--------------000901020306000205080308 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Qui si parla Campagnolo said:John-<< I've gone through several PC48 chains, breaking and joining repeatedly with a chaintool,
without failure. There have been plenty of complaints in this NG about powerlinks that defied
opening when dirty, as well as accounts of accidental opening -- both are arguments in favor of
joining with the pins.
we called SRAM about a year ago and asked about re-pushing pins back in. The guy on the phone said
that last chain that had 'hardened' pins was the PC-41 and all susequent do not, hence the need to
use the snap link.
This adds to their inconsistency on the matter. I opened one of my newer pc48 boxes and the service
instructions (7/99) included in the box mirror the newest ones available for download (8/03 (??)).
This includes the instructions for joining with the pins, plus a picture and part number for the
SRAM branded chain plier (!). If their stance really is that their chains should only be joined by
the power-link then it's hard to understand why they would make themselves liable by including
incorrect instructions in the box with every chain, and that these instructions would be carried
forward in new revisions of the service instructions.
Wouldn't hardening be important for pins given their duty as bearing surfaces? Looking at their
website, they claim their pins are "chrome hardened" on many models.
And again an inconsistency - the reason given in their online FAQ for the powerlink requirement (on
pc69 and pc99) is the use of "cross-step riveted pins". Lack of hardening is not given as a reason.
I've never purchased one of these models so I'm not sure if they have different instructions
included, though my instructions have these models listed in the specs and applications table. Has
anyone looked at the pins on these? What does "cross-step riveted" look like?
I think one would have to give the most weight to the instructions in the box. If these are wrong
then a large number of people at SRAM are asleep at the wheel. Maybe I need to change brands.
Shimano? :-b
When all is said and done, you're having good luck with the powerlink and I'm doing fine with the
chaintool. I think it comes down to personal preference and as best as I can determine, use of a
chaintool is considered appropriate on the model I use. I like the idea of all the links being the
same and needing a tool to come apart.
--------------000901020306000205080308 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta
http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"> <title></title> </head> <body>
<br> <br> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:<br> <blockquote type="cite"
cite="[email hidden]"> <pre wrap="">John-<< I've gone through
several PC48 chains, breaking and joining repeatedly with a chaintool, without failure. There have
been plenty of complaints in this NG about powerlinks that defied opening when dirty, as well as
accounts of accidental opening -- both are arguments in favor of joining with the pins.
we called SRAM about a year ago and asked about re-pushing pins back in. The guy on the phone said
that last chain that had 'hardened' pins was the PC-41 and all susequent do not, hence the need to
use the snap link. </pre> </blockquote> This adds to their inconsistency on the matter. I
opened one of my newer pc48 boxes and the service instructions (7/99) included in the box mirror the
newest ones available for download (8/03 (??)). This includes the instructions for joining
with the pins, plus a picture and part number for the SRAM branded chain plier (!). If their
stance really is that their chains should only be joined by the power-link then it's hard to
understand why they would make themselves liable by including incorrect instructions in the box with
every chain, and that these instructions would be carried forward in new revisions of the service
instructions.<br> <br> Wouldn't hardening be important for pins given their duty as bearing
surfaces? Looking at their website, they claim their pins are "chrome hardened" on many
models.<br> <br> And again an inconsistency - the reason given in their online FAQ for the powerlink
requirement (on pc69 and pc99) is the use of "<font size="1" face="verdana, arial, helvetica,
sans-serif">cross-step riveted pins</font>". Lack of hardening is not given as a reason.
I've never purchased one of these models so I'm not sure if they have different instructions
included, though my instructions have these models listed in the specs and applications table.
Has anyone looked at the pins on these? What does "cross-step riveted" look like?<br>
<br> I think one would have to give the most weight to the instructions in the box. If these
are wrong then a large number of people at SRAM are asleep at the wheel. Maybe I need to
change brands. Shimano? :-b<br> <br> When all is said and done, you're having good luck
with the powerlink and I'm doing fine with the chaintool. I think it comes down to personal
preference and as best as I can determine, use of a chaintool is considered appropriate on the model
I use. I like the idea of all the links being the same and needing a tool to come apart.<br>
<br> <br> </body> </html>
--------------000901020306000205080308--
