Chain wear

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

MrPie

Telling it like it is since 1971
Location
Perth, Australia
Shimano Ultegra is the only chain that has ever failed on me.....whilst attacking on a steep incline on a club run competative segment. Clunk, cluink, ping, chewing stem and nearly ripped my ball sack off! In all likelihood the chain failed due to my installation skills (or lack of), aided and abetted by the pain-in-the-aris fiddly Shimano link. I want a chain that is quality, reliable and easy to install. I'm happy wth SRAM & KMC - cuts out the unecessary Shimano fiddle. Can normally get KMC at a decent price too. It's a win-win.
 

youngoldbloke

The older I get, the faster I used to be ...
Shimano Ultegra is the only chain that has ever failed on me.....whilst attacking on a steep incline on a club run competative segment. Clunk, cluink, ping, chewing stem and nearly ripped my ball sack off! In all likelihood the chain failed due to my installation skills (or lack of), aided and abetted by the pain-in-the-aris fiddly Shimano link. I want a chain that is quality, reliable and easy to install. I'm happy wth SRAM & KMC - cuts out the unecessary Shimano fiddle. Can normally get KMC at a decent price too. It's a win-win.
Did it fail at the link?
 

MrPie

Telling it like it is since 1971
Location
Perth, Australia
I honestly dont recall 100% Youngoldbloke. At that moment in time I was glad that my scrotum was still attached. As my fellow riders zipped off into the distance I discarded the chain at the roadside in disgust, but did return to the scene of the crime to pick up and properly dispose of the chain. I think I remember a bent link.
 

subaqua

What’s the point
Location
Leytonstone
KMC or SRAM chains are what I have replaced worn ones with on my MTB road and tourer. I tried a few shimano cheese chains . wore quickly , far more quickly than trhe KMC or the SRAM .

I made the gaff of buying the magic links with KMC chains- they come with one ! they now live in the get me home kit in the bag on the bike.
 

raleighnut

Legendary Member
If you keep a partworn chain in a little tub/jar of oil when you fit a new one then very often these will happily run on a partworn cassette when a new one will skip. I know this advice is a bit late but its worth remembering for the future, change the chain before its kippered next time and then its a lot less expensive than having to buy the lot.
 

bpsmith

Veteran
Bought a Park CC2 today. Checked both bikes, as suspected the oldest needed a new chain. Anyway, both bikes appear to be within tolerance. I now need to clean the manly chain, after Sunday's ride, as thought I may get away with it.

The weird thing is the Defy has done 1,243 miles and the wear indicator shows 0.50%, whilst the Bianchi shows wear coming closer to 0.75% but it's only done 520 miles!

The Defy is 10 speed, but the Bianchi is 11 speed. Could this be why? Is there more tolerance required on 11 speed?

I assume that I am ok measuring whilst fitted to the bike. I pressed the dial as far as it could go, without so much pressure as to damage the pins or chain. Park suggest changing at 0.75% but I read on here that 1.0% is more like it. What do you guys suggest?

Edit: the Giant has a KMC chain, whilst the Bianchi has Ultegra, if that makes any difference?
 
Last edited:
Location
Loch side.
Bought a Park CC2 today. Checked both bikes, as suspected the oldest needed a new chain. Anyway, both bikes appear to be within tolerance. I now need to clean the manly chain, after Sunday's ride, as thought I may get away with it.

The weird thing is the Defy has done 1,243 miles and the wear indicator shows 0.50%, whilst the Bianchi shows wear coming closer to 0.75% but it's only done 520 miles!

The Defy is 10 speed, but the Bianchi is 11 speed. Could this be why? Is there more tolerance required on 11 speed?

I assume that I am ok measuring whilst fitted to the bike. I pressed the dial as far as it could go, without so much pressure as to damage the pins or chain. Park suggest changing at 0.75% but I read on here that 1.0% is more like it. What do you guys suggest?
Park's chain tools are suspect. They have two glaring faults:

1) Tool measures over a very small section of chain and thus amplifies the measuring error.
2) The tool uses the rollers as a point of reference. The rollers' resting position changes with clean and dirty chains. Given the above error, this then exaggerates the chain's wear.

