Chain compatibility?

On 7 Jan 2004 19:04:57 -0800, Ed <[email hidden]> may have

Quoted message said:

What are the rules for chain compatibility? I have a Nashbar chain labeled 6/7 speed, a SRAM
labeled 7/8 speed. Loose Screws has a chain labeled 5/6/7/8 speed. Apparently 9 speed chain really
is different different. Is 5 through 8 speed all the same?

For all of the ones I've used, 8 and below have always proven downward compatible (a chain for an 8
works on all lower-number systems, etc), and 7 in my experience has worked on an 8-speed cassette
with no problem. Most of the folks I know will freely swap between 6 through 8, and it doesn't seem
to cause problems. Some people use an 8-speed chain with no apparent difficulties on a 9-speed
setup, while others have reported either noise or shifting oddities with that combination. A 9-speed
chain will work on an 8-speed or less, but why spend the extra money to get one if you don't need
it? A 9 will *not* work *better* than an 8 on a 5, 6, 7 or 8-speed setup.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Ed said:

What are the rules for chain compatibility? I have a Nashbar chain labeled 6/7 speed, a SRAM
labeled 7/8 speed. Loose Screws has a chain labeled 5/6/7/8 speed. Apparently 9 speed chain really
is different different. Is 5 through 8 speed all the same?

Not all 5 to 8 speed chains are precisely the same width but I believe all 8sp chains can be used
with 5/6/7/8sp.

~PB

Ed-<< What are the rules for chain compatibility? I have a Nashbar chain labeled 6/7 speed, a SRAM
labeled 7/8 speed. Loose Screws has a chain labeled 5/6/7/8 speed. Apparently 9 speed chain really
is different different. Is 5 through 8 speed all the same? >><BR><BR>

Since 5 speed for sure and most 6s are friction, a '8s' chain, like a Sram PC-48 will work on
5,6,7and 8s systems, including index or click shifting systems w/o problem. 9s chains are thinner by
about .3mm or so and 10s chains are thinner still.

Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535 vecchios.comvecchios.comOpen ↗ "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

Pete Biggs said:

Ed said:

What are the rules for chain compatibility? I have a Nashbar chain labeled 6/7 speed, a SRAM
labeled 7/8 speed. Loose Screws has a chain labeled 5/6/7/8 speed. Apparently 9 speed chain
really is different different. Is 5 through 8 speed all the same?

Not all 5 to 8 speed chains are precisely the same width but I believe all 8sp chains can be used
with 5/6/7/8sp.

~PB

Pete's right, width is what matters.

I'm pretty sure the inside width of most chains should fit over most sprocket teeth, so the outside
width is usually what makes a chain "X" speed compatible.

From geocities.comweight.htmlOpen ↗

HKK "Z" = 7.62 for SunTour AccuShift 6s Regina CX = 7.98 for Regina 7s Shimano CN-7400 = 7.34 for
Dura-Ace 7s Shimano Dura-Ace 8s = 7.16 Rholoff SLT-99 = 6.88 (for 8s? narrower than many 8s chains)
Shimano Dura-Ace 9s = 6.60

Sorry, no 10s measurements.

Werehatrack <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

(snipped)

Quoted message said:

A 9 will *not* work *better* than an 8 on a 5, 6, 7 or 8-speed setup.

Seems like there would be a possible advantage in requiring less trimming of the front derailleur.

JP

On 8 Jan 2004 09:34:32 -0800, [email hidden] (JP) may

have said:

Werehatrack <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

(snipped)

Quoted message said:

A 9 will *not* work *better* than an 8 on a 5, 6, 7 or 8-speed setup.

Seems like there would be a possible advantage in requiring less trimming of the front derailleur.

A der that is set up for an 8-speed (or wider) chain may need to move slightly past its normal
amount of travel to shift a 9-speed chain up. In other words, the der may need *more* trimming to
work with the chain that it's not designed to shift. (In most cases, the difference isn't enough to
worry about, but as stated, a 9-speed chain will *not* work better than a properly-made 8 in an 8-
speed (or less) application.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Werehatrack <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

(JP) may have said:

Werehatrack <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

(snipped)

Quoted message said:

A 9 will *not* work *better* than an 8 on a 5, 6, 7 or 8-speed setup.

Seems like there would be a possible advantage in requiring less trimming of the front
derailleur.

A der that is set up for an 8-speed (or wider) chain may need to move slightly past its normal
amount of travel to shift a 9-speed chain up.

Maybe, to engage the chain with the chain guide, but this is accomplished in the same single
movement of the shifter. After the shift is complete there would be the same amount of space that
you would see between a 9s front and a 9s chain, and I'm not entirely convinced that it's different
than the difference between an 8s chain and derailleur. The 9s chain is narrower and doesn't have to
be pushed as far to clear the chainring teeth.

Quoted message said:

In other words, the der may need *more* trimming to work with the chain that it's not designed
to shift.

There may still be cases where trimming is not needed with a rear gear change where it would be
needed otherwise, specifically where the front has been trimmed once to allow for rear movement in
one direction, and then the rear is moved back the other way. For me the definition of trimming is a
separate, extra movement of the shifter to get the chain guide out of contact with the chain after a
movement of the rear derailleur has brought them into contact as a result of the changing chainline.

Quoted message said:

(In most cases, the difference isn't enough to worry about, but as stated, a 9-speed chain will
*not* work better than a properly-made 8 in an 8-speed (or less) application.

Not proven. A greater difference between chain and chain guide will require less trimming overall.

JP

On 10 Jan 2004 07:15:04 -0800, [email hidden] (JP)

Quoted message said:

Werehatrack <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

On 8 Jan 2004 09:34:32 -0800, [email hidden] (JP) may have said: A der that is
set up for an 8-speed (or wider) chain may need to move slightly past its normal amount of travel
to shift a 9-speed chain up.

Maybe,

I found I had to move the front derailleur past it's normal position when I changed my 8s
Sora to 9s.

I kept the Sora front changer and 8s crank, but installed a 9s chain.

The result is, to get from the granny to the middle ring, I had to swing the lever twice, then trim
back. I got a 9s front derailleur and crank to fix it, but haven't installed them yet.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In other words, the der may need *more* trimming to work with the chain that it's not designed
to shift.

This was my experience; see above.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(In most cases, the difference isn't enough to worry about, but as stated, a 9-speed chain will
*not* work better than a properly-made 8 in an 8-speed (or less) application.

Not proven. A greater difference between chain and chain guide will require less trimming overall.

In my case, the 9s chain did not work better with 8s chain rings and front derailleur. But I was
also using 9s STI levers (ST-7703).

I'm beginning to think no one else has ever had the same thing happen to them. I converted our
tandem from a double to triple. Like JP, I assumed an 8s crank would work with our 9s chain, so I
installed a NOS Shimano RX100 32-42-52 triple crank and new CN-HG53 chain. The chain stuck to the
steel 42T middle ring at two points where the ramps were stamped in. Chain suck every half
revolution!

I changed to Ultegra chain rings from an Ultegra 9s triple (FC-6503) and now all is well.

YMMV.