| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 2681.1 | Nice trick, but how? | ODIXIE::RRODRIGUEZ | Sign Here X__________ | Fri Sep 24 1993 13:07 | 13 |
| 2681.2 | Clarification needed! | MARVIN::WESTON | Fish shaped hysteria | Fri Sep 24 1993 13:34 | 13 |
| I'm confused too. I can understand the chain moving (slightly) if the
chain *ring* is worn, because the worn teeth will allow the chain to be
pulled round it. But if the chain itself is worn, then surely that
would *redude* the movement at 12 and 6 o'clock, becuase the chain
wear would soak up any tendency to move.
The idea of pushing and pulling the chain on a straight edge sound a
more accurate way of measuring wear. But for what length of chain are
the stretch measures given (1/4" = 66% life left, etc.)? The full
length, or a fixed number of links? If it's the full length, then must
assume that all chains are approximately the same length (not true!).
-Les.
|
| 2681.3 | more chain stuff. | DNEAST::FIKE_MIKE | | Fri Sep 24 1993 14:37 | 17 |
| re;.1
I am assuming that what they mean is that when you pull the chain
forward at 3 o'clock, the chain shouldn't move at all at 6 or 12
because the teeth are firmly seated in the valleys of the chainring.
That would be the case if the ring and chain were in good condition.
As the ring wears the valleys get longer and the teeth get shorter; as
the chain wears the distance between pins gets longer. So if the chain
can move forward at 6 or 12 then either the chain or the ring or both
are worn to some degree. That's why you'd look at the chain next to see
it it's the problem or if the chainring's the problem.
Re; .2 It assumes a normal length chain. I'd guess that there's not a whole
lot of difference between the lengths of a whole chain regardless of
the bike. I'm sure that a bike with huge chainrings or long chainstays
would have a longer chain, put probably only by a few links which
shouldn't make that much of a difference because you're really only
looking at 1/8" to 1/2" wear differences.
|
| 2681.4 | | PAKORA::GGOODMAN | Rippled, with a flat underside | Fri Sep 24 1993 17:53 | 9 |
| Re.0
I would say that you have wasted a lot of money changing a cluster every time
that you change a chain. The cluster is much harder wearing than the chain and
the only thing that really wears them down is badly worn chain. If you change
your chain regularly (I do it every 6 months - a summer chain and a winter chain)
then your cluster should last years...
Graham.
|
| 2681.5 | TRUE | WMOIS::GIROUARD_C | | Fri Sep 24 1993 18:23 | 4 |
| I agree with Graham... I change chains every year. The key is keeping
the stuff clean and lubed for extended life.
Chip
|
| 2681.6 | | MARVIN::WESTON | Fish shaped hysteria | Mon Sep 27 1993 07:52 | 7 |
| .3> Re; .2 It assumes a normal length chain. I'd guess that there's not a whole
.3> lot of difference between the lengths of a whole chain regardless of
.3> the bike.
Recumbents excepted. Mine's at least twice as long. ;-)
-Les.
|
| 2681.7 | depends on how/what you ride | DNEAST::FIKE_MIKE | | Mon Sep 27 1993 09:19 | 12 |
|
re:.4 and .5
I guess it depends on what you're riding. For a road bike, I'd
agree with you. Changing the chain every 2000-3000 miles is probably
adequate, but off road riding is considered abusive to the drivetrain
and 300-500 miles is considered a normal lifespan for the chain. D.I.D.
recommends changing the cluster when you change the chain, and for only
$20 per cluster I'd say that the cleaner shifting and quieter
drivetrain is worth it (to me that is- your milage may vary).
Mike
|
| 2681.8 | | PAKORA::GGOODMAN | Rippled, with a flat underside | Wed Sep 29 1993 06:39 | 4 |
| Yeah, I was talking on-road. I keep forgetting that some nutters take their bikes
onto the muddy stuff... :*)
Graham.
|