Chains
#151
Elitist
Thread Starter
Was browsing zero friction cycling. He does lube testing and chain wear testing. He is doing some chain strength testing and tested some Izumi chains. Surprisingly they were not any stronger than road chains in his tests. I was under the assumption that 1/8" chains were stronger than 3/32" and 11/128".
anecdotally I broke a 710sl at the master link doing a standing start a couple a months ago, switched to Izumi after that.
Link: https://zerofrictioncycling.com.au/chain_tensile/
anecdotally I broke a 710sl at the master link doing a standing start a couple a months ago, switched to Izumi after that.
Link: https://zerofrictioncycling.com.au/chain_tensile/
#152
Senior Member
Was browsing zero friction cycling. He does lube testing and chain wear testing. He is doing some chain strength testing and tested some Izumi chains. Surprisingly they were not any stronger than road chains in his tests. I was under the assumption that 1/8" chains were stronger than 3/32" and 11/128".
anecdotally I broke a 710sl at the master link doing a standing start a couple a months ago, switched to Izumi after that.
Link: https://zerofrictioncycling.com.au/chain_tensile/
anecdotally I broke a 710sl at the master link doing a standing start a couple a months ago, switched to Izumi after that.
Link: https://zerofrictioncycling.com.au/chain_tensile/
#153
Member
Doing some thinking on my commute (terrible idea btw)
Maybe we will see more racers on road chains because of the efficiency gains. As more low hanging fruit is picked up by everyone it seems like a no-brainer for an easy gain.
But,
1/8" chains and equipment is ubiquitous and track is slow to change. Also cannot discount the psychological confidence factor of believing that a thicker chain is stronger regardless.
any thoughts or do I have head up my ass again?
Maybe we will see more racers on road chains because of the efficiency gains. As more low hanging fruit is picked up by everyone it seems like a no-brainer for an easy gain.
But,
1/8" chains and equipment is ubiquitous and track is slow to change. Also cannot discount the psychological confidence factor of believing that a thicker chain is stronger regardless.
any thoughts or do I have head up my ass again?
#154
Lapped 3x
In theory, the chains may have equal strength in some respects, but that's only one part of the drivetrain. You have to look at the system as a whole to see how the parts interact, where the inefficiencies lie, where the benefits are gained, and how the system can be improved as a whole.
It may not be the chains that are holding back the system, but the rings, especially in the larger sizes. This may be where going going to 3/32" is not a good idea, hence people staying with 1/8".
It may not be the chains that are holding back the system, but the rings, especially in the larger sizes. This may be where going going to 3/32" is not a good idea, hence people staying with 1/8".
#155
Doing some thinking on my commute (terrible idea btw)
Maybe we will see more racers on road chains because of the efficiency gains. As more low hanging fruit is picked up by everyone it seems like a no-brainer for an easy gain.
But, 1/8" chains and equipment is ubiquitous and track is slow to change. Also cannot discount the psychological confidence factor of believing that a thicker chain is stronger regardless.
any thoughts or do I have head up my ass again?
Maybe we will see more racers on road chains because of the efficiency gains. As more low hanging fruit is picked up by everyone it seems like a no-brainer for an easy gain.
But, 1/8" chains and equipment is ubiquitous and track is slow to change. Also cannot discount the psychological confidence factor of believing that a thicker chain is stronger regardless.
any thoughts or do I have head up my ass again?
I know pure Sprint Match monsters are another kind of animals, but from the engineering point of view, 2400w is not that far from 1600w - if we have a safety factor 2 on the first (minimum) it would be 3 on the second case.
#156
it's always been clear to me that "trackies use 1/8-inch because it is stronger" has been a total canard perpetuated by people who like to think very highly of themselves. i'd have changed over to 3/32" years ago if it didn't mean that i'd always be up the creek if i ever needed to borrow or loan a piece of gear ever again, which i do all the damn time - the infield is and ought to be a social, collective place. and with two elite track racers in my household, changing one set of gear means changing two for the sake of, well, everything. and it's kind of hard to justify spending that much money in one fell swoop on one thirty-second of an inch.
#157
Senior Member
Also of note- road chains are designed to have some lateral flex so they can derail and go to a different gear. That's not a great feature in a track chain.
