Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 20 of 44 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm mixing up the bike quiver a bit again and fortunately adding an Ibis Lugi back into the mix after selling my old one ~2 years ago and regretting it ever since.

Anyway, I've got a couple component questions...
- Cross / top bar levers - Any standouts that people would recommend? I'm looking at Salsa, Radius, Cane Creek, Tektro
- Cantis - Ditto. I've got Avid Tri-Align now. Will probably keep them, but curious if there are any strong (reasonably priced) recommendations out there
- This will probably see alot of singletrack duty since it's replacing my mtb hardtail, so I'm thinking of throwing an XT derailleur on with an mtb cassette to go with the 34/46 rings. Pretty common set up throwing an mtb der/cassette on the back I assume (for non-racers)?

Thanks in advance. S
 

·
Not Banned
Joined
·
49,013 Posts
there are actually alot of guys at races running MTB rear drives. Bianchis come stock that way as do alot of 'factory' rides. My personal fave is 8 speed (stronger chain, clears mud) 1997 XT Midcage with an 11-28 or 11-30 casette. It gives most of the benefits of a road rig (tight chainline) with a wider gear option. I currently run a 46/36 crankset on this rig. The midcage helps with chainslap and you can use a bigger cassette for MTN options. Otherwise a 12-27 with a triple will make an excellent 'all day' adventure rig.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
atpjunkie said:
My personal fave is 8 speed (stronger chain, clears mud)
8 speed chains are not stronger, just wider. I noticed you have mentioned this a few times recently and thought I would point it out. The only difference between 8, 9 and 10 is the barrel (pin) width, the plate thickness is virtually the same. I got into a discussion on a similar board with an engineer in the U.K about this and he had measured all these chains trying to work out drag coefficiency etc. (his thinking was thinner chain = more drag, kinda like thinner tyres = more rolling resistance).
Dont mean to be rude just pointing out a fact. I have learnt some neat stuff from reading your posts recently.

Anyway back to the question, as ATP said MTB cassette and rear is fine even for racing.
As for cantis, Tri aligns are tought to beat for power. Froglegs are really good, tough to set up but great. Avid shorty's so-so, squeel like a piggy usually.
Pauls are also good, any non low profile will help with power.
Top mounts, cant go wrong with Tektro's, cheap and chearful.
 

·
Not Banned
Joined
·
49,013 Posts
poppycock

agreed on keeping the Tri Aligns, a great brake, why spend $$ you don't have to. Run Tektro Top Mounts easy to mount, un mount and cheap. Regarding 8 speed chains, HOGWASH. I'm a Clydesdale who rides hard and races. In my own personal experience 8 speed chains broken 0, 9 speed chains broken 3 (All Shimano, I've switched to Sachs/Campy on my other 9 speed rigs). In rides where I experienced friends chains break again 8 Speed 0, 9 speed 2. Narrower equals weaker, I don't know the engineering behind it, my guess is narrower link gap is more prone to separation from narrower pin in angluar or side to side torque. If you've ever snapped a chain sprinting up a short steep incline or in a flat sprint you'd know my pain, it something you don't forget. So the enginneers can say all they want but real-time says differently. My opinion is the same for Campy 10. Just ask that 135 lb mexican climber who somehow snapped a factory issued and professionally maintained 10 speed chain in the Giro 2 years ago that cost him a stage victory. So if it's not 9 speed, it's just poorly made chains as even I must admit correlation does not always prove causation. But once again it's NEVER happened on an 8 speed to me or anyone I know and that is enough to justify my reasoning, otherwise we are arguing that manufacturing Q/C went downhill as gears went up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Thanks all. Good info.

Quick note on the chain strength. I know that on the singlespeed board at mtbr.com there have been some posts comparing the tensile strength of different chains. I did a quick search but couldn't find the one that compared 8 speed to 9 speed. I dig a little bit more and post the link if I can find it.

Thanks again. S
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
atpjunkie said:
:) thats unfortunate, I'm not gonna argue its not worth it but there are way too many variables to consider. There are over 200 links, ones gonna give at somepoint right? Did it get snagged, did a link seize and you had to loosen it???
Mexican climber - so? his chain could have snapped cuz it was'nt put on right.

Dont make yourself look dumb by saying narrower = weaker, youre smarter than that!
 

