Chain wear tools

[carlosfandangus]

I have 3 mainly bought as extras to get me over the free postage threshold, however 2 measure .75% wear and 1%, I liked the idea of a Park Tools one that measured .5% for my 11 speed chains, at £9.99 it was at least twice the price, I know all about measuring with a ruler etc, just curious, I even have a nail in the door frame in the garage so "If" I take the chain off it can be measured properly. (marked with a new chain length)

The Park tool one at .5% does not fit between the links yet, however the Wiggle own brand at .75% can be made to go in all the way with some gentle persuasion, the X tools one will not.

Do I trust the Park Tools one and throw the other two to the back of the draw? this is the way I am leaning, I never thought there would be so much difference in a simple device.

 

[wafter]

Can you measure a few split chains over their entire length (to get the best accuracy) and use these measurements to benchmark your tools against; keeping the most accurate?

Also, are you aware of all the stuff to do with the legitimacy of measurements between different tools / different modes of operation? I keep forgetting exactly what the issues are but I think it's relatated to factoring out roller wear. The Shimano and Pedros tools are generally reputed to be the most accurate in this regard..

 

[carlosfandangus]

Yes checked all over the length of the fitted chain, however I have also checked a chain that is hanging in the garage (previously taken off the same bike, just not thrown away yet) the lifeline tool says .75% worn, the Park tool one says not .5% yet!!

 

[wafter]

Yes checked all over the length of the fitted chain, however I have also checked a chain that is hanging in the garage (previously taken off the same bike, just not thrown away yet) the lifeline tool says .75% worn, the Park tool one says not .5% yet!!

So measuring the entire length of the chain hanging in the garage with a reliable steel tape measure / steel rule, how does the calculated chain wear compare to the two values you're getting from the two tools?

 

[carlosfandangus]

The chain taken off measures 3/32 longer than a new chain, it may be going back on eventually!!!

 

[wafter]

Over how many links?

 

[carlosfandangus]

101 links

 

[wafter]

So (working in metric as imperial twists my swede) you have 101 links at 12.7mm pitch, so an original chain length of 101*12.7=1282.7mm; with an incrase in length of 2.4mm. This works out at 0.187% elongation through wear; suggesting that the "not yet 0.5% worn" indication of the Park Tool item is more accurate than the "exceeding 0.75% wear" of the Lifeline item

 

[carlosfandangus]

Thank you @wafter, maths is not my strong point, I will go with the Park tools one in future

 

[wafter]

No worries - glad to help

Just to throw another spanner in the works you might want to read this page about the accuracy of certain tools and shortcomings of various measurement approaches

 

[raleighnut]

It is more likely to be discrepancies in tolerances when manufacturing the gauges, I'd be tempted to calibrate the tool against a new chain to check it's accuracy. Mind you I've never felt the need to waste money on buying one, you can tell the wear on a chain by trying to lift it up at the 3 'O'clock position on the front ring, if you can move it significantly there then the chain is not meshing fully with the teeth on the sprocket and is worn.

 

[Velochris]

If you don't want to measure directly, this gives more information about the different designs.

https://www.velonews.com/gear/measuring-chain-wear-accurately/