# Reuse a SRAM 10 speed Powerlock?



## onespeedbiker (May 28, 2007)

I finally upgraded to a 10 speed drivetrain and am using a SRAM 10 speed chain with a Powerlock link. SRAM says this link is non-reusable but I have read it readily comes apart with Park master link pliers.

Interestingly I saw this ad that hasn't quite got up to speed on the difference between reuse ability of the powerlink vs 10 speed powerlock. Sram Powerlock 10 Speed - Pack Of 4 2012 at Price Point


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

That link is held together by a sharp edge, which is damaged when you pop it off. Having seen the crash results of chain failures, why don't you pop for a $5 KMC link, or a re-usable Connex link? You can use the old link to ride down to the bike shop, but I wouldn't stand on it.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

Deja Vu. I thought we just covered this a week or two ago.

I guess "search" is broken....

ETA: Oh look at that....search DOES work!

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/components-wrenching/sram-powerlock-one-time-use-only-268583.html


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

PlatyPius said:


> Deja Vu. I thought we just covered this a week or two ago.
> 
> I guess "search" is broken....
> 
> ...


Why bother to post a link to a thread where you've posted bad advice? 

It's a really cheap part. Crashing hurts. Doing things that the manufacturer specifically warned against for less than $10 is foolish.


I sincerely doubt SRAM put the warning in their instructions so they could make a fortune on replacement links.


----------



## onespeedbiker (May 28, 2007)

PlatyPius said:


> Deja Vu. I thought we just covered this a week or two ago.
> 
> I guess "search" is broken....
> 
> ...


Okay my bad :mad2: I been monitoring this site, but I missed that one probably because I wasn't looking for it at the time. However, the last post didn't include a major web store saying it was re-useable. Further, I don't like resurrecting old posts, but I will post on those that have been resurrected by someone else; I guess a Dr. Frankenstein I'm not.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

Kontact said:


> Why bother to post a link to a thread where you've posted bad advice?
> 
> It's a really cheap part. Crashing hurts. Doing things that the manufacturer specifically warned against for less than $10 is foolish.
> 
> ...


I didn't give any advice; good or bad. I simply said that I've reused them on my personal bikes many times.





onespeedbiker said:


> Okay my bad :mad2: I been monitoring this site, but I missed that one probably because I wasn't looking for it at the time. However, the last post didn't include a major web store saying it was re-useable. Further, I don't like resurrecting old posts, but I will post on those that have been resurrected by someone else; I guess a Dr. Frankenstein I'm not.


I wouldn't call 2 weeks an "old post"...
Since I apparently give bad advice:

"z0mg! Do NOT under ANY circumstances reuse the SRAM PowerLock!!1 You will die!!!!!!!1"


----------



## PissedOffCil (Jan 3, 2008)

PlatyPius said:


> I didn't give any advice; good or bad. I simply said that I've reused them on my personal bikes many times.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Reused them many times without failure or problems.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

PissedOffCil said:


> Reused them many times without failure or problems.


A lot of people drove Pintos without them exploding. A lot of kids played with bags without suffocating. People cut carbon steerers with pipe cutters. They point loaded guns at each other without killing anyone. People ride on cracked frames. And millions don't wear bike helmets.

Getting away with something is one thing. But I don't know why so many people take their one-off experience of getting away with something and turn it into advocacy for mis-using things specifically warned against by the people who designed and built them.

And yes, chiming in with "I do it - it's fine" is advocacy. Especially if you known to be in the bicycle industry.


----------



## PissedOffCil (Jan 3, 2008)

Kontact said:


> A lot of people drove Pintos without them exploding. A lot of kids played with bags without suffocating. People cut carbon steerers with pipe cutters. They point loaded guns at each other without killing anyone. People ride on cracked frames. And millions don't wear bike helmets.
> 
> Getting away with something is one thing. But I don't know why so many people take their one-off experience of getting away with something and turn it into advocacy for mis-using things specifically warned against by the people who designed and built them.
> 
> And yes, chiming in with "I do it - it's fine" is advocacy. Especially if you known to be in the bicycle industry.


When removing the link, no "sharp edge" broke, the link was then reinstalled and it felt exactly like a new link and is as secure as it used to be.

When "so many people" share their "one-off experience" and being fine with it, I think we can safely conclude it is safe to do.

In fact, I have never seen a powerlock open when riding but I' have seen many powerlinks do so although the powerlinks do no have the warning of not reusing them...

Now, we have all seen warnings meant to protect designers in case of failure although there are no known problem beforehand. I totally understand manufacturers not wanting to take liability but at one point it gets ridiculous. I believe this is a case of over-protecting against suing. You don't have to agree.

