| |
Main
Date: 17 May 2007 10:16:36
From: Thomas Hood
Subject: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
Couldn't find this mentioned on google groups, so I assume no one has
noticed:
http://tinyurl.com/3bza5d
Discuss.
Tom
|
|
| |
Date: 25 Jun 2007 14:37:43
From: Joe Riel
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
luns@mochi.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Luns Tee) writes:
> In article <87bqgiufnw.fsf@san.rr.com>, Joe Riel <joer@san.rr.com> wrote:
>>Sandy's point is that you haven't (here) explained why it is the pitch
>>that is important. To understand this, one has to think about how the
>>chain rests on the cog. In operation, the rollers that are carrying
>>the load are pushed in the same direction. So long as the rollers
>>wear evenly, the wear of the rollers doesn't affect the effective
>>pitch of the chain. Hence the pin to pin distance is the proper
>>measure.
>
> The rollers aren't pushed in quite the same direction: each
> one is an angle of 360/N different from the next. The front chainwheel
> has enough teeth that this effect isn't significant, but for the rear
> sprockets, it can be. What's important though, isn't so much the
> difference from each roller to the next, but rather what component of
> the play is taken up radially rather than tangent to the roller pitch
> circle.
>
> I think I estimated before that for a 50t chainwheel, the
> effect of roller play on the roller pitch circle is about 1:30 the
> effect of equivalent pin wear. For a 13t sprocket with the same tooth
> form (same included angle in the body of the cog, which may or may not
> be accurate), the ratio was about 1:4.
Good point, I hadn't thought of that. However, my assumption
is that the rollers wear at a much slower rate than the "bushings."
But that is merely an assumption...
--
Joe Riel
|
| |
Date: 19 May 2007 19:04:28
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
On May 18, 2:01 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
<snipped >
- on chain wear -
> Thanks. I took that for granite's that chain skipping is caused by
> chain pitch mismatch
I always thought your opinions were set in stone...... ;-)
|
| |
Date: 19 May 2007 10:22:39
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
On May 18, 12:01 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Joe Riel writes:
> >>> Did you actually read the note, or did you use an autoresponder?
> >> I responded to Jay Beattie's question. What is it that you explained
> >> to him with which my response conflicts?
> >>> If there is wear and damage to rollers, yet the pin to pin distance
> >>> is unchanged, you have failed to identify a worn chain with a ruler.
> >> Your supposition of not reading the question applies here. Chain
> >> pitch is what makes chains skip over sprockets, not roller clearance,
> >> clearance that varies with manufacturer and in use.
> > Sandy's point is that you haven't (here) explained why it is the pitch
> > that is important. To understand this, one has to think about how the
> > chain rests on the cog. In operation, the rollers that are carrying
> > the load are pushed in the same direction. So long as the rollers
> > wear evenly, the wear of the rollers doesn't affect the effective
> > pitch of the chain. Hence the pin to pin distance is the proper
> > measure.
> > Naturally, if the rollers didn't wear evenly, that wouldn't be sufficient.
> > However, you aren't going to be able measure uneven roller wear with
> > just one measurement, using any tool.
>
> Thanks. I took that for granite's that chain skipping is caused by
> chain pitch mismatch after the extensive diagrams and explanations in
> Pardo's links.
>
> http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-004/000.html
>
> Jobst Brandt- Hide quoted text -
>
Assume that the rollers are soft and tend to deform and indent, but
that the pin/plate (or bushings)are sturdy and wear-free, how will
this affect sprocket engagement, and will it cause skipping? Or will
the preservation of pitch prevent skipping? -- Jay Beattie.
|
| | |
Date: 21 May 2007 03:00:27
From:
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
Jay Beattie <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com > writes:
>>>>> Did you actually read the note, or did you use an autoresponder?
>>>> I responded to Jay Beattie's question. What is it that you explained
>>>> to him with which my response conflicts?
>>>>> If there is wear and damage to rollers, yet the pin to pin distance
>>>>> is unchanged, you have failed to identify a worn chain with a ruler.
>>>> Your supposition of not reading the question applies here. Chain
>>>> pitch is what makes chains skip over sprockets, not roller clearance,
>>>> clearance that varies with manufacturer and in use.
>>> Sandy's point is that you haven't (here) explained why it is the pitch
>>> that is important. To understand this, one has to think about how the
>>> chain rests on the cog. In operation, the rollers that are carrying
>>> the load are pushed in the same direction. So long as the rollers
>>> wear evenly, the wear of the rollers doesn't affect the effective
>>> pitch of the chain. Hence the pin to pin distance is the proper
>>> measure.
>>> Naturally, if the rollers didn't wear evenly, that wouldn't be sufficient.
>>> However, you aren't going to be able measure uneven roller wear with
>>> just one measurement, using any tool.
>> Thanks. I took for granted that chain skipping is caused by chain
>> pitch mismatch after the extensive diagrams and explanations in
>> Pardo's links.
http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-004/000.html
> Assume that the rollers are soft and tend to deform and indent, but
> that the pin/plate (or bushings)are sturdy and wear-free, how will
> this affect sprocket engagement, and will it cause skipping? Or will
> the preservation of pitch prevent skipping? -- Jay Beattie.
That is an invalid assumption and one that has no bearing on the
measurement of chain pitch elongation because if the roller were too
soft to transmit the load, it affects new chains as well, they having
enough roller clearance to meet your test. If you followed earlier
threads, you'll know that roller clearance is not uniform among
manufacturers.
How do you propose this affect pitch elongation from wear and how to
measure it?
Jobst Brandt
|
| | |
Date: 19 May 2007 11:18:18
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
"Jay Beattie" <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com > wrote in message
news:1179595359.293375.157890@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On May 18, 12:01 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> > Joe Riel writes:
> > >>> Did you actually read the note, or did you use an autoresponder?
> > >> I responded to Jay Beattie's question. What is it that you
explained
> > >> to him with which my response conflicts?
> > >>> If there is wear and damage to rollers, yet the pin to pin
distance
> > >>> is unchanged, you have failed to identify a worn chain with a
ruler.
> > >> Your supposition of not reading the question applies here. Chain
> > >> pitch is what makes chains skip over sprockets, not roller
clearance,
> > >> clearance that varies with manufacturer and in use.
> > > Sandy's point is that you haven't (here) explained why it is the
pitch
> > > that is important. To understand this, one has to think about how
the
> > > chain rests on the cog. In operation, the rollers that are carrying
> > > the load are pushed in the same direction. So long as the rollers
> > > wear evenly, the wear of the rollers doesn't affect the effective
> > > pitch of the chain. Hence the pin to pin distance is the proper
> > > measure.
> > > Naturally, if the rollers didn't wear evenly, that wouldn't be
sufficient.
> > > However, you aren't going to be able measure uneven roller wear with
> > > just one measurement, using any tool.
> >
> > Thanks. I took that for granite's that chain skipping is caused by
> > chain pitch mismatch after the extensive diagrams and explanations in
> > Pardo's links.
> >
> > http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-004/000.html
> >
> > Jobst Brandt- Hide quoted text -
> >
>
> Assume that the rollers are soft and tend to deform and indent, but
> that the pin/plate (or bushings)are sturdy and wear-free, how will
> this affect sprocket engagement, and will it cause skipping? Or will
> the preservation of pitch prevent skipping? -- Jay Beattie.
>
>
I always assumed that the rollers, bushings and pins were the hardest
components in the chain because they were bearing surfaces and the side
plates were softer for toughness. I remember covering this in an
engineering class about 45 years ago.
If you look at the pin on Sheldon's site with the grooves worn into it, it
would appear that the wear was caused by grit embedded into the softer
side plates.
I've never seen than kind of wear on a link chain, I wonder if that
example was from some mechanical application rather than from a bike.
Normal wear on the pins causes them to become oval shaped because are held
stationary. Wear on the rollers and bushings should be more uniform
because they can rotate.
Chas.
|
| | | |
Date: 19 May 2007 14:31:08
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
"* * Chas" <verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com > wrote in message
news:JdqdnQHlufOLotLbnZ2dnUVZ_syunZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Jay Beattie" <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message
> news:1179595359.293375.157890@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
<snip >
> I always assumed that the rollers, bushings and pins were the hardest
> components in the chain because they were bearing surfaces and the side
> plates were softer for toughness. I remember covering this in an
> engineering class about 45 years ago.
>
> If you look at the pin on Sheldon's site with the grooves worn into it,
it
> would appear that the wear was caused by grit embedded into the softer
> side plates.
