Shimano debunk Rohloff chain-measuring tool.

Thomas Hood said:

Couldn't find this mentioned on google groups, so I assume no one has
noticed:

http://tinyurl.com/3bza5d

Discuss.

A ruler is more than adequate. Seriously.

Matt O.

On 17 May 2007 10:16:36 -0700, Thomas Hood <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Couldn't find this mentioned on google groups, so I assume no one has
noticed:

http://tinyurl.com/3bza5d

Discuss.

Tom

Dear Tom,

What's wrong with Sheldon's method?

Measuring Chain Wear

The standard way to measure chain wear is with a ruler or steel tape
measure. This can be done without removing the chain from the bicycle.
The normal technique is to measure a one-foot length, placing an inch
mark of the ruler exactly in the middle of one rivet, then looking at
the corresponding rivet 12 complete links away. On a new, unworn
chain, this rivet will also line up exactly with an inch mark. With a
worn chain, the rivet will be past the inch mark.

This gives a direct measurement of the wear to the chain, and an
indirect measurement of the wear to the sprockets:

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.

http://sheldonbrown.com/chains.html

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Thomas Hood said:

Couldn't find this mentioned on google groups, so I assume no one has
noticed:

http://tinyurl.com/3bza5d

Discuss.

Tom

$135

--
/Marten

info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl

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

Quoted message said:

On 17 May 2007 10:16:36 -0700, Thomas Hood <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Couldn't find this mentioned on google groups, so I assume no one has
noticed:

http://tinyurl.com/3bza5d

Discuss.

Tom

Dear Tom,

What's wrong with Sheldon's method?

Measuring Chain Wear

The standard way to measure chain wear is with a ruler or steel tape
measure. This can be done without removing the chain from the bicycle.
The normal technique is to measure a one-foot length, placing an inch
mark of the ruler exactly in the middle of one rivet, then looking at
the corresponding rivet 12 complete links away. On a new, unworn
chain, this rivet will also line up exactly with an inch mark. With a
worn chain, the rivet will be past the inch mark.

This gives a direct measurement of the wear to the chain, and an
indirect measurement of the wear to the sprockets:

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.

http://sheldonbrown.com/chains.html

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

I don't understand why a worn sprocket will wear the chain any faster than
a brand new sprocket.

The chain may skip on the worn sprockets but the wear mechanisms should be
the same - abrasive wear.

Chas.

* * Chas said:

I don't understand why a worn sprocket will wear the chain any
faster than a brand new sprocket.

The chain may skip on the worn sprockets but the wear
mechanisms should be the same - abrasive wear.

With a derailleur setup I'm inclined to agree. But where the
chain path is fixed (no chain tensioner), like with a
single-speed or hub gears, it's a different matter. A chain
that wants to skip can't, and its protests can be very audible.
I believe I've felt sprocket-tooth engagement roughness right
back to the pedals.

John

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

Quoted message said:

* * Chas said:

I don't understand why a worn sprocket will wear the chain any
faster than a brand new sprocket.

The chain may skip on the worn sprockets but the wear
mechanisms should be the same - abrasive wear.

With a derailleur setup I'm inclined to agree. But where the
chain path is fixed (no chain tensioner), like with a
single-speed or hub gears, it's a different matter. A chain
that wants to skip can't, and its protests can be very audible.
I believe I've felt sprocket-tooth engagement roughness right
back to the pedals.

John

I've ridden some OLD worn out 1" pitch chains & sprockets on fixed gear
track bikes and you can definitely feel the attempt of the chain to skip.

I'm not a real big believer in chain stretch. It's abrasive action that
causes chain wear. Maybe an old sprocket is more abrasive because there is
more grit sticking to it and more grit imbedded in the surface of the
teeth???

Chas.

* * Chas said:

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

Quoted message said:

* * Chas said:

I don't understand why a worn sprocket will wear the chain any
faster than a brand new sprocket.

The chain may skip on the worn sprockets but the wear
mechanisms should be the same - abrasive wear.

