# Which Wear Indicator Tool?



## Guest (Aug 6, 2006)

I'm in the market for a chain wear indicator. Park has two chain checkers - the CC-2 ($20) and the CC-3 ($10). What are the advantages of each. To my unlearned eye the cheaper one would appear to be simpler and perhaps better. Anybody know the pros and cons of each - and are there other alternative that you recommend?

The difference in price will not be the deciding factor.

Regards,
Brian


----------



## Ratt (Dec 22, 2003)

mbabaracus said:


> I'm in the market for a chain wear indicator. Park has two chain checkers - the CC-2 ($20) and the CC-3 ($10). What are the advantages of each. To my unlearned eye the cheaper one would appear to be simpler and perhaps better. Anybody know the pros and cons of each - and are there other alternative that you recommend?
> 
> The difference in price will not be the deciding factor.
> 
> ...


I like using the CC-2 because i can gauge chain stretch as the chain wears and plan ahead. For me once the chain reaches .85 it only takes 2 weeks to go over 1.0 and break so i replace the chain between .75-.85 .


----------



## hollister (Sep 16, 2005)

good old fashoned ruler,and good set of eyecrometers:thumbsup:


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 20, 2006)

*Two great tools*

Two great tools you should consider adding to your collection:

The Roloff Caliber 2 
An excellent chain-wear tool. Simple, accurate, no moving parts.

For your cassette Roloff makes HG-IG-Check
Though designed for shimano cassettes you can use it on an any cassette, cog, or chainring to get an accurate gauge of drivetrain wear.


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2006)

*What is the procedure for using a ruler?*



hollister said:


> good old fashoned ruler,and good set of eyecrometers:thumbsup:


Pardon my ignorance. How many links should measure exactly how long? My drivetrains are all shimano 9 speed.

Regards,
Brian


----------



## Phil (Jan 12, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> The Roloff Caliber 2
> An excellent chain-wear tool. Simple, accurate, no moving parts.


excellent tool, they don't get any better than this.



[email protected] said:


> For your cassette Roloff makes HG-IG-Check
> Though designed for shimano cassettes you can use it on an any cassette, cog, or chainring to get an accurate gauge of drivetrain wear.


i didn't know Roloff made this. just added it to my wish list...


----------



## hollister (Sep 16, 2005)

mbabaracus said:


> Pardon my ignorance. How many links should measure exactly how long? My drivetrains are all shimano 9 speed.
> 
> Regards,
> Brian


line up zero to the center of a chain pin,another pin should fall dead center at 12".anything over that and its stretched,depending on how much its stretched means either replaceing the chain or the chain,cassette,and chainrings.
if it is stretched its time to make a visual inspection of your c-rings(if the teeth look like shark fins its time to replace)most people tend to wear out their middle rings first,and two or three of their cassette cogs.if a customer has worn out their small ring as well,ill recomend a full drivetrain replacement:madman: .(another reason to ride a single speed )


----------



## eman2 (May 3, 2004)

*I have the cc-3*

I have the cc-3 and it looks basically the same as the roloff one. Stupid simple to use. I think it is perfect for the home mechanic.:thumbsup:


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 20, 2006)

*Rohloff cassette wear indicator tool*



Phil said:


> excellent tool, they don't get any better than this.
> 
> i didn't know Roloff made this. just added it to my wish list...


Yuppers, it's an excellent tool, although you could probably make one yourself using five or six links of new chain.

It works by applying tension to the chain - using the last link you attempt to lower it over a tooth on the cassette, if it hangs up your cassette is worn and should be replaced.


----------



## Dad Man Walking (Sep 7, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> Yuppers, it's an excellent tool, although you could probably make one yourself using five or six links of new chain.


Or you could just crunch up a hill, if you live close to one. That's all I do. But if you can't road-test the cassette conveniently, the cassette wear gauge could save a ride. The cassette may work fine on the flats but could still skip under load, and it would be a bummer to figure that out a couple of miles from the trailhead.


----------



## Mike T. (Dec 30, 2003)

mbabaracus said:


> I'm in the market for a chain wear indicator. Park has two chain checkers - the CC-2 ($20) and the CC-3 ($10). What are the advantages of each. To my unlearned eye the cheaper one would appear to be simpler and perhaps better. Anybody know the pros and cons of each - and are there other alternative that you recommend?


As any chain wear measurement is magnified over a larger distance, or measurement, the greater the measurment we can take, the more accurate that chain wear measurement.

All chain wear gauges (that I'm aware of) measure over a small distance of about 4-5".

I have two ways of measuring chain wear, depending on whether the chain is on the bike or off the bike. The  first one,  on my chainpages, takes a reading over a distance of 12". My other measurer is a 4' piece of steel tape suspended from a nail - the same nail from which I hang the chain. This then magnifies the wear 4x the amount over my 12" tape - or about 12x the amount over a store bought unit. I have a whole $1 invested.

I have checked both of my steel tape gauges against a store-bought chain wear indicator and the difference in accuracy is staggering.


----------



## totally_fixxated (Aug 24, 2005)

*chain "stretch"*

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/chains.html


----------



## Speedub.Nate (Dec 31, 2003)

Mike T. said:


> I have checked both of my steel tape gauges against a store-bought chain wear indicator and the difference in accuracy is staggering.


I own a Rohloff chain checker, but it (like either of the Park units) are only good for quick, initial readings. The fact of the matter is that any of these Rohloff or Park units will give you an early false positive.

The 12" ruler method Mike describes is as close as you can some to certainty.


----------



## markom (Jan 21, 2004)

Wipperman chain checker seems to have longest measurement span - so long that it is actually bit hard to use on some FS frames. 
See if you can navigate to it at http://www.connexchain.com/ ->products -> accessories, it's one of those stupid Macromedia Flash player pages from h3ll. 
I've been using for couple of years and like it. Of course ruler method is most accurate but it's nice to have chain checker around for quick checks.


----------



## Dad Man Walking (Sep 7, 2004)

markom said:


> Wipperman chain checker seems to have longest measurement span - so long that it is actually bit hard to use on some FS frames.
> See if you can navigate to it at http://www.connexchain.com/ ->products -> accessories, it's one of those stupid Macromedia Flash player pages from h3ll.
> I've been using for couple of years and like it. Of course ruler method is most accurate but it's nice to have chain checker around for quick checks.


Somewhat on topic...does anyone have a good source for either the CC-2 or the Wipperman tool? Having been motivated by this thread (and the recent destruction of $200 of Campy gear due to my own negligence in not watching the chain closer) I was oh-so-close to the impluse purchase from an un-named bike discounter (google Park CC-2 and see which one comes up). The $6.50 shipping and handling was expensive but expected. But they tossed in $1.50 for "insurance"? Shouldn't that have been "extra margin, because we were were just kidding about the price"? Small nut, but with the CA sales tax added in this was going to be a $34 purchase for a $24 item.

I bailed.

Perhaps foolishly, considering the cost of the parts that I recently torched. But it still felt good. Now I just have to figure out how to unsubscribe from their mailing list. And find an LBS who will get it for me--they deserve this bit of business.

Oh...I guess that was a rant. Wrong board, too. Sorry.