·
Not Banned
Joined
·
49,013 Posts
all chains broke at non- replaceable (regular) connection, not the removable pin (though that happened once as well but not counted in total as it may have been due to a hasty in the field repair/replacement). 2 were less than a month old. no fixing or flubbing or anything that would point to operator/mech. error. brand new/ one factory installed chains.
the other had been on bike for about 3 months (MTB). all broke during high torque events, sprinting or uphill out of the saddle hammering. chains failed under xtreme load as I'm 230 lbs and put quite a load on my drivetrain. I doubt a guy riding on a Div 1 professional team had a bad chain, it was Campy 10's first year and they worked many of the bugs out to 'strengthen' the chain. Or was the change in the linking system the following year coincidental? doubtful. check old RbR posts for this, they exist. Furthermore, as the other poster adds, single speed, BMX and velo guys run much thicker chains than 7 or 8 speed. what would explain this if it wasn't a strength issue? If velo racers (the highest torque in cycling) still use bigger chains why wouldn't they go to a newer, thinner/lighter chain? I doubt they are retrogrouches, most would like the weight savings but still they use beasts of chains. So I don't think this makes me stupid. You slam to the pavement at 33 mph during an all out sprint because your chain gives way and there is no resistance to your downstroke and it will explain to you the term 'smarts'. So if 'real-time experience' is in contrast to 'theoretical opinion' (which is sometimes sales motivated) I'll err on the eide that keeps my wheels between me and the groud. I'm sure 9 is fine for most folks but for the bigger/ stonger rider 8 is great.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
atpjunkie said:
If velo racers (the highest torque in cycling) still use bigger chains why wouldn't they go to a newer, thinner/lighter chain?
Lets get one thing clear, I am not calling you stupid. Just dont agree with thinner = stronger.

Trackies use thicker everything, cogs, chains, chain rings even cranks. Marty Nothstein produces 1800 watts in a sprint and has been known to torque 1/8" chainrings!!

But he still rides campy 10 on the road, I still think the 135lb climber was a fluke.
The only chain I ever broke was mangled by me in a dodgy last minute fix.
 

·
Not Banned
Joined
·
49,013 Posts
so if thicker doesn't equal stronger why is Marty riding 1/8th rings and running gear? it's obvious why he rides it on the road, it's what is available and functional for multi speeds. it's also what his sponsors pay him to ride.
By your argument that thicker doesn't equal stronger there would be no use for such burly and heavy gear. If your point held he'd be running a 9 speed chain and rings to handle those watts as it would be lighter and stronger. There would be no need for Velo Specific drive trains. So if unless I'm missing some unknown reason for running such burly gear I think your example proves my point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
we CANNOT compare road and track here, not the same at all. They run 1 1/8" because its the norm, just like you can only get 9/10 speed on the road, also how many roadies do you know that produce such huge power from a STANDING start. erm none. I admit track stuff is stronger, never denied it. Forget the track. Its what his sponsors pay him to ride? come on its all you can get these days, you expect him to ride 6 speed screw on with 3/16" chain and down tube shifters because hes strong?. My point is that there are thousands maybe millions of 9 speed chains out there and if they were substancially weaker more people would be complaining. I understand that from your point, every 9sp broke and 8 didnt, that doesnt prove that 9 speed is weaker. Do you really think Shimano etc are making inferior products just to increase number of gears. Thats hogwash.

i realize you are a big strong fella, its power that breaks chains not weight, I bet Ullrich, Armstrong and Cippolini et al ALL produce more watts than you do (no offense they are pros after all) and they dont break chains do they?
 

·
Not Banned
Joined
·
49,013 Posts
dreww said:
we CANNOT compare road and track here, not the same at all.
WHY NOT? if smaller was better (TRACK) they would use it as it would be LIGHTER. track breaks it down to the simplest form, no freewheel, no gears, no derailleur to absorb pedal stress so they need the strongest equipment. It is the canary in the coal mine. If a thinner /lighter gear line was better Mfrs would make it. This isn't an apples to oranges arguemnt as you would so claim, need pushes technology. There must be a disadvantage to thinner chains, if not strength than what? The same point applies to QR's, they can't be made strong enough to combat pedal torque so are not used.

It's the same for SS MTBs. So if we can't use Track how about SS MTB's? once again as SSers have to stand and hammer more with no Der. to absorb pedal stress they need ...bolted hubs and bigger chains. Once again you fail to answer WHY? as thinner would be lighter. it's also why they run wider bars so they can torque the bike more standing. there is a NEED that is fulfilled by the mfrs.