>
> I've never seen than kind of wear on a link chain, I wonder if that
> example was from some mechanical application rather than from a bike.
>
> Normal wear on the pins causes them to become oval shaped because are
held
> stationary. Wear on the rollers and bushings should be more uniform
> because they can rotate.
I posted this message in '99:
I rode a
PC59 for less than 6 months on my commuter (maybe 50-70 miles a week), and
at the end of that period (i.e. last night) I found that several rollers on
the chain had broken and fallen off, and other rollers were "dented" and
broken. The chain did suffer abuse -- I ride up a lot of hills on the way
home from work in low gears often pulling 70+ lbs of Burley trailer and
kid.
I also ride in the rain a lot. Other Sachs 6, 7 and 8 speed chains,
however, have stood up to this type of riding. I would prefer not to
hassle
with the Shimano pins, but may break down and buy a Shimano chain with some
sort of Superlink type of thing. I think that the chain is the weak link in
the 9 speed set up. -- Jay Beattie.
The climbing was done on a triple with a low of 34/26 and the hill grades
were above 10 percent, and I weighed probably 215 (plus the trailer and my
son) -- so that chain was seeing a lot of force. The rollers dented like
Coke cans and some fell off. I got skipping, but the pin to pin distance
was unaffected. -- Jay Beattie.
|
| |
Date: 18 May 2007 15:43:10
From: Joe Riel
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org writes:
> Joe Riel writes:
>
>>>> Did you actually read the note, or did you use an autoresponder?
>
>>> I responded to Jay Beattie's question. What is it that you explained
>>> to him with which my response conflicts?
>
>>>> If there is wear and damage to rollers, yet the pin to pin distance
>>>> is unchanged, you have failed to identify a worn chain with a ruler.
>
>>> Your supposition of not reading the question applies here. Chain
>>> pitch is what makes chains skip over sprockets, not roller clearance,
>>> clearance that varies with manufacturer and in use.
>
>> Sandy's point is that you haven't (here) explained why it is the pitch
>> that is important. To understand this, one has to think about how the
>> chain rests on the cog. In operation, the rollers that are carrying
>> the load are pushed in the same direction. So long as the rollers
>> wear evenly, the wear of the rollers doesn't affect the effective
>> pitch of the chain. Hence the pin to pin distance is the proper
>> measure.
>
>> Naturally, if the rollers didn't wear evenly, that wouldn't be sufficient.
>> However, you aren't going to be able measure uneven roller wear with
>> just one measurement, using any tool.
>
> Thanks. I took that for granted that chain skipping is caused by
> chain pitch mismatch after the extensive diagrams and explanations in
> Pardo's links.
>
> http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-004/000.html
That link is excellent. I read it awhile ago and it clearly explains
the relevant issues. I'm curious, has anyone posted any measurements
of the actual wear of the components. We know how much the chain elongates,
but how much do the rollers (ID and OD) and pins actually wear?
The picture at the link show shows significant wear to part of the face
of a pin.
--
Joe Riel
|
| | |
Date: 18 May 2007 21:51:07
From:
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
On Fri, 18 May 2007 15:43:10 -0700, Joe Riel <joer@san.rr.com > wrote:
>jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org writes:
>
>> Joe Riel writes:
>>
>>>>> Did you actually read the note, or did you use an autoresponder?
>>
>>>> I responded to Jay Beattie's question. What is it that you explained
>>>> to him with which my response conflicts?
>>
>>>>> If there is wear and damage to rollers, yet the pin to pin distance
>>>>> is unchanged, you have failed to identify a worn chain with a ruler.
>>
>>>> Your supposition of not reading the question applies here. Chain
>>>> pitch is what makes chains skip over sprockets, not roller clearance,
>>>> clearance that varies with manufacturer and in use.
>>
>>> Sandy's point is that you haven't (here) explained why it is the pitch
>>> that is important. To understand this, one has to think about how the
>>> chain rests on the cog. In operation, the rollers that are carrying
>>> the load are pushed in the same direction. So long as the rollers
>>> wear evenly, the wear of the rollers doesn't affect the effective
>>> pitch of the chain. Hence the pin to pin distance is the proper
>>> measure.
>>
>>> Naturally, if the rollers didn't wear evenly, that wouldn't be sufficient.
>>> However, you aren't going to be able measure uneven roller wear with
>>> just one measurement, using any tool.
>>
>> Thanks. I took that for granted that chain skipping is caused by
>> chain pitch mismatch after the extensive diagrams and explanations in
>> Pardo's links.
>>
>> http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-004/000.html
>
>That link is excellent. I read it awhile ago and it clearly explains
>the relevant issues. I'm curious, has anyone posted any measurements
>of the actual wear of the components. We know how much the chain elongates,
>but how much do the rollers (ID and OD) and pins actually wear?
>The picture at the link show shows significant wear to part of the face
>of a pin.
Dear Joe,
I haven't found any pictures of internal chain wear so far, but I did
stumble across this:
http://www.reginachain.it/eng/use_and_maintenance/how_to04.shtml
I never noticed or even heard of the pins rotating.
Examination of the oldest and filthiest worn bicycle chains at Fogel
Labs showed no rotated pins, so it may be a kind of wear found only on
motorcycles, where more power meets more resistance.
Possibly tandem riders or Chalo are able to rotate chain-rivet pins?
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| |
Date: 18 May 2007 12:57:35
From: Alex
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
On May 17, 1:16 pm, Thomas Hood <thomas.h...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Couldn't find this mentioned on google groups, so I assume no one has
> noticed:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3bza5d
>
> Discuss.
No different than using a ruler to measure center to center
--------------
Alex
|
| |
Date: 18 May 2007 11:53:39
From: Joe Riel
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org writes:
> Sandy Leurre writes:
>> Did you actually read the note, or did you use an autoresponder?
>
> I responded to Jay Beattie's question. What is it that you explained
> to him with which my response conflicts?
>
>> If there is wear and damage to rollers, yet the pin to pin distance
>> is unchanged, you have failed to identify a worn chain with a ruler.
>
> Your supposition of not reading the question applies here. Chain
> pitch is what makes chains skip over sprockets, not roller clearance,
> clearance that varies with manufacturer and in use.
Sandy's point is that you haven't (here) explained why it is the pitch
that is important. To understand this, one has to think about how the
chain rests on the cog. In operation, the rollers that are carrying
the load are pushed in the same direction. So long as the rollers
wear evenly, the wear of the rollers doesn't affect the effective
pitch of the chain. Hence the pin to pin distance is the proper
measure.
Naturally, if the rollers didn't wear evenly, that wouldn't be sufficient.
However, you aren't going to be able measure uneven roller wear with
just one measurement, using any tool.
--
Joe Riel
|
| | |
Date: 25 Jun 2007 21:19:44
From: Luns Tee
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
In article <87bqgiufnw.fsf@san.rr.com >, Joe Riel <joer@san.rr.com> wrote:
>Sandy's point is that you haven't (here) explained why it is the pitch
>that is important. To understand this, one has to think about how the
>chain rests on the cog. In operation, the rollers that are carrying
>the load are pushed in the same direction. So long as the rollers
>wear evenly, the wear of the rollers doesn't affect the effective
>pitch of the chain. Hence the pin to pin distance is the proper
>measure.
The rollers aren't pushed in quite the same direction: each
one is an angle of 360/N different from the next. The front chainwheel
has enough teeth that this effect isn't significant, but for the rear
sprockets, it can be. What's important though, isn't so much the
difference from each roller to the next, but rather what component of
the play is taken up radially rather than tangent to the roller pitch
circle.
I think I estimated before that for a 50t chainwheel, the
effect of roller play on the roller pitch circle is about 1:30 the
effect of equivalent pin wear. For a 13t sprocket with the same tooth
form (same included angle in the body of the cog, which may or may not
be accurate), the ratio was about 1:4.
-Luns
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Jun 2007 01:40:38
From:
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
Luns Tee writes:
>> Sandy's point is that you haven't (here) explained why it is the
>> pitch that is important. To understand this, one has to think
>> about how the chain rests on the cog. In operation, the rollers
>> that are carrying the load are pushed in the same direction. So
>> long as the rollers wear evenly, the wear of the rollers doesn't
>> affect the effective pitch of the chain. Hence the pin to pin
>> distance is the proper measure.
> The rollers aren't pushed in quite the same direction: each one is
> an angle of 360/N different from the next. The front chainwheel has
> enough teeth that this effect isn't significant, but for the rear
> sprockets, it can be. What's important though, isn't so much the
> difference from each roller to the next, but rather what component
> of the play is taken up radially rather than tangent to the roller
> pitch circle.
