# Couple component selection questions...



## DSR (Oct 10, 2002)

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


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

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.


----------



## dreww (Jan 22, 2004)

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.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*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.


----------



## DSR (Oct 10, 2002)

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


----------



## dreww (Jan 22, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> HOGWASH.


 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!


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

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.


----------



## dreww (Jan 22, 2004)

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.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

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.


----------



## dreww (Jan 22, 2004)

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?


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

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.
> ...


----------



## dreww (Jan 22, 2004)

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


----------



## snwbdrhoon (Oct 15, 2002)

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.


----------



## www-mtnpedaler-com (Sep 8, 2002)

*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.


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

*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.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*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.


----------



## dreww (Jan 22, 2004)

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


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*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


----------



## dreww (Jan 22, 2004)

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


----------



## dreww (Jan 22, 2004)

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
> ...


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?)


----------



## jnichols959 (Jan 22, 2004)

dreww said:


> 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?)


not from the horses mouth but my guess is atp = adenosine triphospate. my limited understanding is that this is the major fuel our muscles use when we're hammering on our bikes. that is the super-duper-lay person view (i.e. a little reading is a dangerous thing) ;-)


----------



## bud wiser (Jan 2, 2003)

I'm a clydesdale too and have snapped a Shimano 9sp chain. My LBS said Shimano chains are terrible and suggested I switch to SRAM 9sp. I did and have had zero problems since. I'm no expert on any of this, but couldn't your problem be that the Shimano chains you used were junk, like mine? It just seems that it may be hard to fault 9sp, when all your 9sp were Shimano.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

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. 
this is not a quote nor even a paraphrase. this is another ad hominum attack and once again carries no argumentative merit. (also the last act of a desperate debater). I've never threatened you once, my only attacks are on your shoddily assembeld and easily refuted points. if you haven't seen all the relevance although I've explained them all each numerously it's hopeless. This is really not the way to open a rebuttal. 

"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.?"

Well 3/32 isn't the 'norm' yet. Miche is still 1/8th (see Red Rose Imports) and Shimano has both sizes available. as far as pile-ups there hasn't been enough time (it's brand new and hasn't stood the test of time (any) yet. 9 speed readlily used in track? go to the rider and equipment specs and find the data to PROVE this before you make such a claim.
Without it your point is again unsubstantiated. Since Velo season is just starting and it's a brand new product my guess is it will be used this season but we'll have to see by how many and how well it does. To the present (right now) it is not the NORM...yet. Here I'll make a prediction for you, "Swami ATP" in his crystal ball sees 3/32 becoming the norm. A HA you say vindication! No, They will change the Mfr and/or design of chains in general (better pins, new design etc..) to make a 3/32 chain as strong as (or close enough) to a current 1/8 chain. At this point the heavier 1/8 chain will be obsolete as it's strength advantage will no longer be there to counter it's weight disadvantage. But it proves nothing, a 1/8th chain made with the new mfr techniques would still be stronger than a new tech 3/32. (See Sr Pedro) as we must keep 'all thing equal' when doing comparitive analysis. This will be an apples to oranges argument as new technology will make something
lighter and equal in strength. It would be like arguing frame technology, through modern tech. they've found ways to make lighter frames that are as strong (or stronger) than the frames of 10 or 20 years ago. So yes, 3/32 will become the norm when technology finds the method to compensate for what it lacks in tensile strength. Now the issue that you need to entertain me with the track analogy is starting to make me suspect of your reasoning skills, thick to thin...track is thicker than 8, is thicker than 9 etc..the whole point is to illustrate THICKER=WIDER.
I'm going to draw it out for you in a Matrix one last time.
it has been established (SR Pedro) 

WIDER equals STRONGER
TRACK is WIDER than 8 Speed
therefore (conclusion)
TRACK IS STRONGER THAN 8

then applying the same MAtrix

8 speed is WIDER than9 Speed
therefore (conclusion)
8 IS STRONGER THAN 9
I can't make this any simpler.


