Snapped spindle

[Drago]

They could make the spindles out of chisels!

 

[silva]

Ask yourself this question.
Is it a saving weight experiment, that was heaped upon cyclists, when they designed the cottered crankset and bearing setup?
They removed a fair bit of excess material in between the bearing surfaces. Why if the strength would be compromised, did they do that?

You keep harping on about how your cost saving experiments are effective. You chose to use a chain not suited to a bicycle drivetrain on a bicycle. When the experiment does fail, as it will, will you be able to come back and let us know. If you're lucky you may be, and if you're really lucky there'll be no-one but yourself hurt.

It wasn't about saving weight as such, it was about saving weight at the expense of safety. As stated before: an axle should never break by power of a human leg.
This isn't about an axle carrying a load that can be exceeded to anything.

My motorcycle chains ARE suitable to a bicycle drivetrain. The specs of pitch and roller diameter are identical. The pins are slightly thicker, 3.97 mm, as proved itself when trying to make one on length with a chain tool: I ended up drilling out the hole in the tool to 4 mm, solving the stuck problem.

You state here "when experiment does fail...."
It didn't fail, the first motorcycle chain was mounted earlier 2020, and it has had only these chains since.
7 years success.
But you keep on parrotting about when experiment fails and involved risks.
Are you some kinda DoomsDay Prophet?

 

[fossyant]

It wasn't about saving weight as such, it was about saving weight at the expense of safety. As stated before: an axle should never break by power of a human leg.
This isn't about an axle carrying a load that can be exceeded to anything.

My motorcycle chains ARE suitable to a bicycle drivetrain. The specs of pitch and roller diameter are identical. The pins are slightly thicker, 3.97 mm, as proved itself when trying to make one on length with a chain tool: I ended up drilling out the hole in the tool to 4 mm, solving the stuck problem.

You state here "when experiment does fail...."
It didn't fail, the first motorcycle chain was mounted earlier 2020, and it has had only these chains since.
7 years success.
But you keep on parrotting about when experiment fails and involved risks.
Are you some kinda DoomsDay Prophet?

I think everyone here is alot more sensible.

I cant imagine your drive chain spins and runs nice and smooth. Life is too short to ride crappy bikes or badly maintained ones.

 

[silva]

Been fixed for commuting. You are singlespeed aren't you, not fixed ?

I ride since 2016 on fixed gears, after a decade or so singlespeed.
Has been said or implicated a Gazillion Times over the years.
See also the freewheel problem references, which were the reason to get rid of it, that is, move to fixed gear.

 

[classic33]

It wasn't about saving weight as such, it was about saving weight at the expense of safety. As stated before: an axle should never break by power of a human leg.
This isn't about an axle carrying a load that can be exceeded to anything.

My motorcycle chains ARE suitable to a bicycle drivetrain. The specs of pitch and roller diameter are identical. The pins are slightly thicker, 3.97 mm, as proved itself when trying to make one on length with a chain tool: I ended up drilling out the hole in the tool to 4 mm, solving the stuck problem.

You state here "when experiment does fail...."
It didn't fail, the first motorcycle chain was mounted earlier 2020, and it has had only these chains since.
7 years success.
But you keep on parrotting about when experiment fails and involved risks.
Are you some kinda DoomsDay Prophet?

I've worked on systems that have "covered" the distance you keep on quoting, in a day. Not the months/years you keep on saying.
And when there's been a failure, the failure has always been spectacular. A simple snapping of a chain was considered an everyday occurrence. Fixed to keep the system running.
There's a reason such systems have a twin chain drivetrain. Often with a waste trap to catch the broken chain.

And it's only 6 years not the seven you're claiming.

 

[silva]

I think everyone here is alot more sensible.

I cant imagine your drive chain spins and runs nice and smooth. Life is too short to ride crappy bikes or badly maintained ones.

You say you can't imagine, but it does. People are often surprised when I pass, due to the bikes drivetrain running silent.
For a simple reason: the rollers of the chain, during its entire life, don't have any problem to engage / disengage, because the material is already worn away.
There is no wear-in period, and no further wear.
Why would I replace (what you name as "maintain") parts, that do the job without any problem? The only thing to pay attention to is to not let the chain hang too slack, which is a matter of tensioning at the required times.
The chain thus can't "jump" off sprockets - its tension doesn't give it the required room.

 

[fossyant]

I can't imagine your drive chain ran smooth then. When I was running 'evens' - 46 x 16, I had to to rotate the chain one tooth every so often if I'd not had a puncture. Why, the chain would wear the 16T to match the chain, so if you hadn't taken the chain off for months, it would run rough if you had to move the chain on 1 tooth - it would be smooth again if you moved it back. It doesn't happen if running 'odd' numbered teeth as they never sit in the same position on a chain.

 

[C R]

For the first time ever, I'm unfollowing a thread.

 

[silva]

I've worked on systems that have "covered" the distance you keep on quoting, in a day. Not the months/years you keep on saying.
And when there's been a failure, the failure has always been spectacular. A simple snapping of a chain was considered an everyday occurrence. Fixed to keep the system running.
There's a reason such systems have a twin chain drivetrain. Often with a waste trap to catch the broken chain.

And it's only 6 years not the seven you're claiming.

