Can this be done or do you end up joining two bits with two quick links?
While it -can- be done, I’m not sure it -should- be done. Emergency use excepted, of course.
Why? Genuine question, I was musing on this the other day.
Advice from many is to carry a spare quick link to fix a broken chain. Very sage advice. But if you had two quick links together on the chain, if the chain breaks you can just move one to bridge the gap. No chance of forgetting to carry a spare as it's on your chain already
They're both under the same load so no more likely to snap surely.
if you had two quick links together on the chain, if the chain breaks you can just move one to bridge the gap.
You cannot move a quick link from elsewhere on the chain to fix a broken chain. Think about it!
Ah, but if you have two quick links together, you can move one of them.
Why? Genuine question, I was musing on this the other day.
Advice from many is to carry a spare quick link to fix a broken chain. Very sage advice. But if you had two quick links together on the chain, if the chain breaks you can just move one to bridge the gap. No chance of forgetting to carry a spare as it's on your chain already
They're both under the same load so no more likely to snap surely.
Advice from many is to carry a spare quick link to fix a broken chain. Very sage advice. But if you had two quick links together on the chain, if the chain breaks you can just move one to bridge the gap. No chance of forgetting to carry a spare as it's on your chain already
it all depending on what "should" means, as there is a bit of slack each way with chain length / derailleur capacityI asked this question as I mistakenly shortened a new chain by one link too many. It should be 54 links long but I broke it at 53. The advice when I went to the local bike shop was lengthen it using two quick links. So one piece 49 links and one piece 3 links plus 2 quick links.
However I wasn’t hundred percent convinced hence my question.