Originally Posted by atpjunkie
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. 

from you :As we now know not true. 
unsubstantiated, without evidence, in fact the evidence (see Sr Perdo) has PROVEN 
the opposite which is my point. Trackies will flock to the lighter, narrower chains when they prove their merit. This point is moot, as stated above (Sr Pedro) wider is stronger, when technology (driven by demand) makes the 3/32 chain as strong as a current 1/8 everyone will use it. I've already made this point, once again it proves nothing as it is an Apples to Oranges argument. If the only difference in the chains is the width (identical materials and mfr) the wider will e stronger.

so you think Shimano's QC went down when they went to 9sp. But only in the chain department you assume? I guess the same goes for early Campy 10...oh wait they called it a redesign to strengthen the links. If it was faulty QC shouldn't there have been a recall?
Did Shimano admit to this faulty QC? Where's your proof? It is possible that their QC suffered but it is more plausible that they've re-engineered the design to compensate for its
drawbacks.

"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."

now let me see 8 speed was switched to 9 in the late 90's (1998) and the internet has been around since........ yer freakin' kidding me. What the hell have I been doing all these years on a computer? You must be young.

"Never wanted an argument really."


if your first response was not a challenge, once again let me 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.... 
Dont mean to be rude just pointing out a fact." 

...then you really have no grasp at human communication. So just admit it, if you didin't want to argue why did make the claim? Dreww just be honest with yourself okay?

"Seems like you have no argument on this one, as track kit is 9 speed"
once again shows you want to continue the debate (which in case you hadn't figured out you lost 2 days ago)
I've already responded to this 'conclusion' above. Once again 3/32 will become the norm when changes are made to compensate for aforementioned drawbacks. Once again this proves my point and not yours. The market will cause the industry to make lighter stuff
, it's called progression. As of to date, they haven't been able to make any advancements in driveline. They will though its guaranteed

Regarding the QE2 arguement all I can say is "petitio princippi" excuse my poor latin spelling. If you don't knowwhat this means, look it up.

As far as 'making inferior products' 9 or 10 is not inferior, never said it was. read carefully, it's advantages (better gear choices etc..) outweigh the disadvantages. I'm getting tired of repeating myself, please read my previous posts CAREFULLY. Rear der. absorb a great deal of pedal stress (why you can use QR's and Vert dropouts) so chain stress is reduced on multi gear bikes. This reduction in chain stress,(which in effect lowers the chance of failure) further makes the advantage of 9 or 10 outweigh the disadvantages as breakage (for most) is a rarity and non-issue. For ME (where I started) it is an issue as I've only snapped 9 speed chains..... lets see I started cycling in 1969 (Merckx's first TdF I was a 6) and got my first roadbike in 1974, 10 Speed Gitane with Campy gear...oh I wax nostalgic. So in 30 years of turning pedals I can only recall breaking 9 speed chains....coincidence? I've bent links, twisted a few chains, but have only had pins give out (bad installation / repair / field dress excluded) on 9.

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.

okay so first let me say can you say "Marketing"? this Dreww is my field. So lets examine, I'll show you how to analyse an ad. First what is the reason they need to make this claim? This is a 'sell point' and a 'call to action'. Shimano is addressing this issue because...it is a concern to the buyer (us). Consumers are concerned because narrower has equalled weaker. Shimano has a history (read 8-9) of having problems (QC or dy design) with chain breakage. So Shimano's mkting dept. is addressing these concerns.
It is too soon to tell whether they are true as 10 is brand new and hasn't been 'tested' over time. Same applies to 3/32 Pista. Someone (an independent firm) should do a stress analysis to establish if it is true.
RE: Durability... a great word in advertising as it can mean so little but sound like so much. Check the ads for Chevy Trucks, the copy reads "...more durable* than Ford or Dodge...". When you chase down the asterix to the tiny script it says * durability based on longevity. All this really says is Chevy owners own their trucks longer. Maybe Ford and Dodge owners love their Trucks so much they want to get a new one more often. Maybe Chevy owners have a harder time reselling so they drive their trucks until they die. 
Once again maybe all marketing hype. Once again BioPace. Shimano sold this as the
"revolution to change the way we cycle", see how this relates, the industry and their marketing depts. isn't always right.