With a derailleur setup I'm inclined to agree. But where the
chain path is fixed (no chain tensioner), like with a
single-speed or hub gears, it's a different matter. A chain
that wants to skip can't, and its protests can be very audible.
I believe I've felt sprocket-tooth engagement roughness right
back to the pedals.

John

I've ridden some OLD worn out 1" pitch chains & sprockets on fixed gear
track bikes and you can definitely feel the attempt of the chain to skip.

I'm not a real big believer in chain stretch. It's abrasive action that
causes chain wear. Maybe an old sprocket is more abrasive because there is
more grit sticking to it and more grit imbedded in the surface of the
teeth???

Chas.

Dear Chas,

As the chain rollers engage increasingly worn teeth, the collision
force and movement also increase, as well as the chain vibration,
causing accelerated wear.

You can browse around here for details:

http://chain-guide.com/basics/index.html

As poor Jobst keeps pointing out, steel chain parts don't stretch--the
chain of unstretched parts merely elongates as their mating surfaces
wear.

Polish a thousandth of an inch off the rivet and off the inner roller
face that it touches, and you gain two thousandths of an inch of play
at each rivet.

If you pull on a half-inch-pitch chain, there are 25 rivet-roller
interfaces in 12 inches.

25 x 0.002 = 0.050 inches

0.050 inches is about 1/20th of an inch
1/16th of an inch is time for a new chain

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

nice tool! shop tool: quick check the chain for the customer, be
impressive, professional then sell the whole shebang for $350 plus
labor.

meanwhile, take the chain off with the chain link removed, lay chain
on 1x4 board and stretch it out then measure with tape, divide overage
by 3' or 4' for one foot average btutbutbut pull each link out and in
to see if there's a number of links greatly exceeding any allowance
you want to impose on your overall judgement of 1/8 per foot or
3/16th's per foot.guess that deepends on resources and custer type.
sometime, hang the replaced chain after cleaning and lubing a bit with
used oil. measure it a week later after it relaxes and all the oblongs
line up with gravity.
pulling on the links now and then is a good idea caws the odd wearing
link is repairable using pins in stock and saved chain cutoffs.

M-gineering said:

Thomas Hood said:

Couldn't find this mentioned on google groups, so I assume no one has
noticed:

Quoted message said:

http://tinyurl.com/3bza5d

Quoted message said:

Discuss.

Quoted message said:

Tom

$135

--
/Marten

info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl

I don't have much faith in this Shimano debunking of Rohloff. I've
read several times here about the fallibility of ROHLOFF's CALIPER 2
and Parks knock off of it, the Chain Wear Check CC-3. Something about
rollers not being centered when the gauge in between the chain links.
It makes sense, but I don't believe it. I've had a CALIPER 2 for many
years & I've never had a cog or CR wear problem.
FWIW I have not trusted the Park Chain Wear Check CC-2 ever since I
used one @ a bike shop to test it out on a new chain I had just
installed & it showed the chain to be totally worn out. The post was
bent. If I were to buy one & the post got bent a little, how would I
know?

I decided to measure a chain using all the tools in my arsinel to
satisfy my curiosity to see if I have been doing it wrong, all these
yrs.

The chain measured was a: KMC Z72 6,7, & 8 Speed Chain, 116 links,
7.1mm pin, silver/brown
Price: $10.95 from www.biketoolsetc.com w/ ~1k miles on it,
always lubed w/ Boeshield T-9

The chain was measured in bright light w/

A 12" SS ruler w/ a cork backing; the measurements were all taken @
10" btn. the 1" & 11" marks, due to interference w/ the fr. derail @
12'.

6" digital caliper by laying the ID tines on the rivet of the chain.