----------



## biotruth (Sep 29, 2005)

i have the 12" wipperman, and it works great.

got it a couple of years ago from some online bikeshop in tennessee

speedgoat has it now, but it is twice what i paid:

http://www.speedgoat.com/product.asp?part=38812&cat=330&brand=55


----------



## morenowalh01 (Sep 22, 2005)

I bought a spin doctor chain checker at performance for $4. It works the same way as the Park cc-3, but costs 50% less!!. It measures .75% and 1% wear. To preserve the rings and cassette I replace my chain after .75% but before 1%, which is in line with Sheldon Brown's recommendation.

edit: I was looking for it on performance's website but could not find it. I got it at the store just to clarify.


----------



## rogue (Apr 5, 2004)

Originally bought Park CC-2, but later sold it on Ebay.
Now I have the CC-3 which is simple, cheaper and much better.

My main concern with the CC-2 was the pins in the tool always looked bent and it wasnt reassuring..... the CC-3 is dead easy


----------



## crisillo (Jul 3, 2004)

Rohlhof Caliber 2 here.. works great.. and got a good deal on ebay for it.

Cheers,
Cris


----------



## markom (Jan 21, 2004)

biotruth said:


> speedgoat has it now, but it is twice what i paid:
> 
> http://www.speedgoat.com/product.asp?part=38812&cat=330&brand=55


Wow, quite expensive considering that I bought mine for 5euros from Garda Marathon two years ago.


----------



## 23mjm (Oct 22, 2005)

Why measure your chain?? Just change your chain often-I only run my chains for a maximum of 1000 miles. I run cheap chains HG-73, Sram 970 or 950. I have drive trains that are 10+ years old and have never broke a chain (knock on wood) But if I were to measure I would use a old ruler, 1/2 in between the rollers, any stretch over 1/16 inch over the 12 inches of the ruler, I would replace it.


----------



## Dad Man Walking (Sep 7, 2004)

The chain gauges are nice b/c they take the guesswork out of it, and are arguably more accurate than a rule when you factor user error into the equation. In order to measure the amount of play in the bushings the chain should be pulled taut. I found this hard to do on the bike with just two hands. The wear indicators pop onto a short section of chain without removing it from the bike; couple of seconds and you're done with no guesswork.


----------



## Speedub.Nate (Dec 31, 2003)

23mjm said:


> Why measure your chain?? Just change your chain often


Why replace "often" when you can know for sure. The ruler only takes a couple of seconds, and removes the guesswork.


----------



## Speedub.Nate (Dec 31, 2003)

Dad Man Walking said:


> The chain gauges are nice b/c they take the guesswork out of it, and are arguably more accurate than a rule when you factor user error into the equation.


The chain guages (Rohloff and Park) are wildly inaccurate. But at least they always err on the conservative side (i.e. false/early "replace" indication).

In my experience, they'll indicate your chain is ready for replacment when in reality they are only half way there.

The main error comes from _what_ they measure: they push opposing rollers in opposite directions, meaning not only chain pitch is measured, but the gap between chain bushing and roller as well (imagine a loose fitting wedding ring).

There is no accepted standard as to what this gap should be, and when you are attempting to measure *half a millimeter of "stretch"* across 7 links, that small amount of play inside the roller suddenly is of major significance.

And the few number of links the Rohloff and Park tools measure across is a factor, too. Those gauges are looking for ~0.5mm of "stretch" to indicate .5% wear, while with a 12" ruler is looking for a less error prone ~1.5mm (or ~1/16").

Just as an aside, you would need a full 37.5" of chain for each 0.5% stretch to equal an easy to measure 5.0mm.


----------



## 23mjm (Oct 22, 2005)

I don't want to get in a pissing match-but I want to answer a few things. 

DMW- Doesn't the derailluer hold the chain taut--I just did a quick survey of all my bikes--and yep the spring in the derailluer is holding the chain pretty taut--just a thought. 

Speedub--Well I agree with changing the chain at 1/16in or 1.5mm, but in my years of experience thats about a 1000 miles on a MTB or 1500 on a road bike. So thats how often I change them--all I can go on the what I have experienced. I have a 8-speed XTR drive train (cranks, chainrings, and cassette) that I have had since the early 90's and it works flawlessly, so by changing my cheap chains often I have never had to change any of the other part. I also agree with your roller pushed apart comment.


----------



## Mike T. (Dec 30, 2003)

23mjm said:


> Why measure your chain?? Just change your chain often-I only run my chains for a maximum of 1000 miles.


Will you send me all your used chains? I'll pay postage.

Why measure chains? Because if not you may be throwing away good money.

When I was working on my  chains FAQ I was sent some demo chains from SRAM. One of those chains (meaured religously!) was on my bike for eighteen months and by that time had only worn half of my "throw away" measurment. It's still in my travelling bag as a spare chain.

I don't get anywhere near 18 months out of recent chains (it must have been a freak) but I sure as heck get more than a 1000 miles.


----------



## Dad Man Walking (Sep 7, 2004)

I'll bow to Speedhub's greater experience (and wisdom, athletic prowess, and reputed good looks) but I'll still take the simplicty and repeatability of the Park CC-2 over futzing with a ruler looking for the 0.5mm difference between "OK" and "toast." 

I'll confess to not understanding exactly what the heck Speedhub is trying to tell us in his comment above about what is being measured with the commercial gauges and why it's not quite right.

As to my comment about having to pull the chain tight, it seems to me like those springs are not strong enough to pull the slop out of the chain. I'll try it and report back next time I take a chain off...measure on the bike and then hang it from a hook and put a few pounds on it.


----------



## Speedub.Nate (Dec 31, 2003)

Simple? Yes. Repeatable? Yes. Accurate? No.

Here's what I'm getting at.

This first picture I took from Rohloff's instruction manual and modified.

Ignore the chain gauge, for a moment.

To depict the gap *(slop)* between each roller and bushing, I drew an off-center circle inside of each roller.

Imagine rollers 2 through 9 each have perfect 1/2" pitch. The teeth of the chainring pull against the rollers in the same direction. The slop is displaced in the same direction.

Therefore, even though we don't know how much slop exists, it can be assumed it is equal at each link of the chain, and the 1/2" chain pitch is maintained.










Now drop the Rohloff Caliber 2 chain gauge in place (or Park's CC-2, a rip-off of the Rohloff that works in a similar fashion), and Roller number 1 is displaced in the opposite direction of all the others.

*The guage is measuring slop that is invisible to the chainring and cog!*

The result is this: the gauge sits flat against the chain, indicating it is worn. Stick a fork in it! Finito!

The Rohloff gauge, on the 'A' side, is measuring for 0.075mm per link, or about 0.59% chain stretch -- a bit above the .5% mark.










But wait, here comes my 15" ruler for a second opinion.

[A few quick note: The 15" ruler is an easy extension of Mike T.'s 12 1/16 method. I picked 15" because it should be ~25% more accurate (or 25% easier to read) than a 12" rule, due to its longer length.

Additionally, I converted to millimeters, because my brain has an easier time reading them. 368mm = brand new, and 370mm = 0.5% stretch.

Left in inches, the 0.5% wear point would be just past the 14-9/16" mark.

These combination inch/metric 15" rulers are available for about $5 at Office Max and Staples.]

In any case, there is really nothing difficult or imprecise about lining up the 0 mark with the top of one roller...










...and looking for the proper indication at the business end.

I've marked this ruler with a piece of white tape (370mm) to make my "NO GO" point obvious.