RE: Zinn, he specs what is available and servicable. Unfortunately Record and/ or Chorus
9 is disappearing and not available. Retailers can't sell what they can't supply or replace etc... He wouldn't Spec XTR 8 on a MTB either. This proves nothing. The validity of 8 has been proven by the fact that NOS 8 speed (especially MTB) parts sell on ebay etc.. at prices equal to or above original retail quite often.. Once again, tech. will compensate....but we are reaching the edge of the chain width universe. Swami ATP makes another prediction " Bikes will have more gears in the future but chains will stay roughly the same. To get more gears Mfrs will build combo Rear Der. Internal Hub shifting combos". I doubt we'll see 12 speed cassettes with 1/16 chains unless chain design has a radical tech. breakthrough. 

"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."

Once again your first post was an invitation to this heated debate, and actually I find this highly entertaining. Unfortunately I'm beginning feel my didacticism is wasted on you. I hope at least you will learn a few things about proper construction of an argument and how to rebutt / refute and how to actually quote someone to refute. May I suggest a speech / debate / and logic course(s) at a local institution of higher learning.

Your tenacity is admirable but foundless. You show the true masochism of a real cxer.

My Regards

ATP


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*atp from atp*



jnichols959 said:


> not from the horses mouth but my guess is atp = adenosine triphospate. my limited understanding is that this is the major fuel our muscles use when we're hammering on our bikes. that is the super-duper-lay person view (i.e. a little reading is a dangerous thing) ;-)


 absolutely correct. atp = fuel for hammering, fuel for hammering = hammering, hammering = suffering, suffering (for me)= enlightenment (personal) and a hell of a post ride excercised induced buzz.

therefore...me and my damn Logic Matrix'

atp = enlightenment (personal) and a hell of a post ride excercised induced buzz.

Dreww I'm in Southern California, land of the off season Pro Training Camp, and the Beer is on me, actually prefer small batch Boubon.
I assume you are in England.


----------



## dreww (Jan 22, 2004)

Firstly, the initial quote/paraphrase "it carries no argumentative merit", lighten up man it was an attempt to ease the tension a little. "Last act of a desperate debater" LOL.

(it's brand new and hasn't stood the test of time (any) yet. 9 speed readlily used in track? go to the rider and equipment specs and find the data to PROVE this before you make such a claim) have done and 3/32 has been used for over 3 years as 3/32 and 1/8 are interchangeable. Though not a trackie, like yourself I assume I spend time on a U.K track forum and it is readily used as Shimano, Campag and yes Miche make 3/32. As for brand new never tested as I said my friends 03 C'dale is now 18 months old, hardly never tested.
I consider this PROOF. Your whole next paragraph becomes moot as I have now explained for the second time it has been around for considerable time now. 
"Now the issue that you need to entertain me with the track analogy is starting to make e suspect of your reasoning skills," as we were discussing 8-9 and not track, (track was the basis of your argument) but its apples and oranges (sorry to steal a line) it stands to reason as you say that with the shock absorbtion from derailleurs etc we do not require such thick chains on the road, I understand the logic thanks very much but as senor pedro states a difference of 1%. So lets end the track debate O.K 

You can use logic all you wish and you initialy quoted "So the enginneers can say all they want but real-time says differently." Senor pedro actually PROVES something here.
I am also familiar with Matrix logic (studied it in philosophy few years ago) 

"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. 

from you :As we now know not true. 
unsubstantiated, without evidence. Trackies will flock to the lighter, narrower chains when they prove their merit. Trackies are buying 3/32 as we speak, not stronger no, but strong enough? sure. I spoke to Dave Legrys, ex world champ match sprinter and I believe current World Masters champ he used full Campag 3/32 kit now, prefers it too.

"so you think Shimano's QC went down when they went to 9sp. But only in the chain department you assume? I guess the same goes for early Campy 10...oh wait they called it a redesign to strengthen the links. If it was faulty QC shouldn't there have been a recall?
Did Shimano admit to this faulty QC? Where's your proof? It is possible that their QC suffered but it is more plausible that they've re-engineered the design to compensate for its
drawbacks." Does it matter when??, now they are equally as strong <1%. We can apply this same LOGIC to early 8speed or anything for that matter, companies need time to iron out problems with new products.As for Campy whats wrong with a redesign to fix the problem? Recall am I supposed to answer this?, you are in marketing would you recall or just fix the problem? this is nothing new very few companies recall unless imminent danger or loss of life read lawsuit. As for proof would you like the name of the Shimano rep I talked to at the LBS who stated they had redesigned to fix weak 9sp. Seems no coincidence that your problems occured when 9 sp came out or very close to that time. Someone also recently stated that early 9sp were crap. You also never answered my question as to why your present 9sp arent breaking under you, only that you have 2 bikes with 9sp???.