By the way, what's the worst that can happen when breaking a chain?


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

PissedOffCil said:


> When removing the link, no "sharp edge" broke, the link was then reinstalled and it felt exactly like a new link and is as secure as it used to be.
> 
> When "so many people" share their "one-off experience" and being fine with it, I think we can safely conclude it is safe to do.
> 
> ...


If out of the saddle, a very serious crash.

This is purely a safety issue. I could certainly understand pushing things a little if this were something expensive, but links are so damn cheap, why should there even be a question of doing as the SRAM recommends? Eventually, someone will prove them right, and lose teeth doing it.

I simply don't understand people's willingness to push the envelope for $5.


----------



## reptilezs (Aug 21, 2007)

Kontact said:


> If out of the saddle, a very serious crash.
> 
> This is purely a safety issue. I could certainly understand pushing things a little if this were something expensive, but links are so damn cheap, why should there even be a question of doing as the SRAM recommends? Eventually, someone will prove them right, and lose teeth doing it.
> 
> I simply don't understand people's willingness to push the envelope for $5.


because they can


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

Sram sucks. dont use it once and you dont have to worry about it.


There.


----------



## onespeedbiker (May 28, 2007)

tihsepa said:


> Sram sucks. dont use it once and you dont have to worry about it.
> 
> 
> There.


SRAM does not suck, that's just silly :smilewinkgrin:


----------



## onespeedbiker (May 28, 2007)

Kontact said:


> If out of the saddle, a very serious crash.
> 
> This is purely a safety issue. I could certainly understand pushing things a little if this were something expensive, but links are so damn cheap, why should there even be a question of doing as the SRAM recommends? Eventually, someone will prove them right, and lose teeth doing it.
> 
> I simply don't understand people's willingness to push the envelope for $5.


Ever sign one of these?



> Rider (or legal guardian if Rider is a minor), states that Rider has read and understands this Waiver and Release of Liability Form of the Rentee, its owners, agents and employees and hereby expressly accepts and agrees to the following:
> 
> _____ (Initial) Risk of Personal Injury. Rider understands that riding a bicycle is an inherently dangerous activity. Risks include, but are not limited to: DEATH; INJURY TO BODY; DAMAGE TO BIKES, GEAR, AND CLOTHING; AND DAMAGE TO AND/OR INJURY TO OTHERS.
> 
> ...


----------



## PissedOffCil (Jan 3, 2008)

Shimano also states to only use their chains with their chainrings. SRAM also states not to use their powerlinks/locks with non SRAM chains. All of that is bullshit if you ask me. It's not a matter of saving cash, it's just that it works.

BTW, I once broke a chain link in two when riding trials. I can't imagine it being more dangerous...

You do what you want, I don't care and I won't come whinning that you should reuse them. People are just sharing their experience, take it or leave it, it's up to you.


----------



## looigi (Nov 24, 2010)

Holy cow. This topic needs a sticky, or maybe it's own forum. 

I use a single SRAM 10 speed Powerlock link for the life of a chain ~4-6k miles, which might entail removing and replacing the chain 5-10 times during its life. YMMV


----------



## savagemann (Dec 17, 2011)

Back in 2009 Sram had a recall on some of the 10spd powerlinks.
Correct me if im wrong, but before the recall i don't "recall" them being single use.
Could it have been a cya move after the initial issues they had?


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

savagemann said:


> Back in 2009 Sram had a recall on some of the 10spd powerlinks.
> Correct me if im wrong, but before the recall i don't "recall" them being single use.
> Could it have been a cya move after the initial issues they had?




The recall was for specific factory runs only with certain date codes imprinted on the PowerLock.

SRAM designated the 10-speed PowerLock "single-use" from the beginning. Their story was that they could either make a 10-speed re-usable link which was not quite as strong as a regular chain link, or make a non-reusable 10-speed link which was as strong or even stronger than a regular chain link. They blamed the "thinness" of the 10-speed chain. Nice story. What is true that you can easily damage a SRAM PowerLock by removing it incorrectly (excessive force applied in the wrong directions).

As to someone's wondering why people "push the envelope:" People who re-use SRAM PowerLocks don't really think of it that way. They reserve "pushing the envelope" for much more daring pursuits than doubting a manufacturer's partially self-serving claim.


