Chains and Chain Tools

Simon Proven said:

Velvet said:

I know how the Shimano chain thing works with the non-reuseable
rivets, so that's not a problem - I'm not keen on changing to
a.n.other chain with those squeeze together reusable links, cos quite
frankly, they're beyond my abilities to actually squeeze and make them
work.

The solution to this is to not use the silver link and instead just
join it like any other chain, surely?

Simon

But I'd rather keep chain & casette by the same manufacturer, especially
since finding out that for some reason the HG chains have specially
dished *links*, not pins...

--

Velvet

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

Quoted message said:

But I'd rather keep chain & casette by the same manufacturer, especially
since finding out that for some reason the HG chains have specially
dished *links*, not pins...

There's no reason not to use SRAM chains with shimano cassettes. Don't be
fooled into believing there's something special about the shimano chains.

(shimano chains go into the same hole as shimano brake blocks round here...)

cheers,
clive

Velvet said:

I know how the Shimano chain thing works with the non-reuseable rivets,
so that's not a problem - I'm not keen on changing to a.n.other chain
with those squeeze together reusable links, cos quite frankly, they're
beyond my abilities to actually squeeze and make them work.

The solution to this is to not use the silver link and instead just
join it like any other chain, surely?

Simon

Velvet said:

Didn't expect to have to look at doing this quite so soon, but
still...
I appear to have a bent link on my chain, so since it's a Shimano HG,
I think it's probably in need of replacing.

If the link can't be repaired, there is a chance that you could just
remove it and use the shorter chain. That would be reasonable if the
derailleur had some scope left in the big-big (outer chainring + largest
rear sprocket).
See: www.parktool.com/repair_help/FAQchainlength.shtml

Quoted message said:

It's a 9 speed Shimano HG72 currently, located a replacement chain
(HG73), but this is where it gets complicated.

I have a chain tool, which came with my multi-tool (Topeak Power 16
DX). It's apparently universal, but omits to say if it'll work with
Shimano
HG narrow chains. Topeak's website, and googling, fail to provide
any info.

I'm not 100% sure but I'd be very surprised if your tool wasn't compatible
with Shimano 9sp HG chain. I've got a similar Topeak chain head: does
work on the similar-width SRAM PC59, does work on Shimano 8sp, does have a
good quality hard and narrow driving pin (or whatever you call the bit
that pushes out chain pins). (Some tools don't suit because the pin is
too large).

Quoted message said:

........I'm not keen on changing to a.n.other chain
with those squeeze together reusable links, cos quite frankly, they're
beyond my abilities to actually squeeze and make them work.

Not all "other" chains require a Powerlink, and actually it's possible to
join SRAM chain in the normal way even though it's not advisable. Quite
frankly, though, anyone who has the strength, dexterity and intelligence
to use a normal chain tool has the ability to operate a Powerlink, which
is actually easier (and safer) once you get The Knack--which admittedly
takes a quite a bit of patience and practice at first.

~PB

Clive George said:

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

Quoted message said:

But I'd rather keep chain & casette by the same manufacturer, especially
since finding out that for some reason the HG chains have specially
dished *links*, not pins...

There's no reason not to use SRAM chains with shimano cassettes. Don't be
fooled into believing there's something special about the shimano chains.

(shimano chains go into the same hole as shimano brake blocks round here...)

cheers,
clive

That's as may be, but I'd rather stick with shimano nonetheless. Once
the casette's had a few more miles on it and I'm due a chain from wear,
then I might put a SRAM on it. Till then, I'm sufficiently curious
about the dishing on the links to want to stick with Shimano, ta.

I've actually managed to locate a chain tool that *specifically* says
it'll do the shimano HG chains, so have both that and a HG72/73 on order
- I'll be doing the London to Cambridge on the old chain though, since
it won't arrive till at least the far side of the weekend, so fingers
crossed it holds for another few tens of miles on top of the several
hundred it's already managed :-)

--

Velvet

Velvet said:

The Topeak Power 16 chain tool is designed for working with Shimano HG
chains?

Don't know for certain about the Power 16 but Topeak's chain rivet tools in
general are designed to be HG/IG compatible. Problem with the HG/IG chains
is they have reinforced connecting pins which need a lot more force to
insert because they are a tighter fit (which is why they have a little guide
pin on them). If the tool is not up to this high force it, and the chain,
will get damaged. Oil the replacement rivet before insertion - this will
reduce the force required.