"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."
now let me see 8 speed was switched to 9 in the late 90's (1998) and the internet has been around since........ yer freakin' kidding me. What the hell have I been doing all these years on a computer? You must be young"
29 and have used the net for 8 years myself, but how many of these chat boards were around 6 years ago? You made a very bold statement of breakages only happening with the advent of 9sp your proof is that YOU hadnt broken any chains. OOH yeah now thats rock solid proof there.
I love this one "Regarding the QE2 arguement all I can say is "petitio princippi" spelling is perfect although your reasoning not so. My circular reasoning was used based on similar logic to your velodrome trackie theory, it has been proved that bigger = stronger, this is why you insist on keeping the track chain debate open as it proves your point that they are stronger, BUT what we are "arguing" here is simply wider pins on the same chain NOT an overall bigger chain. See my point. How do I not show this to be true? I asked if someone would compare actual chains to prove me wrong.
You have not once mentioned the above and since this is the whole argument what are you really arguing about? width of 8 Vs width of 9. Nothing to do with tracks or technological innovations, I have been proven wrong from my original post by 1% in strength. Is this loosing the argument, then so be it. I defy you to only break 9sp due to 1% strength loss. 
If you tire of discussing rear der absorbing stress from chain why do you continue to discuss track chains? They have no relavense here. Wider and heavier was proven already remember.
"RE: Zinn, he specs what is available and servicable. Unfortunately Record 9 is disappearing and not available. Retailers can't sell what they can't supply or replace etc... He wouldn't Spec XTR 8 on a MTB either. This proves nothing. The validity of 8 has been proven by the fact that NOS 8 speed (especially MTB) parts sell on ebay etc.. at prices equal to or above original retail quite often. This proves nothing?? WTF, using your logic one can find 6 speed screw on campy hubs and 25 year old Reynolds 531 frames on ebay for waay more than new, thats called a collectors item. Also people who have older bikes require parts and its cheaper to buy used 8sp for example than retro fitting a whole new drive train. This is called supply creating demand, and if I know people need hard to obtain 8sp and I have it i'm gonna charge what I can get for it. I love how much thought you put into your disection of my posts versus the information that I post.

"Once again your first post was an invitation to this heated debate, and actually I find this highly entertaining. Unfortunately I'm beginning feel my didacticism is wasted on you."
I firmly do not believe that to correct your belief (IMO 9 is as strong) invites a "heated debate" hence my "i'm 230lbs and gonna kick your ass..." comment, debate yes heated no need. And your instructual qualities hmmm... sadly lacking. 

Your whole argument is "argumentum ad naseum" constant repitition does not assist in proving your point. And "argumentum ad antiquitam" or shall we say retro grouch! kidding on the last one BTW.

I have read all of your posts very carefully, think requoting umpteen times requires no thought? 
I assume you mean bourbon? that works big fan of heavy English ales served warm of course. Now live in Canada remember the hockey tape conversation?

"Your tenacity is admirable but foundless. You show the true masochism of a real cxer".
Not too useful on here but when it comes to bikes I usually let my legs do the talking!

Cheers


----------



## dreww (Jan 22, 2004)

*Question*

There has been over 380 viewings of this thread and only 24 posts! and 18 of those are form 2 people!!! what gives does no one else have an opinion or am atp and I the only ones who like to "debate" if thats what you can call my online slaughtering.

As much as I have enjoyed this thread its taken a toll on my work the last couple of days as I can probably own up to quite a few of these viewings, checking during work hours to see what mean and nasty things atp has written about me next. (joking) and reading his mega long posts!.