----------



## savagemann (Dec 17, 2011)

wim said:


> The recall was for specific factory runs only with certain date codes imprinted on the PowerLock.
> 
> SRAM designated the 10-speed PowerLock "single-use" from the beginning. Their story was that they could either make a 10-speed re-usable link which was not quite as strong as a regular chain link, or make a non-reusable 10-speed link which was as strong or even stronger than a regular chain link. They blamed the "thinness" of the 10-speed chain. Nice story. What is true that you can easily damage a SRAM PowerLock by removing it incorrectly (excessive force applied in the wrong directions).
> 
> As to someone's wondering why people "push the envelope:" People who re-use SRAM PowerLocks don't really think of it that way. They reserve "pushing the envelope" for much more daring pursuits than doubting a manufacturer's partially self-serving claim.


Good stuff.
I remember the earlier 10 spd powerlinks being much easier to install.
It just seemed to me that after the initial issues they tightened things up a bit.
I personally am a big fan of the wipperman/connex link.
Instead of Sram making an "expensive" single use link, I think it would have been a better move to just use a chain pin.
Why make a product that "looks" like earlier products but remove the main feature of said product......being reusable!!!
It's like a full suspension "mountain bike" at Walmart. It looks like a mountain bike, but has a sticker on it that says not to ride it off road.
Maybe that's a bad comparison, but I think you get my drift.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

savagemann said:


> .Maybe that's a bad comparison, but I think you get my drift.


I get the drift, and there's some truth to what you say. On the other hand, you could make a point for the belief that the main feature of all these links is or was not re-use, but ensuring easy and, more importantly, correct initial installation. Setting a pin correctly (especially with 10-speed chains) takes a good sense of feel, good eyesight and good lighting. If that's not there, the link is definitely the better way to install a chain.

Also consider that many people (even more so in Europe) never remove the chain from the bike until it's time to replace it. So what's made much easier with these re-usable links is excessive (obsessive?) chain-cleaning you see so much of nowadays. That's not something really recommended by most chain makers or -sellers.


----------



## savagemann (Dec 17, 2011)

Good valid points.
I can say that I am guilty of excessive/obsessive chain removal/cleaning on my mountain bike.
But when done with care and attention to detail it really helps the drivetrain.
Dry sandy and silty muddy conditions can wear stuff out fast!
But when you get super anal retentive about it it lasts longer, ime.
Of course this doesn't apply to road bikes as much, unless they are ridden in some terrible conditions.
Which is most likely outside of their intended design.


----------



## PissedOffCil (Jan 3, 2008)

wim said:


> What is true that you can easily damage a SRAM PowerLock by removing it incorrectly (excessive force applied in the wrong directions).


Probably never had a problem because I used Park link pliers then...


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

wim said:


> The recall was for specific factory runs only with certain date codes imprinted on the PowerLock.
> 
> SRAM designated the 10-speed PowerLock "single-use" from the beginning. Their story was that they could either make a 10-speed re-usable link which was not quite as strong as a regular chain link, or make a non-reusable 10-speed link which was as strong or even stronger than a regular chain link. They blamed the "thinness" of the 10-speed chain. Nice story. What is true that you can easily damage a SRAM PowerLock by removing it incorrectly (excessive force applied in the wrong directions).
> 
> As to someone's wondering why people "push the envelope:" People who re-use SRAM PowerLocks don't really think of it that way. They reserve "pushing the envelope" for much more daring pursuits than doubting a manufacturer's partially self-serving claim.


The "pushing" I'm talking about is encouraging other people to ignore safety instructions. Everyone can do whatever they want, but publicly promoting doing something the manufacturer specifically warns against is irresponsible. If I did this myself, I'd at least be smart enough to shut up about it.

No one who's recommending doing this is going to pay anyone's hospital bill if they are wrong. Unless, of course, they figure out that Platy is a bike shop owner in Indiana, and take it up with him.


----------



## Curly59 (Dec 13, 2011)

*quick links*

Newb question. Looks like the annual dissasembly & cleaning of my chain (PC1091) and breaking the quick link may damage it, unless i purchase of use the ParK link tool.. Is the cost of the links worth the purchase of the Park tool?

Thanks, Curly69.


----------



## PoorCyclist (Oct 14, 2010)

Curly59 said:


> Newb question. Looks like the annual dissasembly & cleaning of my chain (PC1091) and breaking the quick link may damage it, unless i purchase of use the ParK link tool.. Is the cost of the links worth the purchase of the Park tool?
> 
> Thanks, Curly69.


It's worth the $13 alone not to get your hands dirty, KMC and SRAM link comes apart with 1 simple squeeze. (I think wippleman connex links needs careful manipulation so the pliers won't work)


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

PoorCyclist said:


> It's worth the $13 alone not to get your hands dirty, KMC and SRAM link comes apart with 1 simple squeeze. (I think wippleman connex links needs careful manipulation so the pliers won't work)


Connex can be removed in about .6 seconds. Nothing careful needed.