As said: daily 50-60 km, weekends more. At 50, 50 x 365 x 7 years = 127750 km, and yes, with one chainring, mounted start of 2019.
The 2017-2019 chainrings I can't reuse due to spider mount changed.
Otherwise I could reuse them just like the cog current rear cog being again the one that the bike was delivered with.

About your 6 not 7 years remark, I say start 2019 to start 2026 is 7 years but feel free to make it whatever you want, before I used the Gusset brand Tank model chain, which has the same plate thickness as the Regina 420 motorcycle chain, the difference is the internal width, the Gusset is 1/8", the Regina is 1/4".
The plus of the wider chain is ofc wider rollers too, more contact surface = less wear in the length direction.
An additional plus was that the doubled space avail for the teeth to engage, provides some chainline tolerance, it's also how I discovered that the chainline was again 5 mm wrong after the dealer of my previous bikes mounted the Octalink crankset. A shorter axle, bringing the chainring 5 mm closer to the frame, so the teeth sat at one side at the ring, and the other side at the cog.
I measured, and indeed. I removed the Velosolo flange spacer again, and chainline corrected.

So, your points of discussion are (again) moot.
It's like you think that repeating a claim makes it more true - it doesn't.

 

[classic33]

As said: daily 50-60 km, weekends more. At 50, 50 x 365 x 7 years = 127750 km, and yes, with one chainring, mounted start of 2019.
The 2017-2019 chainrings I can't reuse due to spider mount changed.
Otherwise I could reuse them just like the cog current rear cog being again the one that the bike was delivered with.

About your 6 not 7 years remark, I say start 2019 to start 2026 is 7 years but feel free to make it whatever you want, before I used the Gusset brand Tank model chain, which has the same plate thickness as the Regina 420 motorcycle chain, the difference is the internal width, the Gusset is 1/8", the Regina is 1/4".
The plus of the wider chain is ofc wider rollers too, more contact surface = less wear in the length direction.
An additional plus was that the doubled space avail for the teeth to engage, provides some chainline tolerance, it's also how I discovered that the chainline was again 5 mm wrong after the dealer of my previous bikes mounted the Octalink crankset. A shorter axle, bringing the chainring 5 mm closer to the frame, so the teeth sat at one side at the ring, and the other side at the cog.
I measured, and indeed. I removed the Velosolo flange spacer again, and chainline corrected.

So, your points of discussion are (again) moot.
It's like you think that repeating a claim makes it more true - it doesn't.

Your words
"It didn't fail, the first motorcycle chain was mounted earlier 2020, and it has had only these chains since.
7 years success."

That last part of yours, read, learn and inwardly digest.

 

[fossyant]

Your words
"It didn't fail, the first motorcycle chain was mounted earlier 2020, and it has had only these chains since.
7 years success."

That last part of yours, read, learn and inwardly digest.

Isn't it 2027 ?

 

[silva]

I can't imagine your drive chain ran smooth then. When I was running 'evens' - 46 x 16, I had to to rotate the chain one tooth every so often if I'd not had a puncture. Why, the chain would wear the 16T to match the chain, so if you hadn't taken the chain off for months, it would run rough if you had to move the chain on 1 tooth - it would be smooth again if you moved it back. It doesn't happen if running 'odd' numbered teeth as they never sit in the same position on a chain.

As also said on this forum in past times, my avatar bicycle was delivered with a 48/16, the 48 being the max the dealer said that was possible (my previous bikes had 52/16).
I didn't know at the time, but that 48/16 was about the worst case configuration related to wear concentration. The tension difference (what is named "delta" in math) grew, resulting in total inability to properly tension: either risking bearings due to too high tension, either risking falling off due to too slack.
Riding with it felt awkward like yoyo-ing,
I identified its cause, changed the 48T to 47T, and the problem went.
Bonus discovered later on: the amount skid patches on the tyre became a multifold thus also tyre wear distributed again.

To add to that even/odd, it's about the ratio, 48/16=3, no fraction, nothing behind the comma, that is the reason for its concentrating of wear, skid patches see https://www.sheldonbrown.com/fixed.html#skid
Not that I skid, all I do is instead of braking, resisting pedals to slowdown, so I "brake" on the rubber.

 

[silva]

Your words
"It didn't fail, the first motorcycle chain was mounted earlier 2020, and it has had only these chains since.
7 years success."

That last part of yours, read, learn and inwardly digest.

As said: first year was the Gusset "tank" chain model as before, the difference bicycle-motorcycle chain being 1/4" standard rollers instead of 1/8" standard rollers. You claimed, without explanation, that this difference means a safety/risk difference. As also said: the Gusset tank chain is a 1/8" internal width chain with the plates of a 3/16" and also 1/4" chain. All that differs is the roller width, and ofcourse the pin length with it.

This last part of yours, inwardly digest it yourself.
All you did is repeating claims without providing anything to support.
That's Trashbin, no?

 

[Drago]

Why stop at motorcycle chains? A king and queen seat and Vetter full fairing would be spiffing upgrades on a Grifter.

 

[silva]

Why stop at motorcycle chains? A king and queen seat and Vetter full fairing would be spiffing upgrades on a Grifter.

As said, I wanted bigger mating surfaces since those distribute wear more, so the wear component in the length less. The Gusset Tank chain had thicker plates so more surface to pens, and the type 420 motorcycle chain offered in addition the biggest possible surface for rollers/bushings and I went for it.
It's as simple as that.
It wasn't because of "motor" prefix to chain, or anything your fantasy comes up with.