Still keep up the good work.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

some choose to watch, others choose to dive in. It's been a blast. Sorry this post will be short, am truly involved in 'heated debate' on Apocrypha vs. St James/ Holy Roman and it's relationship to early Medievil politics. Sidebars include: mutual exclusivity of Omniscient / Omnipresent God and free will and Zen Buddhism vs. German Existentialism (same starting point (life is meaningless) how come the Germans version is so damn depressing? 
(I blame the weather). Anyhow, we'll get a drink sometime, maybe virtually.
You thought we were boring people, it seems we attracted quite a number of spectators.

cheers to you Dreww


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*except....*

trying to categorize '98 era 8 speed as vintage/collectible. C'mon your back must hurt from stretching that hard. BTW, yes I'm a retrogrouch, not complete though. Only modernize when tech. makes it worth it (after 'bugs' are worked out) they (industry) should actually hire me to test the stuff as my size and riding style is quite conducive to finding said 'bugs'. A (notable) MTB mfr changed their frame design after I (and I think a few other Clydesdales) broke the seat tubes (I broke 2) of their FS frames. and yes I still run bar-cons (on my cx) as they are cheaper and more reliable (should I say durable?) than STI. I'll continue while I get a friend (engineer) to rework the lever throw ratios of Campy 8 and 9 to function well with my Shimano Ders (rear mostly, front does okay). 
so 9's (3/32) been around for what 4 going on 5 years? if the mfr 'bugs' were worked out 1/8th chains would already be vintage/collectible as well. So I guess all those still riding it are retrogrouches as well. Funny how a company like Shimano notorious for killing it's old technology to upsell the new still makes this gear to please us 'old farts'. Velo season starts soon here, I'll do a little research in the pits and get back to ya, the track is 3 blocks from my house.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*pins...*

you forgot the barrel between the inner link plates is wider as well given identical plate thickness.


----------



## arctic hawk (May 17, 2003)

*My $0.02 worth*



dreww said:


> There has been over 380 viewings of this thread and only 24 posts! and 18 of those are form 2 people!!! what gives does no one else have an opinion or am atp and I the only ones who like to "debate" if thats what you can call my online slaughtering.
> Still keep up the good work.


Sorry Dreww, but your technical expertise & that of ATP exceeds mine by a huge margin thus, watching from the sidelines. Mind you, at some point, I thought you guys were going to war.
Though I consider myself a CX'er, the basic premises for me is: the bike works (sort of), then I ride. Beyond that, off to my LBS for troubleshooting.maintenance & replacement parts, of course.
Have a great day!


----------



## snwbdrhoon (Oct 15, 2002)

*Ditto ArticHawk. nm*

agreed


----------



## dreww (Jan 22, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> you forgot the barrel between the inner link plates is wider as well given identical plate thickness.


Hey, now we are getting somewhere here only taken us about a week or so. Sadly we already know the answer. Yeah, yeah WIDER = STRONGER....


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

correction St James should read King James, hey I'm running on about 2.5 hrs sleep. Dreww you think this debate is bad......... I've chosen to take a Marxist (historical) and feminist gender bias supporting the apocrypha and boy am I making some people mad. 
Like we both agree, and I do feel we do on this. 3/32 chains will get stronger (strong enough) and then this whole argument will rest to antiquity. and as a post script I haven't broken a Campy or SRAM 9 chain yet (been about a year) so shall we now debate about whether Shimano is the Microsoft of the Cycling world? (not necessarily the best product but strongarm their merchants on OEM, undercut the competiton on competing products (to the point of actually taking a loss, vee brakes for example) and making up the difference by upcharging non-competing products. And why can't they build a repairable STI?


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*now I'm only bringing this up...*

"You made a very bold statement of breakages only happening with the advent of 9sp your proof is that YOU hadnt broken any chains. OOH yeah now thats rock solid proof there."
so if my 30 years of riding experience ( Not just myself, but me and riding partners/ co-racers etc.. total 6 broken) is not 'rock solid' (which in point it is only a small random sample, granted) what does that say about your Cannondale friends 18 months? and I assume that's 18 Quebecoise Months which equal about 7-8 months riding time. divide that into how many days are on a Velo bike vs other rides and .... well you see where I'm going.
just thought of this when looking at the weather. See I live in the land of 363 available riding days. 
Hey the Leafs are in first right now!!!!!! sad they'll fade in the post season. They've turned into the Senators.


