Do chains on smaller wheels generally wear out faster than bigger wheels?
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Do chains on smaller wheels generally wear out faster than bigger wheels?
Riding a Brompton as my daily commuter, realised I'm already at 0.5 wear close to the 1000km mark, on my bigger bike I can get more mileage out of a single chain and cassette.
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicago area
Posts: 2,555
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 speculate (ie, without actual evidence) that chains on derailleur-based drivetrains on small-wheeled bikes may be subject to faster wear because of their closer proximity to the road surface and any debris that may be kicked up by the front wheel. All my bikes with 20" wheels (folders) have internally-geared rear hubs, and the chains are not so close to the road. I typically get about 3,000 miles before the chain hits the 1.0% wear mark. When it reaches 0.75% I order a new chain so I'm ready to replace. "0.5" sounds like you have a lot of wear left in that chain if we're talking in the same units.
Likes For sweeks:
#3
Really Old Senior Member
Have you checked the accuracy of your chain checker? Mine shows .5% on a chain that's only .25% worn when measured with a measuring tape.
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 18,096
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 3,876 Times
in
2,315 Posts
Agree with the above. I'll add that without more info I can't say much more but conditions and cog counts come into play too. If those are the same...but we don't know about that. Andy
__________________
AndrewRStewart
AndrewRStewart
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Mission Viejo
Posts: 5,807
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 other part of this is could be excessive cog/cassette wear impacting the life of the chain.
John
John
Likes For 70sSanO:
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Roswell, GA
Posts: 8,319
Bikes: '93 Trek 750, '92 Schwinn Crisscross, '93 Mongoose Alta
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1438 Post(s)
Liked 1,092 Times
in
723 Posts
It seems to me that just the fact that smaller wheels have to make more turns to cover the same ground they would wear chains, etc. faster.
Also, throw away your chain checker and measure your chain with a good steel rule, if you want to know what is really going on.
Also, throw away your chain checker and measure your chain with a good steel rule, if you want to know what is really going on.
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Posts: 38,725
Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5793 Post(s)
Liked 2,585 Times
in
1,433 Posts
Yes, using smaller sprockets shortens chain life.
2 reasons for this.
1- driving torque, both input and output, is the product of sprocket radius and chain tension. So any system using small sprockets to achieve a given gear ratio wii have the chain running at higher load.
2- smaller sprockets cause the links to bend more as they wind onto and off the sprockets. More flex = greater wear.
This is why it is SOP in industrial applications to use the largest sprockets practical to the situation.
2 reasons for this.
1- driving torque, both input and output, is the product of sprocket radius and chain tension. So any system using small sprockets to achieve a given gear ratio wii have the chain running at higher load.
2- smaller sprockets cause the links to bend more as they wind onto and off the sprockets. More flex = greater wear.
This is why it is SOP in industrial applications to use the largest sprockets practical to the situation.
Last edited by FBinNY; 08-30-22 at 06:06 PM.
Likes For FBinNY:
#9
Senior Member
Per the late Sheldon Brown's online gear calculator, a bike with a 50T front sprocket, an 11T rear sprocket, and 700c x 25 tires rolls approximately 9.6 meters for each turn of the crank. A bike with 20x1.75 BMX wheels/tires and the same front/rear gears rolls only 6.8 meters for each turn of the crank - or approximately 70.83% as far. The crank (and chain and sprockets) on the bike with smaller wheels thus must turn more times in order to cover the same distance - in this case, around 41.2% more. They can therefore be expected to wear out after covering less distance.
Last edited by Hondo6; 08-31-22 at 04:59 AM.
Likes For Hondo6:
#10
Senior Member
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
Are you swapping sprockets when you change the chain? Simultaneous change is a standard for Brompton, but some people miss it and change the sprockets only every few time they swap the chain. I did not notice a difference in the pace of wear for Brompton vs a full size bike, but I did not study it carefully either.
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 982
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 506 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 639 Times
in
357 Posts
Yes, using smaller sprockets shortens chain life.
2 reasons for this.
1- driving torque, both input and output, is the product of sprocket radius and chain tension. So any system using small sprockets to achieve a given gear ratio wii have the chain running at higher load.
2- smaller sprockets cause the links to bend more as they wind onto and off the sprockets. More flex = greater wear.
This is why it is SOP in industrial applications to use the largest sprockets practical to the situation.
2 reasons for this.
1- driving torque, both input and output, is the product of sprocket radius and chain tension. So any system using small sprockets to achieve a given gear ratio wii have the chain running at higher load.
2- smaller sprockets cause the links to bend more as they wind onto and off the sprockets. More flex = greater wear.
This is why it is SOP in industrial applications to use the largest sprockets practical to the situation.
#12
Senior Member
Since with the same gearing bigger wheels move a bike more each rotation, the chains and sprockets on the bike with smaller wheels have to make more turns to cover the same distance. Since (like tires) chains and sprockets are mechanical devices, more turns = more wear.
#13
Senior Member
Yup. And the post that says "small wheels have to make more revolutions" is completely irrelevant. It's how many "engagements" of the chain and cogs / chain rings not how many wheel revolutions. To get the needed gear ratios with small wheels, they use small cogs on the cassette and that means faster wear. Whether this is the source of the OP's issue is not clear because if the gears are worn that would have a bigger effect.
You can compensate to a point by using larger front chainwheels on the bike with smaller wheels. But there's a practical limit there due to less ground clearance on smaller-wheeled bikes (I've read that up to a 60T front chainwheel can be used with a Brompton). And even then, 60/50 = 1.2 - and the wheel size difference gives the smaller bike a disadvantage of over 40% in terms of ground covered per wheel rotation.
And as you noted, using smaller rear sprockets to compensate more simply wears them out faster. 60/11 with 20" wheels has roughly the same development as 50/13 with 700c x 25 (8.1m per crank rotation) - but the 11T rear cog is going to be toast far sooner.
Last edited by Hondo6; 09-02-22 at 08:07 PM.