This *same chain* just declared "dead 'n buried" by the chain tool, is in fact only about halfway there, as judged by the ruler.










Just to verify, I removed this same chain and hung it against a yard stick.

In this case, I picked the 39.5" (79 link) mark to measure at. At exactly this length, each 0.1% of "stretch" translates to exactly 1.0mm of added length. Of course, this is an inch ruler, so that is really of no consequence.

However:

- The link we're measuring is indicated by the yellow arrow.
- New = 39.5" (or 1103mm), as indicated by the green arrow.
- 0.5% wear = 39 11/16" (or 1108mm), as indicated by the red arrow.

The yardstick confirms what the 15" ruler already told us: This chain is only halfway to the accepted point of being worn out.










So my point is simple: Chain gauges, whether Park or Rohloff, have to make some assumption about roller slop. At short lengths, the slop can be greater than the "chain stretch" the gauge is testing for.

The good news is the Rohloff Caliber 2 and Park CC-2 will always give a false "fail" early, so you'll never be stuck running a worn chain.

The bad news is that in doing so, the cost of your chains has just *doubled*.

There is really nothing difficult or imprecise about using a steel ruler. It's quick, it's inexpensive, and it measures exactly what you are trying to measure.


----------



## the Inbred (Jan 13, 2004)

i like my Rohloff.


----------



## leleklegrunt (Nov 24, 2004)

EXCELLENT write up. I think you just made those tools obsolete for anyone who reads this post.


----------



## Mike T. (Dec 30, 2003)

Speedub.Nate said:


> [A few quick note: The 15" ruler is an easy extension of Mike T.'s 12 1/16 method. I picked 15" because it should be ~25% more accurate (or 25% easier to read) than a 12" rule, due to its longer length.


Good writeup Nate and oh so true! What's the accuracy of measuring over a 4" length of chain? With my old Park tool (which I unloaded on e-bay) you could make the chain read ok or junk just by varying the pressure on the tool's wheel.

As a quick check I use a 12" ruler (actually I use a 13" ruler and measure from the 1" mark) and a *four foot* tape hanging from the basement ceiling for a truly accurate measurement. Can you imagine the accuracy of measuring over 4' versus 4"?

I measure from the edge of a pin too which I think would be easier than your idea of using the center of a roller. But whatever works eh? Anything's got to be more accurate than a "chain checker".


----------



## crisillo (Jul 3, 2004)

the Inbred said:


> i like my Rohloff.


Me too... but I do see Nate's point and use the Caliber as an "early warning", basically... when it says it's time to replace, I start looking for chain deals


----------



## Mike T. (Dec 30, 2003)

leleklegrunt said:


> EXCELLENT write up. I think you just made those tools obsolete for anyone who reads this post.


Those tools always were a solution looking for a problem.


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

Rohloff chain checker is garbage. LBS told me my Ultegra 10 speed chain and cassette were worn out after checking with that Rohloff gage. Like a fool, I believed and I bought a new cassette and chain for something like $120. Went home and measured with a ruler and with another gage I have that is like ruler that has holes in it that you line up with the rivets; hardly any detectible wear!


----------



## Speedub.Nate (Dec 31, 2003)

Mike T. said:


> Good writeup Nate and oh so true! What's the accuracy of measuring over a 4" length of chain?


Zactly! At 4", the Rohloff and Park tools are looking for a minisucle 1/2 millimeter of change to determine 0.5%. That ain't much.

Think there's more than 1/2mm of slop between the roller and the bushing of some new chains?


----------



## Gevorg (Dec 7, 2004)

*Chain wear from Clydes view*

Replacing chain when it is overstretched is important to maintain good shifting and healthy drivetrain. Dicrepancy you guys are mentioning in chain wear measurements between tools and ruler are valid. The reason for it is simple, you assume uniform stretch of the chain, i.e. if chain is stretch by 1% then each link is stretched by 1%. That assumptions is not always true. I have seen chains that had weaker links and stretched more in one section, and no strech at all in another, so wear is different, depending where you measuring. So the longer the the sample the more accurate is your wear indication measurement.
So if I need to measure the strecth, I measure it when I remove ichain to clean. I just hang it next to brand new chain, and if it is streched by more the 1/4 of the link, I replace it.
Riding more then 11,000 mile on my road bike, 23,000 miles on my commuter, 11,000 on my MTB I found that chain stretch depends on the riding I do. If I ride a lot of flats rides then chain lasts much longer. But in average I found table below is very accurate 

ChainReplacement schedule miles for heavy rider >220lbs  MTBRoad 9-speed XTR/DuraAce9-speed XT/Ultegra9-speed LX/105 8-speed LX8-speed SRAM PC-589-speed SRAM PC9519-speed SRAM PC971
<TD class=xl24 style="BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BORDER-TOP: windowtext; BORDER-LEFT: windowtext; WIDTH: 46pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right width=61 x:num>550[/TD]<TD class=xl24 style="BORDER-RIGHT: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BORDER-TOP: windowtext; BORDER-LEFT: windowtext; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: windowtext 0.5pt solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" align=right width=64 x:num>800[/TD]Most of my SRAM chains were overstreched at the power link more then in any other link.


----------



## biotruth (Sep 29, 2005)

beautiful write-up.

but i will once again submit that the 12" wipperman tool is the way to go. you don't have to remove the chain, or clean it to use it. you don't need good light or to get greasy, just slip in the two ends and see if it still has an angle above the chain.


----------



## Gevorg (Dec 7, 2004)

Looks simple enough,
I will put on my wish list.
Is there a place where I can buy it for $15 US?


----------



## 23mjm (Oct 22, 2005)

Wow this thread has taken a life of its own 101 ways to figure out when to replace a chain!!!! Oh well 

The ruler in the ruler of the measuring devices--it can measure a chain and a whole lot of other stuff. Plus I bet most everyone already owns one. Cheap and accurate


----------



## Dad Man Walking (Sep 7, 2004)

Thanks for the write up.

Speedhub, I won't disagree with your empirical evidence but I still don't understand some of your explanation (even after pondering the diagram for a while). I don't understand your statement that the gauge pushes the roller in the opposite direction of what it would experience on the bike, thereby measuring irrelevant slop. Here's my thinking...

The chain is under tension between the teeth on the cassette and the teeth on the crank. For the sake of simplicity assume that only one tooth on each side is bearing the load. The cranks pull on the chain towards the right in the diagram (on the no. 9 roller). Wouldn't the effect of the chain pulling on the no. 1 roller at the cassette be one in the same force as the cassette pulling backwards on the no. 1 roller... and isn't that what the gauge is doing?

What your measurements suggest to me is that the tools are very conversative. While they may not be very accurate, they should be very precise (i.e., provide repeatable results). And since they are precise, the fact that they are measuring a shorter length of chain than the ruler should be of less concern than when using a ruler, when you are trying get increase the sample size in order to make the measurement more observable.

The main problem I see with the Rolhoff and the Park CC-3 (the same design) is that they give you a simple go/no-go reading, and if by your other measurements you have determined that you are willing to ride the chain beyond the 0.1mm mark they are subsequently useless. The CC-2 does not let you monitor wear past the 0.1mm point either, but if you are satisfied with replacing the chain at that point it is quick and easy to take the measurement every now and then and get a sense of how fast the chain is wearing when you are approaching that point and make your replacement decision accordingly.