----------



## Bikecrazed (Feb 20, 2004)

*I may have lost the point of this but.....*



atpjunkie said:


> "You made a very bold statement of breakages only happening with the advent of 9sp your proof is that YOU hadnt broken any chains. OOH yeah now thats rock solid proof there."
> so if my 30 years of riding experience ( Not just myself, but me and riding partners/ co-racers etc.. total 6 broken) is not 'rock solid' (which in point it is only a small random sample, granted) what does that say about your Cannondale friends 18 months? and I assume that's 18 Quebecoise Months which equal about 7-8 months riding time. divide that into how many days are on a Velo bike vs other rides and .... well you see where I'm going.
> just thought of this when looking at the weather. See I live in the land of 363 available riding days.
> Hey the Leafs are in first right now!!!!!! sad they'll fade in the post season. They've turned into the Senators.


 IMHO, the two things that would make a diffence in bicycle chain strength is the way the pins and plates are fastened, being pitch is the same with 8 and 9 speed (4 corners as on older 9 speed lx and 105 or the centered punched pins as on dura ace) and the quality of the materials of chain. I would bet that all of your broken chains broke at the pins and not the side plates spliting in 1/2 

As the 9 speed is newer tech (newer is better right?) therfore they would be = to or stronger then their 8 speed parts. I believe shimano has now swithced to the Dura-ace style of pinning their chains.

atpjunkie, if you want to put this to rest have your engineer buddy do a brakage test of a similar quality 8 and 9 speed chains and let us know what the out come. Being dreww and I are from Quebec (NOT) we are having a hell of a time digging out of the 15 feet of snow to get to the lab.

We will be waiting of the results so we have a good reason to change all of our 9 speed stuff to older/lower quality 8 speed!!


----------



## dreww (Jan 22, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> what does that say about your Cannondale friends 18 months? and I assume that's 18 Quebecoise Months which equal about 7-8 months riding time. divide that into how many days are on a Velo bike vs other rides and .... well you see where I'm going.


 You forget we have indoor velodromes here monfreire, 363 riding days too (no xmas & new year) being used as a winter trainer too he put over 7000miles on it, very advisable to change the chain after all winter salt etc dont you think?. I change my chains every 6 months always have - going back to 5 speed too. If you think 18 months + is a good life span for a chain maybe thats why you break so many???? of course usage changes this number heavily.


----------



## Bikecrazed (Feb 20, 2004)

*Tips on measuring chain wear*

For any one who cares about chain and drivetrain wear... buy a Park chain checker, it 
takes into consideration the bushing wear along with pin wear. If you just measure the pins you may have a chain that is more worn then it would lead to tell you. For less then the cost of a chainring it will save you $ in the long run.

You might even avoid snapping chains and breaking balls altogether!


----------



## dreww (Jan 22, 2004)

Bikecrazed said:


> I believe shimano has now swithced to the Dura-ace style of pinning their chains.
> 
> atpjunkie, if you want to put this to rest have your engineer buddy do a brakage test of a similar quality 8 and 9 speed chains and let us know what the out come. Being dreww and I are from Quebec (NOT) we are having a hell of a time digging out of the 15 feet of snow to get to the lab.
> 
> We will be waiting of the results so we have a good reason to change all of our 9 speed stuff to older/lower quality 8 speed!!


Hey atp gotta love this guy eh! and I m not paying him to say any of this honest.
yes all shimano chains are now punched ala duraace. As or the snow, man that had me in stitches!!!


----------



## dreww (Jan 22, 2004)

Bikecrazed said:


> I believe shimano has now swithced to the Dura-ace style of pinning their chains.
> 
> atpjunkie, if you want to put this to rest have your engineer buddy do a brakage test of a similar quality 8 and 9 speed chains and let us know what the out come. Being dreww and I are from Quebec (NOT) we are having a hell of a time digging out of the 15 feet of snow to get to the lab.
> 
> We will be waiting of the results so we have a good reason to change all of our 9 speed stuff to older/lower quality 8 speed!!


Hey atp gotta love this guy eh! and I m not paying him to say any of this honest.
yes all shimano chains are now punched ala duraace. As or the snow, man that had me in stitches!!!