Quoted message said:

As I understand it the HG chains have dished links (not pins) which is
why you have to be careful about the tool you use - I'm wondering if
this is why I've got a bent link.

Shouldn't think so - or are you saying you have alredy used the tool on this
chain?

To avoid the difficulties with the Shimano chains and assuming you haven't
already bought the new chain, I recommend (along with the others) that you
go for an SRAM chain. I've used non-Shimano chains (SRAM and others) on my
hyperglide sprockets for years and they perform perfectly well

Ian

wheelsgoround said:

Velvet said:

The Topeak Power 16 chain tool is designed for working with Shimano HG
chains?

Don't know for certain about the Power 16 but Topeak's chain rivet tools in
general are designed to be HG/IG compatible. Problem with the HG/IG chains
is they have reinforced connecting pins which need a lot more force to
insert because they are a tighter fit (which is why they have a little guide
pin on them). If the tool is not up to this high force it, and the chain,
will get damaged. Oil the replacement rivet before insertion - this will
reduce the force required.

Quoted message said:

As I understand it the HG chains have dished links (not pins) which is
why you have to be careful about the tool you use - I'm wondering if
this is why I've got a bent link.

Shouldn't think so - or are you saying you have alredy used the tool on this
chain?

No, I've not, as I said the chain has potentially been bent by falling
off the chainring a few times, but it's done this since new and
adjusting stuff has never cured it, which makes me wonder if it came out
the factory like it. I've also had the feeling there's a stiff link off
and on since I first worked out what one sounded/felt like, but could
never find it (or a likely culprit) till the chain was cleaned last weekend.

Quoted message said:

To avoid the difficulties with the Shimano chains and assuming you haven't
already bought the new chain, I recommend (along with the others) that you
go for an SRAM chain. I've used non-Shimano chains (SRAM and others) on my
hyperglide sprockets for years and they perform perfectly well

Ian

See other posting, it's too late :-)

--

Velvet

Pete Biggs said:

Not all "other" chains require a Powerlink, and actually it's possible to
join SRAM chain in the normal way even though it's not advisable.

The main point in using a Powerlink is it makes it very easy to remove
the chain, for extensive cleaning or replacement, for example. And it
doesn't appear to affect the running at all. They are a Thing Of
Goodness, trust in them!

Quoted message said:

frankly, though, anyone who has the strength, dexterity and intelligence
to use a normal chain tool has the ability to operate a Powerlink, which
is actually easier (and safer) once you get The Knack--which admittedly
takes a quite a bit of patience and practice at first.

Fully agree. Try it with a Powerlink (or just with one less link) first
and you might well save yourself a small but worthwhile sum.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

Pete Biggs said:

Not all "other" chains require a Powerlink, and actually it's possible to
join SRAM chain in the normal way even though it's not advisable.

The main point in using a Powerlink is it makes it very easy to remove
the chain, for extensive cleaning or replacement, for example. And it
doesn't appear to affect the running at all. They are a Thing Of
Goodness, trust in them!

Quoted message said:

frankly, though, anyone who has the strength, dexterity and intelligence
to use a normal chain tool has the ability to operate a Powerlink, which
is actually easier (and safer) once you get The Knack--which admittedly
takes a quite a bit of patience and practice at first.

Fully agree. Try it with a Powerlink (or just with one less link) first
and you might well save yourself a small but worthwhile sum.

Pete.

While there might be a knack to it, I doubt I'd do it often enough to
get it fast/easy. I'm not strong in the finger department, and when I
had a go it was impossible to undo. Standard chain tool won hands down
for speed and ease in the end.

--

Velvet

Velvet wrote:

[SRAM Powerlink]

Quoted message said:

While there might be a knack to it, I doubt I'd do it often enough to
get it fast/easy. I'm not strong in the finger department, and when I
had a go it was impossible to undo. Standard chain tool won hands
down
for speed and ease in the end.

/Less/ finger strength is required than with a standard chain tool, and
practising the right way a few times with a new chain gets the knack.
Then there's no comparison when it comes to speed and ease: takes three
seconds to join or undo with no risk of damage, whereas chain tools can
seriously damage chain.