Likes For Baby Puke:
#158
Elitist
Thread Starter
I suspect that 1/8” chains exist only because 1/8” chainrings exist. They’re identical to sibling 3/32” chains only with longer pins and wider rollers. Longer pins should actually prove to be relatively weaker.
I suspect that 1/8” chainrings exist only because people taco-ed 3/32” chainrings.
Know that a 65t 3/32” dinner plate chainring is subject to being taco-ed by a moderately strong rider during a high torque effort.
I suspect that 1/8” chainrings exist only because people taco-ed 3/32” chainrings.
Know that a 65t 3/32” dinner plate chainring is subject to being taco-ed by a moderately strong rider during a high torque effort.
Likes For carleton:
#159
Here's a random assortment of chain observations:
Many BMX riders run cheap road chains.
The chain line on track bikes is actually pretty important if you want to use a quietly running track chain. This is even more important on a 3/32. Being off by 1 or 2 mm can generate extra noise. NJS frames are built to exact standards and should have a perfect chainline. I'm kind of starting to think that the chainline accuracy on many of the modern carbon bikes is just all over the place.
Road chains aren't necessarily smoother running than track chains: the Huub guys tested both and eventually settled on a standard track chain.
Part of the attraction of 3/32 (and even thinner road chains) is actually the aerodynamics at the chain ring. Too me, it seems like we're talking about miniscule marginal gains but that's part of the discussion amongst the World Cup teams. The idea of going big on the front and the rear for efficiency might actually be outweighed, at some point, by the aerodynamic losses of the front chain ring. One of the discussed advantages of the Kappstein is the good aerodynamic transition between the 3/32 chain and the chain ring.
Many BMX riders run cheap road chains.
The chain line on track bikes is actually pretty important if you want to use a quietly running track chain. This is even more important on a 3/32. Being off by 1 or 2 mm can generate extra noise. NJS frames are built to exact standards and should have a perfect chainline. I'm kind of starting to think that the chainline accuracy on many of the modern carbon bikes is just all over the place.
Road chains aren't necessarily smoother running than track chains: the Huub guys tested both and eventually settled on a standard track chain.
Part of the attraction of 3/32 (and even thinner road chains) is actually the aerodynamics at the chain ring. Too me, it seems like we're talking about miniscule marginal gains but that's part of the discussion amongst the World Cup teams. The idea of going big on the front and the rear for efficiency might actually be outweighed, at some point, by the aerodynamic losses of the front chain ring. One of the discussed advantages of the Kappstein is the good aerodynamic transition between the 3/32 chain and the chain ring.
#160
I think huub wattbike tested chains and found out that you can run wide chains more slack which reduces friction and more than equals the narrow chain.
also most 1/8 chains are made super cheap and not up to the standard a chain could be these days (zero friction mentions the bushingless) construction. I now use the high end kmc and it runs smoother than all the japanese chains.
Chainring flex is also an issue. A chainring for narrow chains must not necessarily be thinner, but that would be another way to save weight and make production more efficient.
Australia was running 1/8th at worlds. GB also as far as I can recall. They probably have data they don’t want to share.
also most 1/8 chains are made super cheap and not up to the standard a chain could be these days (zero friction mentions the bushingless) construction. I now use the high end kmc and it runs smoother than all the japanese chains.
Chainring flex is also an issue. A chainring for narrow chains must not necessarily be thinner, but that would be another way to save weight and make production more efficient.
Australia was running 1/8th at worlds. GB also as far as I can recall. They probably have data they don’t want to share.
#161
Senior Member
it's always been clear to me that "trackies use 1/8-inch because it is stronger" has been a total canard perpetuated by people who like to think very highly of themselves. i'd have changed over to 3/32" years ago if it didn't mean that i'd always be up the creek if i ever needed to borrow or loan a piece of gear ever again, which i do all the damn time - the infield is and ought to be a social, collective place. and with two elite track racers in my household, changing one set of gear means changing two for the sake of, well, everything. and it's kind of hard to justify spending that much money in one fell swoop on one thirty-second of an inch.
During usage / wearing, the amount removed material is a function of force and movement (articulation). With larger bearing surfaces, regardless contact surface size, a same amount gets removed, but with bigger contact surfaces, the "lost" distance, that brings the elongation of the chain, is smaller so the chain elongates less for that same amount lost material.