Shimano = microsoft? hardly much of a debate huh, but i still love their kit oooh 10 speed, i'm all a quiver, the chainset what I would do for that chainset. (longing sigh)


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*indoor velo*

sweet. that would be a delightful winter break. Hey it's actually raining here in San Diego. Rode in it yesterday, only problem being our soil is essentially hard packed sandstone clay (zero loam factor) once it gets too wet it turns to something with the consistency of potters clay and is about as 'no fun' to ride in as you can imagine (turns into a hike a bike) With the emphasis on hike. Ride started as light rain and ego dirt, ended in frame clogging adobe. All the burned out areas (about a fourth of our county and most of the good rifding areas) are now mudslides.
I'll have to contact some clients about those stress tests but its going to be once again hard to find older 9 speed chain to test. Would need 99 era, 2000 era, etc.. to also analyze for design/structural changes to test for 'improvements. No I change my running gear far more often than 18 months, my weight gives the links a good stretch. RE: width from the other guy, my estimation (read educated guess) is that narrower assembly is more abject to angular stress (torque / gear combo) failure than a purely in-line pull. I played with chains a bit this weekend and it seemed easier to flex the 9 speed along a diagonal than the 8. This would lead to more pin failure if my hypothesis is true but I don't have the time or equipment to test. RE: shimanos new line. IMHO I think the new D/A STI's look funny, the upward angle of the shifter body is too drastic for my eye ( I know it serves a function of keeping lever closer to bar with levers mounted higher). I just don't find it (or the crankset) aesthetically pleasing. So I'll stick with my Record (9) until it dies and try to get my friend to tinker with the Campy Ergo to shimano der. issue. I just like things that are field dressable and repairable. STI's repair by replace is just another one of those things that leads me to my anti Shimano bent. it's good they 'upgraded' all their chain designs to D/A, good on the market to dictate said change.


----------



## dreww (Jan 22, 2004)

I was having this conversation with a customer of mine (mechanical engineer) and he raises a fairly good point in that the narrow chains get the less room for error the installer has i.e. with a 1/8" no special pins are required and I remember having no 'stiff link" isues with old 6/7 speed etc. Where as now special pins have to be used with the utmost care as not to 'deform" the link plates causing permanent damage to said link.

As for riding I got in 2 hours in -4C winds. Christened brand new bike with rear wheel jamming mud, loved every second!!. Why do companies insist on putting that sticky grease on new chains that takes about 3 cleanings to remove? a light coating of oil would suffice. Is it so Shimano can ship overseas and not have to worry about salt spray corroding links on the boat voyage from Japan?
I look forward to cleaning my bike/kit this evening with the same joy one receives when seeing your Doctor approach with a well lubed gloved hand!


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

agreed completely. that same 'tight tolerance' is what I think causes more pin failure in my last post. with everything tighter there is less to 'hold on to' and less to let go causing failure. this will as I said be moot as mfr, techniques and re-design correct or upgrade the 3/32 to 1/8 strength and as I said render the 1/8 chain to history as it is 'heavier' and therefore 'not better'.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

My experience at the LBS I work at part-time, my rides, and my friends rides:

8 speed chains were tougher-- especially Shimano's compared to their horrible 9 speed chains (particularly the earlier versions). 

9 speed Shimano chains for MTBs are breakier then SRAM. Go SRAM. Shimano has been better as of late, but SRAM is the way to go. Road wise, the Shimano 9 speed chains seem to be ok- but they have had plenty of time to debug them too. 

9 speed Campy, same as above.

10 speed Campy- given all the wackiness with the ever changing chain linking methods they were pretty decent. Still I have moved to a Wipperman Stainless Steel chain on my road rig and cross rig. Great chains!

10 speed Shimano chains? Who knows- not too many out there yet. 

FWIW: 185+ stomper with zero busted 10 speed road chains, and way too many busted Shimano 9 speed chains till I went SRAM.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*yea*

my personal breakages of 9 speed chains were all Shimanoand all were less than 2 months old. Hardly enough wear to require a link tool. I don't own one bikecrazed but my friend does. As stated, at my size I have to keep on top of such things. I knew there would be a 'wrench' in here who'd agree, I knew it couldn't just be me. Agree on the SRAM, have had no trouble with my 9 speed cx, my other 2 ofroad bikes (cx and MTB) will happily remain 8. Have had no trouble with Campy 9 either.


----------