They run 1 1/8" because its the norm, just like you can only get 9/10 speed on the road,
IT IS THE NORM WHY?? if thinner was better they'd use it for weight savings. using an ad populum arguement without any explanation why is meaningless. ONCE AGAIN if thinner=stronger were true it WOULD BE THE NORM.

also how many roadies do you know that produce such huge power from a STANDING start. erm none. AGREED. I admit track stuff is stronger, never denied it.
WHY IS IT STRONGER....
....because it's WIDER. you once again prove my point as you provide no argument against the wider = stronger point. Again narrower gear would be made by the mfr's if it was BETTER for the purpose. It would be used because it would be lighter, but it is not and saying... "it's the standard" is saying we'd still be riding your aforementioned 6 speed as it was the 'standard' once. but technology gave us improvements in gears that as stated outweighed the drawbacks.(see below) So is track technology stuck in the 50's? 70's? no, bikes, bars, wheels, stems, seatposts have all been improved and made lighter. Why not the drivetrain width? You keep failing to answer this and "it's the Norm" is about as good as 'because'.

Forget the track. It's what his sponsors pay him to ride? come on its all you can get these days, you expect him to ride 6 speed screw on with 3/16" chain and down tube shifters because he's strong?.
NOT AT ALL, MORE GEARS BENEFITS OUTWEIGHS BREAKAGE ISSUE, There are advantages that outweigh the disadvantages. Also most cyclists are smaller so this whole issue for most is moot. As for the retrogrouch arguement. I was using Mfr point not between 6 speed and 9, but 9 and 10. Riders are paid to ride newest products as they are marketing tools, it's why they are paid by Mfr Sponsors. I doubt anyone except lower Div 2 and 3 Teams will be on D/A 9 next year. It's what drives sales. Kinda like how all MTB pros under Shimano have to ride XTR STI & disc whether they want to or not. Remember rapid rise? How about the new XTR brake/shifters(will they last because they are better or because Shimano will force them on the public?) My prediction is a huge boost in sales of the SRAM triggers. there have been plenty of tech. advancements that 'the pros rode' that are now in the trash heap. BioPace anyone?

yes they can produce more wattage, wattage isn't the issue it's torque. It's the combination of weight, downstroke vs. side to side pressure that is from wider hips/shoulders and more weight. I'm an ex-rower so I'm not fat, am tall and large. So let's see what else I've done that Lance, Jan and co probably haven't......(please note none from crashes) broke frames, cranksets, bottom brackets, skewer axles (CroMo), pulled rear wheel loose even with over tightened QR, hmmmm you ever notice that certain bikes and most Ti parts have weight limits and not watt limits? Wonder why? by your arguement I could ride Ti BB's, pedal axles, etc and Lance and Co could not. Those elite weight weenie roadies would be in a heap of trouble if your watt argument carried any 'weight'. They'd all be riding 22 lb Steel equipped bikes. check Ti mfr's warranty sheets (or Santa Cruz Superlight) if you don't believe me, weight limit is usually 165. Anything over voids warranty.

so please just tell me with all the advancements in cycling technology why oh why do the SSers of the world (Trackies, Fixies, SS MTBers, Bike Messengers, etc) ride wider, thicker, heavier chains? If thinner was stronger and therefore better (and lighter) Mfrs would make it, push it on their team riders and market it. If you can't answer this please don't respond as your arguments were long winded and lacked merit which forced me to waste my time rebutting them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
We are talking 8 versus 9/10 here not track S/S etc so lets stick to the point O.K?

lets make it real simple for you. Track stuff is strong for sure chains are wider but are they stronger?? I really dont know who can tell me?

My question to you was does wider = stronger you are adament but give no explanation.
And again would Shimano and Campag make WEAKER items, chains etc just for market share?? i really dont think so.

i know several big lads like yourself who now ride campy 10etc, who regulary break cogs and chainrings etc and did when they rode 8, BUT DOES THIS MAKE 8 STRONGER??????? thats my question WHY?

I dont have answers to all your questions sorry, IMHO 8 is no stronger, but you seem to have taken this very personally thats a shame as i thought adults could have differences of opinions and not behave so.
Lack merit what have you proved? that you can go off topic in a nanosecond? wide bars bio-pace. Wider = stronger because??
This is not all about weight as you keep saying its about keeping = strength.

