Welcome
Username or Email:

Password:


Missing Code




[ ]
[ ]
Online
  • Guests: 32
  • Members: 0
  • Newest Member: omjtest
  • Most ever online: 396
    Guests: 396, Members: 0 on 12 Jan : 12:51
Members Birthdays:
All today's birthdays', congrats!
Linas (34)
Toasty (29)


Next birthdays
05/15 Linas (34)
05/15 Toasty (29)
05/16 kg7bz (68)
Contact
If you need assistance, please send an email to forum at 4hv dot org. To ensure your email is not marked as spam, please include the phrase "4hv help" in the subject line. You can also find assistance via IRC, at irc.shadowworld.net, room #hvcomm.
Support 4hv.org!
Donate:
4hv.org is hosted on a dedicated server. Unfortunately, this server costs and we rely on the help of site members to keep 4hv.org running. Please consider donating. We will place your name on the thanks list and you'll be helping to keep 4hv.org alive and free for everyone. Members whose names appear in red bold have donated recently. Green bold denotes those who have recently donated to keep the server carbon neutral.


Special Thanks To:
  • Aaron Holmes
  • Aaron Wheeler
  • Adam Horden
  • Alan Scrimgeour
  • Andre
  • Andrew Haynes
  • Anonymous000
  • asabase
  • Austin Weil
  • barney
  • Barry
  • Bert Hickman
  • Bill Kukowski
  • Blitzorn
  • Brandon Paradelas
  • Bruce Bowling
  • BubeeMike
  • Byong Park
  • Cesiumsponge
  • Chris F.
  • Chris Hooper
  • Corey Worthington
  • Derek Woodroffe
  • Dalus
  • Dan Strother
  • Daniel Davis
  • Daniel Uhrenholt
  • datasheetarchive
  • Dave Billington
  • Dave Marshall
  • David F.
  • Dennis Rogers
  • drelectrix
  • Dr. John Gudenas
  • Dr. Spark
  • E.TexasTesla
  • eastvoltresearch
  • Eirik Taylor
  • Erik Dyakov
  • Erlend^SE
  • Finn Hammer
  • Firebug24k
  • GalliumMan
  • Gary Peterson
  • George Slade
  • GhostNull
  • Gordon Mcknight
  • Graham Armitage
  • Grant
  • GreySoul
  • Henry H
  • IamSmooth
  • In memory of Leo Powning
  • Jacob Cash
  • James Howells
  • James Pawson
  • Jeff Greenfield
  • Jeff Thomas
  • Jesse Frost
  • Jim Mitchell
  • jlr134
  • Joe Mastroianni
  • John Forcina
  • John Oberg
  • John Willcutt
  • Jon Newcomb
  • klugesmith
  • Leslie Wright
  • Lutz Hoffman
  • Mads Barnkob
  • Martin King
  • Mats Karlsson
  • Matt Gibson
  • Matthew Guidry
  • mbd
  • Michael D'Angelo
  • Mikkel
  • mileswaldron
  • mister_rf
  • Neil Foster
  • Nick de Smith
  • Nick Soroka
  • nicklenorp
  • Nik
  • Norman Stanley
  • Patrick Coleman
  • Paul Brodie
  • Paul Jordan
  • Paul Montgomery
  • Ped
  • Peter Krogen
  • Peter Terren
  • PhilGood
  • Richard Feldman
  • Robert Bush
  • Royce Bailey
  • Scott Fusare
  • Scott Newman
  • smiffy
  • Stella
  • Steven Busic
  • Steve Conner
  • Steve Jones
  • Steve Ward
  • Sulaiman
  • Thomas Coyle
  • Thomas A. Wallace
  • Thomas W
  • Timo
  • Torch
  • Ulf Jonsson
  • vasil
  • Vaxian
  • vladi mazzilli
  • wastehl
  • Weston
  • William Kim
  • William N.
  • William Stehl
  • Wesley Venis
The aforementioned have contributed financially to the continuing triumph of 4hv.org. They are deserving of my most heartfelt thanks.
Forums
4hv.org :: Forums :: General Chatting
« Previous topic | Next topic »   