A chain measuring ruler w/ a clip to hold the ruler on the chain & a
hole to fit on the 1st rivet & 4 holes @ 9-1/2" reading "NEW" "GOOD
"FAIR" "REPLACE" of unknown brand. (The label has fallen off.)

and finally,
The ROHLOFF CALIPER 2

The measurements were taken both w/ tension on a pedal & w/o tension,
to see if it made any difference. All readings were taken 3 times &
averaged

W/O tension W/ tension
Numbers from the 12" ruler were: 10-1/64" 10-1/64"

The 6" digital caliper were: 5.99" 6.01

Chain measuring ruler 'New" hole were: The chain was Not taken
due
shorter than the to the inaccuracy 'New'
hole. the device.
(measured over
3 different lengths
chain)
(also the rivets were smooshed out unevenly & beyond the diameter of
the rules holes.)

ROHLOFF CALIPER 2 'steel' side were: Had ~1/4" gap Had~ 7/64"
gap

This raises more questions for me than it answers.

It's possible that ROHLOFF, & Park make their gauges w/ an allowance
for the slop in the rollers.

How would my measurements come out if I had a chain that was between
1/16" 1/8" elongated?

If someone has a just barely worn out chain, I would be very
interested in seeing the results of using several different methods to
measure it.

I wouldn't bet my life on the accuracy of my measurements.
I believe that I can read a scale to +/- 0.01". In other words I can
tell, say for example, when a scale is showing say 1" + 0.03", I can
tell it's not 1.05" & not 1.01", so it is somewhere btn. 1.02 & 1.04".
But to tell w/ that accuracy exactly what points on the chain a scale
is indicating is much more difficult. The digital calipers were not
that much more accurate that the scales because I was just using the
tines to estimate a location on what I thought was the center of the
rivet. If I had placed the ID tines btn. the rollers, I would have
just gotten more or less the same numbers as the ROHLOFF, Park CC2, or
CC3

What does all this prove? Not really very much.

So I'm going to continue using my ROHLOFF CALIPER 2 , until someone
proves to me w/ some very accurate measurements, that the my ROHLOFF
is not accurate.

Regards, John

John Drew said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Couldn't find this mentioned on Google groups, so I assume no one
has noticed:

http://tinyurl.com/3bza5d

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

$135

Quoted message said:

I don't have much faith in this Shimano debunking of Rohloff. I've
read several times here about the fallibility of Rohloff CALIPER 2
and Parks knock off of it, the Chain Wear Check CC-3. Something
about rollers not being centered when the gauge in between the chain
links. It makes sense, but I don't believe it. I've had a CALIPER 2
for many years & I've never had a cog or CR wear problem.

I don't see the connection with you owning a Caliper-2 and not having
sprocket wear. The instrument only measures chain elongation, albeit
incorrectly, thereby selling new chains when they are probably not
needed because the method of measurement can give invalid results.

Quoted message said:

FWIW I have not trusted the Park Chain Wear Check CC-2 ever since I
used one @ a bike shop to test it out on a new chain I had just
installed & it showed the chain to be totally worn out. The post
was bent. If I were to buy one & the post got bent a little, how
would I know?

If you were to use a Rohloff gauge, how would you know it is telling
you anything valid?

Quoted message said:

I decided to measure a chain using all the tools in my arsinel to
satisfy my curiosity to see if I have been doing it wrong, all these
yrs.

Leave your [censored] out of this.

Quoted message said:

The chain measured was a: KMC Z72 6,7, & 8 Speed Chain, 116 links,
7.1mm pin, silver/brown Price: $10.95 from www.biketoolsetc.com w/
~1k miles on it, always lubed w/ Boeshield T-9

I don't understand. The chain is half inch pitch and a new chain
should give and integral multiple of 0.5 inches measured center to
center of the pins. For 114 pitches that would be 57 inches. Did you
do that and compare?

Quoted message said:

The chain was measured in bright light w/

Quoted message said:

A 12" SS ruler w/ a cork backing; the measurements were all taken @
10" btn. the 1" & 11" marks, due to interference w/ the fr. derail @
12'.

Quoted message said:

6" digital caliper by laying the ID tines on the rivet of the chain.

Sounds awful tedious and indirect. Just lay it out stretched in a
straight line and measure it with a tape measure. As was pointed out,
over that many links precision of the eyeball is better than most
chain gauges.