> I think I estimated before that for a 50t chainwheel, the effect of
> roller play on the roller pitch circle is about 1:30 the effect of
> equivalent pin wear. For a 13t sprocket with the same tooth form
> (same included angle in the body of the cog, which may or may not be
> accurate), the ratio was about 1:4.
The chain articulates from the bend related to the driven sprocket
diameter under full load as it disengages and does similarly when
engaging the drive sprocket. That means the wear pattern is developed
over the extent of angular articulation from the straight line to the
angular position and wears the same portion of pin and sleeve at both
places.
Smaller sprockets have wear around a larger part of the pin and
sleeve, but that makes no difference. The straight line chain
elongation remains the critical dimension and that is not correctly
measured by a between-the-rollers gauge, both because roller clearance
is included and because pin and sleeve wear can be overshadowed by
chains that have greater roller clearance when new.
Jobst Brandt
|
| | |
Date: 18 May 2007 19:10:02
From:
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
Joe Riel writes:
>>> Did you actually read the note, or did you use an autoresponder?
>> I responded to Jay Beattie's question. What is it that you explained
>> to him with which my response conflicts?
>>> If there is wear and damage to rollers, yet the pin to pin distance
>>> is unchanged, you have failed to identify a worn chain with a ruler.
>> Your supposition of not reading the question applies here. Chain
>> pitch is what makes chains skip over sprockets, not roller clearance,
>> clearance that varies with manufacturer and in use.
> Sandy's point is that you haven't (here) explained why it is the pitch
> that is important. To understand this, one has to think about how the
> chain rests on the cog. In operation, the rollers that are carrying
> the load are pushed in the same direction. So long as the rollers
> wear evenly, the wear of the rollers doesn't affect the effective
> pitch of the chain. Hence the pin to pin distance is the proper
> measure.
> Naturally, if the rollers didn't wear evenly, that wouldn't be sufficient.
> However, you aren't going to be able measure uneven roller wear with
> just one measurement, using any tool.
Thanks. I took that for granted that chain skipping is caused by
chain pitch mismatch after the extensive diagrams and explanations in
Pardo's links.
http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-004/000.html
Jobst Brandt
|
| | |
Date: 18 May 2007 19:01:45
From:
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
Joe Riel writes:
>>> Did you actually read the note, or did you use an autoresponder?
>> I responded to Jay Beattie's question. What is it that you explained
>> to him with which my response conflicts?
>>> If there is wear and damage to rollers, yet the pin to pin distance
>>> is unchanged, you have failed to identify a worn chain with a ruler.
>> Your supposition of not reading the question applies here. Chain
>> pitch is what makes chains skip over sprockets, not roller clearance,
>> clearance that varies with manufacturer and in use.
> Sandy's point is that you haven't (here) explained why it is the pitch
> that is important. To understand this, one has to think about how the
> chain rests on the cog. In operation, the rollers that are carrying
> the load are pushed in the same direction. So long as the rollers
> wear evenly, the wear of the rollers doesn't affect the effective
> pitch of the chain. Hence the pin to pin distance is the proper
> measure.
> Naturally, if the rollers didn't wear evenly, that wouldn't be sufficient.
> However, you aren't going to be able measure uneven roller wear with
> just one measurement, using any tool.
Thanks. I took that for granite's that chain skipping is caused by
chain pitch mismatch after the extensive diagrams and explanations in
Pardo's links.
http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-004/000.html
Jobst Brandt
|
| | | |
Date: 18 May 2007 16:59:35
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> ... I took that for granite's that chain skipping ...
"took that for granite's", Gracie?
|
| |
Date: 18 May 2007 07:33:06
From: datakoll@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
GROUP 2 "THOUGHT" - HMMMM! i was operating under the casual
impression that all the ellipsoid roller wear lined up fat side
leading from tooth force/ground friction. how 'bout that? but why
would rollloffff produce a bogus tool?
|
| |
Date: 19 May 2007 00:20:59
From: Duncan
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
"Thomas Hood" <thomas.hood@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1179422196.480055.70860@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Couldn't find this mentioned on google groups, so I assume no one has
> noticed:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3bza5d
>
> Discuss.
Well... This is the first I've heard of Rohloff chain checkers being
inaccurate. I've had one for a couple of years now and I check the chains
on all of my bikes very regularly. All I know is that there is a consistent
'good' reading on a new chain and progressively worse reading as the chain
ages.
It has made me change chains more often but I've been able to run
rings/cassettes much longer saving money in the long run.
It does seem to give a reliable repeatable result even if the exact point of
replacement may be off.
|
| |
Date: 18 May 2007 07:07:26
From: datakoll@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
ERT ERT DISSS EEEES ROLLLOFFFFFF ROLLOFFFFF HEAH
COMIN PHYTOPLANKTON! RRRR UUUU DERRREEE?
VEEEE HAFFFFF MESSSAGE!
Thanks to Jobst Brandt for discussing chain wear, Regina CX-S
photographs, and for reading and commenting on earlier drafts of this
note.
ESSSSS REEELEAF! NOOOOOOO LONGAH REPLACE CHAINS!!!! KNOWBELL!!
ROLLLLLLOFFFF OUT
VEEE GO VATCH HUMLET UNG TRES STOOGES!
|
| |
Date: 18 May 2007 01:06:40
From: Thomas Hood
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
On May 17, 7:04 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On 17 May 2007 10:16:36 -0700, Thomas Hood
> Dear Tom,
>
> What's wrong with Sheldon's method?
>
Er... nothing. Indeed, that's the method I use. My point was various
people go to extraordinary lengths to defend a provably flawed tool.
My point was that Shimano have produced a tool with an explicit
diagram noting why the 'other' (Rohloff) tool is a nonsense.
http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-004/000.html
Incidently, I've always wondered who or what is pardo?
Thanks,
Thomas Hood
|
| | |
Date: 18 May 2007 13:32:40
From:
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
Thomas Hood writes:
>> What's wrong with Sheldon's method?
> Er... nothing. Indeed, that's the method I use. My point was various
> people go to extraordinary lengths to defend a provably flawed tool.
> My point was that Shimano have produced a tool with an explicit
> diagram noting why the 'other' (Rohloff) tool is a nonsense.
http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-004/000.html
> Incidently, I've always wondered who or what is pardo?
Don Pardo od TV fame'
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0661094/
Jobst Brandt
|
| |
Date: 17 May 2007 17:51:02
From: john
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
On May 17, 11:08 am, M-gineering <ikmotgeens...@m-gineering.nl > wrote:
> Thomas Hood wrote:
> > Couldn't find this mentioned on google groups, so I assume no one has
> > noticed:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/3bza5d
>
> > Discuss.
>
> > Tom
>
> $135
>
> --
> /Marten
>
> info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl
I don't have much faith in this Shimano debunking of Rohloff. I've
read several times here about the fallibility of ROHLOFF's CALIPER 2
and Parks knock off of it, the Chain Wear Check CC-3. Something about
rollers not being centered when the gauge in between the chain links.
It makes sense, but I don't believe it. I've had a CALIPER 2 for many
years & I've never had a cog or CR wear problem.
FWIW I have not trusted the Park Chain Wear Check CC-2 ever since I
used one @ a bike shop to test it out on a new chain I had just
installed & it showed the chain to be totally worn out. The post was
bent. If I were to buy one & the post got bent a little, how would I
know?
I decided to measure a chain using all the tools in my arsinel to
satisfy my curiosity to see if I have been doing it wrong, all these
yrs.
The chain measured was a: KMC Z72 6,7, & 8 Speed Chain, 116 links,
7.1mm pin, silver/brown
Price: $10.95 from www.biketoolsetc.com w/ ~1k miles on it,
always lubed w/ Boeshield T-9
The chain was measured in bright light w/
A 12" SS ruler w/ a cork backing; the measurements were all taken @
10" btn. the 1" & 11" marks, due to interference w/ the fr. derail @
12'.
6" digital caliper by laying the ID tines on the rivet of the chain.
A chain measuring ruler w/ a clip to hold the ruler on the chain & a
hole to fit on the 1st rivet & 4 holes @ 9-1/2" reading "NEW" "GOOD
"FAIR" "REPLACE" of unknown brand. (The label has fallen off.)
and finally,
The ROHLOFF CALIPER 2
The measurements were taken both w/ tension on a pedal & w/o tension,
to see if it made any difference. All readings were taken 3 times &
averaged
W/O tension W/ tension
Numbers from the 12" ruler were: 10-1/64" 10-1/64"
The 6" digital caliper were: 5.99" 6.01
Chain measuring ruler 'New" hole were: The chain was Not taken
due
shorter than the to the inaccuracy 'New'
hole. the device.