But fair enough if you're happy with Shimano chain, though Powerlinks can
be used on that as well.

There may be no need for a new chain yet anyway (as mentioned in my first
reply). Bike chains are often slightly longer than necessary: dodgy link
can be removed if that is the case.

~PB

Pete Biggs said:

Velvet wrote:

[SRAM Powerlink]

Quoted message said:

While there might be a knack to it, I doubt I'd do it often enough to
get it fast/easy. I'm not strong in the finger department, and when I
had a go it was impossible to undo. Standard chain tool won hands
down
for speed and ease in the end.

/Less/ finger strength is required than with a standard chain tool, and
practising the right way a few times with a new chain gets the knack.
Then there's no comparison when it comes to speed and ease: takes three
seconds to join or undo with no risk of damage, whereas chain tools can
seriously damage chain.

But fair enough if you're happy with Shimano chain, though Powerlinks can
be used on that as well.

There may be no need for a new chain yet anyway (as mentioned in my first
reply). Bike chains are often slightly longer than necessary: dodgy link
can be removed if that is the case.

~PB

Yes, I might see if I can do that - it's had so little use thus far
(comparatively). I've looked at the article (isn't the park tools
website ace!) and got the general idea, but I'm loathe to fiddle with it
until I have a replacement just in case I well and truly break it (not
that I could till I have those replacement pins) - I'm doing this
sponsored bike ride this sun, and not having a working bike would be a
bit of a big problem!

As I said, I might look at SRAM later on - almost certainly if I find
that the HG chains are prone to bending links like this one has, though
I still wonder if it's always been like that - maybe when fitted
carelessly, I dunno.

Does anyone have any idea why the HG chains have the odd dishing in the
links, apart from the fact that it seems to make them narrower *except*
at the rivet points? Weight saving? Funky looks? Faster shifting?

--

Velvet

Velvet said:

Yes, I might see if I can do that - it's had so little use thus far
(comparatively). I've looked at the article (isn't the park tools
website ace!) and got the general idea, but I'm loathe to fiddle with
it until I have a replacement just in case I well and truly break it
(not that I could till I have those replacement pins) - I'm doing this
sponsored bike ride this sun, and not having a working bike would be a
bit of a big problem!

Absolutely, good idea to have a spare chain anyway. Good luck with the
ride.

Quoted message said:

Does anyone have any idea why the HG chains have the odd dishing in
the links, apart from the fact that it seems to make them narrower
*except*
at the rivet points? Weight saving? Funky looks? Faster shifting?

I would guess it's to do with shifting. There's bound to be something on
that in the rec.bicycle.tech archive.

~PB

Pete Biggs said:

Velvet said:

Yes, I might see if I can do that - it's had so little use thus far
(comparatively). I've looked at the article (isn't the park tools
website ace!) and got the general idea, but I'm loathe to fiddle with
it until I have a replacement just in case I well and truly break it
(not that I could till I have those replacement pins) - I'm doing this
sponsored bike ride this sun, and not having a working bike would be a
bit of a big problem!

Absolutely, good idea to have a spare chain anyway. Good luck with the
ride.

Quoted message said:

Does anyone have any idea why the HG chains have the odd dishing in
the links, apart from the fact that it seems to make them narrower
*except*
at the rivet points? Weight saving? Funky looks? Faster shifting?

I would guess it's to do with shifting. There's bound to be something on
that in the rec.bicycle.tech archive.

~PB

I did google last night in search of an answer to the topeak chain tool
conundrum, but couldn't find anything definitive about it. I'll maybe
have another look, or sub to .tech and ask 'em direct :-)

--

Velvet

Velvet said:

Didn't expect to have to look at doing this quite so soon, but still...
I appear to have a bent link on my chain, so since it's a Shimano HG, I
think it's probably in need of replacing.

It's a 9 speed Shimano HG72 currently, located a replacement chain
(HG73), but this is where it gets complicated.

I have a chain tool, which came with my multi-tool (Topeak Power 16 DX).
It's apparently universal, but omits to say if it'll work with Shimano
HG narrow chains. Topeak's website, and googling, fail to provide any
info.

I've seen some other chain tools, but they seem bigger, not so compact,
etc.

I know how the Shimano chain thing works with the non-reuseable rivets,
so that's not a problem - I'm not keen on changing to a.n.other chain
with those squeeze together reusable links, cos quite frankly, they're
beyond my abilities to actually squeeze and make them work.

