model KMC chains. Well now it seems the chain which is supposed to have ~%0.24-0.25 wear is shown to reach %0.5.
The only consistent reading I have compared to the chain checker is for the 10 speed chain that is over %75. My readings were 5.208-5.212 and that translates into %0.76-%0.84 wear.
The ruler also does not show anywhere close to %0.5 but of course it relies on my eyesight. I am not starting from the center of a pin since it is impossible to really know where the center is , instead I start from the edge of a pin.
Because I am a new member I can post pictures which would have helped here.
How would you use a digital caliper that has a max length of 6" to measure the elognation (no roller wear)? Where would you take the measurement?
In theory there are many places. But once I tried I realized that aligning the caliper to take consistent measurements at that distance is hard.
My final try was to measure the distance from the end of one outer plate to the beginning of the 6th one. Then I subtract the distance between the edges of two consequent ones.
The distance between two consecutive plates seem to be around 0.172 (I will assume 0.17 to not underestimate the distance). Now new one under tension measured 5.172-5.173, the one that has 600+ miles on it measured 5.173-5.174. The one that shows barely %0.5 wear measured ~5.182. All of these chains are same model KMC chains. Well now it seems the chain which is supposed to have ~%0.24-0.25 wear is shown to reach %0.5.
The only consistent reading I have compared to the chain checker is for the 10 speed chain that is over %75. My readings were 5.208-5.212 and that translates into %0.76-%0.84 wear.
The ruler also does not show anywhere close to %0.5 but of course it relies on my eyesight. I am not starting from the center of a pin since it is impossible to really know where the center is , instead I start from the edge of a pin.
Because I am a new member I can post pictures which would have helped here.
#90
Senior Member
You are right that the wear cancels when it is uniform and the measurement is from the same side of the roller. However, the roller wear and diameter differences contribution get suppressed when a measurement is made over a number of links, no matter how these contributions, when different from pin-to-pin elongation, enter. Let us take the roller diameter differences mentioned before, of 0.002". I took a popular Park Tool checker and its hooks are 4.5" apart. We get variation in the apparent elongation from roller diameter difference of 0.002/4.5=0.04%. It is not completely negligible, but when deciding on a 0.7% elongation it nearly is. I do not have TL-42CN, but have TL-41CN. Though the latter may be nominally provide more faithful results than simple checkers, it is a pain to use. When I need to go over several bikes and check the chains at different sample locations along the circumference, I go with the simple Park Tool and it is good enough for me.
#91
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,692
Bikes: Trek 730 (quad), 720 & 830, Bike Friday NWT, Brompton M36R & M6R, Dahon HAT060 & HT060, ...
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 834 Post(s)
Liked 332 Times
in
247 Posts
You forget to account for internal wear in the rollers. The hole in the rollers get much bigger as the chain wears, greatly contributing to "apparent elongation" if measured between the rollers. - Just take apart a worn out chain and have an epiphany. I like measuring between the rollers too, but I do keep in mind that the rollers wear too and thus allow for much more "apparent elongation" than 0.5%, as outlined in a previous post.
#92
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,692
Bikes: Trek 730 (quad), 720 & 830, Bike Friday NWT, Brompton M36R & M6R, Dahon HAT060 & HT060, ...
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 834 Post(s)
Liked 332 Times
in
247 Posts
I did an experiment to see (confirm) if roller wear affects chain engagement. It doesn't. Even when taking the rollers completely out, the chain engages cassette properly. Only once there is pin wear (i.e. chain elongation) does a chain start to ride higher on cassette teeth, not engaging properly.
As for the wear "location" - elongation occurs between two pairs of outer plates, while pins on the same outer plate will stay at the same distance regardless of the chain wear, of course.
As for the wear "location" - elongation occurs between two pairs of outer plates, while pins on the same outer plate will stay at the same distance regardless of the chain wear, of course.