Correct me if i am wrong but weight will have little effect on a chain as when you push down the cycle is propelled forward, i agree torque is important but that surely comes from power primarily. My lance etc analogy was to explain power. BTW
Maybe we can agree to disagree and not bore others with this.
e-mail me @ [email protected] if you wish to discuss further
 

·
ex pro grad student
Joined
·
68 Posts
back to the original topic thread...

i am very happy with my 8spd set up. find that it is very good in the mud. at the same time, many pros are running 9spds as well...

although i am considering that i should perhaps switch from a 13-26 to a ....?

and need to swap my rear derailleur out. any thoughts on a good recommendation?

XT, ultegra???

thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
12-28 Xt

There's also a 11-30 XT for trail ridin'. A XT mid cage rear derailleur probably last longer than a Ultegra. I like Ultegra or Dura Ace short cage. They make for some snappy (quick) shifts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,079 Posts
The Great Chain Debate

I just had to jump in on this one because it got so heated. Went down the hall and dusted off my Machine Design textbook from engineering school, turned to the section concerning chain drives:

In the machine-design world, chains are rated on their power transmission capacity which takes into consideration 3 different kinds of failures; link fatigue (a normal break), roller impact at engagement (heavily worn chain), and galling between the pins and bushings (chewed up roller bearings).

The type of failure we are addressing is the first; link fatigue. This applies to the repeated tension in the tight side of the chain and the shock loading from gear mashing and crazy pedaling, etc. Because of these factors, we can focus mainly on tensile strength as our indicator of durability in the SS drive train. If we were concerned with power transmission, then we would need to incorporate data about the # of teeth on the small cog, speed of the small cog, and of course the diameter of the cog as it applies to chain width (not pitch, as all bike chains are 1/2" wide and industrial applications have varying widths).

Anywho, there is a table prominently listed in the book that illustrates the tensile strength of a chain based upon its pitch. As you can see, the wider the chain, the higher the tensile strength. Unfortunately this chart doesn't go down to bicycle widths such as 3/32 and 1/8", but it should provide some idea of the strength to pitch ratio. It is almost an exponential relationship, however, I was unable to plot a trend line that fit very well, so I can't theorize on the differences between the low end.

Bottom line: Wider is Stronger.


O.K. did a little more research. The average 10 speed chain width is 6mm, 9 speed can be anywhere from 6.5 -6.9mm, and 8 speed is anywhere from 7.1-7.4mm. Using the rough fit exponential trendline from excel, converting the mm widths to english with a standrd of 25.4mm to the inch, averaging the pitch width for each speed, and plugging this information into the equation, we get the following results:

10 Speed Chain: 1184 lbs
9 Speed Chain: 1197 lbs
8 Speed Chain: 1209 lbs

These numbers show roughly a 1% increase in tensile strength from one category to the next, which should be extremely negligible in a real world setting.

Disclaimer: Because these calculations are based upon pin width specified by the manufacturer, the results will vary from the trend on the graph which represents the associated size designation of each chain pitch, i.e. 3/32" chain does not have 3/32" pin width, whereas information in the chart lists the associated size; 1/2", 3/4", etc. The basic relationship of the trendline should be the same, however, and the percent increase in tensile strength should be acknowledged more than the actual calculated numerical value for tensile strength. You really shouldn't care that much anyway, because bicycles do not follow the textbook per se on engineering anyway, they shouldn't theoretically work as well as they do, but they do. The only reason to get this specific with this junk is if you are bored at lunch time like I am and have nothing better to do.

Thank you.
 

·
Not Banned
Joined
·
49,013 Posts
thanx Señor P for the Science

Bottom line: Wider is Stronger.[/QUOTE]

if it wasn't they'd (the industry) make narrower chains/cog and chainwheels for track/SS as the market would dictate it. Becuase weight savings is a performance enhancer.

so to make it SIMPLE

IN CYCLING (all discliplines)
LIGHTER=BETTER (even in downhill)
unless
LIGHTER=WEAKER to the point where
Failure (disadvantage) outweighs Weight (Advantage)

In geared bikes advantage is weight and wider gear ratios which is in turn is
aided by rear der. absorbance of pedal stress which also lowers failure rate.
This makes it a far better choice.
we could also add aerodyamics as narrower has a lower drag coefficient but I won't complicate this any further

so to simplify this arguement in a logic Matrix
if NARROWER=LIGHTER (given same materials used to mfr)
and LIGHTER =BETTER
therefore
NARROWER=BETTER.

now if according to DREWW
if narrower chains are STRONGER and LIGHTER
in a Matrix
Narrower=Lighter=better
and narrower=stronger=better
therefore Narrower=lighter. stronger=way better
there would be no need for HEAVY drivelines at all.