Does anyone know if:

The Topeak Power 16 chain tool is designed for working with Shimano HG
chains?

or failing that, what is a good, small, light, chain tool that would be
compatible with (and not knacker the peculiar , if the above doesn't.

As I understand it the HG chains have dished links (not pins) which is
why you have to be careful about the tool you use - I'm wondering if
this is why I've got a bent link.

Anyone know the answers to my questions?

As an addendum, it looks like whoever fitted the original chain mullered
it. I find it a bit of a coincidence that, on looking at it again this
evening just in curiousity, the link that's bent is the same one with
the black 'joining' pin in it - in fact, the end that is bent is the
black pin end of the link.

Annoying, but 3 years down the line I doubt I have any comeback. Not
convinced I have enough slack in the chain to simply remove the link,
having looked at how the derailleur sits when on big/big (yes, I know
technically I should never be in that combination, but you never know
when an accident'll happen, specially with me at the controls!).

The derailleur is VERY close to it's upper wheel touching the teeth on
the largest sprocket, and pushing it to take up two links (one outer one
inner, right?) definitely makes contact. I'm guessing they have to have
it really pretty close to the limits, given the other end of it (being a
triple) is quite small and quite small!

So, there you go, glad I did order a new chain, will be saving this one
in case it's useful in the future for emergency use of links or
something - I know you're not sposed to add in new links to a non-new
chain, but can you add in used links to a used chain, if they've not
done wildly differing milages?

--

Velvet

Velvet said:

As an addendum, it looks like whoever fitted the original chain
mullered it. I find it a bit of a coincidence that, on looking at it
again this evening just in curiousity, the link that's bent is the
same one with
the black 'joining' pin in it - in fact, the end that is bent is the
black pin end of the link.

Annoying, but 3 years down the line I doubt I have any comeback. Not
convinced I have enough slack in the chain to simply remove the link,
having looked at how the derailleur sits when on big/big (yes, I know
technically I should never be in that combination, but you never know
when an accident'll happen, specially with me at the controls!).

That's right that the chain should be long enough to work in the big-big
but it doesn't have to work /nicely/: derailleur can be at almost full
stretch. (Park are a bit cautious, I think).

Quoted message said:

The derailleur is VERY close to it's upper wheel touching the teeth on
the largest sprocket, and pushing it to take up two links (one outer
one inner, right?) definitely makes contact. I'm guessing they have
to have it really pretty close to the limits, given the other end of
it (being a triple) is quite small and quite small!

A shorter chain would actually pull the upper jockey wheel further away
from the sprocket. In fact that's a good trick for solving problems with
bottom gears generally, when there's not enough clearance (eg. when using
a sprocket larger than what the mech was designed for). The effect of a
shorter chain can't be properly simulated by pushing the derailleur or
pulling on the chain.

Quoted message said:

So, there you go, glad I did order a new chain, will be saving this
one in case it's useful in the future for emergency use of links or
something - I know you're not sposed to add in new links to a non-new
chain, but can you add in used links to a used chain, if they've not
done wildly differing milages?

Yes, the lightly used links would be fine in a new chain, if you ever did
need them.

~PB

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

Quoted message said:

or failing that, what is a good, small, light, chain tool that would be
compatible with (and not knacker the peculiar , if the above doesn't.

I've been using a Park CT-5 chain tool on HG chains (although 7 speed) for
years. It's small, light and works. The handle is quite small, so some
strength is required to brace it, but I imagine it's no more difficult than
the one on your multi-tool. It also works perfectly well with other chains
I've come across.
Incidentally, after being charged 2 euro for one of the HG black rivets
recently, I'm going to test urc collective wisdom and switch to SRAM next
time. Although I've never had any technical problem at all with HG-70
chains.

tony R.

Pete Biggs said:

That's right that the chain should be long enough to work in the big-big
but it doesn't have to work /nicely/: derailleur can be at almost full
stretch. (Park are a bit cautious, I think).

Quoted message said:

The derailleur is VERY close to it's upper wheel touching the teeth on
the largest sprocket, and pushing it to take up two links (one outer
one inner, right?) definitely makes contact. I'm guessing they have
to have it really pretty close to the limits, given the other end of
it (being a triple) is quite small and quite small!