If anyone has a chain that is currently measuring right at 0.1mm with any of the chain gauges, it would be interesting to see how that compares to the ruler measure since Speedhub's chain was at or over .075mm but not apparently not yet to 0.1mm


----------



## The Hamer (Dec 21, 2006)

Speedub.Nate said:


> *The guage is measuring slop that is invisible to the chainring and cog!*
> 
> So my point is simple: Chain gauges, whether Park or Rohloff, have to make some assumption about roller slop. At short lengths, the slop can be greater than the "chain stretch" the gauge is testing for.
> 
> There is really nothing difficult or imprecise about using a steel ruler. It's quick, it's inexpensive, and it measures exactly what you are trying to measure.


You've abviously put a lot of thought into this subject but your post makes a couple assumptions that I'm not necessarily convinced of. First off you say that the Rohloff/Park style tools measure bushing slop which is invisible to the chainring and that you should measure the distance between the pins. I see that as being backwards. The teeth on the chainrings don't know the distance between the chain pins, all that matters to the chainrings is the distance between the rollers since it's those two that are in contact. You also assume that rollers wear at a rate that is directly proportionate to chain pins. I think that rollers can wear at varying rates in relation to pins. The fact that the distance between pins is X amount doesn't mean that the distance between rollers is guaranteed to be Y amount. The third assumption is that chains wear evenly throughout their entire length. I've found that this is not the case, different sections of a chain will have more wear than others.


----------



## The Hamer (Dec 21, 2006)

This tool pushes the rollers in the same direction to measure wear. Not sure if that is a good thing since the chainring and cassette pull the rollers in opposite directions.

How did all of the posts get out of chronological order? Is that just on my computer?


----------



## leleklegrunt (Nov 24, 2004)

The Hamer said:


> This tool pushes the rollers in the same direction to measure wear..


Whats the instructions for that tool? I cant see how it would work by pushing the rollers in the same direction.


----------



## leleklegrunt (Nov 24, 2004)

To the hamer and dad man walking...
I agree with speedub. Bushing slop IS invisible to the chainrings, because the teeth push the rollers right up against the bushings (reducing the slop to zero). Now, each CHAINRING tooth pushes each roller in the same direction. Nowhere is there a difference in direction. (What happens at the cassette at this point in time has NO bearing whatsoever on this topic) 

If you could measure between rollers at this point in time, ie, all pushed up against the bushings, all in the same directions, then yes, you may get accurate results. However, with the short span of the tools in question, re-introduce the slop of even ONE roller and your chain appears stretched.

Basically, what we are trying to measure here is NOT the SLOP between roller and bushing, but the WEAR between all parts, ie, between the roller and bushing as well as between bushing and pin. And wear between these parts WILL be proportional to each other.

Getting rid of the slop between the bushing and the pins for the purpose of measuring is simple. Apply tension to the chain by either derailleur tension or hanging off the wall.


----------



## The Hamer (Dec 21, 2006)

leleklegrunt said:


> Whats the instructions for that tool? I cant see how it would work by pushing the rollers in the same direction.


You engage the left tab and middle tab between the rollers. Then you push on the chain link on the outside left of the tool to push the middle tab and it's roller to the right. Then as you try to drop the right tab into it's perspective roller it pushes it's roller to the right (same diredtion as the middle tab is pushing it's roller). The wear is measured between the middle and right tabs.


----------



## leleklegrunt (Nov 24, 2004)

The Hamer said:


> You engage the left tab and middle tab between the rollers. Then you push on the chain link on the outside left of the tool to push the middle tab and it's roller to the right. Then as you try to drop the right tab into it's perspective roller it pushes it's roller to the right (same diredtion as the middle tab is pushing it's roller). The wear is measured between the middle and right tabs.


So, if I understand you correctly, the left tab supplies the tension against the middle tab and right tab?


----------



## The Hamer (Dec 21, 2006)

leleklegrunt said:


> To the hamer and dad man walking...
> I agree with speedub. Bushing slop IS invisible to the chainrings, because the teeth push the rollers right up against the bushings (reducing the slop to zero). Now, each CHAINRING tooth pushes each roller in the same direction. Nowhere is there a difference in direction. (What happens at the cassette at this point in time has NO bearing whatsoever on this topic)
> 
> If you could measure between rollers at this point in time, ie, all pushed up against the bushings, all in the same directions, then yes, you may get accurate results. However, with the short span of the tools in question, re-introduce the slop of even ONE roller and your chain appears stretched.
> ...


I made a reference to "bushing slop" (actually roller slop since chains are bushingless now days) to point out that spedhub's assumption about what is "invisible" or visible to the chainring teeth didn't make sense to me. Seeing how roller slop (on the rollers on the chainring only, I agree you are correct) is taken up when riding, it should be taken up when measuring for chain wear. This is because we want to measure what the chainring "sees".

My main point was that the Rohloff type tools takes roller wear into account. If you look rollers on at a very worn chain you'll see that the rollers have become concave where they come into contact with the teeth. This wear increases the distance between the contact points.


----------



## The Hamer (Dec 21, 2006)

leleklegrunt said:


> So, if I understand you correctly, the left tab supplies the tension against the middle tab and right tab?


Uhhh......yeah, I think that we are saying the same thing. The left tab pulls the chain links to the left thus pushing the rollers (that touch the middle and right tab) to the right. I'm finding this difficult to explain properly, sorry.


----------



## leleklegrunt (Nov 24, 2004)

The Hamer said:


> Uhhh......yeah, I think that we are saying the same thing. The left tab pulls the chain links to the left thus pushing the rollers (that touch the middle and right tab) to the right. I'm finding this difficult to explain properly, sorry.


I think I got it. No worries. Got any more detail on that tool? name, place of availibility etc etc?


----------



## The Hamer (Dec 21, 2006)

leleklegrunt said:


> I think I got it. No worries. Got any more detail on that tool? name, place of availibility etc etc?


It's available. I have a prototype and a production version both of which were gifts. Wow, I just checked on price and I don't think I even want to say what it is for fear of offending everyone in this thread. It is the Shimano TL-CN40 chain wear indicator.

p.s. I responded to your post #49 (I think) about the bushing slop but this thread appears all out of order on my computer. I'm curious what your thoughts are in regards to my response.


----------



## Mike T. (Dec 30, 2003)

Just as a point of interest, here is a chain pin that I pushed out of a chain from a bike I worked on in which I measured *3/8"* of wear over 12" of chain - that's 6x the allowable wear (in my opinion) of 1/16".

On this bike, both the cassette (of course!) and all the chainrings had to be replaced. The guy knew he had problems when he shifted to the big ring, stood out of the saddle and the chain skipped on the front chainring (!!) and he went over the bars. The teeth on the chainrings were about half their normal height.

Measure your chains often boys & girls!


----------



## The Hamer (Dec 21, 2006)

Mike T. said:


> Just as a point of interest, here is a chain pin that I pushed out of a chain from a bike I worked on in which I measured *3/8"* of wear over 12" of chain - that's 6x the allowable wear (in my opinion) of 1/16".
> 
> On this bike, both the cassette (of course!) and all the chainrings had to be replaced. The guy knew he had problems when he shifted to the big ring, stood out of the saddle and the chain skipped on the front chainring (!!) and he went over the bars. The teeth on the chainrings were about half their normal height.
> 
> Measure your chains often boys & girls!