False positive from bicycle chain stretchmeter

Move Thread LAN_403
klugesmith
Tue Aug 04 2015, 06:43AM Print
klugesmith Registered Member #2099 Joined: Wed Apr 29 2009, 12:22AM
Location: Los Altos, California
Posts: 1714
Last weekend I was pedaling around and stopped to visit an old friend, recently retired, who has lots of bicycles and accessories. Took the opportunity to check my chain with a gadget that directly reads the "stretch", from 0.25 to 1.0 percent. I was dismayed to see readings of 0.9 or 1.0. At that level there's usually consequential damage to the sprockets, causing the (new) replacement chain to skip at inopportune times. On my previous bicycle I once had to replace the 7- or 8-speed rear cassette when that happened.

Before the end of the day I had procured a new chain and, for the first time, a one-piece "go,no-go" wear limit gauge. Removed the old chain before trying the new gauge on it, or even checking its pitch with a plain metal ruler. Hung it up next to the new one, expecting a photo opportunity. Here are the top and bottom ends. Worn chain on the left and new one on the right:
1438669420 2099 FT0 Dscn0193 195


That is _not_ enough stretch to be a problem, IMHO. Would any bicycle experts out there care to agree or disagree? My new limit gauge has fixed pegs at 0.5% and 0.75%. The 0.5 did not "go" with the new chain, and almost did not go with the old chain. Casually applying a metal ruler, the stretch in 12 inches was hard to measure -- much less than 1/16 inch, which would be 0.5%. The photographs show old longer than new by, at most, 0.2 pitches in 112 pitches. I don't think weights or springs to increase the tension would substantially change the result.


So I wasted some time on premature maintenance, based on a single instrument reading.
Later I found this magnificent illustrated article on the subject. It's got references to the late Jobst Brandt and Sheldon Brown.
Link2 But while calling gauges "wrong" for including a roller-wear component, it fails to quantify that term, and to mention that roller wear becomes less significant as the gauge length increases.

The basic pin pitch is 20 in exactly 254 mm, for the benefit of people without an inch ruler.

[edit] Here's another curiosity. Many mechanical chain references mention that new chains begin with a pitch slightly greater than nominal. Allegedly because of the design clearance between pins and bushings. Why can't that be compensated by stamping plates with holes closer together?
Back to top
klugesmith
Sat Aug 08 2015, 05:21AM
klugesmith Registered Member #2099 Joined: Wed Apr 29 2009, 12:22AM
Location: Los Altos, California
Posts: 1714
After reading that article about chain gauging, I measured my new 1-piece gauge (a Park Tool CC-3.2) and am pretty happy with it. At the end with concave contact surfaces, the curvature is too much for 5/16" dowels (or chain rollers) but OK for 19/64".
1439009826 2099 FT172463 Dowels
With access to a digital height gauge, I measured the spans of both pegs from their respective concave contacts.
1439010022 2099 FT172463 Dscn0205
The peg labeled 0.5 will "go" in spaces of 6.733" or greater. The peg labeled 0.75 needs a space of at least 6.751". The difference between those values, 18 thousandths of an inch, is 0.26% of the 14-pitch (7 inch) gauge length.
The pegs will match chains with 0.5 and 0.75% pitch increases, if (worn roller diameter - roller backlash) is 0.302".
I think the diameter of new rollers is supposed to be 7.75 mm (0.305") so the gauge allowance seems reasonable.
My worn chain has roller diameters of about 0.301 and a presently unknown amount of roller backlash. So the gauge's 0.5 peg should "go" when the excess chain pitch is slightly less than 0.5%. Better to replace chain too soon than too late.
Back to top

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob

Go to:

Powered by e107 Forum System
 
Legal Information
This site is powered by e107, which is released under the GNU GPL License. All work on this site, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License. By submitting any information to this site, you agree that anything submitted will be so licensed. Please read our Disclaimer and Policies page for information on your rights and responsibilities regarding this site.