Talk:Bicycle chain

Largest chain width

There is no description of which bikes used the largest, 3⁄16 in (4.8 mm), roller widths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondebleu (talk • contribs) 20:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Smaller chain widths

Not editing the page directly because I don't have enough detailed knowledge, but I do know that chain widths smaller than 3/32" are used on newer 9- and 10-speed road bikes (my 9-speed has a 11/128" width chain). - incandenza 02:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added a note about the difference between 8, 9 and 10 speed deraileur chains. The Wikibooks book that this article links to says that they are all 3/32" chains (that's the internal width) but that they have different external widths. I don't know this first hand so my edit is intended to suggest an element of doubt (it says that the Wikibooks book says this). If someone knows that this is right please edit my text to sound more certain. I wanted to put this in for clarification - it was realising this that clarified a problem for me. Rowmn (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Merge

I don't think the bicycle chain article should be merged with the roller chain article. Although today's bicycle chain is a roller chain, there are history, maintenance, and specific size issues that apply only to bicycles. -SCEhardt 15:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I vote not to merge. I think a bicycle chain is a 'significant' enough concept to make do as an article on its own, and as long as there are links between the two articles, a user could find what they were looking for easily. Besides, I'm sure there's more to a bike chain than just being a roller chain - what about the classic late-for-school excuses? Sera 03:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I too oppose the merge. -Anon 86.138.4.141

Chain size

Hello, could someone tell me, how do you know whether your bike requires a 3/32" chain or a 1/8" chain.

Thanx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pc white (talk • contribs)

How many gears does your bicycle have in the back? Typically 1/8" is used for one gear and 3/32" is used for bicycles with many gears and a derailleur. -SCEhard T 20:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend you use consistent units within this article. As well as focusing on different types of chain in different articles. -Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.204.14.220 (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cost

I'm not sure the economics work out as described. Bicycle chain costs $14 on-line, and $30 at a bike store. Cheap cassette costs $25 online, and $45 at a bike store. I need to replace my chain every 6-12 months if I don't let it stretch (and cassettes still wear down eventually, and need to be replaced, or they'll stretch the chain). I get at least 3-4 years of riding before my chain starts to skip and I need to replace my cassette with chain (that's how long it took when I bought a used bike with unknown wear -- another that has passed since, and it is not skipping yet). The level of wear for skip is much greater than the level of wear where you need to swap out to prevent further wear. For expensive components (LX, XT, or XTR parts, or SRAM 980/990 level parts), frequent chain swaps make sense, since most people use cheap chains (chains don't improve much with higher price), but the cassettes go up in price. But for low-end, it makes more sense to periodically replace the chain+cassette (and occasionally, the chainrings).

Replacing chainrings, coincidentally, is a moderately expensive business. Cheap ones (~$20) exist, but are very hard to find. Usually, a chainring set runs $60-$80. It is possible to buy a new, low-end crankset for about $30-$40 (although swapping out a whole crankset is a pain).

huh?

"The role of the lubricant, as far as we can tell, is to take up space so that dirt doesn't get into the chain"

First off, the source claims that statement is speculation. Second off, anyone who's jeans have gotten dirty after a bike ride can attest that wet lubricant is excellent solvent for dirt, and is the reason that dirt got into the chain in first place. Reub2000 (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear talk about pitch

"The chain in use on modern bicycles has a 1/2" pitch, which is ANSI standard #40, where the 4 indicates the pitch of the chain in eighths of an inch, and metric #8, where the 8 indicates the pitch in sixteenths of an inch."

I dont understand. Where does the 4 come from, where does the #8 come from? If the pitch really is 1/2" by standard, then where/why are these pitch numbers used? Must be rewritten and clarified. Velle (talk) 10:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Four eighths is a half. ANSI counts in eighths, ISO standards in sixteenths. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Efficiency and lubrication.

"The study, performed in a clean laboratory environment, found that efficiency was not greatly affected by the state of lubrication.[1]"

This test for sure was not made correctly. The chain for sure was not correctly degreased.

