# I need the The Lightest possible Bike chain, Who makes it...!?!?



## patineto (Oct 28, 2005)

I don't need it for the Typical bicycle use, it does not need to shift or even bend so it can be super narrow and stiff, plus is going to enclose on a case so will be protected from the element.

Basically I'm Planing to get on Internal gear box transmission for a project communlly call a *G-boxx *

Here is a link * to a "Video" of all the parts* that conform this wonder, but don't ask me how heavy it is because is more massive than many of your complete bikes,

Well that is why I come to the right place trying to figure out ways to make it a little Lighter, first thing to find a much lighter chain (as you can see the length are really short and is no side loads at all)

So what is the most "stupid Light", fragile, weak, whatever chain that you will *never * put on a bike, even if you are the Ultimate weight wennie freak, because is to scary...!?!?

Well That is the One I'm looking for, Hollow Pins, drill side plates, titanium rollers, whatever bring it on..

thanks In advance.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Titanium?


----------



## Some Guy (Mar 27, 2005)

The KMC X-10SL is the lightest chain I know of, but maybe there is something exotic out there that is lighter.

The titanium chain mentioned above is claimed at 229gr for 108 links, the X-10SL is 240gr for 116 links. So at 108 links it should weigh ~223gr.


----------



## mtbyker (Mar 13, 2006)

KMC is a superlight chain that has held well, I would recommend it.......


----------



## Cheers! (Jun 26, 2006)

lightest possible chain is Wipperman Titanium

KMC 10 SL is 2.307g per link

Wipperman connex TR Titanium is 2.272g per link

except the price of the wipperman is 6X the price. YIKES!


----------



## patineto (Oct 28, 2005)

Wow you guys do know you E.L.S.

*"Expensive Lightweight Sh^T" *(name of a old a legendary brand of components from the old days)

Thanks for the Links and the product names,

This G-boxx is 4400 grams, so every little trick is going to help, Even if i need to Mill down the cranks arms and hole out the many tranny cogs.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

I dunno, that whole G-boxx thing is intended for DH racing, I'm not sure I see the value in going for the super weight weenie aspect of items that only save 20-40 gms at a shot. Even if you find a pound that way, it won't make a big dent in the bike weight with that kind of frame/drivetrain weight. The difference between 39 and 41 pounds isn't as at noticeable as it is between 25 and 27 pounds.


----------



## 4212darren (Nov 15, 2005)

Someone hurry up and invent a belt driven CVT(for bicycles).


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

That doesn't weigh 2200gms like the Nuvinci.


----------



## patineto (Oct 28, 2005)

rockyuphill said:


> I dunno, that whole G-boxx thing is intended for DH racing, I'm not sure I see the value in going for the super weight weenie aspect of items that only save 20-40 gms at a shot. Even if you find a pound that way, it won't make a big dent in the bike weight with that kind of frame/drivetrain weight. The difference between 39 and 41 pounds isn't as at noticeable as it is between 25 and 27 pounds.


this one is going on a full suspension mountain bike tandem, but you are right is very little gain for a lot of efford and even risk of failures.


----------



## patineto (Oct 28, 2005)

rockyuphill said:


> That doesn't weigh 2200gms like the Nuvinci.


What is * Nuvinci..?!?!*

I can not find any info on that name.


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

Fallbrook Technologies Nuvinci hub.


----------



## patineto (Oct 28, 2005)

rockyuphill said:


> Fallbrook Technologies Nuvinci hub.


Thanks Senor that is some interesting stuff, for sure kind of heavy but also smart.

I was wondering for a long time why nobody was using CVT's on a bicycle since they are so reliable and wide spread in so many other vehicles (well maybe because they are not super efficient)


----------

