Ruler and Chain Checker are Diverging
03-21-23, 07:14 PM
#126
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,959
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4340 Post(s)
Liked 1,528 Times
in
997 Posts
At the risk of waking the sleeping dog, I measured the chains again with my Pedro chain checker that isolates the rollers. I measured them against the Park chain checker. The first set of pictures is for a new chain. No difference in the measurement.
Then a chain that measures less than 0.5% with the Park Tool. Again, no difference. Pedros says it is good
For a chain that is over 0.5%, the Pedros would probably fail it. Not a big deal actually. You might loose 200 miles.
The chain that has greater than 0.75% fails with both.
Isolating the rollers makes no real difference.
Just for giggles, I also measured the shoulder on the inside of the inner plate that the roller rolls on. It measured out to 5.3mm on the chain that indicated 0.75% wear. It measured the same 5.3mm on the chain with less than 0.5%. While I was measuring, I measured just the outer edge of the roller on the same two chains. I tried to get as far out on the roller as I could and it was the same thickness as I previously measured. There is no roller wear that I could measure and certainly not enough of a difference in any part of the chain that could explain chain wear except for the changes in the pin diameter.
Then a chain that measures less than 0.5% with the Park Tool. Again, no difference. Pedros says it is good
For a chain that is over 0.5%, the Pedros would probably fail it. Not a big deal actually. You might loose 200 miles.
The chain that has greater than 0.75% fails with both.
Isolating the rollers makes no real difference.
Just for giggles, I also measured the shoulder on the inside of the inner plate that the roller rolls on. It measured out to 5.3mm on the chain that indicated 0.75% wear. It measured the same 5.3mm on the chain with less than 0.5%. While I was measuring, I measured just the outer edge of the roller on the same two chains. I tried to get as far out on the roller as I could and it was the same thickness as I previously measured. There is no roller wear that I could measure and certainly not enough of a difference in any part of the chain that could explain chain wear except for the changes in the pin diameter.
03-21-23, 10:08 PM
#127
Mad bike riding scientist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 27,342
Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, a black and orange one, and a few titanium ones
Mentioned: 152 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6200 Post(s)
Liked 4,204 Times
in
2,358 Posts
Yes and I did. No difference. It is hard to hold in place while taking photos. Both checkers gave the same measurement.
__________________
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Last edited by cyccommute; 03-21-23 at 10:18 PM.
03-22-23, 04:44 AM
#128
Senior Member
Honestly. That Vernier looks like garbage and its half silly to believe some wear point doesn't wear while others do. Wear on the inside of the rollers, that you claim isnt there, is even visible in you own picture. Compare a new one to an old one by eye and you'll see.
Just to be clear, the holes in the inner plate gets bigger, the diameter of the roller land on the inner plate gets smaller, the diameter of the pins get smaller, the hole in the rollers get bigger and the OD gets smaller. This is all easily measured with a shop quality digital calliper.
Some of these contribute to actual chain elongation, the others only to slop in the rollers that may lead to false conclusions, unless accounted for. The park tool may have some compensation for roller wear built in, to get the same results as the Pedros, I dunno, but Id like for someone to measure the actual length of that tool to see what Park considers +0.5% etc.
Just to be clear, the holes in the inner plate gets bigger, the diameter of the roller land on the inner plate gets smaller, the diameter of the pins get smaller, the hole in the rollers get bigger and the OD gets smaller. This is all easily measured with a shop quality digital calliper.
Some of these contribute to actual chain elongation, the others only to slop in the rollers that may lead to false conclusions, unless accounted for. The park tool may have some compensation for roller wear built in, to get the same results as the Pedros, I dunno, but Id like for someone to measure the actual length of that tool to see what Park considers +0.5% etc.
03-22-23, 07:18 AM
#129
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posts: 32,983
Bikes: Merlin Cyrene '04; Bridgestone RB-1 '92
Mentioned: 325 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11954 Post(s)
Liked 6,611 Times
in
3,469 Posts
Enough.
__________________
See, this is why we can't have nice things. - - smarkinson
Where else but the internet can a bunch of cyclists go and be the tough guy? - - jdon