After I moved from 3/32" internal width chains to 1/8", the chains lifetime increased proportionally. 4 months became 8.
Later on, I switched from common 1/8" to 1/8" with 3/16"-sized thick plates. The lifetime again increased, to 16-18 months?
And since some weeks, I'm riding with a 1/4" internal width type 420 chain from the motorcycle branch. The pins have a larger diameter and full bushings.
Last edited by Novalite; 03-18-20 at 12:45 PM.
Likes For Novalite:
#162
The point of a wider chain is entirely missed, it's not about strength but about the size of the mating surfaces. A wider chain has longer pins / thicker plates, ex 1/8" has 50% more contact surface than a 3/32".
During usage / wearing, the amount removed material is a function of force and movement (articulation). With larger bearing surfaces, regardless contact surface size, a same amount gets removed, but with bigger contact surfaces, the "lost" distance, that brings the elongation of the chain, is smaller so the chain elongates less for that same amount lost material.
After I moved from 3/32" internal width chains to 1/8", the chains lifetime increased proportionally. 4 months became 8.
Later on, I switched from common 1/8" to 1/8" with 3/16"-sized thick plates. The lifetime again increased, to 16-18 months?
And since some weeks, I'm riding with a 1/4" internal width type 420 chain from the motorcycle branch. The pins have a larger diameter and full bushings.
During usage / wearing, the amount removed material is a function of force and movement (articulation). With larger bearing surfaces, regardless contact surface size, a same amount gets removed, but with bigger contact surfaces, the "lost" distance, that brings the elongation of the chain, is smaller so the chain elongates less for that same amount lost material.
After I moved from 3/32" internal width chains to 1/8", the chains lifetime increased proportionally. 4 months became 8.
Later on, I switched from common 1/8" to 1/8" with 3/16"-sized thick plates. The lifetime again increased, to 16-18 months?
And since some weeks, I'm riding with a 1/4" internal width type 420 chain from the motorcycle branch. The pins have a larger diameter and full bushings.
Bearing stress is load/bearing area, and metal standard define the maximum bearing stress for engineers. Fbry is the yield load where material deflection returns to zero upon load removal.
Of cause it is possible to overcome any 3/32 chain issues by using better and higher cost materials.
The 50% increase quoted by Novalite should read 33%.
Last edited by 700wheel; 03-18-20 at 02:38 PM. Reason: Update
#163
Senior Member
About that 50% increase, the 1/8 and 3/32 references the inner width / the roller length.
Most material removal (wear) occurs between pins and their plate holes, thus pin length / plates thickness also matters (most).
Since I immediately chosed chains with thicker plates (not the 3/16" standard one yet) it was 50% increase of contact surface.
And for the record, after I swapped 3/32" for 1/8", and then again to 1/8" with 3/16" plates, I ride since 3 weeks with a 1/4" chain from the motorcycle branch.
Most material removal (wear) occurs between pins and their plate holes, thus pin length / plates thickness also matters (most).
Since I immediately chosed chains with thicker plates (not the 3/16" standard one yet) it was 50% increase of contact surface.
And for the record, after I swapped 3/32" for 1/8", and then again to 1/8" with 3/16" plates, I ride since 3 weeks with a 1/4" chain from the motorcycle branch.
Last edited by Novalite; 03-19-20 at 03:52 PM.
#164
About that 50% increase, the 1/8 and 3/32 references the inner width / the roller length.
Most material removal (wear) occurs between pins and their plate holes, thus pin length / plates thickness also matters (most).
Since I immediately chosed chains with thicker plates (not the 3/16" standard one yet) it was 50% increase of contact surface.
And for the record, after I swapped 3/32" for 1/8", and then again to 1/8" with 3/16" plates, I ride since 3 weeks with a 1/4" chain from the motorcycle branch.
Most material removal (wear) occurs between pins and their plate holes, thus pin length / plates thickness also matters (most).
Since I immediately chosed chains with thicker plates (not the 3/16" standard one yet) it was 50% increase of contact surface.
And for the record, after I swapped 3/32" for 1/8", and then again to 1/8" with 3/16" plates, I ride since 3 weeks with a 1/4" chain from the motorcycle branch.