(measured over
3 different lengths
chain)
(also the rivets were smooshed out unevenly & beyond the diameter of
the rules holes.)
ROHLOFF CALIPER 2 'steel' side were: Had ~1/4" gap Had~ 7/64"
gap
This raises more questions for me than it answers.
It's possible that ROHLOFF, & Park make their gauges w/ an allowance
for the slop in the rollers.
How would my measurements come out if I had a chain that was between
1/16" 1/8" elongated?
If someone has a just barely worn out chain, I would be very
interested in seeing the results of using several different methods to
measure it.
I wouldn't bet my life on the accuracy of my measurements.
I believe that I can read a scale to +/- 0.01". In other words I can
tell, say for example, when a scale is showing say 1" + 0.03", I can
tell it's not 1.05" & not 1.01", so it is somewhere btn. 1.02 & 1.04".
But to tell w/ that accuracy exactly what points on the chain a scale
is indicating is much more difficult. The digital calipers were not
that much more accurate that the scales because I was just using the
tines to estimate a location on what I thought was the center of the
rivet. If I had placed the ID tines btn. the rollers, I would have
just gotten more or less the same numbers as the ROHLOFF, Park CC2, or
CC3
What does all this prove? Not really very much.
So I'm going to continue using my ROHLOFF CALIPER 2 , until someone
proves to me w/ some very accurate measurements, that the my ROHLOFF
is not accurate.
Regards, John
|
| | |
Date: 18 May 2007 11:44:53
From: Lou Holtman
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
john wrote:
> On May 17, 11:08 am, M-gineering <ikmotgeens...@m-gineering.nl> wrote:
>> Thomas Hood wrote:
>>> Couldn't find this mentioned on google groups, so I assume no one has
>>> noticed:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/3bza5d
>>> Discuss.
>>> Tom
>> $135
>>
>> --
>> /Marten
>>
>> info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl
>
> I don't have much faith in this Shimano debunking of Rohloff. I've
> read several times here about the fallibility of ROHLOFF's CALIPER 2
> and Parks knock off of it, the Chain Wear Check CC-3. Something about
> rollers not being centered when the gauge in between the chain links.
> It makes sense, but I don't believe it. I've had a CALIPER 2 for many
> years & I've never had a cog or CR wear problem.
> FWIW I have not trusted the Park Chain Wear Check CC-2 ever since I
> used one @ a bike shop to test it out on a new chain I had just
> installed & it showed the chain to be totally worn out. The post was
> bent. If I were to buy one & the post got bent a little, how would I
> know?
>
> I decided to measure a chain using all the tools in my arsinel to
> satisfy my curiosity to see if I have been doing it wrong, all these
> yrs.
>
> The chain measured was a: KMC Z72 6,7, & 8 Speed Chain, 116 links,
> 7.1mm pin, silver/brown
> Price: $10.95 from www.biketoolsetc.com w/ ~1k miles on it,
> always lubed w/ Boeshield T-9
>
> The chain was measured in bright light w/
>
> A 12" SS ruler w/ a cork backing; the measurements were all taken @
> 10" btn. the 1" & 11" marks, due to interference w/ the fr. derail @
> 12'.
>
> 6" digital caliper by laying the ID tines on the rivet of the chain.
>
> A chain measuring ruler w/ a clip to hold the ruler on the chain & a
> hole to fit on the 1st rivet & 4 holes @ 9-1/2" reading "NEW" "GOOD
> "FAIR" "REPLACE" of unknown brand. (The label has fallen off.)
>
> and finally,
> The ROHLOFF CALIPER 2
>
> The measurements were taken both w/ tension on a pedal & w/o tension,
> to see if it made any difference. All readings were taken 3 times &
> averaged
>
> W/O tension W/ tension
> Numbers from the 12" ruler were: 10-1/64" 10-1/64"
>
> The 6" digital caliper were: 5.99" 6.01
>
> Chain measuring ruler 'New" hole were: The chain was Not taken
> due
> shorter than the to the inaccuracy 'New'
> hole. the device.
> (measured over
> 3 different lengths
> chain)
> (also the rivets were smooshed out unevenly & beyond the diameter of
> the rules holes.)
>
> ROHLOFF CALIPER 2 'steel' side were: Had ~1/4" gap Had~ 7/64"
> gap
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This raises more questions for me than it answers.
>
> It's possible that ROHLOFF, & Park make their gauges w/ an allowance
> for the slop in the rollers.
>
> How would my measurements come out if I had a chain that was between
> 1/16" 1/8" elongated?
>
> If someone has a just barely worn out chain, I would be very
> interested in seeing the results of using several different methods to
> measure it.
>
>
> I wouldn't bet my life on the accuracy of my measurements.
> I believe that I can read a scale to +/- 0.01". In other words I can
> tell, say for example, when a scale is showing say 1" + 0.03", I can
> tell it's not 1.05" & not 1.01", so it is somewhere btn. 1.02 & 1.04".
> But to tell w/ that accuracy exactly what points on the chain a scale
> is indicating is much more difficult. The digital calipers were not
> that much more accurate that the scales because I was just using the
> tines to estimate a location on what I thought was the center of the
> rivet. If I had placed the ID tines btn. the rollers, I would have
> just gotten more or less the same numbers as the ROHLOFF, Park CC2, or
> CC3
>
> What does all this prove? Not really very much.
>
> So I'm going to continue using my ROHLOFF CALIPER 2 , until someone
> proves to me w/ some very accurate measurements, that the my ROHLOFF
> is not accurate.
>
> Regards, John
>
If you take the chain off your bike to clean it, the best/good/accurate
method is to hang the chain next to a new one from on a nail. Fast,
cheap and accurate.
Lou
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)
|
| | |
Date: 17 May 2007 23:26:54
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
"john" <jdrew96@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1179449462.902978.82950@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On May 17, 11:08 am, M-gineering <ikmotgeens...@m-gineering.nl> wrote:
<snip >
> I don't have much faith in this Shimano debunking of Rohloff. I've
> read several times here about the fallibility of ROHLOFF's CALIPER 2
> and Parks knock off of it, the Chain Wear Check CC-3. Something about
> rollers not being centered when the gauge in between the chain links.
> It makes sense, but I don't believe it. I've had a CALIPER 2 for many
> years & I've never had a cog or CR wear problem.
> FWIW I have not trusted the Park Chain Wear Check CC-2 ever since I
> used one @ a bike shop to test it out on a new chain I had just
> installed & it showed the chain to be totally worn out. The post was
> bent. If I were to buy one & the post got bent a little, how would I
> know?
>
> I decided to measure a chain using all the tools in my arsinel to
> satisfy my curiosity to see if I have been doing it wrong, all these
> yrs.
>
> The chain measured was a: KMC Z72 6,7, & 8 Speed Chain, 116 links,
> 7.1mm pin, silver/brown
> Price: $10.95 from www.biketoolsetc.com w/ ~1k miles on it,
> always lubed w/ Boeshield T-9
>
> The chain was measured in bright light w/
>
> A 12" SS ruler w/ a cork backing; the measurements were all taken @
> 10" btn. the 1" & 11" marks, due to interference w/ the fr. derail @
> 12'.
>
> 6" digital caliper by laying the ID tines on the rivet of the chain.
>
> A chain measuring ruler w/ a clip to hold the ruler on the chain & a
> hole to fit on the 1st rivet & 4 holes @ 9-1/2" reading "NEW" "GOOD
> "FAIR" "REPLACE" of unknown brand. (The label has fallen off.)
>
> and finally,
> The ROHLOFF CALIPER 2
>
> The measurements were taken both w/ tension on a pedal & w/o tension,
> to see if it made any difference. All readings were taken 3 times &
> averaged
>
> W/O tension W/ tension
> Numbers from the 12" ruler were: 10-1/64" 10-1/64"
>
> The 6" digital caliper were: 5.99" 6.01
>
> Chain measuring ruler 'New" hole were: The chain was Not taken
> due
> shorter than the to the inaccuracy 'New'
> hole. the device.
> (measured over
> 3 different lengths
> chain)
> (also the rivets were smooshed out unevenly & beyond the diameter of
> the rules holes.)
>
> ROHLOFF CALIPER 2 'steel' side were: Had ~1/4" gap Had~ 7/64"
> gap
>
> This raises more questions for me than it answers.