Quoted message said:

A chain measuring ruler w/ a clip to hold the ruler on the chain & a
hole to fit on the 1st rivet & 4 holes @ 9-1/2" reading "NEW" "GOOD
"FAIR" "REPLACE" of unknown brand. (The label has fallen off.)

This is getting tedious. Can't you just say what you found?

Quoted message said:

and finally, The ROHLOFF CALIPER 2

Quoted message said:

The measurements were taken both w/ tension on a pedal & w/o
tension, to see if it made any difference. All readings were taken 3
times & averaged

Quoted message said:

W/O tension W/
tension Numbers from the 12" ruler were: 10-1/64" 10-1/64"

Quoted message said:

The 6" digital caliper were: 5.99" 6.01

Quoted message said:

Chain measuring ruler 'New" hole were: The chain was Not taken due
shorter than the to the inaccuracy 'New' hole. the device.
(measured over 3 different lengths chain) (also the rivets were
smooshed out unevenly & beyond the diameter of the rules holes.)

Quoted message said:

ROHLOFF CALIPER 2 'steel' side were: Had ~1/4" gap Had~ 7/64" gap

Quoted message said:

This raises more questions for me than it answers.

It doesn't answer any questions for me. You might just start over and
see what the total length f the chain is, compute its elongation in
percents and then see if any of your many instruments supports the
findings.

Quoted message said:

It's possible that ROHLOFF, & Park make their gauges w/ an allowance
for the slop in the rollers.

Guesswork!

Quoted message said:

How would my measurements come out if I had a chain that was between
1/16" 1/8" elongated?

Quoted message said:

If someone has a just barely worn out chain, I would be very
interested in seeing the results of using several different methods
to measure it.

I use only one method, that of pin-to-pin length against a 12 inch
section of a yardstick.

Quoted message said:

I wouldn't bet my life on the accuracy of my measurements. I
believe that I can read a scale to +/- 0.01". In other words I can
tell, say for example, when a scale is showing say 1" + 0.03", I can
tell it's not 1.05" & not 1.01", so it is somewhere btn. 1.02 &
1.04". But to tell w/ that accuracy exactly what points on the
chain a scale is indicating is much more difficult. The digital
calipers were not that much more accurate that the scales because I
was just using the tines to estimate a location on what I thought
was the center of the rivet. If I had placed the ID tines btn. the
rollers, I would have just gotten more or less the same numbers as
the ROHLOFF, Park CC2, or CC3

So don't tell us about it if you don't believe your own measurements.

Quoted message said:

What does all this prove? Not really very much.

But yes! It proves you are not a good measurer and or assessor of
those measurements.

Quoted message said:

So I'm going to continue using my ROHLOFF CALIPER 2 , until someone
proves to me w/ some very accurate measurements, that the my ROHLOFF
is not accurate.

You are the only one who can prove that to yourself.

Jobst Brandt

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

* * Chas said:

I don't understand why a worn sprocket will wear the chain any
faster than a brand new sprocket.
The chain may skip on the worn sprockets but the wear
mechanisms should be the same - abrasive wear.

Quoted message said:

"John Henderson" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

With a derailleur setup I'm inclined to agree. But where the
chain path is fixed (no chain tensioner), like with a
single-speed or hub gears, it's a different matter. A chain
that wants to skip can't, and its protests can be very audible.
I believe I've felt sprocket-tooth engagement roughness right
back to the pedals.

* * Chas said:

I've ridden some OLD worn out 1" pitch chains & sprockets on fixed gear
track bikes and you can definitely feel the attempt of the chain to skip.

I'm not a real big believer in chain stretch. It's abrasive action that
causes chain wear. Maybe an old sprocket is more abrasive because there is
more grit sticking to it and more grit imbedded in the surface of the
teeth???