Further, they don't really state what the 1% is a percentage of.

Use a standard inch ruler (try and fine one that goes slightly over 12 inches, ironically like Park's spoke rule that measures an inch or so more than 12 inches. Now file a notch at the zero point (get your notch lined up better than in this photo where I need to do a bit more filing) like this:
Park Ruler (1).jpg


And hold this point at a reference point (doesn't matter what point you use, as long as you use the same on the other side) on the slack run of your chain on the bike like here.

Now move your eye to the other side, keeping the reference point exactly in place. This is tricky because it doesn't hook or click in place. On a new chain, the 12 inch mark at the other end of the ruler will line up exactly with the chain. I don't have a photo for that but the next photo will explain what I mean.

On a worn chain that has started to elongate , the 12 link point is now growing past the 12 inch point like this:

Park Ruler (2).jpg

Here you can see that the reference point is between 12 inches and 12" and 1/16th of an inch. We are just lucky that this little 1 /116th inch mark over 12 inches is as near as can be to 0.5% of 12 inches. In this photo the chain is thus on its way to replacement but not quite there. As soon as it gets to 12 and 1/16th , it has elongated by 0.5% and has to be replaced. Once it has elongated to 12 1/8th, it has elongated by 1% and has ruined the cassette. We know a new chain will not mesh with the cassette and the cassette has to be replaced.

The distance between 12 1/16th and 12 1/8th is no man's land and you may be lucky, but you HAVE to test the new chain thoroughly with the old cassette to see if it doesn't skate on the rider's favourite gears.

It is ironic that Park has such a crapy chain tool but their ruler is ideally suited for the job because it has a few lines after 12 inches. You may come across other inch rulers with the same feature. I also have a carpenter's square with the same feature.
 
Location
Loch side.
Bought a Park CC2 today. Checked both bikes, as suspected the oldest needed a new chain. Anyway, both bikes appear to be within tolerance. I now need to clean the manly chain, after Sunday's ride, as thought I may get away with it.

The weird thing is the Defy has done 1,243 miles and the wear indicator shows 0.50%, whilst the Bianchi shows wear coming closer to 0.75% but it's only done 520 miles!

The Defy is 10 speed, but the Bianchi is 11 speed. Could this be why? Is there more tolerance required on 11 speed?

I assume that I am ok measuring whilst fitted to the bike. I pressed the dial as far as it could go, without so much pressure as to damage the pins or chain. Park suggest changing at 0.75% but I read on here that 1.0% is more like it. What do you guys suggest?

Edit: the Giant has a KMC chain, whilst the Bianchi has Ultegra, if that makes any difference?

Chain wear is not a function of distance or time, but a function of hygiene times distance. The tolerance described above is valid for all chains of 1/2 inch pitch which makes it all bicycle chains. Funny enough, the sideplates of an 11-speed chain and 10 speed chain are of equal thickness and therefore the rate of wear is similar.
 

bpsmith

Veteran
Cheers. My assumption was that 10 speed and 11 speed wear is measured the same. It's just the width of the chain that differs. I have no reason to suspect that either chain needs replacing. Both running fine, but the mileage of the Giant made me check. Both chains have been regularly cleaned and lubed. The Bianchi has had drier and cleaner miles and just over a third as many.

@Yellow Saddle If the chain measures 12-1/8inch over 24 links then that equates to 1.0% btw. An eighth of an inch being 1% of 12 inches.
 
Location
Loch side.
You said at the top of your last post that they "do not state what the 1% is a percentage of", so that's why I replied as such. Not criticising anything regarding your thorough reply.
Oh I see, I thought I erred with my figures. Yes, they do not explain what the percentage is about. Nor do any of the other manufacturers of such tools. Some use figures such as 75% etc. If we assume that 75% "wear" equates to 0.75% elongation, then their point for change doesn't figure etc. What they quote may just be a number and it may even be accurate even if it is a misnomer, these things don't help with the confusion out there. I think chain wear is a straightforward issue that should be quoted as percentage elongation and nothing else.
 
Top Bottom