>
> It's possible that ROHLOFF, & Park make their gauges w/ an allowance
> for the slop in the rollers.
>
> How would my measurements come out if I had a chain that was between
> 1/16" 1/8" elongated?
>
> If someone has a just barely worn out chain, I would be very
> interested in seeing the results of using several different methods to
> measure it.
>
>
> I wouldn't bet my life on the accuracy of my measurements.
> I believe that I can read a scale to +/- 0.01". In other words I can
> tell, say for example, when a scale is showing say 1" + 0.03", I can
> tell it's not 1.05" & not 1.01", so it is somewhere btn. 1.02 & 1.04".
> But to tell w/ that accuracy exactly what points on the chain a scale
> is indicating is much more difficult. The digital calipers were not
> that much more accurate that the scales because I was just using the
> tines to estimate a location on what I thought was the center of the
> rivet. If I had placed the ID tines btn. the rollers, I would have
> just gotten more or less the same numbers as the ROHLOFF, Park CC2, or
> CC3
>
> What does all this prove? Not really very much.
>
> So I'm going to continue using my ROHLOFF CALIPER 2 , until someone
> proves to me w/ some very accurate measurements, that the my ROHLOFF
> is not accurate.
>
> Regards, John
>
Last year I bought an almost new 1987 MTB with a Shimano Deore XT groupo.
After checking, adjusting and lubing all the cables etc. I found that the
chain skipped in the middle sprockets when climbing on what looked like a
new 7 speed cassette.
I wasn't familiar with wear patterns on Hyperglide sprockets so rather
than mess around changing the chain and cassette I bought a Park CC3 chain
gage for $9. The Rohloff Caliber 2 was about $35 at a LBS and since this
was an experiment I didn't want to spend too much money on it.
The chain checked out fine with no wear showing, so did the chains on all
of my other bikes. After further cleaning and lubing the chain, cables and
derailleurs the skipping went away so it was a good investment for me.
When I lived in the Southwest I used to change chains at about 3,000 miles
whether they needed it or not. Chains were cheap then. I put the used
chains in plastic baggies and saved them in a box. Just for yuks I checked
all of these used chains with the Park CC3 and they all checked out OK.
These were Sedis, Regina and one of the original Shimano Uniglide chains.
So I have a bunch of still probably good 5-6 speed chains. I have to
attribute the lack of wear to regularly cleaning my chains in a
Safe-T-Clean tank to wash off the abrasive road grit.
Chas.
|
| | |
Date: 18 May 2007 01:33:08
From:
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
John Drew writes:
>>> Couldn't find this mentioned on Google groups, so I assume no one
>>> has noticed:
http://tinyurl.com/3bza5d
>> $135
> I don't have much faith in this Shimano debunking of Rohloff. I've
> read several times here about the fallibility of Rohloff CALIPER 2
> and Parks knock off of it, the Chain Wear Check CC-3. Something
> about rollers not being centered when the gauge in between the chain
> links. It makes sense, but I don't believe it. I've had a CALIPER 2
> for many years & I've never had a cog or CR wear problem.
I don't see the connection with you owning a Caliper-2 and not having
sprocket wear. The instrument only measures chain elongation, albeit
incorrectly, thereby selling new chains when they are probably not
needed because the method of measurement can give invalid results.
> FWIW I have not trusted the Park Chain Wear Check CC-2 ever since I
> used one @ a bike shop to test it out on a new chain I had just
> installed & it showed the chain to be totally worn out. The post
> was bent. If I were to buy one & the post got bent a little, how
> would I know?
If you were to use a Rohloff gauge, how would you know it is telling
you anything valid?
> I decided to measure a chain using all the tools in my arsinel to
> satisfy my curiosity to see if I have been doing it wrong, all these
> yrs.
Leave your arse out of this.
> The chain measured was a: KMC Z72 6,7, & 8 Speed Chain, 116 links,
> 7.1mm pin, silver/brown Price: $10.95 from www.biketoolsetc.com w/
> ~1k miles on it, always lubed w/ Boeshield T-9
I don't understand. The chain is half inch pitch and a new chain
should give and integral multiple of 0.5 inches measured center to
center of the pins. For 114 pitches that would be 57 inches. Did you
do that and compare?
> The chain was measured in bright light w/
> A 12" SS ruler w/ a cork backing; the measurements were all taken @
> 10" btn. the 1" & 11" marks, due to interference w/ the fr. derail @
> 12'.
> 6" digital caliper by laying the ID tines on the rivet of the chain.
Sounds awful tedious and indirect. Just lay it out stretched in a
straight line and measure it with a tape measure. As was pointed out,
over that many links precision of the eyeball is better than most
chain gauges.
> A chain measuring ruler w/ a clip to hold the ruler on the chain & a
> hole to fit on the 1st rivet & 4 holes @ 9-1/2" reading "NEW" "GOOD
> "FAIR" "REPLACE" of unknown brand. (The label has fallen off.)
This is getting tedious. Can't you just say what you found?
> and finally, The ROHLOFF CALIPER 2
> The measurements were taken both w/ tension on a pedal & w/o
> tension, to see if it made any difference. All readings were taken 3
> times & averaged
> W/O tension W/
> tension Numbers from the 12" ruler were: 10-1/64" 10-1/64"
> The 6" digital caliper were: 5.99" 6.01
> Chain measuring ruler 'New" hole were: The chain was Not taken due
> shorter than the to the inaccuracy 'New' hole. the device.
> (measured over 3 different lengths chain) (also the rivets were
> smooshed out unevenly & beyond the diameter of the rules holes.)
> ROHLOFF CALIPER 2 'steel' side were: Had ~1/4" gap Had~ 7/64" gap
> This raises more questions for me than it answers.
It doesn't answer any questions for me. You might just start over and
see what the total length f the chain is, compute its elongation in
percents and then see if any of your many instruments supports the
findings.
> It's possible that ROHLOFF, & Park make their gauges w/ an allowance
> for the slop in the rollers.
Guesswork!
> How would my measurements come out if I had a chain that was between
> 1/16" 1/8" elongated?
> If someone has a just barely worn out chain, I would be very
> interested in seeing the results of using several different methods
> to measure it.
I use only one method, that of pin-to-pin length against a 12 inch
section of a yardstick.
> I wouldn't bet my life on the accuracy of my measurements. I
> believe that I can read a scale to +/- 0.01". In other words I can
> tell, say for example, when a scale is showing say 1" + 0.03", I can
> tell it's not 1.05" & not 1.01", so it is somewhere btn. 1.02 &
> 1.04". But to tell w/ that accuracy exactly what points on the
> chain a scale is indicating is much more difficult. The digital
> calipers were not that much more accurate that the scales because I
> was just using the tines to estimate a location on what I thought
> was the center of the rivet. If I had placed the ID tines btn. the
> rollers, I would have just gotten more or less the same numbers as
> the ROHLOFF, Park CC2, or CC3
So don't tell us about it if you don't believe your own measurements.
> What does all this prove? Not really very much.
But yes! It proves you are not a good measurer and or assessor of
those measurements.
> So I'm going to continue using my ROHLOFF CALIPER 2 , until someone
> proves to me w/ some very accurate measurements, that the my ROHLOFF
> is not accurate.
You are the only one who can prove that to yourself.
Jobst Brandt
|
| |
Date: 17 May 2007 15:27:53
From: datakoll@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
nice tool! shop tool: quick check the chain for the customer, be
impressive, professional then sell the whole shebang for $350 plus
labor.
meanwhile, take the chain off with the chain link removed, lay chain
on 1x4 board and stretch it out then measure with tape, divide overage
by 3' or 4' for one foot average btutbutbut pull each link out and in
to see if there's a number of links greatly exceeding any allowance
you want to impose on your overall judgement of 1/8 per foot or
3/16th's per foot.guess that deepends on resources and custer type.
sometime, hang the replaced chain after cleaning and lubing a bit with
used oil. measure it a week later after it relaxes and all the oblongs
line up with gravity.
pulling on the links now and then is a good idea caws the odd wearing
link is repairable using pins in stock and saved chain cutoffs.
|
| |
Date: 17 May 2007 20:08:35
From: M-gineering
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
Thomas Hood wrote:
> Couldn't find this mentioned on google groups, so I assume no one has
> noticed:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3bza5d
>
> Discuss.