Likes For Gresp15C:
#94
Senior Member
If the rollers wear by the same percentage as pin to pin distance stretches, a simple chain checker will give the consistent result. It is only the difference in percentage wear that potentially throws off the reading, but that will be suppressed by division by the link number in the measured interval. At that level I do not care. I only check the chain at 2 month intervals and this starting around the time I expect the chain to expire. This in itself may let me miss the threshold by 0.1%. There is no point on insisting on precision in one part of the system while another is flaky.
From my experience rollers wear faster much than true elongation. For that reason Im not hesitating letting the "between rollers" measurement grow by as much as 1mm between 12 rollers, from ~132,25 -> 133,3mm, as explained in an earlier post. That is more like 0.8%, but at that point true elongation is still less than 0.5%. Beyond that point the chain may technically not have reached 0.5% elongation, but imo shifting and "smoothness" is impacted and id rather just replace it regardless.
Again, no one knows what the old Park, and other gauges that measures between rollers, considers "+0.5%" or "+0.75%" but if they are anything like the campy recommendation, 132.6mm, you be replacing chains way too soon. - Some one needs to measure the gauges before we can judge if they give a reliable indication if the chain is ok or worn out, or they just make you bin your chain way early to play it safe or not enough thought went into the design. Heck, no one even knows if "+0.5%" is the same thing on different gauges.
Also who made "+0.5%" the gold standard for 11s drive trains and for what reason. +1.0% used to be the engineering standard for any chain.
For the above reasons I went with a digital calliper and made up my own rules based on experience. Subject to be revised along the way.
Last edited by Racing Dan; 12-10-20 at 06:15 PM.
#95
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,692
Bikes: Trek 730 (quad), 720 & 830, Bike Friday NWT, Brompton M36R & M6R, Dahon HAT060 & HT060, ...
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 834 Post(s)
Liked 332 Times
in
247 Posts
From my experience rollers wear faster much than true elongation. For that reason Im not hesitating letting the "between rollers" measurement grow by as much as 1mm between 12 rollers, from ~132,25 -> 133,3mm, as explained in an earlier post. That is more like 0.8%, but at that point true elongation is still less than 0.5%. Beyond that point the chain may technically not have reached 0.5% elongation, but imo shifting and "smoothness" is impacted and id rather just replace it regardless.
Again, no one knows what the old Park, and other gauges that measures between rollers, considers "+0.5%" or "+0.75%" but if they are anything like the campy recommendation, 132.6mm, you be replacing chains way too soon. - Some one needs to measure the gauges before we can judge if they give a reliable indication if the chain is ok or worn out, or they just make you bin your chain way early to play it safe or not enough thought went into the design. Heck, no one even knows if "+0.5%" is the same thing on different gauges.
Also who made "+0.5%" the gold standard for 11s drive trains and for what reason. +1.0% used to be the engineering standard for any chain.
For the above reasons I went with a digital calliper and made up my own rules based on experience. Subject to be revised along the way.
Again, no one knows what the old Park, and other gauges that measures between rollers, considers "+0.5%" or "+0.75%" but if they are anything like the campy recommendation, 132.6mm, you be replacing chains way too soon. - Some one needs to measure the gauges before we can judge if they give a reliable indication if the chain is ok or worn out, or they just make you bin your chain way early to play it safe or not enough thought went into the design. Heck, no one even knows if "+0.5%" is the same thing on different gauges.
Also who made "+0.5%" the gold standard for 11s drive trains and for what reason. +1.0% used to be the engineering standard for any chain.
For the above reasons I went with a digital calliper and made up my own rules based on experience. Subject to be revised along the way.
Indeed the various 0.5% or other markings could mean anything, including accounting for the estimated roller wear. I went to measure the increase in threshold distance for the simple Park CC-3. Between the 0.75% and 1% markings the distance increases by 0.21% rather than the expected 0.25% or higher if they were accounting for the stronger roller wear.