Nice picture. I read in a rapair book that Shimano found that if you flip a worn/partially worn chain around and run it in the opposite direction it will effectively act as a new chain because that wear only occurs on one side of the pin.


----------



## leleklegrunt (Nov 24, 2004)

The Hamer said:


> Nice picture. I read in a rapair book that Shimano found that if you flip a worn/partially worn chain around and run it in the opposite direction it will effectively act as a new chain because that wear only occurs on one side of the pin.


Maybe I'm slow, but I totally cannot see how that can be possible, unless you physically rotate EACH pin 180 degrees so that the worn parts now face the outside of each outer link... How you would achieve that, I have absolutely no idea...


----------



## leleklegrunt (Nov 24, 2004)

The Hamer said:


> It's available. I have a prototype and a production version both of which were gifts. Wow, I just checked on price and I don't think I even want to say what it is for fear of offending everyone in this thread. It is the Shimano TL-CN40 chain wear indicator.
> 
> p.s. I responded to your post #49 (I think) about the bushing slop but this thread appears all out of order on my computer. I'm curious what your thoughts are in regards to my response.


I dont have anymore to offer with regards to that. I beleive that someone somewhere back in the mists of time must have done some experimentation to come up with the 1/16th rule taking into account all the wear factors between roller, bushing, pin etc etc. I still believe that the wear between rollers and bushings and pins are all proportional to each other.

Anyway, I find that for myself, if I replace before the 1/16th mark, I still havent got ovalisation of the rollers. While I buy into the replace-chain-before-rings-are-toast side, I still try to get as much out of the chain as possible.


----------



## The Hamer (Dec 21, 2006)

leleklegrunt said:


> Maybe I'm slow, but I totally cannot see how that can be possible, unless you physically rotate EACH pin 180 degrees so that the worn parts now face the outside of each outer link... How you would achieve that, I have absolutely no idea...


Let me try to explain better. If you cut the worn chain one end will have an outer link and one end will have an inner link. Let's say the outer link is closer to the front wheel while the open ends are at the bottom. If you remove the chain and re-install it so that the inner link is now closer the front wheel then you reversed the direction of the chain.


----------



## MTK (Feb 18, 2004)

*Great Read!*

Thanks Guys,Once Again I am loving it. I myself just rotate 3 chains all
the time, I run low end SRAM PC 59's. I am still running 8 speed.
XTR and XT mix. I do not know my Miles,but I have been flawless
for a long time without buying cassettes and rings. I do have the Park 
Chain Checker,but do not use it much as I am switching my Chains. End 
of the year, I'll start it ALL over IF needed. I do have some High End 
Wipperman chains as well,which I love and use in the mix. I had a hard 
day and this was a great read to finish off the day. I like to add that
Rock and Roll is the King of Lube's, Expect in Heavy Rain. In which case
I'd go with a Nice Mobil One Oil{Soaked over night over courese.} Peace 
and Sweet Dreams.

MTK


----------



## leleklegrunt (Nov 24, 2004)

The Hamer said:


> Let me try to explain better. If you cut the worn chain one end will have an outer link and one end will have an inner link. Let's say the outer link is closer to the front wheel while the open ends are at the bottom. If you remove the chain and re-install it so that the inner link is now closer the front wheel then you reversed the direction of the chain.


But the worn parts of the pin (which are fixed and do not move, relative to outer links) still face the insides of the outer links. No matter which direction you orient the chain, the direction of tension still tries to pull the chain "apart", meaning, each inner link will still try to pull "away" from each outer link.


----------



## The Hamer (Dec 21, 2006)

leleklegrunt said:


> But the worn parts of the pin (which are fixed and do not move, relative to outer links) still face the insides of the outer links. No matter which direction you orient the chain, the direction of tension still tries to pull the chain "apart", meaning, each inner link will still try to pull "away" from each outer link.


The pull on the pins from the *inner* plates is in one direction. That's why the wear only occurs on one side of the pin. The wear that we saw in Mike T's post was from the inner plates. (by "side" I mean front to back, not left to right, while the chain is on the bike)


----------



## leleklegrunt (Nov 24, 2004)

The Hamer said:


> The pull on the pins from the *inner* plates is in one direction. That's why the wear only occurs on one side of the pin. The wear that we saw in Mike T's post was from the inner plates. (by "side" I mean front to back, not left to right, while the chain is on the bike)


Thats what I meant too. Ok, try this experiment.

Lock your fingers together in front of you, right palm up, fingers hooking upwards, left palm down, fingers hooking downward. Use your right arm to pull, resisting with your left arm. Points of contact and tension are the inner parts of fingers right? (the pins and bushings) Now, pull with your left arm, resisting with your right arm (simulating the fliparound of the chain). Same points of contact and tension right?

In the same way, by flipping the chain around, the same parts (the part of the pin facing the insides of the outer links) face the wear and tear of use.


----------



## Speedub.Nate (Dec 31, 2003)

Dad Man Walking said:


> The chain is under tension between the teeth on the cassette and the teeth on the crank. For the sake of simplicity assume that only one tooth on each side is bearing the load. The cranks pull on the chain towards the right in the diagram (on the no. 9 roller). Wouldn't the effect of the chain pulling on the no. 1 roller at the cassette be one in the same force as the cassette pulling backwards on the no. 1 roller... and isn't that what the gauge is doing?


As leleklegrunt pointed out, what's happening at the cassette is isolated from what's happening at the chainring.

What matters most is that the teeth of the cog or ring are set at 1/2" pitch, and therefore need a chain at that same pitch in order to evenly distribute the load, and not place it all on one tooth.



The Hamer said:


> The teeth on the chainrings don't know the distance between the chain pins, all that matters to the chainrings is the distance between the rollers since it's those two that are in contact. You also assume that rollers wear at a rate that is directly proportionate to chain pins. I think that rollers can wear at varying rates in relation to pins.





The Hamer said:


> If you look rollers on at a very worn chain you'll see that the rollers have become concave where they come into contact with the teeth. This wear increases the distance between the contact points.


But if we can agree that (for the most part) the rollers all wear at an even rate, and the roller slop develops evenly, and the pin wear is evenly developed, then the pitch of the roller is still tied directly to the pitch of the pins (which is what we are measuring).

Take two brand new rollers 1/2 inch appart. Cut a 1/16" groove into each one. At the point of the groove where they are engaged by the chainring teeth, they're still 1/2" apart.

As the teeth on the chainrings engage them, the groove (or the slop, or the pin wear) is not apparant, so long at that 1/2" pitch is maintained.


----------



## The Hamer (Dec 21, 2006)

leleklegrunt said:


> Thats what I meant too. Ok, try this experiment.
> 
> Lock your fingers together in front of you, right palm up, fingers hooking upwards, left palm down, fingers hooking downward. Use your right arm to pull, resisting with your left arm. Points of contact and tension are the inner parts of fingers right? (the pins and bushings) Now, pull with your left arm, resisting with your right arm (simulating the fliparound of the chain). Same points of contact and tension right?
> 
> In the same way, by flipping the chain around, the same parts (the part of the pin facing the insides of the outer links) face the wear and tear of use.


Chains are a bit different because the pulling force on the pins alternates from outer link to inner link but only the inner link rotates around the pin causing wear on the pin. The pin is fixed in the outer link and does not rotate in relation to the outer link. The force from the inner links onto the pins altrenates from the front of one pin to the back of the next pin. How else do you explain the wear groves on the pins being only on one side and not all the way around the pin. When you switch the direction of the chain (or direction of pulling force) you change which direction the inner link pulls on the pin.