>
> Tom
>
$135
--
/Marten
info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl
|
| |
Date: 17 May 2007 14:04:40
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
On Thu, 17 May 2007 10:16:36 -0700, Thomas Hood wrote:
> Couldn't find this mentioned on google groups, so I assume no one has
> noticed:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3bza5d
>
> Discuss.
A ruler is more than adequate. Seriously.
Matt O.
|
| |
Date: 17 May 2007 12:04:49
From:
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
On 17 May 2007 10:16:36 -0700, Thomas Hood <thomas.hood@gmail.com >
wrote:
>Couldn't find this mentioned on google groups, so I assume no one has
>noticed:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/3bza5d
>
>Discuss.
>
>Tom
Dear Tom,
What's wrong with Sheldon's method?
Measuring Chain Wear
The standard way to measure chain wear is with a ruler or steel tape
measure. This can be done without removing the chain from the bicycle.
The normal technique is to measure a one-foot length, placing an inch
mark of the ruler exactly in the middle of one rivet, then looking at
the corresponding rivet 12 complete links away. On a new, unworn
chain, this rivet will also line up exactly with an inch mark. With a
worn chain, the rivet will be past the inch mark.
This gives a direct measurement of the wear to the chain, and an
indirect measurement of the wear to the sprockets:
If the rivet is less than 1/16" past the mark, all is well.
If the rivet is 1/16" past the mark, you should replace the chain, but
the sprockets are probably undamaged.
If the rivet is 1/8" past the mark, you have left it too long, and the
sprockets (at least the favorite ones) will be too badly worn. If you
replace a chain at the 1/8" point, without replacing the sprockets, it
may run OK and not skip, but the worn sprockets will cause the new
chain to wear much faster than it should, until it catches up with the
wear state of the sprockets.
If the rivet is past the 1/8" mark, a new chain will almost certainly
skip on the worn sprockets, especially the smaller ones.
http://sheldonbrown.com/chains.html
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | |
Date: 17 May 2007 12:29:39
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
<carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:pu5p439cghtqh8s6v5ir84trc218vi1oud@4ax.com...
> On 17 May 2007 10:16:36 -0700, Thomas Hood <thomas.hood@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Couldn't find this mentioned on google groups, so I assume no one has
> >noticed:
> >
> >http://tinyurl.com/3bza5d
> >
> >Discuss.
> >
> >Tom
>
> Dear Tom,
>
> What's wrong with Sheldon's method?
>
> Measuring Chain Wear
>
> The standard way to measure chain wear is with a ruler or steel tape
> measure. This can be done without removing the chain from the bicycle.
> The normal technique is to measure a one-foot length, placing an inch
> mark of the ruler exactly in the middle of one rivet, then looking at
> the corresponding rivet 12 complete links away. On a new, unworn
> chain, this rivet will also line up exactly with an inch mark. With a
> worn chain, the rivet will be past the inch mark.
>
> This gives a direct measurement of the wear to the chain, and an
> indirect measurement of the wear to the sprockets:
>
> If the rivet is less than 1/16" past the mark, all is well.
>
> If the rivet is 1/16" past the mark, you should replace the chain, but
> the sprockets are probably undamaged.
>
> If the rivet is 1/8" past the mark, you have left it too long, and the
> sprockets (at least the favorite ones) will be too badly worn. If you
> replace a chain at the 1/8" point, without replacing the sprockets, it
> may run OK and not skip, but the worn sprockets will cause the new
> chain to wear much faster than it should, until it catches up with the
> wear state of the sprockets.
>
> If the rivet is past the 1/8" mark, a new chain will almost certainly
> skip on the worn sprockets, especially the smaller ones.
>
> http://sheldonbrown.com/chains.html
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
I don't understand why a worn sprocket will wear the chain any faster than
a brand new sprocket.
The chain may skip on the worn sprockets but the wear mechanisms should be
the same - abrasive wear.
Chas.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 May 2007 06:08:07
From: John Henderson
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
* * Chas wrote:
> I don't understand why a worn sprocket will wear the chain any
> faster than a brand new sprocket.
>
> The chain may skip on the worn sprockets but the wear
> mechanisms should be the same - abrasive wear.
With a derailleur setup I'm inclined to agree. But where the
chain path is fixed (no chain tensioner), like with a
single-speed or hub gears, it's a different matter. A chain
that wants to skip can't, and its protests can be very audible.
I believe I've felt sprocket-tooth engagement roughness right
back to the pedals.
John
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 May 2007 14:35:57
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
"John Henderson" <jhenRemoveThis@talk21.com > wrote in message
news:5b3r19F2r9q0jU1@mid.individual.net...
> * * Chas wrote:
>
> > I don't understand why a worn sprocket will wear the chain any
> > faster than a brand new sprocket.
> >
> > The chain may skip on the worn sprockets but the wear
> > mechanisms should be the same - abrasive wear.
>
> With a derailleur setup I'm inclined to agree. But where the
> chain path is fixed (no chain tensioner), like with a
> single-speed or hub gears, it's a different matter. A chain
> that wants to skip can't, and its protests can be very audible.
> I believe I've felt sprocket-tooth engagement roughness right
> back to the pedals.
>
> John
I've ridden some OLD worn out 1" pitch chains & sprockets on fixed gear
track bikes and you can definitely feel the attempt of the chain to skip.
I'm not a real big believer in chain stretch. It's abrasive action that
causes chain wear. Maybe an old sprocket is more abrasive because there is
more grit sticking to it and more grit imbedded in the surface of the
teeth???
Chas.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 May 2007 20:59:00
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
>> * * Chas wrote:
>>> I don't understand why a worn sprocket will wear the chain any
>>> faster than a brand new sprocket.
>>> The chain may skip on the worn sprockets but the wear
>>> mechanisms should be the same - abrasive wear.
> "John Henderson" <jhenRemoveThis@talk21.com> wrote
>> With a derailleur setup I'm inclined to agree. But where the
>> chain path is fixed (no chain tensioner), like with a
>> single-speed or hub gears, it's a different matter. A chain
>> that wants to skip can't, and its protests can be very audible.
>> I believe I've felt sprocket-tooth engagement roughness right
>> back to the pedals.
* * Chas wrote:
> I've ridden some OLD worn out 1" pitch chains & sprockets on fixed gear
> track bikes and you can definitely feel the attempt of the chain to skip.
>
> I'm not a real big believer in chain stretch. It's abrasive action that
> causes chain wear. Maybe an old sprocket is more abrasive because there is
> more grit sticking to it and more grit imbedded in the surface of the
> teeth???
Initial wear is internal -- between rivet and roller. Once the rollers
are farther apart, the tooth necessarily wears. Good thorough
explanation here:
http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/index.html
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 18 May 2007 21:21:43
From: Ned Mantei
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
In article <134q23b1g5pd811@corp.supernews.com >,
A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
>Initial wear is internal -- between rivet and roller. Once the rollers
>are farther apart, the tooth necessarily wears. Good thorough
>explanation here:
>http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/index.html
I change chains on my bikes every year or so (‰ 2,000--3,000 km), and 12
full links are not more than 12 1/32 inches long when changed. Still,
every two or three chains the new one engages chainrings and/or cogs
very poorly, and I have to replace cassette and sometimes chainrings.
Still the same wear mechanism at work? How long would chainrings and
cogs be expected to last if the chain were replaced daily, for example?
Ned in Zurich
--
Ned Mantei
Zurich, Switzerland
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 18 May 2007 09:00:21
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
"A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote in message
news:134q23b1g5pd811@corp.supernews.com...
>>> * * Chas wrote:
>>>> I don't understand why a worn sprocket will wear the chain any
>>>> faster than a brand new sprocket.
>>>> The chain may skip on the worn sprockets but the wear
>>>> mechanisms should be the same - abrasive wear.
>
>> "John Henderson" <jhenRemoveThis@talk21.com> wrote
>>> With a derailleur setup I'm inclined to agree. But where the
>>> chain path is fixed (no chain tensioner), like with a
>>> single-speed or hub gears, it's a different matter. A chain
>>> that wants to skip can't, and its protests can be very audible.
>>> I believe I've felt sprocket-tooth engagement roughness right
>>> back to the pedals.
>
> * * Chas wrote:
>> I've ridden some OLD worn out 1" pitch chains & sprockets on fixed gear
>> track bikes and you can definitely feel the attempt of the chain to skip.
>>
>> I'm not a real big believer in chain stretch. It's abrasive action that
>> causes chain wear. Maybe an old sprocket is more abrasive because there
>> is
>> more grit sticking to it and more grit imbedded in the surface of the
>> teeth???