Park link pliers are sent from the heavens...they make life happy. Fluffy bunnies will hop across meadows and unicorns will fart out double rainbows. I LOVE Park link pliers.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

Kontact said:


> No one *who's recommending doing* this is going to pay anyone's hospital bill if they are wrong. Unless, of course, they figure out that Platy is a bike shop owner in Indiana, and take it up with him.


Can you actually read English, or do you just wing it?
I posted that *I* have reused SRAM PowerLocks. Nowhere did I "recommend" that the OP do so as well.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

PlatyPius said:


> Can you actually read English, or do you just wing it?
> I posted that *I* have reused SRAM PowerLocks. Nowhere did I "recommend" that the OP do so as well.


Here's what I read in English:


PoorCyclist said:


> SRAM Powerlock - one time use only?


Answer


PlatyPius said:


> I [_a bike dealer_] have re-used PowerLocks since I've had [_in my store?]_10 speed bikes.
> [_Here's how to do it_:] The Park pliers make any chain removal easier. Well, except Wipperman...no tools are needed for Wipperman.


Recommend means "to put forward something with approval as being suitable for a particular purpose". You answered without being directly addressed, and approved. I think my English skills are workin' just fine.

You clearly condone the practice, which is a pretty dumb public position for a someone who owns a business fixing bikes. Your opinion as a professional carries weight with some people, so undermining manufacturer safety instructions could lead directly to someone being injured.

Of course, you probably know all about the design and metalurgy of Powerlocks, so you just know better than SRAM.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

BTW, I am certain some of you think I'm just being an argumentative jerk, but I really don't get off on being hated. This forum is used in large part by newbies who are trying to learn. When a vocal minority make it sound like every warning a manufacturer gives is just legal fluff, that's what will stick in people's minds. Bike company's don't actually warn against all that many things, and when they do warn about things that can break, or issue recalls, it is for a very good reason.

Everyone does stuff they maybe shouldn't, but getting away with something is not the same as proving it is a good and safe practice. People get seriously injured on bicycles all the time. We should be encouraging each other to do things the right way when it comes to safety, not adding to the number of people who ignore warning labels and put themselves at totally unnecessary risk.

I'd post the exact same way about used 10spd chain pins, frayed brake cables, separated fork dropouts, crashed helmets or stripped stem bolts. Don't ride that stuff, and please don't tell other people that it is okay for them.


----------



## Hanks (Sep 30, 2011)

*You Guys made me all nervous...*

It's been a bunch of ons and offs so I just put a new Missing Link on my chain. Always glad when I buy a six pack. 

Hank


----------



## PissedOffCil (Jan 3, 2008)

Kontact said:


> Recommend means "to put forward something with approval as being suitable for a particular purpose". You answered without being directly addressed, and approved. I think my English skills are workin' just fine.


Were the parts between brackets the voice in your head? Because he never recommended doing it. I can see how you understand what you want when you add what you desire in there...


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

PissedOffCil said:


> Were the parts between brackets the voice in your head? Because he never recommended doing it. I can see how you understand what you want when you add what you desire in there...


I love how he tells me I'm a bad bike shop owner because I "recommend" that people reuse the SRAM link, but he's not a bad business owner for posting like an arsehole on a bike forum filled with thousands of potential customers for his product...he sells online, I - for the most part - don't.


----------



## Eric_H (Feb 5, 2004)

I'll only add to the "don't do it" side:

Install a 10spd SRAM Powerlock on a SRAM 10spd chain, then remove it.

Install a 9spd SRAM Powerlink on a SRAM 9spd chain, then remove it.

Notice the difference? The amount of force required to open the 10spd Powerluck is much greater, because the pins are being FORCED back across the plates and the plates were not designed for this. That is why they call it a PowerLOCK.

Don't ride in front of me with a re-used Powerlock, thanks.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Eric_H said:


> Don't ride in front of me with a re-used Powerlock, thanks.


I know what you mean. I will not ride behind someone with a frayed rear brake cable end. It tells me that the rider cares nothing about his or her fellow riders. An unsecured cable strand could go into my eye in case of a mass-crash!

Usually, I talk to a rider about his or her frayed end. The reactions are mixed. Some thank me for pointing out the danger. Others use strong language, including the f-word, to indicate to me their complete disinterest in bicycle safety.

/w


----------



## PissedOffCil (Jan 3, 2008)

I wouldn't ride behind someone who doesn't build his own wheels. God knows what could happen if the builder was poor and a spoke broke!


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

PlatyPius said:


> I love how he tells me I'm a bad bike shop owner because I "recommend" that people reuse the SRAM link, but he's not a bad business owner for posting like an arsehole on a bike forum filled with thousands of potential customers for his product...he sells online, I - for the most part - don't.


