| |
Main
Date: 10 Sep 2007 21:33:46
From: Neal
Subject: Shimano chain question
|
I just got a used very low mileage bike with a Shimano Ultegra 10 drive
train. I noticed the chain is connected opposite of what Shimano
recommends. The connecting pin is on the trailing part of the link instead
of the forward position. Is this anything to be concerned about? I have a
Wipperman connecting link from my Campagnolo 10 setup (not the ultra narrow
chain). Can this be used with Shimano? This is my first experience with
Shimano after riding Campy equiped bikes since 1974.
|
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2007 12:44:50
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: Help! Cracked BB shell lug!
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:xNqdnT5DP-I5i3vbnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> Jambo wrote:
>> HAHAHAHA! Proven wrong again, lying fucktard! Now you spew more
>> bullshit like a wounded rat in a corner!
>
> fuck off moron. if you'd ever done metallography on attempted repairs
> like this, you'll have seen little or no success at penetrating the crack,
> only blobbing metal on top of it - and the stress riser remaining.
YAHAHAHA! As if you've done any "metallography"! More rhubarb from the CF
fork Whisperer! So where did you get this "infomercial" from, Pop Science
magazine? Or maybe someone told you this from "a materials lecture more
than 30 years ago"?
So machining/smoothing the broken weld parts doesn't do anything to the
metal at all. And re-welding the smoothed parts doesn't penetrate the metal
at all. And the heat the weld imparts to the crack doesn't do anything to
the "stress-riser".
You don't know jack shit about CF, and nothing about welding. Yet you spout
off these "gems" because of a sad need to be acknowledged as an "expert", a
"former metallurgist", a "metallography guru".... is that the payoff for you
beamboy?
> you shoot your mouth off all you want, but don't try to obscure facts your
> i.q. can't comprehend.
Or facts that aren't facts, but rather "beamboytics" - and you're right, I
can't comprehend those.
Lying fucktard!
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2007 20:37:06
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Help! Cracked BB shell lug!
|
Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:xNqdnT5DP-I5i3vbnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Jambo wrote:
>>> HAHAHAHA! Proven wrong again, lying fucktard! Now you spew more
>>> bullshit like a wounded rat in a corner!
>> fuck off moron. if you'd ever done metallography on attempted repairs
>> like this, you'll have seen little or no success at penetrating the crack,
>> only blobbing metal on top of it - and the stress riser remaining.
>
> YAHAHAHA! As if you've done any "metallography"! More rhubarb from the CF
> fork Whisperer! So where did you get this "infomercial" from, Pop Science
> magazine? Or maybe someone told you this from "a materials lecture more
> than 30 years ago"?
fuck off moron.
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2007 05:32:24
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: Shimano chain question
|
On Sep 11, 6:09 am, David Bonnell <dbonn...@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > I just got a used very low mileage bike with a Shimano Ultegra 10
> drive
>
> > > train. I noticed the chain is connected opposite of what Shimano
> > > recommends. The connecting pin is on the trailing part of the link instead
> > > of the forward position. Is this anything to be concerned about?
>
> Speaking as someone who has snapped an Ultegra 10 chain, I would
> proceed with caution (regardless of how it is put together). The
> chain I snapped only had about 1000 miles on it, but I can't verify if
> it had anything to do with how the chain was attached (it came with
> the bike and I knew nothing about 10-speed drivetrains or orientation
> of pins at the time). Suspiciously, the offending link was adjacent
> to the original connecting pin but the pin was not the point of
> failure. The fact that I was gearing up going up a hill was likely a
> contributing factor, even though I do make a conscious effort to
> reduce the load when up-shifting.
>
> > I just looked at one of my bikes and it is setup as yours is. I never
> > noticed. It has survived my 230lbs stomping up hills no problems. I
> > wouldn't worry about it. I believe the Wipperman links are of
> > marginally different widths for Campy or Shimano 10-speed. I'd ratehr
> > have the un-approved Shimano pin than a wrong sized Wipperman. I've
> > used the Wipperman on my Ultegra (6600) bike and it seems to me like
> > it made a lot of noise and caught the front derailleur a bit, so I
> > dropped it.
>
> Uggh. Not what I want to hear...I just bought a couple of these links
> and was really hoping that they would solve some of my (very dirty)
> drivetrain issues. Unfortunately, I haven't had the chance to install
> one yet...a couple of same-day blowouts have forced me onto my 8-speed
> steed. I've had great success with 8/9 speed PowerLinks. Cleaning up
> my MTBs is a snap with these things (well, more like a twist, but I
> digress...)
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
We have sold dozens of these links for shimano and Campagnolo 10s
chains and have not seen what was mentioned...so YMMV, but we think
they work great.
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2007 05:30:40
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: Shimano chain question
|
On Sep 10, 7:33 pm, "Neal" <N...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> I just got a used very low mileage bike with a Shimano Ultegra 10 drive
> train. I noticed the chain is connected opposite of what Shimano
> recommends. The connecting pin is on the trailing part of the link instead
> of the forward position. Is this anything to be concerned about? I have a
> Wipperman connecting link from my Campagnolo 10 setup (not the ultra narrow
> chain). Can this be used with Shimano? This is my first experience with
> Shimano after riding Campy equiped bikes since 1974.
Take the link out that has the shimano pin in it, get a narrow
Wipperman link. The wider one(6.2mm) will work but the proper one will
be more secure.