>
> Initial wear is internal -- between rivet and roller. Once the rollers are
> farther apart, the tooth necessarily wears. Good thorough explanation
> here:
> http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/index.html
But then why measure wear at the pins/rivets?. That is what I do not
understand, since the width between the rollers should be the important
distance and not the distance from pin to pin. On Sedis chains, I have
actually crushed and broken rollers long before their was significant slop
in the pins and plates. This caused serious skipping, but if I had just put
the ruler up to the pins, the chain would have been "fine." -- Jay Beattie.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 19 May 2007 00:09:39
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
>>>> * * Chas wrote:
>>>>> I don't understand why a worn sprocket will wear the chain any
>>>>> faster than a brand new sprocket.
>>>>> The chain may skip on the worn sprockets but the wear
>>>>> mechanisms should be the same - abrasive wear.
>>> "John Henderson" <jhenRemoveThis@talk21.com> wrote
>>>> With a derailleur setup I'm inclined to agree. But where the
>>>> chain path is fixed (no chain tensioner), like with a
>>>> single-speed or hub gears, it's a different matter. A chain
>>>> that wants to skip can't, and its protests can be very audible.
>>>> I believe I've felt sprocket-tooth engagement roughness right
>>>> back to the pedals.
>> * * Chas wrote:
>>> I've ridden some OLD worn out 1" pitch chains & sprockets on fixed gear
>>> track bikes and you can definitely feel the attempt of the chain to skip.
>>>
>>> I'm not a real big believer in chain stretch. It's abrasive action that
>>> causes chain wear. Maybe an old sprocket is more abrasive because there
>>> is
>>> more grit sticking to it and more grit imbedded in the surface of the
>>> teeth???
> "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote
> news:134q23b1g5pd811@corp.supernews.com... >> Initial wear is internal -- between rivet and roller. Once the
rollers are
>> farther apart, the tooth necessarily wears. Good thorough explanation
>> here:
>> http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/index.html
Jay Beattie wrote:
> But then why measure wear at the pins/rivets?. That is what I do not
> understand, since the width between the rollers should be the important
> distance and not the distance from pin to pin. On Sedis chains, I have
> actually crushed and broken rollers long before their was significant slop
> in the pins and plates. This caused serious skipping, but if I had just put
> the ruler up to the pins, the chain would have been "fine." -- Jay Beattie.
>
>
I think the referenced Shimano cartoon drawing showed the problem clearly
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 May 2007 11:03:01
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
"A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote in message
news:134t1ksk6m1ga92@corp.supernews.com...
<snip >
> >
> I think the referenced Shimano cartoon drawing showed the problem
clearly
>
> --
> Andrew Muzi
Andy,
This isn't rocket science.... Open link or "safety chains" have been
around for over 100 years.
$83 USD for the Shimano TL-CN40 tool is a bit of overkill to say the
least. I don't see much real difference between the measurement results
from this tool and a "cheap" Park CC-3 or a ruler for that matter.
Most of the worn chain/worn freewheel problems I encountered were back in
the post Bike Boom times.
Customers brought their bikes in for a tune-up and a new chain and
freewheel was almost a given. They had been running their Normandy 14-28
FW on the 24T or 28T sprocket and 52T chainring since it was new because
no one showed them how to shift gears. Rust was not a problem in the
Southwest, grit was. Since they were running a "dry" chain it probably
lasted longer than a dirty greasy one would have.
The 1 or 2 worn out sprocket teeth had a hook worn into their face and a
new chain would skip.
I never worried about this on my bikes in the past. I just kept my chains
clean and changed them at about 3,000 miles. With the cost of good chains
and cassettes and the scarcity of custom freewheel cogs, chain wear has
become more of a concern for me.
Chas.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 May 2007 14:37:23
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
> "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote
> <snip>
>> I think the referenced Shimano cartoon drawing showed the problem
> clearly
* * Chas wrote:
> This isn't rocket science.... Open link or "safety chains" have been
> around for over 100 years.
> $83 USD for the Shimano TL-CN40 tool is a bit of overkill to say the
> least. I don't see much real difference between the measurement results
> from this tool and a "cheap" Park CC-3 or a ruler for that matter.
-snip-
Right. Without regard to the tool, Jay asked about the actual wear
process and why it effectively lengthened a chain, which Shimano's
drawing showed clearly.
Although it is indeed not 'rocket science' a clear graphic is often a
useful tool to explain things which your average guy has yet to
encounter. Shimano did that graphic well. Our familiarity can cloud our
explanations.
A thorough yet succinct discussion of the wear process may be found here:
http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/index.html
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 18 May 2007 18:08:02
From:
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
Jay Beattie writes:
>>>>> I don't understand why a worn sprocket will wear the chain any
>>>>> faster than a brand new sprocket. The chain may skip on the
>>>>> worn sprockets but the wear mechanisms should be the same -
>>>>> abrasive wear.
>>>> With a derailleur setup I'm inclined to agree. But where the
>>>> chain path is fixed (no chain tensioner), like with a
>>>> single-speed or hub gears, it's a different matter. A chain that
>>>> wants to skip can't, and its protests can be very audible. I
>>>> believe I've felt sprocket-tooth engagement roughness right back
>>>> to the pedals.
>>> I've ridden some OLD worn out 1" pitch chains & sprockets on fixed
>>> gear track bikes and you can definitely feel the attempt of the
>>> chain to skip.
>>> I'm not a real big believer in chain stretch. It's abrasive action
>>> that causes chain wear. Maybe an old sprocket is more abrasive
>>> because there is more grit sticking to it and more grit embedded
>>> in the surface of the teeth???
>> Initial wear is internal -- between rivet and roller. Once the
>> rollers are farther apart, the tooth necessarily wears. Good
>> thorough explanation here:
http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/index.html
> But then why measure wear at the pins/rivets? That is what I do not
> understand, since the width between the rollers should be the
> important distance and not the distance from pin to pin. On Sedis
> chains, I have actually crushed and broken rollers long before their
> was significant slop in the pins and plates. This caused serious
> skipping, but if I had just put the ruler up to the pins, the chain
> would have been "fine."
Chain pitch is what affects whether a chain will engage a driven
sprocket or skip over. Because rollers have clearance that allow them
to be displaced in opposite directions by a tool inserted between
them, they are an inaccurate means for determining chain pitch. For a
tool that registers on the same side of rollers, as the Shimano tool
does, roller and pin clearance have no effect on pitch measurement in
contrast to tools that measure between rollers.
Jobst Brandt
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 May 2007 20:15:00
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
Dans le message de news:464deb82$0$14058$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org > a
réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> Jay Beattie writes:
>
>>>>>> I don't understand why a worn sprocket will wear the chain any
>>>>>> faster than a brand new sprocket. The chain may skip on the
>>>>>> worn sprockets but the wear mechanisms should be the same -
>>>>>> abrasive wear.
>
>>>>> With a derailleur setup I'm inclined to agree. But where the
>>>>> chain path is fixed (no chain tensioner), like with a
>>>>> single-speed or hub gears, it's a different matter. A chain that
>>>>> wants to skip can't, and its protests can be very audible. I
>>>>> believe I've felt sprocket-tooth engagement roughness right back
>>>>> to the pedals.
>
>>>> I've ridden some OLD worn out 1" pitch chains & sprockets on fixed
>>>> gear track bikes and you can definitely feel the attempt of the
>>>> chain to skip.
>
>>>> I'm not a real big believer in chain stretch. It's abrasive action
>>>> that causes chain wear. Maybe an old sprocket is more abrasive
>>>> because there is more grit sticking to it and more grit embedded
>>>> in the surface of the teeth???
>
>>> Initial wear is internal -- between rivet and roller. Once the
>>> rollers are farther apart, the tooth necessarily wears. Good
>>> thorough explanation here:
>
> http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/index.html
>
>> But then why measure wear at the pins/rivets? That is what I do not
>> understand, since the width between the rollers should be the
>> important distance and not the distance from pin to pin. On Sedis
>> chains, I have actually crushed and broken rollers long before their
>> was significant slop in the pins and plates. This caused serious
>> skipping, but if I had just put the ruler up to the pins, the chain
>> would have been "fine."
>
> Chain pitch is what affects whether a chain will engage a driven
> sprocket or skip over. Because rollers have clearance that allow them
> to be displaced in opposite directions by a tool inserted between
> them, they are an inaccurate means for determining chain pitch. For a
> tool that registers on the same side of rollers, as the Shimano tool
> does, roller and pin clearance have no effect on pitch measurement in
> contrast to tools that measure between rollers.