Initial wear is internal -- between rivet and roller. Once the rollers
are farther apart, the tooth necessarily wears. Good thorough
explanation here:
http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/index.html

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

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

Quoted message said:

On May 17, 11:08 am, M-gineering <[email hidden]> wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

I don't have much faith in this Shimano debunking of Rohloff. I've
read several times here about the fallibility of ROHLOFF's CALIPER 2
and Parks knock off of it, the Chain Wear Check CC-3. Something about
rollers not being centered when the gauge in between the chain links.
It makes sense, but I don't believe it. I've had a CALIPER 2 for many
years & I've never had a cog or CR wear problem.
FWIW I have not trusted the Park Chain Wear Check CC-2 ever since I
used one @ a bike shop to test it out on a new chain I had just
installed & it showed the chain to be totally worn out. The post was
bent. If I were to buy one & the post got bent a little, how would I
know?

I decided to measure a chain using all the tools in my arsinel to
satisfy my curiosity to see if I have been doing it wrong, all these
yrs.

The chain measured was a: KMC Z72 6,7, & 8 Speed Chain, 116 links,
7.1mm pin, silver/brown
Price: $10.95 from www.biketoolsetc.com w/ ~1k miles on it,
always lubed w/ Boeshield T-9

The chain was measured in bright light w/

A 12" SS ruler w/ a cork backing; the measurements were all taken @
10" btn. the 1" & 11" marks, due to interference w/ the fr. derail @
12'.

6" digital caliper by laying the ID tines on the rivet of the chain.

A chain measuring ruler w/ a clip to hold the ruler on the chain & a
hole to fit on the 1st rivet & 4 holes @ 9-1/2" reading "NEW" "GOOD
"FAIR" "REPLACE" of unknown brand. (The label has fallen off.)

and finally,
The ROHLOFF CALIPER 2

The measurements were taken both w/ tension on a pedal & w/o tension,
to see if it made any difference. All readings were taken 3 times &
averaged

W/O tension W/ tension
Numbers from the 12" ruler were: 10-1/64" 10-1/64"

The 6" digital caliper were: 5.99" 6.01

Chain measuring ruler 'New" hole were: The chain was Not taken
due
shorter than the to the inaccuracy 'New'
hole. the device.
(measured over
3 different lengths
chain)
(also the rivets were smooshed out unevenly & beyond the diameter of
the rules holes.)

ROHLOFF CALIPER 2 'steel' side were: Had ~1/4" gap Had~ 7/64"
gap

This raises more questions for me than it answers.

It's possible that ROHLOFF, & Park make their gauges w/ an allowance
for the slop in the rollers.

How would my measurements come out if I had a chain that was between
1/16" 1/8" elongated?

If someone has a just barely worn out chain, I would be very
interested in seeing the results of using several different methods to
measure it.

I wouldn't bet my life on the accuracy of my measurements.
I believe that I can read a scale to +/- 0.01". In other words I can
tell, say for example, when a scale is showing say 1" + 0.03", I can
tell it's not 1.05" & not 1.01", so it is somewhere btn. 1.02 & 1.04".
But to tell w/ that accuracy exactly what points on the chain a scale
is indicating is much more difficult. The digital calipers were not
that much more accurate that the scales because I was just using the
tines to estimate a location on what I thought was the center of the
rivet. If I had placed the ID tines btn. the rollers, I would have
just gotten more or less the same numbers as the ROHLOFF, Park CC2, or
CC3

What does all this prove? Not really very much.

So I'm going to continue using my ROHLOFF CALIPER 2 , until someone
proves to me w/ some very accurate measurements, that the my ROHLOFF
is not accurate.

Regards, John

Last year I bought an almost new 1987 MTB with a Shimano Deore XT groupo.
After checking, adjusting and lubing all the cables etc. I found that the
chain skipped in the middle sprockets when climbing on what looked like a
new 7 speed cassette.

I wasn't familiar with wear patterns on Hyperglide sprockets so rather
than mess around changing the chain and cassette I bought a Park CC3 chain
gage for $9. The Rohloff Caliber 2 was about $35 at a LBS and since this
was an experiment I didn't want to spend too much money on it.

The chain checked out fine with no wear showing, so did the chains on all
of my other bikes. After further cleaning and lubing the chain, cables and
derailleurs the skipping went away so it was a good investment for me.