Ahh dang it. I hate to say it but you are right. The force of the inner link on the individual pin is always the same. It changes from front to back on consecutive pins but is always the same for each pin. I guess I can't explain it unless there is a different type of wear that I'm not thinking about. It was an old repair book that I read about it in. It may have been from when chains had bushings. Maybe the way they wear has something to do with it, I don't know. Any way, I bow to your superiority.


----------



## Dad Man Walking (Sep 7, 2004)

*Oh boy...let's not got there...*



MTK said:


> Thanks Guys,Once Again I am loving it. I myself just rotate 3 chains all
> the time, I run low end SRAM PC 59's. I am still running 8 speed.
> XTR and XT mix. I do not know my Miles,but I have been flawless
> for a long time without buying cassettes and rings. I do have the Park
> ...


This dormant thread took on new life a few days ago and is now a two-pager...if you throw chain lube into the mix it will never end!

I think your technique of rotating chains is actually very sound, because I think that it will slow down the wear of the cogs and chainrings and everything will wear in (or out) together.

(BTW...I tried R&R Blue but didn't really like it...the paraffin in suspension clumped up in large flakes and would jam the nozzle. I like Boeshield T-9 because it also leaves a paraffin film but the paraffin is completely dissolved rather than being in an emulsion. I have used ProLink on the road bike with decent results but don't think that it is worth the cost compared to a simple Mobil One/paint thinner solution which seems to do about the same job....and just this week I bought a small bottle of "snake oil"--motor oil wear additive--and tossed a tablespoon of that into the lube bottle for yuks. But let's not go there on this thread, OK?  )


----------



## superdcycles (Jan 18, 2006)

*chain wear*

Go with the rohloff chain and chainring/casette checker. the tools are idiot proof. even i figured out how to use them. good luck.

((rubbersidedown))


----------



## The Hamer (Dec 21, 2006)

Speedub.Nate said:


> As leleklegrunt pointed out, what's happening at the cassette is isolated from what's happening at the chainring.
> 
> What matters most is that the teeth of the cog or ring are set at 1/2" pitch, and therefore need a chain at that same pitch in order to evenly distribute the load, and not place it all on one tooth.
> 
> ...


I get what you're saying here but I'm not convinced that pin pitch and roller pitch wear at the same rate every time. Isn't it possible that on one chain in one given situation (say muddy riding with wax lube) can have rollers that wear out at a faster rate than the pins and another chain in a differnet situation (clean and dry climate with oil for lube) can have rollers that wear at the same rate as the pins.


----------



## Speedub.Nate (Dec 31, 2003)

The Hamer said:


> I get what you're saying here but I'm not convinced that pin pitch and roller pitch wear at the same rate every time. Isn't it possible that on one chain in one given situation (say muddy riding with wax lube) can have rollers that wear out at a faster rate than the pins and another chain in a differnet situation (clean and dry climate with oil for lube) can have rollers that wear at the same rate as the pins.


Totally!

But consider this: even if the rollers wear to a paper thin thickness, with two millimeters of slop, and even if the pins wear down to half their original diameter (completely hypothetical scenario, of course), the "face" of each roller (the part of the roller that contacts the chainring tooth) will still be one link's distance from the next roller "face".

So if given that extreme wear scenario, if somehow 1/2" pin to pin spacing was maintained, and despite gobs and gobs of slop between roller and pin, the exterior of each roller would still be 1/2" from the next, thus maintaining proper chain pitch.

So the assumption here is that the roller slop / wear is consistant for the length of the chain, even though it may be completely different between any two chains.


----------



## The Hamer (Dec 21, 2006)

Speedub.Nate said:


> Totally!
> 
> But consider this: even if the rollers wear to a paper thin thickness, with two millimeters of slop, and even if the pins wear down to half their original diameter (completely hypothetical scenario, of course), the "face" of each roller (the part of the roller that contacts the chainring tooth) will still be one link's distance from the next roller "face".
> 
> ...


I get it now. Thank you. I can't beleive how dense I'm being. I went to Sheldon Brown's website and seeing the pictures really helped. This site was also very inforamtive http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-004/000.html


----------



## MikeDee (Nov 17, 2004)

*Skipping chain, measures good*

I have about 1450 mi. on a Shimano HG7x chain, and it measures like new. Over 12" I can't notice any stretch. When compared to a new chain hanging from a nail in the garage, I can see it has increased in length some over the whole length, though. Anyway, the chain skips on my 11 tooth cog. My 11 tooth cog is like new; I rarely ever use it. I put a new chain on and it doesn't skip on that cog. Makes me wonder about the validity of measuring chains, and perhaps the 12-1/16" standard is too much stretch.

UPDATE: the plot thickens. I put on a new HG93 chain. Doesn't skip on any cog, but sucked the chain (single ring chainsuck) for the first time ever on this bike in the 22 tooth chainring and gouged my virgin chainstay. I have a new chainring (steel instead of the crappy TruVativ aluminum chainring this time) on order, so I put the old chain back on and changed lubes to ProLink from Dupont Multi-Purpose Teflon that I had been using. No skip on the 11 tooth cog this time?! The Teflon wax lube does make the chain a bit stiff. Maybe that contributed to the chainsuck too, but I'm not taking any chances and am replacing the chainring. Aluminum small chainrings are a bad idea anyway.


----------



## MTK (Feb 18, 2004)

*Dad Man Walking,*

I wanted to ask you what your EXACT mixture is on the Mobile One/Paint
Thinner was. Also,are you using the Synthic Oil like me? Sorry for not listening
to you but I just read a long thread in DriveTrain about Lube and had to
pop over here and ask. Peace.

MTK


----------



## Mike T. (Dec 30, 2003)

MTK said:


> I wanted to ask you what your EXACT mixture is on the Mobile One/Paint
> Thinner was. Also,are you using the Synthic Oil like me?


I'm not DMW but I use a 50:50 mix. I don't think the exact ratios bear much importance, just as long as the thinner makes it easier for the lube to get to the internals and then evaporates away. Yes I use synthetic too.


----------



## Dad Man Walking (Sep 7, 2004)

I just checked out that thread...I'll post a few comments here and if anyone wants to extend the discussion I'll hop over there to continue...

Mobil One is a synthetic oil, so that answers part of your question. I added a little bit of Valvoline Max Life Engine Protector (their version of STP, about $4-5 for a 15 oz. bottle. In a 4-ounce ProLink bottle, I mix up about 1/3 motor oil, a tablespoon or two of the Valvoline gunk, top it off with solvent and then shake the bejezuz out of it.

For me, this mixture works just like ProLink except it is a whole lot cheaper...figure about 10 cents per fluid ounce instead of $2.00 to $2.50 per fluid ounce. I sluice the chain with a lot of lube after each ride, wipe it as dry as I can get it and then let it dry out. The chain comes out clean and dry to the touch (just a slight bit of waxy feeling, which is actually the oil residue) but is nice and quite for the next ride.