BUT there is (the existence of them is a point and explanation in itself, if they weren'ty superior for some reason they'd have gone the way of the downtube shifter, LA excluded)
so I Logically Infer that
Narrower must be Weaker and thus explaining the 'need' for heavy drivelines.
if not the industry would jump all over it and Trackies and SSers would run narrow gear.

So Campy and Shimano yes may be marketing weaker (slightly) things as their advantages outweigh their disadvantages. I know I'm a rarity and not a big market demograph so pleasing me is low on industry priorities.

as far as me going 'off topic" BioPace is an example of "The Next Big Thing" marketed by the industry that hit the trash pile. See if you read my post carefully I use examples to illustrate my arguements, that's called 'providing support'. wider bars illustrates how demand by consumers creates products by the industry. So there is no demand by consumers (pros included) for narrow SS drivetrains. Once again I infer logically that it must be because weaker, otherwise it would exist (be the Norm as Dreww so put it) as it would be LIGHTER=BETTER. This is the only plausible explanantion and a simple inference.

So where did I take this personally? I can't find it.
In reality I find debate/discourse to be the mental equivalent of cruise intervals. My think muscle needs a workout too. I never took any of Drewws comments personally even when Dreww made the 'stupid' '' inference. To infer that I'm 'taking this personally" or can't discuss 'as adults' is an ad hominum attack, the debate equivalent of a mud sling. It is also the first sign of a collapsing arguement. Where do I ever attack you Dreww?, never just your arguements(or lack thereof).To accuse me of such (again without substantiation), is truly going "off topic".

Your Lance point was to infer that, IN MATRIX form
A)They have more power (wattage) than me
B) They don't break chains
C) therefore 'power' isn't the issue

I rebutted by using weight limits and warranty issue as a counter to that point.
As stated they can ride all the chi chi Ti lightweight stuff that isn't marketed to
Clydesdales. So weight causes failure not wattage(power). Your point here is DEAD.
power is by itself too non-descript and nefarious a term in cycling to even deal with.

as far as correcting you if you are wrong.
weight has a huge effect on the chain as forward energy is created by downward thrust (leg power plus body weight plus gravity) and the resistance created by
a) chain and gear ratio plus rolling resistance (read friction).
to illustrate have a friend hold you still TT start style, have bike in 53-12 and pedal down.
Now do again with you friend lifting the rear wheel, see much easier. The heavier, stronger the rider the more thrust until it is countered by the increase of the drag coeffiecient (friction) and gravity. This is clearly illustrated in my own experience as I can out sprint and TT most of my riding pals (my wattage is much higher, tested) of equal experiece/skill but get my backside handed to me on climbs. my watts to drag goes waaaayyy down.
so weight has a noticable effect on a chain as it works with the resistance of friction.

if you need further proof, go to any of the SS, Track, Fixie boards and ask
"with all the lightweight innovations in cycling why do you use such heavy drivelines?"
as once again
A) wider=heavier
B) wider=more friction (more contact between cog/chainring teeth and chain)
C) less aerodynamic
and according to Dreww
D) weaker.
and therefore
WIDER=WORSE
I thank you Señor P for the Science to back my claim as I only come to these
conclusions via experience and deductive reasoning. If you really use logic it usually
adds up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
I never stated once that narrower was better did I, simply IMHO that 8 was no stronger than 9. you seem to rest your whole case on proving me wrong that 9 is stronger NO.
"So Campy and Shimano yes may be marketing weaker (slightly) things as their advantages outweigh their disadvantages'.

This is all i was ever getting at and you never answered my question would Shimano etc make weaker kit just for the "fad".
I used the "norm" for trackies just like you said roadies use 9sp + because it readily available, you cannot get 9 sp equivalent track equipmentand before you say it yes I know why STRONGER.