When I lived in the Southwest I used to change chains at about 3,000 miles
whether they needed it or not. Chains were cheap then. I put the used
chains in plastic baggies and saved them in a box. Just for yuks I checked
all of these used chains with the Park CC3 and they all checked out OK.
These were Sedis, Regina and one of the original Shimano Uniglide chains.

So I have a bunch of still probably good 5-6 speed chains. I have to
attribute the lack of wear to regularly cleaning my chains in a
Safe-T-Clean tank to wash off the abrasive road grit.

Chas.

Quoted message said:

On 17 May 2007 10:16:36 -0700, Thomas Hood
Dear Tom,

What's wrong with Sheldon's method?

Er... nothing. Indeed, that's the method I use. My point was various
people go to extraordinary lengths to defend a provably flawed tool.
My point was that Shimano have produced a tool with an explicit
diagram noting why the 'other' (Rohloff) tool is a nonsense.

http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-004/000.html

Incidently, I've always wondered who or what is pardo?

Thanks,

Thomas Hood

john said:

M-gineering said:

Thomas Hood said:

Couldn't find this mentioned on google groups, so I assume no one has
noticed:
http://tinyurl.com/3bza5d
Discuss.
Tom

$135

--
/Marten

info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl

I don't have much faith in this Shimano debunking of Rohloff. I've
read several times here about the fallibility of ROHLOFF's CALIPER 2
and Parks knock off of it, the Chain Wear Check CC-3. Something about
rollers not being centered when the gauge in between the chain links.
It makes sense, but I don't believe it. I've had a CALIPER 2 for many
years & I've never had a cog or CR wear problem.
FWIW I have not trusted the Park Chain Wear Check CC-2 ever since I
used one @ a bike shop to test it out on a new chain I had just
installed & it showed the chain to be totally worn out. The post was
bent. If I were to buy one & the post got bent a little, how would I
know?

I decided to measure a chain using all the tools in my arsinel to
satisfy my curiosity to see if I have been doing it wrong, all these
yrs.

The chain measured was a: KMC Z72 6,7, & 8 Speed Chain, 116 links,
7.1mm pin, silver/brown
Price: $10.95 from www.biketoolsetc.com w/ ~1k miles on it,
always lubed w/ Boeshield T-9

The chain was measured in bright light w/

A 12" SS ruler w/ a cork backing; the measurements were all taken @
10" btn. the 1" & 11" marks, due to interference w/ the fr. derail @
12'.

6" digital caliper by laying the ID tines on the rivet of the chain.

A chain measuring ruler w/ a clip to hold the ruler on the chain & a
hole to fit on the 1st rivet & 4 holes @ 9-1/2" reading "NEW" "GOOD
"FAIR" "REPLACE" of unknown brand. (The label has fallen off.)

and finally,
The ROHLOFF CALIPER 2

The measurements were taken both w/ tension on a pedal & w/o tension,
to see if it made any difference. All readings were taken 3 times &
averaged

W/O tension W/ tension
Numbers from the 12" ruler were: 10-1/64" 10-1/64"

The 6" digital caliper were: 5.99" 6.01

Chain measuring ruler 'New" hole were: The chain was Not taken
due
shorter than the to the inaccuracy 'New'
hole. the device.
(measured over
3 different lengths
chain)
(also the rivets were smooshed out unevenly & beyond the diameter of
the rules holes.)

ROHLOFF CALIPER 2 'steel' side were: Had ~1/4" gap Had~ 7/64"
gap

This raises more questions for me than it answers.

It's possible that ROHLOFF, & Park make their gauges w/ an allowance
for the slop in the rollers.

How would my measurements come out if I had a chain that was between
1/16" 1/8" elongated?

If someone has a just barely worn out chain, I would be very
interested in seeing the results of using several different methods to
measure it.