This tests show completely other results: http://www.glacierview.net/geowinters/Dirty_Chain_Experiment.html http://www.lillylube.com/uploads/Link_to_Velo_Article.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koroliow (talk • contribs) 08:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC) http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/03/bikes-and-tech/technical-faq/technical-faq-more-on-lubricating-chains-with-wax_279148 As for your question, Jason from Friction Facts actually has since tested without lube, and here’s what he has to say about it: “Two weeks ago, I actually analyzed six chains after water and after lacquer thinner (completely dry, but a clean dry albeit). This is a continuation of the “Dirty Chain” test (attached). I started with the six now-cleaned and lubed chains from the Dirty Chain test. Part 1 was an Ultrasonic clean with pure water (no dirt or grime). Allow to dry and test dry. Part 2 was an Ultrasonic clean with Lacquer Thinner. Allow to dry and test dry. The average chain friction after pure water was 6.67 watts. The average chain friction after Lacquer thinner, of the same six chains, was 22.65 watts. It seems the water does not remove the thin film of lube. After water and drying, the chains still performed relatively well. However, the lacquer thinner did a number on the lube, and seemed to strip the lube completely. With no lube film, and metal on metal, the friction increased substantially. Please note: the water does not simulate rain. Riding in rain would kick up some road dirt and grime. I speculate that after riding in the rain, and then if the chain were allowed to dry, we’d see 10-12ish watts of friction. I feel a thin lube film would still be present after rain, but the road grime would increase the friction. Jason So, it appears that a dry, unlubed chain is very resistive to your efforts to propel the bike, just as it seems when you let your chain get that way in actual use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koroliow (talk • contribs) 07:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim about nickel-plated chains

The article states that nickel may be used in chains due to its galling resistance properties. There's no source for it, and when I went looking I found two: a case study mentioning the effects of nickel alloying in stainless steel, and a Design News article discussing nickel alloys in food processing. Key to this discussion is the alloy referred to as "Waukesha 88". On page 9 of the study, it says "Waukesha 88 contains a second phase high in tin and bismuth, which acts as a solid lubricant and serves to reduce the wear rate despite the high nickel content" (emphasis added). Further down on page 10, there is a discussion of test results revealing that high-nickel content alloys exhibited poor galling resistance, unless it is specifically modified (as Waukesha 88 is). Then, the Design News article which is basically all about Waukesha 88 says that the galling properties are conferred by incorporating bismuth in the alloy, not nickel. Therefore, it seems the claim that nickel is "relatively non-galling" is at least partly incorrect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would "relatively non-galling" be better stated as "self-lubricating?" Nickel is a soft metal so it would gall easily in most circumstances but it (along with bronze, lead and cast iron) can self lubricate. Don't ask me how, I'm a lover, not a scientist.

Would "10 sprocket" be clearer than "10 speed" ?

"Chains can also be identified by the number of rear sprockets they can support, anywhere from 3 to 11, and the list below enables measuring a chain of unknown origin to determine its suitability.

  6 speed – 7.8 mm (5⁄16 in) (all brands)"

Given common use of "10 speed bike" referring to a bike with 2 chain rings and 5 sprockets in the rear and the quoted sentence, wouldn't it be clearer if the chart was 6 sprockets... 7 sprockets... etc ? Fholson 17:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fholson (talk • contribs)

2x5 bikes are very obsolete. The number of front sprockets does not affect the choice of chain, but the number of rear sprockets does. "10 speed" is now used by manufacturers and the industry to refer to bikes with 10 rear sprockets, no matter the number of front sprockets. These days, when referring to a bicycle drivetrain, people typically say the number of front sprockets by the number of rear sprockets. For example, "1x11" or "2x10".66.27.156.219 (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bicycle chain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120515165247/http://objectwiki.sciencemuseum.org.uk/wiki/McCammon_Safety_Bicycle.html to http://objectwiki.sciencemuseum.org.uk/wiki/McCammon_Safety_Bicycle.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kmcchain.eu/?en%2Fchain_wear%2F
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kmcchain.eu/?en%2Fmaintenance%2F

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roller diameter and "slop"

What about the standards for the roller diameter and the "acceptable" range of roller slop? Many chain wear gauges measure "inner" lengths of some number of links on the chain so the roller diameters and amount of slop also influence the measurement. Galt57 (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]