>
> Jobst Brandt
Did you actually read the note, or did you use an autoresponder ?
If there is wear and damage to rollers, yet the pin to pin distance is
unchanged, you have failed to identify a worn chain with a ruler.
I wrote less. Maybe that will be of help.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 May 2007 18:27:40
From:
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
Sandy Leurre writes:
> >>>>>> I don't understand why a worn sprocket will wear the chain any
> >>>>>> faster than a brand new sprocket. The chain may skip on the
> >>>>>> worn sprockets but the wear mechanisms should be the same -
> >>>>>> abrasive wear.
> >>>>> With a derailleur setup I'm inclined to agree. But where the
> >>>>> chain path is fixed (no chain tensioner), like with a
> >>>>> single-speed or hub gears, it's a different matter. A chain that
> >>>>> wants to skip can't, and its protests can be very audible. I
> >>>>> believe I've felt sprocket-tooth engagement roughness right back
> >>>>> to the pedals.
> >>>> I've ridden some OLD worn out 1" pitch chains & sprockets on fixed
> >>>> gear track bikes and you can definitely feel the attempt of the
> >>>> chain to skip.
> >>>> I'm not a real big believer in chain stretch. It's abrasive action
> >>>> that causes chain wear. Maybe an old sprocket is more abrasive
> >>>> because there is more grit sticking to it and more grit embedded
> >>>> in the surface of the teeth???
> >>> Initial wear is internal -- between rivet and roller. Once the
> >>> rollers are farther apart, the tooth necessarily wears. Good
> >>> thorough explanation here:
http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/index.html
> >> But then why measure wear at the pins/rivets? That is what I do not
> >> understand, since the width between the rollers should be the
> >> important distance and not the distance from pin to pin. On Sedis
> >> chains, I have actually crushed and broken rollers long before their
> >> was significant slop in the pins and plates. This caused serious
> >> skipping, but if I had just put the ruler up to the pins, the chain
> >> would have been "fine."
> > Chain pitch is what affects whether a chain will engage a driven
> > sprocket or skip over. Because rollers have clearance that allow them
> > to be displaced in opposite directions by a tool inserted between
> > them, they are an inaccurate means for determining chain pitch. For a
> > tool that registers on the same side of rollers, as the Shimano tool
> > does, roller and pin clearance have no effect on pitch measurement in
> > contrast to tools that measure between rollers.
> Did you actually read the note, or did you use an autoresponder?
I responded to Jay Beattie's question. What is it that you explained
to him with which my response conflicts?
> If there is wear and damage to rollers, yet the pin to pin distance
> is unchanged, you have failed to identify a worn chain with a ruler.
Your supposition of not reading the question applies here. Chain
pitch is what makes chains skip over sprockets, not roller clearance,
clearance that varies with manufacturer and in use.
> I wrote less. Maybe that will be of help.
It isn't. Can explain in a few more words what sort of "wear and
damage to rollers" will affect chain function and how.
Jobst Brandt
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 May 2007 20:47:34
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
Dans le message de news:464df01c$0$14058$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org > a
réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> Sandy Leurre writes:
>
>>>>>>>> I don't understand why a worn sprocket will wear the chain any
>>>>>>>> faster than a brand new sprocket. The chain may skip on the
>>>>>>>> worn sprockets but the wear mechanisms should be the same -
>>>>>>>> abrasive wear.
>
>>>>>>> With a derailleur setup I'm inclined to agree. But where the
>>>>>>> chain path is fixed (no chain tensioner), like with a
>>>>>>> single-speed or hub gears, it's a different matter. A chain
>>>>>>> that wants to skip can't, and its protests can be very audible.
>>>>>>> I believe I've felt sprocket-tooth engagement roughness right
>>>>>>> back to the pedals.
>
>>>>>> I've ridden some OLD worn out 1" pitch chains & sprockets on
>>>>>> fixed gear track bikes and you can definitely feel the attempt
>>>>>> of the chain to skip.
>
>>>>>> I'm not a real big believer in chain stretch. It's abrasive
>>>>>> action that causes chain wear. Maybe an old sprocket is more
>>>>>> abrasive because there is more grit sticking to it and more grit
>>>>>> embedded in the surface of the teeth???
>
>>>>> Initial wear is internal -- between rivet and roller. Once the
>>>>> rollers are farther apart, the tooth necessarily wears. Good
>>>>> thorough explanation here:
>
> http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/index.html
>
>>>> But then why measure wear at the pins/rivets? That is what I do
>>>> not understand, since the width between the rollers should be the
>>>> important distance and not the distance from pin to pin. On Sedis
>>>> chains, I have actually crushed and broken rollers long before
>>>> their was significant slop in the pins and plates. This caused
>>>> serious skipping, but if I had just put the ruler up to the pins,
>>>> the chain would have been "fine."
>
>>> Chain pitch is what affects whether a chain will engage a driven
>>> sprocket or skip over. Because rollers have clearance that allow
>>> them to be displaced in opposite directions by a tool inserted
>>> between them, they are an inaccurate means for determining chain
>>> pitch. For a tool that registers on the same side of rollers, as
>>> the Shimano tool does, roller and pin clearance have no effect on
>>> pitch measurement in contrast to tools that measure between rollers.
>
>> Did you actually read the note, or did you use an autoresponder?
>
> I responded to Jay Beattie's question. What is it that you explained
> to him with which my response conflicts?
Since I didn't edit out the names, and you did, perhaps you will now note
that Mr Beattie did not pose any question. Is the some disappearing ink or
code I missed ?
>
>> If there is wear and damage to rollers, yet the pin to pin distance
>> is unchanged, you have failed to identify a worn chain with a ruler.
>
> Your supposition of not reading the question applies here. Chain
> pitch is what makes chains skip over sprockets, not roller clearance,
> clearance that varies with manufacturer and in use.
No, there was no question. Mr Beattie specifically notes "crushed and
broken rollers". That appears to me, naïvely, to be a failed chain. He
further states the pin to pin distance did not indicate lengthening. You
run such chains and call them good ?
>
>> I wrote less. Maybe that will be of help.
>
> It isn't. Can explain in a few more words what sort of "wear and
> damage to rollers" will affect chain function and how.
Hmmmmmmm. Perhaps you could go back a couple of posts (don't trust me to
read for you) and then the original will be crystal clear to you.
--
Les faits relatés ici ne sont que pure fiction, et ne sauraient être
utilisés ou rapprochés d'une situation réelle existant ou ayant
existée
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 May 2007 16:19:55
From:
Subject: Re: Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.
|
On Thu, 17 May 2007 14:35:57 -0700, "* * Chas"
<verktygjunk@aol.spamski.com > wrote:
>
>"John Henderson" <jhenRemoveThis@talk21.com> wrote in message
>news:5b3r19F2r9q0jU1@mid.individual.net...
>> * * Chas wrote:
>>
>> > I don't understand why a worn sprocket will wear the chain any
>> > faster than a brand new sprocket.
>> >
>> > The chain may skip on the worn sprockets but the wear
>> > mechanisms should be the same - abrasive wear.
>>
>> With a derailleur setup I'm inclined to agree. But where the
>> chain path is fixed (no chain tensioner), like with a
>> single-speed or hub gears, it's a different matter. A chain
>> that wants to skip can't, and its protests can be very audible.
>> I believe I've felt sprocket-tooth engagement roughness right
>> back to the pedals.
>>
>> John
>
>I've ridden some OLD worn out 1" pitch chains & sprockets on fixed gear
>track bikes and you can definitely feel the attempt of the chain to skip.
>
>I'm not a real big believer in chain stretch. It's abrasive action that
>causes chain wear. Maybe an old sprocket is more abrasive because there is
>more grit sticking to it and more grit imbedded in the surface of the
>teeth???
>
>Chas.
Dear Chas,
As the chain rollers engage increasingly worn teeth, the collision
force and movement also increase, as well as the chain vibration,
causing accelerated wear.
You can browse around here for details:
http://chain-guide.com/basics/index.html
As poor Jobst keeps pointing out, steel chain parts don't stretch--the
chain of unstretched parts merely elongates as their mating surfaces
wear.
Polish a thousandth of an inch off the rivet and off the inner roller
face that it touches, and you gain two thousandths of an inch of play
at each rivet.
If you pull on a half-inch-pitch chain, there are 25 rivet-roller
interfaces in 12 inches.
25 x 0.002 = 0.050 inches
0.050 inches is about 1/20th of an inch
1/16th of an inch is time for a new chain
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
|