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2007 05:19:05
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Shimano chain question
|
On Sep 11, 2:09 pm, David Bonnell <dbonn...@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > I just got a used very low mileage bike with a Shimano Ultegra 10
> drive
>
> > > train. I noticed the chain is connected opposite of what Shimano
> > > recommends. The connecting pin is on the trailing part of the link instead
> > > of the forward position. Is this anything to be concerned about?
>
> Speaking as someone who has snapped an Ultegra 10 chain, I would
> proceed with caution (regardless of how it is put together). The
> chain I snapped only had about 1000 miles on it, but I can't verify if
> it had anything to do with how the chain was attached (it came with
> the bike and I knew nothing about 10-speed drivetrains or orientation
> of pins at the time). Suspiciously, the offending link was adjacent
> to the original connecting pin but the pin was not the point of
> failure. The fact that I was gearing up going up a hill was likely a
> contributing factor, even though I do make a conscious effort to
> reduce the load when up-shifting.
>
> > I just looked at one of my bikes and it is setup as yours is. I never
> > noticed. It has survived my 230lbs stomping up hills no problems. I
> > wouldn't worry about it. I believe the Wipperman links are of
> > marginally different widths for Campy or Shimano 10-speed. I'd ratehr
> > have the un-approved Shimano pin than a wrong sized Wipperman. I've
> > used the Wipperman on my Ultegra (6600) bike and it seems to me like
> > it made a lot of noise and caught the front derailleur a bit, so I
> > dropped it.
>
> Uggh. Not what I want to hear...I just bought a couple of these links
> and was really hoping that they would solve some of my (very dirty)
> drivetrain issues. Unfortunately, I haven't had the chance to install
> one yet...a couple of same-day blowouts have forced me onto my 8-speed
> steed. I've had great success with 8/9 speed PowerLinks. Cleaning up
> my MTBs is a snap with these things (well, more like a twist, but I
> digress...)
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
Cleaning the chain was a messy enough job that I did it infrequently
anyway even with the added ease of the Wipperman. So the noise was
enough to get me to go back. The catching the der, and the sometimes
hugely loud CLONK when shifting in the rear was the deal breaker.
YMMV.
Joseph
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2007 05:09:15
From: David Bonnell
Subject: Re: Shimano chain question
|
> > I just got a used very low mileage bike with a Shimano Ultegra 10
drive
> > train. I noticed the chain is connected opposite of what Shimano
> > recommends. The connecting pin is on the trailing part of the link instead
> > of the forward position. Is this anything to be concerned about?
Speaking as someone who has snapped an Ultegra 10 chain, I would
proceed with caution (regardless of how it is put together). The
chain I snapped only had about 1000 miles on it, but I can't verify if
it had anything to do with how the chain was attached (it came with
the bike and I knew nothing about 10-speed drivetrains or orientation
of pins at the time). Suspiciously, the offending link was adjacent
to the original connecting pin but the pin was not the point of
failure. The fact that I was gearing up going up a hill was likely a
contributing factor, even though I do make a conscious effort to
reduce the load when up-shifting.
> I just looked at one of my bikes and it is setup as yours is. I never
> noticed. It has survived my 230lbs stomping up hills no problems. I
> wouldn't worry about it. I believe the Wipperman links are of
> marginally different widths for Campy or Shimano 10-speed. I'd ratehr
> have the un-approved Shimano pin than a wrong sized Wipperman. I've
> used the Wipperman on my Ultegra (6600) bike and it seems to me like
> it made a lot of noise and caught the front derailleur a bit, so I
> dropped it.
Uggh. Not what I want to hear...I just bought a couple of these links
and was really hoping that they would solve some of my (very dirty)
drivetrain issues. Unfortunately, I haven't had the chance to install
one yet...a couple of same-day blowouts have forced me onto my 8-speed
steed. I've had great success with 8/9 speed PowerLinks. Cleaning up
my MTBs is a snap with these things (well, more like a twist, but I
digress...)
Cheers,
Dave
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2007 03:44:40
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Shimano chain question
|
On Sep 11, 3:33 am, "Neal" <N...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> I just got a used very low mileage bike with a Shimano Ultegra 10 drive
> train. I noticed the chain is connected opposite of what Shimano
> recommends. The connecting pin is on the trailing part of the link instead
> of the forward position. Is this anything to be concerned about? I have a
> Wipperman connecting link from my Campagnolo 10 setup (not the ultra narrow
> chain). Can this be used with Shimano? This is my first experience with
> Shimano after riding Campy equiped bikes since 1974.
I just looked at one of my bikes and it is setup as yours is. I never
noticed. It has survived my 230lbs stomping up hills no problems. I
wouldn't worry about it. I believe the Wipperman links are of
marginally different widths for Campy or Shimano 10-speed. I'd ratehr
have the un-approved Shimano pin than a wrong sized Wipperman. I've
used the Wipperman on my Ultegra (6600) bike and it seems to me like
it made a lot of noise and caught the front derailleur a bit, so I
dropped it.
Joseph
|
| |
Date: 10 Sep 2007 22:48:00
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Shimano chain question
|
Neal wrote:
> I just got a used very low mileage bike with a Shimano Ultegra 10 drive
> train. I noticed the chain is connected opposite of what Shimano
> recommends. The connecting pin is on the trailing part of the link
> instead of the forward position. Is this anything to be concerned
> about?
if you believe shimano's own literature, yes! download their tech
manual on the chain and it'll tell you the joint strength difference iirc.
> I have a Wipperman connecting link from my Campagnolo 10 setup
> (not the ultra narrow chain). Can this be used with Shimano? This is
> my first experience with Shimano after riding Campy equiped bikes since
> 1974.
|
|