----------



## MTK (Feb 18, 2004)

*Thanks Mike,*

I think I have been using to much oil. I am for sure not running
50/50. The only time I use it is if I know it's wet out,be it mud,
or rain. I put it right on top of the [email protected] I'm going to try
the 50/50 mix. I just thought it was too diluted,the heavier the better 
I thought? I'd just get it so I could slather it on the chain,if I got
it too thin,I was thinking it was not working as good? Here in CA
I have but mabye 2 mounths of Rain,so I dont run it much. I just
noticed that in Those 2 mounths,my [email protected] would break down
during my ride.

DMW: Sorry,I posed the question wrong about the Oil. I dont agree that
the mixture is like Prolink regarding the "cleaning" aspect. The Mobile
Oil mix does not clean "Itself" as easy as the Prolink or the [email protected]
IMHO. Anyway,this is not the thread for that as you already stated. Thanks
for the response though. Peace.

MTK{just came in from the shed wrenchin on the bike.Broken 
8 speed shifter & Rear Der. I straightend my Der. Hanger. and
put on fresh parts. Ummmmm,fresh parts. }


----------



## Mike T. (Dec 30, 2003)

MTK said:


> I think I have been using to much oil. I am for sure not running
> 50/50. The only time I use it is if I know it's wet out,be it mud,
> or rain. I put it right on top of the [email protected] I'm going to try
> the 50/50 mix. I just thought it was too diluted,the heavier the better
> ...


Over the years around here I've seen many "Homebrew" discussions and know that 'my' 50:50 mix is one of the stronger ones. I'm no fluidics engineer but I am a licensed auto mechanic and have some thoughts......opinions......on oils. The action on the paint thinner (I use mineral spirits) is to thin the oil so that it reaches the insides of the chain - between pin and roller, or bushing easier (or better) than a thicker oil would. The thicker the oil, the more difficult this is. Oil on the chain's outer surface just acts as a dirt collector.
After the thinned oil penetrates the chain's internals the thinner evaporates, leaving the oil in its original viscosity. Of course the lower the ratio of oil to thinner, the less the amount of oil after this evaporation has occurred.

But this isn't a science is it? We (at our level) assume lots and 'know' little. The lube experts tell us they know lots and assume little but excuse me for being somewhat of a sceptic as they ARE in the business of trying to convince me that their dinky bottle of oil is worth a relatively large amount of money.

All *I* know is what I know - that two litres of acceptable lube costs me not much money.


----------



## Dad Man Walking (Sep 7, 2004)

I'm with Mike...

Lube on the outside is a liability...although some of the pricey formulas (ProLink, for one) talk about how their formulas "shed" the dirt. Yeah, right...so does a quick wiping after each ride.

I am an old-school waxer (no, not my legs)...in the days before ultra-narrow disposable chains, you could get a perfectly clean (on the outside) lubed (on the inside) chain by cooking it in in very hot paraffin and then wiping it dry immediately after it came out of the pot. It was more of a roadie thing, because waxed chains didn't like the wet at all, and it was a good way to meet your local Fire Department and ER staff if you weren't careful, but boy, did those chains shine. It was great when you had to change a flat (which also happened frequently back in those days).

Fast forward to today...I've tried lots of lubes looking for the holy grail of clean on the outside and quiet/lubed on the inside, and something that does not create a royal mess when you apply it. The closest things I've found over the counter are Boeshield T-9 and ProLink. In use they are almost identical but chemically they are very different...Boeshield has parrafin dissolved in some solvent which dries leaving a thin coating of paraffin on the insides, and almost nothing on the outsides. During the application the solvent also loosens up the crud on the chain and helps it come off when you wipe down the chain. It's not perfect, but it's reasonable. ProLink works in much the same way but instead of paraffin, they use some petroleum-based lubricants dissolved in solvent which work much the same way. Our thinned-down synthetic oil brews do much the same thing, as near as I can tell. As much as I trust my LBS in most matters, they are hardly objective when it comes to this because they sell a tiny bottle of lube at staggering high prices when we can mix up almost the same thing for almost nothing.

I'm not a fan of most of the paraffin-based lubes (Ice Wax, R&R, probably others) because it seems to me like they are are paraffin emulsions, not solutions. Lots of the paraffin comes out of the emulsion and I ended up with clumps of it on the chain, clumps in the bottle, and who knows how much inside the chain. It did work OK for me but left crud on the chain and cassette...so you think it's doing something when the crud falls off but it's mostly the wax that came in the lube in the first place.

Oh jeeze...now you got me going on this one. Darn you!


----------



## Mike T. (Dec 30, 2003)

Dad Man Walking said:


> Oh jeeze...now you got me going on this one. Darn you!


I don't understand the whole waxy lube thing. Everything that I ever new about lubes tells me that lubes must "flow" - when pressure is applied (chain tension, piston compression etcetera) the lube is squeezed out and when pressure is reduced, it flows back into the bearing area. Waxes can't do this; once squozzed (is that a word?) they stay squozzed and can't flow back.


----------



## MTK (Feb 18, 2004)

*Mike,*

I cannot argue this last statement of yours. I have only one thought. 
If the waxy lube thing is applied on a regular basis,it Stays to the 
pressure points needed? My Drivetrain is quiet like a Church Mouse.
It cleans with ease,I have never been so happy. I am always open
to try new things. IMHO as of right now,I have not found a better
lube,mind you,expect for Winter. I know your name from Way Back,
thanks for your time,I feel all important now. 

MTK


----------



## dblspeed (Jan 31, 2006)

Speedub.Nate said:


> The chain guages (Rohloff and Park) are wildly inaccurate. But at least they always err on the conservative side (i.e. false/early "replace" indication).


I'm afraid those tools could err on both sides, if the chain is worn/"stretched" enough like mine :blush:


----------



## Speedub.Nate (Dec 31, 2003)

dblspeed said:


> I'm afraid those tools could err on both sides, if the chain is worn/"stretched" enough like mine :blush:


Hmmm... I'm betting you've got a whole host of other drivetrain issues then, too?


----------



## dblspeed (Jan 31, 2006)

Speedub.Nate said:


> Hmmm... I'm betting you've got a whole host of other drivetrain issues then, too?


Yes, not many since it's on a SS but I'm replacing it today. I was wondering how the chain could still be so "new" after many miles, according to the park tool cc-3 that is. Glad I did some searching and used a ruler instead.


----------



## onzadog (Jan 6, 2008)

Not sure if it's the done thing to revive old threads but I found this one fascinating the other day.

I've just removed a PC-991 cross step chain from my bike that I'd checked with the Rohloff tool. It dropped in at 0.075mm but was still okay on the 0.1mm side. When I change chains like this, I can normally run the cassette for 3 or 4 chains. Anyway, I measured that chain at it was 370mm.

Going on what was said above, would people agree that I can pretty much trust my Rohloff tool?


----------



## Mike T. (Dec 30, 2003)

onzadog said:


> would people agree that I can pretty much trust my Rohloff tool?


Trust your 12" ruler. It won't lie.


----------



## onzadog (Jan 6, 2008)

But if the tool and the rule both say the same thing, doesn't that mean my tool doesn't lie?

I agree with everything that was said above regarding the flaw in the tools and the theory behind the rule being the best option however, it would see that my tool is a lucky one that gives the right reading.


----------



## Speedub.Nate (Dec 31, 2003)

onzadog said:


> I agree with everything that was said above regarding the flaw in the tools and the theory behind the rule being the best option however, it would see that my tool is a lucky one that gives the right reading.