I never paid much attention to roller wear as isolated from pin-to-pin stretch and may look into that from now on. I even have a relatively new chain on the main bike and I usually have another identical chain in storage that I could use in comparison. I also have various measuring instruments and could measure virtually whatever I would want. However, the issue is of how much time to dedicate to that. The chain is central to the bicycle, which makes it an interesting problem, but there are so many other problems in the world. I skip chain cleaning because it is time consuming bother - it also elevates chain replacing for me somewhat.
#96
It's MY mountain
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mt.Diablo
Posts: 9,991
Bikes: Klein, Merckx, Trek
Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4310 Post(s)
Liked 2,953 Times
in
1,601 Posts
So if your tool measures 6 links of unstretched chain, it'll see 3 inches plus two roller slops.
And if your tool measures 12 links of unstretched chain, it'll see 6 inches plus two roller slops.
#97
Mostly harmless ™
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Novi Sad
Posts: 4,424
Bikes: Heavy, with friction shifters
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1105 Post(s)
Liked 213 Times
in
127 Posts
Thanks for the experiment. However, in my memory people claimed that roller wear affected shifting. I am sure that there is more as the rollers play a role in a dynamic engagement of the chain into and out of the teeth and friction. Have you got any comments on these? It is interesting as a principal problem - in practice I will be replacing chain at least as conservatively as now.
as a chain gets worn, at the inner plate - to pin interface, it gets more easily bent sideways (shown in the last picture of chapter 4 in this article, and the video linked above talks about it).
This makes it more likely to just "bend", when a derailleur pulley pulls/pushes it sideways, instead of staying more straight, following that movement, and making a gear change.
I don't think roller wear has anything to do with that.
#98
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,692
Bikes: Trek 730 (quad), 720 & 830, Bike Friday NWT, Brompton M36R & M6R, Dahon HAT060 & HT060, ...
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 834 Post(s)
Liked 332 Times
in
247 Posts
Based on my theoretical knowledge and practical experience (in other words: "to the best of my knowledge", or "as far as I know"):
as a chain gets worn, at the inner plate - to pin interface, it gets more easily bent sideways (shown in the last picture of chapter 4 in this article, and the video linked above talks about it).
This makes it more likely to just "bend", when a derailleur pulley pulls/pushes it sideways, instead of staying more straight, following that movement, and making a gear change.
I don't think roller wear has anything to do with that.
as a chain gets worn, at the inner plate - to pin interface, it gets more easily bent sideways (shown in the last picture of chapter 4 in this article, and the video linked above talks about it).
This makes it more likely to just "bend", when a derailleur pulley pulls/pushes it sideways, instead of staying more straight, following that movement, and making a gear change.
I don't think roller wear has anything to do with that.
#99
Senior Member
I did an experiment to see (confirm) if roller wear affects chain engagement. It doesn't. Even when taking the rollers completely out, the chain engages cassette properly. Only once there is pin wear (i.e. chain elongation) does a chain start to ride higher on cassette teeth, not engaging properly.
As for the wear "location" - elongation occurs between two pairs of outer plates, while pins on the same outer plate will stay at the same distance regardless of the chain wear, of course.
As for the wear "location" - elongation occurs between two pairs of outer plates, while pins on the same outer plate will stay at the same distance regardless of the chain wear, of course.
#100
Mostly harmless ™
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Novi Sad
Posts: 4,424
Bikes: Heavy, with friction shifters
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1105 Post(s)
Liked 213 Times
in
127 Posts
My experiment was using Campy 10 chain on a new cassette for 6000 miles. It showed less than 0.25% elongation, properly measured over the full chain length. The roller wear was huge and so was the side clearance wear. It caused new-chain skip when a new chain was installed. The wear pockets created by the worn rollers caused this, not chain elongation. You may also find that the sprockets that skip with a new chain will not skip using a chain with only a few hundred miles of break-in wear. That can allow a cassette to be used another 3000 miles instead of being tossed.
If you measure a brand new chain, you might notice it having under 0.5" pitch, on average, because the factory grease won't let the inner plates get all the way to the pins - which gets sorted out after a very short ride.