I sell through shops and direct. My 'concern' for you is liability, not reputation. But I'm not concerned at all about you, I'm concerned for those you influence.

I meet people all the time that know me from forums - my online reputation seems to be just fine. We also have a reputation feature on this board. Some people might even like someone who sticks his neck out sometimes.


Wim, I wasn't talking about frayed cable _ends_.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

Kontact said:


> I sell through shops and direct.


Exactly. And there are a few shop owners/employees on here. Wouldn't it be in your best interest to not be a db to them?

And really.... I seriously doubt that the denizens of RBR will reuse their PowerLocks just because I said on here that I do so on my own bikes - I'm just a shop owner, not a magazine columnist or pro rider.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

PlatyPius said:


> Exactly. And there are a few shop owners/employees on here. Wouldn't it be in your best interest to not be a db to them?
> 
> And really.... I seriously doubt that the denizens of RBR will reuse their PowerLocks just because I said on here that I do so on my own bikes - I'm just a shop owner, not a magazine columnist or pro rider.


Sir,

You take swipes at me all the time - including not directly to me. You are the only owner/employee on this forum that I don't get along with. Don't play the victim - you've been handing it out the sunshine around here long before I came along.

Disagreeing with you about chain links is not being a "DB". You posting that you hope I'll be banned is. You've said before to me that you are a grouch, so I usually just ignore your antics, like the other two professional misanthropes that troll the non-lounge.

That you do this hoping that it will damage my business (just like the other two do), is especially vulgar. But I'm doing just fine.:thumbsup:


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

Kontact said:


> Sir,
> 
> You take swipes at me all the time - including not directly to me. You are the only owner/employee on this forum that I don't get along with. Don't play the victim - you've been handing it out the sunshine around here long before I came along.
> 
> ...


I've decided that you live in your own little fantasy world.

Playing the victim? Where the hell do you get that from what I've posted? Victim of what?

You didn't "disagree" with me about chain links, you thoroughly berated me for it, making sure to note for anyone who might not know that I own a bike shop and I'm in Indiana.

Trolling the non-Lounge?
You say that without irony at all, don't you?
I answered a question here without any trolling intent at all. You're the one who turned this into some sort of holy war.

And where did you get the "hoping it will damage my business" thing? I commented that your posting style might, I didn't say that I hoped that it would.

Talk about a martyr complex!


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators Note*

Its called the ignore feature- use it.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

Reckon I'm gonna.


----------



## FBinNY (Jan 24, 2009)

I used to be very active on this forum, but over the last year I've been more active on a different one. I've been trying to come back here more often, but this thread reminds me of why I left.

There's no problem with disagreement, even vociferous disagreement, but at some point you have to accept that you've made your point and move on. Readers can see both sides, and draw on their own experience and draw their own conclusions. Arguing about who can read, and who can't is pointless.


BTW- going back to the original post, it seems we have anecdotal evidence that the links are reusable, vs. the manufacturers statement that they're not. Unfortunately negative evidence is meaningless. It's possible that those who reuse them have been lucky, or that there's a degree of forgiveness if the links are reused with care. What might be more to the point is anecdotal evidence of reused that failed. 

So, has anyone here ever had a reused link fail? 

Note, even if no one reports a reused link failure, that's still negative evidence because the base is so small.


----------



## config (Aug 16, 2002)

FBinNY said:


> There's no problem with disagreement, even vociferous disagreement, but at some point you have to accept that you've made your point and move on. Readers can see both sides, and draw on their own experience and draw their own conclusions. Arguing about who can read, and who can't is pointless.


Very well said brother! Not having the same opinions with others is perfectly fine. It's all part of us being mature human beings and all unique in the great country (world) we live in. We're not robots programmed to believe and do the same exact thing and if not, we've malfunctioned. As I added 'mature' earlier, we should have already learned that we should agree to have disagreements like this but it should end there. No where should our goal be to convince the other to accept our opinions or beliefs. If it happens, then fine, if not we move on (not through personal attacks). 

But back on topic this is what I gather.

SRAM 'recommends' one-time use on their 'Powerlock'. Whether it was designed for a one-time use only, they're saying, they are not responsible after the first installation.

Can it be re-used? Obviously yes, but SRAM will not be responsible. Have folks re-used it successfully? Again, yes but the folks should be accepting the risk (and warning) from the manufacturer themselves. Operational Risk Management (ORM) is a term/process we use to help decide if the risk is worth or too great to take. For less than $10, that's the individual's choice but that is what's so great--we can and will make our own choices!


----------

