Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

Chain skip

Started by Email address hidden · · Last activity · 12 posts · 314 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
1 July 2007
Last activity
2 July 2007
Original author
Email address hidden
Posts
12
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
314
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–12 of 12
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Chain skip := chain advances one tooth under load on a sprocket and
    re-engages with a sharp report.

    Chain skip is a problem not only for those who ride in dirty terrain
    but primarily for riders who replace their chains to achieve better
    shifting and preventing undue wear on chainwheels and sprockets. A
    worn chain can bend laterally more easily than a new one and,
    therefor, tends to shift to an adjacent sprocket less easily, being
    able to make a zig zag path. Just the same, the most used sprockets
    of the gear cluster often skip when a new chain is installed and must
    be replaced with new ones. This is the classic chain skip that occurs
    mainly when pedaling hard.

    On road bicycles a chain can be ridden until it is so out of pitch
    that it doesn't show on a ruler. The method of testing is to hold a
    ruler along the side of the chain aligning an inch mark with the
    center of a link pin and noting how far off the inch mark the pin a
    foot farther down the chain lies. Most bicycle chains are 1/2" pitch
    and, therefore, one foot of chain has 24 link pins. Being off by 1/8"
    or 0.125" is approximately 1% of 12" and that is probably the outer
    limit of wear one should allow before replacing a chain.

    In this assessment, the 1% wear is actually 2% because only half the
    links are affected by pin-and-sleeve wear, the effect being measured.
    Therefore the pitch error occurs once per inch of chain in spite of
    there being 24 pins. Inner links, the ones in which the rollers are
    held, do not change length.

    If chain wear is greater than 4% then the half inch mark a foot
    farther down the chain will be right on the mark and obscure that
    there is enormous wear. Riders have believed that their chain doesn't
    wear because they were 1/2 inch off per foot. Of course when a new
    chain was installed, it skipped with even slight pedal force in most
    gears.

    Skipping is caused by wear pockets made by a worn chain. A chain that
    has a larger pitch than the one for which the sprocket was designed
    will not mesh properly. Therefore, as the chain wears and increases
    its pitch, it climbs up the face of sprocket teeth and concentrates
    all its load on a larger contact pitch diameter. A new chain, in
    contrast, lands its rollers on the sprocket base circle and bears on
    all the teeth at their base.

    A new (in-pitch) chain may fit on a worn sprocket but under forward
    pull on the sprocket, the chain roller that bears the load, the last
    one to engage the sprocket, engages the wear pocket of the old
    elongated pitch chain (a point that is behind the engagement it would
    have at the base circle) so the next link of the chain cannot engage
    the following tooth because it is already behind the following tooth
    corner that prevents entry. The result is that all successive links
    also fail to engage and when the leading engaged link disengages the
    sprocket the chain skips ahead.

    So much for new chains on old driven sprockets.

    Driving sprockets, on the other hand, are forcefully engaged, the
    incoming chain being under high tension from pedaling. Idling
    presents no problem because the chain can fall to the base circle,
    having no preferred spot on the teeth. That a worn (elongated) chain
    rides high on sprocket teeth under load is visible by observing that
    there is light between the chain and chainwheel's base circle even
    when light pedaling.

    A new chain on such a chainwheel, rides on the base circle because
    already engaged links force it to do so. Therefore, there is no skip
    with a new chain. If a chain is allowed to run long enough to have
    substantial wear, it can ride high enough on a chainwheel that hard
    pedaling rounds off tooth tips and causes slip-skip, essentially a
    continuous riding over the tops of chainwheel teeth, these generally
    being aluminum that is readily deformed when chain load is
    concentrated on a small area.

    Faces of chainwheel teeth are often flared to both sides when their
    teeth become narrow from running in skewed chain lines. That way an
    out of pitch chain loads primarily one tooth and that tooth yields.

    The smaller the chainwheel the faster it wears its fewer teeth and the
    sooner an out of pitch chain can cause it to skip. However this does
    not occur with 1% wear but with greater chain elongation or abrasive
    chainwheel wear, and effect seen mainly from riding on gritty dirt,
    especially mud.

    Jobst Brandt

  2. Quoted message said:

    Chain skip := chain advances one tooth under load on a sprocket and
    re-engages with a sharp report.

    A) Heard you the first time (one of many double posts from you lately); and

    B) you're still wrong about worn chain rings (wheels) skipping with a new
    chain. (See previous discussion, futile as that may be.)

  3. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Bill Sornson said:
    Quoted message said:

    Chain skip := chain advances one tooth under load on a sprocket and
    re-engages with a sharp report.

    A) Heard you the first time (one of many double posts from you
    lately); and

    That's odd, I have not seen double posts from Jobst or anyone else. Are
    you only seeing them from Jobst or from others too? If the latter,
    there may be a server issue.