No, it's not a matter of your Rohloff chain checker being a "lucky one" -- I'm not questioning the accuracy of the machining, and trust that Rohloff is putting out wear indicators that are precision cut and 100% within spec.

The problem is with >>how<< these types of devices perform the test, pushing two rollers in opposite directions. But as I wrote, a Rohloff or Park device will give you a false positive prematurely, so there's really no concern of one of these causing you to leave a chain for too long.


----------



## Mike T. (Dec 30, 2003)

onzadog said:


> But if the tool and the rule both say the same thing, doesn't that mean my tool doesn't lie?
> I agree with everything that was said above regarding the flaw in the tools and the theory behind the rule being the best option however, it would see that my tool is a lucky one that gives the right reading.


Ahhh but you're missing one fact - the 12" ruler being about 3-4x longer than any tool, it has the potential to be much more accurate on a constant basis. That's also why I have a 4' piece of measuring tape hanging from my workshop ceiling - it amplifies even the 12" ruler 4x.


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Mike T. said:


> Trust your 12" ruler. It won't lie.


Mine did. 

I was using a cheap 12" transparent ruler I'd picked up at Target, and only realized this weekend its markings were 1/16" too short over 12". Since I replace a chain once it's stretched 1/16" of an inch, that ruler caused the early demise of at least two chains. I only realized the problem when it told me a brand new chain had to be replaced.

Moral of the story? Buy a good ruler, and double check things from time to time.


----------



## Mike T. (Dec 30, 2003)

bad mechanic said:


> Mine did.
> I was using a cheap 12" transparent ruler I'd picked up at Target, and only realized this weekend its markings were 1/16" too short over 12". Since I replace a chain once it's stretched 1/16" of an inch, that ruler caused the early demise of at least two chains. I only realized the problem when it told me a brand new chain had to be replaced.
> Moral of the story? Buy a good ruler, and double check things from time to time.


I that how you earned your forum name?


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

Mike T. said:


> I that how you earned your forum name?


Perhaps if my name was "bad ruler".

I mean, how often do you actually check to see if a 12" ruler is really a 12" ruler? 

I remember thinking "Man, that chain sure didn't last long."


----------



## Mike T. (Dec 30, 2003)

bad mechanic said:


> I mean, how often do you actually check to see if a 12" ruler is really a 12" ruler?


Yeah I see yer point. Some things are just taken for granted. The old saying "What can't speak can't lie" doesn't apply to your ruler I guess.


----------



## onzadog (Jan 6, 2008)

I agree with all the above and if I was shopping now, I'd use the 15" rule method. However, I tried my existing chain tool on a worn chain to compare against a steel rule and they seem to give the same answer.

However, I guess this could just be luck. The range between the two settings is 0.25mm over only a handful of links. Guess that makes a big difference when scaled up over 15" and then with roller slop factored in. Thanks for bouncing ideas around with me guys. Seems my Rohloff tool is flawed but not as far out or useless as it could be.

As an aside, what do people think of the Shimano TL41 tool?


----------



## Speedub.Nate (Dec 31, 2003)

onzadog said:


> As an aside, what do people think of the Shimano TL41 tool?


I think you're talking about the CN41. Shimano got that one right because it pushes all the rollers in the same direction. It effectively takes what we're all talking about doing with rulers -- measuring from edge of link or edge of pin to a corresponding link or pin -- but it does it from the face of the roller: the working surface that actually makes contact with the rings and cogs.

But like Mike mentioned, it does this over a shorter distance than a 12 or 15 inch ruler. And it's pretty pricey. But yeah, it addresses the main shortcoming of the Rohloff wear indicator.


----------



## onzadog (Jan 6, 2008)

Cheers guys. I've been looking around for a quality 15" rigid steel rule. They're about the same price as the TL-CN41 here in the UK!!!!!

No wonder they call it rip off Britain.


----------



## Mike T. (Dec 30, 2003)

onzadog said:


> Cheers guys. I've been looking around for a quality 15" rigid steel rule. They're about the same price as the TL-CN41 here in the UK!!!!!
> No wonder they call it rip off Britain.


A quality steel rule will cost you a fortune. Here's my dedicated chain tool. It cost a whole dollar and it was hacked from a Dollar Store el-cheapo tape measure. Quick, easy, accurate, cheap. Pick any four.


----------



## archer (May 20, 2004)

Decent steel rulers aren't exactly inexpensive but they don't have to cost an arm and a leg.

http://www.skygeek.com/rulers.html

Personally I usually find the flexible ones more useful crawling around on an airplane.


----------



## onzadog (Jan 6, 2008)

Found one (actually, a pack of three) for not too much although I might have to cut the big one down unless I remove the chain.

By the way, how are you deciding how much stretch is too much? Are you just extrapolating from the Rohloff 0.075 to 0.01mm guide?


----------



## bad mechanic (Jun 21, 2006)

From: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/chains.html#stretch

_# If the rivet is less than 1/16" past the mark, all is well.

# If the rivet is 1/16" past the mark, you should replace the chain, but the sprockets are probably undamaged.

# If the rivet is 1/8" past the mark, you have left it too long, and the sprockets (at least the favorite ones) will be too badly worn. If you replace a chain at the 1/8" point, without replacing the sprockets, it may run OK and not skip, but the worn sprockets will cause the new chain to wear much faster than it should, until it catches up with the wear state of the sprockets.

# If the rivet is past the 1/8" mark, a new chain will almost certainly skip on the worn sprockets, especially the smaller ones._

Personally, I replace once the chain hits 1/16" past 12".


----------



## flatulentfox (Aug 27, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> Yuppers, it's an excellent tool, although you could probably make one yourself using five or six links of new chain.
> 
> It works by applying tension to the chain - using the last link you attempt to lower it over a tooth on the cassette, if it hangs up your cassette is worn and should be replaced.


ahhhh, so that is what this thing is for. I bought one at a shops going out of business sale for a few bucks out of their used shop tool pile. I have used it for years as a chain wrench, to remove cassettes....


----------



## onzadog (Jan 6, 2008)

*the effects of chain wax*

So, after taking part in this thread some time ago, I now use my Rohloff guide to keep and eye on the chain and then when this tool says it's dead, I start measuring with the steel rule which I marked at 508mm for new chains and 510.5 mm for worn chains.

A thought occurred to me though. As the wear happens between the pin and the roller (rather than the chain actually stretching), won't I be skewing the results if I measure a freshly waxed chain? My thinking is that as the wax gets in between the roller and the pin and then sets, it hides the wear until the chain is loaded. Should I only be measuring a freshly degreased chain then as we're only looking for tiny changes in length?


----------



## Speedub.Nate (Dec 31, 2003)

onzadog said:


> So, after taking part in this thread some time ago, I now use my Rohloff guide to keep and eye on the chain and then when this tool says it's dead, I start measuring with the steel rule which I marked at 508mm for new chains and 510.5 mm for worn chains.
> 
> A thought occurred to me though. As the wear happens between the pin and the roller (rather than the chain actually stretching), won't I be skewing the results if I measure a freshly waxed chain? My thinking is that as the wax gets in between the roller and the pin and then sets, it hides the wear until the chain is loaded. Should I only be measuring a freshly degreased chain then as we're only looking for tiny changes in length?


Maybe, and you're right -- in theory it could potentially give you a false "Go" indication when in fact the chain is excessively worn. But the ruler would steer you straight.


----------

