KMC chains

[Debade]

I am trying to decide if I want to trade up on my KMC 11 speed chain. I am thinking the X series is good enough for me. I can get a chain in USA for $31. I can trade up to the X light-weight for $42. This is for my recreational bike that I will do a group ride between 30 and 100 miles per week. Speeds are fairly slow. Terrain is hilly and nearly always on clean pavement. What are your thoughts between this choice? Any other thoughts? Thanks

 

[Tim Hall]

I am trying to decide if I want to trade up on my KMC 11 speed chain. I am thinking the X series is good enough for me. I can get a chain in USA for $31. I can trade up to the X light-weight for $42. This is for my recreational bike that I will do a group ride between 30 and 100 miles per week. Speeds are fairly slow. Terrain is hilly and nearly always on clean pavement. What are your thoughts between this choice? Any other thoughts? Thanks

A brief bit of web based research suggests the difference in weight between a vanilla 11 speed and a light weight 11 speed is around 20g. That's the weight (mass) of four nickels. If you're happy with blowing $11 for four nickels, fill your boots.

 

[mjr]

Chain and/or sprocket wear does not affect shifting in any way.

Indeed - shifting degradation is because his cables stretched when the chain snapped, isn't it?

And add to that that the alleged contortion is all about fitting the link, while the CTC "hit it with a rock" method is about undoing a link.

Well spotted! I completely missed that the topic switched from undoing a link to doing it up. I find the derailleur spring is usually enough to pull the link shut - often it has a go before I've finished lining it up

 

[gbb]

KMC, Shimano, Sram, et al...no appreciable difference in the life of any of them.
I used to log mileage achieved pretty religiously...always 1200 to 1500 miles max for me, whatever the chain.

 

[Vertego]

Previously had KMC chains (including stupidly expensive black/red DMC - just because it looked good).

Will probably replace my Shimano Ultegra chain with KMC X11SL, just because of the quick link which I find less faff than the use once Shimano rivets.

 

[Blurb]

KMC, Shimano, Sram, et al...no appreciable difference in the life of any of them.
I used to log mileage achieved pretty religiously...always 1200 to 1500 miles max for me, whatever the chain.

I can't comment between the brands, but I monitor my chain wear and noticed a massive difference between my KMC Z8 and KMC X8 chains. With the X chains running TWICE as long using my same cleaning regime. The Zs consistently gave me a stupidly low 700 miles, whereas the X goes to a more acceptable 1600 miles. All weather, heavy hybrid commuting.
Needless to say for the small price penalty I only use the X range now.

 

[Southside Mike]

Not had any problems with KMC on Shimano. Using a piece of bent spoke to bring the chain together and take off the pressure makes fitting the quick link very easy. I do think the removal tool is a must have.

 

[sasebt]

Hi,

I have a KMC chain, and recently I bent a link. Took it to the shop, and they fixed it by bending it back to its normal shape. The chain is pretty new (~150Km). Should I be worried that it might snap during a sprint? (I'm 105Kg)

Thanks,
Saso

 

[Yellow Saddle]

Hi,

I have a KMC chain, and recently I bent a link. Took it to the shop, and they fixed it by bending it back to its normal shape. The chain is pretty new (~150Km). Should I be worried that it might snap during a sprint? (I'm 105Kg)

Thanks,
Saso

Yes. Replace the link with a quick link or even a piece of new chain.

 

[Fifelad]

I am led to belive KMC acually make Shimano chains anyway......

 

[mjr]

I am led to belive KMC acually make Shimano chains anyway......

Some combinations I'd believe and some are overt (ETC's boxes often contain chains marked with other brands, for example), but that one doesn't ring true unless KMC have special Shimano production runs where they use different-shaped plates made of cheese.

 

[winjim]

They may or may not be made by the same company but that doesn't tell you anything about the design or construction process, the materials used, the quality control procedures etc etc. These are not artisan builders crafting each chain by hand using oral knowledge passed down through the generations, they're modern manufacturers with production lines that can be configured in many different ways to produce different products. Did you not read the breakfast cereal thread?

 

[mythste]

@Yellow Saddle - out of interest, where would your money go on an 11 speed 105 (or any mid-to-high end 11 speed) chain?

 

[Yellow Saddle]

@Yellow Saddle - out of interest, where would your money go on an 11 speed 105 (or any mid-to-high end 11 speed) chain?

The cheapest.

My reason: All chains (from the same brand) are made from the same material and to the same dimensional specs.
More expensive chains have cosmetic features that don't affect performance or longevity. These are electroplated components for a shinier look. The cheapest chain are not plated and only have a phosphate coating (brown) that offers mild corrosion resistance. However, a bit of rust on the side plates is neither here nor there and oiling the chain also protects it. As the chain gets more expensive, more parts are plated. First they only plate the outer side plates. Then the outer and inner, on more expensive chains. Then, to make them more expensive, they make them lighter by punching out holes in the side plates and eventually, hollowing out the bushings. None of these features have an effect on life or performance.

Even across brands, chains are dimensionally equivalent, it being controlled by an SI standard. I'm sure really crappy chains do exist but by and large all the reputable brands make quality chains where the price difference is due to cosmetic features.

I buy cheap chains and spend my vanity money elsewhere, I can't think where right now but I'm sure I buy stuff with unnecessary features - maybe it is wine in glass bottles rather than cardboard boxes.

 

[mythste]

The cheapest.

My reason: All chains (from the same brand) are made from the same material and to the same dimensional specs.
More expensive chains have cosmetic features that don't affect performance or longevity. These are electroplated components for a shinier look. The cheapest chain are not plated and only have a phosphate coating (brown) that offers mild corrosion resistance. However, a bit of rust on the side plates is neither here nor there and oiling the chain also protects it. As the chain gets more expensive, more parts are plated. First they only plate the outer side plates. Then the outer and inner, on more expensive chains. Then, to make them more expensive, they make them lighter by punching out holes in the side plates and eventually, hollowing out the bushings. None of these features have an effect on life or performance.

Even across brands, chains are dimensionally equivalent, it being controlled by an SI standard. I'm sure really crappy chains do exist but by and large all the reputable brands make quality chains where the price difference is due to cosmetic features.

I buy cheap chains and spend my vanity money elsewhere, I can't think where right now but I'm sure I buy stuff with unnecessary features - maybe it is wine in glass bottles rather than cardboard boxes.

Thanks for this. I'm typically one for buying "re-assuringly expensive" until I can find some conclusive evidence to suggest its not necessary (which I do actively look for more often than not!). So with this in mind, I'll opt for the 105 chain instead of the twice as expensive KMC I was oogling. If you're ever up this way you can have a brew on me.