I wouldn't bet my life on the accuracy of my measurements.
I believe that I can read a scale to +/- 0.01". In other words I can
tell, say for example, when a scale is showing say 1" + 0.03", I can
tell it's not 1.05" & not 1.01", so it is somewhere btn. 1.02 & 1.04".
But to tell w/ that accuracy exactly what points on the chain a scale
is indicating is much more difficult. The digital calipers were not
that much more accurate that the scales because I was just using the
tines to estimate a location on what I thought was the center of the
rivet. If I had placed the ID tines btn. the rollers, I would have
just gotten more or less the same numbers as the ROHLOFF, Park CC2, or
CC3

What does all this prove? Not really very much.

So I'm going to continue using my ROHLOFF CALIPER 2 , until someone
proves to me w/ some very accurate measurements, that the my ROHLOFF
is not accurate.

Regards, John

If you take the chain off your bike to clean it, the best/good/accurate
method is to hang the chain next to a new one from on a nail. Fast,
cheap and accurate.

Lou
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)

Thomas Hood said:

Quoted message said:

What's wrong with Sheldon's method?

Quoted message said:

Er... nothing. Indeed, that's the method I use. My point was various
people go to extraordinary lengths to defend a provably flawed tool.
My point was that Shimano have produced a tool with an explicit
diagram noting why the 'other' (Rohloff) tool is a nonsense.

http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-004/000.html

Quoted message said:

Incidently, I've always wondered who or what is pardo?

Don Pardo od TV fame'

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0661094/

Jobst Brandt

ERT ERT DISSS EEEES ROLLLOFFFFFF ROLLOFFFFF HEAH
COMIN PHYTOPLANKTON! RRRR UUUU DERRREEE?
VEEEE HAFFFFF MESSSAGE!

Thanks to Jobst Brandt for discussing chain wear, Regina CX-S
photographs, and for reading and commenting on earlier drafts of this
note.

ESSSSS REEELEAF! NOOOOOOO LONGAH REPLACE CHAINS!!!! KNOWBELL!!

ROLLLLLLOFFFF OUT
VEEE GO VATCH HUMLET UNG TRES STOOGES!

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

Quoted message said:

Couldn't find this mentioned on google groups, so I assume no one has
noticed:

http://tinyurl.com/3bza5d

Discuss.

Well... This is the first I've heard of Rohloff chain checkers being
inaccurate. I've had one for a couple of years now and I check the chains
on all of my bikes very regularly. All I know is that there is a consistent
'good' reading on a new chain and progressively worse reading as the chain
ages.
It has made me change chains more often but I've been able to run
rings/cassettes much longer saving money in the long run.
It does seem to give a reliable repeatable result even if the exact point of
replacement may be off.

GROUP 2 "THOUGHT" - HMMMM! i was operating under the casual
impression that all the ellipsoid roller wear lined up fat side
leading from tooth force/ground friction. how 'bout that? but why
would rollloffff produce a bogus tool?

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

* * Chas wrote:
> I don't understand why a worn sprocket will wear the chain any
> faster than a brand new sprocket.
> The chain may skip on the worn sprockets but the wear
> mechanisms should be the same - abrasive wear.

Quoted message said:

"John Henderson" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

With a derailleur setup I'm inclined to agree. But where the
chain path is fixed (no chain tensioner), like with a
single-speed or hub gears, it's a different matter. A chain
that wants to skip can't, and its protests can be very audible.
I believe I've felt sprocket-tooth engagement roughness right
back to the pedals.

* * Chas said:

I've ridden some OLD worn out 1" pitch chains & sprockets on fixed gear
track bikes and you can definitely feel the attempt of the chain to skip.

I'm not a real big believer in chain stretch. It's abrasive action that
causes chain wear. Maybe an old sprocket is more abrasive because there
is
more grit sticking to it and more grit imbedded in the surface of the
teeth???

Initial wear is internal -- between rivet and roller. Once the rollers are
farther apart, the tooth necessarily wears. Good thorough explanation
here:
http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/index.html

But then why measure wear at the pins/rivets?. That is what I do not
understand, since the width between the rollers should be the important
distance and not the distance from pin to pin. On Sedis chains, I have
actually crushed and broken rollers long before their was significant slop
in the pins and plates. This caused serious skipping, but if I had just put
the ruler up to the pins, the chain would have been "fine." -- Jay Beattie.