A shorter chain would actually pull the upper jockey wheel further away
from the sprocket. In fact that's a good trick for solving problems with
bottom gears generally, when there's not enough clearance (eg. when using
a sprocket larger than what the mech was designed for). The effect of a
shorter chain can't be properly simulated by pushing the derailleur or
pulling on the chain.

Hmm, that sounds back to front - though I was doing it by holding the
cranks fixed, and pulling the chain (lower stretch) toward the cranks to
simulate shorter chain, so maybe that's not a valid way to do it - but
it definitely led to the two cogs touching.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So, there you go, glad I did order a new chain, will be saving this
one in case it's useful in the future for emergency use of links or
something - I know you're not sposed to add in new links to a non-new
chain, but can you add in used links to a used chain, if they've not
done wildly differing milages?

Yes, the lightly used links would be fine in a new chain, if you ever did
need them.

I was thinking more of using them (they've done probably up to 1000
miles and no more thus far) on a chain that's been on for a while (to
replace a dodgy link?) that's done no more than 1000 miles itself...

--

Velvet

Velvet said:

Pete Biggs said:

That's right that the chain should be long enough to work in the
big-big but it doesn't have to work /nicely/: derailleur can be at
almost full stretch. (Park are a bit cautious, I think).

Quoted message said:

The derailleur is VERY close to it's upper wheel touching the teeth
on the largest sprocket, and pushing it to take up two links (one
outer
one inner, right?) definitely makes contact. I'm guessing they have
to have it really pretty close to the limits, given the other end of
it (being a triple) is quite small and quite small!

A shorter chain would actually pull the upper jockey wheel further
away from the sprocket. In fact that's a good trick for solving
problems with bottom gears generally, when there's not enough
clearance (eg. when using a sprocket larger than what the mech was
designed for). The effect of a shorter chain can't be properly
simulated by pushing the derailleur or pulling on the chain.

Hmm, that sounds back to front - though I was doing it by holding the
cranks fixed, and pulling the chain (lower stretch) toward the cranks
to simulate shorter chain, so maybe that's not a valid way to do it -
but
it definitely led to the two cogs touching.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So, there you go, glad I did order a new chain, will be saving this
one in case it's useful in the future for emergency use of links or
something - I know you're not sposed to add in new links to a
non-new chain, but can you add in used links to a used chain, if
they've not done wildly differing milages?

Yes, the lightly used links would be fine in a new chain, if you
ever did need them.

I was thinking more of using them (they've done probably up to 1000
miles and no more thus far) on a chain that's been on for a while (to
replace a dodgy link?) that's done no more than 1000 miles itself...

Go ahead, I mess on like this all the time. I have added links from a 6/7/8
speed chain to a 9 speed with no problems.

Velvet said:

Quoted message said:

A shorter chain would actually pull the upper jockey wheel further
away from the sprocket. In fact that's a good trick for solving
problems with bottom gears generally, when there's not enough
clearance (eg. when using a sprocket larger than what the mech was
designed for). The effect of a shorter chain can't be properly
simulated by pushing the derailleur or pulling on the chain.

Hmm, that sounds back to front - though I was doing it by holding the
cranks fixed, and pulling the chain (lower stretch) toward the cranks
to simulate shorter chain, so maybe that's not a valid way to do it -
but it definitely led to the two cogs touching.

It does sound back to front but I can promise you it works, at least it
does for bottom gear. And I /think/ I was wrong about simulating it by
pulling on the chain: that might work as long as you don't pull upwards as
well. Things might be different in the big-big when derailleur is already
at full stretch.

Anyway, I've shortened chains several times to get bottom gears working
better, and tried adding links to see what happens as well: there's quite
a dramatic effect.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So, there you go, glad I did order a new chain, will be saving this
one in case it's useful in the future for emergency use of links or
something - I know you're not sposed to add in new links to a
non-new chain, but can you add in used links to a used chain, if
they've not done wildly differing milages?

Yes, the lightly used links would be fine in a new chain, if you
ever did need them.

I was thinking more of using them (they've done probably up to 1000
miles and no more thus far) on a chain that's been on for a while (to
replace a dodgy link?) that's done no more than 1000 miles itself...

Same thing (I was thinking the chain had done much less than 1000 miles).

~PB