#165
Senior Member
A chain doesn't elongate due to wear of the outside of a roller or a tooth, it elongates due to wear on the mating surfaces between certain inner parts of the links and next links. Thicker plates and accordingly longer pins increase those surfaces, which decreases elongation for a same amount of worn off material.
#166
Newbie
I've seen the KMC City Hunter mentioned in a couple chain threads here (including this one) without replies, and I cannot find any substantive reviews online anywhere - mostly hype from the product announcement and stuff that sounds like ad copy.
Anyone tried out the City Hunter on FG/SS?
They advertise it for FG/SS but it seems to have been designed for "shared-use bikes" so I am having a tough time squaring its pedigree with what to expect out its performance...
https://www.bikeradar.com/news/award...al-cycle-show/
Anyone tried out the City Hunter on FG/SS?
They advertise it for FG/SS but it seems to have been designed for "shared-use bikes" so I am having a tough time squaring its pedigree with what to expect out its performance...
https://www.bikeradar.com/news/award...al-cycle-show/
#167
almost like new
I've seen the KMC City Hunter mentioned in a couple chain threads here (including this one) without replies, and I cannot find any substantive reviews online anywhere - mostly hype from the product announcement and stuff that sounds like ad copy.
Anyone tried out the City Hunter on FG/SS?
They advertise it for FG/SS but it seems to have been designed for "shared-use bikes" so I am having a tough time squaring its pedigree with what to expect out its performance...
https://www.bikeradar.com/news/award...al-cycle-show/
Anyone tried out the City Hunter on FG/SS?
They advertise it for FG/SS but it seems to have been designed for "shared-use bikes" so I am having a tough time squaring its pedigree with what to expect out its performance...
https://www.bikeradar.com/news/award...al-cycle-show/
KMC here. Our City Hunter chain was redesigned with a bushing to make it more durable. Thus it's a perfect beefy chain for shared-bikes, but also a bomb-proof chain for any other single speeds: https://www.kmcchain.com/en/product/...1-single-speed
Last edited by Papa Ado; 01-11-21 at 03:19 AM. Reason: addition
#169
Elitist
Thread Starter
Sprinkle one, two, or all three of those around in your ad and people will open their wallets.
I'm curious how they quantify "faster".
#170
Radical new chain claims to be faster, more durable than anything available – CyclingTips – Winter Cycling Blog
But not enough infomation for me to figure our how it works.
#171
at a guess it would be Wattage loss through the drivetrain to the back wheel and pretty easily measured.
#172
Elitist
Thread Starter
I wonder what the math is on the times on, say, a 4K with a normal single speed chain, Dura-Ace road chain, and this new chain.
I agree that any gains are still gains and "free gains" (where you get more for the same given energy into the system) are always nice. But, I am curious to see how much is gained where it counts, on the stopwatch.
Also, I love the idea of new products for the sport. I don't want to seem like a curmudgeon. I also want people know what they are buying. I'm reminded of a guy who assembled an Olympic-caliber bike but never did any training and couldn't fathom why he rode like a 15 second flying 200...repeatedly.
Last edited by carleton; 01-14-21 at 03:43 PM.
Likes For m@tty:
#174
In Bradley Wiggins' book "My Hour" it states the following:
"Chain - standard Dura-Ace chain treated specifically for the attempt to reduce friction. The cost of development was 6,000 pounds UK, making it the most expendive bike chain in the world."
"Gearing - a 58 x 14 ratio. The chain ring was built specifically for the record attempt by the highly skilled precision engineers at Hope Technology."
One could also reduce friction by treating hubs and bottom bracket bearings with a good lubricant.
"Chain - standard Dura-Ace chain treated specifically for the attempt to reduce friction. The cost of development was 6,000 pounds UK, making it the most expendive bike chain in the world."
"Gearing - a 58 x 14 ratio. The chain ring was built specifically for the record attempt by the highly skilled precision engineers at Hope Technology."
One could also reduce friction by treating hubs and bottom bracket bearings with a good lubricant.
Likes For 700wheel:
#175
As of now, the new Izumi chain is 2-3 watts faster than every other track chain. It's just almost impossible to get them since most of their manpower is being used to produce chains for shimano.
Last edited by tobukog; 01-18-21 at 05:39 PM.