As for the attack, personally I did not see a long winded, lack merit etc argument. I DID NOT HAVE AN ARGUMENT NEVER INTENDED TO, simply a question.
You seem fixated on SS etc and this was not the topic at all.
I also found out today that Shimano changed there chain making process recently to greatly improve strength, serious problem with breakages but that was fixed 3-4 years ago.

I realize junkie that you are an intellegent chap, your rebuttals certainly sustain that, the dumb comment was directed at your statement "narrower = weaker" with no basis.

mr junkie my aim was never to offend simply to raise the question, I honestly think you took it a little to heart.
You say you still ride 9 on the road and they dont break why is that I wonder?

Andrew
 

·
Not Banned
Joined
·
49,013 Posts
the Norm

once again you fail to somehowmiss the points

the 'Norm' is dictated by what 'works best' usually dictated by the market

if narrower was 'better' ie lighter and stronger (or as strong as) in general (all disciplines) then it follows that for track / SS it would be the 'norm' and would be 'readily available'. Once again it is not, I don't need to answer why.

we've already established wider chains are heavier, less aero and have more friction
therefore without having a strength advantage would be rendered obsolete and would not exist as there would be no market.
Mr Senor Pedro has shown this to be true. I'm glad he supplied it but any person should be able to deduce this by the Matrix method. (this is something taught in Logic classes)
there is no 9 speed equivalent for track as it would be weaker and here-to-for not required by the market. No trackie/ SSer wants a thinner / weaker chain hence the antiquated 1/8th inch chain lines, weight, friction and all.

once again SS/ Track is used as it is the most strenuous on drivetrain, no der. to absorb pedal torque hence no QR's and horizontal drop outs. This means it is also the most prone to failures in weaker drivelines. Track chains are stronger, we've agreed to this, why? They are wider, once again established. It therefore follows as Sr. pedro so illustrated the thinner you go, the weaker you go. which follows that 9 would be weaker than 8...see how that works? It all makes sense.

your question re: Shimano and I quote
This is all i was ever getting at and you never answered my question would Shimano etc make weaker kit just for the "fad". came quite late in this debate (your 4th post) and therefore could not have been "all you were getting at" if you can't remember what you were 'getting at" let me refresh your memory and I quote:

8 speed chains are not stronger, just wider. I noticed you have mentioned this a few times recently and thought I would point it out. The only difference between 8, 9 and 10 is the barrel (pin) width, the plate thickness is virtually the same. I got into a discussion on a similar board with an engineer in the U.K about this and he had measured all these chains trying to work out drag coefficiency etc. (his thinking was thinner chain = more drag, kinda like thinner tyres = more rolling resistance).
Dont mean to be rude just pointing out a fact. (?)
actually a wider chain would more likely have more drag as there is more surface area
(thicker chainring, wider barrel, side plate contact would be same more or less)


I'm aware of Shimanos upgrades to their chains. please look through archives, was never an issue before 9 speed so we can deduce either:
A) Shimano's Mfr QC (quality control) went down after 8 speed (doubtful but possible)
or
B) 9 speed chains were weaker by design or nature


as far as 9 speeds in my collection, only 2. 1 cross which I will retro to 8 when finances / time allow and my roadie which is Campy 9. I avoid Campy 10 for the same reason I avoid Shimano 9. I have a bevvy of old 8 spped parts.

so as shown my narrower = weaker has tons of 'basis'
A) my personal experience (where this started from) example 1
B) Mr Pedros Chart (where it ended)
C) by deducing the existence of wider track / SS chains. they exist despite their weight, etc..disadvantages (my further posts)
why? this is rhetorical.

but finally we can agree on 2 things
A) I'm an intelligent chap
B) you never had an arguement

once again not personal for me at all. I'm sure you are a fine person, I enjoy a good debate. I find this quite 'fun'.

cheers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
atpjunkie said:
Blah, blah, blah more non relevant ramblings, I am 230lbs and I’m gonna kick your ass if you dare question my authority on this forum. What’s my point again? Bio pace SS blah, blah etc.