  4. Tim McNamara said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Bill Sornson said:
    Quoted message said:

    Chain skip := chain advances one tooth under load on a sprocket and
    re-engages with a sharp report.

    A) Heard you the first time (one of many double posts from you
    lately); and

    That's odd, I have not seen double posts from Jobst or anyone else.
    Are you only seeing them from Jobst or from others too? If the
    latter, there may be a server issue.

    Just from Jobst. I'd guess there have been 10-12 double posts in the last
    three days or so.

  5. "Tim McNamara" wrote: (clip) Are you only seeing them from Jobst or from
    others too? (clip)
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    It came as a double post here also.

  6. Troll Report said:

    On 01 Jul 2007 02:00:21 GMT, [email hidden]

    Quoted message said:

    [snip] Being off by 1/8"
    or 0.125" is approximately 1% of 12" and that is probably the
    outer limit of wear one should allow before replacing a
    chain.

    In this assessment, the 1% wear is actually 2% because only
    half the links are affected by pin-and-sleeve wear, [snip]

    You say 1% wear is the outer limit one should allow, then you
    say 1% wear is actually 2% wear. So doy ou mean to say .5%
    wear is the actuall outer limit, and if so why don't you say
    so in the first place? Your writing is confused and muddled,
    as if you are smoking crack.

    My comprehension must be confused and muddled too, because I
    thought Jobst expressed himself clearly.

    John

  7. Quoted message said:

    [snip] Being off by 1/8"
    or 0.125" is approximately 1% of 12" and that is probably the outer
    limit of wear one should allow before replacing a chain.

    In this assessment, the 1% wear is actually 2% because only half the
    links are affected by pin-and-sleeve wear, [snip]

    You say 1% wear is the outer limit one should allow, then you say 1% wear
    is actually 2% wear. So doy ou mean to say .5% wear is the actuall outer
    limit, and if so why don't you say so in the first place? Your writing is
    confused and muddled, as if you are smoking crack.

  8. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Bill Sornson said:
    Tim McNamara said:

    In article <[email hidden]>, "Bill

    Sornson said:

    [email hidden] wrote:
    > Chain skip := chain advances one tooth under load on a sprocket
    > and re-engages with a sharp report.

    A) Heard you the first time (one of many double posts from you
    lately); and

    That's odd, I have not seen double posts from Jobst or anyone else.
    Are you only seeing them from Jobst or from others too? If the
    latter, there may be a server issue.

    Just from Jobst. I'd guess there have been 10-12 double posts in the
    last three days or so.

    Weird. I have not seen any double posts, as I said, from Jobst or
    anyone else (not in this newsgroup, that is; I've seen some doubles
    elsewhere). Usenet is a strange beast at times.

  9. Leo Lichtman said:


    "Tim McNamara" wrote: (clip) Are you only seeing them from Jobst or from
    others too? (clip)
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    It came as a double post here also.

    Dear Tim & Leo,

    Here, too, and on Google Groups.

    Jobst's doubled posts are four minutes apart. The second one changes
    "a larger pitch then" to "a larger pitch than"--it's a correction.

    After sending a post, some people sit back and re-read their deathless
    prose.

    When they spot an error, they slap their foreheads, kill the original
    post on their news server, and post the edited version.

    Their server applies the kill, removes the offending original post,
    and shows only the single corrected post, so the conscientious posters
    are able to go to bed and sleep the sleep of the just.

    But other servers ignore the kill, so the rest of us see both posts.

    Cheers,

    Carl Fogel

  10. Quoted message said:

    After sending a post, some people sit back and re-read their
    deathless prose.

    And isn't it odd that no amount of proof-reading seems to
    eliminate all the errors? But the instant they're posted,
    those errors suddenly turn visible, and stare back at you
    mockingly.

    John

  11. John Henderson said:
    Troll Report said:

    On 01 Jul 2007 02:00:21 GMT, [email hidden]

    Quoted message said:

    [snip] Being off by 1/8"
    or 0.125" is approximately 1% of 12" and that is probably the
    outer limit of wear one should allow before replacing a
    chain.

    In this assessment, the 1% wear is actually 2% because only
    half the links are affected by pin-and-sleeve wear, [snip]

    You say 1% wear is the outer limit one should allow, then you
    say 1% wear is actually 2% wear. So doy ou mean to say .5%
    wear is the actuall outer limit, and if so why don't you say
    so in the first place? Your writing is confused and muddled,
    as if you are smoking crack.

    My comprehension must be confused and muddled too [snip]

  12. In article <[email hidden]>,

    John Henderson said:
    Quoted message said:

    After sending a post, some people sit back and re-read their
    deathless prose.

    And isn't it odd that no amount of proof-reading seems to eliminate
    all the errors? But the instant they're posted, those errors
    suddenly turn visible, and stare back at you mockingly.

    Especially in posts that criticize the spelling or grammar in another
    post. Those always have spelling or grammatical errors.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.