if narrower was 'better' ie lighter and stronger (or as strong as) in general (all disciplines) then it follows that for track / SS it would be the 'norm' and would be 'readily available'. Once again it is not, I don't need to answer why.
BTW I just found out that track chains and cogs/chainrings are now available in 9 speed format. According to LBS 9sp (3/32") are now the "norm". Miche, Duraace etc. A friends 03 C'dale comes with a 9sp Dura-ace. Hmm guess this blows the doors off your theory about if they are equally as good (9speed) people would demand the equipment and manufacturers would have no choice but to respond. Even though we are attempting to discuss 8 Vs 9sp here I will entertain you. So now we know 9sp is readily used on track, anyone heard of many serious pileups caused by breaking chains.?

atpjunkie said:
we've already established wider chains are heavier, less aero and have more friction therefore without having a strength advantage would be rendered obsolete and would not exist as there would be no market. there is no 9 speed equivalent for track as it would be weaker and here-to-for not required by the market. No trackie/ SSer wants a thinner / weaker chain hence the antiquated 1/8th inch chain lines, weight, friction and all.
As we now know not true.

atpjunkie said:
I'm aware of Shimanos upgrades to their chains. please look through archives, was never an issue before 9 speed so we can deduce either:
A) Shimano's Mfr QC (quality control) went down after 8 speed (doubtful but possible)
or
B) 9 speed chains were weaker by design or nature.
Chains never broke before 9 speed? really, more like access to internet was unavailable and people could not discuss their problems as easily on message boards such as this one. I mentioned earlier that Shimanos QC was off on early 9sp but is now fine.

atpjunkie said:
but finally we can agree on 2 things
A) I'm an intelligent chap
B) you never had an arguement
Never wanted an argument really.
Seems like you have no argument on this one, as track kit is 9 speed

I appreciate senor for digging out the info posted above, sure the link chain holding the QE2 at her mooring is stronger than the chain holding my garden gate closed because it is huge, every link is vastly larger no question there right? however the difference between 8 and 9 is only the space between the two plates. The plates are equal thickness, the pins are the same diameter just the distance between the plates has reduced (you call this pitch correct?) I will say that I do not have an 8sp to compare to my 9, according to Shimano literature and my engineer conversation mentioned before pitch is the only thing to change. Maybe atp etc can compare overall size?

So my question remains, given the similarities between 8 and 9 or 9 and 10 can we say one is stronger? Or equally as strong is really my question not one above the other.
I still have a hard time believing Campag, SRAM etc will reduce size and weakness of chains in the name of market share and technological innovativeness.
Sure seat posts, bars and stems etc are made lighter and sometimes weaker, all part of the game we call gram counting no good for my friend Mr Junkie here, but chains??

Taken from Shimanos site, I could have sworn they had info on strength of new 10sp recently, but can not find it:
“The new 10-speed Dura-Ace chain is lighter by an astonishing 24g, yet maintains the same durability as the 9-speed predecessor”
They say durability not strength I know, but I’m trying here.

I thought about guys like Zinn, he specializes in piecing together bikes for behemoths and all the pics I could find show bikes built up with Campy carbon shifters (obviously 10sp)
Now this is not conclusive proof, but 7” tall 300lb + fella’s are usually darn strong and if 10 couldn’t handle it surely he would spec something else that could to reduce breakage.

We have talked many times atp and never got into anything as heated as an argument, I come to this site for entertainment and to pick up and maybe disperse a little information not to argue. I would like to keep it this in future. But this is hardly the casual banter that usually makes this site appealing.

Just my 10 cents worth.

Look forward to your rebuttal
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
SenorPedro said:
(not pitch, as all bike chains are 1/2" wide and industrial applications have varying widths).

10 Speed Chain: 1184 lbs
9 Speed Chain: 1197 lbs
8 Speed Chain: 1209 lbs

These numbers show roughly a 1% increase in tensile strength from one category to the next, which should be extremely negligible in a real world setting.

Thank you.
No, No thank you, this is what I have been looking for. Right or wrong I dont really care but this is really interesting. I did not know that 3/32" was standard 9 sp if I had realized this (and atp too) it would have cleared things up a long time ago. I did notice that you say width is the deciding factor not pitch, but above you state all chains are 1/2" wide.

Thats why I asked in my previous post, what width and pitch referred to. Width is length of link and pitch is really "width" distance across, correct?

My lunch times are usually spent reading junk in our lunch room not plugging formulas into excel, but hey I appreciate it.

Mr Junkie (whats the atp stand for may I ask?) I think this signifies the end, I''l buy you a beer if I am ever in Colorado, (I believe thats where you reside?)
 
1 - 20 of 44 Posts
Top